Through The Wormhole: Is There A Creator?
It's perhaps the biggest, most controversial mystery in the cosmos. Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God who nurtures and sustains all life?
The latest science is showing that the four forces governing our universe are phenomenally finely tuned. So finely that it had led many to the conclusion that someone, or something, must have calibrated them; a belief further backed up by evidence that everything in our universe may emanate from one extraordinarily elegant and beautiful design known as the E8 Lie Group.
While skeptics hold that these findings are neither conclusive nor evidence of a divine creator, some cutting edge physicists are already positing who this God is: an alien gamester who's created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement. It's an answer as compelling as it is disconcerting.
This is the first episode. See the list of all episodes here: Through The Wormhole. Available only in United States.
What I like about this documentary (episode 1 in particular) is it's 'creators' ability to express many different perspectives, drawing parallels of logic, thus validating different ideas,(possibilities) without condemnation or judgment for those who are capable of thinking differently, and for themselves!
I recently listened to a series of lectures from The Modern Scholars Series delivered by Peter Kreeft of Boston College. The first was a history of moral thought entitled "What would Socrates Do?" which was very illuminating. Next however, I listened to his lectures on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas which I found much more enlightening. I had read the Clift Notes version of Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God and although I found them helpful, it was not until I listened to Professor Kreeft explain them one by one, tying them each together, that I really came to appreciate their genius. In fact, one of the objections to God's existence made by the SurferDude was easily answered by Aquinas more than 700 years ago. In fact, now that I reflect on it, Aquinas' proofs could have answered more than one of these physicists' theological challenges.
I know its common to believe that pure logic is no longer an infallible source of proof in the face of the paradoxes, etc., revealed by quantum theory, however, when there are no definitive arguments against a logical proposition or proof, it provides a powerful support for an idea that cannot be logically denied.
In addition, if you are interested, check out George Gilder's new book Knowledge and Power, on how information theory will change both economics and the theory of evolution (I'm not sure how re evolution. I haven't gotten that far in the book).
big bang theory is garbage, if everything came from one tiny point then exploded into the entire universe then what is the universe expanding into? gods bowl of cereal?
and as for GOD, most people will make fun of you if you say you saw a UFO witch could just be top secret aircraft by the way. then they go to a fancy building on sunday and pay money to pray to a man they have never seen who they think floats around in outer space wearing sandals and a man dress, wise bunch....time to start thinking out of the box i would say folks
Either God wills to remove evil from the world, and cannot; or he can, and will not; or he neither wills nor can; or finally he wills and can. If he wills and cannot, he is impotent; if he can and will not, he is wicked; if he neither wills nor can, he is wicked and impotent at the same time; if he can and wills, why does evil exist?
Either God wishes to do away with evil in this world and cannot succeed; or he can do away with it and does not wish to; or he cannot and does not wish to; or finally, he wishes to and can. If he wishes to but has not the power, he is not all-powerful. If he has the power to do away with evil and does not wish to, he is not infinitely good. If, as affirm the deists, he can and wants to, tell me, then, why does evil exist on earth, and why does not God make it impossible?
Epicurus, 342-270 B.C.
I think you can not call someone/something God at the first place if you could attach 'can not' with his/its abilities... The point is if he exists he wants things to go this way... His existence no doubt has been the most controversial question in the history of world. May be thats exactly what he wants. To be discussed, analyzed and be the center of attention. And then separate people who believe in him and who don't. As the God says as per my religion: "I was a hidden treasure and when I desired to be known I created human". Humans who have a sense of judgement and even deny the existence of God.
And If there is evil in the world there is a concept of life after death too. Don't just assume that majority of the world are just fools. Alien gamester is a very interesting terminology that might be an answer to these questions...
You said: "The point is if he exists he wants things to go this way... "
Well that is your opinion. But there is simply no real measurable evidence of a 'god', only supposition. All 'god' stories are nothing but guesswork, what each person thinks 'god' is or means. Would a real god not simply show up and take command of its creation? How does one believe in a god that manifests as three gods, the Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods? We find three religions claiming the same 'god', a god which has written three different 'holy' books, books that tell the believers to kill one another. We know from mythology that humans have created gods from the very beginning, why should one be the true god and the others not. God really needs to show up.....
The 'Fine Tuning' argument is simply nonsense. Our universe has evolved, all of the elements of the universe have evolved together, so there is only one way it could be, i.e. the way it is. There are no other possibilities.
And to believe in the Christian god is to believe in a god that can watch his earthly servants, the priests and pastors and such, physically violate the defenseless children put in their care, and never get punished for it. The children often are maimed for life, but the priests and pastors are quietly moved to another parish where they continue their disgusting behavior. If your 'god' can't smite these characters for such a crime, then he's no god at all, but a figment of your imagination.
Mhm i'd rather watch yoda in starwars than this...
They can't because they aren't the ones experiencing it. Spiritual
experiences are very personal, like our own feelings for everybody we
connect with.
creator or not i do not see how a self respecting scientist can become a priest, taking the bible at face value when there is so much wrong with it morally and logically
you need to explain do you think the bible is immoral
More than 90% of the world population believes in God and they represent a big variety of religions. We are discussing God here not Bible or Christianity...
You're making several assumptions there. Also, just because you can't see how doesn't mean he can't. Perhaps if you could see the world as he does, which of course, you can't, you would come to the conclusion he did.
It's funny how science try to minimize the powerful spiritual experiences people have as "provoked by the brain/mind". Of course the brain would react to them physically! All of our body and mind responds to everything we feel/experience on Earth. That includes mystical experiences, sensations and visions coming from other planes. No one but us know what we saw/felt. The scientists try to quantify and observe the physical manifestations of what we felt, but it cannot go deeper. They can't because they aren't the ones experiencing it. Spiritual experiences are very personal, like our own feelings for everybody we connect with.
The Dalai Lama is a pretty spiritual guy, and he finds no conflict between his Buddhist philosophy and the breakthroughs science is making. In fact, he sees it as reinforcing the Buddhist view of reality.
I agree and though I am a Christian it also can reinforce my belief too
The human mind while mysterious is understood to some extent, i understand being defensive about spirituality as I'm guessing you yourself have had spiritual experiences and found them immensely important. But that doesn't mean they were important, or that any of it actually makes sense when explained to other people. You maintain that they are personal and other people can't understand your experiences yet say it in the third person, I'm putting it in second person because using third person means you are most likely including yourself without thinking about it. A lot of the time, when we feel powerful emotions we immediately assume that the situation is important. We then use the importance of the situation to explain the emotions. As you can see this leads to people thinking that perhaps benign things such as meaningful song lyrics while dancing, rain falling after a breakup. We have what we call a spiritual experience, suddenly we think we have become a more whole person from these experiences. LSD would be a very common example, i often see people exaggerate their experiences when they are young and naive. I even see experienced users fall into the trap of perceiving the ideas they came to on a psychedelic drug as resembling the truth. "We are all connected" However the sentence is only half finished and two people feeling connected over sentences like this are most likely thinking of two different things. They are the opposite of connected, the only similarity they share is the drug they took. They haven't found an inner truth of the world and the more they believe it the more fragmented their perception of reality becomes. Understanding the world comes from years of science study, no matter how much acid you eat your spiritual experiences will never lead you to the truth of the world, much like praying, lucid dreaming or anything that is not based on truth but emotions. Emotions lie, humans lie, humans misinterpret, so as scientists we look at things like spiritual experiences to further our understanding of the human brain. Unfortunately their are idiots in science too, this documentary series is mostly mainstream bite size bullshit for the scientifically challenged. I think its designed to give people an interest in science, more likely though they made it for TV Ratings.
Religion fills in the gaps of our knowlegde and gives people a sence of comfot and belonging. To proclaim that "there is no God" will just make people feel helpless. So personally, I can tell people I believe in God because i beleive that faith is an important part of human society. To tell believers there is no God is selfish.
i know very few people that claim "there is no god". but to try to show others that there is no demonstrable proof for a specific god is not "selfish" it is honest. you see no harm in claiming "I can tell people I believe in God because i beleive that faith is an important part of human society." then why cannot others claim that they do not believe because nobody has been able to back up their god claims with sufficient evidence? and i disagree that religious faith is an important part of modern human society.
Show demonstrable proof "that religion fills in the gaps of our (sic)knowlegde and gives people a (sic)sence of comfort and belonging."
Show demonstrable proof that "i believe that faith is an important part of human society"
Show demonstrable proof that there is a god/gods.
When you make claims the onus is on you to show your proofs. Not the other way around.
Unfortunately if your want to live in a free society then you can't stop people from saying things that might hurt you or make you uncomfortable. Its called free speech and you best get use to it, your sounding like a cry baby. Oh and i think a song explains why people worship gods better than i can.
"My own...Personal....Jesus"
"Someone to hear my prayers, someone who cares"
Its about feeling important, believing in god is like having an imaginary friend who listens to all your problems and makes you feel like your not alone when you are. God is a crutch, if you don't use it then you'll find your own way to get through life. If you use god then your following the easy path, its nothing to be proud of nor ashamed. some people need crutches, your excuse for faith is barely convincing and I'm not convinced. 5 bucks you'll be an atheist one day
100 bucks to tell you that I will not be an atheist in any day, I have believed in a God since I was 16 and now I am almost 50 and believe me I have seen a number of things in my life to could have easily have changed me. So that goes to show you, that really you don't know what you are talking about ether, with your God is a crutch crap!!!!! most people just love to shoot this belief in a creator down.
What a complicated "scientific" bulls*it kindda speculation that means nothing really . pfff...
Reminds me of all those childish "scientific " speculations concerning the origins of life , concerning the nature of life itself, concerning the nature or function of the human consciousness......
What a silly show off..Ridiculous.
They dare call that "science " : hilarious.
There is no god... prove it. Maybe there was an iphone 3 billion years ago, but there was no network.
man's brain is not yet developed enough---or it will never be developed enough, to understand the real source of the cosmos and our existence. all these speculations, calculations, and interpertations are made by the same underdeveloped brain. so, just follow your conscience and respect all around you but don't give up thinking about the 'source', and how all came to existence because it's fun to do so.
more creationist crap for the stupid and the gullible. Avoid this film like the plague
not full episode..
Blocked by the creator...
I was only able to view 25 minutes of this video. I guess God didn't want me to see the rest.
Those who would own you and like you to think of yourself as rightless, or of human life as meaningless, disposable data certainly don't seem to mind playing 'devil' right now. Look at their game and see if you want to give up on yourself and your eternal birth right and freedom to grow, expand and spiritually mature on this our planet as a natural creature. What the cunning artificial old lure of the snake has to offer is destruction and evil, though dressed in shiny dead pixels. Who wants to end in that stupid tool box, their 'god' is not the one force that creates and maintains life.
No argument there. For some of us that is the definition of "God"
"That which is" Whether there is more to define in that statement I can't answer that because it's not possible for me to do. I don't think it is even needed I don't think we were put here to find out what "God"is. My theory with religion is that when they try to stop free thinking, it is their way of projecting their inability to get their needs met. So it's other people's fault or science's fault. In other words their expressing it on others because they can't deal with it. They should take a look at the crap they are reading and start to question it instead. That is asking too much. I put value on other belief systems that don't do this. That does not mean I believe in them but they keep to themselves and that is fine.
A few things that i disagree with, for one thing, I do not think, "we were put here" that to me means a first cause, or some supernatural cause.
Also the second disagreement "not to find out what god is" the inherent nature of man is to find out everything that there is to find out, especially a working "TOE" gods notwithstanding.
I never said I was an atheist or agnostic so I hold that view of purpose but I won't go into it. In your other point you're probably right people need to know. But what is the purpose of exploring the nature of god. What will it do for us here at this time. We have a source of creation and we have alot of other discoveries to make before we get into god. The only ones spending a lot of time on it are the big 3. The rest of the world is moving ahead. Really what I mean is that anyone who talks of "who" god is and tries to explain it will fail and should leave it alone. I have a concept of god but no evidence so why would I want to define it. I am probably way off anyway. The only thing I have that I could work with the self and how to do better.
As you can see you making this even make some sense is hard enough.
I don't think that having a belief in a creator should make one question science. For many of us these two fit well together and we are very confortable with both. I am not confortable with two sides taking opposing views that one is right. I will start with the scientific view in some cases saying that the universe simply began out of nothing which defies any logic or science itself. This to me is a way for man to equate ourselves to the "creator" in the sense that if I can't understand it then I can't believe in it. The same could be said for religious people to dismiss anything that does not conform to their belief systems. So we get hatred of others based on only one point of view. To them I would say that if your God does exist in the form you believe and is everknowing perfect then "he" screwed up right from the start. Since if he knew Eve was going to screw up anyway why pretend their was a choice. So we have to assume that we don't know the creator or "that which is" and just strive to understand more and more. I would only allow theories that have room for being added to in our public places such as schools.
@edc1234:
All religee's are under the premise that there is such a thing as gods, basically in absenteeism, haven't seen any around lately, have you?
Until the religious can show proof to their claims, i for one disregard all such nonsense.
God stuff should never be allowed in schools.
What the religious never seem to get is that us invisible carbon units are so small in the vastness and time scale of the universe is that we are of no significance at all, even our home the earth can shake us off like fleas.
I don't disagree with keeping it out of school. My point is that we can't behave that science will answer every question either. Based on my understanding of the universe we assume that there was a start and that is where I get stuck. Religion that we are used to is so stringent on their beliefs that they don't allow questions this would never work in any public forum so keep it out. I was not or would never vote for it. What the hell would they teach in relation to science theory anyway the course would last 30 sec. "God created everything" and then what it's over for the course since science explains how things work.
"there was a start"? maybe' because we live in our linear time. But in quantum mechanics there is no time, no spacetime, everything is static, everything that has, will, or even has not happened, has already done so. In the vast field of unlimited probabilities. And parallel universe, multiverse theory, everything is in a process of happening.
I realize it is basically math, not empirically proven, but so was Einstein theory of relativity only math, until proven.
Rubbish
Rubbish does not a comment make, but am curious, why is it rubbish.
"The latest science is showing that the four forces governing our universe are phenomenally finely tuned. So finely that it had led many to the conclusion that someone, or something, must have calibrated them". That's similar to saying that someone can't win the lottery unless magic is involved. People who bring up the tired old "there must be someone out there" always conveniently forget that if that is true, there must be someone out there that created the creator. If the creator just "exists" according to the theists, why can the universe not exist without a creator? Why is a universe with an omnipotent invisible friend so much easier to believe in than a universe that grew from literally nothing into what it is today?
The idea you have is flawed. I too struggle with the concept of a "God" and how he has come to be. Yet if you take into account that before the universe or universes were created there was in a sense "nothing". God being eternal with no beginning existed with no set of "time" because as you know space and time go hand in hand. Therefor there is no "cause and effect" leaving God to merely exist.
Your logic, too, is flawed. A Creator or creative mind that is eternal would by necessity exist outside of space-time (a creation). We are limited in our means of perception due to flawed, inaccurate senses. We never truly experience reality, but merely the minds interpretation of the feedback or 'information' that is relayed by the senses. True reality, and the only reality, is the Creator, the uncaused caused of all that has manifested. Nothing exists without the mind of the Creator. The Creator is, therefore, absolute nothing... NO - THING. There is nowhere the Creator is because it is the totality of what is and what is not. The Creator has NO attributes because attributes can only be manifest within finite, limited-bounded existence realms and the Creator is infinite, unbounded, limitless and transcendent. So, does nothing exist?
you are completly overlooking the fact that "the bible" states clearly in the opening pages; God created man in his image... image requires material...
Einstein, no need to point out his authority on "wormhole" topics said that there must be a creator of the universe. Its perfect, it is governed by laws for every law and there is always a lawgiver. Who he is for you is your personal thing. I like to think there is God, makes things a lot more interesting and He shows His greatness where ever you look, particularly in science.
Einstein reiterated on many (written) occasions that he is an atheist. The rare allusions to God in his voluminous writings are used metaphorically.
@JJCoolidge: Einstein believed in the 'god of Spinoza; that was not involved in the daily lives of humans, but was expressed through the underpinnings of nature. Thus Einstein believed in god, just not in religion. (Pantheist/Deist) "did god have any choice in how the universe was created", and "God does not play dice" are not metaphorical, but direct to the point. One helped him discover relativity, the other prevented him from accepting quantum mechanics due to his preconceived notion of what god was. Everything I have just stated is indisputable, and can be 'proven' without a shadow of a doubt. I hope this clears up your misconception. Thus I leave you with the following quote: (no insult intended)
" It is better to keep one's mouth shut and appear foolish, then to speak inaccurately, and remove any doubt"
Foolsih to give ANY 1 man this much credence and by assuming that there is ANYTHING SPECIFIC behind existence you are in essence attempting to "remove any doubt" so by your account Albert Einstein was a Hippocratic m*ron. now we all know that its impossible to be an atheist because no1 can really KNOW whether or not god exists we just use Atheist as a term for militant agnosticism . so if we assume einstein was agnostic then the quote you provided wouldnt make him an ignorant Hippocratic m*ron. :) ive just been schooling you kids all over these comments
@Tiffany Wilson: For the record, all I did was correct someone for expressing inacurate information regarding what another individual actually believed. Since it is impossible to prove, or disprove the idea of god, the term 'militant agnosticism' is contradictory by it's nature. In general, it is accepted that:
theist - believes in a deity(s)/god. (certaintyto the left)
atheist - rejects the idea of a deity.(certainty/right)
agnostic - believes "I don't know"/unknowable.(uncertain)
pantheist - god created the universe.
panentheist - god is the universe.
Deist - via reason/observation, the underpinnings. expressed by nature are proof of god.
Now, if you go back to my original blog, and read it again, you will find it very direct, with no wishy/washy interpretations like militant agnosticism. In no way, does my account make Albert Einstein look like a hippocratic mo*on; (I also believe the word you were looking for is hypocritical, not hippocratic)
Since we are all a product of our environments, not even the great Einstein could reconcile that 'chance' was a part of the universe. Since nothing perfect exists in the universe, (PI = proof) I can learn from one of the greatest minds that preceded me, including from his mistakes. (I will make different ones)
As far as schooling people, apparently that is in the eye of the beholder as well. I respect your position, and understand the point you were trying to make, but in my opinion, it only further created disparity, where none should exist. Best wishes, and take care!
Booosh another brainwashed commoner
Einstein, no need to point out his authority on "wormhole" topics said that there must be a creator of the universe. Its perfect, it is governed by laws and there is always a lawgiver ;)
@Achems_Razor you spelt "you're" wrong
Thanks.
What kind of garbage is this?
Why do you think it is garbage?
Achems_Razor
part of the issue might stem form the video starting with part 2 . that is not a complaint just an observation
Your right, part one seems to be blocked by Viacom.
Top Docs was a great idea, and it started off as an excellent source of useful, informative documentaries. But, unfortunately, it has now been so thoroughly and completely saturated by mindless, idiotic, meaningless, junk films, such as this one, that Top Docs is no longer worth our time -- or our respect.
@John:
Why do you consider "Through The Wormhole: Is There A Creator?" a junk film?
Like a radio our brain tunes into reality, Reality is not created from the brain but through it. Brain pics up information from stimulation's. In other words are brain does not create the feeling of god but tunes into it. Brain = quantum antenna. Plane and simple
Children's brains tune in to the feeling of Santa Claus, he still doesn't exist as a reality.
Unit G Sr
Induced coma does not mean all brain activity is lost... You can't recover from total lost of brain function... That's brain death, and it is a legal Indicator of death in most parts of the world. You can't jump start the brain when it is shut down... it dies. What is done is a reduction of the metabolic activity in the brain, thus reducing the demand of oxygen, and lowering the brains activity... But never to a maximum, that's called murder not induced coma.
And another thing just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean it can't be... Or that we have to jump to conclusions just because we don't understand the intrinsic mechanisms...
We can speculate, but then every possibility has the same validity... If not backed with proof, evidence and confirmation. But I will defend your right or mine to speculate all we want. Cuz it sure is fun
Peace
Hi Unit G SR,
I wanted to tell you that I find your post very interesting and respectful to the forum.
I too know of the story you speak of. I too love science. Loving science does not preclude believing in a creator. It is easy for anyone to believe something isn't possible, unless or until they experience it. Personally I believe in near death experiences. I am not a 'religious' person either. Religion is mankind's attempt to justify himself (in the generic sense), womankind does it too, in the eyes of God. However, I do have a spiritual relationship with the the creator, and you know what, it isn't King Kong, (sorry, that sarcasm slipped right out) and that isn't directed towards anyone personally.
The State of Tennessee vs John Thomas Scopes opened a can of worms, so to speak.
He taught his science class evolution. The state of Tennessee said it was unlawful (The Butler Act) to teach evolution in a state funded school.
What happened to the separation of Church and State? Honestly, I don't think 'religion' or 'evolution' should be taught in school, or they both should be taught in school, by qualified teachers, and certainly not in the lower grades.
Truly, I believe it should be the parent's choice, and responsibility to teach their children about a creator, or evolution, not the school's, nor the church's place teach them.
Man I could go on for hours about this topic. Lets see who actually takes the time to read this all the way through and I will try to keep this as concise as possible.
Personally what most consider to be 'evolution' I consider as 'adaptation'. Over a period of time a species either adapts to their surroundings, or they die out. I refer to ancient times. Now days, we don't have to wait for adaptation to have a species die out, we, as the parasites on the earth kill them out by our 'progress'. Oops, off topic.
Spiritually, I can't say much for the theory of evolution. I don't believe in it personally. However I respect a person who does.
From the outside looking in, at religion, I can understand why people believe we are messed up. Look at all the different denominations in the 'Christian' belief system. Certain people of like minds tend to stick together and become members in churches that offer those beliefs.
If you are, or have been a member of a church, what about the infighting and garbage that goes on. Mankind gives God, a bad reputation. Think about it. How many people have been murdered in the name of God, and under the flag bearing the sign of the cross.
No one should be beating anyone over the head with a Scofield reference bible, ( its really thick, okay) used to have one.
No one should be insulting or rude to people who believe differently than we do.
If we believe we 'know' the truth, we don't have to cram it down someone's throat. If we believe we know the 'truth', why are we so worried that someone believe differently?
I've read the New Testament. I look around, and I see no 'Christians. Look it up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I did it for you.
"Following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ."
I don't see anyone manifesting the spirit of Christ.
Jesus did not go around condemning people. He didn't. He didn't crucify people for believing differently, or even for sinning {missing the mark}. He did show compassion.
The only people he got angry towards were the 'money changers' in the temple, shortchanging the people.
If anyone is still reading ;p I am almost finished, really.
We are not called to judge, however we can be fruit inspectors.
We are called to live our lives in such a way that others see Jesus in us, before they see us.
Our lives are to be a witness to others, to live our lives in such a way that people see that love, and compassion, in us and to want our power source.
I'm done, and I see that I gradually got off topic. Oh well good reading anyway.
I think.
Lea, I did read your full post and love to see anyone as passionate as you put forth and discuss their ideas on an open forum such as this. I do however have one point I would like to make; you discuss the separation of church and state, and indicate that this would preclude evolution being taught in schools, along with other theories about the 'creation' of our species. The problem I have with this, is that you seem to place the theory of creation and the theory of evolution on the same bar in terms of scientific validity. To me, this is lunacy; considering since Darwin first theorized biological evolution to this point in time there has been innumerable discoveries validating the theory. It would not be presumptuous of me to say this the generally accepted belief across the scientific community and although you may not see it to be true, it is surely a scientific discovery with more than enough merit to be taught in our schools.
First time I have ever commented on this site (hello everyone)and not sure if it has any bearing on the subject but I have always wondered what all this is really about.I am most curious about the stuff that science backs away from and will not even attempt to study or as with most things, human politics and ego more often than not are obstacles that new knowledge must overcome.
Prime example in anthropology being the Piltdown man and Raymond Dart's discovery that did not fit the current model so was ridiculed and dismissed for decades.
I am intrigued by NDE's and having lost a beloved daughter to childhood leukemia read of many accounts of people having returned to life with tales of going to another plane and find,I will be honest, much sloace in the stories and their overall theme of unquestioning,unconditional love and light that awaits us when we move on from this life.
From the comments I have read I have no doubt that some here are already writing me off and so be it for there are some here who remain open to possibilities that may find no proof as in tangible physical evidence or measurable results.
I offer a story of one such event where the patient was having surgery on her brain so was put to sleep and chilled to a low temperature, blood being pumped by a machine and brain activity (measurable electrical activity) was reduced to zero.She had been brought into the theatre with eyes taped shut and already fully anesthetized ( medically induced coma I think would better descrie it)so was not conscious however she had an NDE and could relate events as they happened in the operating room which she could have no knowledge of.What made her case even more unusual was the fact that she had zero brain activity and that she remembered the event.
One must wonder where our mind or consciousness really resides.There are many cases recorded where these people have knowledge of what was happening either close by or many hundreds of miles away whilst they were unconscious, either in a coma,sedated or even clinically deceased for a short period.This case has always stuck with me as to the fact she remembered what she witnessed with no eyes,or no eyes that science can describe anyway.
I will be honest I love science and I am still totally stunned and in awe of this world we live on and the universe that we have found it residing in.I find great comfort in these stories and I will admit that I believe in something spiritual that science at this stage has no interest in even attempting to understand, in the mainstream anyway.Religion as we have it today does not hold any interest for me and as to any of them knowing "the truth" we could no more understand what that is than an ant trying to comprehend a microprocessor.
To preempt some of the skeptics who will no doubt rush to the science has proven that a release of chemicals ( like the DMT trips) can produce a dream like experience with the light at the end of the tunnel and loved ones etc.If however you dig a little deeper you will find ones that fit no such model and as with the placebo affect you wont be able to fit them into one of your neat little sample groups or discount them as anomalous results.They see without eyes, remember without brains and travel without bodies I believe faster than light or maybe as fast as light I don't really know and I doubt any ever will.
I would also like to thank you Vlatko for the site you have created I have spent many enjoyable hours here and I for one greatly appreciate your effort.
Sincerely yours
CHRIS
The term 'Near Death Experience' says it all - near death, not dead.
You already know the answers, but you refuse to believe that death is the end, because this is a very uncomforting thought for you.
I understand you - I also lost a loved one long time ago.
I'm sorry for your loss, Chris - my condolences.
So many ideas ... so many conclusions ... so many philosophies. Fear of The Lord God Almighty, YHWEH, The Great I am, the God of Isaac, Abraham and Jacob (reverential) is the beginning of all wisdom.
The science and reasoning you use to discredit or denounce God the Creator of all that exists, is the science and reasoning that will one day condemn you in His presence.
Just regurgitated notions force fed to you.
link borken, youtube says part 3 of the vid is missing. just so u know! can be downloaded from piratebay instead
youtube: Through The Wormhole: Episode 1 ~ Is There a Creator?, and watch all five parts
There are two schools of thought: One; that the Universe is the reason that Consciousness exists. And, Two: that Consciousness is the reason that the Universe exists. Both are extremes of thought; each demanding that the other prove their assertions... Science wants religion to prove that their God exists (whatever he, she or IT may be). While religion wants science to demonstrate that it's wanting to tear the universe apart atom-by-atom is somehow "relevant" to the human condition.
I guess all things seek their balance.
Most of us operate under a fantastic assumption: That the more we know the better off we will be. If this were actually true, then things like the amoeba and the protozoa would be physically impossible. They have nothing even remotely resembling a "brain"; and yet they exist -- and in greater measure than WE -- and for all we know, just as happily (or UN-happily) as any other creature in this universe.
And so, yes we ARE at the center of this universe (even though that may not refer to our PHYSICAL location). And, as far as I can tell, the only thing that really MATTERS in this life is that we enjoy our stay here. Because I think that the universe CAN and SHOULD be defined as: "That which wants to LIVE". So I defy ANYONE to give me a better reason why matter should explode out of nothing!!
Your assuming "reason" is relevant to the physical universe when nothing promotes the idea that "reason" even exsists outside of our human perception. Thus your whole first argumant holds no water. moving onto your second paragraph..... first ameba are abundant because they are small, reproduce quickly, and require little energy to maintain themselves.furthermore they are this way exactly so that they would eventually evolve (however u want to put it i like the pokemon definition best) AND HAVE A A BRAIN. also you just admitted that they dont have brains and your assuming that they may be happy/unhappy..... check yourself in to a mental hospital tell them your down-syndrome is acting up
If anything comes out of the randomness and kept evolving, it has to be elegant. - not that because it's so elegant, it has to be the result of some deliberate design.
did you ever take into consideration that you only perceive it to be a deliberate design? Randomness?? Even in chaos there is order..just because unknowns may follow a formula doesn't mean that it was designed.just means that it works.
There is no doubt there are countless theories for the beginning of the universe, all with reasonable logic. I like especially the idea of the universe constantly expanding and shrinking between brains and so on... with the big bang. However, note... these are all theories, just like god. And science is countlessly being proved wrong and going back on itself: earth was once considered flat, a particle has been found fast than light contradicting with the genius Einstein (though this can be explained if the particle was already travelling faster than light before light created).
Being a Christian, though fascinated by space, I accept the possibilities of god not being as we think (a gamer?) or not being true at all. However,think along my perspective, lets say an unexpected accident happens to you and in your split second thoughts before a car hit you would you rather think God has found you and is going to take you to heaven or **** this is it... This is my last ever contribution of my lifespan.
I'm guessing obviously the latter. And since God can never be unproven, and therefore is always a possibility why would you not put your faith in a religion (something that requires a little time every Sunday) no matter how small a chance you believe it to be true given being an atheist leads to absolute nothing whilst believing in any religion and a creator leads to a possibility in infinite peace and happiness.
Moreover, Jesus is not a theory without any evidence: the Lourdes miracles, countless personal experiences with god (of which sadly I have not felt or maybe just not realised) and the fact that everything needed a beginning which cannot be explained by science (god).
And as for souls- that is a certainty which can be explained by ghosts and your moral compass (which isn't explained by a computer brain) but must be from an influence from a spiritual source.
You’ve started just fine… and then included the words “must”, and “fact”, and “certainty”, and just ruined the post….
Why should there be a beginning to start with? Just because it’s the human condition… believing in creation implies an infinite regression… who created the creator?… and the creator of the creator and so on… if you claim that the creator did not need to be created then your claim is that in fact something’s do not need to be created… therefore your claim is my own.
Perhaps there is no need for a certain act of creation just action and reaction, on the other hand if creation toke place it had to be from nothingness at some point or there is no difference between the two ideas… just a lot of Crap in the middle .
Souls are explained by ghosts…. I’m going to pretend I didn´t read that… if evidence was found that ghosts exist, please send me the report.
Moral is fruit of conscious reasoning modulated by emotion… I can’t see why that can be of spiritual source… The statement of René Descartes... "Cogito ergo sum".... I think therefore I am ... has been misunderstood since it was made... He never said... I reflect therefore I am... he said I THINK with all my being, all the emotion and feeling and perception that makes my Taught. So to say the brain is just a computer... is prove enough that you should be investigating a little more about what the brain truly is, and how it works (we know to little but we sure as hell know enough more then that now a days). A dog does not grasp the idea… or a cat… or most human beings for that matter… Moral and Ethics has been amongst the most troublesome matters in this world since the beginning of civilization you should know that… It is easy to understand and live by a moral code by yourself… in a group…not so easy... well you have some very interesting episodes in our history to prove it…. I don´t have to mention them obviously.
And last… why is atheism the road to absolute nothingness … That s really aggravating … why is God the only source of meaning?? (I’m not atheist by the way) … that’s pure fascism right there… and it’s a stupid and arrogant claim… sorry for the honesty… but that’s my opinion
Cheers
honestly as an Agnostic I would be...ok what next? Something happens..even science holds true that energy never dies. It just transfers.
Viacom has blocked video.
As a born Muslim, religion has always confused me. This documentary has changes my approach and views towards religion. Thanks for the upload.
If God has the perfect power, he have also power to define himself for us. In real, he defined himself via too much prophets and books. But people did not want to recognize God and changed some of them. And also God has enough power to punish the people who do not care about himself. We want to identify God, but he also identifies us with our acts. Punishment will be for our wrong acts and bad deals.
Till the time humans know what lies beyond the universe,we may not be able to answer the question correctly.
the program of the programmer (God) is to make simulations that are "like" him and LOVE (are joined in the heart and mind and will/intention) to the programmers PROGRAM: God in other words wants us to love the creation he made as our own selves because he loves it.....its his creation: If we don't love it we become prone to isolation, antisocial acts and self absorbed stimulation of mind and body (selfish) developed during the egoistic state of the program where the programmer let us feel like we were individual entities, which is not true. If we were, we would not die but have life in ourselves as Jesus said the "Son of God" has. Developing empathy is from the programmer to us: He wants us to get along or we can't stay part of the program but must be destroyed as a bad program eventually: Hence the meek inherit the earth. This is a serious program and programmer even though he programmed so much JOY and FUN and pleasure into the program that we should try to STAY WITH HIS PROGRAM to become "REAL" and then maybe we can develop our own worlds/programs to play in ages to come: Im pretty sure the many types of programs available are as vast as those who play them. IF we create simulations that suffer without concern for their suffering, we are evil. The Programmer God become JOINED to his simulations to feel what they feel so he can be the BEST POSSIBLE programmer there is: Love is the only PROGRAM worth keeping:
God then is the universal "MIND' that is forming MAN (his image and likeness); the "fall" of man was when 'mind' was separated from the heart/emotions (Adam separated from Eve) and the heart was able to be tempted by the serpent (the Computer virus/worm/snake) that is part of the PROGRAM to get the simulations involved: Once the heart (desire) hooks into the question of good and evil (life and death), the Image is on its way: Now the work of the programmer is to SEPARATE the old program (egoistic side or old I) from the NEW creation (God or programmer becomes the "I") and now the programmer becomes attached to the building up of his creation as HIMSELF...........and both sides feel the same reality: The programmer feels the creatures simulated reality and the creature begins to FEEL and IDENTIFY more and more with the programmer:
@Yvonne Gordon:
Good grief! this has to stand alone as the most convoluted posts that I have read in quite awhile, I do not know if I should even delve into this, don't even know what to say, but does present a challenge.
Anyone?? Even religee's?
Blaster worm, also known as lovesan. Repeatedly reboots your brain/computer.
it's not that hard to follow... it's like the Matrix...
... man I think she got it...!!! cuz after reading it all only one thing comes to mind... Jesus Christ!!
lady you should get off the pills... or just take the blue one and forget about it...
mind blowing stuff... you should write a book... never mind make it a journal.
peace!
When i was in my early twenties i participated in a car rallye scavenger hunt, we had to pick up clues while driving. Upon arrival we had to take all the words that were in capitals letters from the clues and compose a poem which would be read during the night party.
Mind you the words were quite different, but I thought Yvonne's many posts would at least be good for that.
People's way of seeing this reality has as much variety as there are cars in the world.
Is convoluted one of your R's word?
az
Az...Not really that much variety, people see a tree as a tree, a rock as a rock and so on. By collectively collapsing the waveform from all of the unlimited probabilities at our disposal from the quantum foam, taking into account all the different interactions.
Except the reality may be viewed somewhat differently for autistic and other such people.
The convoluted word and other big words are not all of "R" words but my own. lol
the experience of God is found within your brain to be sure, but the brain is not God. How do I know? I returned to the origin of consciousness quite by mistake after a year fast of not eating anything but a protein drink to take off a 165 lbs to save my spine. After this weight loss that also destroyed the 'fat' in my brain which is why religious people fast (to feel anointed/OIL/FAT) disolve in their brain, I reached the BLISS of God: LIke the girl in the "god helmet" however the bliss led to the fire (like the earth has fire deep inside so does the brain have a very hot kind of fire that runs it I suppose like an engine: This is what is meant by "boiling in oil" (the holy spirit heats up the oil/Christ/anointing to literally CHANGE the brains chemicals and bring about a NEW CREATION, a totally new way of SEEING reality: This experience of both HEAVEN (bliss) and hell (the experience of the depth of the brain) that leads to a TRANSFORMATION of the brain, is definately ORCHISTRATED from outside of the brain: The brain is like a computer that is CONTROLLED by a controller (God) and we experience the WORK of this God to MAKE us, FORM US into an image and likeness of HIMSELF or rather the INFINITE ONE. Understanding HOW this BEING works in us gives us the understanding of what he is working to accomplish in our experience of both US and HIM: Once they are ONE, we are finished:
all i can think about is this rumor about mr.freeman smh
Scary possibilities . . . Excellent work by Rich Terrile
At 10:00 of the video, Rich Terrell talks about the black box experiment (asking questions of a human brain and a super computer of the future) to determine which is the human answering and which is the computer; and if you cannot tell one from the other they must be equivalent and if the human is considered conscious and self-aware then the computer must also be considered conscious and self-aware. I find this logic flawed because it is too narrow a litmus test to ascertain conscious self-awareness.
Here is my reasoning. Video graphic technology is being developed today that is trying to blur the line between reality and fantasy; and once that gap has been bridged, and the individual cannot tell the difference between a real life scene and a computer generated scene then they must be considered equivalent. And since they are equivalent, one can be defined as the other, therefore reality is a computer generated experience (CGE) and a CGE is reality.
The problem lies in the fact that the human mind cannot determine the difference between fantasy and reality; it relies on sensual cues to help decipher the difference. If there are no discernable cues (to which the mind can relate) to label it fantasy, it is considered reality: Today we are seeing that it isnt necessarily so.
However, I do find his argument for a CG Universe very compelling. It would neatly explain a Universe made of atoms without the need for the elusive Higgs Boson particle. Mass could be a pre-programmed parameter just as carbon is pre-programmed into all life on Earth.
as a follow up to the part about the pixelated / virtual reality, i recommend another doc on this site - fractals: in search of the hidden dimension.
@Achems_Razor
you have a problem. the child here is certainly you. how dare you say about our prophet paedophile ? because you sure have difficulties to engage normal relationships with girls. the paedophile may be you....
if you have a problem with someone then talk to him and don't mention our prophet. look, there are 1,5 billion of Muslims around the world and that's dangerous for you. so, be careful. it is easy to make enemies, and I don't want that for you, because I know that you don't know, and you miss a lot of knowledge.
take care of yourself.
@Med,
1. The most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl. Because of this, it has become increasingly popular in some circles to refer to the Prophet of Islam as a "pedophile."
However, if a man has a sexual relationship with a young girl in a culture and time where such a union is permissible, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the man is a "sexual predator," as the term "pedophile" implies.
In short, the time and the culture were permuting that, which is inconceivable for us.
Many people (around 1.5 billion too) are jumping to conclusion that he was a pedophile, but that is not necessarily true. He was not a predator or child molester.
2. Also please do not point threats to people here. If you want to defend your prophet do it, but without any threats please. Everyone is free to express his opinions. If you disagree please argue in intelligent and humble manner (as your religion tells you so).
I didn't mean to threaten him, I just wanted him to take care of what to say when talking about holly persons. he misses more informations to judge like that. it is an advice not a threat. 1,5 billion may include some mad ones who may react differently at an insult like that.
9 y old of that time and in the country sides of sahara had a good shape and passed the time of puberty. and till the 20th century, it was usual in some Arabian countries to marry their girls at an age between 10 and 14, and they lived a good life. my mother was married at 11y old.
you understand that well. and thank you.
@Med:
I am not misusing info, just relaying info @Med: look up on the net about your prophet, youtube, wiki, there are numerous people and websites stating the fact that your warrior prophet was a pedo, plain and simple, since you have already threatened me are you also going to go after everybody else?
the difference between me and you is that, if it is written in the net or anywhere about somebody that he is pedo, or anything else that if he is alive he would dislike, I will not talk to anyone as if what is written is true. understood ?
I am not seeing you as an enemy at all. I see you as someone who may miss some experience when dealing about some hard subjects. you get nervous quickly. if you don't agree about an information, can't you just show that calmly ?
you get nervous because you feel that some facts are shown and you fear to believe in them. that's why you overreact .
Med: You are the one that is not calm and nervous, anyone can plainly see that, quit trying to twist things around, you and others of your irk seem to always be doing that.
Why then would you believe the quran and your prophet if you say "I will not talk to anyone as if what is written is true."
The only thing I appose to is absolute truth whiteout evidence... and this is the problem between science and Religion... Atheists and Theists... fundamentalism and Uncertainty...
No scientist can claim that a creator does not exist... it´s ethically wrong... that is an open question so therefore every possibility is valid even the absurd ... I accept that God can exist... but you have to accept that it may not exist...
You can´t disprove something that hasn't been proven yet... so therefore you can´t claim something to be truth without evidence for it...
Don´t say you can´t rationalize God... Why not?... once you couldn´t say the earth wasn't the center of the universe or you would burn for it...
The difference is... even if I could prove to you that God does not exist You would´t believe me anyway... but if you could prove that God exists in a verified theory I would believe it...
The whole armor of God is supernatural. What is the armor of God? Love. What is love? Scientifically, prove to me there is such a thing as love. Where's it at? How many of us know what it is to love? raise up your hand: love your wife, love your brother, love your friends? Well, I want somebody, some science, to prove to me what part of you is love. Where do you buy it, what drugstore? I want a bunch of it. Love, joy, you got joy? Peace, long-suffering, gentleness, patience, what is it? It's all supernatural.
God is supernatural. You don't scientifically prove God. You believe God. You believe it. If you don't believe it, then a man that says everything that's not scientifically proven, is unorthodox, it's not right, then that man can never be a Christian. He has to believe. By faith we believe God, not by education, not by theology. But by faith you are saved.
Amen! Praise The Lord!!
I haven't read any of your comments i would support but i must say this one is quite good. I am not a Christian because i follow no one but i do follow love...and i like to think love follows me.
az
Yeah, well i'm quoting a great singer/songwriter Bruce Cockburn with a song with the lyrics that say "If you love love, then love loves you too!" Sounds similar to what you were writing don't you think?
hello
do not be any one;fallow the road to the truth
just read about islam
Love can be proven... just dosen´t match the feeling of it .... just like fear can be proven... scientifically... I agree that the feeling is subjective... but not supernatural... love is not supernatural... read the work of António Damasio... and you´ll get some pretty good information about feelings and emotions, and how it is processed by the brain.
Think of it as a cake...(I know it is simplistic... but bear with me) you can know what a cake is made of, and even know how the ingredients act on the taste receptors in the toungue, and the neuropathways that conduct it to the brain, and the brain areas that process that taste ... but to describe the actual taste ... that's hard... cuz it is a personal experience
Has for faith... everyone has it... in some form or another... and there are some fields of neuroscience that are starting to understand the process... you can find this if you want... what happens is that this kind of conceptions are very personal and people don´t identify with a scientific explanation... cuz that don´t match they're personal view of it...
What I mean is... I can know everything about a cake, what it's made of, how it affects my senses, and my brain... and still enjoy every bite when I put it in my mouth without thinking of that... so the magic of god... faith... love... and a cake ... it's not in the understanding of they're mechanisms... is in the act of experiencing it. So there is no arm in knowing how something works... it won't steal the magic
cheers
@Epicurus, believing make alot of difference, because for you to accept there is no God you first have to believe there is no God,and if there is'nt, what evidence do you have to show and to prove that there is no God, you said that when you have a headache you don't pray you take a tylenol, but before you take that tylenol do you know that you first have to believe, that what is in that tylenol will ease your headache, and also if you don't believe that paraachute will open, no way!! you'll jump out of that plane. You also said that God is a figment of your imagination. God means obbject of worship, what that simply means is that any thing that you worship become your god you worship your car, your car become your god, you worship science, science become your god, etc,etc,that is your choice, but every choice has a consequence, that why I believe that the creator of the universe is THE LORD JESUS CHRIST the bible said that all things were made by Him and for Him and I am a 100% willing to stand the consequence for believing that. An atheist once said boastfully that there is no God and if there is may serpents crawl out of his grave and at his burial they could not stop killing surpents. remember every choice has a consequence and every action has a reaction.
for me to "believe" there is no god all i have to do is realize there is no evidence for it.
i have the same evidence that there is no god as i do that there is no unicorns. the lack of evidence is a good reason to not accept something.
so you think if you dont believe the parachute will open it wont open? well that is wrong. physics dont depend on your belief. same with the tylenol. once you understand that medication is tested in double blind experiments you will understand why you are wrong about that also.
if you worship anything i think you are wasting your time. nothing is worth worship. when i say god i mean a being that is intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and the creator of the universe. and i believe that is a figment of mans imagination. do you have any evidence otherwise?
your story about an atheist and snakes is bullpoop. i cant believe you actually believe this stuff.
oh well some people WANT to be ignorant. that is fine.
@Achems_Razor,
Nervousness is a weakness sign, that is why we find especially in children and old people. anyway, go to youtube and see "the arrivals" series, may be you change your mind easily.
don't change your mind.
@med, you want me to watch the arrivals? then you must be a child. Have no more to say to you, am wasting my time.
I heard a story once of a man bragging about the non existence of God and there was standing next to him a young lady partaking of an apple, who turned to the man and said, kind sir could you tell me if this apple is sweet or not? The man turn to her and said how can I? I'am not partaking of it, the young lady then said the him, that is nothing but to true then how can you clam that God don't exist when you have never tasted of him, the bible said taste and see that the lord is good, for until you come into a personal experience with him you will never know him and that starts by first believing because, you receive not, because you believe not. Another thing, you hear so much about this big bang theory that a lot people brag about but tell me can a big bang produce variety, if every thing was alike then you can argue that God don't exist but it is impossible to have variety without design and how can you have a design without a designer how could you have a creation without a creator you don't need science to figure that out.
@Med
I agree with everything... but all that can be explain and practiced in a world without the need for a God... Human experience and human emotion can explain all that just fine... Human empathy, and human rationality deserve your credit... I can't see how anything you said can be attributed to God
peace
Not any God of course. there is only one if it exists. As you can see in our world, everything is tremendously well organized. do you think all that is interactions between matters, and came here by accident suddenly ?. the truth is hiding surely somewhere and we should look for it in the ancient times as in recent times. the Man always asked himself if there is a creator of all this. responses were between right and wrong. here right and wrong depends on the thinker. something that might seem right to me, it is not evident will seem right to you too. it depends on the position you are in, already. you can't be neutral in the question of God. you can't rationalize it.
sit with yourself and ask always that question, is there really a God ? and if it exists He would infinitely be powerful to create such giant universe of ours. talk to him to help you know him. do that from time to time when you are alone, and you will see what will happen. but be serious. don't do it for fun.
I don't say that God is talking to people, I just say that He can make the circumstances of your life change to the way you can know of his existence and be completely sure of that. if he is the creator of all this world, that would be a very easy task for him.
according to our knowledge in Islam God exists everywhere. anyone can talk to him. even if you don't believe in him.
do you know that religion of Christ and Jew and Islam are aiming to the same God from the first. those 3 religions are from the beginning calling to the real creator. they are not the creation of Man. begin with a study of these religions.
Christ and Moses and Mohamed were only messengers of God. the same God.
when you talk to God and you are a believer of him, you are charged with positive energy. when someone prays he communicates with God. the main source of everything good in life. I mean positive things.
negative things come only from Human disobedience to God. which represents bad behaviours and bad things and bad events.
everything around us knows how to pray to God. the sea prays with waves which represent a source of positive energy, from communication with God. and so on.
all this might not seem logical to you. it depends on your position already.
peace
it seems insanely illogical. you are assuming something exists then attributing everything to it without making any falsifications.
it is a joke.
why did you ignore my post showing how emoto was wrong?
I didn't ignore your writing, you may be right about emoto. but the way you discuss things is a little bit hard because you get nervous quickly and make fun of persons as if you know everything. I may disagree with you but I will never say a word meaning that you are false and I am right. we are exchanging here some thoughts and experiences. may be that would help someone to get things more clear with all respect to each other.
about emoto I never checked if he is right or wrong but I appreciate your search. but I also have some experiments on water.
as you know cells is constructed with more than 70% of water, I mean body cells. it is known in Islam that God created from water every thing alive. and this explains why when a praying person finishes his pray, he feels good and right . he enters through his praying in touch with the biggest source of positive energy which is God. as if he opens a small and narrow tunnel from where he can receive the positive energy that enlightens his present moment. as the body is constructed from cells of 70% and more of water, water has a secret there. also when reading some ayats of curan on water, it becomes having a healing character.
remember I always don't say I am right and you are wrong. we are discussing things only. may be I am right, who knows ? we hope all of us be in good mood, healthful, and all right. each one has his convictions and respect the others convictions. we explain our points of view only.
the question of God existence is a tough question that nobody can rely only on his abilities to answer. it is a feeling more than logical. when you feel and accept the God existence, then comes logic.
have a good day
the praying person could also feel right as a sort of placebo effect. it could just be psychological. that wouldnt imply that a god actually exists.
i dont think we can just use feeling to determine if god is real or not. we need some evidence. if we just go on feelings then how do we know who has the right feeling since some feel christianity, some feel islam, some feel hinduism, and some feel atheism....so we need something more evident to go on.
The secret of our existence rely on that question of God. the question of God is not rational, you can't use only your mind and expect to be on the true road. 50% you can go wrong or right.
let's take an example of the soul. can science prove the existence of the soul ? No
there is the body and the soul. the body is from matter. the nature of the soul is not known. but can be felt. ok or not ?
the soul is something from the nature of God. (according to Islam).
if you stick to prove God existence by science tools, you certainly will go a looooong way without any answer.
there is the body and the soul. ok ?
the body feeds with food as we know. the soul feeds with prayers. when you have a good relation with God, your soul is strong and healthy. the psychic is constructed from the body and the soul, both. the psychology studies the body and its relation with the soul only. but it doesn't mention the soul because it is unknown.
there are many beings living with us here on earth and we feel their presence and we don't see them. for ex: devils. also, look what humanity is doing with electromagnetic waves. communications now rely on that form of energy. in the air around you you can't see communications of radios but when you set a radio on a frequency you receive radio stations.
primarily (if you don't believe in God ) suppose that his existence is true and go on ....as what we do in mathematics....
look for traces of God in true religions (the Jew or Christianity or Islam no more that ) you must be careful on how to extract the good information. talk to people who has experience in each of these religions. analyse analyse analyse.....but always ask God to help you find his way easy otherwise it will be tough.
remember that question of God existence is not rational.
i dont think the soul can be felt. i dont think there is any reason to believe or assume a soul exists.
i dont believe there devils or anything supernatural living with us. just because you think you feel them doesnt make them real. it could all be in your head.
i cant see radio waves but i can use instruments to detect them. through science we know they exist. why cant the same be done for souls or gods?
how do you know judaism christianity or islam are true religions? how do you know the greek gods arent real? how do you know the hindu gods arent real? or maybe if there is a god it is something beyond anything we have imagined.
if something is not rational then it doesnt exist. the state of irrationality is such that it cant be the case. something can only be true if it is rational or logical.
If faith cannot be reconciled with rational thinking, it has to be eliminated as an anachronistic remnant of earlier stages of culture and replaced by science dealing with facts and theories which are intelligible and can be validated.
do you think that science is perfect ? is knowledge from science absolute ? there are many dimensions of thinking.
information that can be validated scientifically first dimension.
information that can't be validated scientifically yet can be processed with philosophy and extend searches on it till we can digest it with logic then it will become scientific. 2nd dimension this.
the 3th dimension, is when even philosophy can't find an answer. and the person who is dealing with the process feels as if he is turning around and around without any issue. that dimension is Metaphysical that you can't touch or even imagine. if you want to use science to prove God existence is as if you want to use a small hand tool to carry the entire galaxy. if a man is trying to do that he is completely unconscious of what he is dealing with.
the question of God existence is a Metaphysical question, remember that.
In Islam, the prophet Mohamed, PBUH, since he was young and till the age of 40 when he began to receive messages from God, he never told a lie of any kind. they were calling him the truthful. so when he began to receive messages, many didn't believe in him but the question was, how comes the truthful to say that. messages were on Arabic about many things in life, and the question of God existence is not to discuss but to believe in, only. that is the belief in religion. Islam talked about Judaism, and Christianity and recognize them coming from God also. in fact, since the coming of humanity to earth, from time to time God sends a messenger to show to humans what's their duty on earth. and Moses, Christ and Mohamed are for the same message. calling to God the only one that exists and the who created the universe and all that. never a religion in the passed before Islam recognized some of other religions as having the same purpose. when you get deep in Islam you get the idea with all logic and rest. according always to Islam, the followers of Judaism and Christianity, in the passed, changed a lot of texts and that is why Islam came. to complete what was changed and correct things. but that time is that last one. Mohamed is the last messenger of God. all this is according to Islam.
trying to compare some religions, I have something for you as an example:
in Hindus religion we can see the pilgrims at the moment of their pilgrimage what kind of dirt they live in and enters in their culture. but Islam when it came it transformed a totally out of date nation to a very tough and strong and very organized. the moment of pilgrimage in Islam till nowadays and all the days you can see pilgrims clean and the sacred place is always clean.
as I told you before, clean truth tidy light good and positive energy are all from a source that builds, get things right which is God.....
and dirt falseness messiness dark badness and negative energy are all from a source that destroys, and get things wrong. Hindus and ...... are Satanic in the view of Islam.
just because science isnt perfect, doesnt give merit to the idea of a god.
this first dimension second dimension third dimension distinction you are making is not verified. you are just making things up. im sorry i know this sounds harsh, but i have a hard time listening to people present ideas without evidence.
if you say god is metaphysical (beyond or above physics) what makes you think that? you are just making blind assertions with no evident to support what you are saying. i could simply say that the greek gods inhabit the metaphysical realm and that your god is make believe. how can we know? once again you are just positing things that have no evidence. it is crazy. you are taking blind shots in the dark.
you say muhammad never told a lie of any kind? well that is impossible and its also impossible to know. just sounds like more myth. you know they called Abraham Lincoln Honest Ab and said he never told a lie. do you believe that?
muhammad might not have been lying. he might have actually believed he was getting messages. he could have been a little crazy. maybe schizophrenic or suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy or maybe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since he was in many military battles.
actually islam is a branch of christianity and judaism and thats why it recognizes them. it comes from the same source, Abraham. Judaism started as a cult from zoroastrianism, christianity branched off as a cult of judaism and islam branched off even more.
how can you know muhammad is the last messenger? because he said so? lol. Joseph Smith who started the mormon religion claimed to be a prophet of god just like jesus and muhammad. how do you know he wasnt?
if you ask someone from the west they will say there is nothing clean about the islamic pilgrimage. there are millions of people and they all smell and there are no showers and the bathrooms are dirty. there is nothing clean about it. all religions have dirty rituals. the hindus bathe in the ganges, the christians go to Lourdes to drink some nasty holy water that is filthy, and the muslims do their filthy pilgrimage. nothing clean about it. they are all dirty.
it seems to me that you are just clinging to something you want to believe without actually looking at it rationally.
do you think if you were raised by a canadian family in alberta that you would still be muslim? or is it that you are only muslim based on your circumstances and how you were raised?
here is some mathematics :
1+1= 2 right and 1+1= 10 also right ok ?
1+1= 10 is in digital system right.
so it depends on the system you are already in or you work in.
for my system I see that God exists and I am glad of that. more over I see that Islam is the best religion on earth and I am glad of it.
each system has its rules that you must respect to keep logic flows.
denying God existence is darkness itself.
med,
Really? you should get a Nobel science prize for that paper, have you published it?
Edit, godamn, you are over 18 right?
but reality doesnt work like that. either there is a god or there isnt. your belief in it makes no difference.
what evidence is there? what evidence makes your religion more supported than others?
when you realize all you have is faith maybe then you will wake up and decide to see the world as it really is rather than how you want it to be.
your system (your universe or reality) is the same one everyone else is in. that is why when you have a headache you dont pray you take a tylenol, if you have to jump out of an airplane you dont pray you use a parachute. only one of those will work. and in reality its not praying. because god is a figment of your imagination.
PS the arrivals is nothing but uneducated drivel.
@med:
There is no "clean truth tidy light good and positive energy" everything and the universe itself comes from complete "chaos" even us walking humans that are infested with 90 trillion microbes, bacteria that outnumber human cells 10 to 1 so we are walking around with about 10 lbs of bacteria at any given time.
Your "pedophile-prophet and warrior-prophet had no pipelines to any gods, was a mere mortal.
@med:
I was into the soul stuff years back, but came to the conclusion as to what we see as our reality is due to "quantum averaging" everything is subject to the jitters of quantum uncertainty, envision the pixelated image you see when your face is a few inches from a TV screen. The image is very different from a more comfortable distance, because your eyes combine them into an average that looks smooth.
It is only because of the averaging process that a smooth and tranquil form for spacetime emerges.
In other words "quantum averaging" provides a down to earth interpretation of the assertion that familiar spacetime may be an illusion, sans all the "souls" that are floating around, and that there is a deeper reality minus all the man-made invisible gods in recorded history, that has nothing to do with some of what the religous carbon units class as the prime movers for existence.
"I look for God here and there and everywhere. Finally I see Him coming out of my own gratitude-heart-tears." - Sri Chinmoy
I am not defending all religions. from my experience of atheisme for more than ten years I finally got the prooves. there is a way in mathematics to proove something true or false ? we suppose that something is true and we continue our journey and our search honestly without philosophy till we find something absurd, then we ll be sure that our supposition is false...
I talked about clean and dirt...and we can also talk about positive and negative energy...positive energy is healthfull for everything even humans..for example when you smile to somebody you give him a positive energy and you get profit also from that situation positively so get more and more of positive energy....an other example ...when you quarrel with your wife or girlfriend you exchange bad feelings getting nervous or anything else you create negative energy you exchange that negative energy and you get bored and sick and .....
positive energy builds trust and all good things
negative energy demolishes and destroy good things and brings bad things to happen ..
to get charged with positive energy there are many ways :
have a good sleep without thinking negatively of nothing.
or just go to the beach and focus on the sea and the horizon ( it is known that nervous people when they get to the beach they feel an improvement to the better )
an other way is to go to the woods and take a walk there try to feel the nature,
an other way for muslims is to read curan or just think of god
have you heard of (message from water) that a japanese searcher experimented ?
water molecules were put under influence of audiowaves of many kind (mozart music, rock music, curan readings ...) and were photographed.
you can google that and read about it.
try to focus on positive energy and you will see your life change to the better, and you will attract good things as to the real God who govern the existance all.....
good luck
those water crystal experiments have been shown to be false.
there is no such thing as positive and negative energy. but i think i understand. but you need to understand that there is no objectively positive energy.
you could smile at someone (sending them positive energy) and they can be in such a bad mood that your smile pisses them off more and they punch you. there is nothing positive about that.
The theory of evolution is false. don't you know ?
look, the big bang is true because everything in the univers is still spreading ... from millions of years we still witness that, because we live in that moment of the bang may be now aproaching its end. a second in the univers is thousands of years of our counting. time is relative as you know. after that evrything will be fold up.
God is the origin of all forces that govern the univers. gravity, electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction and so on...
tell me what is the diference between right and wrong ? good and bad ? dirty and clean ? if we accept the theory of evolution then we are like monkeys then we would live with no diference. clean and dirt are then the same ? God existence doesn't have any meaning or does is also the same.....?
it is impossible to see when we are blind.
sciences made a lot of success for us as humans but can prove nothing when talking about God.
either you beleive or not......will certainly not be the same. if you seek the truth really. if not just live till you dy and then ............
the theory of evolution is a fact. every experiment done on it has proven this. nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.
right and wrong are subjective. they have nothing to do with biological evolution. if we accept the theory of evolution then we know we are primates who are humans which are very different from monkeys but still related.
god is just a word used to explain what we dont know. it is meaningless and just makes us feel like we have an answer when we should continue searching.
first thing first... the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down at all... it's actually accelerating according to present observations.
The difference between right and wrong, clean an dirty... are human concepts, and are circumstantial... what is right and wrong diverge immensely according to the observer... has do what is clean an dirty... don´t go around given credit to God about those things when it is explain just with human rationality...
It is true that science can't prove nothing about god...
But religion does with no evidence needed... then everything can be true... if I say I saw a Unicorn you will call me a nut case.... but if someones says there is an invisible man that created the Universe there is no problem about that... what differs are the circumstances...!!! Religion has thousands and thousand of years of influence.... but it is an outdated fascist and selfish way to approach a problem... Religion was a great way of trying to make sense of ourself and the Universe we live in it´s time... but come on!!! it´s time to move on... it just doesn't make sense anymore
and what is that about the seeking of truth... seriously ... what is the role of science if not exactly that... if you believe in God then the seeking is over... you have it backwards dude
Is there a creator? yes his name is Tyler
well played
God is known by faith which is a super sense is like our body have five senses see, taste, smell. hear, and touch and these senses came by a birth so the sense of faith come by the new birth, Jesus said without the new birth you cannot see the kingdom of God and that is exactly were the problem is, many of us is trying to see God without the sense of faith, is like trying to see with your ear or trying to hear with your eyes which is impossible so without faith it is impossible to please God. It is a experience,it come by hearing the word of God and once that sense of faith is awaken inside of you God will no longer be a mystery to you.
it´s unlikely that a sense that is innate should have to be awakened... and we don´t have 5 senses ... we have more : sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, proprioception and vestibular sense... and all are activated by fisical or chemical inputs even before birth and are very well understood by now ... so it seems strange that the sense of "Faith" should have to be learned... cuz if you don´t learn faith... u don´t even learn the concept of it... so your logic... doesn´t seem logic at all...
take a severe autistic child for example... he sees he smells, he feels, he hears... but he doesn´t give a rats ass for what faith means... cuz he can´t understand the concept of it...
if you´re saying that faith is a brain function I agree with you, I believe that deep down Humans have the skill to believe in something grater then themselves... and it serves has an adaptation tool to coupe with death... it's very useful to a conscious being to believe that his consciousness won't disappear once he is dead... but that being a direct line to God...!!? just seems to far fetch to be true... to defend my argument is the fact that almost every culture believes in something grater then themselves... but no one agrees on it´s description... so it's a fuzzy sense at best...
Faith is a good ideal... and let that be the end of it... don´t go around saying you are more aware than non believers... thats offensive and self centered
God doesn't exist. I should know, He told me. He spoke through my cat, and i don't even have a cat (yet).
Why must everything have a creator? This sequence of logic makes no sense because the only reason "God" exists is to be the creator. Well then... who created God? If your answer is "God doesn't need a creator, that's why he's god", then what purpose does it serve to have one in the first place?
Absolutely. One way I like to put it is, "If you're so eager to be an anti-scientist and postulate something which warrants no explanation, why not just let it be the universe and leave it there?"
You could also say that if complexity is suggestive of a designer, how much truer mustn't that statement be in the case of god?
the second argument in regards to a divine creation of the universe is so flawed its almost a joke. Andy Halbrick's argument that because of the forces that govern our existence(the four forces that govern our universe are gravity, electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction) in this universe are in perfect balance for our survival. "therefor" there must be a creator who designed it that way. that statement reveals the fact that we have another person that fully does not understand evolution. life in this universe would obviously be reliant on the conditions of the environment that the particular life-form inhabits. in our lifetimes we adjust to day-to-day changes in our world. but when chaos happens people die. the same goes for life everywhere throughout history. we can see it with our museums today. 99.9999 (four decimal points!) percent of all creatures are extinct. major extinctions occur when climate rapidly changes, asteroids hit, disease spreads, invading competitors and so on. life can adjust and adapt to changes over time. but when you look at our world in a different perspective and view it as the particle it is in the known universe; we see other factors for our survival as life. we see that laws govern us and create the universe the way we know it today. we are reliant on the forces that control our existence. these forces have been consistent and continuously perpetuating throughout history(the four forces, gravity,electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction) . life will rely on the environment it inhabits. it will not evolve against an environment unless adaption is fundamental for survival. meaning the creatures that survive the change are the creatures that pass on their genetics and the creatures that dont survive wont, leaving behind only the "adapted" ones. this also applies to the forces that govern all life in this universe. if gravity had somehow changed its power on our world then life would evolve around it. in our known history these forces have stayed consistent and there has been no need to evolve change. we evolved to these forces demands already if we are alive today and it just so happens that we haven't had to make any changes yet. but if changes happen, life will survive and adjust. leaving behind only the creatures that can survive. that is what natural selection is. leaving behind the creatures that can survive.
@Lukk Php I take it you don't know the Evolution "theory". Such impressive functions such as the human heart has taken millions of years of dynamic genetic mutation. At this point we are at such an advanced state of physical being that we can't comprehend the power of genetic mutation, and how it came to be so naturally. We fall into the trap of the creationist illusion so easy, because it is so easy to make a statement about anything (like god) and say you just have faith and that is good enough. I'm sorry but in a world where science has provided the internet, CAT scan machines, the Hubble Telescope etc I refuse to believe in anything without good reason and logic, something that religion fails at.
is there a difference between the relative mind and the absolute mind ?
can the relative mind which is the human's prove the existance of the absolute mind which is GOD ?
if we want to know GOD, it is through its creatures ? nothing can come from nothing. right? if we take the human body for example, we will be absolutly astonished by the way it functions. can this body just exist here by the sudden ? the interactivity of the components of our world is a proof its self of an absolute mind behind which is GOD.
If you want to know GOD then focus on its creatures because our mind can't digest the absolute mind (simply).
the real question is at the root of your original question. is there a difference between the relative mind and the absolute mind? who ever told you there was a relative and absolute mind? where did this idea come from? and why do so many believe it to be true? that is the first question.
Why do so many (American) documentaries mix faith and science? It makes no sense, since they are mutually exclusive. If you abandon Biblical cosmology, in which the universe is made of water and the world lies under a vault (called "firmament"), like a submarine city, you might as well abandon the notion of a creator god. Rain does not drip from beyond the stars, through sluice gates in the firmament personally operated by God, as the Bible says. If Biblical cosmology were true, we could not fly above the rain, as we do in airplanes. Satellites could not circle the Earth, because the firmament (that separates our air from the ocean above) would be a physical barrier.
The Bible is not the only book that is thousands of years old. Biblical cosmology stems from Babylonian sources and times, when people ascribed natural phenomena to gods. We know very well how science developed in the last millennia, so please leave history and science in their own proper context. The question if a creator god exists is as serious as the question if there is war on Mars and sex on Venus. The answer is: no, we are beyond Babylonian cosmology.
pretty cool avatar, reminds me of "Les Tetes A Claques".
az
Einstein the m*ron. The plaigiarist. Never made one discovery before or after he had his sinceure at the patent office, where famous German sciientists from FW Institute in Berlin were sending their stuff. Typical. If he was so smart why didnt he work on A Bomb?
my question is: who made god?
Then, if you ask me who made God, I can ask you, who made matter? If before there was nothing, how can something came from nothing? Where is Lavoisier in all this? Can you, just like that, ignore proven scientific laws like 2nd law of thermodynamics, biogenisis and Lavoisier (and many others)?
It's very, very complicated my friend, to tell me that the human brain, or the DNA were created by random chance. Your brain can "listen" to music, "watch" a video, sum, multiply, store, learn, have feelings.... what else can I say! No such human, could do anything EVEN CLOSE to it so far, neither anyone could understand it. Please, don't tell me it was a bunch of irrational, disoriented matter the author of the brain! I know that you don't even want to change your mind, but at least, analyze the facts, and be honest with yourself.
you are making an argument from incredulity. that is not very scientific of you.
i say that there HAS TO be a God for anything to exist at all, whether He was there before the universe, or whether He came out because the universe did as well. im a Christian, but i believed in Science before i believed in God. my reason for believing in God is with a simple law that governs our universe: The Laws of Thermodynamics. first law states that Energy(which Molecules are)cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. it is scientifically impossible for the energy int he universe to simply just appear out of nothingness unless there is a being working outside the laws of the universe. i will not say that this means my God(Yahweh)is the definite God, event ho i believe that, because it just means that there is a God, Goddess or Gods who were here before the universe and created the universe and sustains the life of the universe
actually you can also take the first law to mean that energy is eternal and has always existed just in differing forms.
there is no need to posit a god there. before energy was formed in a way that made the universe it could have been in some other quantum fluctuation. saying that it means there must be a god to place that stuff there just leaves more questions like how did the god get there and what was it doing before it put the energy there etc.
Hiii Epicurus How are you today :D I was just speaking saying hello I saw you down there and thought I would come say Howdy I'm feeling quite jovial today.. anyway moving along....Darn this episode of Through The WormHole is very informative a Must See Documentary here on SeeUat Videos if I may say so Myself :)
...
there will always be questions, and as long as theres questions there will be gods and theories arising from the minds of man. i have found nothing to make me not believe that there is a divine hand at work in the universe. when we die, we will know for sure what happens, and we will know where our consciousness goes
What do you mean by saying differing forms? Which forms? What about the second law of thermodynamics? Many universes? That's not science, is speculation. It just happened? That's faith. Also you state "before energy was formed in a way that made the universe it could have been in some other quantum fluctuation", more speculation! You are saying that the existence of God leaves more questions, but your point of view is much more complicated and leaves even more questions. I could for example ask you to explain why did energy "decided" to change to the "quantum fluctuation" which allowed the universe to be formed. Why do laws of physics are well establish and precise? Why are atoms so perfect, with their so convenient nuclear interactions (strong and weak), were they also product of random chance??
Also, I don't believe in God because it's less complicate, or leaves less questions. I believe in God, because it's the most logical thing to do. Just look around! Can't you see magnificent project in things?
what do i mean by differing forms? you do understand that energy comes in more than one form right? matter is one of those forms?
Kinetic Energy
Potential Energy
Thermal, or heat energy
Chemical Energy
Electrical Energy < Matter
Electrochemical Energy:
Electromagnetic Energy (light)
Sound Energy
Nuclear Energy
and this is why im saying you are making an argument from incredulity. you dont even understand fully what you are arguing for or against.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time, within a closed system (Second Law).
Life is NOT IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. we get energy from outside sources.
I never said many universes.
energy being in another form is not speculation. the FIRST LAW states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. it changes forms. before it was in the present form to allow matter it was in a different unknown form. at least the speculations im making are actually working with real laws and theories. not just saying there was some magic entity.
my view leaves questions that can actually be searched. just saying god did it leaves unfalsifiable questions.
there are theoretical physicists who have come up with reasons that energy would have changed forms. look up string theory.
atoms are not perfect and the laws of physics are not perfect either. they just work for what we have. if they were some other way we couldnt know. its a pointless question. like what is north of the north pole?
and no when i look around i dont see god. i see natural cause and effect reactions. no divine intervention. no need for a god.
I am studying engineering, how couldn't I know the different forms of energy? What I wanted to know, is what form of energy existed in the beginning, according to your belief. String theory is just a theory. String theory only makes sense if Big Bang really happened. String theory is just a theory trying to cover another theory's failures (Big Bang). No need for God? Life is not a closed system, indeed, but Earth is. How convenient it is that Earth has the perfect conditions for life.
Based on your beliefs you can't even trust yourself, you are product of irrational and random chemical reactions remember?
You say that atoms are not perfect? Well, it depends of what perfect is to you! They are certainly perfect for life because, as you may now, a slightly small change in their nuclear forces, and...no life, no planets, no nothing. Chaos! Look at the universe! Stars, planets, galaxies! All well defined! Laws of physics are not perfect? Very demanding of you, not doubt about it. What is not perfect about the laws of physics? Also depends on your concept of perfection. If you thinks chaos is perfection, then their not perfect certainly, but if you think order is and beauty is closer to this concept, laws of physics suit perfectly.
If you don't see super intelligent project in universe/life, it's even useless to continue having this discussion, I just hope you don't lie to yourself, and have a little common sense.
I am not making an argument for incredulity, and It is a pity that you think you are superior and know more about this subject.... which probably you don't.
we have enough evidence to show that the big bang (cosmological expansion took place) and string theory is a theory yes. a theory is a very very strongly supported position in science. so that makes it MUCH MORE LIKELY THAN A GOD.
earth is not a closed system at all. earth gets all kind of energy from the sun and other sources outside of it. im the product of RATIONAL random chemical reactions. that doesnt mean i cant trust myself. you are once again showing how you dont understand logic. that is a complete non sequitor. dont worry i will let you look that phrase up.
you are wrong about the slight change in the laws meaning no life and no planets. there could be changes that woudl still allow life and planets just not the way we know it.
if you do see intelligence in the universe then you are delusional.
you are still making arguments from incredulity. you are basically saying you dont understand how things work so there must be a god....grow up.
"Magnificent project in things?" No, magnificent things from "chaos theory." Science extended the human longevity rate from 20 30 years to upwards of 80 90 years, no gods intervention.
Why is everything thing so perfect? nothing is perfect, but livable because humans/sentient beings adapted to the universe, especially the Earth as it is because of "evolution" not the other way around! No faith involved, just life striving to know itself.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-powerful God, who makes faulty Humans, and then blames them for his mistakes".
"Gene Roddenberry"
There is a realm of life you do not know of- the realm of the spirit. That is the realm God exists in. Everything in this physical universe is being controlled and sustained from this realm, because all proceeded from there. There are spirituals laws prevailing there, which determine how things go on in this universe. And whatever is done here gets a response from there which determines the consequences. All the forms of energy science has ever discovered, and will ever discover take their source from the realm of the spirit. The reason you cannot talk about it is because, it's beyond the natural man's perception, due to the limitation of his senses. The human senses can only perceive things in the realm he has been put to inhabit.
You would agree with me that, it's not everything you know. And if that is the case, the existence of God is one of the things you don't know yet. But your inability to comprehend the truth does not eliminate that reality. That is how serious it it. Die today, and you would discover a whole new realm beyond the physical body.
You can only know of the realm in which God lives when you have fellowship with Him.You will never really know him well until you have His Spirit in you.
I know God because He lives in me by His Spirit. He always answers my prayers. When science fails to cure cancer, divine health from God always heals.
If man were a result of some chemical reaction, how come he is intelligent and can reason but chemicals cannot. The most vital traits of man cannot be found in any non-living thing.
I do things excellently because I have God's Spirit of excellence. I love because He is love; care because He cares.
If only you would believe, I can pray to God my Father on your behalf even now, and you would experience His true love and Power in your life.
I am the proof that God is real. Ask me and I'll tell you more.
God bless you.
Listen TIGGAPS, you have absolutely no authority or any right to pray to your invisible gods from your vague authority and vague realm of spirituality or whatever in my behalf, or anybody"s behalf for that matter, how do I know you are not inciting legions of demons and devils and things that go bump in the night from all your so-called Hells and from depths of depravity that know no bounds, so cease and desist or I will have to get myself an "EXORCIST"!!
Relax my dear brother, I will never do anything against your will. Even God Almighty does not do that. I respect your rights just as God does.
I know no other gods but God Almighty; the Creator of the universe and man. Father of my Lord Jesus Christ. He Himself is love. He is just, merciful and kind. He is the self-existent one; the All-in-all; the Above all. He is ' I AM THAT I AM '.
I am surprised you believe in the existence of demons which are evil; but seem not to believe in God, the One who is against evil and uphold good; the one who teaches us to love.
You can forget about me praying for you. But I want to hear your comments about the other things I said.
God bless you and have a lovely day.
"The reason you cannot talk about it is because, it's beyond the natural man's perception, due to the limitation of his senses."
Then stop talking about it! How can you claim to know for sure what cannot be known absolutely? Because of a book that is compiled by several authors and over hundreds of years (bible)? There is not one line of text in the bible that couldn't have been written by a person of the first century AD.
Please look into the ideas of Sam Harris, and study your holy book with the same criticism as you will do with the books of Harris. This man is every bit as spiritual as you, but he does without ever having to resort to phantasms of the mind or things that you simply cannot know for sure.
Please do me this curtesy
I wish you the best fellow spiritual seeker
Dear TIGGAPS, you're riht in saying that there is the absolute truth which is God's himself. But I believe that we don't have to assume the responsibility of proving his divine existance just by science or by whatever so-called persuasive means. There's a saying in Turkish language that says if you are trying to prove the existance of God, this means you have the reservations about His existance. Believing in Him should be something self-proven for any sincere believer.
"You will never really know him well until you have His Spirit in you.
I know God because He lives in me by His Spirit."
that sounds like you need to check out a psychologist, yo. You sound like you're possessed.
Filosofem:
"The world is in chaos. Honorable dealing is
deteriorating, good friends are few, truth is
held in disrepute, good service is underpaid,
poor service is overpaid. Whole nations are
committed to evil dealings: With one you fear
insecurity, with another, inconsistency, with
a third, betrayal. This being what it is, let the
bad faith of others serve not as an example,
but as warning. The real danger of the situation
lies in the unhinging of your own integrity:
accepting less than your best, being overly
tolerant of stupidity, forgiving incompetence,
fraternizing with the nonspiritual. The man of
principle never forgets what he is, because
he clearly sees what the others are."
B Gracian, Jesuit Priest
Filosofem: For I humbly say onto all
Do not be fool, For this series is filled with holes and Wormholes.
Think outside the box.
what is one of the holes?
The full video is no longer available. Please update the link.
The first series, "Is there a creator," presents itself as scientific and later appeals to charged phrases and religious innuendoes as though on account of there being fringe hypothoses in science, such should be called the vanguard of cosmology and mathmatics or, because of such, that the whole of science should be reduced to a single hypothesis like it is a syncretism of science and religion. Uh, deeeeep breath and... .. maybe try again?
He even said "intelligent design has as a debate raged in science for decades," like, "yeah, scientists just aren't sure if there is some creator." Err, sorry, but no such paradigm in cosmology or physics is taking place, nor are other scientists "debating" intelligent design. All you have to do is read the academic journals. Asking whether our universe was designed is not a question in science but in religion and among people who don't study the subjects. Before it was renamed, intelligent design (creationism), was disproven in court. You know, that same group of pseudo-intellects who try to tell us that evolution is "fake" and just some "theory," the definition of which they don't often even know...
Even more frustrating was his hackneyed phrase "will we be able to see into the 'mind of god?," often tagged on to personalities like Einstein and Hawking by religious illiterates who think it some kind of argument for faith's being rational.
If people would just read they would see that Einstein was at best a proponent of there being nothing more than nature, and that the majesty of nature was that it was so mathmatically simple. Instead, because of confirmation bias, such putative phrases are often only misconstrued bywords.
Sorry to burst your bubble people, but the first episode seems to propagate a lot of culturally and religiously oriented insecurities and ignorances rather than describing the actual discourse of the fields.
Science is not what the video is about. It reflects what its producers think American society wants to hear.
Biggest selling point for and cause of atheism is organized religion, all of it now and all of it back through history. I believe the Creator has had nothing to do with any of it. (Except ancient Israel under the Judges, and David and Solomon, and some of the kings of Judah.) "Intelligent Design" is about as close as we have been to the truth in a long time. What is true and supremely accurate is the Bible, which has a longer history than any other book. It is the Word of God. It has no conflict with true science. It foretells in its pages that men (humans) will reject it, and will be absolutely unable to live by its laws and teachings. This is all for a supreme purpose. God is not a trinity. He is reproducing Himself. Not cloning. But as we do it, having children. We are getting quite near to the end of the beginning stages of His begetting and (the earth) bearing to Him Sons and Daughters. He deliberately made our minds hostile to Him and His laws. At first that seems counter intuitive. But it will not stay that way. Mankind, by going against Him in this phase of His Plan, will learn the hard way and indelibly which way of living works better, His or ours. We will come to the brink of planetary suicide before He steps in to resource us all. But with all that and what came before (history) we will have learned. You see this is a learning planet. We all have deep in us an acute desire to know, to learn. And eventually we all will learn. This is a learning planet. God is very loving. (We don't always see this.) But we all will learn. Near the end of His book it says "He will (in the end) wipe away all tears." One way He will do that is called a resurrection. All 2819 victims of 9-11 all back and alive and well. Yes, it's like a thumb drive out of the brain of every human at death, with the DNA and memory, back to Him and ready to reconstitute that person. No immortal concsious "soul." Everyone just sleeps in the earth (in the dirt) until that resurrection. It is like the dead are sleeping. It will all be good in the end. And Morgan Freeman will be able to have all his questions answered.
everytime you perceive god as anything as an human with thinking, will and purposes you are going silly since those comes from the natural enviroment, therefore evertytime you try to define god you make it an ungodly piece of this universe and a stu*** human of yourself, not to discuss the after fairy tales you wrote.
@Ansar 11
What religious people call "God" scientists call a "first cause". This is because every state of the universe is "caused" by a previous state. They say that whatever caused the "big bang" had a nature that lead to the event. If physical existence fulfills a requirement and we can discover what that is, the nature of the "first cause" Or "God" will logically follow. If it does not then we have not yet discovered the requirement that is fulfilled.
Steven Wineberg said he believes that it is very simple and that we are somehow blind in that we cannot see it.
how does philosophy and christianity coincide? philosophy is so open minded whereas christianity is narrow minded. the more i learn about philosophy the more i disregard christianity or any religon as plausible. if philosophy teaches you truth and understanding doesn't christianity teach you to be deluded and to not question? philosophy opens a mind up to many possibilities whereas christianity teaches you to believe in one and to take a leap of faith which is very much restricting.
"Christianity" is not based on the Bible in that the interpretations they teach are flawed with contradictions. There is a way to eliminate this contradiction but we must first reject the convenience of "surface" interpretations that our initial nature spawns.This can only happen when we are driven by a significant conviction of conscience to admit our previous nature. This is why the Bible itself tells us to be careful what we think we are hearing and that everything hid would be revealed and everything kept secret would come abroad and be known. This new interpretation which eliminates all contradiction and also solves the "synoptic problem" is documented in the book "The Third Measure of Meal". It reveals the Bible to be a scientific document that makes predictions that can be verified through experiment. The Bible details the evolution of the human race from a base-level convicting conscience to one of increased influence.
Judging from your comments you will not be driven by fear to reject the new understanding.
i always have a desire to know about our world more. and i am also the practicing christian, i believe in God who created the whole world, not as it is in the Bible. that is just story made for us to understand more about God. any way i like the site and always follow.
Perhaps Socrates? He rose to a higher level of conscientiousness, and the independent thinker he was because he viewed spirit and form as one.
where are parts 2 and 3?
I think a barrier to a discussion on the existence or non existence of a God is that we are all talking about apple, oranges and orangutans, in other words, we are all talking about something different.
Religion and spirituality are typically as different as night and day. And even God, Creator or Divine Source mean different things to different people.
Furthermore, even if two people agree that some creative force was behind the manifestation of energy and matter, the method, its involvement and its purpose for having manifested energy and the forces in the first place may be a source of disagreement.
For me, discussing whether (a) consciousness is the result of form becoming more and more complex - leading to consciousness; or whether (b) consciousness gives rise to form, can be independent of form and remains after the demise of form, would reduce the variables. And ultimately it is the same discussion, for if you believe the first premise - consciousness requires and exist because of form - you probable don't believe in a Source Creator. If you subscribe to the second notion - consciousness exist independent of form and gives rise to form - then most likely you believe in some sort of Divine or Supreme Conscious Awareness/Energy/Force/Love/Etc.
Perhaps, that would help cut down on some of the emotional reactions that result when religious beliefs are involved. And there have been scientific experiments that suggest that consciousness or some type of awareness is present at even the very small, elemental scale. It is an area that scientist are reluctant to delve to deeply since it resists being described by an equation.
Yes. Very interesting comment!
It is possible to consider that form leads to consciousness because the process of evolution by which this is accomplished, and physical existence itself was a retroactive projection of the nature of a consciousness existing outside time.
This can be considered in light of the fact that a binding and illuminating force that we call "love" could not function as such without something to bind and something to illuminate.
In light of the fact that people under the influence of love can see a need to bind with each other that hateful (or people under a lesser influence of love) cannot see, we can understand that love is illuminating. But most scientists, with their thinking tuned toward the mechanical, may think that what is being illuminated is not particularly significant because of the mathematical order and "causation bound" nature of physical existence.
As we are actually compelled to draw together, contrary to the knowledge we encounter through the processing of information
through our five physical senses that we must suffer ourselves if we are to reduce suffering in others, we may be face to face with something of ultimate fundamental signifigence.
What we may be encountering in our conviction of conscience are small portions of a binding motivation that scattered into individual points of perspective (The individual members of the human race) from a single point of perspective where it formed an intellegence whereby, being not subject to time because time did not yet exist, knew all it (or he or her) did simultainously. This is why I referred to physical existence as a "retroactive projection" of the nature of the creating consciousness. This kind of consciousness, formed when all the love that exists draws back to a single point of perspective, can be call "sensitivity without boundary". With no more points of individual perspective (intellectual reasoning) to draw upon, the universe cycles again and produces the individual perspective of mechanical reasoning in the initial stage, that, as love drifts back toward the single point of perspective once again, along the way, in an evolutionary process, produces a human race with an increased conviction of conscience that drives this discovery.
Intellectual reasoning outside the influence of powerful convicting conscience could not make this discovery because it was designed by "sensitivity without boundary" to be, by itself, deceptive.
The necessary nature of a necessary diametrically opposed motivation would have to involve deception because love is not only binding, but it is also illuminating. This makes the immense size, age and complexity of physical existence necessary to provide us with an alternate path of understanding, a mechanical one, until the time of change from a base-level convicting conscience to convicting conscience of much greater influence. Without the driving motivation of a powerful convicting conscience an intellectual mind will not gravitate toward the discovery of this pattern at the foundation of human existence. This is why this was not discovered before now.
Based on the nature of a motivating force that we call love, we can understand everything else as inevitable.
There is no such thing as a God of any kind.
there is nothing in the universe the make god imposisble to exist, whatever thing god is. like most theories in science god may or not may be real.
You guys talk too much. God delusion is in your head and it is right beside the part of you brain that impulses most people to spew never ending jibber jabber about this blog.
If we (as a race) created a Universe, then we would have to come to the the harrowing (or enlightening) realization that whatever created us could have been just as imperfect as we are, perhaps more so, and that they created this Universe in an attempt at True perfection. (which is exactly what we would do if we suddenly gained the technology to create Universes). Besides, (I could be wrong here) most of what I read suggests that it is easier to (technologically speaking) create an entire Universe than it is to Synthesize artificial life. If that ends up being true will the idea of God even be important anymore?
This site is great! One stop shop to many documentaries...Cheers to the owner...Thank you so very much sir :-)
there are A few Doubts ...
What was there before the Random Evolution took place... I rely on Evolutionist to explain?
(creationist I already know ur answer ... Designer :-S )
What made humans think a phenomenon called "God"?
Naturally, why not people were simply Atheist? - As now some people claim to be?
How did they get this God Delusion?
Why did human want to put this God or Intelligent Designer above them, like some one controlling them(like an Authority)? please give a scientific explanation not a Zeitgeist(another group of controversial theory people) one!!!!
Why is there not an Equivalent or subordinate or probably a better being like Humans on earth to challenge humans(our) views or atleast hold the same view? WHY ARE WE ALONE PUZZLED WITH ALL SORT OF KNOWLEDGE? (I believe this could help us solve this Evolution/Intelligent Design war once for all right?)
Why are not Evolutionary or Intelligent Design theorist are trying to think about the above question?
Why should not human knowledge of God be considered as an progress towards the right direction in the Evolutionary or Intelligent Design process?
Why do we look down upon our Cannibals brethren? Why is not eating human considered as some sort of EVOLVED ALTRUISM? It really hurts...
Based on the description given by the admin of this forum about what is Scientific:
If Empiricism is the basis of science and science help us understand the universe around? then There should be no scope in science of what ever nature to speak about God,Angels,fairies,hobbits or whatever supernatural, because they are not Empirically observable? So If there is no such Scope in Science why are Evolutionary Atheist like Richard Dawkins being so dogmatic(just like the religious person) in propagating Atheism in the name of Science? One can not scientifically prove or disprove of what one cannot Empirically Observer
It looks so ridiculous of him or any Atheist....It almost seem like all Atheist are bas**rds & desperately searching for their father and ATHEIST HAVE HIJACKED SCIENCE AS THEIR FATHER...
Especially Dawkins being a scientist and having such vast experience...the behavior he exhibit was the last thing to be expected from him...very shameful indeed...If Dawkins behavior should be considered as a common benchmark of Atheistic behavior then I think we are better off with the religious folks...WE DONT WANT ANOTHER STALIN(s)!!!
You asked- "What made humans think a phenomena called God"
When a person has a great wrong done to them that is not reconciled, they are driven by their suffering and conviction of conscience to believe that the wrong will someday be righted by a God of judgement. This can be seen as a fabrication to fill a need that arises from a psychological agenda but it does not mean that such a God does not exist because if he did he may very well give us a conviction of conscience to draw our reasoning in his direction.
Uhhh, 42?
Hahaha Funny
God - Religion are two separate things. Maybe the people who say that God doesnt exist is because THEY IMAGINE a true human behind everything or some kind of human shape. Remember the definition of what is GOD for real, is not define. It could be a force or something. We really dont know what shape is God but if you denied him is because YOU IMAGINE him (or it) like the religion say "he" is or you simply have a limited mind to think further.
Yes. When people say their is no God i assume they mean the conventional idea of an old man with a magic wand and an over-sized ego that is often promoted by established religions in their promotion of their bottom line. When people say "their is no God" they can't mean that they know that there is no "first cause" that created (or lead to) everything else.
further? i'm sure you can't define it as something out of the known universe (everything) therefore its creator, and for this reason it can't exist.
Just because there's something we don't understand doesn't mean there is a god
Yes. "God" is often used as the "duct tape" to hold things together that can't be held together any other way. But these belief systems may originate from deep within our nature and be very legitimate. They become incohearant when people without understanding endow them with details that are designed to facilitate a psychological agenda. If people have a belief in a God with a nature that is not supported by observation, that nature should be questioned. But the belief in the existence of a god itself should be considered.
I dont know why people always say there is no god!!!
if someone walk and see an iphone dropped on floor immediately he will wonder ohh there is must be a man behind this genius device,,, and no one will say the nature creates this iphone,,, also no one will say evolution does!!
and when we talk about the brain of human which is more sophisticated than Iphone every one will say no one create this!!!! ironic and silly conclusion>>>>>>
It's not ironic or silly at all, we know that man invented the iPhone because we were there when it happened and people have the proof that they created it. We don't believe in a god because we weren't there when the universe started and nothing has come forward with proof of creating it.
To me it seems silly to believe that a god is real just because people have believed it for a long time or someone wrote a book saying it's true a long time ago.
Surely you don't believe in every religion, why do you choose the one you believe in over all the others? The only difference between you and an agnostic or atheist is the belief in that single religion.
One doesn't have to believe in a religion to believe in god. Societies all around the world may have different gods but their religions all share certain aspects. The most important ideas that are shared by all religions are the idea that we have some sort of soul or spirit which exists independent of our body, and that there is some sort of unseen higher power. Why have all societies that we know about shared these beliefs? Where did these ideas come from? I think that warrants further scientific and philosophical investigation. The human race still has much to learn about the universe and ourselves
Yes but multiple theologies that are made by the same mind (a human one) catering to the same human desire will probably have commonalities. this in no way validates their basis.
I may be wrong, but I think you may have missed the point being suggested by Ghasak Ibrahim.
If we found a functioning system containing many efficiently interrelating components to fulfill a known requirement it makes sense that whatever had the requirement designed the system. Therefore knowing the requirement that is fulfilled by a complex system can lead to the nature of the creator of it.
Because the universe has so many efficiently interacting components it is reasonable to consider that it has a creator. If we can discover what requirement it fulfills we may understand the nature of the creator.
It is not unreasonable to consider that the universe has a creator. But we should recognize that little can be known about nature of this creator until we understand what requirement the universe fulfills.
What known requirement are you talking about? We know we live in a universe that is very complicated and has formed from very small components over an extremely long period of time, but what leads you to think there is a requirement that is being filled by this happening?
what people say is irrelevant, behind an iphone there is nature at 100%, also for your silly conclusion, if you think that the human brain is sophisticated what about God's mind? sure following your logic there must be someone who created God's mind, why? because God's mind is so complex and sophisticated that only another better god must exist, and so on and on, ahh no wait, your mind always gets stuck at the first god which explains your lack of logic.
So we reach what is an infinte regression... So a more complex being than our universe created all we see... what created that creator. The exact same argument can be used for what we call God. We then must imagine that there was something that created our creators, creator. It will continue on and on and on.... its amazing that theologist will hold onto cause and effect like a baby on a nipple until they reach the idea of a creator then that "rule breaks down"... Why is is so easy to believe in a creator that does not conform to the ideas of cause and effect but its such a stretch to believe that the Universe may have always existed. You dont have to look no further than an accepted theory of this universe to see how the physical laws that guide what we see today were not always so. The concept of inflation means that at some point gravity may have been a repulsive force... this is what may have lead to the rapid expansion during the earliest moments of the universe. Gravity was not doing the same job then as it does now. If such a fundamental law was so different at the time of the big bang than why is it not plausible that the universe not only existed before the big bang (multi-brane theories acting as the bang mechanisim) but did not require an original cause. If the idea that many universes lie on membranes "floating" in a yet unknown medium, and that these branes will sometimes collide thus creating the bang we are familiar with then that answers your causality argument of our universe. That being said the laws that govern the brane scenario may not be as they are in our universe and the ideas of causality may in fact break down!
there is no infinite regression: the brain or computer is created to explain the BEGINNING and end of all things: The 'program' has been passed down from the beginning in that the UNIVERSAL MIND began as something out of nothing: The reexperience of creation in the mind is exactly like this within the brain (computer) when the creator brings the 'old mind' (egoistic self) to a complete stop: I experienced this like a NUCLEAR explosion that left me with the reality of NOTHING leading to NOWHERE.......but slowly the "voice" (oracle of God, or prophecy) found its way through the "EMPTINESS" of me to rebuild my consciousnes to relfect, IMAGE the creator from scratch: he did this while I kept the same computer (rebooted my brain): Now a new set of eyes, ears, etc reflected another "kind" of reality that was "FORMED" on the qualities of the programmer and not on the egoistic ones my brain sensed the first 40 years of my life. AT 60, the new creation is as NORMAL to me as the old me was twenty years ago:
simple and yet great conclusion!
Amazingly put, solid logic......
The iphone did evolve. It is built on many previous technologies. Not even our "genius" is enough to come up with something like this without slow, small changes that led to it. If there is a god, perhaps he is a tinkerer, making small slow changes that eventually led to the brain of human.
All this statment suggests is that if a cave man (lacking advanced technology) found an iphone he would immediately posit a god to explain it. now while i doubt even that is true at all even if it were all it shows is how ignorant you must be (about as ignorant as a caveman).it also makes assumptions like "human thought is infallible (which is just hilarious)"
OH BTW DEFINITION OF COMPLICATED/Sophisticated = HARD TO UNDERSTAND-------- So your answer to something that you have admitted is hard to understand is as simple as "something more intelligent made it" - nuf said PS - YOUR ABILITY TO COPY MODERN APOLOGETICS IS AMAZING KEEP UP THE FAIL JOB!
...found an iphone he would immediately posit a god..."
That would be Steve Jobs, no doubt. Unless he wasn't a fanboy - then he would say it is not a creation, just a copy of existing designs.
FILOSOFEM:
Very Convenient, for "Discovery" to have Freeman or should we say MR Freemason, hosting this Half truth Half lies, Dis informational series, on the intricacies of life and the Mysteries of the Universe.
For I tell you beware of LIES and MISINFORMATION which is rapidly spreading at this very moment. For only a few handful of patriarchs since the inception of planet earth have reached true illumination. Learn, Meditate Reason, and Distinguish, and be able discern the LIE from the Truth.
Lastly,
I wouldn't concern myself watching this shameful Documentary.
what information in it did you not like?
you seem to be extremely paranoid. how can you say you dont like it but say you wont watch it? you made the decision it was bad based on you thinking the narrator is a freemason because his name is Freeman (a common name for african americans "Free Man").
that is border line crazy my man.
Filosofem:
My dear friend I assume by your picture, not only you must know the fundamental latter structure of life, but by embracing someone as Epicurus you truly must know the fundamental views of the subject at hand. For Epicurus was known most notably "De Re rum Natura and De natura Deorum" First of all forgive my paranoiac view if it seems to be your opinion, I apologize for it. As an admiration of my respect to you please tell me or better yet help me understand something??
First I must clarify something for you, Mr Morgan Freeman is indeed a High Degree Freemason. But that's not important at this point.
My question to you my fellow man is:
What sort of Truth & Wisdom have you acquired by watching this whole series on the intricacies of life and the Mysteries of the Universe?
What sort of Epicurean rationale, led you to come up with such a deduction?
Once again my sincere apologies to you.
first off, prove morgan freeman is a freemason, and i hope you dont quote david icke.
the truth and wisdom i acquired from this series could not be put down in anything short of an entire essay, but i will tell you that it humbles as well as emboldens me. it helps you realize that the universe is much larger and more complex and beautiful than you could imagine without understanding it. helps us understand that we are not the focus and pinnacle of the universe.
the fact that you wont watch it shows me that you are very closed minded and not comfortable with the strength of your own convictions.
He may not be a freemason now but two more letters will make him SO. (Bad pun, bad bad pun).
you hit a strike on the alley with this one.
lol
Nice!
(smarty pants.)
noah clearly you didn't watch the part from a neuroscientist who explains why. Has nothing to do with whether people are cowards or not.
Why must we always default to belief in some "higher-power"? Why can't humanity just accept the universe for what it is: non-sentient and indifferent to human well-being?
Because most people are cowards.
I seriously believe religion is just inbuild part of human brain. I think there haven't been one society without some kind of religion and to me that proves there is no one god of specific type.
I'm more affraid of very religious people than the fact that ther might be a god and he will not like my behavior. I've met christians who want all muslims to die and muslims who want everyone else to disappear.Scary stuff really...
I consider myself lucky to be born in an unreligious place where I can deside myself what to believe in without majority of people judging me. I hope my country stays this way and hardcore religious people would understand to colonise some "holy" land instead of this unreligious "hell". (Pointing to muslims who are causing problems and fear in my originally peacefull country) :(
Everyone needs to look up the definition of infinite. Limitless, boundless, and endless are synonyms. Does everyone not agree with me that it is a very hard thing to believe that either
1. Everything, be it the universe or (more likely) multiverses and everything that they consist of and everything that consists of them on an even larger scale, has been here forever.
OR
2. Everything, be it the Universe or Multiverses and whatever makes them, came from nothing.
This is a something that literally noone will ever know. This is the problem that cannot be solved. There is evidence of another universe pulling matter in this universe towards it via gravity (If it is true that gravity isn't bounded by the constraints that other forces have to comply with in this universe). Even if this is the proof we need to concretely decide that there are multiple and possibly endless numbers of universes, as humans and limited by the constraints of the universe we are in, we will never be able to go out there into whatever it is that contains the multiverses and even observe them, let alone draw conclusions about where EVERYTHING came from.
For these reasons, I choose to live my life in the way I see fit. To do the human thing and be compassionate to others, abide the laws that govern me, and try to set an example for others to make this world we live in a better place.
Just as physicists call their lack of explanation for the beginning of the big bang and the center of a black hole a SINGULARITY, I call my lack of explanation for the reason of either the beginning of everything or why Everything has been here forever GOD. Noone needs criticize my opinion because I can just as easily criticize theirs, and probably make a more valid point.
I'm not targeting the group at whole, but many of the athiests I have met and talked to believe that the opinion that there is a God or whatever Diety(ies) is totally ridiculous, and they are completely free to express their feelings and beliefs. BUT many of these people need to realize that the Christians, Muslims, Buddists, and whatever other religions there are out there, have thoughts and feelings too, are not animals, and do not deserve to be treated as such. They are constantly belittled and made out to be complete lunatics by many athiests for expressing their beliefs. There are things such as extremists in religion, but there are also extremist athieists.
I can sit down and talk with any athiest and explain the reasons for my belief in God just as well as they can their belief in there being no God.
Any athiest, religious buff or otherwise that dares to challenge this argument feel free. I like an intellectual challenge every now and then.
Looking up the definition will not adequitly explain what infinity is in mathematical terms.
Yes I do agree with you that both of those things are hard to believe. Even those who created these theories find it hard to believe, which is why they spent decades getting ther numbers right, because the numbers don't lie. And just because I don't, or you don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't so. If I don't believe 2+2=4 it doesn't change the fact that it is. With something so complex,the answer shouldn't be so easy (IMO).
To say that "noone will ever know" is ignorant since neither of us know the future. Imagine what things people alive in the early 20th century thought we would never know, many of those things are now common knowledge.
The way you choose to live your life sounds alright with me and I strive to do the same, although you do it while believing in a god while I don't.
I would just like to point out that if you're focusing on extreme athiests than it should be of no suprise when athiests focus on extreme aspects of religion. You're playing the same game, but noone wins.
I like that you're up for an intellectual challenge, it's refreshing considering most of those who follow in blind faith usually arn't. But to be truely up for it you must be willing to change your stance, even if that never happens, you must always be willing to, otherwise it's a pointless arguement rather than a debate. And if you are than you're alright in my book.
And the way I see it, the world belongs to the religious, and I am happy that I get to live in it during a time where I won't be indocrinated to believe or punished for my lack of belief in the supernatural. If humanity is eventually destroyed by religious wars, than that's what we deserve and that's what we have evolved into. But since regardless of our differing beliefs we have to share this planet, can you really blame athiests for fighting against that happening? (Just a side note)
Right, my intellectual challenge to you is prove it! The onus is on you!
You say we, et al "are not animals" I say yes we are, we are apes of the "mammalian" species. That just came swinging down from the trees a very short while ago.
Whats the challenge???? Is what it is. of course we're animals but that dont mean we have to behave like them now does it??
@shane van Ireland:
"that dont(SIC) mean we have to behave like them does it??"
We don't behave like animals, we behave much worse, animals as a rule do not kill their own kind!!
@Achems_Razor
I can see that you are challenging me to prove to you that there is a God or some other Diety ruling the way we live. You know as well as I that this is an ignorant demand. I know that there is no way I can prove my beliefs to you just as well as I know you cannot prove your beliefs to me. Telling me that "the onus is on me" is just as ridiculous as me saying it is on you. No technology in the world can prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent being that exceeds the power of the multiverse or universe. The closest technology we have would probably be the LHC in Switzerland. But it itself only deals with things of this particular universe and would have no grounds outside of it.
On the subject of us being animals, of course we are. What else would we be? Of course evolution is the correct theory, what else would it be? Of course Humans as a species are worse than animals. We do many horrible things like:
1. Kill our own kind. Some animals do this, but not for the reasons or on the same scale that we do.
2. Kill our planet. You would be sooo suprised at how many people where I live believe global warming is a myth and it sickens me at the oil guzzling, non recycling, coal burning race that is homo-sapiens.
You misunderstood me when I said we aren't animals and shouldn't be treated as such.
What I meant by this is that we aren't a member of another species such as a dog or deer or cat or mouse and deserve to be treated with more respect than such.
I personally looked at your previous coments and thought you would ask a more difficult question than to simply prove there is a God to you. I thought you were smarter than that.
@swordslinger04:
I quote: "I personally looked at your previous comments and thought you would ask a more difficult question than to simply prove there is a god to you. I thought you were smarter than that."
Why do most religious people right away resort to personal "ad hominem" attacks.
You have already lost your credibility with me.
You are the one that said there is a god, so I say prove it!
I do not have to prove anything.
@ Achems_Razor
Ahh, I see how you can take that as an insult. That was no more an "ad hominem"
than your,
1.) "Yes, religion is a disease of the mind. An obscure internal belief system of some kind of invisible telepathic deities that only have their source in individual minds, absolutely nowhere else", where you personally insult all of the religious people in the world and make that a proof that you are right when in fact it prives nothing.
Or your,
2.) "Science is not interested in proving, or disproving your divine entity of your invisible telepathic deities, they have better things to do" Where you belittle religious people by saying that science has better things to do and use that as a proof that you are right, even though that proves literally nothing.
And you lost credibility with me when you said that religion was a mental disorder.
And you were even wrong about my comment being of an "Ad Hominem" nature.
1.) I was not insulting you by saying I thought you were smarter than that, I know you are a smart person otherwise you couldn't articulate as well as you do. I was merely trying to get you to come up with a better argument than simply telling me If I can't prove it, it doesn't exist.
The definition of Ad Hominem is
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made. Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)."
You attack my intellect by saying I am not smart enough to prove there Is a God or higher power every time you tell me to prove it. And you use my lack of an explanation as proof that your argument is correct and mine is false.
You are the one using Ad Hominem remarks not I.
I have stated MANY times that I know there is no way to ever prove either argument is correct.
And as a side note.
I ask you simply, where would humanity be today if religions never existed?
Ill give my answer to that question, don't get offended, it is only an opinion.
Civilization could NOT have started in the absence of religion. People as a species could not have survived in large, civilized groups with property, entitlements, money and the like without a simple reason not to break down and primitively steal and kill and rape and lie and cheat and do everything else that is still looked down upon today.
@swordsling04:
Yes I reiterate, religion and the belief thereof is a disease of the mind, a mental disorder, a prevalent virus of humankind.
You can also ask Prof. Richard Dawkins about that.
You asked..."I ask you simply, where would humanity be today if religions never existed."...My reply, probably be far far advanced where all human ills would be no more, and even have off world colonies, and shooting for the stars as we where meant to do.
Right now the world is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe.
In passing..."I am the creator and the destroyer, I am he that defines all worlds, I bring life to the lifeless. I rain death on all that lives. My judgment is supreme. I encompass all things, I am the progenitor of good and evil, I created sin, I cause its every pain. Hell is one of my works, I am the source of all gods, I create gods on a whim, I destroy gods with a thought. I AM MAN!"
(Craig Smith)
"There are things such as extremists in religion, but there are also extremist athieists."
Ever heard of an atheist inquisition? Ever heard of an atheist suicide bomber? You wonder why these atheists belittle religious people?
I as an atheist have to be confronted with religious bullshit, EVERY DAY. See what happened in Norway not so long ago. He called himself a CRUSADER for **** sake. Every time I hear the church bells ringing, I get shivers down my spine.
I have had enough of it, thank you very much!
If you can't prove it exists then keep it to yourself, it might as well be an illusion.
All religion is false believe designed by men who sought divine yet couldn’t think small enough to teach its virtue.
I personally believe in something similar to swordswing04 in that this universe (and ones beyond it) are governed by forces well beyond what we can fathom.
The questions we ask ourselves relate to the infinite.. is there or isn’t there, we will never cease to stop asking this. If man can do man will do. Unfortunately we are playing with forces capable of eliminating our existence. Indeed a child must touch hot stove before it knows not to touch again, in the case of humanity we will not have that second chance.
To me that is GOD. That is something greater than you or me or anyone of us put together.
The question is therefore do you believe the universe has powers greater than humans???
Don’t be so arrogant to believe otherwise.
OK, I can understand your confusion of what I meant by saying there are extremist athiests.
For one, what I mean by an extremist athiest isn't exactly an extremely violent person, although I have spoken to a few who have gotten quite violent when they think I start to make more sense than them.
What I mean by an extremist athiest isn't the people who stay online and find sites exactly like this one and express their opinions on religion. They are the people who do that but express their opinion in a violent, belittling, rude, uneducated, and cruel way. They have no regard for other peoples freedom of opinion.
I'm not saying that they they try to force their opinion down other peoples throats while Christians don't, I'm just saying that it is in the way they do it where I think they are wrong.
Christians also do these things, like criticize athiests and believers of other faiths. But the majority of Christians keep to themselves and don't do this while the majority of athiests are out to every religious person in a
And the people you bring up like the person in Norway, I can understand people automatically bringing up religion, but if you were to thouroughly examine this person along with other examples like Jim Jones in South America, you would be able to see there is something psycologically wrong with them (Look up Jim Jones for details).
Besides, people like this are few and far between on a larger scale. There are far worse things in society than crazy people blaming their actions on a religion that they probably haven't even practiced in the first place.
- Child rapists, can you find anything on child rapists or even rapists in general that blame their actions on religion? If so feel free to share I might be wrong.
- Drugs, drugs in my opinion are one of the worst things affecting society as we speak. Most Christians don't do drugs, at least not the ones I have met.
- Alcohol, alcohol in itself isn't a bad thing in my opinion, but alot of people abuse it too regularly and at the wrong times. For example, many innocent people in cars and pedestrians are killed every single year from drunk drivers in the US, add those numbers up and I will personally guarantee you that those numbers add up over the past few years than all of the suicide bombers and things you have mentioned. People of the Christian faith don't usually drink.
- Your general, everyday psyco. Take the Columbine shooting and the Vigrinia Tech massacre. The VT massacre involved the death of 33 innocent college students. The reason? You won't find anything to do with religion about it I don't think.
And sure, in the past there have been many, many wars fought and etc. over religious matters. BUT the thing most people don't understand is that often religious wars aren't fought over religion at all. The governments or monarchies or whatever leadership be it the papacy or whatever or whoever, have used religion as a means to hide the true intention of the war. Power, money, territory, are all more common causes of war than religion. These are the key things that drive warfare, not religion. Sure, there have been instances where religion could be the main factor, but in most cases if you do some studying about any given "religious war" you will find that there are usually other, more subtle reasons to fight. Not all the time, but 90% of the time.
For example, people like say, Osama Bin Laden. Did you see him run out there on the field before he died with a bomb around his chest screaming into a crowd of pedestrians? No. Leaderships use religion as a cause to help lure weaker minded people into doing just about anything for a reason that normal people wouldn't do it for.
"If you can't prove it exists then keep it to yourself, it might as well be an illusion."
When I read this I literally lol-ed... it was actually more of a mild chuckle. I could just as easily turn this around on you. I could tell you that if you can't prove it doesn't exist then keep it to yourself. I know you can't prove something higher than us exists so don't reply back unless you have a good answer.
@ swordsling04
Thank you for your diplomacy, I have enjoyed reading your reply, I wil try to reciprocate.
I understand what you mean when you say "the way they do it is wrong".
"If you can't prove it exists then keep it to yourself, it might as well be an illusion. "
When I'm saying 'keep it to yourself', I wasn't really saying you shouldn't express your opinion. I was trying to say you shouldn't act on blind beliefs. If you believe in a god, good for you, if you want to talk about it, sure why not. But going and destroying people's lives just because you think something is 'right' regardless of whether you can prove it or not, is just irresponsible.
You say what happened in Norway or Columbine had nothing to do with religion. The way I see it, as long as we live in a world where acting on blind beliefs is not only tolerated but sometimes even praised to the highest regard, it will work for some unstable minds as a catalyst to do harm for their own blind beliefs. It is just too dangerous and irresponsible. I don't want my kids to be a victim of some guy who believes there is some 'special' reason to do harm.
"- Drugs, drugs in my opinion are one of the worst things affecting society as we speak. Most Christians don't do drugs, at least not the ones I have met.
- Alcohol, alcohol in itself isn't a bad thing in my opinion, but alot of people abuse it too regularly and at the wrong times. For example, many innocent people in cars and pedestrians are killed every single year from drunk drivers in the US, add those numbers up and I will personally guarantee you that those numbers add up over the past few years than all of the suicide bombers and things you have mentioned. People of the Christian faith don't usually drink."
Drugs used by people who know why they are doing drugs are as harmless as alcohol used by people who know why they are using alcohol. (and I prefer the verb "to use" when it comes to alcohol just to stress the similarity).
When you can use alcohol in a responsible way, then why wouldn't you be able to use drugs in the same manner?
I know it can be done because I'm doing it.
And you are right, a lot of wars were just about greed, but it was religion that made war acceptable for many people who didn't know the real motive, and that's what is really wrong with the way religion is used. Religion should be a spiritual haven, ironically it is often used as a justification for evil.
If people did some personal effort to examine their own morality they wouldn't need religion. This way they would never be able to support anything that originates from greed and justify it by blind beliefs.
I don't believe there is a God, but if there was I don't think he is on your side, their side, or any side. Yet God is used always to reinforce whatever greedy people want to see reinforced. As long as people cling to this mindset, this world will never change.
And I don't think violence will ever be eliminated, but I think if we would live in a world where acting on blind belief was less accepted, a lot of unnecessary harm could be prevented. And when people examine their own moral instead of 'their actions and thoughts according to the word of their god', people would act more responsible. And that's all I want, for people to think for themselves rather than blindly following a 'ghost'.
Peace.
Just remember science knows it doesnt know everything but what it doesnt do is fill the gaps with nonsense like your God.
You defintely cant make a valid point because you havent succeeded yet and as for intellectual challenge lets see some intellectual points.
I dont have any beliefs, there is either evidence or there is only possibilty...I cant believe in something where there is evidence because belief is "holding something as true without evidence.
Even if there is a God he/she is a cruel gutless winder and I for one would like to punch him or her nad that would be a first as I havent ever hit anyone.
@ alunrichardson
You are entitled to your beliefs as well as I am to mine and everyone else it the their own. I am not saying you are right or I am right or anyone else is right. What I can say is this. How we choose to live our lives will affect us forever, whether our forever ends the moment we die, OR if we continue to exist as a simple conciousness, OR if there is such a thing as a God and a Heaven and Hell, OR if my interpretation of God, the one where I believe most of the Bible is just stories made to teach children lifelong values and to scare them into being good, and that God is simply whatever started everything beyond this universe and the next step up and so-on. You can go on criticizing Christians and Muslims and basically all people that believe in SOMETHING, but when the time comes when you have to lie there and think about your past and the mistakes you have made knowing you are about to die...... like everyone must do if you die a natural death and not by a freak accident....... I have no doubt in my mind that you will have doubts about your belief system. No matter how solid your beliefs are right now that there is no reason for the things we do in this world other than that of the immediate future and present, you will worry and doubt yourself thinking "What if they were right and I was wrong?" I know because I am a former athiest and was one of the most cruel hearted people you can imagine. Until I had a near death experience, I had no idea how afraid a human being could be.
thre must be an uncaused first cause`- the thing from which all thing come.... everything gas its opposite in reality- up/down/hot/cold/goodness/evil, hope / des[air, honesty/falshood thus material & finite and spiritual & eternal.'''
CONSIDER that God is responsible for all the organization of reality as we see it and are it, u listed 1- the universe is eternal or 2- it all came from nothing.....but i say 3- God created it... all matter that exists has a cause.. the organization in dna/life/universe is beyond all our intention and ability to recreate...or fully comprehend... in medicine there needs to be specialized fields for every function of our bodies,, no doctor is a specialist in all of the body due to the enormous information and wisdom in the order of our bodies.. they are limited to one field(skin/heart/brain/neural/thorasic ect...) dna is not only a liberary of stored data beyond grasp of our mind... a files within folders/folders within super folders of heirachically stored digital code of a,c,t,g. all organised to such precision that any disorder in or arising disorder in the code, due to rapid cell division occuring in our bodies constantly as it does causes disorder-= cancer for ex...the extreme density of information in dna far surpasses any and all ideas today about information storage considering that no microchip could possible store the ammount of information in dna in such a compact INFORMATION STORAGE density,,
- LOOKING AT KNOWN CAUSES OF SPECIFIED DIGITAL INFORMATION NOW IN EFFECT/ CAUSES NOW IN AFFECT- I ASK - WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF SUCH INFORMATION, OF LIBERARYS, OF DIGITAL CODE,
---IN ALL OUR EXPERIENCE ONLY MIND CAUSES THESE***
AND NOT JUST ANY MIND COULD BE RESPONSIBLE, BUT A MIND CAPABLE OF CREATING AND ORGANISING OUR UNIVERSE AND LIFE ITSELF IN ALL ITS GLORY- which all stands as a tribute to the creative genious of our creator.. mind is the only cause of functionally specified heirachally organised and stored information ,
everything that in our material universe has began to/started to exist.. at a measurable point in time..it all had a beginning(big bang)point.. chance is not an option eighter... only a supreme intelligence could ever create this universe & us... 10/195th power odds of chance ever could produce a single protein, let allone 3-400 various organised proteins needed to create a single cell..that replicates itself.
Imagine gmc announces a car that fixes itself and replicates itself .. only a mind can produce such a thing..but we are not even close to acheiving such a feat of engineering....considering the food chains of life and the universes organisation as well as conciousness. the brain ect,, it follows that only a mind could ever account for reality as we know and observe it..... we do not require the name and address and date of birth of the builder of my mac computer to know that it was built by a mind with a will, even so we do not need to know where God comes from to understand that God created reality as we know it.... ALSO read 1john 1: This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.
1john2: We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.
9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister[b] is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister[c] lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.
..anyone who wants muslims to die is not a christian according to jesus...
It may be that anything that is perfect must by definition not have a cause itself because if it did then it would depend on something else and this dependency would disqualify it from the definition of "perfect" This may not be true but it seems to make some sense.
The energy and matter in the "big bang" may have come from the "big crunch" of the last cycle in an endlessly cycling universe. The need to ask how something can have no beginning is born of our nature. But we should not assume that since the question has no answer that an endlessly cycling universe does not exist. The lack of an answer to this question may also be born of our nature.
We may also consider that the universe, cycling or not, was not created from nothing. it may have been created from a bank of knowledge that, by that knowledge took on the physical form of the "big bang" and the evolving universe that followed. If this bank contained all the knowledge that exists and , being outside time, knew all of it simultaneously, the universe may be a gradual accumulation of it by a race of conscious beings in their linear passage through the intelligence-stifling medium that we call time. (we can't know everything we know simultaneously. we have to slam-bang our way through a process of linear thinking to access the smallest portion of what we have total access to. And even the total is extremely limited). I am describing two very, very, very radically different kinds of intelligence. We can not even, at the same instant, think 2+2=4 and 1+1=2.
We have no evidence in physical existence of something being created from nothing. Only previously existing things changing form. It may be that an intelligence best described as "sensitivity without boundary" constitutes a bank of all knowledge that takes on a physical form that contains the same knowledge. The universe may be a bank of knowledge that was understood simultaneously and changed form to be accessed a little at a time. This may also be an intelligence that previously occupied a single point of perspective in non-physical existence that has scattered itself into the 7 billion separate points of perspective that we call "human beings". When we engage the influence of love we are caught up in the process whereby we will combine to form the intelligence best described as "sensitivity without boundary to once again expand and to once again contract, in endless cycles of physical existence.
Inasmuch as love is both a binding motivation and an illuminating one, we can understand that it could not function in this nature without something to bind and something to illuminate. Mechanical intellect engaging the selfishness generated by the separate physical bodies to which it is anchored is a perfect facilitation of the requirement inherent in the nature of the creating intelligence if that creating intelligence is formed by all of the love that exists in all of the consciences of the human race when it condenses back into the single point of perspective, (from which it expanded) in non-physical existence.
"phenomenally "finely" tuned", it quotes? Seems to aww even the greatest minds in science. Finely - meaning intricate and detailed? So...some kind of intelligence seems to be behind it? Not a man or tangibly obviously!An "alien gamester" you say! Or maybe just not perceivable by our limited 5 senses receptors and threatens the very stability of our logical basis! Perhaps we seek and we'll find, or be predominantly critical and skeptical and stay BLIND! Just saw the documentary this week and was intrigued by sciences findings, love it and looking out for more awesome discoveries. Thanks!
Well, all I know is that the universe makes a lot more sense existing on it's own then being created by something which has no need to be there. That's my simplified take on it. Eat it or beat it.
Well then according to ur "belief" there is no power governing u? no one is going to judge u for wat u have done in ur life time? good or evil?
GOOGLE THIS.............unified field of consciousness
If there is a creator it must've been having a laugh when it created humans. Then it probably cried. Then it probably went a created the sandwich and decided that it was best not to cry over spilt milk (which it had created earlier in the week, by mistake, but then it probably shouldn't have created clumsiness the same day as milk) and just let them get on with it.
Aaah, the sandwich was good though!
Good old creator...
or not.
Thank God for sandwiches though. Think I'll go and have one myself now.
Why posit "an alien gamester who’s created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement" when their is already an explanation in existence that fits the observations nicely? A self-existent, highly intelligent, personal (as in with mind, will, and volition vs. impersonal) entity that exists outside of time and space with the capacity to bring time and space into being has sufficient explanatory power for the universe as we know it. Why not take such an explanation seriously? If "an alien gamester who's created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement" gets serious play, then the ancient God of the Hebrews should have a place at the table as a viable explanation for the origin of the universe.
"A self-existent, highly intelligent, personal (as in with mind, will, and volition vs. impersonal) entity that exists outside of time and space with the capacity to bring time and space into being has sufficient explanatory power for the universe as we know it. Why not take such an explanation seriously?"
Are you serious? I thought we agreed not to force feed our children poisonous fairy tales !
Have you not wondered why when science finds an answer to one question it always without fail raises more questions. It appears that no matter how hard we as human seek out answers we always windup with even more questions. So we follow those questions into infinity. Man appears to get smarter, but if you step back to where you can see more clearly you find that yes mankind appears to be getting smarter, but they loose wisdom. So mankind is smarter but is not wiser. Would it not be better to be wiser than to smarter?
I think all wise men will agree it is not wise to make men smarter.
Wait a second, something doesn't sound right.
Something smells brainwashed.
Hear the echoes calling:
"Don't eat the fruits of the tree of knowledge!"
A strange dogma sung by the envious blind,
Scared of the unknown,
Yet so familiar with the dark,
The light might sting their eyes,
Eyes wide shut, locked and forgotten,
It is true - they are still around,
Thus they call themselves - the wise.
good point my friend. Have you ever looked at an animal and thought to yourself, "I wish i could be that naive". Someone who is wise will find pleasure in life with the simplest of things, but yet understands why they choose this. Smart people are the most primitive of people in they dont understand what drives them so they will consume their whole lives with ignorance to the blissfulness of simplicity. Man only evolved to use technology because he had a desire to make his life easier. It was a necessary evolutionary step, just because it happened before man was wise. (arguable now that i say it) But what would wise man have done when the smart man started to progress get lost in desire for easier and materialistic gratitude's that we don't need to fulfill are nature needs.
He would sit back and enjoy his or her life. anyway they could
All your religion topic discussers, think about this:
Egypt started the first religion with the worship of the sun, they gave various stars and constalations in the skies various persona's, they created a little cute story that would be a nice bed time fairy tale for their kids, and they perhaps whent abit over the top in their worshipping with the mighty statues, however, every single religion ever since,is a total and complete ripp-off of the Egypts story.
Horus: Died on the cross, dead for three days, thus ressurected...
.. Sounds familar?
I recommend you all to watch "Zeitgeist" - all 3 of them.
(I pardon my poor english, I did not have school to teach me that language or it's grammars, only forums like this)
I am god, your god, the leaves on a tree is god, the light reflecting off your skin is god. but god isnt god
is this the same morgan freeman ive watched 3 or 4 days ago in an other doc.his voice was somehow more monotonous,monophonic ,technology lacking..
Why is everybody jumping up and down about religion? These docs are obviously wasted on those minds only focusing on their own thoughts and beliefs. And how on earth can science ever prove their is no creator? People prefer to believe in flying saucers than to believe in a divine entity as God.
I think God at some stage - now or then pressed 'enter' and is sitting back enjoying the show x
Science is not interested in proving, or disproving your divine entity of your invisible telepathic deities, they have better things to do.
Before you get all uppity Achems_Razor, how many particles do you think will be found composing the higgs bosun if it is ever captured? I don't have any invisible telepathic deities, and I question 'man made' religions more than most. Created matter and fields within our known universe are like Russian dolls, the more you open - the more you keep opening -theoretically - for infinity. I know its cool to be perceived as an atheist, because it indicates intellectual impartiality to rites and beliefs.There is no bearded old man keeping score on us - cause and effect handle that too well. Where is this proof that everything was created from zero? Show me the numbers/equations! God is outside the realm of science and logic, so therefore G=z (zero)
Well actually the proof falls to you prove your ad hoc, divine entity scenario that you claim a deity is controlling everything, pulling all the strings. That is something that is strictly in your own mind, a subjective reality that you, since you are a separate entity have formed. Give us the evidence!
If science has taught me one thing, its that we must keep a open mind! Countless times in history we jumped to completely absurd, false conclusions because we assumed that we had the universe " figured out". Science is built on theory's, too dismiss a theory because it does not fit with society's views, or because it seems to be beyond our conventional knowledge would be complete ignorance! KEEP A OPEN MIND, Just because a idea is incomprehensible at our current time does not make it false.
People prefer to believe in flying saucers more than to believe in divine entity because some of them actually saw flying saucers (or at least that's what they thought they saw).
i like that thought, especially in the case of evolution. how fascinating would it be to set the laws of nature in a computer and do exactly what you said! so who's to say that's not whats going on with us?
there are far weirder things than a creator in science, it's badass! love this website....
I guess prejudiced reactive humanity is the best we can ever hope for then..
One more thing for you religious crazed,materialistic,zombies out there...materialism an greed is a sin from your imaginary space zombie! Fuc*in hypocrites!!!!!
Believing in a god is a mental disorder! Also,Science has disproven the whole fairy tale bible!
Naa - people who get angry about people who believe in something they don't believe in are the ones with the mental disorder
I suppose he gets angy at alot of children around Christmas, Easter, and Halloween.
What I find rather funny about your comment is (firstly) how blatantly narcisistic, (secondly) you're being a hypocrit (you're pretty much worshiping science as if it WERE a god, which it's not (it's a tool, a system to learn things from. That said, humans do science, and humans have this crazy thing called getting their own ideas, which can greatly bias the results. Everyone has bias; I know I do, but you seem like you have a lot more bias than most. Do humanity a favor, don't go into science.). I mean, come on, you even capitalized science!!! I'd be willing to bet that you just had some traumatic experience with a theist at some point, and I'm sorry for you, but that's no reason to start trolling all religion).
Third, you aren't the only one entitled to an opinion...
Chill out.
I'm with kevin122380 on this, for one thing nobody worships science.
Science is all around you, even as you use your keyboard to type your posts, that is science in action. No beliefs in any deity will give you the same results.
Humans do not do science, science does humans, right from the genomes, cells, and bodily bacteria, to all the electrical impulses in our brains and bodies that keep us, the human machine running.
And yes, religion is a disease of the mind. An obscure internal belief system of some kind of invisible telepathic deities that only have their source in individual minds, absolutely nowhere else.
Funny that you mention the "own ideas" part. What the heck is the bible then? Didn't the bible start of as someone's ideas? Is something written 1600+ years ago when they didn't know what electricity was a more reliable source for and answers then the truth and facts being figured out now adays?
"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth."
I mean seriously, one must be totally brainwashed to still believe in non-sense like that? The bible is just a mouth-to-mouth story, exaggerated and eventually written down. We all know now adays how a 15cm fish can turn into a 30cm fish after being switching mouths just once or twice. Imagine how these stories about god, jesus, blablabla were exaggerated by hundreds of people until they actually ended up at someone who was able to write? Splitting the ocean? Walking on water? Hell, it probably was just a tree laid over a tiny river!
Original: "A tree was laid over a tiny river to be able to cross without getting wet".
Person 1: "Not sure what they did, but they crossed a lake without getting wet!"
Person 2: "He simply walked acrossed the water without getting wet!"
Person 2.1: "He split the ocean with a piece of wood"
Person 3.1: "He bashed his stick into the ocean which caused the ocean to split, giving him free path to cross without getting wet!"
Pretty good "idea" I just had...
How has science disproven anything? Evolution? Cause that's just a theory, that's a major flaw in most doc's is they try and sell ideas by declaring them as truth. There is little to any hardcore proof that we evolved, our existence is still a mystery and to completely accept the current theory may not be the smartest move. To declare that science has systematically picked apart, and proven that there is not a creator of some sort is completely and utterly false. The human Genome project was partially a disappointment because everybody thought it would be the miracle solution for all of humanity and it clearly was not, although some medical improvements were found. To assume life is that clear cut and simple is just ignorance, keep an open mind and do some research. Modern day scientists only "Believe" they have shit figured out, like evolution because society wants answers, how is that any different then the people who "believe" in a creator, that you are clearly bashing?
Evolution is a theory just like the fact the earth revolves around the sun (helio-centric theory) is a theory. Although we can never view it, it is taken as FACT because all the evidence (undesputed) agrees with it. This goes for evolution too. I hate when people say "oh, it's only a theory." That's garbage. You say that there is "little hardcore proof" but clearly you haven't done your research. There is mountains of evidence. And all it would take is one piece of evidence to the contrary to disprove it. but alas, after decades, the "theory" still stands. While the existence of a Creator, ultimately cannot be proven unless he/she/it shows itself, as evidence to the contrary piles up, we can increasingly say that the probability of a Creator existing is less and less. The problem with many believers is that THEY are the ones who are not open minded. They quickly discard the evidence because they don't want answers, they want blind "ignorant" faith.
I would also like to add: you don't need to "completely accept" evolution, but you should note that there is currently no other theory's with enough supporting evidence to challenge it. I would recommend you Google evolution or buy a book because your comments sound a lot like some of the ideological mis-information I hear. Also, the Human Genome Project was one of the greatest scientific achievements yet. I don't know why you think it was a "disappointment." It's benefits are still coming to light, finding causes of diseases and allowing us to target cures. Using the results has also reinforced our "theory" of evolution by finding genetic links to our ancestors. No one says evolution is "clear cut" or "simple." This is more rhetoric you get from your pastor. It's a very complex process that took millions of years. Lastly, Mr. keven122380 isn't right either by saying "Science has disproven the whole fairy tale bible" because it hasn't. But science has given us a very possible explanation to life, the world, and existence that is backed by tested hypotheses that stand up to critique. We can't say the same for a Creator.
@ Kyle Fennell
Firstly, my comment may not have been a complete thought. Evolution is the current accepted view based on the current evidence, and yes I agree no other theory’s hold the same scientific weight that evolution does. My point was purely not to disprove evolution, but to point out the ignorance surrounding certain science orientated ideas. Just like believers can be blinded by faith, we look to science for answers, and can logically be deceived as well. Just because an idea seems to make logical sense and fulfills our need for answers, it does not make it correct. People believed the earth was the static center of the universe because we would feel the intense wind caused by hurtling through space. As for as the genome, yes great achievement, like I said it did provide medical improvements and I cant deny any of those points, but it did fall short of the hype allot of scientist had associated with its completion (that conversations for another day). Not to mention the common mouse (Rattus norvegicus) has more HomoloGene groups then the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Evolution still requires scientists to extrapolate data, and make assumptions in order to obtain conclusions. Adaptation sure that’s a easy one to prove, but for a single cell bacteria ( somehow created by the big bang theory, since there is no creator :p) to form into a specialized multi-cellular, self aware, creatures that are Human beings, almost makes me wanna go buy a bible! Essentially my long convoluted point (for Mr. keven122380) was that if all scientists followed the status quo, earth would still be the center of the universe and we would all have three lobed livers. Scientific controversy seems to breed innovative ideas, and we should embrace that concept, not bash it.
much better articulated comment. Though I don't believe most people are "logically deceived" by science like they are with religion. We can't live our lives thinking one day evolution could be disproved so we shouldn't believe in it now. While some theory's are young, evolution has been tested and built upon for 150 years now. Enough evidence has been produced that is pretty conclusive. Our understanding of biology, genetics etc is much more developed now. Religion defies "logic" and is completely dependent on "faith." Without faith, religion is equivalent to the myths of the greek gods. Being a scientist myself, I read and study a lot, so I can rationally judge what is right. I know others, possibly Mr. kevin, just read the headlines and blurt out bit and pieces they've read, but the ones that matter are doing the research, and their work is many times over critiqued so we have refined, accurate theory's and results. Don't knock the science.
By the way, the big bang never made single celled organisms. The world was formed and cooled over million (billions?) of years before single celled organisms formed from organic soup mixing in the oceans (not conclusive). I'm sure these were no more self aware than bacteria today. There are many examples of evolution documented and we can see evolution all around us happening. It's a fun and exciting science to study. Maybe if you you do, that bible won't look so tempting anymore....
All the information science gathers does not prove there is NOT a creator.It just proves that we are getting further and further into unraveling the mysteries of nature. No matter how far we go into the realms of hidden worlds, dimensions and time, it feels like infinity always beckons. Thoughts within the mind of man are the key - the 'love particle' xx
Science will prove that there is NO GOD real soon though! Infinite universes,with no beginning an no end!
That is not strictly true kevin. Science will never disprove the existence of a supernatural god because science by definition deals with natural phenomena. A god, as most people I imagine would conceive of it, has little or nothing to do with the natural world that we can access. There's no point in an evidence-based argument for or against the existence of something super-natural.
Make the evidence-based argument about the useful effect of a viewing of reality through a particular process (discovery as in science, authority/teleology as in religion), and that will probably make any dogmatic view of god irrelevant anyway.
OK let me ask you this, do you even know the definiton of infinity? Infinity is literally endless. IF there were infinite universes, which is a current hypothesis if I'm not mistaken, then there would literally be endless numbers of possibilities. IF there were Infinite universes, then there is infinite chance that every individal universe has its own individual God and ther is infinite chance that no God rules any universes in the multiverse. (In place of God, put whatever suites you). That scenario, if I'm not mistaken, would be a what is called a paradox. In my opinion, you can look at it this way, either everything is Infinite and has lasted forever, which makes no sense; or you can think of it as everything has came from nothing, which defies the laws of physics! (At least in this universe). Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Having stated these things, I believe that SOMETHING has created everything, and being raised in a Christian family, I prefer to call whatever or whoever that thing is, GOD.
@swords
That's not the defintion on infinity. Infinity means everything not endless. Numbers can be added to or subtracted from and it is still infinity. The "endless" comes fromlaymans terms meaning that the number is so high that we don;t have the brain capacity to imagine it so they just say it goes on "forever".
@avd420
You need to look up the definition of infinite. Limitless, boundless, and endless are synonyms. On the other hand, reguardless of each others opinions of what infinity means, do you not agree with me that it is a very hard thing to believe that either
1. Everything, be it the universe or (more likely) multiverses and everything that they consist of and everything that consists of them on an even larger scale, has been here forever.
OR
2. Everything, be it the Universe or Multiverses and whatever makes them, came from nothing.
This is a something that literally noone will ever know. This is the problem that cannot be solved. There is evidence of another universe pulling matter in this universe towards it via gravity (If it is true that gravity isn't bounded by the constraints that other forces have to comply with in this universe). Even if this is the proof we need to concretely decide that there are multiple and possibly endless numbers of universes, as humans and limited by the constraints of the universe we are in, we will never be able to go out there into whatever it is that contains the multiverses and even observe them, let alone draw conclusions about where EVERYTHING came from.
For these reasons, I choose to live my life in the way I see fit. To do the human thing and be compassionate to others, abide the laws that govern me, and try to set an example for others to make this world we live in a better place.
Just as physicists call their lack of explanation for the beginning of the big bang and the center of a black hole a SINGULARITY, I call my lack of explanation for the reason of either the beginning of everything or why Everything has been here forever GOD. Noone needs criticize my opinion because I can just as easily criticize theirs, and probably make a more valid point.
I'm not targeting the group at whole, but many of the athiests I have met and talked to believe that the opinion that there is a God or whatever Diety(ies) is totally ridiculous, and they are completely free to express their feelings and beliefs. BUT many of these people need to realize that the Christians, Muslims, Buddists, and whatever other religions there are out there, have thoughts and feelings too, are not animals, and do not deserve to be treated as such. They are constantly belittled and made out to be complete lunatics by many athiests for expressing their beliefs. There are things such as extremists in religion, but there are also extremist athieists.
I can sit down and talk with any athiest and explain the reasons for my belief in God just as well as they can their belief in there being no God.
Any athiest, religious buff or otherwise that dares to challenge this argument feel free. I like an intellectual challenge every now and then.
@swords
Looking up the definition will not adequitly explain what infinity is in mathematical terms.
Yes I do agree with you that both of those things are hard to believe. Even those who created these theories find it hard to believe, which is why they spent decades getting ther numbers right, because the numbers don't lie. And just because I don't, or you don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't so. If I don't believe 2+2=4 it doesn't change the fact that it is. With something so complex,the answer shouldn't be so easy (IMO).
To say that "noone will ever know" is ignorant since neither of us know the future. Imagine what things people alive in the early 20th century thought we would never know, many of those things are now common knowledge.
The way you choose to live your life sounds alright with me and I strive to do the same, although you do it while believing in a god while I don't.
I would just like to point out that if you're focusing on extreme athiests than it should be of no suprise when athiests focus on extreme aspects of religion. You're playing the same game, but noone wins.
I like that you're up for an intellectual challenge, it's refreshing considering most of those who follow in blind faith usually arn't. But to be truely up for it you must be willing to change your stance, even if that never happens, you must always be willing to, otherwise it's a pointless arguement rather than a debate. And if you are than you're alright in my book.
And the way I see it, the world belongs to the religious, and I am happy that I get to live in it during a time where I won't be indocrinated to believe or punished for my lack of belief in the supernatural. If humanity is eventually destroyed by religious wars, than that's what we deserve and that's what we have evolved into. (Just a side note)
"Thoughts within the mind of man are the key- the 'love particle'.
i like that!
az
Andre, the idea here is not "created" by chance or at random. The idea has more to do with scale. When dealing with infinity or simply, the finite but extreamly large scale of "universe" or "universes", chance goes out the window. It is not as though our universe/reality was a single, impossible shot in the dark that miraculously worked, affording us the ability to be here today and wonder how "it" all begain. It can be more acuratly described as an infinite number of shots in the dark, and with that many shots, one (at least) is garunteed to hit the mark. To clarify, playing the lottery would not be considered a gamble if you could pick every single number combination possible. You would be garunteed to win. This is not a specifically "finely tuned" universe, but rather, the one of an infinite amount of shots that worked. The shot in the dark that was able to sustain life in our universe. This was the garunteed result for life the way we know it, no matter how many shots were taken, eventually, this one had to be struck in order for us to be here with these questions.
I could not watch the doc, but I've read some coments, and I may say that people are fool enought to believe that universe, in its full harmony, and even people theirselves, were created randomly. Rather ironic as those people theoretically (according to their beliefs (yes, beliefs!)) can't even trust their own conviction that life evolved and the astonishing universe were "created" by chance, because if they believe their brain is product of random chemical reactions, so, how can they trust in their own thoughts? How can they be so sure of all this things? THEORY of evolution is mentioned in almost every doc as a absolute truth. Cheers to this new religion called Theory of evolution!
Thank you. I've been WAITING for someone to bring this up.
Pretty sensationalist but some good information. I keep on thinking war of the worlds is about to begin.
Also the fact that life AS WE KNOW IT has lots of big and small factors present that are necessary to exist does not in any way suggest intelligent design. It seems pretty obvious that life has evovled specifically to fit this environment. The environment was not made for life, life was made for the environment.
One more thing: right ear, right queer.
Yet another thing: comparing a computer to a human brain is ridiculous. The brain is more than ten thousand times more powerful it is infinitly more powerful. The human brain has understanding, original thought and randomness. The computer can never achieve this because the brain has millions of different connections happening at one time. The computer is analogue compared, it is nothing.
"this video contains content from Discovery International, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
very displeasing, just a few minutes from the end of episode one!
anyone know where else i might be able to view it?
speculative attempts to know the cause of everything by conditioned living beings with no stock of personal austerity and penance are likened to a frog blowing up its throat to try and
estimate the size of the ocean.
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. Quran, Chapter 4, Verse 171
honestly man, nobody really cares.... go to a muslim website and spout out whatever you want to there.
And say, "Praise to Allah , who has not taken a son and has had no partner in [His] dominion and has no [need of a] protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with [great] glorification." Quran, Chapter 17, Verse 111.
Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, the Exalted in Might, the Wise. Quran, Chapter 64, Verse 18.
Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. Quran, Chapter 2, verse 255.
Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent." Quran, Chapter 112
He is Allah , other than whom there is no deity, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed. He is the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.
He is Allah , other than whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior. Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.
He is Allah , the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner; to Him belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. Quran, Chapter 59, Verse 22-24
subtitles
On the G-d theories, i can feel the simulation option...
i agree, great documentary. On the G-d theories, i think we can discount the G-d only in our minds, electro-magnetically inspired theory. I've personally witnessed a situation where an event happened, and then another person came into the room and confirmed the, let's say, "remnants" of the event, i.e. where did this/that come from...so; therefore, that could not have been just in the mind only...
On the G-d theories, i can feel the simulation option...
The idea that we are the simulated environment under the whim of a Supreme Programmer is one that has been somewhat implied by ancient Eastern thought. It would explain why we can never know God, just as a program merely operates, unconscious of its creator.
this is a great documentary. I think it is possible that all of these theories could be correct and could explain how the universe was created...imagine u would "creator" of the most realistic simulation of the world and this universe. u could do anything imaginable in this "god-like" simulation and u populated it starting from two people and making hundreds of babies!!! well wouldnt u love all of those people as if u were the god of this world...i think it is very posible the god of this universe is our future selves and he currently lives inside of us or one of us....now heres the twist that will blow ur minds....in the infinity universe theory every possible outcome and choice in life for every single person has already happened in different dimensions of time and space...well what everybody does live in their own dimension does that mean the creator of this universe is myself or everybody else? well imagine that the creator is just myself that means that all of my recollection of how humanity is, is portrayed in this world and now i have been born into this world for one purpose to bring people from this world that i love and bring them into the next dimension where we could all be gods of our own universe kinda like "heaven" but in a virtual world that is a new dimention and new universe.. now think about how it would be different for sumbody else in their own dimention..they themselves get born into there world at the right time to enter the next dimension and become gods of the next universe...wouldnt u think they would have their lives already predetermined by their future selves who are in fact the conscience of their current human body...i could talk about this forever because this cycle goes on for infinity but im prolly confusing alot of people by now...so ask me some questions
I have no idea what you are talking about? For one thing do you ever stop to take a breath while talking?
Make sentences, with paragraphs, and learn sentence structure with proper spelling, and write "you" instead of "u", gave me a headache.
And no do not want to ask you any questions.
An interesting documentary. The sense of an all pervading,ego deminishing,oneness,described by people who have undergone the mystical experience,
compared with the ego observing hallucinations of the yellow helmet experiments,make the God claims rather premature and more to do with the keeness of the experimenter to shape the results to fit his beliefs.
How such experiments might help in fields like mental illness, would be better questions to ask.
If scientists today are re-creating the big bang in labs, wouldn't we (humans) be in the role of the "creator"?
perhaps that is all that happened
If the infinite-universe theory is correct, and there are an infinite number of universes where each and every possibility is realized, wouldn't that mean that there is a universe that was created by a God? If there was such a universe, and the God was all-powerful, that would mean that he would be able to cross over into our universe.
Not making any kind of point what-so-ever about religion here, it was just a thought that occurred to me and I thought I would share.
this is a great documentary. I think it is possible that all of these theories could be correct and could explain how the universe was created...imagine u would "creator" of the most realistic simulation of the world and this universe. u could do anything imaginable in this "god-like" simulation and u populated it starting from two people and making hundreds of babies!!! well wouldnt u love all of those people as if u were the god of this world...i think it is very posible the god of this universe is our future selves and he currently lives inside of us or one of us....now heres the twist that will blow ur minds....in the infinity universe theory every possible outcome and choice in life for every single person has already happened in different dimensions of time and space...well what everybody does live in their own dimension does that mean the creator of this universe is myself or everybody else? well imagine that the creator is just myself that means that all of my recollection of how humanity is, is portrayed in this world and now i have been born into this world for one purpose to bring people from this world that i love and bring them into the next dimension where we could all be gods of our own universe kinda like "heaven" but in a virtual world that is a new dimention and new universe.. now think about how it would be different for sumbody else in their own dimention..they themselves get born into there world at the right time to enter the next dimension and become gods of the next universe...wouldnt u think they would have their lives already predetermined by their future selves who are in fact the conscience of their current human body...i could talk about this forever because this cycle goes on for infinity but im prolly confusing alot of people by now...so ask me some questions
fascinating documentary. A bit of science, a bit of star trek and a bit of the matrix! Comparing our brains to a computer, hence our entire existence to a computer simulation is intriguing, but as I have just learned that the way we deal with the unknown is to reduce it to something we already know, via comparison, analogy etc, I feel a bit sceptical about the god-computer programmer idea. The surfer physicist on the other hand may be onto something real... he surely understood more about life than most of us! Thanks for another great doc vlatko!
MORGAN FREEMAN IS GOD... WATCH BRUCE ALMIGHT AND U WILL SEE
banging dubstep bro
Why isn't string theory mentioned in this documentary? Isn't that the current, working theory of everything? Or was it at some point discredited?
@clix
Im pretty sure achems point is that the universe does not evolve to fit life, but life evolved to fit the universe. and this is absolutely true. natural selection is the process that guides the random mutations. thus environment shapes organisms. of course once an organism exists and has the ability to alter its environment, they start working with one another so to speak. but the environment shapes the organism.
the earth and the universe are absolutely not fine tuned for anything other than black holes. the presence of black holes and dark matter make up much more of the universe than life or livable space.
if both of you ignored the stupid personal attacks, maybe you could have stayed on topic.
Who created the Alien gamester?
Why are we here and how did we get here?
The problems with evolution: there are gaps in the fossil records and there are gaps in our knowledge of the transformational processes of one species to the next.
Both of these problem have reasonable answers that have been given time and time again on SeeUat Videos and many other forums of learning.
The problem with a god theory: There is absolutely no evidence to support it. There are no testable or falsifiable results. It explain absolutely nothing about the process of special development. It has no basis in the empirical. It has thousands of years of bizarre literature associated with it.
Be honest. Which is better? and what are reasonable the alternatives to evolution?
@clix:
Understood! No harm, no foul! have a good one!
You never answered the question.
az
@Achems Razor
I have my answer in form of forfeiture.
I do apologize if my initial comment came across as an ad hominem attack, as that was not my intention. However, I was a bit irked by the sweeping nature of your statement, to which I responded. Nothing personal.
I have read many of your arguments against ID. If I have a need to engage you in ideological discussions, I would have done it there. It is not my forte.
Peace.
clix:
You can presume anything that you want, so then I can presume you are an ID propagandist. Did you graduate from a theology college maybe?
I can see where this is going with your ad hominem attacks., nowhere!
In case you do not know, you brought this whole thing up.
Your first post to me was nothing but a ad hominem attack!
I have better things to do than indulge in your fantasies, so bid you adieu.
I'm just sayin, (Carl Sagan)
Hmmm...why the animosity? Have I struck a chord? I presume you're an older guy (the extensive library thing gave it away), and you lower yourself to juvenile name calling (Carl Sagan!)?
Why are we discussing my intentions and the source(s) of my knowledge? I am not the one who made such an outlandish and indefensible statement while claiming to read the theory of evolution everyday at my 'extensive library'.
Do you have a problem with college students and professors? Obviously you haven't been a graduate student. I have seen my professor a handful of times in the last 3 years, and when we do talk our conversations are very brief. Sorry to disappoint you, but he doesn't consult me about what I do on SeeUat Videos.
I not only use Wiki, but also edit a good amount of science articles on the site. It is an excellent resource on relatively uncontroversial matters. So, get off of your high horse, with your extensive library and all, which most of them are written by college professors, BTW. So, following that logic, most of what you know is told to you by a college professor of one sort or another! ;-)
And no, I am not arguing this point from an ideological position. However, I do take issues with ill informed individuals like yourself who try to use science to advance their ideological ends.
Getting back to the topic, if you do read the theory of evolution everyday, how can you miss the essence of the theory by so much?
@clix:
I never rely on "Wiki" for anything, as you it seems.
Good for you! a graduate student in "bio-chem"...Wow!!
Could be another influx of college students who know it all, because their Prof's said so...Hmmm?
Are you maybe trying to instill some ID here?
I'm just askin, (Carl Sagan)
@Achems Razor
Interesting. Everyday?
If that's true how can you make such statement even at a rudimentary level of understanding of evolutionary theory? You certainly wouldn't need an extensive library to see the faulty logic in such a sweeping statement. You can read the Wikipedia entry on evolution to see evolution happens to organisms that are already in existence.
I read evolutionary theory as often as I need to stay on top of it. I am a graduate student in bio-chem, and I have a need to visit the subject once every while.
@clix:
You asked me one question, "when was the last time you cracked open a book on the scientific, not popular, theory of evolution". My answer, everyday! from my extensive library, no computers back in "them thar" days.
My question, when did you?
@Achems Razor
The Universe (including the Earth) and its constants are “not” fine tuned for life and humanity; instead life and humanity, through “Evolution”, are fine tuned to the Universe (especially the Earth) as it is.
That was said with so much gusto, I would have believed it had it not occurred to me you are making a statement which is impossible to substantiate. It is arguments like this that cause the theory of evolution to overreach its limits and lose credibility among the least informed. On the flip side of the coin, it is also such overreach that gives the least informed 'believers' in evolution the gospel they need to repudiate theism.
When was the last time you cracked open a book on the scientific, not popular, theory of evolution?
Started to watch this one. They keep talking about "everything being in perfect balance". I don't agree with this. Everything is just as it is. There's nothing special about this state, that we're in right now.
Just like rolling 1000 dices, and writing down each outcome. And then afterwards gaze at the numbers and think that it's amazing that this exact row of numbers are the result. What would the chances be of rolling the same dice again? The row of numbers is one of a kind, but there's nothing special about it, as everytime you would do this experient, there would be a new row of numbers.
Like staring at static noise in the tv. Totally individual, and special....but not interesting.
We, as living orgranisms, are not special. We just think we're special. When in fact, the universe doesn't care if we where a rock or a living organism. We just are as we are.
The only things, that think that humans are special....are humans themselves.
I actually believe in God ,but I think your point of view is excellent .
Firstly, your dice wouldn't exist if the universe wasn't in "perfect balance", never mind roll "random" numbers.
I think you are both right and wrong - an individual is nothing without a collective and a collective is nothing without an individuals idea.
Consider our (collective) technological acceleration and it isn't hard to see humans creating something very special ....but whether or not that makes us special....hmmm.
@shovelyjoe:
What is your point? do you actually believe that hogwash that you just wrote, or copied? your God is a gentleman?? in a p*gs A55!
@eireannach666
What you have asked is not easy to explain,but even if it is easy then iam not capable to do so with my limited knowledge.but I just try to put forth my point of view.
With all the development in scientific field we still cannot draw a perfect circle,and to quote Plato:
'All geometric figures are in your head. Outside, close enough is good enough.
and perfection in Hinduism is defined as 'spiritual transcendence'
In ancient times in India at around 700 B.C there used to exist six philosophical schools and I would rate 'samkhya' and 'Nyaya' schools as the best,your present day 'watchmaker'
theory was answered by Nyaya school in 600 B.c itself.and they wrote extensively about the perfection of gods and imperfection of humans,you can just google 'Nyaya' for further info.
Regards
Anurag
@anurag
Please elaborate further and provide some testable evidence that says perfection or imperfection points towards or away from a creator of any kind? Just want to know what you are basing your statement on. Do you have more than text is what I guess I'm asking.
Respectfully.
Brod Eireannach.
@Achems
Actually looking at the studies being done on black holes has been quite entertaining. Have you heard about
PUSHING BLACK-HOLE MERGERS TO THE EXTREME RIT SCIENTISTS ACHIEVE 100:1 MASS RATIO
Until now, the problem of simulating the merger of binary black holes with extreme size differences had remained an unexplored region of black-hole physics. "Nature doesn't collide black holes of equal masses," says Carlos Lousto, associate professor of mathematical sciences at Rochester Institute of Technology and a member of the Center for Computational Relativity and Gravitation. "They have mass ratios of 1 :3 , 1 :10 , 1 :100 or even 1 :1 million. This puts us in a better situation for simulating realistic astrophysical scenarios and for predicting what observers should see and for telling them what to look for. "Leaders in the field believed solving the 100 :1 mass ratio problem would take five to 10 more years and significant advances in computational power. It was thought to be technically impossible." "These simulations were made possible by advances both in the scaling and performance of relativity computer codes on thousands of processors, and advances in our understanding of how gauge conditions can be modified to self-adapt to the vastly different scales in the problem," adds Yosef Zlochower, assistant professor of mathematical sciences and a member of the center. A paper announcing Lousto and Zlochower's findings was submitted for publication in Physical Review Letters ....(They used resources at the Texas Advanced Computer Center, home to the Ranger supercomputer, to process the massive computations. The computer, which has 70 , 000 processors, took nearly three months to complete the simulation describing the most extreme-mass-ratio merger of black holes to date. "Their work is pushing the limit of what we can do today," Campanelli sObserving and measuring gravitational waves created when black holes coalesce could confirm a key prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity .
Also check out the study they've been doing on the black hole that's supposed to be sitting at the edge of our galaxy. The analysis was carried out by Amitai Y. Bin-Nun, a theoretical astrophysics and cosmology graduate student at Penn, with guidance from Justin Khoury, assistant professor, and Ravi K. Sheth, professor, both in the Physics and Astronomy Department in Penn’s School of Arts and Sciences. The article appears in the journal Physical Review D . “We found that, if our universe is described by a theory incorporating extra dimensions, light near the black hole at the center of our galaxy may appear brighter than it would if we live in a universe without extra dimensions,” Bin-Nun said. “Detecting images at the brighter intensity would represent evidence of extra dimensions and would be an incredibly important development.” Bin-Nun studied the effect of gravitational lensing on the stars orbiting Sagittarius A*, or Sgr A*, a radio source in the center of the Milky Way. Sgr A* was chosen because it hosts the supermassive black hole hypothesized to exist at the center of the Milky Way. The strong gravitational pull of the black hole distorts the light from Sgr A* before it reaches Earth, creating the illusion of multiple images of the same star. Bin-Nun simulated the orbits of stars near the black hole and treated each star as a source lensed by the black hole, solving for the location and brightness of the “secondary” image which appears near the black hole. For each individual star, Bin-Nun found that the brightness of the secondary image would change over time and would peak in brightness when the star is nearly aligned with Sgr A*........
Get the rest on physorg
Ill post links but I always get stuck in moderation so we'll see.
The Atoms are inanimate objects,and inanimate object do not align with each other on their own,and even if so they align they make chaos but will never be perfect so there is indeed an creator who was guiding this perfect harmony.
Look at certain ancient text:
1)In vedas they talk abt 'Hiranyagarbha'i.e.cosmic egg,and from this all the creation started,and now science agree with the above concept,in Vayu Purana it is mentioned that the Sun,stars,moon earth all were inside the cosmic egg and they were in fluid state and were rotating but the Egg was stable,so there is astrong possiblity that an axis mundi exist in the universe.
2)In Jainism it is mentioned 'In our universe and in our times'
3)Buddhism talks about 'Parellel universes'(M theory)
4)An ancient religion in india named 'Ajivika' was based on 'Niyathi(Fatalism)states the following.
"If all future occurrences are rigidly determined ..., coming events may in some sense be said to exist already. The future exists in the present, and both exist in the past. Time is thus on ultimate analysis illusory".Every phase of a process is always present. ... in a soul which has attained salvation its earthly births are still present. Nothing is destroyed and nothing is produced. ... Not only are all things determined, but their change and development is a cosmic illusion.
If the today;s world scientist understand the 'time' is a illusion they will be able to understand the universe and as well the creator.
Anurag Awasthi
Vedantist
India
well, i'm left with even more questions that i started off with.
utterly discombobulated.
Can anyone please throw more light on what the LHC has really been upto?The news are very vague.Did they create a temperature a million times hotter than that of the sun?HOW?without any cataclysmic disaster here on Earth?!
If anyone could post related links,i'd really be grateful...
euh!
@eire666:
How's youse doing man, not see for a long time! I do not believe that Randy is around any longer, Oh! he is alive and kicking, just not alive and kicking on SeeUat Videos. He seems to have parted ways, and am sure we all miss him.
Yes have been delving quite a lot on all the new paradigms concerning parallel universes, many worlds theory, still have not got Hawking's new book yet, "The Grand Design" but plan on getting it soon.
Anything new on your end about science?
@Randy
LOL dude, I have a shirt that says "sorry I can't, and on the back ."I'm mormon!" Nice.
But I agree hadron collider fun! I mean m-theory etc is a heck of a leap but is there anyother good ones coming out? I mean look at what we have and then here comes string , m , etc.... The probabilities seem only to lead to such theories being of some fact, maybe even more than we would like.
But of course again, the facts do not equal the theories. But as Achems has stated, quantum tech and nano tech is on a march and have advanced quit far recently. Like I said, that's just what they are leaking t the public! We really don't know how far this has really gone. Its gone far enough that the question has risen as to how nano waste and nano tech will effect our environment if at aLl and its effect on us? So we know if these questions are being asked that the scale of our knowledge base on this is a lot broader than we know as simple citizens.
Also, in some ways, the "order" is quite a subjective expression. As we know, the "perfection" is created by little imperfections. What is a perfectly designed Universe for you? Is that our Universe? Why not some other?
Let's say that there are multiple 'Uni'verses (the Multiverse) and that they include intelligent beings. Would they consider their Universe perfect and our imperfect? Maybe their laws of physics wouldn't allow us to even exist there?
The "reality" is much more complicated than someone would like to believe.
Even if there is a "creator". what created it?
How can you even assign gender to God?
OK, I don't say there's "nothing" beyond. Besides, I do not believe in "nothing". I think the best solution is in infinity, just like numbers, no beginning, no end, you can't even tell which one comes after another (2 doesn't come after 1, there is 1.5, 1.02, 1.000000001235 etc). Even if we were created by an intelligent being (which is really not a necessity), that being was created by something.
As the quality of spelling,grammar,and style of writing decreases, there appears to be an increase in the probability a comment attempts to speak for a god.
@Dr Randy,u r seriously the funniest person around,although some of your initial comments did sound scary,i'd like to presume you were joking.LOL
Oh my God this stuff is sensational,informative and uproariously funny
@Dr Randy,Hate Machine,Epicurus,razor and eire,it's a HUGE relief that human beings like u exist,very comforting indeed.LOL
The Mormon stuff will keep me in incessant laughter for days to come!!!
Science,maths,physics,psychology,philosophy,biology,evolution,genetics,theology.....wat not,it's a damn good conversation.i LOVED the sarcasm....sheer poetry to my ears(eyes rather....okay lame one)
I admit i'd been out f touch with all this,recent updates et al,thnx 4 d it evry1
JonasX24
If God can create anything he wants, why didn’t he make human the way he want us to be, IE Believers.
Why does he need worshipers and why does he condemn people who does not believe or happens to sin? Why doesn’t he show up and tell us that he is real. Cant he speak for himself? And why does he need priests or preachers that make good money in spreading the lie when he could just program us with the bible in our mind from start?
There is no creator or God, period.
1 word. Choice. If a God or the God created something just like him then the entire purpose of the excercise would be moot.
Crazy. Comparing pixels to actual matter.Interesting analogy, but something is incorrect about that premise, I'm going to have to work this one out for a few hours in my head.I mean,from a philosophical standpoint, it may be sound, but as a materialist, it's just not sitting right with me.
Laurie: On one of the 0ther threads (now deleted I think), there was some kind of discussion about Dr. R. being contacted about his comments here from one of his former religious organizations (cults). It had nothing to do with Vlatko's website, but just the comments they didn't like, but they threatened a suite against Dr. R for his opinions and mentioned they would try and harm SeeUat Videos in the process. Dr. R. relented and defended SeeUat Videos and the posts were removed for everyone's "protection." However, I think V. basically said it was R.'s personal problem and Dr. R. felt offended because he felt like he was sticking up for SeeUat Videos. That's what I pieced together, trying to be as accurate as I can be. As far as I know, he wasn't banned here, but he voluntarily exited the site. But, we are "guests" here and need to act that way.
I like Dr. Randy too, and it upsets me a bit thinking he might not post any longer.
This is my understanding at the moment, right or wrong.
Sorry for the "gossip" Vlatko, but I could just tell that Laurie missed the good doctor's "exit" and I felt sorry for her not knowing as she would feel "ignored" when in fact that wasn't the case.
@Laurie:
Typical it seems, you can't see the forest for the trees, right?
Of course there are many other doc's here on SeeUat Videos. that Charles does see and comments on, therefore by default alone, he is more voiced than you are on many different matters and aspects, besides just religion.
@ Charles
Why do you think they had a fall out? I don't see anything here that suggests that. He was kind of fun in a weird sort of a way. Do you go on other of these sites? What do you know that I don't know?
Laurie: I think Dr. Randy and Vlatko had a falling out. I don't think Randy will host here any longer.
But, the reason why he has a Book of Mormon, but not a Bible is because the Bible is the heart of "Christianity" which he seems to hate with a passion.
Laurie: Bananas in a cake?!? You're crazy!
I knew a cook that put chocolate in her chili, and I mocked her choice of ingredients . . . . . until I tasted her chili. It was truly fantastic! :-)
Anyway, how precisely God created the universe is still under investigation for me. I think it was indeed ex nihelo as God is the only eternally originating reality in my paradigm of the universe, and even that is a bit hard for me to comprehend.
[wife's singing in the dining room getting ready for lunch -- all is right in the world]
I do know that God is just and God is holy and that by no other means can we enter Heaven, but through the Gate of Jesus Christ. However, I had an epiphany many years ago, that God's not "cookie cutting" Christians. We are to be like Christ, yes, but no two TRUE Christians hold identical understandings and comprehensions of God. Therefore, God has standard, yes, but also has "fudge room" for lack of a better word in the areas of doctrines and concepts of what is true and not true theologically speaking; love his Son with all your heart, soul, and mind, and accept His gift of substitution on the cross for yourself, and trust God to "justify" the righteous. I'm quite convinced there will be some professing "pastors" in Hell, and surprising "saints" from unexpected places.
Don't rebel against the "voice of God" in your heart, and that's a good place to start.
Peace to you.
@Randy
Why do you have a B.O.M. in your library but not the Bible?
@Charles
Yes, I believe in an eternal God; one God, but eternal existing in unity as three separate entities known as God the Father, God the son (who took human form and became whom we call “Jesus”), and God the Holy Spirit. As I understand it, God the Father and Jesus have bodies.
from Laurie
It warms my heart that we agree on this part.
So He isn't an "all pervading essence." I was raised Catholic and that is what the Catholics believe. I don't think too many religions believe that God the Father and his son Jesus Christ our Redeemer and the Holy Ghost are three separate entities with a common goal. "To bring to pass the eternal life of man" Most believe in the Trinity three God's in one. I believe they are three in one in purpose only.
Remember you said: I think Mormonism is “fringe” Christianity and only God knows how “fringe” it is. and you also said this: so many totally unbelieving watching/reading our comments.
So our differences is your God creates from nothing and my God the Creator creates out of eternal existing materials.The elements listen to his voice and His priesthood (His authority, His power).
Big Bang model . . . thus describes a universe that is not eternal in the past but that came into being a finite time ago.
When I create (design) a cake I use materials: flour, milk, butter, sugar, vanilla, baking soda, baking powder,bananas, pineapple etc.
When I make a dress I use materials: a sewing machine, cloth, thread. Then I show it to my friends and they say wow! Laurie did you make this? I say yes with pride.
I am a creator of some things. I am practicing to create bigger things. When I write a story I use words that have already been used by many but I put them together in my own special way. Then I write written by Laurie even if I asked God for inspiration. Think about this Charles.
Metta for U all. in christian terms: forgive them G 'couse they know not what they do. Dhamma terms...no one out there to forgive. if you believe you need to forgive someone that means that you blamed someone first. no forgiveness just compasion. LOVE YOU ALL.In life there are no rewards or punishments ...only consequences.
Laurie wrote:
"Hey Charley let us consider the doctrine of God’s OMNISCIENCE. Many Christian agree that God is infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immaterial, and in general exhibits perfection in all attributes. God is an undifferentiated, all-knowing, all-encompassing, all pervading essence. God cannot be divided; God has no parts or pieces. Furthermore God is the only -contingent entity: God necessarily exists, while all other beings, objects, and forces are conditional upon God’s creating and sustaining power. God’s OMNISCIENCE is generally interpreted as knowledge of all things past,present,and future.
Is this your God?
Here is a fascinating question for you.
Is free will at best an illusion, that humans are not mentally responsible for their actions and even more radically that the ultimate responsibility falls upon God? Is that faith without works?"
Laurie: This is pretty heavy stuff, sort of like walking across the floor full of mouse traps!
Yes, I believe in an eternal God; one God, but eternal existing in unity as three separate entities known as God the Father, God the son (who took human form and became whom we call "Jesus"), and God the Holy Spirit. As I understand it, God the Father and Jesus have bodies much like our own (as we are created in their image), but perfect in all their ways. We can add meaning to the words "omnipresent" etc. that may or may not fully fit God's own definition. It ends in just "word play".
God is eternal and I do believe in creation ex nihilo (creation by God out of nothing other than himself). I think His finger was the torch that started the Big Bang and the creation of the earth followed in His timing. Or, God created the universe "in process" such as is it is now, such as stars that seem to be older younger, forming, etc. He truly is perfect in all his ways.
I do not believe that as God is now, we shall one day be, and as we are now, God once was (LDS standard teaching).
Ultimately, we are responsible for our own decision to follow or not to follow God. We can word play with accountability, but it's just arguments that are not very productive, especially with so many totally unbelieving watching/reading our comments.
Peace to you.
Charles B.
@Laurie
Listen, we are just ignoring you.
Listen, for me, I just HATE mormons. I'm sorry... I just hate Joseph Smith and his whole con...
I'm sure you are a very nice person! But the Book of Mormon, the bible, any christianity just makes me want to tear humans up!
Science calms me... it liberates me... it keeps me sane! Math and the simple structures of nature, genetics, human history, cosmology!
These are my salvations. And the things that keep me from eating your brains!
This has become a ghost town. They all called each other and said let's get out of here.
Happy Thanksgiving to all the Canadians. Where is everybody?
@Charles B.
from Laurie
Charles you didn't answer the questions.
Is this your God?
Is that faith without works?
Are you in defense of Creatio ex nihilo?
That was good, Laurie!
@Epicurus
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” – Seneca
Who is the common people? I hope it's the humble in heart.
Who are the wise? The proud and boastful
We know how religion has been used by some rulers
@Charles B.
I think Mormonism is “fringe” Christianity and only God knows how “fringe” it is.
from Laurie
Hey Charley let us consider the doctrine of God's OMNISCIENCE. Many Christian agree that God is infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immaterial, and in general exhibits perfection in all attributes. God is an undifferentiated, all-knowing, all-encompassing, all pervading essence. God cannot be divided; God has no parts or pieces. Furthermore God is the only -contingent entity: God necessarily exists, while all other beings, objects, and forces are conditional upon God's creating and sustaining power. God's OMNISCIENCE is generally interpreted as knowledge of all things past,present,and future.
Is this your God?
Here is a fascinating question for you.
Is free will at best an illusion, that humans are not mentally responsible for their actions and even more radically that the ultimate responsibility falls upon God? Is that faith without works?
Many mechanisms (data storage)consistent with the known laws of nature to store and transmit information all require energy and at least a two state system. 1.electrochemical impulses 2. positive and negative charges in an electrical circuit 3. tiny dots of magnetic north or south on a tape or disk surface 4. particles with spins up or down 5. the quantized magnetic flux of a supercomputing loop 6. photons in a fiber optic cable 7)temperature differences in material objects 8. velocity differences among molecules or atoms or electrons 9. polarization of photons or electrons 10. holographic patterns of refraction in a physical medium
Again any storage or retrieval of data requires energy and a system with distinguishable states.
Within the realm of currently understood scientific laws 1. quantum mechanics asserts that it is fundamentally impossible for position and momentum (to be known to unlimited accuracy) 2. chaos theory asserts that microscopic alterations or uncertainties of the present state can be amplified to produce arbitrarily large changes in the future course of the physical world. The future with predicted unlimited, precision cannot be foreseen. It appears fundamentally impossible for any one-state system to be a repository of data. A perfectly undifferentiated, completely homogeneous, immaterial essence (either mass or energy field)cannot be a repository of data.
This is the heart of the difficulty. If God is a "perfectly UNDIFFERENTIATED completely homogeneous, immaterial essence, and God works in any sense within the realm of physical law,then it follows that God can neither store nor process any information, much less be "OMNISCIENT"
How can one address this difficulty?
One can conceive that temperature differences or velocity gradients exist in God, but this goes against the traditional notion of an OMNISCIENT, OMNIPRESENT, immaterial God.
Another solution is to identify God with the Universe (or the vacuum), but this is a pantheistic theology, distasteful to many. God would be able to compute as well as the Universe (or the vacuum)computes, and God would be as OMNISCIENT as the Universe which indeed contains a vast amount of knowledge. But such a God would also be exactly as caring and compassionate as is the Universe, and would answer prayers to exactly the extent they are answered by the Universe--no more or less! This does not seem much like the God worshipped as "our Father in heaven" by Jesus.
Are you in defense of Creatio ex nihilo?
An initial physical singularity in the standard big bang theory both requires and proves creatio ex nihilo—the creation of the universe from absolutely nothing. The standard Big Bang model . . . thus describes a universe that is not eternal in the past but that came into being a finite time ago. Even if time had a beginning (which is still an open question), creation from nothing does not necessarily follow.
To be included among Christians, Latter-day Saints must reject the doctrine of eternalism and adopt the doctrine of creation from nothing.
The surprise discovery in late 1998 of the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe, apparently caused by an anti-gravity force similar to the huge energy of the vacuum or Einstein's cosmological term. This background energy alone may destroy the argument of creation from nothing.
The doctrine of God's OMNISCIENCE where in the Bible is it? I know it was Constantine idea at the council of Niece
@Epicurus
and wouldnt a church goer who invests in something they believe their god says is bad be akin to someone investing in a drug dealer?
from Laurie
Webster’s defines flexible as “yielding to influence: pliable.” By that definition, being flexible could be helpful or harmful.
If we are easily influenced by the wrong things, we might yield to those things, as in “yielding to the enticings of that cunning one” (2 Ne. 9:39).
To avoid being “tossed to and fro” (Eph. 4:14), our flexibility–especially to accept certain challenges–must stem from “yielding to the enticings of the Holy Spirit” (Mosiah 3:19). That happens when we follow the Savior’s example and yield our will to His. (see Hel 3:35).
@ Charles
that’s just plain “unAmerican”!
from Laurie
It's also plain un-Canadian! un-European!
We are a peculiar people.
@ Charles
However, they own a lot more than what you listed.
from Laurie
The things I listed are for profit. I didn't list the non profit.
Did you skip over this in the comment?
The only for-profit businesses overseen by the Church as the Church is a non-profit organization.
Yes. They own more buildings and land but it is non profit.
Epicurus10/02/2010 at 07:28
@Epicurus
why is it okay to drink pop but not coffee? what about tea? what about energy drinks?
why the distinctions? its all caffeine?
and wouldnt a church goer who invests in something they believe their god says is bad be akin to someone investing in a drug dealer?
seems a little hypocritical.
from Laurie
Why do you think the reason for not drinking coffee and tea is because of the caffeine?
There is caffeine in Coca Cola, chocolate bars, chocolate chip cookies, chocolate ice cream etc. Yum! Yum! It's making me hungry.
One thing I do know it is to show obedience. It isn't a hard thing to show obedience in. The reason has never been given. We are a peculiar people.
Mormon church members own or operate a ton of businesses. Easy to look up, do not feel like listing them all here.
Like Epic said, cherry picking to suit there interests!
And agree With Charles, no coffee? that is just plain "Un-everything"! Coffee is actually good for a person, in moderation of course! I ain't teasing!
In answer to your question, there is not one way to live life. Firstly if there were it would be a very boring and homogenous existence! Secondly there is no/are very few universal truths, only subjective context dependent truths. Thirdly, any attempt to introduce one version of reality/existence will be regarded as a fascistic bullying of the non 'conformists'. Consensus cannot and will not be achieved be it by religion or 'king of the world' type organizations. Many have tried and ALL have failed.
There are no absolutes, especially not religion if that is the direction that are trying to steer the conversation in. Hope that answers your question. At the minimum Its my response...
Man this website is great, documentaries to watch followed by commentaries and various opinions that opens up your prespective and broadens your thinking. i would like to invite you guys to discuss this 'which way of life are we to lead? why? and what evidence backs that up?
@Laurie, why is it okay to drink pop but not coffee? what about tea? what about energy drinks?
why the distinctions? its all caffeine?
and wouldnt a church goer who invests in something they believe their god says is bad be akin to someone investing in a drug dealer?
seems a little hypocritical.
you might say it is because in the book it only mentions "hot drinks" but that would be very very silly. since it seems obvious that there wasnt cold caffeinated beverages yet back then, so naturally Joseph Smith couldnt have known there would be when making up his religion...actually if he had said something about them it would be more impressive.
in fact what you are doing here is cherry picking. seems religious people have no problem extending the things in their books to make sense in modern times, but clearly ONLY when it fits want they socially accept.
that you cant see how obvious that is makes me question your ability to be skeptical about something you already accept. very dangerous.
@ Charles
from Laurie
Just in case you ask me about Pepsi
Since PepsiCo, Inc. is a public company, anyone is welcome to buy shares in its stock. Theoretically, that could mean that there are some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who own shares in PepsiCo, Inc., and ultimately own a portion of the company.
@Charles
Is Coca Cola still owned by the Mormons? The documentary about the “Coca cola case” claims some serious matters. Looks like the big wigs would reign in any unexthical practices if they were still owned by the Mormons. I would think.
from Laurie
No. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the "Mormon" church) has never owned any commercial food or beverage company. The Church itself does not hold stock, but individual members may.
The only for-profit businesses overseen by the Church (as the Church is a non-profit organization, it does not 'own' these companies. They are owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric, which has top Mormon officials volunteering on it's Board of Directors) are:
Deseret Book (a religious book and gift store)
Bonneville International (a newsmedia source)
Deseret Management (apartments and office space in Salt Lake City)
Temple Square Hospitality (cafes and reception centers in Salt Lake City)
Get your facts Charles.
@ Charles
But then again, drinking caffine isn’t supported by the Mormons either, is it, and the they OWN a company that makes drinks with caffine in them. That always seemed a bit odd to me.
from Laurie
Though I hate to ruin a good bit of lore with the facts, the truth is that although Mormons have been advised by church leaders to avoid caffeinated beverages, this suggestion ( like a doctor would suggest) has not been passed down as official church doctrine to which all members in good standing must adhere (unlike, say, the admonitions against coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol, which are church doctrine). Mormons can still swill Coca-Cola, eschew it and all other caffeinated beverages, or indulge in the occasional Coke and still be considered churchgoers in good standing.
Epic: For once I agree with you except for the Seneca quote.
@Laurie,
"The man who established a religion in this age of free debate, who was and is to-day accepted by hundreds of thousands as a direct emissary from the Most High, —such a rare human being is not to be disposed of by pelting his memory with unsavory epithets. Fanatic, impostor, charlatan, he may have been; but these hard names furnish no solution to the problem he presents to us. Fanatics and impostors are living and dying every day, and their memory is buried with them; but the wonderful influence which this founder of a religion exerted and still exerts throws him into relief before us, not as a rogue to be criminated, but as a phenomenon to be explained."
whether he has influenced a large group of people has NOTHING to do with his claims being true or not. they also dont address the fact that it is hard to accept claims of this nature from a known con man using the same methods he used earlier.
Muhammed who was a war monger and pedophile has influenced faith and happiness in billions of muslims. does that mean his claims about religion are true?
L Ron Hubbard who founded scientology was a known liar and science fiction writer, but im sure scientology has made some peoples lives better....
BUT DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THE CLAIMS ARE TRUE OR NOT. that is the issue. not the influence in peoples lives.
@charles, i dont think the catholic church encourages pedophilia but they have no problem hiding those responsible for it.
i dont think mormons would care too much about their ethics. im pretty sure most of the people at the tops of these religions actually care more about money than they believe in god.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” - Seneca
Laurie: Just because there are big numbers or lots of followers for a particular "faith" doesn't mean it's a correct one. Both of us would agree that Islam, Hinduism, etc. for example, miss the mark entirely. Etc.
I think Mormonism is "fringe" Christianity and only God knows how "fringe" it is.
I do have one queston for you, however. Is Coca Cola still owned by the Mormons? The documentary about the "Coca cola case" claims some serious matters. Looks like the big wigs would reign in any unexthical practices if they were still owned by the Mormons. I would think.
But then again, drinking caffine isn't supported by the Mormons either, is it, and the they OWN a company that makes drinks with caffine in them. That always seemed a bit odd to me.
Peace to you.
Mr. Razor: You made me laugh! By commenting like you did, it proves that you DO still have words to say!
You know, sometimes I actually hate people! Don't even know what to say, words escape me!!
Schizophrenics!!! get some pills!
@Epicurus
so you say that the claims that joseph smith was a con man and someone who wandered the forest with seer stones looking for treasures are untrue? but what about the DOCUMENTED papers of joseph smith being arrested and wanted in particular states? those are not made up.
you follow a con man just like scientologists.
Epi this is how I feel
The man who established a religion in this age of free debate, who was and is to-day accepted by hundreds of thousands as a direct emissary from the Most High, —such a rare human being is not to be disposed of by pelting his memory with unsavory epithets. Fanatic, impostor, charlatan, he may have been; but these hard names furnish no solution to the problem he presents to us. Fanatics and impostors are living and dying every day, and their memory is buried with them; but the wonderful influence which this founder of a religion exerted and still exerts throws him into relief before us, not as a rogue to be criminated, but as a phenomenon to be explained.
A phenomenon indeed! Having been immersed in the visions of eternity, Joseph Smith could actually exclaim, “I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 366).
@ahmed
I read from your comment above that you don’t believe in a creator, if so, then thats your choice which you decided.
You must have me confused with somebody else. I believe in God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ His son our Redeemer and in the Holy Ghost. I have faith.
Dangit, that should be rebuttal, obviously.
By the way Epi, you have yet to provide a sound rebuttle on the "war on science" page, or should I take your lack of response as conceding? I certainly hope not..
I too found the inherent obliviousness rather entertaining. Non-sequitorville must be a comforting place..
LOL Laurie posts THIS
"Don’t confuse technology with progress. When we tether ourselves to technology we stand in jeopardy of losing sensitivity to ourselves and our environment. Your biological sensors are far superior. Put down that gizmo and go for a walk."
unaware of the complete IRONY involved. absolutely priceless.
I would say FEAR is actually a precursor for faith not the antithesis of it.
my actual question to you is, you say you have evidence for some creator in the form of written, visual evidence....could i see this evidence?
you were talking about how we have comforts for fear and included long term fears like afterlife or what happens when supports we have like family or friends are gone, but you seemed to miss how obvious it is that the human psyche would invent a comfort that could outlast those things. an omnipotent, omnipresent support.
The antithesis of faith is fear. It is fear that drives many people into the deceptive, illusory shelter
I read from your comment above that you don't believe in a creator, if so, then thats your choice which you decided. Fear is a natural feeling that a human feels when in danger or uncertainty, it takes shape when hormones flow in our bodies resulting in response of fear depending on the situation. Worry or anxiety if long term. So fear is an inseperable part of our human makeup. the feeling of fear is a weakness i agree, that is the whole point. to feel safe and secure we tend to rely and lean on a ‘shelter’ whatever this shelter could be, our friends, wife, parents, colleagues, relatives etc. But really and truly are they reliable in the long run? Would they benefit you after you have passed away ? the nature of the human is to call upon anything all that can help his weaknesses. So fear is not the problem but who you rely on to aid your weaknesses is the problem. You are possibly referring to people who believe a creator can aid their weaknesses as deceptive i agree with you, but on the condition that you bring evidence to back it up. I base my belief in the one creator on the basis that there is evidence for what i believe (written,visual evidence). On the other hand one cannot just rely on the creator solely and not take the initiative and plan everything in his life but they must plan for everything: having children, aiming for a particular position, etc. All plan should be within the greator purpose and goal (we can discuss this)which the person aims fulfull.
I agree with you in your second comment that many are afraid of the mockery of the proud and are duped into following the crowd... your comments carry on about fear etc.
@ Randy
from Laurie
Oh Happy Day! Randy now has the latest app to remind him
of his daily appointments - scratch for worms, lay an egg,
peck at corn, go to sleep. This is certainly a relief!!
Don't confuse technology with progress. When we tether ourselves to technology we stand in jeopardy of losing sensitivity to ourselves and our environment. Your biological sensors are far superior. Put down that gizmo and go for a walk.
@Achems Razor
from Laurie
You need to figure out the difference between Lawn and Pasture!
@Ahmed
i would like to also have a discussion about the relationship between our choices and the evil that happens in the world
from Laurie
This is my two cents worth
Many are afraid of the mockery of the proud, so they are duped into “following the crowd” even if the crowd is headed for disaster. They become slaves to fashion, totally under the control of the “gods of this world” who dictate what to wear, what to watch, what to listen to, and even what to think. But vogues change by the minute so that those who fear the opinion of the crowd are forced to continue the flow of cash into the coffers of the “merchants of Babylon.” (ix)
Some fear death or terrorists or the bomb or old age or wrinkles or poverty or bad weather. And some, as Franklin Roosevelt said, are just addicted to fear itself—nameless, unreasoning anxiety. It is an age of fear.
The false security promised by Babylon’s political leaders, financial planners, and pop psychologists (“astrologers, stargazers, monthly prognosticators”) (x) is no salvation from fear. In this telestial world we will not be free from adversity—trials are part of the Lord’s plan for shaping us for better things.
@Ahmed
from Laurie
The antithesis of faith is fear. It is fear that drives many people into the deceptive, illusory shelter.
we will always be great as long as we know we are finite creatures that live for a short period of time. and that means in our quest for truth about the future we are limited but at the same time we have the tools of 'fitrah' which everyone is born with ( the partial ability to 'know or feel' what is right and wrong') to reach a conclusion that there is a creator.
now the trouble starts when we try to ponder on the nature of the creator with our finite limited brains and hearts because the nature or purpose of being is not to find the nature of our creator because that is impossible. firstly our hearts and brains acknowledge that there is a creator as our minds and hearts 'know' that for an event to occur there has to be something or someone behind it.
secondly from fitrah to just 'know' that there is a creator should be enough but then the creator created all the elements and the necessary forces for us to visualise and analyse and further examine the relationship between these to strengthen our consious or unconsious fitrah of the presence of the creator. thirdly did the creator leave it at that, no , the reason then that the creator left certain mysteries and revealed certain others. this is mainly because the creator created us to test us if we are going to follow the fitrah he put in us and the books he sent to us and the human messengers he sent to us (leave the discussion to the validity of the books and messengers to another discussion) and that we will never know everything otherwise we are the creators since the creator knows what will happen what happenend and basically everything that will happen before it happens. i would like to also have a discussion about the relationship between our choices and the evil that happens in the world. to conclude is there a creator yes, was the reason 'he' created us to know the nature of 'him' no, will we ever know 'his' nature no, we are to use all the creations ( elements forces) to know 'he' is the creator yes
many thanks
Randy:
Am still laughing at that!
How do you hold a womans liquor?...By the ears!
@Achems
HAHAHA! Indeed!
At least you know Laurie will never p-u-k-e on your shoes.
Mormons don't drink...
@Laurie:
You are quoting the mormon's book's of fairy tales again, the kolob theory is the mormon's veiw of the starry universe, to me that is "MOOT"
@Laurie
Yes, that is an entertaining thought.
But, of course, you know, nature is a closed system, nothing goes in or out. It grows by eating itself...
The Houruborus. The serpent eating its own tail.
eireannach666
I’m just entertaining the idea of infinitecy and cycle concepts that apply to all gravity affected objects or molecules
I like this idea of re-cycling. I think it's done through the black holes.
@Randy: It's such an underused setting as well, have fun with it, I say!
Also, there is already a functioning nitrogen-cooled quantum computer operating. SeeUat Videos actually has a doc on it, wherein a strangely giggling scientist goes at length on the matter.
I think it might be in the Technology section, perhaps it's "visions of the future" although I'm not entirely sure on that.
Oh I know it's a-coming, I've been getting antsy ever since I first heard of Michio Kaku and Ray Kurzweil. I've been reading up on radical life extension, transhumanism and biotech for a while now. Couple of weeks ago I bought a Quest that dedicated much of it's textual real-estate to publishings from the various Nanotech departments, discussing the short-term applications.
I love nothing more than projecting on this very issue. The practical implications in respects to modern morality will be staggering, let alone the profound changes to global and local informational infrastructure. Dazzling! Exciting!
@D-K
Yes, the multi-universe theory is fun to study and play with, but, certainly not proven and, perhaps, unprovable (?), although it would be awesome if it were. (Hadron? I'm lookin' at you...)
Therefore, nothing to get worked up about...
However, I am writing a novel about it and it is a wonderful field to play in!
*shrug*
@D-K:
Perhaps, but the quantum revolution is a-coming, no ifs, and no buts.
Who knows what may transpire in the near future?
Quantum computers are probably in the makes, for one.
The many worlds theory is so logically inconsistant, that I really can't take the concept seriously. We know too little of Quantum Mechanics to form theories/theorem around it, in my opinion.
Barbour makes for fantastic brainfood and projections though.
@D-K:
This stuff I am about to say is off the wall, just thoughts, no sources. Except "Julian Barbour", have studied his works for some time.
I always seem to revert back to Julian Barbour's "The end of time" theory.
Everything is static, we are living in our "nows" that are forever frozen in time, one now after another, gives everything linear direction, gives us our seemingly flow of time, but that is illusion, not really flowing, time is a series of events, following one after another.
But in the quantum world it is one vast sea of probabilities, I guess that is why they say in many world theory, whatever you envision that did not happen will happen, and has happened.
Everything is run on vibrations, re: string theory. one different vibration will set a new series of events into motion that do not overlap other series of events, re: our universe.
And there are different vibrations ad infinitum that set other series of events into motion therefor unlimited universes. And since everything is energy, even matter, matter is coalesced into our objects, that are of course illusions. Because in reality matter has really no substance. An Atom is 99.99999% empty.
Keep in mind these are just wild thoughts, but there you have it!
Gravitons? Gravity a "mystical force"?! C'mon. Isn't it obvious. We know all elemental atoms attract each other to form molecules. So if a mass, such as Earth or the Sun, is comprised of a surreal number of these atoms, then it is fair to assume (this is a fact actually) that some of them are combined to form neutral molecules, while others are trapped still seeking this ideal balance and decaying to more stable metals. Therefore a mass, made of matter, has atoms with forces of attraction on all other atoms in objects including our body. This cumulative atomic force is what gravity is. A black hole is a mass comprised of highly unstable particles seeking to unite to form a balance. This is why photons are sucked in...they are necessary for the unification of endothermic elements. Of course, these atoms comprised of smaller particles such as bosons, quarks and lepton...but it is the lack of subatomic-electromagnetic balance of attraction between these particles that create gravity. Gravitons don't exist...there is no scientific requirement for them.
Well they said the same of the atom and we saw how a jungle turns into a desert in a fraction of a second.
No I'm not worried just throwing out random. But they and we really don't know. And when we figure out where the universes source of origin was we will then move on to the sources.(Say that 5 times fast! It got me while I was thinking it lol)
But we are really close and we all know about and discusses the Toe of dog" papers and all these theoretic particles and how much trace evidence goes into backing these theories like string ,M, etc is piling up.
I want to know but really as seeing how our lives are so meaningless to the grand scheme o things, any of those theories just really make us even more obsolete. Which is fine with me , but they know more than they say. The /@ isn't ready to accept that we are yet but a pimple about to bust on the back of the cosmos.
I mean I was just kinda kidding about the explode/implode idea but using that as an example(terrible I'm sorry) but we are counting down anyways not to mention our just over the hill source of everything we need to live, the sun. There are so many things in our solar system we have to be aware of that the GP can't handle a meaningless existence in a system like a piece of sand in an hour glass dodging bullets on a daily basis.
If string is true and gravity "leaks" then its going to be reeeal interesting when the leaks turn to holes as everything expands. It would only be fit that rips tear and tears turn to holes etc when stretched. What then? Maybe liker a rubber band of gravity? Sling shot status,lol. J/k but hey you never know.
Then it could have the opposite effect like a magnet and push or perhaps like a magnet and attract one another into collision which I've heard of before.
Who knows. Won't be here to care but I'd like to go out that way. What a better way to go than a cosmic wreck and collapsing into that void nothingness from which we came.
Cool stuff to ponder but I need visual evidence for any such ideas, even thought the pile is getting higher.
Sorry, 666, that should have been "do not be fooled by Dan BROWN..."
@666
Don't be worried about the energies being unleashed at Hadron. It is so miniscule that no significant effect can be had upon the world.
Do not be fooled by Dan Grown and the people who believe "mad-scientists are going to create a black hole and destroy the world!!!"
That is silly. Tiny little particles of matter... nothing to it, really.
@ Achems/DK/Randy
I'm on the fence on this one because as you know and Randy touched on is the work they've been doing in the collider. I mean holy shy*e man they are making little stars in there and watching them collapse! And what is the real messed up part or fun if you ask me , is the fact that they are just opening the wrapper on sustaining one for energy consumption and more than likely some kind of arms race will follow but they are playing with fire. As the say gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. As long as they don't kill us all in the process. Awesome science going down there.
As for string , well maybe could be which implicates some truth to a lot of weird and unexplained phenomena. But I've always had the thought that the universe was more like an ocean , in the sense of tides, for example it is possibly just infinitely exploding and then recollapseing on itself only to go "big bang" all over a gain. Let's call it "balloon theory" although I dint have a whole lot to back that crazy thought up. Still there is some small reasonable logic there. I'm just entertaining the idea of infinitecy and cycle concepts that apply to all gravity affected objects or molecules
But they've got a long way to go to sell me on anything. Although I love the path they've chosen and think funding is too low .
@sadie
Its like saying playful in bed if you catch my drift.
Okay, that is a start, have to actually go out of doors today and see the sun and stuff, no life sitting behind the computer all day.
Get back to this stuff later, Chow, for now!
@D-K
Hmmmm....
That was very interesting! See how it works? We go from some wierd British hippie-ch*ck to String thoery.
I am still digesting your post. Let me think on that for a bit...
Randy: Wild ideas? Oh I got those, some bordering on the nonsensical. read below.
AR: Actually, that is pretty much what I think.
..
Well that's a lousy discussion, guess I'll take the opposing side of popular opinion to generate some thought.
Gravity can't be a bleed-through because gravity "moves" as a linear force. Seeing as entering different dimensions requires a bending of space-time, thus subsequently a bending of gravity, it is inherently impossible.
Our universe cannot possibly be a vibrating string because vibration on macro-scale would lead to an amount of energy that would overcome the residual strong force between sub-atomic particles, shredding all matter apart.
Any given object CAN in fact supercede lightspeed, if such an object is capable of moving as both a particle and a wave, obviously made possible by nanomachines that rearrange the composition of the matter involved with quantum computing.
..
Tadaa, brain food. (it's hard being silly)
@Randy:
Did not expect any answers, but as you said, any wild thoughts?
@Achems
There aren't any answers to those questions, yet. The good men and women working at the Hadron Super-Collider are trying to answer them, but I don't see any answers yet...
(Don't mean they don't have them... and what I have seen is interesting... but they could certainly be, keeping the hardest data from us for further study.)
I'm just sayin'
@D.K.:
Okay, I'll bite, why do you think that gravity is so weak?
Doesn't seem strong enough to stop the universe from speeding up at above the speed of light in the deep field, that in itself does not make sense since nothing can go faster than the speed of C. So then apparently inflation is still happening, no?
As been suggested, is our gravity a bleed-through from a super gravity, a brane, at a planck length from our own vibrating string of a universe?
Thoughts??
@D-K
Well, Vlatko took down the forums, so, it has become something of a free-for-all...
However, a free exchange of wild ideas can certainly be productive and conducive to learning.
I find...
...?
What's with all this personal hoo-ha, people? What happened to discussion of the source material? I personally had rather we focus our brainpower towards solving the gravity weakness conundrum, reverse fossilisation.
I'd even take a discussion on the 2slit experiment at this point.
@ Eire ive been coshed by the mod too
@ Eireannach666
what does freaky deaky mean Eire? (I mean Im sure its a compliment) I just havent got a clue! sorry
So today was a fab day here in Cardiff - because for the 1st time in my life - I dared to question a religious man with a megaphone...he was one of several...preaching 'slap-bang' in the middle of Cardiff - Im NOT a tourist, I live here! - so I have got the right - right?
( by 'question' what I really mean is I punched his bloody lights out)
well actually thats an exageration - he only chipped a molar
and Im feeling soooooooo goooooood
Once again the leprecauhn is in moderation. We're a very , uh , prolific bunch.
D*mn Sadie is freaky deaky! I admire that in a woman.
3andy behave. You're old lady would slaughter you both.
What did you think pf Deicide? Anyone?
Oh well, Death fu**ing Metal!
Also see Vital Remains song Dechristianize and Infidel.
@Charles B.
Yes, but that is not s significant color for you. In fact, I see black as the color of your pain...
Interesting. For me black is freedom and beauty, for you... not so much...
Dr. Randy: Red is my favorite color! Crimson, actually.
@ Randy
I think you should have said;
'minor research research'?
minor research has 'dirty old men' connotations - but hey!- could just be my very dirty damaged mind!
x
@ Randy
Minor research is fine by me Randy! (just so long as its got the word 'research' on the end)
- I feel strangely comforted
Im not too good with internet - but Ill see you 'on the other side' ooooooooo
ace
You know what? Don't answer that question. This is a public forum and not the place for it.
I wish I could direct you to somewhere we could talk privately, but I have no other internet presence except a YouTube page, that I signed on for, only so I could watch music videos with bad language in them.
Whatever, YouTube...
Anyways, my YouTube screen name is Paganguy1, that's for anyone who cares. You can "friend" me but I doubt I will ever talk to you as I only use YouTube for minor research and music...
Whatever!
Pigeon Hole? I know nothing of any pigeon hole, but what does the color "red" mean to you?
(You seem evasive, that usually means I am on to something...)
@ Randy
Happy now chuck? - there, thats given you somthing to 'pigeon hole' me with!
hahahahahahaha .........brilliant!
errr (what IS a ball game anyways?)
@ Randy
.......Daddy never came to my Ball games.......WHERE WERE YOU DADDY??!!
Ok... Second Life, the online game for the truly sexually perverse.
Yes, I think my reading was fairly accurate... And I know what the trauma was, now.
It's good to know my cold reading skills are still sharp. I could open a shop and make 300grand next year, tax free, if I didn't have this ethical problem....
DAMMIT!
@ Randy
I can have a dark side, if you want me to?
but Ill need your credit card details
now go back to bed - rest that brain ready for round 2!
cos Im off to second life
@ Randy
I can have a dark side if you want me too?
but its extra!
now go back to bed - cos im off to second life to get myself a piece of penis - (or somethink like that)
@Sadie
Ok, clearly you've become unhinged. Step back, sister-woman, Randy is the property of a deadly jealous, mexican woman that would eat you alive for looking at me too long!
Did my reading mean anything to you? On this full moon...
@ Randy
(pssssst!) ...Im whispering to you Randy!
Is this like we are talking in the dark? in the middle of the night? when all the grown ups are asleep?
@ Randy
....but we COULD get married in second life!..........couldnt we?
@ Randy
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha.......your way too clever for me, alas!
Also, my psychic powers tell me you are on crystal meth because that last post was completely incoherent!
Although, I think I touched a nerve...
@ Randy
So Ive been thinking....about computers.....and why I couldnt 'connect'....and then it hit me like BAM!
I dont need bibliographies,references, primary sources anymore....its all being done automatically for me, for you, for the WHOLE WIDE WORLD!
with utube
little word with so much social responsibilty dont you think Randy?....Randy?? u still there?
so in answer to your question - or should I say prognosis - I answer with ....
U tube tim minchin not perfect
god almighty that was easier than looking inside the back cove of a 'Barnes & Noble' - or inside my head for the answer Randy - cos its very very dark in here!
thanks for that Randy - Im seriously touched x
@Sadie, of course, in media res... I assumed you were misspelling something, so I overlooked the obvious, even as some part of my mind knew it was latin...
Funny.
Listen, my psychic powers are very sharp on the full of the moon. When I think of you, I see the color red, a recent fight with a parent, (that has NOT been resolved even if there is peace between you), and a deep sadness that comes from some loss at an early age...
You try to hide that sadness beneath layers of optimism but the strain is telling... the more I think on it... the darker it gets. But you hide the trauma well, I can not see it... I think that is best.
Any of this ring true?
@ Randy
(I think you are a very very clever man)
having said that, do you REALLY want my opinion on why you dont sleep Randy? Im sure its got nothing to do with the full moon......lets see, ummmmm maybe I should spend a few nights in your bedroom? I am positive we will come up with something.....
@ Randy
Morning Randy! lol wakey wakey
yes its latin....I wanted to say that I came into the blog in the middle of it ('it' being the 'conversation') - and i couldnt think of the right words so i succumbed to Latin
and I gotta admit, it made me roll about laughing - i mean, WHO would ever have believed that we would be using 'computer jagon' and Latin in the same sentence?!
Im buzzing on this thought, its like i found a new drug!
@Sadie
You wrote: "and because I came into this blog in media res..." What does that mean, "media res" is that latin?
I don't get it. 'Course it's 3am here and I am still awake.
I seldom sleep during the three days of the full moon, why do you think that is, Sadie the Celt?
@ Eireannach666
Eire I understand totally where you are coming from, and because I came into this blog in media res, its only fair that I should apologise!
I'm sorry, I believe that would be:
REIGN OF BLOOD!!!!
The subtle play on words confused me in my distraction as I did other things...
Sorry, I would not want to mis-represent a Slayer song...
@666
HA! Yes, well I like loud and angry music! I didn't get my nose broken at a "Slayer" concert because I wanted to reflect on the beauty of Mozart that night...
RAIN OF BLOOD!!!!
(Although I love Mozart, as well...)
@eire666:
Sorry, it is audio, with prompting.
@eire666:
It is about a hippie chick with a butterfly tattoo, talking about hippie stuff to this dude, he keeps his cool for a short while than lays into her, about the real reality, Its funny!
@Achems
Its not that I don't trust your opinion its just my tolerance level is low compared to most and I am a picky person about what goes into my head. I mean even if ythe tv is on and your not watcbing it you still are receiving it, you see what I mean? I don't know I'm just picky and don't want to be frustrated.
But if you guys say watch it then to me it would be a good idea to do so. I trust you two wouldn't say that about just anything and we all are on the same team on most things so ill check it out in a bit.
What exactly is it a movie/clip or audio or what? How long? What would be a introductionary briefing n it?
@Ep
Ok man, ill trust your judgment. Ill get back to you on that one.
@Sadie
Still you just have to realize my views and distaste for religion are not unfounded at all. I've seen its impact all my life. I have family that are clergy and huge believers but I look at myself and what I do and how my life is and see it more fulfilling, rewarding and less restrained due to the fact that I can see through the illusion of things that can never be seen or proven. Faith is a word that can be used it different contexts and mean slightly different things. Example , faith in a deity is not the same as having faith that your team will win or that you will make it 50 miles on a 1/4 tank of gas. Blind faith and faith as positive thinking or optimism are far from the same. The thing about American English is context. So sorry if you misunderstood some of what I said. I see from a lot of your replies that you may have misinterpreted what I meant but that's ok, ill just be more direct. Slainte.
@Randy
Of course that's fine my brathair. But check the lyrics. That's the words. That's my favorite band. I've seen them three times and met Glenn Benton twice and smoked with him.
You'll dig it but its loud and angry. Achems liked the In The Eyes video. Its awesome I swear. All their songs are bad a** to me.
elyrics.net/song/d/deicide
@Ep
Ok man, ill trust your judgment. Ill get back to you on that one.
@Sadie
Still you just have to realize my views and distaste for religion are not unfounded at all. I've seen its impact all my life. I have family that are clergy and huge believers but I look at myself and what I do and how my life is and see it more fulfilling, rewarding and less restrained due to the fact that I can see through the illusion of things that can never be seen or proven. Faith is a word that can be used it different contexts and mean slightly different things. Example , faith in a deity is not the same as having faith that your team will win or that you will make it 50 miles on a 1/4 tank of gas. Blind faith and faith as positive thinking or optimism are far from the same. The thing about American English is context. So sorry if you misunderstood some of what I said. I see from a lot of your replies that you may have misinterpreted what I meant but that's ok, ill just be more direct. Slainte.
@Randy
Of course that's fine my brathair. But check the lyrics. That's the words. That's my favorite band. I've seen them three times and met Glenn Benton twice and smoked with him.
You'll dig it but its loud and angry. Achems liked the In The Eyes video. Its awesome I swear. All their songs are bad a** to me.
@eire666
Do you think I would put my seal of approval on religious or hippie
stuff, if you do not believe me than believe @Epicurus:
"Storm" is neat!
My Gaelic brother,
Deicide? You know, I know of that band, but I don't think I ever heard them. I love the name, of course, and the song title, "F*ck your God" warms my cold-heart...
Ima hafta ta check those bad-boys out...
Thanks, 666! (That's what I'm gonna call you from now on, is that OK?)
@ Eirannach666
How are you Eieannach666? - I didnt have a 'stance' then - and I dont have one now. oh dear me I am sorry - yr right, I really dont know who I am talking to! goodbye x
@Sadie
"I got Achems to watch/listen to.."
Perhaps you should remember who you are talking to. I don't think I'd enjoy it much and I am pretty solid as far as my stance goes,when concerning science and religion/belief etc...m Music as well. Ill tell you what , ill make a deal with you. Go listen/watch the videos In The Eyes of God by Deicide , and look up the lyrics. Then do the same with the video/lyrics to F*ck Your God by Deicide also one of my favorites, the video with lyrics of Cult by Slayer. All on you tube. Then ill go watch yours. Deal?
The lyrics count the most but it might give tou an idea about how I am about some religiouX stuff.
@ eireannach666
thanks for your lovely words back there Eire - only just noticed them - and i couldn't agree more, and I certainly won't! ('quit science for religion') - I just need to find the key to open the door - its not science thats at fault - its definately me.
must try harder
yeah
@ Charles B
Charles! Hello again - Ive just replied to you but its gone to moderation. This is not because I swore at you! - quite the contrary, but I think my mentioning of the eastern block caused it to be blocked, and may be in the east too - who knows! its no biggy deal, i only said thanks, basically Charles!
from Sade
@ Charles
thank you for the link - Im useless on the computer, Im learning at breakneack speed - (the art of socialising) - is socialising like turning Russia back to communism? or rebuilding the Berlin Wall?
anyway charles I will deffo have a look at the tube post - but is it about religion? and is it from ONE particular standpoint Chales?
cos if it is Im going to have to put it on the back burner, (if you want opinions on the tube thing I mean?)
@ Eireannach666
@ Randy
hey you guys! howz stuff? I managed to get Achems to listen to Tim Minchin - I got feedback @ the Transgender...doc post, seems Ez2b12 got into it too.
Achems reckons you will love it - listen to 'storm' (as an alternative to 'creationists..')
and then I suggest nothing at all - except to say that he is also a remarkable musician, religious misfit, and heart renderingly unforgettable.
(listen to 'Not Perfect)
I know that its cheeky of me to hijack yr ears - but I think you may forgive me - at least I hope so,
regards! Sade
@ DK
I have to agree with you there a bit. On the fact that researching and studying are one thing. But to let that become worship is a far more harmful and useless use.
@Randy/Achems
Well in Oakland, Ca, give me your wallet means give me your wallet. And shoers. And gold. And as a matter of fact. It means get nak*d and put it in the bag!
@Achems
HAHA! Excellent use of the term "youse guys"! "Youse guyses" would have also been acceptable in Jersey...
Soon, you'll be able to visit and fit right in, they'll think you're a native.
Remember, in Jersey "Go f--k yourself!" is the same as "Good Morning!"
@D-K
Yes, that's true, and even as I wrote it, I thought the statement too strong.
Afterall, I studied Tarot extensively as psychological tool, and astrology... (plus it made me gigantic bucks!)
So, I will go along with that...
@Charles B:
I actually tried to watch your so called scholarship, could hardly get past the first part, had to fast forward.
There would not be enough money for me to watch stuff like this!
All I can say is youse guyse definitely march to the beat of a different drummer!
@Randy: I disagree, although only with the final statement.
The bible is a window into the basic human psyche, studying the bible is to study social constructs, large scale sociological manipulation, and it unearths many mysteries of the brain. While I obviously discard it's original intention/message, being a critical thinker and all, one cannot deny the intricacy in which the supernatural is interwoven into one's social paradigm, leading to all sorts of sociological and philosophical shifts.
I find the thing fascinating, not directly because of it's content or it's implications, but more of it's influence of the basic human psyche, the R-complex, the basal nuclei and social consequence calculation. Fascinating!
@Charles B.
All due respect, Charles, but you and Laurie wouldn't know good scholarship if it took you out to dinner, drove you home, and made passionate love to you all night long.
Good scholarship begins with good scholarship. The bible is NOT good scholarship. We can not check the veracity of the authors, because it is mostly apochryphal, (authors unknown), immediately, it must be rejected as a strong information source.
Therefore, no good scholarship can come from the bible.
Easy.
@ Sadie
Don't quit science because of religion. Quit religion because of science. That's the problem with the world and is unfit to make the decisions needed to progress our technology,understanding of how the universe works. Keep religion at home and leave the world to science.
History is great , as long as it is factual history and not speculated assumption based on hear say. I love history and am ,in fact, a bit of a history buff myself.
As far a the de vinci stuff, I say you can develop a code or pattern in anything if you look for it. I see them everywhere. I think that most of it is just a beating of evidence until it tells you what you want to see/ hear. I can't stand conspiracy theorist garbage. That's just me though am whatever floats your boat.
Sadie: I know, I have to focus my goals. It was mostly just run-away daydreaming, but I do plan to study theology for sure for a masters degree, and I have to take some classes in education for my teaching license, and my wife wants me to get some kind of degree from U.P. too. In what, is yet to be decided.
Epic: Why can't I study archeology, or even paleontology? I'm not a "young earther" actually, but I do believe in creationism.
Dr. Randy: The Caliphite will be reestablished by Turkey soon. Dark days for us all are coming.
Laurie: I'm going to post a link to the Star of Bethlehem if I can find it. Truly awesome scholarship.
@ eireannach666
I wanted to learn about Science but religion kept getting in the way, so Ive moved into History - and other stuff cos I feel more comfortable when Im not around religion.
Ive got an MA in religion, so Ive got the right to turn my back on it - I still respect religion and those that are devout, but I didnt come here for that
If u know what I mean? thank you Eireannach666 for asking
Yes, well see, THAT was creepy...
I have seen the Medici doc before and I loved it... of course I studied them extensively in college, and wrote a paper on them, (for which I got a "C", thank you Professor! He didn't get my snese of humor, either...).
@ randy
thas funny - i get it at last!
i like you more now yr voice has gone all falsetto -
eunuch suits you, and I bet yr jeans is looser?
now come 'ere - i need a kidney
Ok I give up, I don't know what I did wrong... maybe just delete them both, Vlatko, it's not important.
Sadie, I know it is difficult for you to follow the thread with your tiny, British brain, but I was correcting Epicurus about Leonardo, not you. Your usage was acceptable.
I'm kidding you, Sadie... and yes, the stilletto in the balls is pretty much a typical Saturday night for me...
See, in Jersey, this is how we show affection, through insults!
"Oh, the Chinese, Japanese, and Ancient South American civilizations did alot of that vivisection stuff, too.
‘Course they were practicing brilliant surgery long before we even knew what shoes were… so…"
@ eirennach
nooooo im afraid not, ive lost my train of thought cos rndy has lost both his balls and I fear I may be the cause.
The only thing I know about the Medici is that I saved one's ass in Assassins Creed 2.
Which was awesome.
..
..
*retreats back to shadows*
@ Randy
anyways, I like Python, red dwarf, etc too - but I find it hard understanding english programmes - I like to S4C - its a welsh channel but we only got the one channel!
anyway iff you want to continue this discussion, why not meet me in the History annex? Im currently watching 'Medici. godfathers of renaissance' and I would appreciate your input cos im currently talking to myself there! (Im not learning anythink) x
Sadie, now you know light years measure distance right?
@ randy
well wouldnt it be cool if you could be known as of America/ dont tell me that your ego couldnt take it?? I would have called him Leonardo - but was worried you may have confused him with that leonardo de capprico bloke?
Just mashing yr balls with the heel of my stiletto Randy
cos it seems you liked yr wife doing it?
@Sadie
Fine come back! And I enjoy the ol' ball-vice... so...
But, the "sanctity of corpses..."? I don't know where to begin there...
Leonardo, like all of the great anatomists throughout history, from ancient Greece to the present day, advanced our knowledge of medicine exponentially.
His incredibly accurate drawings of the human anatonmy, (inside and out), were standard reference for surgeons up 'til the 18th century... hell, even today, in some cases!
How else are you gonna learn how the body works unless you cut it up? In England, in the 18th and 19th century, it was common for doctors to cut prisoners and the insane, open ALIVE and observe their inner workings... so that was a fun time...
@ Randy
ooooooo dont start me off randy! - Ive got a little penny in my wallet - thats older than your country
I like boiled meat! and as a matter of fact - you americans should do a bit more boiling instead of loading yr arterys up with choloesterol - a right 'lardy' bunch if you ask me
just smashing your balls in a vice Randy
@ Epicurus
only thinking it because I was thinking of Da Vinci during the renaissance - thats why! well I didnt know how long grave robberys been operating for (I dont mix in those circles) but you gotta admit that Da vinci did NOTHING for the sanctity of corpses did he? epicurious?
@Epicurus who wrote to Sadie:
"grave robbing and tomb raiding was around loooong before da vinci. i dont know why you would be thinking that..."
Yes, you beat me to it Epicurus. Strange question. Every one knows it was invented by Dr, Frankenstien... duh!
(That was a joke, I am in a weird, a**hole-ish mood today. Already, I have had many beatings from my wife for aggrivating her with snide comments... good thing I enjoy that sort of activity.)
Interestingly, Epicurus, "da vinci" is not considered proper usage for Leonardo. Indeed, in the art world, and in the acedemic world of History, and such, he is just known as "Leonardo". One name like Cher or Sting... he is that cool. Da Vinci is just where he is from, "OF Vinci".
It's funny, that ridiculous book by Dan Brown, (that I just couldn't get through it was so badly written), it's real title is:
"The Of Vinci Code!" Doesn't make much sense... but then again, neither did the rest of it...
@Sadie
(the following will be a joke, I love the Mother country, and I grew up on Brit-Coms like Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, The Black Adder etc...)
Hush, you British loonie! If it weren't for we Americans you would be the teeniest, weeniest, English speaking satellite of the German Empire!
Why don't you go boil some meat and let the adults talk!
LOL! Just breakin' yer balls there, Sadie...
as my grandmother used to say;
"the art of revealing, is part concealing"
its what you DONT see that lends to your imagination, and thats what I am trying to say. The americans have about as much 'subtlety' as a swinging sledgehammer
and as for that british voiceover - cringe cringe - who is he? he would NEVER get work on British Television, all I can say in his defence is that he must have been very very short of money or patriotism (oops an 'ism')
@Sadie
"..but at whose expense..."?
At the creationists' expense, obviously. In my opinion, as they defy science and want their primitive beliefs taught in schools, they deserve to be slapped around, as well as laughed at.
BBC would never ever have given this the time of day - and again, I dont have enough light years left to go into the reasons why ('isms' 'ists' ology'......blah blah)
@ Randy
I wold never take them creationists seriously Randy. I just did NOT like the way the documentary was produced. it was just terrible, I could not watch it - i like to learn but I do ot like it rammed down my throat. this documentary may have been funny to some - but at whose expense?
@sadie, grave robbing and tomb raiding was around loooong before da vinci. i dont know why you would be thinking that.
@ Randy
I hear yoU.
My mind has been all over the place today - I keep wondering if Leonardo da Vinci was the (unintentional) instigator for Grave robberies or Tomb raiding
@Sadie
Yeahv that thread was fun. A lot of feet went up the rear ends of the religees on that one. Lol.
@Randy I'm surprised this one has gotten so many posts.
Truth is, my mind has been elsewhere today, I keep pondering on Leoardo Da Vinci and wondering if he was the instigator for Graveyard robberies or Tomb raiding.
Yeah Sadie, we loved "Why do people laugh at creationists?" Because you SHOULD laugh at creationists. It is not only acceptable but our responsibility to mock and deride bad ideas. Until they can be proved. That goes for science as well.
@eireannach666
Well, I was talking about the word f@g, the f word. That's like the N word for African Americans. They are allowed to use it, but we are NOT, and that is fine.
To the homosexuals that I know g@y is fine, and I often use it like you do, "What a g@y show!" right in front of them.
The F word, is only for them to use.
heck im talking on the wrong page! oooh im needing more practice, its the creationist doc i was referring to
@Randy
The gay people you know must be different then the ones I do. Its not offensive if not directed towards them that way. Like I could say "Aww that g@y" in reference to something being broke and it wouldn't be in that context. You see what I'm saying?
@eireannach666
Yeah, come to think of it, it may have been a nasty comment, but I assumed that was the same Galloway that I had been talking to on other threads, and they seemed like friendly exchanges...
@Sadie
Careful now, me and my friends had a blast on that documentary! We passed The Bong of Truth!
@ eireannach666
grrrr what a patronising git! dont care if he is 'british' - he smokes way too many cigrettes to make his voice credible!
too much repetition.....too much 'in yr face' bright red....writing - all it did was get my dander up!
Thanks for allowing me to let off steam Eireannach! your such a good therapist! (today at least!)x x x x x x x
@Randy
I didn't find it funny. I couldn't tell if he was being derogatory or attempting to be clever as if I hadn't heard that reference yet.
@Sadie
How ya doin kitten? Thae why do people .... Wasn't meant to be on tv but was a youtube thing. Those clips were taken from a long period of time.
SORRY! I meant the above post (from me) to be put on the 'Why do people laugh at creationists' site - Im sorry - it doesnt apply to this!
I just watched this - (correction) I TRIED to watch this - I skipped into every section but got more and more bored - this programme would not get air-time on BBC or any channel with integrity and values, in my opinion
@Galloway
That was a good one! LMAO!
You got me, you f@g!!!
(Just a joke! All in fun!)
@ Randy
It had to do with me reading it wrong. O thought you were serious and figured you were a bit tipsy. Then I just thought I'd pay respect to those that deserve and have gained it. Nothing more really.
@Galloway Grumblefield
Pouge muh thoin!
What is your ancestry? What heritage do you claim?
@ Randy
It had to do with me reading it wrong. O thought you were serious and figured you were a bit tipsy. Then I just thought I'd pay respect to those that deserve and have gained it. Nothing more really.
@Galloway Grumblefield
What is your ancestry? What heritage do you claim?
@Randy,
Why did you call eireannach666 your gay lick brother? That is really gay!
Anyway, this was an interesting doc in a pop doc sort of way. Thanks!
sorry should say 268% not 258%
@ laurie
you mentioned Scott Wolters testing but his own results showed approx 200 years of weathering (from date found) so his date is approx 1698 not 1362. now his dating could be off but in order to get a date of 536 years instead of 200 he would have to be off by a 258% not reliable in my books. in 2009 he also claimed the stone was made by the knights templar and also claimed columbus was a member of the knights of christ order and was giver a map of the west indies pre voyage .
@Laurie
Why is this important to you? Science has shown the possibility of many cultures and civilizations discovering the New World long before Columbus's grandparents were born.
The Chinese, the Polynesians, maybe even Egyptians... there is good scholarship there posing the possibility of tons of people tramping around South and North America hundreds and hundreds of years before Columbus.
Cool, huh? So what? Doesn't prove that the mythological character of jesus "teleported" there in a Star Trek-Transporter Beam... as you show in your mormon cartoons for mormon kids...
Science does not care about it if it can't be measured. Maybe it exists, who cares? If it can't be measured, it is pointless to consider, because you can't BUILD things with it, and it can't make the world a more tolerable place for human life, which is the goal of science...
Yes... it is! It's not the goal of politicians, or money-men, they want to rob you and leave you for dead, that's what they do. No big deal. They gotta eat, too.
But, science? Their only true agenda is knowledge and building stuff that helps people.
@ Epi Bite some more.
from Laurie
A Scandal of Scholarship and how often does it happen?
Professor Gibbon was pleased to chair the workshop, at Fort Snelling in St. Paul, April 2003, and to explain to the audience how the weight of probability now lies on the side of authenticity (and had since the late 1960's when L'Anse aux Meadows excavations proved that the Norse had built a colony on Canadian soil.) Still the representatives from the Smithsonian and Minnesota Historical Society could not give up their dogmatic insistence that 1898 linguists' opinion has to trump the hard data of geology and more than a century of advances in knowledge of Scandinavian languages, manuscripts, and North Atlantic settlements and trade.
Richard Nielsen had engaged Scott Wolter for the laboratory analysis of the Runestone carvings because Wolter enjoys a national reputation for expertise in petrographic analysis. The geologist, although a native Minnesotan, knew nothing about the Kensington discovery. When he went to the Minnesota Historical Society archives to look at his predecessor geologist's report, that of Newton Winchell. Wolter of course knew of Winchell, his name graces the University of Minnesota's Geology Building. Reading Winchell's field notes and report, carried out ten years after the initial discovery, Wolter was deeply impressed by the pioneer researcher's thorough, well-considered fieldwork and conclusion that Inference to the Best Explanation supported authenticity for the inscription -- basically, the same weathering data Wolter confirmed at stronger magnification. Disrespect for Wolter's presentation puzzled the forensic petrographer, but disrespect for the scientist who had fathered Minnesota geology appalled him! Now Wolter systematically searched the Archives for clues to the rejection; what he has found is, as he says, "a scandal of scholarship," dismissal of leading geologists' evaluations, failure to publish or follow up letters validating the early settlers' accounts of the find, refusal to consider later judgments by the leading Danish archaeologist, Brøndsted, and by the distinguished American linguist Robert Hall.
Did anybody gain anything by this secret of the Pre-Columbus land claim? Is it collusion for power? Like I asked Randy before is the tendency of science to declare that something does not even exist if cannot be measured by an instrument? Why am I asking you because you take things seriously.
eireannach666
You thought I was tipsy? I wish, my gaelic brother! I haven't a drink since... I guess the end of August? That holiday that happens then? What is that? A month?
I just got too much work to do, I'm working now, on a sunday, the lord's day... the bible says I should be stoned to death! (and I worked on the Jewish sabbath too, so...).
Anyways, I really have no idea what your overall point was there in relation to my posts, but I do feel as you state there, ALOT! Frustration and anger at st*pidity.
BTW, please avoid the word "f@g" or any of its variations. my homosexual friends find it offensive, (except when they use it themsleves, lol) so I do, too. G@y, is fine, but not with Vlatko, obviously...
everything i am going to write here, I write with the fact that I have taken advice, but firstly I need to mention that I had my first personal computer in april 2010, up until then I used public ones - provided by the government - so I didnt 'play around'. just did what I had to do.
I was connected to the internet on 28th June at home - its the best tool I have ever used, but a little frightening to say the least.
Ive been banging my head against a brick wall - and I think its because I am treating this blog like I would any written piece of work, i.e. everything stated must be clearly defined as either an opinion, a primary source, a secondary source etc., with evidence of the latter by way of bibliographies et al.
And most importantly - not to deviate from the subject matter. (ever)
These rules (so I have been told) do not exist in cyber land.
I am trying to get used to this, but until I do, I need practice. so I am going to do this by watching 'easy' documentaries, because its insulting to everyone, if I were to continue.
Dang Randy, I responded but its in moderation again. I stay in moderation. Maybe - should apply for a job. You hiring Vlatko? LOL just kidding.
@Randy
Well I thought you were as lil tipsy pisky and was getting all emotional on me. LOL then I decided to include the rest out of respect for those that keep it real on here . Ended up forgetting to acknowledge Vlatko. Sorry 7Vlatko you know I include you in the same category.
But ok you got me to take the worm on that one.(sounded a little fa*ish)
Still, I say I work around a bunch of great mechanical geniuses
But when it come to any other science they are as a box of rocks. I'm the onle non-religious person up there and the conversations I have consist of work related issues and a bunch of idle BS that I normally avoid. That is why it is refreshing to talk to you guys after wasting so much brain space listning to the garbage work and society's average persons thoughts. But my old lady is as I and my good friends as well. But you know I don't really do a whole lot these days. Got to stay out of the streets. Too much trouble to get into and it always seemsto find its way around. I mean don't get me wrong at all, as history has shown , I don't want any trouble but I'm not scared of it,in fact while in the moment I enjoy it tremendously. So I just try to stay away from society as I despise it and loathe the constant pushing of commercialism and religion down my throat everytime I step out of my house or turn on a tv. It sickens me to the point of outright disgust and pure unadulterated hate.
Wish I could petition for a religious free and pop culture/mainstream free state or even city for me to live in or govern as I see fit. Be nice eh?
Show them how much better it is without the stench of religion and filthy rap*ng of the mind done by tv and the mainstream propaganda dealt by the rich to the poor and needy weaker minds.
Ok I'm done. I don't want to make V get me.
@Laurie
I like how for the last few posts I've addressed to you ,you ignored as you seem to avoid direct confrontation and flock towards quoting scripture,talking in circles ,avoiding topics in which you cannot argue,and of course changing topics. So I will let you be for now since you seem to like to debate Ep with no avail. However in doing such things it really shows really how delusional you are and it is saddening to see how extremely brainfu**ed you are from all the years of listening and never questioning to the point of belief. Sorry but you need to come hit the bong of truth over here on the darkside for a while and get all that jesux h christ out of your brain and fill it with the sweet facts and undeniable proofs of Science H Logic.and we must do something about the whole planet Kolob thing and the whole coming from another planeyt fathered by aliens the force us to wear magic undies and our species coming from the southern U.S.
I don't hate religious people , I'd have to hate my family and the majority of the people I know but I do hate religion . Look what its done to you. Tis a shame. I think of an egg in a frying pan, like the commercial,(anyone remember that?) THis is your brain , this is your brain on religion, any questions? Lol.
Ill bet someone remembers that.
@Laurie
why did you say that to me....it seems extremely pointless that you would brought it up. but i guess i will bite.
Gustavson, Helmer. "The non-enigmatic runes of the Kensington stone". Viking Heritage Magazine (Gotland University) 2004 (3). "[...] every Scandinavian runologist and expert in Scandinavian historical linguistics has declared the Kensington stone a hoax [...]"
Scientists today are NOT saying different. you probably found an example of one scientist who never heard of it and believes in it. but in no way are "scientists" starting to say it is authentic. actually what scientists do say is that it is a hoax from around 1898.
A swedish/canadian scientist who studies it Birgitta Wallace disagrees -- forcefully. Wallace, who is considered a foremost expert in west Norse archeology, gave the keynote address at the conference at which Wolter and Hanson (the scientists arguing for its authenticity) presented their hypothesis. She blasted their views. said, "Neither the runes nor the vocabulary reflect the 1300s, If you know
Swedish, that is the way my grandfather would write, not my ancestors from the 1300s."
Also, she said, the idea of Norsemen exploring for the sake of exploration, as the runic legend suggests, is ridiculous. There were no economic reasons to go to Minnesota, nor has even one artifact been found that suggests the Norse were anywhere nearby in the 1300s. She finds the coincidence "amusing" that Norsemen explored an area more than 600 years before it was heavily settled by Scandinavians. Plus, geologic studies indicate that a cold climate prevailed in much of the 1300s, making travel very difficult in mid-America.
now would you like to explain why you even brought that up? how it was relevant to anything i previously said?
@Sadie the Celt
This is a quote and I don't know who wrote but it's how I feel.
What seems to be proved may not be embraced: but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.
Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."
@Epicurus
Do you know that in America there is history lost and erased for a reason. What's happening in America isn't about truth. There is a difference between Divine Providence and manifest destiny. Manifest destiny perverts things it is a collusion for power.
An example of a good recipe for transformation.
Ben Franklin Science
Thomas Jefferson Government
Alexander Hamilton Commerce
Sam Adams Religion
They were all in check of course that is in the past. (old stuff)
When government wants to expand, commerce wants more land and money, and science says that Native Americans are savages, and religion says the son's of Noah are not all quite human that is a recipe for collusion for power.
Have you heard of The Kensinton Runestone dated 1362. It was declared a hoax but scientist today are saying different.
@Laurie
First of all, it's not a mosque, it's a muslim community center. And, though I think it is disrespectful for them to try and build it there, I do not think it is right for Americans to prohibit it.
Better that they come to their senses, have better manners, and build somewhere else. Too sensitive an area, whether it's right or wrong, is irrelevant.
Cordova Spain Islam is part of an overarching ideology of Islamic fundamentalists to try and bring back the Great Caliphate.
You remember that Spain was once part of the Islamic Empire around the time that the Great Caliphates basically ruled the world.
There was a time, from about the 7th century and up and around the time of the Black Plague, that Islam was at a Golden Age of knowledge, medicine, science, literacy, etc. We have much to owe to that time in their history, (including the cure for the Black Death, which is atrributed to King Saladin and administered by none other than Nostradamus... that's a long story...).
The crusades were all about christendom trying to wrest that control back into the hands of what was left of the ROman Empire, the Catholic Church.
This is a simplified history, obviously.
The rest of your comments are trying to get me into conspiracy thoeries and I am not going to get into that, except to say, no one is in charge, there are just a bunch of greedy, unintelligent, rich guys running away with our money. Nothing personal, they are just thieves.
@ Dr. Randy Batman the American
I appreciate you as a research person. I'm confused. On the 10th anniversary of 911 who is financing the mosque? What does Cordova Spain Islam mean? Is religion and government together for power? Are we all placed in boxes pitted against each other for those who want power??
I don't have time to look at all the blogs to see who it is that asked me if I have Mormon friends helping me with posting. Not at my age. We don't get together for posting. We don't get together and look at u-tube and stuff. My kids however ask me to look at videos or listen to a song on the net. My kids don't live at home anymore so that is a rare thing. Maybe on Thanksgiving when we get together. I don't know what made you think that anyway. I think that I'm more open-minded than some of my Mormon friends because I also have friends outside my religion. I have certain friends for shopping, others for going to the movies, others for home parties, others for discussing books others for exercise etc. I'm on my own here.
Why am I here? You heard the statement no pain no gain. Well I have a child like love for the Gospel and I want to grow strong muscles. One way is to read things that piss me off. You challenge me.
@ Randy
if i had balls theym shattered for sure and if i keep sending mesges when driving im gonna die and who would argue with you then dr randy? thank you for being kind to me, i know im hard work. whoooosh that was close call ( oh those juggernauts) x x x s q x
My Gealic Brother,
Dude, I was just breakin' yer balls a little bit, there...
No worries!
BTW, just for the anthropological edification of everyone here, earlier, I wrote to Eireannaech666, "Where's the love, is all's I'm ASKIN'..."
Now if I truley wanted to do a Jersey accent with that line, it should have been "all's I'm AXIN'..." See? We "axe" people questions.
LOL! It always cracks me up when some Jersey girl or guy says, "Let me axe you sumthin'..." or "Can I axe you a question?"
I ususally respond, "Well you can try, but I think that's really considered aggrivated assault with a deadly weapon... carries a fairly heavy prison term..."
@ Eireannaech666
I had to stop at Aust services - love yr blog im getting addicted to this! am I the 'double poster' to which you refer Eire? I hope I am because thats such a compliment its make me euphorically happy, truly its what I want to be, and that dont meant im 2 two faced. just two minds. im pecking this message out on nokia E71 - is hard going, im on a mission now ill be back tomoz thank you Eire for that! have a lovly day evey one. over and out from Sadie (over the border on the M4)
@Randy
Ha! Nah my brotha you have it all wrong on this one , rare as it may be, but I just liked the fact that laurie was quoting this and that verse and then some dou**e of a supposed scientist, then after he checked her on it he pretty much was just making a side point on that by showing her an example of how to quote someone while supporting what was being said against her argument. Plus that was a great pick on Sagan material relevant to their talk.
Trust me , you shouldn't see it in that light as you have because I always quote your stuff and have the utmost respect and admiration for you sir. As my elder ,a teacher, a fellow seeker of truth and knowledge and a friend as well. I loved your example you gave and laughed as I read it because of the fact ,(and I'm sure you were thinking) that it had to be and was broken down so simply and still she would not budge. It was funny it came to belittling condescending examples even a child could understand.
The way you explain things is always good to me. I always look forward to the next 3andy bong of truth session, trust that.
I think that his pick on that specific quote by an undeniably brilliant scientist , was a good way to show her how to and to make the point together.
Don't look into it too much ,man. I learn a lot from you guys especially. You mostly since we both enjoy and despise the same things , so you should already know I agree with you on almost all things.apologies if you felt that credit was due and wasn't because I'm going to steal that from you ant ways lol. I was really just following along until Ep busted out the Sagan. Heck I expected you to enjoy that as well, seeing as I myself liked sagan and knew of him and his work. Knew of the cilosmos series but didn't have the admiration I do now for him if it wasn't for me talking with you on here.
Point being , I think you took that in the wring light. Plus I got caught up in the whole universal geometry thing and obviously wasted time on Sadie since she claimed to want to discuss UG but instead seemed to like Laurie delusional jabber over some really interesting basic ideas on the way the universe operates. So I too sigh as you on that one. Like said my bad for spacing out there. Love ya man. Your the CEO remember and the dealer that loads the bong of truth and sparing nobody. Se you like the hunt as I. Can't forget ; Achems the man of few words but they are always well mostly right on, Ep because as far as evolution is concerned he's up on his game on that and I've always supported and acknowledged it as fact but I like the way he speaks on it. Usually a lot of info in there , most are usual to me but he throws in a curve from time to time that makes ya think a bit., HM because he and I just don't like the major majority of our species and are all about ruffling some feathers(as are you) with no regard for someone's pansy feelings and religious beliefs and of course the fast talking one who entertains us with some of the best double-sided posts on here , the infamous DK when he's not on one of his off the wall trips of mass ridiculed though he makes my chuckle with his (no offense) for lack of better words)sluggish sarcasm.
You see what I mean now bro? Its a given that I support your thoughts and ideas. I think you are the only one besides Acjems that I havnt gotten into it with before. (And Epi Log,whom I haven't seen on here in a long time. Hmm?)
I think you catch my drift no? Horns and thorns for anything,physical or ideological , that puts a man on his knees. Only one exception and that being a beautiful woman.
Hey changing subject because now I feel like I'm pivoting in a circle catching se"guys" all over. You all can now have your nu*z back.
I was thinking the other day, about how many signature you would need and is it even possible/plausible to petition religion abolishment in public and/gor all together? Maybe in just one state? Any thoughts? I mean especially get it out of the government and science. I mean like you said jokingly?,"In a wood chipper." But I think the grand canyon would make a great place for elimination and disposal, lol N/K.
@ Laurie Robbiard
@ Eireannach666
@ everyone
Laurie, thank you, eireannach - again I apologise
I think its evident that I am not approaching you all correctly! - like you said Eire - I am fiesty, but I mean well. The reason I am tying to filter out the relgious aspect id not because I am not interested - its simply that I am short on time. My cousin Andrew graduated in Pure Mathematics from Oxford - it runs in the family, (the purity of knowledge I mean) and fascinates me - but I know I approach it in the wrong way.
SO! the rugby season is about to descend on us, which cam only mean that the cricket season is over. I say this because I am heading off to Stanton Harcourt in a few hours, I need to talk to someone about my 'pitch' - and I dont mean Im the opening Batsman either!
I plan on getting some advice to improve my techinique (what technique!!) I know grrrr
@eireannach666
Listen, I love Epicurus' genius as much as much as the next really smart guy, but he cribs some Carl Sagan and you gush all over him. I made up a perfectly good alegorical story about a tiger behind a bush, (scroll up), and I get nuttin'!
I mean, my little alegory had a whole thing with a cage that represented how people limit themselves out of some fear of an imagined god, and everything!
I even had an illustration of how you can get robbed by that fear... where's the love? Is all's I'm askin'!
I mean, my stuff was all original... and stuff...
No? *sigh* Ok, fine...
@Ep sorry about the *2* up there. These BB keys are small and I hit the wrong key sometimes.
But again that was broken down to where that dude from the show "Life foes on" Corky could understand and retract. I was rollin dude.
You know this doc is quickly becoming the number one commented one on the site... it was ok, but not cool enough for that. Not like, "Why People Laugh at Creationists"!
I'm not trying to convince Laurie that I am right and she should think like I do, I just want her to get her religion out of my science, her chocolate out of my peanut butter!
I am trying to get her stop trying to use science AGAINST science, to prove her magic-books RIGHT.
And I must admit, like I was with Sadie, I am a little concerned that she is falling for a con... In all my mysanthropy, I still have some kind of empathy for humans...
I don't like 'em, but I don't like seein' 'em get hurt... Like spiders, I am terrified of spiders, but I can't kill one, or see one suffer.
@Ep
Bravo.Bravo! *whistles *applause! Best post today goes to 2picurus the man of logical reason! *baloons and confetti. You have won an all new.never worn and fully loaded nothing!
Nice one man. Hats off for sure.
@Laurie
Boy , you sure are persistent aren't you? Will you please just quit the scripture and religion quoting and answer a question with just pure evidence and not opinion and hearsay?
Or do you only believe in fairy tales?
Now don't get your magic undies in a bunch but try this.
Provide evidence of creation and then I will rebutle with my evidence of no creation on top of the tons presented here on this thread and others and then we can weigh them to see which ones hold up to end the debate on a productive note.
Doesn't have to be long just list your verifiable evidence, verified meaning I can see it and its been tested by real scientists in a peer reviewed situation and tested as well in an environmental controlled and perhaps blind. Situation.
Ok go.
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Carl Sagan.
HA! Not at all, over the edge, I thought your comment was far better. Much less smart-assery, much more direct, and you brought up that aspect of mormonism that I had forgotten about!
@dr randy aka batman
how come every time i say something you say it better lol.
@Sadie
Hey there Miss Sadie, ciamar a tha thu? I hope your claws have since retracted ,as our wounds have yet to heal.
1.Of Course I agree that the four forces are a definite factor on everything that is. We however have a lot of research to do in order to really understand the impact on the quantum level. Although there are many examples tha these factors impact us at all times. 2 if these factors were to change in some way , I'd speculate that we would cease to exist but as for everything else, I have no clue but can only speculate, which I do not really like to do. You know what they say, when you assume you make an "a*s" out of "u" and "me"
As far as geometry ,therein lies a question I know a bit about. But divine to me implies a creator and I can not see that as even an idea gut universal geometry is a different thing.and it all starts with general relativity. In which einstein , (one more time , eienstein) shows how mass curves space, and anything of mass travelling in curved space will have their paths altered, like if a force had "acted" on them. This is relevant because it depends on if you are talking 2d or 4d. Because curvature of 4d spacetime is much harder to explain or understand but not too much so.
GR says that space as a whole, not something in sace but space as a singlular context, can be curved. Which is how we get that we don't exist in just a 2d universe but rather a 3space + 1time universe and is proven or explained mathematically using the same maths you'd use on 2d. Relevant
for the geometry of the Universe that would have 3 possible outcomes that are one with how much mass and strength of the gravitation the univers has. Which is cool because this would mean there is a different past and future for our and possible other unniverses (string,M,etc).
The universe could be either 1.open 2.flat or 3.closed. I personally have always thought closed was more conceivable to me. As the universe implodes and explodes imfinetly forever. However all are valid theories and require knowledge greater than mine to prove. An open universe would mean the universe has a negative curve and would just expand forever and ever and a flat universe or "euclidian universe" (yes euclidian like in high school.) Because it would have just the right amount of mass in the universe to cause the expansion to cease but would have unlimited space and would expand forever, but the expansion would come to a stop after an infinite amount of time. Which I don't care for this one much, but still maybe true. We just have no ways to calculate the mass of the universe to say with certainty which is correct but even if we could say, that just opens more questions
and leaves just another small .00001 percent of wiggle room for the religees to still believe and thump their comic books ata us.
They kind of got a handle on measuring the mass but not so much to convince me that's its a fact one way or the other. The geometry of the universe is a tuff question but god is not even in the multiple choice list on this. And I know we haven't and may not ever detect or know all the mass that is in niverse yet
The general ideas of most of the scientists comes from the cosmic inflation)thing and they seem to lean towards a flat universe where it would just stop. But who knows. We could all be just the offspring of another diminsion or reality . I love some science, like randy said an if you can't test it it or show results than shut the Fu** up and try something else.
9osmology and astronomy , real science, not to be confused with theology or astrologY, dum*a** sciences and actually scratch that because they are not worthu to be included with the word of logic and reason. The word of Science H. Logic. So Science da** you pseudobeliefsyatems!. ?
Hope this shed some light for you In the name of the Logic the Reason and the Mathematics , Slainte.
.
@Laurie
"There is a fundamental and unproven dogma underlying much of modern science, especially evolution. This is the assumption of scientific naturalism, namely the philosophy that empirical nature is THE ONLY REALITY about which we can have solid knowledge. As a result the hypothesis that a God or an Intelligent Designer was involved in the creation of life on earth is , in effect excluded from scientific discourse. If scientists removed their naturalistic blinders, they might see the creation in an entirely new light."
the reason there is a basic assumption in naturalism is because nothing has been shown otherwise. it isnt just scientific methods that show religious and superstitious claims to be false but actual LOGIC. IF someone can give a way to test whatever else you propose there is then the world would be HAPPY to embrace it. i will admit the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it certainly is evidence to be skeptical and not just take it on faith.
NEVER has the idea of a designer been excluded. we have shown no reason to assume a creator and any time we search for one we dont find it. if you removed your western religion blinders you might see creation in a new light also. you might see it naturalistic. why not look at creation from a hindu viewpoint?
you said:
"When the Lord reigns during the millennium, we can expect that the typical scientist will believe like Louis Agassiz, probably the greatest naturalist of his day, who said, “In our study of natural objects we are approaching the thoughts of the Creator, reading his conceptions, interpreting a system that is His and not ours.""
this is funny because you start the sentence with your assumption that there is a lord and it will reign during this millennium...amazing how people always think the coming of their god is always in a time close to their lives...now bringing up someone from the 1800's again and trying to pass them off as some authority is just silly and shows you lack the ability to tell real logic from rhetoric.
however if you actually payed attention to the real world you would notice that as science and understanding of this universe progresses our beliefs fade away. how about we quote stephen hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
there i used a quote, therefore im right.
you say:
"in our day, the world teaches that scientists should be atheistic so that they are not prejudiced by the false traditions of religion, which hamper progress. A century ago the name of God appeared in many science books, but now his name has systematically been removed. We are taught that the thought of mixing God into science is “unscientific.”
I say
Science Need Not Be Atheistic."
the world doesnt teach scientists to be atheists. they decide that on their own by shedding off the idea that religious claims cant be questioned. you are trying to make a positive claim for something you cant prove, so you try to say that it cant be proven because of the way we view the world. this is a very immature cop out. if you can give us a way to test god or any claim made for god using science then we would be VERY happy to put it to the test. but it is the religious people making excuses why their god cant be tested. and that is clearly because it doesnt exist.
science need not be atheistic but it need be skeptical and not based on faith.
@Laurie
Achems mentioned your magic/zero-point energy-wand and it made me think of a "guff".
Grifters, (con-artists) like I was, called the props we used in a "game", guffs. A guff can be a useless thing you make and sell, telling the "mark" (victim), that it has special properties, or just something to add credence to your con-game.
In a "quack" (a medical scam, the worst of the games, because it can really hurt and kill), the guff is some useless item that the mark thinks will heal him or her, so they pay through the nose for it.
My game was called a "head-game", the psychic, spiritual advisor game, and I suppose my tarot cards, atrological charts, and crystal orbs could be called guffs. But, I made a fortune selling little clay talismans that I sculpted for each mark.
Each guff was personalized and could attract money, the opposite sex, good fortune, etc... you get the idea. I sold them for 50-200 bucks US, (depending on how much the mark could afford...)
You zero-point energy wand is a guff.
Science should be and usually IS, atheistic.
Science says, if it's not measurable, testable, or provable, it is meaningless. Can you measure god? No? Meaningless-- move on...
Science builds things in the real world. Physics makes your DVD players, and computers, and electronic data storage possible. Not jesus, physical science.
There are some scientists that believe in god, but they put that aside when they are doing science. Like the catholic astronomers at the Vatican observatory. One of the best observatories in the world, and some of the best scientists, even though they are priests.
They don't talk about god and astronomy in the same sentence. They keep it seperate.
@ laurie
i wonder why you omitted #5 on your list
"(5) the Bible and other LDS scriptures are subject to official interpretation by the First Presidency -- the scriptural texts themselves are not the final authority."
maybe because it basically states the beliefs of your church can change and what you are supposed to believe is not up to you in the churches eyes. also science deals with the natural world and takes no stance on religion . religion is a belief outside of the natural world and therefore it cannot be looked at scientifically . now you have the right to your religion and your beliefs don't affect me, but the fact you or others want them included in science offends me. by sheer definition they are not science.
@Laurie:
You never did answer me, do you wear magic underwear? maybe to go along with your "magic Wand"?
@Epicurus
you are really not arguing for anything here. you are saying theories are not facts. no one is saying they are. what is your point in bringing this up. what is your conclusion for the argument?
from Laurie
Creationism contrast sharply with fundamental LDS (Mormon) beliefs, which teach of harmony between science and religion.
There is a fundamental and unproven dogma underlying much of modern science, especially evolution. This is the assumption of scientific naturalism, namely the philosophy that empirical nature is THE ONLY REALITY about which we can have solid knowledge. As a result the hypothesis that a God or an Intelligent Designer was involved in the creation of life on earth is , in effect excluded from scientific discourse. If scientists removed their naturalistic blinders, they might see the creation in an entirely new light.
When the Lord reigns during the millennium, we can expect that the typical scientist will believe like Louis Agassiz, probably the greatest naturalist of his day, who said, "In our study of natural objects we are approaching the thoughts of the Creator, reading his conceptions, interpreting a system that is His and not ours."
This is your school of thought
In our day, the world teaches that scientists should be atheistic so that they are not prejudiced by the false traditions of religion, which hamper progress. A century ago the name of God appeared in many science books, but now his name has systematically been removed. We are taught that the thought of mixing God into science is "unscientific."
I say
Science Need Not Be Atheistic.
Sadie the Celt
from Laurie
Since you read all the post then you know that I'm a Mormon. We believe
1) The bible is incomplete since revelation continues
2) The Bible has numerous errors in translation
plain and precious material has been dropped
3)Certain segments such as song of Solomon are of dubious inspiration
4)Certain passages such as Eve being formed from Adam’s rib should be interpreted figuratively
Even those most devout and sincere believers in the bible realize that it is, like most other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense.
The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason
The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures were never intended as a textbook of geology, archaeology, earth –science, or man science. Holy Scriptures will endure while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries. God works in accordance with natural laws.
True science is a discovery of the secret, immutable and eternal laws, by which the universe is governed. Scientific truth cannot be theological lie. They have the common ground of truth on which to meet.
I suppose I and Charles are the God Squad. x
The documentary was interesting, Id like to get some consensus as to the common ground with regard to content.
Does everyone agree on the 4 forces? what do you think would happen if they were out of sync?
do you think that Garrett Lisi could be proved right with his 280 twisted circles (E8LeeGroup) (sic)
What would happen if his theory is proved? - do you agree that it would be a blueprint for divine geometry?
Im only interested in the finite if anyone cares to tell me what they think? Id be grateful
ps God Squad need not answer - thanks all the same
Epicurus:
Establishing inherent doubt in scientific explanations/conclusions is a guerilla warfare technique. By pointing out inherent uncertainty, one can equate, for example creationism, to a theory with well-established logical inconsistansies in an attempt to put both explanations on equal footing.
It's a convoluted form of mud-slinging.
Such would indicate that there isn't a conclusion, only circular logic.
I'm cool? That's a first, lol.
On second though, I'd revise my statement. Scrutiny is a instrument belonging to the overarching methodology of critical thinking, so in a sense, we're both right.
Score!
@D-K
Well, sure, "scientific scrutiny" is a term that could apply, but, I always think of that as something actual scientists do.
Critical thought is a process that can apply to lay-people as well, and really, every human being should employ it, all the time, every second, of every day of their lives-- AND, for every time/space event that happens in their lives
Otherwise, just lay down, go to sleep, and get out of the way... (them, not YOU, D-K, you're cool...)
@Laurie:
What websites are you copying/paste from? my guess, mormon right?
And/or, it seems to me you are being prompted by someone else, a third party, am I right again? is it your mormon friends?
@Randy:
Isn't that called "scientific scrutiny"?
You're going to have to spell out the point you're making there, because I'm probably missing it.
"When the underlying foundations are wrong, it often requires rebuilding the entire scientific edifice"
That, I can disagree with in advance, because a faulty theory does not devaluate the scientific method, logical insonsistancies come forth from our incomplete understanding of natural laws.
That's actually very true, Laurie. Many scientists are compromised by religious and political agendas.
That's why you and I must search diligently and do our homework on any study. Who funds it? At what point are they in the research? Is it preliminary, or conclusive? (News outlets love to shout preliminary results of health studies, for example, because they make good headlines, but when the study doesn't prove out, the news never reports that...)
Again, science is a HUMAN thing and can be corrupted by RELIGION, and politics, and money-men... what's religion's excuse? Isn't there some diety protecting it?
It will sometimes take me two years of study before I can accept any scientific evidence to be accurate. I have to know the credit rating of the scientist running the study! (exaggerating to make a point...).
This is called "critical thought".
@D-K
You strawman a specific example and couple it with reductio ad absurdum to devaluate the entire scientific method.
Shame on you.
from Laurie
Shame on me so here is a better example
For millennia it was assumed that the plane geometry of Euclid was "true," but then Einstein and others proposed "curved space" which has proven to be a very fruitful theory. Similarly space and time were believed to be absolute and matter was believed to be different from energy, and again it was Einstein who has argued convincingly otherwise. When the underlying foundations are wrong, it often requires rebuilding the entire scientific edifice, as was the case with Einstein.
@Randy
Tell me again Who are victims?
Government and Special Interests. Most scientific research done today is funded by governments, so scientists must tailor their agenda (and even findings?) accordingly, or be out of work. This is particularly unfortunate in countries where secret combinations are in control. Similarly, large corporations hire scientists to prove that their products are safe to use or superior to their competitors. We can hardly expect an unbiased report of their findings.
"If most people were blind, would it be “scientific” to ignore all observations by the few who could see only because blind scientists could not invent a camcorder and connect it to their optic nerves"
When people "see" things, it's most likely not due to the optic nerves, but interference of specific regions of the brain that shouldn't be active in the process.
Study shows that with certain visuals or scenarios, people will subconsiously engage regions from the limbic system, which means that between the observation and conversion from short-term to long term memory, other part of the brain have tampered with the observation.
I could probably look up the research for you, but google is also at your fingertips.
You know Laurie, you want to believe in this magical world of yours, I get that. Maybe you NEED to believe in it. I get that, too.
You know what I call people who WANT to believe in, god, demons, angels, unicorns, goblins, faeries, UFO's, conspiracy theories, sparkly vampires, etc...
Willing victims...
`" Is this how science discards useless information?
The classical example goes from a series of observations:
Swan no. 1 was white, Swan no. 2 was white… Swan no. 3 was white… to the general statement: All swans are white"
A scientist using an actual scientific method will not succumb to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The general statement in that instance should be:
All observed swans are white. The extrapolation from those obersvation would be that swans have a propensity towards developing a white coat, i.e have a high probability in general to develop a white coat.
You strawman a specific example and couple it with reductio ad absurdum to devaluate the entire scientific method.
Shame on you.
Side note: Randy indeed claims to have preyed on the ignorant with "psychic" abilities, but he also states that he did so full knowing and stating that the "art" from which his "abilities" derived, was and is, pure hokum.
---
"Science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."
I don't know that point you made there, or if you were agreeing with me, but you pretty much just re-phrased my sentiments; "The question of “why” is irrelevant and philosophic in nature, that’s why science doesn’t answer the “why” questions"
Yes, the "conclusion" of a theory is often proved to be inconsistant with evidence. Therefore, it is changed.
Science is a self correcting mechanism. It can be wrong for as long as it needs to be until it is right.
Religion should be right all the time, everytime, and never make mistakes... afterall, it's divinely inspired, ain't it?
And do not give me that "I feel it in my heart, so I know it's true!!" and then the violin swells and the piano goes "tinkly-tink..." This ain't TV, sister!
I can show you on an FMRI exactly where that feeling comes from. I can describe the chemical process in the brain and the endochrine system that produces the chemicals...
Means nothing. Science tests, with peer review and instruments, because the "feelings" mean nothing.
@D-K
Science (the entity) has a tendency to discard useless information because humans have a tendency to lie for personal gain, i.e psychics.
Remember that if the meaning is "observation," then it is as fallible as the observer. If it is a "theory," then it also could be disproven someday.
If it is claimed to be "truth," then it is a statement of the personal conviction of the speaker, which is outside the domain of science.
If most people were blind, would it be "scientific" to ignore all observations by the few who could see only because blind scientists could not invent a camcorder and connect it to their optic nerves?
@ Randy
Theories which have survived the test of time are sometimes honored with the name "laws". The theory is never proven true because there is always the chance that a new experiment will be devised which will require more than a minor revision to explain the result. A scientific law is really just a theory that has been inducted into the scientific hall of fame.
@ Randy
And Laurie, all of your statements today are completely without merit. Theories do become scientific laws when they are proven true.Observations are made
from Laurie
1) A theory is proposed to explain the observations
2) The theory is used to predict the results of future observations, which might prove the theory false.
Note also that no experiment ever proves a theory to be "true," but only that it has survived one more possible falsification test.
@Randy
Theories are not “guesses” they are based on real veryfiable evidence.
Science, like the law, has a “jury system” to test all truth in a very strict manner. It’s called Peer Review.
from Laurie
No induction can prove that all swans are white, since this will require an infinite number of observations, but that the observation of a single non-white swan will falsify the statement that all swans are white
@D-K
Science (the entity) has a tendency to discard useless information because humans have a tendency to lie for personal gain, i.e psychics.
from Laurie
Isn't that what Randy did to earn money to pay for his university.
from Laurie
Is this how science discards useless information?
The classical example goes from a series of observations:
Swan no. 1 was white, Swan no. 2 was white… Swan no. 3 was white… to the general statement: All swans are white.
Science has not fully explained brain chemistry and its quirks, having said that, hallucinations, altered perception and sensory deprivation all result in people "seeing" things. Just because you "see" something does not mean it exists.
Science (the entity) has a tendency to discard useless information because humans have a tendency to lie for personal gain, i.e psychics.
D-K
The question of “why” is irrelevant and philosophic in nature, that’s why science doesn’t answer the “why” questions.
from Laurie
Science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.
@Randy
Theories do become scientific laws when they are proven true.
Scientific laws. Is that the Hall of Fame of science?
from Laurie
Not-yet-measured Equated to Non-existent. Even worse than ignoring the observations of those who can see something which you cannot is the tendency of science to declare that something does not even exist if cannot be measured by an instrument. This is an extra step into ignorance.
@ Laurie Robillard
je m'excuse! oublez*
The question of "why" is irrelevant and philosophic in nature, that's why science doesn't answer the "why" questions.
You simply cannot find the answer to a why, not at this point, there is no way to account for the variables in a universe/multiverse which we don't fully understand or even have explored yet.
"Why, is often the first question asked, yet the last question answered"
I do have a nice "why" for you though; Why do you look up the opinions of a specifically morman astronomer? I'm positive that if you objectively judge your motivation for doing so, it'd be an eye-opener.
Or you can go ahead and ignore me again ;)
@ Laurie Robillard
Non Laurie je comprend le francais dupuis cinq ans (en ecole) mais j'oblez beaucoup! my first language is Welsh - not Celtic, not Gaelic - just Welsh.
Again no, I dont study Asrology or Astronomy - I used another method, but its obviously inaccurate - I will get back to the drawing board - and then back to you!
Merci, Sade x
And Laurie, all of your statements today are completely without merit. Theories do become scientific laws when they are proven true.
Theories are not "guesses" they are based on real veryfiable evidence.
Science, like the law, has a "jury system" to test all truth in a very strict manner. It's called Peer Review.
And motives are easy to figure out. People are NOT mysterious. A good cold reader like I am, can figure out a great deal about a person in ten minutes. A good forensic psychiatrist can see a criminal motive a mile away.
Oh that's right, you don't believe in psychiatry... neither does Scientology... hmmm...
Well, there certainly SHOULD be a law that mormons can't be university professors but... alas, I do not rule the world, (which is a GOOD thing because all ya'll would end up in a wood chipper! KIDDING!)
What Epicurus is saying is that your professor there is coloring all of his observations with a lovely glaze of mormon. You need unbiased observation to reach any real conclusions.
You cannot tell me that the information taught at Brigham Young University is not first "cooked" in the foul-smelling broth of Joseph Smith, before being fed to the hapless victims/students there...
Epicurus
from Laurie
So what if John Pratt is a Mormon astronomer and university professor. Is there a law that Mormons can't study the sky and calendars? Just because you have no interest in those fields doesn't mean it is silly.
Sadie the Celt
@ Laurie
Laurie – do you agree that Jesus ws born on january 6th? at least that was the date I calculted, but I may be wrong – comments?? thanks Sadie x
from Laurie
Jesus was born March 6 in the spring. How did you come up with your calculation? Do you study astrology astronomy?
What language do you speak? My first language is French.
sorry - I should have added IF jesus existed....
phew ....I thinked too fast there
@ Laurie
Laurie - do you agree that Jesus ws born on january 6th? at least that was the date I calculted, but I may be wrong - comments?? thanks Sadie x
@ Laurie Robillard
YES! thats almost what I wanted to say - but Im not very good at English as a first language, thank you very much laurie, Sade
@Laurie:
Truths??
So where are the truths that you so speak of, for your religious meanderings. Give us the hard empirical, take it to the bank type of evidence. Remember you said it not I.
@ Randy, Epi,Achems Razor
Truth
Let's take just a moment to talk about truth. If science can never prove a theory "true," then truth really has no place at all in science. By "truth" I mean what is "really" going on. Truth has to do with ultimate causes, which are nearly always extremely elusive and beyond the realm of science. Science deals with theories, usually mathematical, which predict outcomes of experiments. For example, if we drop a rock off a cliff, the law of gravity combined with theories of air resistance and other forces can be used to calculate just how long it will take to hit the ground, and how fast it will go, etc. But science does not answer the question of just exactly what gravity is, or why things fall. It just states that given certain conditions, they will fall. In general, science answers questions like "how," "when," "where", but never "why" in the ultimate sense.
As an example of the interplay of the three concepts of observations, theories and truth, consider the courtroom. The observations may be that a man was seen shooting a gun and that the person hit by the bullet died. The theory may be that it was cold-blooded murder, but the truth may be that it was self-defense. Truth tends to be invisible and hidden, such as someone's motives, whereas observations are usually visible. Courts are very interested in truth, where the motive (the ultimate cause) for actions is given considerable weight. The distinction between first-degree and second degree murder is based on intent. Motives are not as yet observable in science, and hence are beyond science.
@Laurie:
It seems that all you are saying is that your Jesus, your religion, has all its origin in the Sun and the planets etc: No?
It is all anthromorphized and classed as pareidolia, through astrology.
@Epicurus
from Laurie
astronomer-astrologers (the Magi)
Why identify Venus as the Star of Bethlehem?
Jesus called himself “the bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Venus is ‘the bright morning star’.
How can the ‘bright morning star’ be identified as Venus? First, Venus at its brightest is the brightest natural object in the sky after the sun and moon. It is the brightest object that can be called a star. Second, the ancients referred to exactly two planets as ‘morning stars’, they were called morning stars because they were normally only visible for a few hours before dawn. The morning stars are Mercury and Venus. They are morning stars because when they are visible in the morning they are normally only visible for a few hours before sunrise. This is a result of their orbits being closer to the sun than the earth. All other heavenly bodies are further from the sun than the earth and are therefore visible throughout the night. Mercury and Venus are also the evening stars. Again they are the evening stars because when they are visible in the evening they are only visible for a few hours after sunset. Since Jesus calls himself the bright morning star or Venus and the Magi saw His star as it rose, it is likely Venus was the star the Magi saw and we call the Star of Bethlehem. Venus rises as both the morning and the evening star. Since Jesus is ‘the bright morning star,’ it had to be Venus rising in the morning not in the evening. Venus spends about half of its cycle as a morning star. Once every 1.6 years (584 days), Venus rises for the first time with the sun in the morning. Venus rose to mark Jesus’ resurrection Sunday April 5, A.D. 33.[4] When Venus rose near Jesus’ birth, the Magi had to spot Venus on the first day it rose to observe these signs. The Magi where professional astronomer-astrologers so they would be able to spot Venus at the earliest possible time. Since Venus is the brighter of the two morning stars and Jesus is the bright morning star, it is logical to conclude that Venus is His star. The Magi observed His star at its rising therefore the day they observed Venus rise for the first time in a particular cycle would be that time to which they are referring.
@Epicurus
which native americans? where is the record of this? i have studied first nations people for a while now and have heard NOTHING about this myth from outside the mormon church.
from Laurie
Let's take a walk to the South American jungle Epi
The Feathered Serpent. Native Americans of Central America had a legend about Venus which is still useful to help remember where Venus is in its orbit. The equated Venus, which they called the Dawn Star, with their god Quetzalcoatl, the "Feathered Serpent." They believe he came to earth and lived as a man and that the evening star represented his life. Thus, point 3 in the orbit when Venus first rises in the west as an evening star would represent the "birth" of Venus. It is then on the far side of its orbit, and so it is at about its faintest at birth. It then grows a little brighter every day as an evening star in the west, like a child growing up, until it gets to point 4 in the orbit. That point is called the greatest eastern elongation because it is as far east of the sun as it can get. By this time, Venus is in its "prime" of life, and is very bright. It then continues to get even brighter for about another month until it is so bright it can cast a shadow on a moonless night and is often the cause of flying saucer reports from someone who looked at the sky for the first time. Because it is at this time so near the earth, it seems to plunge surprisingly quickly into the earth and "die" at point 5 in the illustration.
It is about the death of Venus that the Native Americans have best preserved their legends for us. A good reference on this is Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico by Anthony Aveni (Austin, Texas: U. of Texas, 1980). He quotes (p. 187) the legend from the Anales de Quauhtitlán (Seler, 1904, pp. 364-365):
@Randy
I'm the same way. I tend to be condescending when I don't care for someone and always go on the offensive if provoked. But I can debate anything as long as a person does actually take true evidence and fact into consideration when presented. Instead of arguing their point by showing their evidence ans debunking my own. Then I tend to just start picking at them because I see that there is no getting past the delusional wall some people have that won't let them accept that they are wrong.
Laurie
Every one looked at the stars in that period and before and wondered. Worshiped and offered. They didn't have a clue as to why and howm neither did jesux. He thought the world was flat too. Wait ...wouldn't gods son know better or was he smart for a human or a god with downs syndrome?
@ eireannach666
@ Randy
Im sorry for losing my temper. I know I kicked off like a ninja but I have calmed down now and I feel ashamed...
As you can probably see, I dont have a sense of humour, well I maybe have a little - but its British and thats my handicap.
And I guess thats why my Marraige faied - he was an American..... and Im from the Welsh vallies - its so different.
Anyway, Im off out with a new boyfriend tonight, Ill try and behave......Bye
Well, my sense of humor can be... easily misconstrued as "insulting". I have made many enemies in life by being a smart-a**!
Certainly, there are people around here I do not mind offending and even go out of my WAY to offend, Vlatko help me... but not you or Epicurus, or Eiren666, or D-K, or Vlatko.
Too much respect, there.
@Randy:
Why would it offend? You worry to much, have we not been through this?
Yeah, the Salem witch trials are something else, as a matter of fact, have the movie, "The Crucible" an adaptation of "Arthur Millers" play, of the Salem witch trials of 1692, interesting.
Ah, I gotcha, LOL! Sorry, dude!
Well, yes-- I have read your posts about the idea and I've read the scholarship-- as I've said.
It could very well be. The circumstancial evidence for it is compelling.
It's like the theory, you've probably read about it, that ergot poisoning was responsible for the Salem Witch Panics in early colonial America. (Salem Mass. is a very cool place, btw... well NOW, probably not THEN...)
Good theory, probably true, but without bodies to autopsy, at least bodies with soft tissue left in them, there really is no way to know for sure.
(I didn't offend you with my little Stephen Hawking thing above, did I? I really liked your poem! I was just kidding you, and your poem DID throw me into a black hole at the end... not very nice...! I'm just sayin'...)
@Randy:
When I say "true stuff" that is just an inflection of speech, just like you "Jersey boys" say "youse". Don't forget am Canadian, EH?
I know that the magic mushroom thing is a whole conundrum of alternate beliefs, can't say theories. I have devoted some time to this mushroom stuff on various blogs here on SeeUat Videos.
@Achems
I am familiar with that scholarship. The conclusions are compelling, but hardly conclusive. I am inclined to believe them, but, I would hardly call them "truth".
Understand, also, that certain abnormal brain states, like schizophrenia, have the exact same effect.
In fact, in the ancient world, the insane were considered in touch with the gods. The term "touched in the head" or "touched" in reference to a "crazy" person, is a direct descendant of that idea.
It is interesting that most aberrant brain states, including drug induced psychosis, seem to include some religious-type experiences...
Of course, I have always known that the religious were "touched in the head"...
@Laurie:
Actually, "Jesus Christ was a Mushroom", namely the fly agaric,"Amanita Muscaria", from which most religions have sprung, the magic mushroom gave religious epiphany's, it is even mentioned in the Veda texts. True stuff!
@Laurie
I'm sorry dear, I can't resist...
Jesus had no uncanny understanding of anything, because HE NEVER EXISTED! He was a mythological character, like Attis, Mithras, Hercules, King Arthur, Robin Hood, or Gilgamesh.
There is no concrete evidence that this jesus, or yeshua, or esu, or any of the names by which he has been known was a real person.
At best it is an amalgalm of many characters/messiahs of that time, at worst he is simply a retelling of an ancient pagan god-man myth...
It means nothing. It is sad that you devoted your life to a fantasy, but move on, I did, you can too!
@Epi
from Laurie
Jesus had an uncanny understanding of all of the stars, constellations, and houses of the zodiac based on Enoch's calendar, and the fact that he was not born in December, but during the Spring Equinox. To determine when the spring equinox would occur to the day during Jesus' time, one had to have thorough understanding of the movements of the sun, moon, and the morning star (venus). He is the morning star becasue his birth was prophesized and planned to happen at the very moment of that equinox, not because of any mysticism or because he "claimed to be God."
@ Epi
from Laurie
Venus Testifies of Christ (look it up)
The Aztecs compared Venus to their white and bearded god Quetzalcoatl, who was born an insignificant boy, then rose to great brightness, and then was sacrificed shortly after his prime. Then in the underworld, he conquered the forces of death, and he resurrected as the bright and morning star in the east. He then finally ascended to become a god. They also maintained that he resurrected at the same time as the planet Venus. It was this tradition, and its similarity to the life of Jesus Christ, that induced me see if Venus was actually rising at the time of Christ's resurrection. It turned out it was indeed, and that led to the discovery of this entire Venus Calendar. The Native Americans watched the phases of the Dawn Star
Wonderful, Achems... just like Dr. Suess... how pleasant...
Listen, here's what Stephen Hawking said to you:
"Get. A. Job. You. Dirty. Hippie. So's. You can. Score. Me. Some. Arby's..."
Not quite as pleasant.
LOL! All love, dude!
@Randy:
Here is what Stephen Hawking said in reply to you.
"Ive heard all your stories before"
Hawking's scoffed, as he rolled through the door.
"Though a wormhole's sublime,
You won't travel in time.
For you, there's a black hole in store"
@lauri
you said:
"According to Native American tradition, the cycle of Venus is like the life of the white, bearded god who visited them in the first century A.D"
which native americans? where is the record of this? i have studied first nations people for a while now and have heard NOTHING about this myth from outside the mormon church. it is a complete fabrication and the fact you would believe it without evidence hurts my head...you are an adult you say??
you say:
"For several days it remains underground, fighting evil forces, until it conquers death and resurrects in the east as a radiant morning star. The parallels with the life, death, and resurrection of the Savior are obvious."
no that is NOT what venus does. Venus is just a planet. also the parallels of STORIES have nothing to do with the stories being connected but HUMAN NATURE being connected.
you are searching so hard for any type of confirmation of your religion that the straws you are grasping are utterly pathetic.
@Charles, how would you partake in an archaeological dig if someone found an artifact dating from the sumerian kingdom? or any time before your book states the earth was made.
you would have to ignore the entire stone age development and the agricultural revolution. dont bother becoming an archaeologist. you will just muddy the water.
Achems and eireannach666,
HAHA! Yes... you know, I am sooo out of touch, I did not know he had a new book coming out!
What a doofus, I am! I gotta get that... Thank you for letting me know, Achems!
Although, I SHOULD get it for free, what with all the Arby's I've bought for the man over the years...
HaHa! Way to take it and run DK. Not here its hot and humid. I have the luxury of rebuilding an engine twenty yrs old and long past deceased. 2 more hrs.
@Randy/Achems
Yeah so what's ole Steves total bill up to now, 100 dollars? Beef n chedders seem to have a hold on the man. maybe Arbys sauce fuels his super hove-a-round.
Yeah I wonder how much that books going to be? Or if we can preorder a copy?
Yeah, nice to get away from all this God stuff for a change.
Ha,Ha, love @Randy's blogs, should strike fear in most religee's hearts or at least p*ss them off to a great extent.
Will look forward to Hawking's new book "The Grand Design" wonder if it will come to our big library where I reside.
Hawking is a proponent of the Universe from absolutely nothing theory, in a lot of his lectures. In his new book, he states there is no need for any gods. Do you think that is from eating to many "Arby's" EH, Randy?
D-K,
You nutty psychopath... get back inside 'fore ya catch yer death!
LOL!
Very, very windy, and with the recent floods that means virtually no people on the streets. I actually set up shop outside, something I usually don't do.. y'know.. because of the people.. but I'm loving it now.
Stuff blows past me, it's that good kind of cool, temperature-wise, and the street is dark and abandoned. It sounds depressing but I'm typing this with a smile of cartoonish proportions.
I'm feeding the stray cats again in the neighbourhood while I contemplate my TOE of human experiences, do a little amateur stargazing and I found a nice little Hawking lecture that's new to me.
It's a good night.
Actually my "g" button just blew away, hahahahaha classic..
And I want to add that this is all just hear say until someone can provide these texts. As far as I know they have stuff left over from like the late 1800s from the research done then on this topic but I don't think anyone has even seen any of these supposed texts for something like 2 thousand years or so. I don't like the idea of debating a topic that I don't know much about. Apparently its similar to Marks version but heck I don't know neither does anyone else.
Its probably just as unreliable as the rest and wasn't included like the other gospels left out of the bible. Its all a scam for power,control an money. Even today. Greatest story ever told indeed.
@DK
Agreed I'm done. Well assuming nobody has any slick remarks as usually happens.
So how about the weather, huh? Lol.
I don't think it would be very practical to debate the supposed existance of a Q document, or even its implications.
The evidence for it is circumstantial at best and as far as I know, there is virtually nothing known about it's contents.
Having said that, I am by no means a theologian, so there may have been recent murmerings about it that I've missed.
Meow Sadie. Calm down. It was meant in the sense that one can't argue or decide without first knowing what it is he's debating.
I know what you are referring to a "Q" now but its been referred to in different terms to me. I say that it is still really an unestablishes group of texts seeing as it hasn't been fully translated yet and that it is missing a lot of text from its multiple volumes if you will. Its not like the 4 gospels which are in the bible today and those have been picked to pieces by scholars worldwide. I even commented on that as well on another thread about creationism . These texts of which you speak are basically different from the 4 because they offer a bit more detailed sayings of jesux, and also I believe they start with some from john the baptist supposed author of th fourth gospel.. But the problem is that there are missing pieces in these "q" texts; one major missing link is the passion narrative.
But these texts have no more validity than the rest of the bible seeing there is no evidence of an author or to where these were written. But I think the german scholars leading the way along with humorous others are working on that.
Put the claws away my dear, I'm only stating what I know as fact. And I like you so please try and not to misread ny words or take them out of context.
I didn't know you were so feisty. Hissss.
Now please be nice. Any follow up questions for me , lass?
Sadie, my post was all about YOU.
I liked you and I reached out, that's all.
Don't worry, though. That's over now. I see exactly what you are.
I can honestly say that I am incredibly frustrated by the way you handle discussions. Its great to chat, I love to chat with anyone about anything. But a question is a question, and I am sat here wondering if any of you guys have ever written dissertations? or have you sat exams - ?
All I ask is that you keep to the point! - straying away from the subject matter is so annoying for me to read - especially when its about you and your beliefs.
The 'Q' source is just another unknown source of biblical knowledge - its hypothetical and I asked i randomly - to see what came back
Im disappointed
@ eireannach666
Im getting mad here! - I am no going to use this forum as a lectern to preach my own beliefs - because I dont have any.
you said 'know thine enemy' - how arrogant is that? please let me find my own way.....just warn me if im 6 inches from a cliff or something.
Anything else I will find out for myself.
Sadie calm down.
I was merely establishing that I have some authority on this subject. And you know that I was talking directly to all of your points, every single one you have made on this site.
And I realized I was doing the wrong thing when I was running the cons. I even tried to give some money back, you know what I heard?
"You think it was a trick," they'd say to me, "but, you have real psychic powers, you don't even know it..."
People would rather believe a comfortable lie, than a hard truth.
@ Randy
'Ive read books' 'ive got a huge library' 'ive wore robes' - these are the type of things that people say to elevate their status! and its usually when they are short on knowledge. its superfluous banter - and unless your being sociable, totally unnecessary....
Yes Ive rambles on about stupid stuff....but i never avoid the issue, and when ANYBODY states facts - they should be prepared to back it up with EVIDENCE
im not saying you are wrong - but for goodness sake stop using your experiences as a source of knowledge because its not.
nobody can learn experiences by proxy
@ Randy
Yeah, it goes back to what I said earlier - that mankinds biggest downfall is 'EGO' and 'GREED' - if your bank account was getting full from pandering to the whims of the needy - you obviously are suffering because of this. perhaps you should not have been so obsesses with mateial gain? ie greedy?
Im sorry to hear you have MS - but its got nothing to do with the question I asked - I simply wanted to know who had studied the Bible - THOROUGHLY
and that was all I asked, - praps thats why you deviated.
instead of dissecting corpes, why dont you dissect the Bible? there are heaps and heaps of arguments - all supported with evidence, from countless sources, both 'for' and 'against' various doctrines.
Im still sitting on the fence - I am not religious.
but I sure get weary of people 'spouting' verbatim
I know about the "Q" thing... and that is why Sadie is mad at me...
I basically said she is falling for a con... and nobody likes the truth.
But, I am only trying to help, Sadie, like I helped that boy with the burned leg...
I know what I am talking about, I'm sorry about that...
I have posted evidence all over the site... I have done the research, the homework... I have thousands of books that I have collected and read, Vlatko has hundreds of docs that show the evidence... but I am not going to type out 6000 pages of text here.
Do your own work, but I am offering the knowledge that I have gained through long hard life...
Please. How can I offer you all of the evidence in one post... be realistic.
Well well well. Its my newest favorite person on SeeUat Videos.
@Sadie
Ahh well let me say first , dia duit, a chailin alainn Sadie!
Now that the formalities are out of the way , let me say first that I agree all the way with what Randy stated and I too have studied a great deal on religion. All of them. As Randy said and I say again, know thine enemy. In the sense that you must know what it is your questioning or debating in order to have a valid argument against whatever it is your debating.
However I don't understand what it is you are referring to as "Q" question. Please elaborate on this. I'm sure I will have an answer for you. Or someone else can inform me. Never heard that before. I was raised around religion. One side catholic and the other christian. I found a large distaste for it even at a young age, I realized that there was no rOom for questioning and no room for individuality and I did not respond well. Religion of any kind is evil in so many ways.
I've spent time researching these prophets and gods like jesux and moohoemed etc and found very little credibility in any of the text written of them. Some small amounts of fact yes but a lot of BS inbetween. I mean a lot!
So what is you question specificly and I'm sure you will get more than a few opinions from this thread.
Laterz, Erin go brach! Slainte.
@ Randy
hey! hold on a minute! please dont give a any 'personal warnings' except those that are factual like (there is a gun being pointed at your head) ...I would be grateful if you would warn me of such.
Randy, everything you just wrote was based solely on your personal opinions - I could not find one shred of evidence, and whilst I am interested in your point of view, its not substantited.
So you have disected Corpes? bully for you.
what that got to do with the question?
Oh, BTW, I still look that way, which is pretty ridiculous for a man my age, but... what the hell, I own the business-- I can do what I want!
'Course, now, I have MS, so the walking stick is sometimes essential and not just a costume... LOL!
@Sadie
I have studied the bible at length and depth. It is important to know one's enemy...
It is bunk, every version, through and through... it is a novel and has nothing to do with reality. I do not live in fantasy worlds, I live in the worlds of logic, Pure Reason, and science, if that answers your question about my position.
I have discected human bodies, animal bodies, and I found them all the same, and no soul was needed to explain them.
My personal library dwarfs the public one in my county, and though I will not allow a judeo-christian bible into my home, I do have a q'ran, a book of mormon, A Satanic Bible, a Witches Bible, and holy books from dozens of schools of thought around the world.
My "occult" section is legendary... I have an entire section on Satan, in fact... my favorite mythological character...
Here is a personal warning to you; take it as you will:
In my youth, I used to be a con-artist, working the psychic/shaman spritual advisor game. I was very good. My look was perfect, skinny, pale, dressed all in black (LONG before the "goth" movement) with long flowing coats, long hair and a goatee trimmed to a point. I wore mystical talismans all over and had credentials from several bizzare churches and spiritual temples. I sometimes walked with a long staff like a wizard.
My favorite victims were the gentle, loving, trusting hippies and vegans. Thirsty for hidden knowledge of the ESOTERICA of their lives!
I'd throw in some watered down, half-baked eastern philosphies, a few magic tricks, and then some keen psychic insight and predictions of the future! (I was very good at "cold reading")
I'd walk away with whole bank accounts, and they would THANK ME FOR IT!
How do you think I could afford all of those colleges?
But, then, I just couldn't live like a parasite anymore. I couldn't live with myself. Not for them, they deserved to be taken--- if not me, some other guru would eat them alive... but for ME. I just couldn't be proud of myself, or have any self respect...
This is a warning to you, because reading over your posts, I see that you are vulnerable to wolves like I was. Remember that every single spiritual advisor that exists, from the Pope to Deepak Chopra and everyone in between, is a con-artist. There is no magical world. There is physics.
Sorry, about the long post... I hate to see nice people get hurt by predators like me...
@ everyone
I am reading everything that everybody has written - Im trying to decipher each persons religious stance - but its hard. It seems that Relgion and Science seem to get permanently interwoven on this site, but hey, thats ok with me if its ok with you.
Im just feeling my way - and as a starting point, I would like to ask you all a question.
Has anybody studied the Bible? by this I mean STUDIED it as a primary source? and if so, does anyone know anything about the 'Q' source?
Id love to hear your comments!
Cymru am byth
@ Randy
o0o I just read your post directed at me....errrr can you translate please? hahahahaha Im falling about laughing here! you win Randy! nice one! hahaha
sade x
@ Charles B.
Gosh you really are busy - I feel lots of energy coming from your words - a real inquisitive brain is lurking i think Chas!
I admire your diversity - perhaps you should be looking to study Paleontology? Im pretty useless as a source of pre-history but I am always learning.
I dont understand your Education Charles - forgive me but I was never educated in America or the Phillapines or anywhere other than UK for that matter. I can tell you that if I obtained a B.Sc, then I would be qualified to teach all age groups. but I didn't so I was only qualified to teach adults.
To enable me to teach ALL ge groups, I had to do a P.G.C.E. - which I did at Bath University.
its as broad as its long really - a B.Sc takes 4 years full time studying, and a B.A. takes 3 years F/T, & with a PGCE taking a year. both these paths tke 4 years full time.
After graduating it is possible to embark on an M.A. thats another 2 years - and then a Ph.D - which takes another few years. The Phd is 'Doctor' status - of which I am sure you already know.
In order for you to get where you want to go, in acadamia, it may be a good idea to focus on wht your exect goal is? is it digging in Egypt - or teaching Theology? or teaching Religion? or being a Pastor?
Im NO expert Charles, but I would think that you need to focus on exactly what you want to do, and go for it! - its easy to get sidetracked by fascinating 'offshoots' - but there is plenty of time to follow interests when you are where you ant to be.
I hope I havent missed the point here? Im trying to help!
lol x sade
@ erieannach666
yes I know what you were referring to in your analogy of the whispering in class, we called it 'Chinese Whispers' -
My grandfather said that when he was in the War - the Commanding Officer said to the 1st solder to pass the message of "send reinforcements, we are going to advance"... the soldier passed the message down the line - and the last Soldier said to the Colonal - "send 3 and 4 pence we are going to a dance"
I dont know if it was true - but thats what he said.
Cymru am byth from Sade
Sadie: I have one last class to grade a writing test for, and I just can't bring myself to do it today. I've done 310 today. I guess that's enough.
Anyway, I would most love to do archeology in the Middle East. I wish I could do Biblical archeology in Isreal. I've also always wanted to hunt dino fossils, but I'd get drummed out of advanced classes once they started the evolution pollution solution mantra again. I've even heard of people already working in the field with PH.D. degrees that put forth an unliked contra-evolution explination and they get shunned and never get published; I'm sure they'd love me, then!
But, archeology sounds terribly interesting! I was asked to be the T.A. for the history professor in college, but unfortunately, I was already a T.A. for the New Testament prof. and he kept me grading paper all term long and I couldn't have done both! Five inches of papers equals about 2 days of hard work. I gave my lazy roommate a "C" and the prof. agreed with my assesments nearly 98% of the time and never went higher, but sometimes dropped the grade I gave. Those were the days! I loved college and I want to go back now for my advanced degrees at the University of the Philippines. I plan to study Theology, of course, and then I want to do something for myself in education so I can get my teaching license like my wife has, and then something just for me in an interest whether or not I ever get to teach/use it later.
Eventually I'd like to be a theology/Bible professor and/or a full-time pastor. These are exciting days we live in, aren't they? I'm very excited.
Anyway, fiddle faddled enough time away that I think I can head home now.
Peace to all.
I'm with DK. Its mumbo jumbo made when the earth was flat. Step into this century please.
@Sadie
Hey there bunny. That's cool you are from tht same CO. As my family was. Small world I guess.
Lucifer is latin. I can't see how its in hebrew text prior to the romans having a roman language. Its because it wasn't. Once again the church decided to play editor. In Isaiah, it says things like, fallen angles and the ruler of he**, right? Well in the hebrew text, the same verses of isaiah there is nothing at all about fallen angels and hell. Instead babylonian king. He was said to have abused israel but no Satan. Not all. No angels and no he**. They just decided satan and fallen angels. Never once were any of these nor any ruler of any underworld was even talked about once in the original text. So this was made up and doctored and the end result was giving this guy the name lucifer because of the latin decent of the word it is what it is today.
How come it wasn't joe or bob? Well when translate by the romans Romans n according to their own astronomy, it was the name of the morning star or Venus really but "lucem ferre", bringer of light. However in the real first texts in hebrew , the word used to refer to that babylonian king was helal, or "son of the Dawn" Loosely translated as I don't know hebrew but have reliable sources.
The great editors who were to do the king james version , the one most read bt all bible faiths ,didn't even use the original texts but used revised copies that were written by st. Jerome a looong time afterwards. Like four hundred yrs long.. Jerome had either made a mistake or made an edit and took the hebrew word lucifer and the morning star ends up a fallen angel that pi**ed off god and now has to reign in he**.Or it was on purpose or as an investment. And over time lucifer the king that abused his rule became (hail)satan, devil etc..
But knowing this is yet another fact that the book of the rock is made up and unreliable as well as a forgery also plagiarism at its finest.
Just like every single page. And its not just the christian faith but all of them.
I think that's closer to astrology than astronomy, personally.
celestial bodies + symmbolism = astrology
celestial bodies + (f)actual science = astronomy
@Epicurus
How's this for astronomy?
Jesus Christ is the Evening and Morning Star
The Savior said, "I Jesus...am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star" (Rev. 22:16). By this He was almost certainly acknowledging the sign or symbol of our morning and evening star, the planet Venus.
According to Native American tradition, the cycle of Venus is like the life of the white, bearded god who visited them in the first century A.D. Venus is born as an evening star rising in the west, dim but growing brighter every day. Several months later, just when it nears its brightest point, it dies, plunging quickly into the earth and disappearing as an evening star. For several days it remains underground, fighting evil forces, until it conquers death and resurrects in the east as a radiant morning star. The parallels with the life, death, and resurrection of the Savior are obvious.
@Epicurus
@laurie, in reference to Isaiah:
had recently fallen, vanished as does [the morning star] Venus from the daytime sky.”
from Laurie
"This name-title of Satan (Son of the Morning), indicates he was one of the early born spirit children of the Father. Always used in association with the name Lucifer, son of the morning also apparently signifies son of light or son of prominence, meaning that Satan held a position of power and authority in pre-existence.
@Ep
Right. I agree 100 percent hence the analogy I gave of the space ship that was sold to but never seen. But I was kind of just working my way into that since Lauriw won't come right out and answer a question without the quotation of the book of hymn. (My favorite is incineratehymn.) But I feel you for sure. That question is why its so irritating to discuss the subject of a possible (but not likely) creator. But hey its out there now. I look forward to her next response.
Its just like Epicurus to get right to it without the fun. Lol.
Peace brotha.
Why would anyone enslave themselves to some invisible man in the sky, just because someone told them he was up there?
Say for example, I was to come up to you and say, "See that big bush over there? Yeah, that one. There's a tiger behind that bush! Yep! Big one.
You better get into this iron cage and lock yourself in, because-- WHOO-BOY! You don't wanna get eaten by no tiger!"
So, you jump in the cage, lock yourself in, without any actual proof or evidence that there was ever a tiger behind any of the bushes up there. And I go off and rob your house.
You live your whole life in the cage, and as you die, you say, with your last breath, "At least... I never... got... eaten by a ...tiger..." *gurgle--dies*
Now, would it be wrong of me to laugh and jeer at you for being so f00lish?
This to me is a perfect illustration for the origins of all religions.
@ Charles B
Good evening Charles! Yes indeed my friend (Lisa Thomas) has always maintained that King Arthur was under the Summer House! we used to laugh about it, but as the legend goes, there is evidence to suggest that the Round table was somewhere around the Wye valley. and her parents house was within the huge walls surrounding the town of Caerleon, which as you probably know is a major Roman town, the Romans settled in Caerleon because it was located conveliently on the river (the Usk river) which leads into the Bristol Channel. Now the Romans built an outdoor Amphitheatre in Caerleon, and its one of just two surviving today! - Caerleon is crammed full of Roman history, it was only about 20 years ago that a Roam baths was found! - I went on this dig and it was incredible! we found hair ornaments, 'strigils' (which are like blunt razors) and are used to scrape the oils off the body whilst in the steamy baths. I suppose I am kind of used to living amongst such history, I am fortunate.
i did study at the University of Wales - Caerleon Campus, so I was often on field trips as part of my degree, thats how I got involved in the Archaelogical digs - and it went from there really. I would gladly put you in contact with plenty of archelogists that would so appreciate your interest and enthusiam - its hard to find people who are willing to devote the time and care and sensitivity needed when the area is rich in artefacts. - in other words leave the bulldozer at home! - I wish you lived closer - Korea would be a nighmare to commute from Charles! hey...but if your THAT willing - so are we!
Thanks for your comments Charles - I think we have a lot of interests in common - and if you want anything at all - just ask! regards Sade
@ eireannach666
Noswaith Dda butty! I cant believe your from County Wexford! - so am I! saything that, I never lived there but thats where my Fathers family came from (Wateford). I dont know much Gaelic - and I get confused with Scottish, Irish & Welsh Gaelic dialects / versions! - so I usually speak Welsh, but I find that apart from the usual slight differences in pronounciation and spelling its all very much the same...(dont shoot me, Im only the piano player!)
What part of America are you living in? - I married an American and lived there for a few years, quite advantageous for my Daughter - shes got 2 of the most valuable passports in the World! and shes always back and forth. as for me - I couldnt even get a green card - my ex was so spiteful lol ...only joking, we are such good friends - I love him dearly....as long as the pond is between us.
My Grandparents were your typical Celts - My Grandmother could cure just about anything with home made potions. I still make stinging nettle pop - or 'nettle beer' as some call it - do you know the nettles im talking about? - jeeze they bring you out in welts if you touch them...but boil them for beer and its delicious. Comfrey was used for any cuts or bruises, Bi-carb for upset stomachs - I hope Im not boring you - but its your heritage too!
I spent last Christmas on the Isle of Skye - now THAT was an adventure - those Cullen Mountains take your breath away.
Did you know that Valencia Island was where the (old) telephone cable lines used to disappear under the sea - connecting USA with Europe? obviously its obselete now, but the cables are still there - fascinating. Also they have slate quarry on Valencia - and the slate is very unusual - brown and shiny,and very expensive! - its used on the roof of the houses of Parliament! - yes eireannach666 - you are rightly proud of your Irish heritage.
ps does this mean that Achems knows Ive kissed the Blarney Stone? so.....he will realise I as teasing him? aww noooo!
chow for now xxx
the real question ought to be what makes a belief valid? what is the reasoning or logic behind holding a certain belief.
we can list all the things we know and give good reasons as to why we know them. we can show evidence and provide tests to see whether these beliefs are actually true.
what allows a RELIGIOUS belief to be exempt from these requirements? why is faith all of a sudden an acceptable tool to make a true or false claim about reality? why is faith in this instance MORE valid than evidence or logic?
why can a person of one religion accept the claims made for their religion on faith but not the claims of another one on just faith?
@Laurie
Answer me this then, claim to have this vast knowledge of god and good morality , what do you know about the other side o things? I mean like satan and evil, sin in all its forms of indulgence and vanity. Pure evil isn't from no entity of he** or spirit ghost of sin but I'm telling you first hand that its from within the mind of oneself. We've heard the argument for gods existence and truly it fails so let's ask the question , does satan exist or lucifer whatever? Surely if god does then lucifer does as well no?
What's the answer and why?
@Laurie
Think about it , evil or idea of an evil entity opposite of god or jesux , only adds the action and drama needed to create any good story. Good triumphing over evil. I mean come on its got everything from incest, to a battle of two opposing forces in the finale. Its made up is all I'm sayting and without satan to blame everything bad on then who would catch the rap? God would and they can't have that. Or us which we are made in his image, according to this story so ,of course , a scapegoat was created to have a way of protecting the name of the god and the to give an answer to those who questioned the church? Now all they have to say is its the devil tempting you or thats of the devil and the flock obeys the commands of their Shepard coerced by the devil. Couldn't have the sheep blaming the herder for the wolves now could they .but of course you also had to invent a reward for obeying sO heaven and an afterlife came as well as the place called he**. So you really have to admit , if not obey but to yourself, that it seems pretty convenient that the church always has an answer but yet has no proof of these claims. Plus control by fear is always easiest and most lasting. You all were terrified into religion and then embraced it becausw it promised you bliss if you obeyed.
I left some gaps there but you get my point. It would take all day to detail that notion.
I don't see how you or anyone can buy something as demanding and life dictating as god without seeing it first. I'm not going to give you a million dollars for a spaceship if you can't show it to me. Would you?
So really religions argument is simply nothing but talk. And anyone can talk that kind of stuff and have and made religions with it. LeVey ,Crowlley , Jones even those Nike wearing fools that all died for nothing but talk.
If there is a god then surely we would ALL be aware of this and not just the ones unable to cope with life on their own.
Its a scam to prey on the weak and vulnerable. They are opportunists looking for someone to give them money for comfort and the piece of mind that you should be able to get from yourself.
Self help isn't counseling its helping yourself.
@Sadie
No this is not Anna , mo mhùirnìn and I wish I was in Ireland. Been there though. We are Wexford people but I am an American. My gIpa insisted on us learning our roots and to be proud of them.
Wow, I'm impressed with your journeys , a bit jealous. Don't sell your self short my Gaelic Piuthar. As your humbleness shows your intelligence and that you think before you speak. Very refreshing. And it seems to me that your interests are that of my own and others here. Don't be afraid to be vocal. Besides I got your back and I'm sure Achems and our Gaelic colleague Dr Randy does as weLl amongst others. You re amongst friends.
Any ways I have to get back to the other comments above since they were directed at me but I hope to see you on here more often.
Slainte
@Laurie
I would like to sincerely apologize for that comment aimed at you above...
I jotted it out on the fly, in between two other tasks, and when I read it back, I was a little ashamed.
It was glib, and harsh, and dissrespectful.
It IS hard to watch you commit intellectual suicide in front of me with each post... but, you do deserve better treatment than that...
Sorry, again..
I dislike non-sequitors.
^^ should be "good to see you..." obviously...
@D-K
She has no idea what it means. She seldom knows what anything means, that's part of her charm...
How are you man? Go to see you!
@Laurie:
What does this mean exactly: "If we looked at mortality as the whole of existence, then pain, sorrow,failure, and short life would be calamity"
@eireannach666
If we looked at mortality as the whole of existence, then pain, sorrow,failure, and short life would be calamity. But if we look upon life as an eternal thing stretching far into the premortal past and on into the eternal post-death future, then all happenings may be put in proper perspective.
Part of suffering is educative.
Trials for us to rise above
responsibilities that we might achieve
work to harden our muscles
sorrows to try our souls
temptation to test our strengtht
sickness that we might learn patience
death that we might be immortalized and glorified
If all the sick for whom we pray were healed if all the righteous were protected and the wicked destroyed , the whole program of the Father would be anulled and the basic principals of the Gospel , free agency , would be ended. No man would have to live by faith.
@Laurie
IF this creature, this tyranical beast that you worship does, indeed, exist, then we as human beings MUST oppose it.
I do not care about its "purposes"!
Who is this alien monster that claims to be my king? I didn't vote for him-- he can eat me!
eireannach666
@eireannach666
The only reason satan was added in was to provide the bad guy for super zombie to fight.without one the other doesn’t have as much impact.
The Lord does not agree with Satan or agree to his evil deeds; however Satan is permitted by the Lord to afflict and torment man until Lucifer's allotted time on earth is done. It fit's God's purposes.
Sade: How did you get involved with the digs? I want to get a MA in archeology if I can. Is King Arthur really buried under your friend's summer house?
@Sadie
*Randy speaks in a New Jersey mobster accent*
"Somebody needs ta t'row dat Socrates a good beatin'-- deadbeat, degenerate gambler owes me five large! You see dat freakin' guy, you tell 'im Randy da Ripper's lookin' for 'im-- you get me, cookie?"
@Achems
I have used that classic line many times on this site... "Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all full up here!"
Good stuff.
@ eireannach666
Tha mi gu math, tapadh leat, Anna! Ciamar a tha thu fhien?
at least i think your name is Anna? thank you for the welcome. I am nowhere near as intelligent as most of the people commenting o this site, but I am learning from the written comments as much as I am from the documentarys Anna!
I dont feel confident enough to give opinions on the Documentary that you mentioned, I am just reading at the moment - and taking it all in! - My special interests are Religion (but I am NOT religious), Archaeology (been on loads of digs) History (my friend in Caerleon reckons that King Arthur is buried under her Summer House!) and Philosophy (Socrates would have loved me! - but look what happened to Socrates!)
What about you? - are you in Ireland now? - I was on Valencia Island not long ago - nice break.
Glad to have met you - hwyl! Sade
@Laurie:
Can't help it, but your last post brings to mind again, Jack Nicholson's memorable quotes...
"Where do they teach you to talk like this? in some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump bar" or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? sell crazy someplace else, were all stocked up here.
*your cult, sorry keys are small on a bb
@Laurie
I don't know why people quote the bible as if it were the same now as when it was first written. Ever play that game when you were a kid in school, where you sit in a circle and on person whispers something to the person next to them and repeat. And in the end when the last person has his the message given to them its nothing like what was told to the first kid? Get the point? In other words this bible you quote has been mistranslated , forgotten an lost and then filled in by the church as they saw fit. Plus do not think for a second that the church used and uses this bible and your need to have a crutch to lean on when your down to profit and control the simple minded herd. You guys are as cattle to the church. No more than food and clothing for the manipulative so called teacher of false promises and hope. Which he dishes out in multiple servings until you are so full of it that you smell , speak , act , think and believe the trash that has been ingested. Unfortunate these scriptures you quote don't really prove the existence of god or satan but only entertain the thought of such characters.
Now the bible has some historical fact correct but not near as many as are off or just made up. Regardless the fact remains that the bible today os not the same as it once was and the bible as it was wasn't the same as the original writings. Just as the bid today was "edited" to meet the editors personal propagandic perception of these documents, so was the one of old and so on. Ill bet that one fifty percent of it contradicts the original texts before compiled to this book of ridiculous claims and disney characters like talking snakes , angles, virgin mothers and flaming bushes etc...
Not to mention translation al issues from one to the next.
But hey I'm not trying to make you denounce your faith but rather question yourself and the faction of which you are a part of and protect/ defend so vigorously. The church for 1000s of yrs has been one if not the most corrupt entity on the planet and you followers are like the guy just building computer chips for a living , not ever questioning the reasons for or what. Never knowing those chips are put I'm bombs and desolate cities. Etc...
And our cult is just like any other. Its not different except for instead of a funny hat you guys get funnier underwear. (Got to have your sign I guess. Like bloods have red rags and crips blue)
Question is , sorry Achems, is there a creator? And do you consider this unreliable ancient text as a sort of proof or evidence towards one? Can you give me and everyone some type of observable,testable evidence other than a bunch of fiction novelists making a name and a lot of money off of the fabrication of a super hero type activist,rebel of innocence?
I want to know what happened here, I mean where is all the seas parting and dead raising at these days? I mean heck it would seem if god was not fictitious then what haPpened? Did he run out of magic dust? Give up? Or possibly even met his end and passed away? When something bad happens to you what do you say? Why didn't he help or send his angles?
The only reason satan was added in was to provide the bad guy for super zombie to fight.without one the other doesn't have as much impact.
Come on Laurie please question things and weigh the evidence available to you by all the research done over thousands of yrs by believers and non. All have came up with nothing to support the creative theory.
Can you argue your point Charles or Laurie without quoting or referencing any bible?
Layerz
what makes you assume that is dualism there? and even if it is, maybe its just symbolic and they recognized the use of satan as just symbolic for someone or something causing great evil?
PS...you might want to leave out the rhetoric in your speech. you talk as though im listening to a preacher and i would rather just hear this stuff objectively without all that emotional appeal and whatnot...just the colourful use of adjectives could be toned down. just a suggestion not a demand.
Epicurus
Isaiah 14:4-21 Isaiah sang a song for Babylon
This satirical or taunting song, given in Isaiah's own beautiful poetry , is a song of judgment against the Babylon of unrighteousness Isaiah strides through the future in this powerful Hebrew meter, leaving Babylon trodden down and vanquished in the triumph of Israel.
Isaiah 14 12-15 Who was Lucifer Son of the Morning?
Isaiah again used dualism. Chapter 13-14 describe the downfall of Babylon, both of Babylon as an empire and of Babylon as the symbol of the world. You think "Lucifer son of the morning" is the king of Babylon , probably Nebuchadnezzar. In the symbolic use of Babylon , (Babylon as a spiritual wickedness and the kingdom of Satan). Satan and Babylonian's prince aspire to take kingly glory to themselves, but in fact will be thrust into hell where there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
@ the Celt
Ahh , Ciamar a sibh , my new Gaelic friend? I was just checking back in this thread noticed some action and new blood.
Have you watched this series yet? What did you think and what are your viuews on the unuiverses coming to be what it is?
Is it created or evolved? Designed or chaotic? Just an inquiry to get to understand your statements better.
Slainte
ok back to the subject matter - feeling much more focussed after throwing myself head first into the Afon Llwyd River (the deep part) and Achems is but a distant memory...
Everybody has a different opinion on the subject matter - I dont need to throw my nine penneth in - because it is what it is - just an opinion. I think the underlying problem here - and one which leads to the hot debates is that we are confusing science with doctrine.
@ Achems Razor
mmmmm im now building a mental picture of Achems.....gimmee a minute, I cant get past this vision of Mel Gibson only taller, with green eyes, and minus the celtic blue facepaint.......ok im almost swooning lol
(at least Ive had a break from reading the Mormon info! btw Donny Osmonds family - his mothers parents were from Merthyr Tydfil! - small world as Merthyr is onnly 15 miles from me - up the A470.
The Quaker religion was firmly rooted in Pontypool - still has a large following.
et moi? I sits on the fence - been sitting there sooo long Ive got a big dent in my .....laterzzzzzz
@Sadie the Celt:
Am half Scottish, but probably admixtures of some Celtic blood with the Cornish, Welsh and lowland Scots.
I have green "cats eyes" like some of the Welsh though, (LOL)
And am a "He"
Ok. You win for the night.
Peace.
And since you guys were talking about it, I will put this out to the room, again, as I have written dozens of times before:
Jews don't know anything about Hell or Satan. It's not part of their religion. And since, this jesus character was supposed to be Jewish, where would he have gotten it from?
Indeed, where did christianity and islam get these ideas if NOT from their parent religion, Abrahamic-Judaism?
Let me help: IT WAS PUT IN THERE LATER ON BY SILLY MEN! Borrowed from Zoroasterianism, Egyptology, and later refined by Greco-Roman, and other pagan imagery...
@Laurie
I do not wish to engage you on these points any longer.
But, will answer your questions simply and briefly:
Yes, Mitt's first allegiance would be to the Church. You know it, I know it, even the largely brain-addled American people knew it.
And let me put this out there: You and Charles have the right to believe what ever you want. In the privacy of your homes. IF you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone.
But, as soon as your religions try and compromise my civil rights, or my country's Constitutional intergrity, then I will fight tooth and claw. You are NOT allowed to do that!
Sorry.
But you ARE doing it. And it sickens me.
Seperation of church and state, the gov'ment can't mess with you, and YOU can't mess with the gov'ment... simple, why is it getting messed up?
Because the bible tells you so...?
Worthless book. It doesn't even make good toilet paper...
@ Achems Razor
ps I think you are Fab
@ Achems Razor
just a random question; are you Welsh?!
if your not, thats ok - we are still psychic sisters (because I used to be the Mars Representative in Ockham - many years ago I must add)
high 5 bro xxx
Mr. Razor: Just curious, to what degree is the New Testament a construct of Emperor Constantine? 100%? That would be hard to support as the Christian faith was well under way by the time Constantine came along, and had texts circulating before his time.
There are a lot of concepts that are "ebryotic" in the Old Testament, such as the concept of "Satan". It doesn't mean the fleshing out of such in the New Testament is fable. In fact, in Psalms, it says that it is to God's glory to hide a matter, and it is for the glory of Kings to seek it out (that can be applied to all of us). There is a time for ever discovery under Heaven. Perhaps the time of God's greatest unvailing will be in our lifetimes.
@Laurie:
Only one mention of Lucifer in OT. which is more of conjecture than anything else, the references of Lucifer et al: is in New Testament only. Which in my books was made by royal decree by Emperor Constantine.
So again all complete fallacy, and fables.
@laurie, in reference to Isaiah:
Isaiah 14:12-24 is interpreted by some as referring to Satan by the name "helel" in Hebrew. This is often translated as "Lucifer" or "Morning Star." The passage describes how he had fallen from heaven, was thrown to earth, expressed a desire to sit "on the mountains where the Gods assemble", wished to be like God, and had attacked many cities, leaving them in ruins. At first glance, this looks like a description of some of the activities of Satan. However, verse 4 clearly states that the passage refers to the King of Babylon, not to Satan. Isaiah was simply showing "sarcastic contempt for the mighty Babylonian monarch that had recently fallen, vanished as does [the morning star] Venus from the daytime sky."
and The Book of Revelation describes Jesus' judgment and destruction of the early Roman Empire.
however the other passages are good examples of references to Satan.
this whole satan vs god thing makes the entire myth seem even more fantasy to me. i just shake my head and wonder how people believe the stories of stone age people.
why would god allow satan to do what he does? why even allow him to exist? here is where morality comes into play. If god has the power to stop satan but doesnt then he is not good.
what makes more sense is that these are just fables made up by stone age sheep herders. the fact that you believe it is just jaw dropping.
Achems Razor
What are you researching?
New Testament Jude verse 6 about the angels that didn't keep their first estate
Old testament Isaiah 14:12 about Lucifer son of the morning
New Testament Revelation 12:7,8,9 the war in heaven against the dragon, dragon cast out, old serpent called the Devil
New Testament Revelation 12:4 one third of Heaven cast out with Lucifer
New Testament John:14:30 the prince of darkness
New Testament 1 Peter 5:8 adversary the devil
New Testament St Mark:3:22 prince of the devils
Laurie: I'm rushing! I forgot to mention that I'm not currently unemployed. I wanted to mention that so you didn't think I was being dishonest purposely. I noticed it could be viewed that way after I hit the comment button, but you can't edit! LOL. I meant I'm protestant and should I be unemployed (as many are) . . . well, you get the picture. Yes, aid for Haiti, etc.! Good. God judges the heart and Not I. Let's call a truce. I'll try not to joke (too much) if I can at your expense. :-) But, sometimes I even poke fun at myself.
Peace to you.
@Laurie:
No need to quote any scriptures, just tell us where in the bibles that stuff is.
Not trying to prove your religion, just as the doc. suggests is there a creator? and if so, part and parcel comprises of the opposite, a nemesis, the so called "Devil" Yes?
@Randy
You even ran a dude for president a few elections back, and thank Batman ol’ Mitt Romney didn’t get past the primaries! If he had been elected, I would have eaten a bullet!
Randy is your concern about Mitt’s religion boils down to people doubting Mitt’s ability to think straight. I mean, how smart can someone be who believes that Joseph Smith was a Prophet who received tablets from an angel recounting an alternative Biblical history that took place in America?
Before you answer remember you also said this.I can be something of an intellectual bully at times…
Achems Razorez2b12
from Laurie
You need to ask Vlatko if I have permission to answer that question. (quoting scripture) He has more tolerance for Charles so until I get approval to answer that. It might be faster to ask Charles
Can the evolution of species (or their apparent gradual development over millions of years) jive with the existence of a supreme Creator? We believe all truth must be consistent, and if there is a conflict, something needs to be revised. Brigham Young said, "Our religion embraces all truth and every fact in existence, no matter whether in heaven, earth, or hell. A fact is a fact, all truth issues forth from the Fountain of truth, and the sciences are facts as far as men have proved them" ("Remarks by President Brigham Young, Attending Meetings--Religion and Science--Geology--The Creation," Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, May 14, 1871, Journal of Discourses, 14: 117.)
Actually @ez2b12 and I are trying to figure out exactly where any bibles even mention such a thing as a Satan, devil, demons, Etc: where "o" where can they be? do you know @Laurie?
What are the scriptures/passages?
The only one that I have found is Isaiah 14:12 NKJ and then it only refers to a morning star!
eireannach666
We are living in a sick world, in a time when wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. That is the condition of the world today.
It doesn't matter what I say. You would refuse to heed. You place yourself in a position of saying to our Heavenly Father who owns this world --he is our landlord--"We do not need you. We will do just as we please."
You want me to tell you, you are right. No matter how wrong it may be.
Do you fear that just maybe their is a God? Fear is a chief weapon of Satan. Are you looking for company to justify yourself?
Like I said before God knows all of this wonderful science He is the greatest mathematician and scientist and men are only discovering his creations.
@Charles B.
When someone has been a long standing member and they leave the church it has to do with pride. Somebody offended them, or they got chastised for fornication or adultary.
@Laurie
Ok let's all stop the preaching for a bit and the rest of us can chill for a second, I believe the topic here originally was if whether or not the universe earth and us were the results of a creator or designer or not.
So let me ask you this. Since yoy obviously are a believer of a creator and a divine plan , I want to ask why do you side this way and what proof of there being a creator can you present to us? Try to answer without using any unreliable or should I say hear say from any doctrine of any religion. So no bible etc. Because that is not proof only propagandic speculation and as I said hear say. Real evidence , I'm looking for. Something that can be tested band reviewed.
Because my argument is that there is no evidence at all and it is insane to have such conviction for nothing but superstitious beliefs and unfounded claims of hope and eternal peace.
Laurie: OK. I'll take your word for it. It sounds like you know, as long as every ward works precisely according to the rules. If she were still my pastor, I'd fact check and get back to you, least I be the one embellishing her story. I'm working on 15 to 20 year old memories.
Peace to you.
@Charles
My pastor’s wife was Mormon, and she said that when she left they didn’t show much concern for her leaving other than someone called and wanted to know why her tithing had suddenly ended.
Tithing is never discussed over the phone. Tithing is discussed in the bishop's office. Only the bishop or stake president discussed tithing. Tithing is not what they are worried about when someone leaves the church. Not paying tithing is a sign of a bigger problem. My husband use to be in the bishopric so I know.
@Vlatko
In Laurie's defense, I think she was just defending herself against me. I can be something of an intellectual bully at times...
I'm sorry...
Okay! thats the first time you made me laugh @Epic:
"children or schizo's" funny!
Or maybe they are drunk "Yoda's" as per a commenter called "yavanna" on his blog.
@Laurie, you sound just like a black person in the 1930's. not one of the smart black people who fought for civil rights. but an uncle tom. a yessum boss type black person.
you have accepted that you are not treated as equal and your belief system has made you think that is okay or normal,
men and women ARE different but what makes men so superior to women in mormonism....hmmm does it have anything to do with being made up by men in a time of sexism?? hmmm no that would make too much sense...i think believing in gods and lost jews and jesus in america with garden of eden in missouri makes MUUUUCH more sense.
lol how can anyone who claims to be a responsible thinking adult say they believe in this make believe nonsense.
between charles and laurie i feel like im talking to either children or schizophrenics.
@Epicurus
its not about whether you want it or not. its the view you are held in by your religion. you are inferior. you are not equal.
I don't feel inferior at all. It is you who thinks I'm inferior. I can give public prayers just like a priesthood holder. I can give public talks at the pulpit just like a priesthood holder. I can teach a class just like a priesthood holder. I can go to the temple just like a priesthood leader.
I can't be bishop but I can be Relief society President. Men and women are different and we are given different jobs but we compliment one another.
Listen @Laurie Robillard,
This is a scientific documentary that somewhat touches the existence of a Creator. It is not a documentary about Mormonism. So please if you have any intelligent arguments regarding the documentary we will be happy to hear them. Otherwise please refrain from non-stop writing about Mormons. They have nothing to do with this documentary.
@Charles B.
hey don’t send the “tithe police” out to get you.
Explain to me how loving you are with this statement Charles. You are saying untrue things. Saying things that are not true hurts other people Charles. Was it a joke? I missed the humour.
The only time that I have been questioned about my tithing is once a year at tithing settlement in December. It is also a voluntary thing for me to go into the bishop's office to declare if I am a tithe payer or not. If I happen to be in the possession of a temple recommend and I inform the bishop that I haven't paid my tithing in 6 months the possibilities are that he will ask for my recommend and put it on hold until I resolve my issues and if I need help I can get counseling if I choose and if I need food to help me out I will be given the food.
@Charles B.
Mormons tend to be mostly on the same side of the political agendas as I am.
What side is that Charles? I don't know what side they are on.
@Charles B.
Unemployed Protestants like myself need not apply for apples sauce!
Do you know that the church has sent ship loads of food and water and medicals supplies and sanitary kits, new born kits, and doctors and interpreters and engineers to Haiti after the quake? It wasn't a requirement to be a Mormon to receive these goods and services.
It sounds to me like you have a lot of anger against the LDS church. I understand that it is hard to be unemployed especially when you have a family to look after. Does your church have a welfare program? The Catholic church has Saint Vincent de Paul the Salvation Army also helps people in need. When a man in the LDS church is called to be bishop he isn't only bishop over the Mormons he is bishop over the area he is assigned to. So if your church doesn't have a welfare program approach the Mormon bishop in your area on a Sunday at the chapel and he will bring you in his office and you might just be surprised of the help you will get. More than apple sauce my friend !! The church doesn't work like a welfare system as you know it. Receive a monthly check and thank you mam. The church will give you a little job for the help you receive. Maybe driving somebody to the hospital for whatever or cutting somebodies grass. That way you won't feel you are getting something for nothing you can retain your dignity. To me that is the definition of love.
@Charles B.
They’re also the only ones that I know of that makes it a requirement to pay tithes to be in good graces with the denomination.
from Laurie
Tithing means one tenth. One tenth of income. Tithing is in the Bible. The only time needed to be a full tithing payer is to get a temple recommend. A person cannot go to the temple without a temple recommend just like you cannot go to another country without a passport. The Mormons aren't perfect there are many who don't pay tithing and they are not held back from having callings. The fact that a person pays tithing or not is between the individual and the bishop. It is not announced to the membership at large of who pays tithing and who doesn't. If you want to belong to a certain golf club and the requirement is to wear a red T-shirt and you hate the colour red you have a choice shut up and wear the red T-shirt or go to another club. If you want to go to the temple and the requirement is to pay tithing you have choices also.
Wow.
Laurie: Yes, my Mormon friend is worthy of respect and a paragon of virtue; I was just thinking of the teachings of the LDS in general, and not her specifically. She had/has/and will have my respect in the future, even if I don't always agree with her doctrines.
Dr. Randy: You're right, they are better friends then foes politically. Laurie wasn't completely in-touch with how formidable they can be, but fortunately for me, Mormons tend to be mostly on the same side of the political agendas as I am. Their generosity is very Mormoncentric, however. Unemployed Protestants like myself need not apply for apples sauce! So I've heard. They're also the only ones that I know of that makes it a requirement to pay tithes to be in good graces with the denomination. In Protestant churches, tithes are only paid by like 20% at any one time, and unless you want to be a pastor, they don't send the "tithe police" out to get you.
My sermon tomorrow is over "love" (I Corinthians chapter 13) and I've been thinking so much about this-----"love" is the yardstick by which God judges His own: if we love Him and if we love others and if our motives are based on love and not selfishness. Are my actions based on care and love for others?
I could even be a minister, and if I do not act in "love" then the Bible says I'm litterally "nothing" and all my efforts are null and void in God's sight. Perhaps, just perhaps, that is one thing I have against the Mormons. I didn't feel a lot of "love" there, just pressure to conform and being pushed out if you don't. Again, not my friend, personally, but the denomination as a whole.
I try to put my own name in I Cor. 13 in place of "love": "Charles is patient, Charles is kind; Charles is not self-seeking; Charles is not easily provoked to anger. etc." Do I fit that bill? Not always.
"God help me to be a true "lover" of mankind, so that I might make a difference in an eternal sense. May it be my soul's deepest motivator in all that I do. If I can. Amen."
Anyway, I digress. I cannot bring myself to accept the teachings of the Mormons, but I cannot keep my soul from believing to the core that God is real and I cannot keep my heart from wanting to love and serve Him more very day.
I just hope that someday that science advances to the point where we have all the answers without just more questions, and that we can see God in all that He has made and done. I don't expect that day tomorrow, or even the next day, but perhaps, just perhaps, in my lifetime we shall see it.
What do you think, Dr. Randy?
P.S. I've never been hit by lightning! Can't blame my mindset on that, thank you very much! :-)
P.S.S. Epic: anything in the book of Mormon I know nothing about, but anything in the Bible I can explain what it means if you'd like, such as what happened during the time Jesus died and was resurrected wich was when he "preached" to those in "Hell" or "Sheol" which was not what we consider "Hell" per se now. If you'd like.
Ok vlatko sorry. Just take out the *7a** part but I wa only joking. But I see why the moderation. My bad.
@Epi
HaHaHa! Wow I didn't even think about youtubing it, lol. Leave it to them to ha e anything. But see almost or just as crazy as them sighingtologists. I wasn't BSing about madness. But I'm with you about Laurie.
@Laurie
Why did you become a m@#$& I mean Mormon in the first place? What about it made you see truth in its stories and beliefs? And if you could, please tell me why in light of all the proof against a god and all the evidence for smith being a loon why come to the conclusions you've reached. And you do realize that the odds of your religion being right as opposed to any of the thousand othees out there, is slim to none right?
its not about whether you want it or not. its the view you are held in by your religion. you are inferior. you are not equal.
when and how did you decide to become mormon? do you have a fun conversion story.
@Epicuru
Females are not allowed to have the priesthood.
from Laurie
Why would I want the priesthood I have motherhood. That is enough work for one person.
Thank's @Epi:
Some videos on magic underwear... google.."youtube-magic mormon underwear".
@Laurie, come back, want to hear about your magic underwear!
@ MILITANT TRUTHSEEKER: Your mathematical formula seems correct sir LOL You should publish your formulae :D
What a fascinating doc - I was struck by lightning myself when I was 17, and I really related to the explainations of the neurophysicist about the heightened sense of "companionship"; I have had multiple experiences myself of feeling a presence while KNOWING I was alone, and these feelings didn't start happening until after the lightning strike... LOL and I thought I was just getting paranoid in my old age
just google it achems, and go to images. you will see the mormon under garments
New fetish! Mormon magical underwear, Ha, Ha,
Wonder what they look like?
@Laurie:
Most of what you said is just plain gibberish. I think you should take the time to formulate your thoughts better, or just think more critically. I also think your posts lack coherency, perhaps you should elaborate on some of your assertions instead of trying to get in as much faith-driven rhetoric as possible.
"Hell is not a place for those who have taken a body on this earth. Those on this earth have passed the first estate. Hell is for spirit bodies like those of Satan and his followers. One third of Heaven. The others who are going there are those who sin against the Holy Ghost and few will do this. Most don’t know enough to do this. A university degree won’t get you to Hell. Those from earth who end up in the place called Hell will have a resurrected body and will have power over Satan because he and his followers who didn’t pass the first estate will never have a body.Their progression has stopped forever.Where there is no progression there is regression"
This part is especially jarring. You assert tons of things while explaining none of them.
@ Laurie.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha.....ohhhh hahahahahhahaha hahaha ha hahaha ha ha hahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
*sigh*
do you wear magical underwear laurie?
also here is some HILARIOUS things the mormons believe....lol if anything is crazier than scientology it is this nutty cult.
D&C 138: 8-14
8 “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
9 “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18—20.)
10 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1 Peter 4:6.)
11 As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.
12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;
13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name.
14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
This is about Jesus in America...LOL
3 Nephi 11: 7-12
7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.
8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.
9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:
10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.
11 And behold, I am the alight and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.
12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.
D&C 130: 22-23
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
23 A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.
In the LDS religion any worthy male can be given the priesthood and is given specific duties. Black people were not allowed to have the priesthood until 1978. Females are not allowed to have the priesthood.
D&C 107: 1-5
1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.
2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.
3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
5 All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.
This deserves some explanation. Mormons believe that God created multiple worlds and each world has people living on it. They also believe that multiple Gods exist but each has their own universe. We are only subject to our God and if we obtain the highest level of heaven we can become gods ourselves.
D&C 76: 24
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
D&C 93: 10
10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.
Moses 1: 33
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
D&C 76: 108
108 Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever.
D&C 131: 1-5
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
5 (May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.
@Randy
You even ran a dude for president a few elections back, and thank Batman ol’ Mitt Romney didn’t get past the primaries! If he had been elected, I would have eaten a bullet!
Is there a law that Mormon individuals can't go into politics? Just because an individual goes into politics and chooses a certain party doesn't mean the church is behind him or her. The church doesn't have a political preference. Politics are not discussed in church. We just vote for the best man. I wouldn't vote for a party leader who would give everybody a gun.
Sure there are a lot of wealthy Mormons and those individuals can donate or lobby where they want. They are not organized by the church. The church teaches principles and individuals govern themselves. The church does teach about marriage between man and women and not between man and man or woman and woman. However, the individual is cherished but not the sin.
Having a tendency towards the same sex is not a sin but having sex with same sex is. Not different from I really like those shoes and think of ways to steal them but never steal them. It's called overcoming weaknesses.
@Charles B.
The worst I get in Mormonism is not making the Celestial Kingdom, but rather the terrestial one, but only sons of perdition (those that shed innocent blood) get the big toastola, as I understand it.
from Laurie
We believe that families are together forever linked like a chain. I love my parents and want to continue a close association with them even after death. On this earth there is a veil over our memory of where we came from and we have to walk by faith. When we die our eyes are opened to the spirit world and people continue to learn and progress. Progression could mean letting go of some family traditions that prevents progression. My father goes to the Catholic church because of tradition. He has needs that are met there. We live in English Canada and the French who live outside Quebec tend to group together especially the elderly. They get to speak French go on little trips to Quebec such as the Maple Sugar parties even funerals are social events. My father goes to church every Sunday but he never discusses religion he doesn't read the Bible. My mother was religious and we had many many talks and she wants to be sealed to my father for eternity and have her children sealed to her and my father. She saw that out of four of her children that my children ( her grandchildren) were more respectful more thoughtful more involved in the community and youth programs more giving more helpful. She didn't think it was China town. She saw that Mormonism was good for me and my children. It would have been too much stress for her to change religion. Traditions are important to my parents. So when the Adamic language is spoken instead of English and French and countries and festive days are no longer a barrier things will change. First when my father dies he will see there is life after death ( right now he thinks when we dies all ends). He will be happy to see my mother again and his parents but he will be sad that their marriage is only until death. He will not be living in a family way. He will be taught that he can be sealed for eternity just as there love is eternal. Love doesn't die after death. My mother was one of those unfortunate people who had depression during her life so growing up wasn't always easy with mother being sick especially around October when the days are shorter less sunshine. After death there is no more illness so we (my siblings will know who she really is.)
Hell is not a place for those who have taken a body on this earth. Those on this earth have passed the first estate. Hell is for spirit bodies like those of Satan and his followers. One third of Heaven. The others who are going there are those who sin against the Holy Ghost and few will do this. Most don't know enough to do this. A university degree won't get you to Hell. Those from earth who end up in the place called Hell will have a resurrected body and will have power over Satan because he and his followers who didn't pass the first estate will never have a body.Their progression has stopped forever.Where there is no progression there is regression.
For the people of the earth after the resurrection there is the Terrestrial reward, the Telestial reward, the Celestial reward. The book of revelations talks about these places. One like unto the sun, the moon the stars. Wherever world you end up in you will be happy there but if you don't make it to the Celestial kingdom you will always know that you could have had more. More is living with your family and then some.
The sin next to sinning against the Holy Ghost is murder. Murder stops the victims progression and repentance can't give that person's life back. So where do you think king David is going? Can he be compared to Hitler? Not in my books because he loved the Lord and served the Lord during his lifetime. He lusted after a married woman and didn't kill her husband personally and didn't get him assassinated but had him put in a place where death was a certainty. I don't have an answer for you but I thought you might think about it.
@Laurie
You are so wrong in Canada! In my country, you have more money than the Vatican. With that money you buy and influence politicians and lawmakers... you affected laws in my country on mnay recent occasions, one of which Epicurus mentioned above.
You even ran a dude for president a few elections back, and thank Batman ol' Mitt Romney didn't get past the primaries! If he had been elected, I would have eaten a bullet!
And don't take the "mask" thing personally. I happen to know that all human beings are this way. The "evil" ones just try to repress it. They're the ones you see on the front page with the headline ending with, ..."before turning the gun on himself..."
Anything you try to repress, just gets stronger.
@Randy
IF they were not so depressingly powerful, it would be easier to ignore them, but alas
from Laurie
How can a church that doesn't have a political opinion be so powerful? The church doesn't influence people to vote one way or another.
Yes they own land for cattle and fruits and vegetables and canneries. Yes they own churches and temples and when they build a church or Temple they don't borrow money because they teach to be debt free. Is that a bad thing to be debt free? We don't have any paid ministry and the members clean the churches and the members work on the farms. My children have very good memories of working in the orchards growing up and camping on the grounds of the church owned orchards with the Scouts. We had square dances there and BBQs. We had a great time and we got to take home the seconds (fruits)home for canning making jam or juice. The purpose of these farms is for the people when they loose their jobs or become sick and have a reduced income and can't make ends meet. At least they get to eat decently.
@Charles
from Randy
They are all grinning, smiling, happy masks with human demons behind them… IF they were not so depressingly powerful, it would be easier to ignore them, but alas…
from Charles
Yeah, “Chinatown” is nothing to mess with I think! Been there, done that — in the real China! :-)
Charles do you think your friend the author the one you grew up with and respect is a demon with a human mask? If you don't be fair and stand up for her.
Dr. Randy: Nope, it's viruses! I have two anti-virus programs on my computer (only one I know how to activate myself--the one with goggle eyes), but the other one "Norton" just popped on and is racking up the numbers too! Yeah! They're both in Korean, so it's frustrating to try to run anything, but the one I did run takes a long time. Norton seems quicker. I'm hoping between the two they'll get them all. It's like the replicators on SG-1. Where the H! do they keep coming from!?!
Looks like when you run the anti-virus program and it finds a thousand (literally) and then the next day all you do is Facebook, and there's more! I just don't understand it . . . . . unless the viruses are more up-dated then the software trying to take them off. Anyway, Norton is running frantically now, and usually it comes up clean(er), but I see it's racking up the big numbers now. Let's hope it works, or I'll be out of a computer soon I think.
Yeah, "Chinatown" is nothing to mess with I think! Been there, done that -- in the real China! :-)
Charles B.
Charles B.
Af far as Mormonism, "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown..." (if you don't get what that means, I am not going to go into it here...).
The men wear "magic underwear" that keep them from "defiling" themselves... In the last 30 to 40 years they have even thrown UFOlogy into the mix, making it just as bat-sh** insane as Scientology!
They are all grinning, smiling, happy masks with human demons behind them... IF they were not so depressingly powerful, it would be easier to ignore them, but alas...
As far your computer problems... I too have had a couple of systems meltdown recently. Fortunately, I was able to back-up my work onto a tera-byte drive before they "gave up the ghost"!
If you are using Windows systems? Apparently there was a major problem with some recent (June/July), Windows XP updates, including "Service Pack 3" which caused many newer XP systems, to self destruct.
My research showed many, many possible solutions, but none of them worked in any permanent way... All I could do was get them limping along, long enough to back up the important work.
Fortunately, I have many back-up systems and redundant networks... But, that may be your problem, other than a possible virus...
Laurie: That is interesting. I don't fully understand, however. You're waiting for your dad to die so you can what now? If people like me and your dad don't convert now, how is it that we can convert later after death? Please indulge me. I read Eireannach666's post. The worst I get in Mormonism is not making the Celestial Kingdom, but rather the terrestial one, but only sons of perdition (those that shed innocent blood) get the big toastola, as I understand it.
eireannach666: That was very thorough and well written. I knew there as a lot of odd things in the Mormon teachings that I shied away from. I'll cut and paste and research later.
Dr. Randy: My computer has AIDS! I have like this super nasty infection where I run the virus checker, and I kid you not, it doubles (hearly) every time I run the darn thing. I wonder if it's adding the viruses. But, I run the same program on my school computer and it came up with viruses, and then the next day came up clean. I wonder if this computer will die some horrid computer death soon. I had one do that once and it took four years of my college with it! How could people be so smart but so cruel at the same time to come up with these things. If I suddenly never comment again for a long time, it's most likely I'm busy with church work and/or my computer has went to Heaven before me. It would be nice, however, to get an e-mail contact so when I move (maybe in 4 months), we can keep tabs on eachother even if I can't do design much any longer. Just a thought.
Peace.
@Ian
I totally understand what you are saying. Absolutely.
And it mystifies me that others don't "get" that...
the fine tuning of the universe is NO proof or even remotely valid argument in the favour of the presence of a God. It is VERY simple, if the conditions of the universe where any different, then we would not be around to observe them. The conditions of the universe are the way they are, because from our standpoint, its the only possible outcome. When people say " there are 1 in eighteen million thousand billion odds that the universe would turn out the way it did." that is to say we would not be alive in the universe. for us to be alive and to observe reality, there is a 100% chance that we would observe it EXACTLY the way it is. I am not sure if i am doing the best job conveying my points right now, but the universe HAS to be the way it is, there are simply no other options.
@Charles B.
My question is this: Why would my family line be on the Mormon site? Did they record other family lines, besides active Mormons about 100 years ago?
I've been very busy so I haven't had any time for the computer. Today I took my grand children to a local fair. They were happy to see animals cows, pigs goats, horses, chickens, rabbits etc. They also enjoyed the rides and the ice cream. Needless to say I'm very tired. Picking up after my grandchildren being here all weekend.
Concerning your genealogy on the Mormon records. I don't know exactly how your line got there but I have a few ideas. Mormons and non- Mormons can add their genealogy on the site. There are also teams of researches that go to the different churches and get baptisms marriages death records on micro fiche. My mother passed a way 6 years ago and I would have to have my father's permission to get her work done in the Temple. My father is 86 and when he dies I plan to get there work done. Baptism by proxi by myself and for my father by my son, endownment, and sealings for eternity. My parents are aware of this and have no comment. My siblings don't understand it and aren't religious except for one sister who is Catholic.
@chuck B
I provided a comment with some helpful info and links if it ever comes out of moderation.
@Chuck B
Yeah that what it was! See you answered your own question. And saved me from insanity because I couldn't remember.
Anyhow I got on a mormon forum and asked about it and here is what I got:
"The church maintains one of the largest single repositories in the world for genealogical research. The repository is contained in a very large library in Salt Lake City, Secure vaults in the canyons above Salt Lake City and in numerous branch libraries located around the world. 2. These records are of many types but I think the type you are most concerned with are the records contained in Pedigree files and Family Group files. These records are there becaus one or more individuals have submitted them, whether a member of the church or not. These records may or may not be accurate, you would have no way of determining that from the record. 3. You, as a person, are protected by the Privacy act. Anything but a person’s name, which is a common record, of anyone that is alive is marked private and there is no way to get it. If your information is found in other databases at the libraries it is there because it is a record open to the public. There is no national database program that I know of."
After further digging I came across this :
he first step toward being able to go to a Mormon temple is an interview with the "ward bishop" (roughly equivalent to a parish priest). During this interview a Mormon is questioned by the bishop to see if he has been faithful in his commitment to the teachings and ordinances of the Mormon church.
The questions cover a variety of subjects, including his tithing track record; use of alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine; sexual immorality; and any failures to adhere to church doctrines and disciplines. If the applicant has had difficulties in any of these areas, he will not receive a temple recommend. For the one who does not pass the interview, there is no trip to the temple.
It is interesting to note that the majority of Mormons do not have temple recommends. This is not to say that they fail their interviews with their bishops. Actually, for a variety of reasons, most Mormons never make the effort to obtain a temple recommend. But for the minority who do obtain one, their chief duties in the temple include baptism for the dead.
On any given day, in more than fifty Mormon temples around the world, thousands of faithful Mormons are baptized vicariously for the dead. Most non-Mormons are dimly aware that the Mormons are interested in genealogy, but they are not sure why. While there is nothing wrong with being interested in genealogy as a hobby, this is far from a hobby for Mormons.
They believe people who have died can be baptized by proxy, thus allowing them the opportunity to become Mormons after their death. The idea behind baptism for the dead is this: God wants each of us to be with him in glory. To effect this, he allows us to accept the Mormon gospel here on earth. If we do not, he sends us to a "spirit prison" until the Mormon gospel has been preached to us there and we convert.
Mormons believe that their church has missionaries in the "spirit world" who are busy spreading the Mormon gospel to dead people who have not yet received it. Should any of these dead people want to convert to Mormonism, they are required to abide by all its rules, one of which is water baptism. Hence the need for proxies to receive the corporeal waters of baptism.
You might be surprised to learn that the Mormon church has teams of men and women microfilming records of Catholic and Protestant parishes, cemetery records, birth and death certificates—virtually any sort of record pertaining to past generations. Temple Mormons hope, in time, to have all of the dead of previous generations baptized posthumously into the Mormon church.
One reason Mormons advance the practice of baptism for the dead is a sense of justice. Billions of people have died without ever hearing the gospel of Christ and without having the chance to be baptized into his Church. How could God consign such people to damnation without giving them the chance to be saved? Surely he would give them that chance. But if they never heard the gospel in this life, when else could they hear and respond to it except in the next life?
Thus the Mormon argument from fairness is not persuasive. There are other ways for accounting for God’s justice and mercy in dealing with those who have not heard of God and the gospel. It is not necessary to postulate another preaching of the gospel and second chance of repentance in the afterlife, much less the necessity of proxy baptism for the dead, on that basis. God can simply let whomever he wants into heaven, whether they have water baptism or not. God is not bound by the sacraments he himself instituted."
Hope this helps you Charles. As for giving them records I'd say not a chance in any he** . I would get all I could together and take it to a government records library and find out what I had to do to get some security on them.
Laterz.
Dr. Randy: I have a friend that is Mormon. I think they baptize for the dead (well, I know they do), but I think that the extensive listing of genealogies (usually very accurately) is so when a person becomes Mormon they can be baptized for their ancestors. I'm not sure what the purpose is, or how that works, but I think that is accurate. Maybe Laurie can elucidate (for me at least) as I'm curious about that practice. I was going to put my whole recent family line in the file I found, but I couldn't bring myself to do it as I'm not Mormon, but I wouldn't mind putting it in the library.
PRandy and Chuck B
Yeah the have records of jewish holocaust casualties and slaves frim the civil war and a lot of records they shouldn't gave, they even ritualisticly
Put them to res like a mormon funeral with out consent . It supposedly benefits them in some way , I forget now but thee is a dpoc pon it somewhere. Well at least it elaborates on it quite a bit. I'm crashing so my minds not workimg but maybe Vlatko can find the doc or visit pbs.org and find it.
Laterz guys.
Laurie: That was a touching testimonial. I have a question for you, however. I found my family line on the Mormon database going all the way back to the 1600's. I'm quite sure it's my family line as my great grandfather and his brother had very unique names and it coincides with other information I found about distant ancestors.
My question is this: Why would my family line be on the Mormon site? Did they record other family lines, besides active Mormons about 100 years ago?
But, to be truthful, I think some of them were Mormon as a few had like a list of 4 or 5 wives. They were either outliving them by a lot and remarried, or something peculiar was going on. With that said, I'm puzzled as I know that my great grand father donated his mill stones to help build a Protestant church in Arkansas near the turn of the century. Just curious on your take on things.
Special note: One of the women mentioned in my line was actually married to Chief Logan, a Native American cheif of some importance in that part of the country. Very unusual for a white woman, I would think, for the time period. If memeory serves me correctly. All my research has been lost in a move, I'm sorry to say. I need to re-do it and submit it to the town library before I die and it's lost. I'm so discouraged about that.
Charles B.
from Laurie
Religion is better than no religion. Your pastors wife what testimony are you talking about?
Charles I was raised Catholic. French Catholic. I have done my genealogy and all my ancesters going back to at least 1663 were Catholic. They immigrated from France so I'm sure they were Catholic there also because under King Louis' rule they had to be Catholic to come to New France. I'm grateful my parent's taught me to worship and love God. They were very hurt when I got baptized in the LDS faith. I was isolated by my family. It was not easy. I took the hard road because I got to know God better. The prize was worth it. Now my family just accepts it and me.
P.S. My pastor's wife when I was in my 20's also used to be Mormon, so her testimony helped me make the decision also. Perhaps it boils down to a sensitivity to God's voice. I'm sure Laurie would disagree with that conclusion however.
Abraham's Son: You said "Faith will never be based on logic so arguing it is pointless."
Ironically, that's not entirely true. I believe to the core Christian fundamental beliefs, but despite years of dedicated and prolonged exposure to Mormon teachings, I never converted. I mentally rejected the fundamentals of the denomination out of logic. Why do I believe one but not the other? It is a mystery, especially considering that most of the converts to Mormonism do come from other "Christian" denominations.
@Abrahams Son
Hmm, you should get over to the new documentary. Watch it and comment. "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism", it's well presented, well thought and also really good in scientific knowledge.
Question: Why are non believers always trying to convince people of faith? If your logic is beyond question then why waste your time arguing with people about a mythical God? Faith will never be based on logic so arguing it is pointless. I understand opposing public policy such as not taxing churchs or religous teaching in public schools but you cant argue faith which is by definition not based on science? I can only surmise it has to do with trying prove intellectual superiority which gives meaning to life for people that have declared life has no meaning beyond the daily struggle for survival which has gone on since life began. I dont claim to have the answers to anything, only questions. Almost everything I see in the world and how believers and non believers treat each other would lead one to doubt the existence of a biblical God but my hope not my logic still clings to that search for meaning. Maybe I am unwilling to face the "truth" but see no other path.
@Achems Razor
Hehe, Yep I agree with you. But hey, that sums about every religion up.
@Charles B.
Sorry, I can't read through your post and reply. I just moved and started studying at a new school and country. So I'm mentally unstable right now because of the changes. I hope your headache gets better and that you and your wife can get over the fusses.
The “Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” is really great documentary. It actually sums up a lot of how I've come to look at religion. Not just one but most of them. I agree with every single thing he says. It's like he is speaking my mind! There are still some things missing but it's a solid argument overall.
Do see it once you get the time and the troubles have gone away.
Good luck to you Sir and have a nice day.
Yeah, I noticed the focus was switched to the new doc. I can't bring myself to watch it yet. I needed some time off. Still have a headache and I'm in a rather bad mood. Had a tiff with the wife who doesn't like my internetting so much, but that wasn't what we fussed about. We'll see. Priorities.
Peace to you.
Where is BBC when you need him? Now he was a smart cookie.
@DK
You said it man.
Get over to the thread were on man. Use that brain a while.
Circular logic's a bitch
@Charles,
you said:
"however. I’m not 100% sure it’s not demonic, and I’m not 100% sure it is, but I suspect much of it is. I base that conclusion on the fact that much more in our society that is evil is demonicly influenced then what we would suspect."
you say you base that conclusion on the "FACT" that much in our society that is evil is demonicly influence more than what we would suspect......first off that isnt a FACT, that is a belief. i asked how you know about demons and you say because things in society are influenced by demons...that is circular, it doesnt make sense...how do you know things in society are influenced by demons? why does there have to be demons? what evidence points to demons and not nature?
and saying that jesus says he dealt with demons is evidence is also circular logic...how do you know what jesus said? the bible says what jesus says....how do you know the bible is true? because jesus says its true....how do you know what jesus said? the bible says what jesus said.....how do you know the bible is true? because jesus says its true....and so on and so on....you have allowed a logical fallacy to work on you because the truth is YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD. it is all you have known and you wouldnt know how to be happy without this belief system.
that is fine and i know that now, and there is nothing i can say that will change your mind because you would RATHER not know the truth if the truth is hard. that is fine....it cant be helped.
@chuck B
Speaking of the devil.
Yeah we were just talking about you.
@Charles B:
We are all waiting for you on the new doc. "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism"
I've run out of things to say, justlike everyone else I see.
Peace.
@ Charles B
I think there are very good arguments for the existence of God. I've also been able to experience God in many personal ways that affirms my beliefs.
Bottomline, we agree it is rational to believe in God. But demons, not so much.
@Charles B:
Of course they thought that paranoid schizophrenic people where possessed of demons in your stone age bible times, they never had any psychiatrists at those times. (LOL)
Can't believe that you believe that gunk!
P.S. Prix:
That was a good question, however.
In summary: This is a judgment passage and it's in the future and for the future, not for us to practice today other than to be faithful with the "talents" that God has given us to work with.
Epicurus: There isn't a set test for demonic activity. The "Exorcist" is just theatrical c-r-a-p that Hollywood puts out. But, some deliverance sessions do happen. A strong Christian can often command them to respond, and they often do so, etc.
As I said, one of my best friends in high school was schizophrenic, and we were friends for years. When he told me once, "Charles, I've been diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic" and he thought I'd abandon him, I told him, "Oh really? I knew that 4 years ago, Mark! Don't worry about it." I never feared them until one I spent a lot of time with in China knifed my friend and father of six to death in church (could have been me) as I prayed with him often and it calmed him. I'm open to interpretation on the subject, however. I'm not 100% sure it's not demonic, and I'm not 100% sure it is, but I suspect much of it is. I base that conclusion on the fact that much more in our society that is evil is demonicly influenced then what we would suspect. Jesus dealt with a lot of demonic activity and deliverence in His ministry. What was valid then is valid now, but sadly many Christians just don't know how to deal with it or aren't capable (like Jesus Disciples) to handle it effectively. Me included.
I'm sorry about your brother. It's a difficult situation. Does he improve with the proper meds?
Peace to you both.
Epic: My bad! Like I said, I have a headache today. Not my best day. The same story has a different ending in the Book of Matthew 25:14-30 with the stingy or wicked "servant" being cast into Hell, but without the "slaying" part.
Prix: This parable wasn't talking about conversion to Christianity or worship of Jesus, per se. It does say "servants" not unbelievers that are under judgment here. This was a parable and depicts what will happen at the end of the age when it is time for judgment of those that belong to Christ (both in reality and in name only). It's not something that Christians are instructed to do concerning unbelievers, as we are not God and cannot make that judgment call. It's the "Lion and the Lamb" view of Christ. When He came 2000 years ago, he was the "Lamb." When He returns in the future, it will be as a "Lion."
Nonetheless, unbelievers will also receive the same as this "unprofitable servant" at this time, so it's an argument of semantics.
@Charles, he was talking about luke19:27
luke19:27
King James Bible
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
charles. what is the verifiable or falsifiable test you would do for demons?
what reason do you have to believe demons exist? especially when you are attributing natural things to them...its very very odd.
my little brother is paranoid schizophrenic...i know much about schizophrenia and there is nothing demonic about it. and until you can show how it is you should be careful the things you say. ignorance does not give you free reign to just say whatever you like.
Prix: I have a headache today and I can't find your quote, but it was something like "Jesus said, "Bring them here and if they don't believe, then execute them before me." Or, that was the thought at least.
Actually, that's not in the Bible unless is's a Islamic version of what they say Jesus said. Jesus gives one parable about the "talents" where the wicked "servant" that wasted his "talent" and told off the good ruler when he returned was cast into eternal punishment, but that is not quite the same.
Jesus actually forbade His disciples from calling fire down from Heaven to consume unbelieving cities. He basically said, "That's not what I came here for" and eventually they will get theirs eventually during the judgement.
As far as the mentally unstalbe, I had a friend who was paranoid schitchophrenic, sp? but to what extent it is demonic I'm not sure. I suspect it is a medical condition that demons can exloit. Whatever your weekness is, that is what they will exploit, mentally or physically or morally. That's the way I understand it. In other words, they exaserbate the condition and work through it like rats around garbage. Clean up the garbage, or work on the medical condition and often they have less avenue to meddle with the person's mind. My theory.
Peace to you.
Ok. Thanks. Later.
@Epicurus
What exactly was I to look at? I went there and saw a pretty humorous skit about Joe but did I miss something or was that what you were talking about?
"08/27/2010 at 04:13
Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont, to Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith, a working class couple."
_________________________________________________________________
just search that without the quotations. either the sentence or the date.
Epic: Did your post ever clear about LDS church? I can't find it.
But, I know about it. I just wanted to see what you thought most "interesting" about it.
Prix: Later today, maybe.
@Prix
HaHa! That came out in the 80's when I was younger. I remember it.
@Achems
Oh yes my friend, there is a lot more. Like ,for instance, some teach that the blacks were black because they were satans and the whites were of christ. Also the native americans were a lost tribe of Israel and were turned red due to their sin. Oh , and my favorite was that the first man and woman (adam and eve) originated in missouri or mississippi. , somewhere in the south. Implying life started there.LOL!
Look what religion does to the world. Shame , isn't it.
@Laurie
Do credentials matter when the spoken word is fact? I would think not. As long as the truth is being spoken , its just as good wether it be from Dr.Bob or Senor Steve the taco bender.
I have two degrees and am well read, if that maskes you feel that my statements are more valid. But regardless you can't argue fact. I mean you know this stuff and yet you still think of them ads good folks. Do you really think the church tells its herd everything? ,of course they don't.
Oh and your statement of how you have to be able to afford to wives tells me that you really are delusional indeed,do you not think that some women work or that the law. Of the land says you can't marry but who says they have to marry these other women on paper? They do it a lot. Also why do you not at least question thes ideas of religion and weigh the facts availiable to you and look and see where the truth lies. Why just believe what mom and dad say? Why not look outside the box and see what else is out there. I mean heck, mormonism is quite new in the god game, so what makes you think everyone else is wrong that have been around for thousands of years?
I'm just talkin, Richard Dawkins.
@Randy
When did you adopt a nephew on here?
@Achems Razor
Hmm, I don't know but have you seen this short cartoon made by Mormons, or have you?
youtube._com/watch?v=ervaWt03Z3w
Just remove the _ and there you go.
I haven't spent all that much time reading on Mormons but that religion is as crazy as any other religion.
@eire666:
That was a very interesting read, you included on your post...08/29/2010 at 03:18
Stuff I never knew before. Just goes to show you how ridiculous religion really is, and how gullible religee's really are!
I still say religee's are very child like. That means to me, a great percentage of the world is also childlike.
@eireannach666
My point is that mormonism is based on the words and guidance of a petty con artist and has absolutly no evidence in which to base its extreme claims and teachings upon. I have to say that Even though they have denounced polygamy, do you really think those that were already as such just said ok and up and changed?
Not all the members lived polygamy. They had to be able to afford a second wife and they had to have the first wife's permission. Also it wasn't a civil ceremony so they had to pass higher laws. When polygamy was abandoned to obey the law of the land. The ones who were in a polygamist relationship were sent to live in Alberta, Canada. Those who engaged in polygamist relationships after it was abolished were ex-communicated. Polygamy is not an easy way to live. Most of the second wives were elderly women who needed to be part of a family to survive. They were living on the frontier.
@eireannach666
@Laurie
First let me say that my credentials are not important her and neither is any othe persons,
Your credentials are important because you yourself has already passed the first estate. That is very important because you passed you are allowed to have a body. Having a body of flesh and bones is so important more than anybody can understand. It allows you to experience good and evil, bitter and sweet etc. Satan is jealous he can never have a body and he understands the importance of having a body. There is a story in the Bible when a man was possessed by evil spirits in the days of Jesus and they asked Him if they can enter the body of swines that were near by. Jesus gave them permission. What did the swines do? They ran off a cliff because they didn't want to cohabit with evil spirits.
Today is Sunday no more time for this. Need to get the grandkids ready for church.
Well since my other comment is being moderated, Ill correct myself here too. I meant johovahs witness guys not lds guys. I got distracted by someone sorry. But yeah right up there.
*not latter day saints guys I meant johovahs witness guys. Sorry I got distracted.
But any who , here are a few fun facts about mormons:
- that they intend to be gods themselves some day, and are helping to earn their exaltation to godhood by talking to you.
- that they intend to have many wives in heaven, carrying on multiple sex relations throughout eternity, until they have enough children to populate their own earth, so they can be "Heavenly Father" over their own planet!
- that you were once a spirit - child of their heavenly father, and one of his numerous wives before you were born on earth.
- that the Virgin Mary really wasn't a virgin at all but had sex relations with their heavenly father to produce the Mormon version of Jesus Christ
- that they believe Jesus had at least three wives and children while he was on this earth.
- that the "heavenly father" they ask you to pray to with them, is really an exalted man that lives on a planet near the star base Kolob, and is not the Heavenly Father of the Bible at all-they believe that Jesus was really Lucifer's brother in the spirit world, and it was only due to a "heavenly council" vote that Jesus became our redeemer instead of Satan!!
- that there are over one hundred divisions in Mormonism. They conveniently "forget" this while criticizing the many denominations within the body of Christ- that, like all bibles, all their so- called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and even their official "Mormon Doctrine" statements contradict each other on MAJOR doctrinal points. The King James Bible is likewise contradicted.
- that the reason the Book of Mormon has no maps is because there is not one scrap of archaeological evidence to support it
-that the state of Utah, which is predominately Mormon, has a higher than the national average of wife-beating, child abuse, and teenage suicide.
- that their prophet Joseph Smith was heavily involved in the occult before he was "chosen". that there are many accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision besides the one they present to you, and all are different
-that before 1978 they considered the Negro race inferior, and even one drop of Negro blood prevented a person from entering their priesthood - that they expect Christ to return to their temple in Missouri, but they haven't built the temple He's supposed to return to, because they don't own the property. (It is owned by the "Temple Lot Mormons" who have plans of their own, and won't let the Salt Lake City group buy it), that they consider the Bible to be untrustworthy and full of errors.
- that Jesus' death on the cross only partially saves the believer.
And on and on. Like I said , right up there with scientologists.And this is just a few fun facts. But hey let's be fair here , all religions are full of these kind of things so at least they are keeping up with the pack.
Sorry for the typos my keyboard is messed up.
@Laurie
First let me say that my credentials are not important her and neither is any othe persons, including all the nut jobs you've mentioned above. In fact it wouldn't matter 1 bit to me if a person had 8000 degrees, if they beleived in anything as crazy and unfounded as religion , god santa claus or any fictitious entity that was preached by someone with no evidence to back him , than I say all your credentials just went down the drain along with your grasp on reality.
My point is that mormonism is based on the words and guidance of a petty con artist and has absolutly no evidence in which to base its extreme claims and teachings upon. I have to say that Even though they have denounced polygamy, do you really think those that were already as such just said ok and up and changed? Even you have to be aware that saying and doing are two different things.
And also , I can't even ponder hearing the mormon story about god etc without thinking about how desperate someone would have to be to belong in order to even think for s second that there was any truth to its beliefs on god. Which is funny ro me since I have to say that you guys are even more warped than the christians. (But less than the scientologistsm Right up there with the later day saint guys.) I mean come on Laurie , you seem to be a smart person, do you not even question the system a little?
Don't think I have something against mormons any more than I do anyother cult because all of them are the same to me. Still they take aa person and strip them of their free will from the start and build them into good little sheep.Its been going on for a really long time and your cult has done pretty well for itself for getting such a late start.
Besides all I was trying to accomplish with bringing joe smith into it was just to see how delusional you really were. As I see you are pretty deep into this cult. You even know their All-Star list and hall of fame members.Wow.
Reguardless of how many successful mormons you name , there is still the fact that there is was and never will be a god and there is something wrong with teaching your. Kids this without showing them the facts. Your rweligion has done more bad than good to the world and has destroyed the innocence of many many children and mothers. Why be apart of that is what I'm asking you. Especially with the lame story starring joe smith they have. I mean come on a kid could come up with that in about an hour. Not even the brightest kid either. I'm talking a D student here. But hey go ahead and try to insult me all you want but it won't matter because your a mormon.
Slainte.
@Charles B.
haha, no need to rush sir. You take your time. I've been occupied with forums lately and I haven't had time to spend some quality time with my girlfriend. I'll be slow as well because of it.
Take care and have a nice Sunday sir.
@Epicurus
I know which documentary you mean. I think it's on this website. I'll search for it, doesn't take that long and I was thinking about sending it to one of my friends. So brb! quick search!
Found it! But I remember seeing different documentary about this. It was from Nova.
tiny.cc/p9le9
That's the link for NOVA - Ape genius. I don't know if we have it on this site yet. But it's on video google. Just search for "nova ape genius" around 15:00 they start to talk about the emotion and the usage of tools.
And I think I've found the one you talked about. Although you will need DIVX web player to watch this one.
tiny.cc/x8088
NatGeo Wild. Chimps: nearly human.
Just paste any of the links. For Chimps: Nearly human, click on "free stream" and just press play (once you do have DIVX webplayer) and wait for a couple of minutes. I would suggest waiting for about 15 to 30 minutes so you don't get interrupted.
Maybe it's possible to upload it to a website that supports Flash instead of Divx web player without getting it removed. I'm not sure.
If you don't have DIVX web player. Make sure when you install it you only take DIVX web player checked and nothing more. You don't want to be bother with other stuff that isn't all that important. Also it's free.
There you go! Have fun watching.
Prix: I can't think of anywhere where Jesus said that quote. It's Sunday. Let me work on it. There are "judgement" passages, but none exactly like that one. Later, please.
rather than nit picking one another for semantics, try to ignore the grasping for straws and focus on the focal point of the conversation.
dont respond to this. dont respond to one another about how you respond to one another. just stick to the issues. lol you two are giving me a headache.
just watched a new documentary on National Geographic channel the other day called Chimps: Nearly human. it covered chimps being altruistic (a non related male looked after a baby chimp for a mother who was nursing her injuries for two weeks) ALSO - and this is just amazing - they documented chimps making spears out of branches ( a number of them, different sizes for different jobs) and then go out hunting through trees for sleeping bush babies....absolutely amazing. also they enjoyed water...which chimps were thought to be hydrophobic. if Vlatko could find it he should really add it to the site. in the meantime you might want to do a search to see if it is anywhere else on the interwebs...remember it is a series of tubes!
This is a great documentary, it really touched on things that I never expected them to.
I've been trying to read this whole discussion but it'll literally take me a day ... but a lot of people have great points.
I have no qualms with religion, or the religious. I was raised Catholic and as soon as I was able to make my own decisions about church and prayer I stopped practicing the religion and havent really looked back since.
I dont understand how the masses havent realized still to this day that religion is the reason the world is in the state it's in. Religion is a mental illness. The Bible is full of fairy tales that were written in order to portray a message of peace, morality and harmony. They were not meant to be taken literally ... the Bible is full of talking animals, "miracles", and all sorts of events that just havent been proven to have happened, or if the protagonist even existed.
I say this not to be a terrible person, which is probably what the religious folk are thinking of me. I'm just saying what I believe, I believe that science will continue to shed light on what is REALLY going on and religion will continue to try to lay a sheet of darkness over the truth. Religion has been around for countless amounts of years, and has been instilled in us in such a way that when someone tries to disprove what it is your family has believed in for generations, the first instinct is to defend religion to the death.
Sometimes I admire people that are able to live life believing in God (a God) and believe in organized religion. Because they are full of hope and will always look toward religion to help them with their problems, and when their problems are solved, they dont give themselves the credit, they thank the lord and hope for more assistance from him as life goes on.
I give myself credit for everything i've achieved in life. I worked hard for it, and I deserve everything, for me to say I give all the credit to God for creating me as a smart, ambitious individual would be silly.
I dont really have an argument except that Science can be proven, Religion cannot. My brother became a doctor and openly Atheist and it sort of rubbed off on me, because it makes sense. Religion doesnt.
@Charles, your understanding of science is A) outdated, and B) extremely bias and includes a double standard of evidence for anything that goes against your BELIEFS. you allow BELIEFS to outweigh evidence and reason....that is bad science.
The amount of kids having sex is large enough to realize the reality of the situation...and even if it were a few, do those few deserve STDs or pregnancy because they make stupid childish decisions? what is so bad about a condom? if people are only permitted to have sex for procreation then why doesnt sex result in a baby 100% of the time? would you be against a sterile couple having sex?
charles, waiting for marriage till sex might also have something to do with the divorce rate of christians.
wow so christians can feel insulted when i call them delusional for believing myths made up by stone age people but you can call anyone who doesnt believe like you a sinner...it doesnt bother me because i know the term means absolutely nothing. it would be like me calling you a jibber wocky...nothing. however the intent behind it is disgusting..actually the contempt behind it is disgusting.
you do know that we have mapped out the honey bee genome. i would really like you to clarify your question about the bees because if this is really a mystery i would love to explore it more.
until you acknowledge the overwhelming evidence evolution has in its favour in both fields, chemistry and biology i do not think you should be allowed to teach those to your kids to the point where they are awarded a diploma. not at all.
@Achems Razor
I agree.
All set to move on, chooo choo train moving on!
@ Achems Razor
Hahaha. Yeah, I think you're right.
@Prix and, Ilove myself.
Com'on youse guys, your stuff is getting boring, don't even read it any more. You are wasting Vlatkos pixel space!
@Prix
This is just really begging to be pointed out:
You say:
"Read clearly i wrote you can have the last laugh. Get it?"
--NO!! What you said is this:
"Alright, if you think i’m only writing that to have the last laugh go ahead."
--Read that a million times and explain to me how that's supposed to show you allowing me to have the last laugh?
What it shows is you accusing me of, in-turn, accusing you of wanting to have the "last laugh". The words I used were "last word" not "last laugh"! So you clearly...CLEARLY.. misinterpreted what I said. Yet you don't want to admit it.
@ Prix
"You still go on when i’ve written clearly several times. Even given examples, even given links, even tried to understand you."
--You have done NONE of these. I've showed time and time again that YOU HAVE DONE NONE OF THESE. Must I really give you an example of your convoluted logic at every one of my responses to you? You are so dense. Don't take that personally. Learn from it.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
And you still don't get it, the argument you put up for born and believing in god was not true. That's all that we have talked about, you're taking this whole thing into places where there is no need to go and you still continue.
Read clearly i wrote you can have the last laugh. Get it? you wrote LOL after the sentence of "oh you still go on like you need the last word ect ect lol" that LOL over there was what I meant.
oh, how many have been following our argument and can say i'm in a delusion of saying this?
Go on, I've had enough with your twisting and turning.
You still go on when i've written clearly several times. Even given examples, even given links, even tried to understand you.
What you did was just try to turn as if I was doing all of this. I accept i didn't quote you directly. And then you turned your statement around without even taking a second look. You haven't made one statement that you say you aren't childish yet you insist just like a child.
This is going in circles. I'd rather not waste both of our time going in this circle. My reply for whatever you write is, "I'm not going to go there just to end up in circles"
For me this argument is over. You can do what you please.
@ Prix
"What does solid mean anyway? Solid as in strong evidence and proof, right? Exact proof is what I mean by solid proof and evidence. Exact is what i mean by strong enough evidence and proof. Dude I already know of this, no need to tell me that. You simply didn’t understand what I meant by that."
-- Funny how you say you "know this", but looking at your reply, you obviously don't. You cannot say "exact proof" is what you mean by "strong.. evidence". Because 'proof' is different from 'evidence'. Proof is indisputable. If I have proof that God exists, trust me, there would be zero atheists in the world. Theists will say that they have evidence that God exists --which atheists will try to dispute. They can say they have 'proved' it to themselves --which means they know for themselves, but we all know how that can be shaky. They are completely different terms. And you thumpingly say "I know it! Exact proof is what I mean by Exact/Strong evidence!" --wow.
"The whole argument started about pointing out if god exists or not"
-- You think this is the thing we were talking about, but that's coz you cannot follow. And here I won't just assert it, I'll show you:
you said:
"I’ve posted a comment further up and given you some links to some websites and very interesting answers about the whole “We are born to believe in God” that statement is completely false. No such thing, most people don’t even know what they are talking about when stating that."
-- And then you further stated that I said that. So THAT'S how "the whole argument started". I said that that's not what I said. And I gave you a reason why I cannot give you "solid" "exact" "proof", but I did give you evidence. The evidence is that it's a fact that most of the people who've ever lived believe in a God. That calls for an explanation. Luckily, evolutionary psychologists have a very wonderful one.
Then you accused me of a whole range of things I did not do, did not imply. You misinterpreted what I said, misunderstood the "mathematics" thing, and say I'm "running away" from you. Most of which I was able to illustrate how you did --but you completely avoided that. So YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN on how this "whole argument started".
Here let me SHOW YOU AGAIN more of your dishonesty/inability to follow:
"Oh for cats sake, I’ve already explained that you laughed at it. That’s why I pointed out “the last laugh” get it?"
--No. This is what you said:
"Alright, if you think i’m only writing that to have the last laugh go ahead. I’m through with it. No more mentioning of that instance."
-- So here you accused me of accusing you, in-turn, of wanting the "last laugh". Which we've already established is ginormously different from what I was actually accusing you of. Now you want to worm your way out by saying:
"I’ve already explained that you laughed at it. That’s why I pointed out “the last laugh” get it?"
-- Sorry, but there's not enough wiggle room for you to pull that off. You are either being disingenuous, or unable to follow your own trains of thought.
"Why don’t you read my posts more clearly? I don’t behave like a child when you don’t understand my posts. Why should you?"
-- Yeah. Right. The funny thing is, I do think you read my posts. You just don't understand them. You are soo far away because you try to follow every tangent you bring up, completely disregarding previous topics.
"You’re doing exactly the same thing as you’re accusing me of doing. I’ve tried to approach you with good enough argument and then tried to be kind to resolve this. "
-- In you're "own [little] world", that's what you did. Sadly, you are the only resident of that delusion.
@Charles B.
I will lead my children, but not by telling them exactly what to do with absolutely with everything. For example the issue of racism, i'll explain it to them and explain the history. Why it's bad for other people and how people suffer from it. What the racist peoples views are. It's a physical thing I can demonstrate without confusing them. Al thought about God I cannot tell them. I cannot tell them which true god is, how he\she\it looks like, or smells like or even which religion is the true religion. If i teach them about one religion, they are going to stand firm on it. Specially if I use fear on them. But yes, you are correct my views can change when I have children. I'll let you know how that works out when I'm a father.
That's exactly what i'm not going to do. I will not make them fear of something that they cannot touch, cannot find the true faith or even true meaning. Science so far has far better explanation for the diversity of species and human understanding than any religion. Even if science hasn't found every answer just yet doesn't mean it won't in the future. It's not about faith in science, facts and evidence that the kids can understand. Water they can touch and understand that they can drown, but for God it's just words and several hundreds different religions and religious words. If they so happen to believe in God and have any kind of religion, it's up to them. I will challange their views to make sure they have critical thinking.(when they are older)
God's judgment day...we look at people that hid themselves when they thought the world was ending, burning books and everything dear to them because they were going to leave this earth. And then nothing happens. We think now that they were just foolish to believe so. Yet, we still keep on believing that. What if we leave earth and look back and say "oh those religious people thinking everyone is going to die how foolish".
I meant if people had focused only on advancing in human body and understanding it. They would've found the cause. Maybe even advanced long before! Maybe even a cure. I haven't looked into what the church has done in plagues but what I meant was if the scientific knowledge had been more advanced it wouldn't have happened in the first place or maybe a cure.
Btw sir, correct me if i'm wrong. But didn't most of the people wash their hands and stuff like that and also leave the dead and not come close to them? I don't mean the poor but most of the rich and famous people. Doctors?
I have never actually faces a situation where someone made racist remarks in serious manner. When people did that they were my friends and we understand that it's only jokes. Their most common view is that black people (even brown people say this) are lazy. Also that other religions are fake and false. When i defend any religion(I usually argue to defend someone elses faith) they usually back off. I know what's coming next...the cursing and fights. Also most of the religious people talk behind every religions back, and those people have several friends from that same religion they were talking bad about.
That's the problem with true definition of Christian. I mean look at all the wars that have plagued mankind because of religion. They stood firm that they were true believers and they defended God. Btw, isn't there a passage in the Bible where Jesus says "If they don't accept me as their lord, bring them here and kill them"? Something similar, correct me if i'm wrong. It was a long time ago I read about this. Are you really going to kill me? If the bible says so? There are several lines in the bible saying to either kill or abuse. If you would like, I can find them for you.
Thanks for clarifying that definition about true Christian. The only problem is that by following this most of the sins have been committed (I'm still on wars and slaughter of people)
Hmm sorry, It was my fault. I should have been more specific. If everyone tried to get the same answer they would always get totally different answers. That's just like Joseph Smith writing the mormon book second time saying "it will be different this time". Let's say "Why is Lucy suffering" and the people don't know anything about Lucy except she has a medical decease. They'll get it completely wrong.
Hmm, actually I've been together with someone that saw dead people. She told me how real it was and how scared she was. Born Christian btw, she had horrible memories of how people made her think "it's the demons!" and such stuff made her feel even more insane and wanted to commit suicide. Under medication she was nearly all good, feeling good and being happy. I mean good people want to take the demons away and make humans feel good. Kind hearted people that want to do no harm, to think that god has told them to do this kind of stuff is just not right. Schizophrenic people see dead people, she did so. The only thing is she saw cartoon figures sometimes as well and several other things. Instead of having a supernatural explanation we can help them with science. Even when Christians think they're doing good, MAYBE they are doing things bad? Every religion is like this, trying to do good when in reality it is bad. To mix Satan in there is making things even more complicated for human beings. Specially the ones that need medical help.
Thank you sir for your kind words. I need to be honest here, I usually try to avoid getting any kind of compliments. I usually try to question myself all the time and try to keep an open mind to all suggestions. I've already done so with religion and it didn't go that well...several times. I wouldn't consider myself a deep thinker. That's like letting my guard down and not thinking enough of one thing. Nor am I smart, linguistically gifted is just because of circumstances sir.
It seems like it's matter of faith vs evidence and proof. I'm on the observable and scientific side. After getting to expand my knowledge about science and doing magic tricks, observing myself and other people when they believe in god. I'm standing on a firm ground and haven't moved from here around 5 years now. I've tried to keep an open mind to everything and still am. But religion doesn't cut it at all.
I do have respect for the elders yet I do challenge their views. Usually in a respectful manner. I hope I've stayed true to this even with the disagreements we've had and will have.
Laurie: My sister put her kids back in public school when they reached high school, but homeschoolers in the U.S. have the right to all extra curricular activities the public school offers. They didn't miss a thing and came out better for it in the long run!
I want to put my kids in a private school or homeschool so they don't get pulled back if they need to advance, and if they have troubles like I did academically, then they won't be left behind until their brains reach that all-valuable growth period where they can just soak it in like a sponge.
My brother, flunking out of high school advanced from a 5th grade reading/writing level to college level in just two years with a private school that helped him so much! Literally. They said he was kennistetic and needed to learn differently then most kids. Had we left him in school, he'd have no education at all. It was homeschooling, but mom and dad didn't do it, and a friend did it for us, that's why it was called a "private school."
Homeschooling is definately the way to go!
Prix: You said: "I will actually tell them [your kids] to think on their own and if they need words to explain things, I will be always there for them."
Parents raise the children, the children don't raise the parents, Prix! You're supposed to lead them in the way that they should go, not let them float aimlessly downstream, and hope that they survive! You're very idealistic. Sounds like you've not yet had children.
You said: "I would never scare my kids into believing [religious] things." Prix, the Bible says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Fear is proper in the right place. Fear of falling is a good thing when you're two! The fear of water is wise if you can't swim yet, and even then. Fear has its place in the world, and the fear of God (reverence, not cringing fear) is valuable in all ways, and good for both young and old alike.
Dooms day (God's Judgment) is coming; it can't be stopped, but by all means we can try to make life better for all. To assume a disaster is unavoidable or nothing can be done to help others is not logical. I'm fully in support of the advancement of science and knowledge. What I'm opposed to is the use of science to thumb your nose at God, or worse yet, to say there isn't one!
You said: The plague could have been avoided if everyone had focused on science and medicine. So many people's lives would have been saved. Well, yes, that's true. But people were ignorant apart from the church in medicine. Here's a bit of trivia for you: did you know that the Black Death was halted in a certain city by the practice of Hebrew cleansing laws (Biblical laws) being implemented? They isolated the dead, and washed their hands after touching them, and did all the recommendations found in the book of Leviticus for disease control. The plague stopped in that city. Not so in other cities.
"Also, I’ve seen many religious people being racist in this age [mostly Christians]." Well, I'm sorry for that. People are people, Christian or otherwise. You have my apologies on behalf of the "Christians" at least if you have found them to be racist towards you. I'm married to an Asian, but I've not met any obstacles yet from anyone being racist so far, in my country or hers.
You said: "I’ve found not one standard definition for a true christian." Hum. I can help you with that. God doesn't want "cookie cutter Christians"! In fact, it just will never happen that all that are true Christians will all believe the same way, understand the same things, or even act the same way. God wants sincere, faith-filled genuine believers.
The definition of a "true Christian" is: "A true Christian is one that believes that mankind's only hope for salvation is through repentance from sins and faith in Jesus Christ to provide that atonement for their sins, and then accepting that sacrifice by faith, personally, and then doing their best to follow what they view as the will of God as defined in the Bible." It's really quite simple, but few seem to truly implement it. In fact, the Bible says that the way to life is narrow and few will find it.
You said: "If we take everyone in the world (All Christians) and ask them to pray to God and hopefully someone can give an answer. Everyone would PROBABLY give different answers." I say, "Probably!"
Even if ONLY the true Christians heard God's voice perfectly, and we all heard it clearly, why would God speak to us all the same thing anyway? A new Christian thinking about having sex with his girlfriend would hear: "Wait for marriage." The elderly woman alone in her house would hear: "Yes, I'm still with you and can't wait to show you Heaven soon!" A pastor would hear: "Be faithful. Share your heart openly and let Me worry about the rest." My son would hear: "Yes, bugs are nice! I made them ya know, and I like them too." But, Prix, we would all hear words encouraging us to be faith-filled, and faithful to what we know to be true, and kind, and honest, and true to the end for these are the characteristics of God.
The trouble comes in when we disobey God's know commands, or we get selfish or "hard of hearing" and just go do our own thing. It's worse yet when people use "God" or religion for evil purposes. This is still just between God and man; it's even more complicated than that when you add Satan (a very real being) into the mix. Evil is real, Prix, but it's not in the one true redeemed Church (repentant and humble); that's a lie from the one who would want to do you the most harm, but it's certainly not God.
You do have my respect, however, as you are obviously very smart and extremely gifted (linguistically, etc.) You're quite the deep thinker.
Grace to you, and may God's peace and understanding be upon you.
Charles B.
@ Achems Razor & HaTe_MaChInE:
Get a room!
Anyway... People, keep in mind that any video is expressing prolongated studies done by many scientist. For many, who open mind for evidence and research, such videos might give brilliant information on how our universe works. For religious freaks such information might be result of brain fried like scrambled eggs left with out supervision :) now comes to important part... If you don't believe in it... DON'T WATCH IT!!!
Another thing...
@Laurie Robillard:
"My oldest son to make extra money has a hotdog stand and does festivals and calls my son and his friend who is homosexual to help him out and it gives the boys extra money. Now they are all world travelers and have seen more places in the world than I have. Hard work pays off."
So on the topic of this video... (Being sarcastic of course)
Conclusion: I just want to underline: "If you don't believe in it... DON'T WATCH IT!!!"
Regards...
God is a delusion, although it may be beautiful to some, I consider life without it that much more rewarding. Kind of like the matrix, the gloomy reality can only appreciated by the strong and the few. Most will fight to stay in there pseudo-reality.
@Charles
Home teaching is very good. I home taught my kids for a few years and put them back in the system because I thought they needed more social interaction. It does give them a boost. My kids were advanced also. I also had them in hockey, karate, swimming, piano lessons, and dance and two languages. They had paper routes to teach them work ethics and savings. They were very active in scouts and church activities. I didn't pay for their beginner's drivers liscence because I feel they really want it at 16 get a part time job. Two of my children walk in my footsteps, one is an atheist and one is floundering doesn't have a stand. My one child left at home has a homosexual friend that he brings home. He is a nice kid. He is interested in music. You love the person not the sin. My oldest son to make extra money has a hotdog stand and does festivals and calls my son and his friend who is homosexual to help him out and it gives the boys extra money. Now they are all world travelers and have seen more places in the world than I have. Hard work pays off.
Epic: Well, that's very progressive of you to let Billy go to the Baptist Vacation Bible School. In fact, we had lots of kids go to those whose parents didn't even come to church.
I guess I would have flunked your cults class unless your professor was unbiased enough to give a good grade to a dissenting view of Jesus Camp. Yet another reason why not many Christians attend your classes at your school.
Why wouldn't I be good in science? I love it! I read all the time. I was the highest scoring student in biology when I took it and even received a reward for excellence. I aced micro medical biology at the university level. I wrote a paper over genetics of bees in high school. Perhaps you can answer what I couldn't find: What is the genetics of a male bee? If they are the result of an unfertilized egg laid by the queen, how in the world can that "bee" possible? That is a serious question by the way.
I don't have any problems with science, only the evolutionary atheistic conclusions drawn at every possible opportunity by many scientists. In fact, I'm thinking about going back to school and getting a masters degree, and I was thinking about science, because I enjoy it so much. Now why couldn't' I teach chemistry and biology to my own kid on my own?
I think your exaggerating the teen sex rate as not "everyone" is doing it. My wife and I are proof you can make it through your "teen" years with your morality intact. And beyond. But, you are correct. It's a huge moral failure of the Church when their own children have the highest pregnancy rate. It's because so much of the Church are listening to "progressive" people like you and not instilling a sense of moral right and wrong in their kids. Indeed, it's a parenting failure, and one I hope to avoid with my own kids. The American church certainly isn't the best example to follow in many ways, I agree. I won't allow my kids to date until they leave home for college. Until then it's just not practical. Maybe. If they talk with me about it respectfully.
I use condoms, why can't others? The solution to the AIDS epidemic is abstinence before marriage and faithfulness after marriage. Except for the Catholics, what is wrong with using condoms? I've never preached against condom use, just immoral acts. But granted, I can see if you are a sincere Christian, and you fall into unexpected unplanned temptation and you don't have them immediately on hand, how you could blame the Church. It happens, you're right.
Lastly, if my son or daughter grew up to be an atheist, or a practicing homosexual, I'd be devastated, and feel like an utter failure as a parent, but I wouldn't disown them. I'd love them and pray for them and be there for them in any way I could to the best of my ability until I drew my last breath and then even beyond in my prayers as God has a long and lasting memory, but I'd never condone the lifestyle nor accept the rejection of God as being anything other than what it is: sin.
Peace to you.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
"Oh sure you did"
Childish...
and no you haven't given a reasonable point. Just saying a term isn't going to help the whole argument without putting the term into use like you FINALLY DID.
What does solid mean anyway? Solid as in strong evidence and proof, right? Exact proof is what I mean by solid proof and evidence. Exact is what i mean by strong enough evidence and proof. Dude I already know of this, no need to tell me that. You simply didn't understand what I meant by that.
I already know what the terms mean, i used in context of STRONG EVIDENCE OR STRONG PROOF.
The whole argument started about pointing out if god exists or not with the argument that had good amount of support for Gods existence. I already wrote "That doesn't prove that God exists" And then you wrote this, you totally took the argument somewhere else. If you did understand that, why even give this explanation? It doesn't prove gods existence. You should have stopped right there. You took it further and this is why I got lost. There was no proof of gods existence there.
I've already explained about desire for sex. Maybe you should start reading my posts more?
"By the same token, many evolutionary psychologists will argue that belief in a transcendent reality or a God made it conducive for our ancestors to survive."
Yet, most of the scientists would go for more logical explanation. It just raises even more questions that end up with belief and faith. It's not going to go very far as a good explanation.
Misrepresenting? You're doing that as well. I was only arguing the proof for existence of God. I've written that several times. Why can't you read my posts?
Oh for cats sake, I've already explained that you laughed at it. That's why I pointed out "the last laugh" get it?
Why don't you read my posts more clearly? I don't behave like a child when you don't understand my posts. Why should you?
You're doing exactly the same thing as you're accusing me of doing. I've tried to approach you with good enough argument and then tried to be kind to resolve this. Yet you still go on catching up with one phrase.
I highly doubt this is going any further, just in circles.
@ Prix
"That’s a better answer yet you still behave like a child when replying. I’ve already explained why I wrote that sentences, I had a headache and it was late in the night."
--Sure you did!
"Finally you explain what you meant. Thank you for doing so."
-- Uh.. Funny it should come from no where. I explained this many posts ago. But it eluded you, for some mystifying reason.
"As you wrote there is proof for it but can’t be reduced to mathematical certainty(what you meant by that, not enough proof to rely on? Am i getting this correctly?)."
-- Do NOT mistake proof and evidence. They are different, something I've been telling you many posts ago, but eluded you again and again. Do NOT ask for "exact" "solid" "proofs" for selection pressures, YOU cannot have it, will not have it. You can only have strong or weak evidence -- Like I've been saying, but you didn't comprehend.
"It certainly doesn’t in any way prove God exists as i’ve been saying."
-- There you go again. I wasn't arguing that it's proof that God exists. So don't imply that I was doing so.
"I stand my point on this not being a proof for God but something whole different."
-- See? There you go again. I wasn't arguing otherwise!
This started when you asked for "solid" "exact" "proofs" for what I said about most people believing in some sort of God or transcendent reality. Sure I made the mistake of inserting the word "born". But Like I said, just as we aren't born desiring sex, we will desire it eventually because that behaviour makes humans fulfill their evolutionary goal of spreading their genes. By the same token, many evolutionary psychologists will argue that belief in a transcendent reality or a God made it conducive for our ancestors to survive.
I've said this to you many posts ago. You can go look it up. But even after that, you keep misquoting me, accusing me of avoiding or running away from you and etc etc. DO YOU SEE NOW WHY I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING TO YOU? You somehow don't get the arguments I'm making, misinterpret them, and accuse me of something I've never done.
For instance, I never accused you of wanting the "last laugh". I said you always wanted the "last word" without making sure that "last word" addresses the discussion at hand. Thos are 2 completely different things. You've done this MANY times --accusing me of things that are Ginormously different from what I've actually done.
I've shown you examples of how you are going off at tangents, I've illustrated them to you. Then, as a response, you simply assert that I'm only saying "you don't understand, so bye!".
Look, man, read this post. Read it until you get it.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
You did resolve to childish ways of responding. Who else replies with "DUHHH, Oh geeezz, lol!"?
My point is clear and simple. If i started to reply like this you wouldn't respond to me at all.
@Ilovemyselfmorethani
"#
ilovemyselfmorethani08/28/2010 at 11:04
@ Prix
And as for your request for evidence. You keep saying I haven’t given you any “solid” exact”"proof”.
I guess I will have to repeat myself again, as I have done so probably 10 times now.
I cannot give you “exact” “solid” “proofS” because selection pressures are not reducible to mathematical certainties. But if you want evidence, it’s all around you. Many people believe in some kind of God, or transcendent reality. Evolutionary psychology is somewhat predicated on the notion that all (or maybe not all) of our behavious are a result of selection pressures. From our desire for sex, to our cravings for sugar. The evidence is that most of the people who’ve ever lived believe is some sort of God or a similar reality. Therefore, many evolutionary psychologists have argued that cultures who had these behaviours survived better. This was basically me reply, to which your response was an amusing: “Huh what? Mathematics? You answered someone else’s question!” Lol!
You’re hilarious."
That's a better answer yet you still behave like a child when replying. I've already explained why I wrote that sentences, I had a headache and it was late in the night. Keep picking on stuff I've already explained. That's not childish is it? Finally you explain what you meant. Thank you for doing so.
Al thought this might sound logical for you but as we already know humans have the capability of asking WHAT IF questions. As you wrote there is proof for it but can't be reduced to mathematical certainty(what you meant by that, not enough proof to rely on? Am i getting this correctly?). Also the notion of them surviving better isn't proven (unless you can give me a reasonable proof to change my mind. I would prefer with a link to an article). Science changes all the time, it's even certain that when we ask WHAT IF questions. Just to satisfy ourselves we invented religion so we could focus on hunting rather than ask the question where we came from. It certainly doesn't in any way prove God exists as i've been saying.
A child in modern day would ask these questions and if the child is so interested in finding out the question where everything began, it might be reasonable now. But if that happened in the old times. We would try to find answers for these questions and who knows what might have happened. For example, a guy asking where we came from and why we are here might divert everyones mind from gathering food or being productive. In some sense it does fall in to the category of God people surviving better. But who knows? What if it was to have control over people? What if we didn't have religion and still asked these questions and went forward? It's enough proof for both theories.
Yet, not a proof for God. That's what I was trying to say.
I'm not trying to annoy you, neither am I "not" following what you're without any logical thought. Like I wrote before, you might not understand my way of thinking. But I did consider this before as well. I stand my point on this not being a proof for God but something whole different. You are a human like me and we are all humans. The last word of what i meant was. You're laughing at it when i reply you (you wrote lol). You couldn't follow me all the time either when I made points. We both couldn't follow each other. Yet, I stand firm.
I hope we can reach an agreement without resolving to childish manners.
@ Prix
"See right there? No mentioning about Admin which i pointed out."
--And what does mentioning the admin which you "pointed out" do in anyway to my point? You do know what you were trying to say right? You were trying to say that my concession to Epicurus was non-sensical. I showed you it wasn't. What does mentioning the admin have anything to do with any of that? Just wow.
"Why even bother to pursue something which you think I don’t understand and something I don’t think you understand."
-- You know what? O.K. What do you think I don't understand? Tell me.
"Saying that I have no logical sense is just not very bright. I never said that about you."
-- Just wow. Like I said, you can't follow the conversation. Now it seems you're having difficulty following even your own words. You feel so demonized because I accuse you of having no logical sense, yet you are just kosher with accusing me of being childish, being in my "own world", "running away" from you, and stooped at a "low level". Lol! Proved my point once again: You only seem to grasp the last arguments that were made, completely disregarding previous ones -- apparently also your own previous arguments magically elude your logic.
"I wouldn’t state that for any human being. Not even you, even if I get irritated and angry."
-- Oh what an angel you are. Read up, where I quoted you saying much more infantile things.
"You’re still displaying childish manners with your sentences. There is no point in arguing or discussing."
-- Right. Keep telling yourself how good you are at debating.
@Ilovemyselfmorethani
Why do you still insist? You're going off on a lot of different things and avoid the points i've already made.
"– You didn’t see it did you? I’ve conceded to Epicurus that morality is not exclusively understood by humans. He gave me examples which I didn’t have time to go through. But after having seen them, I said I conceded his point on animal morality. He said I just made his day. So how was my reply nonsensical? It may seem nonsensical to you, because you have No logical sense."
See right there? No mentioning about Admin which i pointed out.
You follow what you think sounds logical without looking at my logic or explaining your own.
Why even bother to pursue something which you think I don't understand and something I don't think you understand.
I simply don't think we can agree on this.
Saying that I have no logical sense is just not very bright. I never said that about you. Even a child has logical sense. For you to say something like this is just showing more of how much you're backing your sentences up.
So if we can't get to an agreement and you replying in manners that most kindergarten children would reply. Why even bother?
As far as logic goes, I'm not saying my logic is great. I've never stated that nor would I state that for any human being. Logic makes sense depending on each person. Trying to argue that logic is great way of getting information but to tell someone they have no logical sense is just absurd. I wouldn't state that for any human being. Not even you, even if I get irritated and angry.
You're still displaying childish manners with your sentences. There is no point in arguing or discussing.
@ Prix
And as for your request for evidence. You keep saying I haven't given you any "solid" exact""proof".
I guess I will have to repeat myself again, as I have done so probably 10 times now.
I cannot give you "exact" "solid" "proofS" because selection pressures are not reducible to mathematical certainties. But if you want evidence, it's all around you. Many people believe in some kind of God, or transcendent reality. Evolutionary psychology is somewhat predicated on the notion that all (or maybe not all) of our behavious are a result of selection pressures. From our desire for sex, to our cravings for sugar. The evidence is that most of the people who've ever lived believe is some sort of God or a similar reality. Therefore, many evolutionary psychologists have argued that cultures who had these behaviours survived better. This was basically me reply, to which your response was an amusing: "Huh what? Mathematics? You answered someone else's question!" Lol!
You're hilarious.
@ Prix
"I’ve already seen what i misquoted on you and i understand what I did."
-- Do you understand why "having the last laugh" is different from "having the last word" ? Do you understand why I did NOT have to quote you on what you believed, since I was speaking about belief in general? And what about my other illustrations showing you to be missing the obvious? Did you say sorry for those?
You foolishly think that's all you've done. Like I said, I've gone through great lengths to show you how you are straying away from the topic and following up on weird tangential arguments that have no bearing on what's being discussed. Were you able to clarify why you were doing such? Didn't think so.
Go read my previous replies. Heck read them a million times.
My oh my, I have time to show you another example, I've been showing you examples of your 'duh' moments at every post, but magically, they somehow elude you. But here's another one:
you say:
"You’ve conceded 2 debates here already? Well the last debate I saw you “concede” from was when you just out right busted and gave a nonsensical reply."
-- You didn't see it did you? I've conceded to Epicurus that morality is not exclusively understood by humans. He gave me examples which I didn't have time to go through. But after having seen them, I said I conceded his point on animal morality. He said I just made his day. So how was my reply non-sensical? It may seem non-sensical to you, because you have No logical sense.
"I’ve had enough with your childish way of bringing up stuff for which I’ve already said I was sorry."
-- Seems you didn't get me on this either. What's new? You said you were sorry, and then justified what you did, and then made preemptive judgements on what YOU think my response would be. Oh you didn't see me say that? That's because you cannot follow anything.
"I’m not stooping down to your level. "
-- You're the one who seems to be lost. You don't have to try to go to my level, because you don't seem to have the logic for it.
@Charles B.
I'll be waiting for your answer Sir.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
"– Lol! You are so odd! Really you are. Anyone can read what we’ve been discussing –if they cared to –and see how you are unable to stay on topic, avoid tangents, and avoid accusing people, misquoting them and all that jazz. You should be thankful that some people here you *try* to debate, even take you seriously. I find you difficult and tedious because of the above."
avoid tangents? Avoid accusing people? Why hasn't Charles said the same thing? Why haven't I misquoted him? Or anyone else? I've already seen what i misquoted on you and i understand what I did. You keep dragging it like I still don't understand of it. You on the other hand don't understand about that subject and tried to change it a bit. It didn't work, you couldn't defend it either.
You're just in your own world without understand my point either. Anyone reading our argument can tell you are just avoiding. You've conceded 2 debates here already? Well the last debate I saw you "concede" from was when you just out right busted and gave a nonsensical reply. ALSO administrator had to warn you.
You can ask anyone you like to read our comments and post who is wrong. Go ahead do so.
I've had enough with your childish way of bringing up stuff for which I've already said I was sorry. (misquoting, not being able to follow) No one else has accused me of this. Also what you accused me of, I was just saying "something in the lines of". Even if i misquoted you, the point you made and the "evidence" you presented was and still is zero.
I'm not stooping down to your level. Whatever you write, I don't have any more replies for you.
Good luck with your life and do take care.
@Charles, i would allow my children to do whatever it wishes in each of those instances EXCEPT the jesus camp one because that place was the epitome of child abuse. that was terrible and that women should be in jail. the parents of the young girl should also be charged for neglect because that little girl has mental issues. we watched that movie for my psychology of cults class and my philosophy of religion class. it is appalling.
I actually have an 8 year old son. and yes i would have no problems with any of those other scenarios. now would i voice my opinion on the issue of theism??....not to a child. when he was around 16, maybe 14 if he were advanced. but im not going to talk to my child about that stuff unless he asks me what my personal opinion is. which is that it is all make believe...actually charles you know how you view hinduism...thats exactly what i think of christianity and all other religions. you and I disbelieve in almost the exact same amount of gods....you just cant give up the one you were indoctrinated to believe because it makes you feel so good im sure.
let me ask YOU a question...what if when your children grow up, depsite all your brainwashing, what if they become atheist?
now instead of atheist what if they become homosexual???
now your views on science are so terrible that there is no way you should be allowed to teach it. you have one of the worst understandings of science out of any adult i have come across (granted i live in canada and have a good education system).
how can you be against people teaching that homosexuals ought to be treated as equal human beings? no one is teaching kids to be gay. how could you be against giving out condoms....kids are having sex. that is a reality. kids will have sex no matter what you do that is a reality.
and christians wonder why teen pregnancy is highest with their group????? because they are too simple in the head to realize that contraception is a GREAT thing. not just from pregnancy but STDs (on a side not are you aware of the horrors christians are responsible for in Africa by preaching AGAINST condom use.....absolutely disgusting)
of course you are going to home school your children because like a cult you want to shelter them away from reality. you want to keep them tucked away while they are young and you can indoctrinate them then they will be too uncritical to think for themselves on this subject in the future when you have to let them out...that is typical of ultra religious people such as yourself.
Prix: Good questions. Maybe Monday. Or, if I have a chance later tongiht.
Razor:
P.S. I haven't talked with my kids about Hell at all. I don't really plan to.
Now, I am sure they are not old enough to make a moral choice. But, when the time comes, I will focus on "loving God and doing what is right." Love is a motivator for a much longer time than fear is a motivator. I hope I'm the one that gets to lead my babies in their first prayer for "salvation". My sister was the one that prayed with me when I was seven, and I was the one that prayed with my younger brother when he was like 10.
It's a special moment. My kids are quite bright, so I'm not sure when that will be, but I was seven when I made that decision and it wasn't out of fear of Hell even in the slightest. It was a knowledge that it was the right thing to do at the right time.
Laurie would say age 8, wouldn't you?
Epicurus And Razor:
You wouldn't like me to instill my faith in my kids but want me to let them choose their own destiny (paraphrased). I assume this is because you are so opposed to my worldview as a Christian.
Let me ask you a question to test your consistency. Let's assume you will have kids too. You're young, and you might settle down some day with a spouse of your choice, and then as usually happens a child or two comes along through any number of methods (naturally, adoption or foster care).
Now, at age 7 your son, Billy is invited to Vacation Bible School at the Baptist Church by his schoolmate, Sally. Billy comes home and says, "Dad! Dad! I really want to go to Vacation Bible School this summer with Sally Jones! Please! Please! Please!" I'm assuming he'd ask. Would you let him go? Yes or no and why?
At age 14 Billy has grown a bit and this time hears about Jesus Camp on Topdoc films. He finds it on the Internet and learns it's in his home state. He says, "Wow! That sounds great!" Unbeknown to you, he plans to go and tells you it's a trip with his friends to the lake. What would you do when you found out?
At age 17, William's high school gets a college recruiter from Church of the Lord Christian College, and he fills out an info card. He thinks he might want to go there. What would you do when the information comes in the mail and "Billy's not there" at the moment? He's still only 17, and still a minor and still under your roof.
There, what might you do in situations such as these? Would you even offer your opinion has his parent, or just "let him choose his own destiny" and at what age might you make that decision?
P.S. Razor: We've all been "brainwashed" in some way by something or some one. I've just chosen the One I've want to wash my brain! I think the theory of evolution should be taught in college (as an elective) not in pre-school as a requirement. Now that's involuntary brainwashing!
Peace to you.
P.S. Epic: I plan to home school or put my children in a private Christian school, for the very purpose that I don't want teachers such as yourself undoing whatever good I might have instilled in them behind my back, as you're they do with my kids.
Peace as well to you.
My sister home schooled and her very intelligent kids test 2 or 3 grades above the rest at regular school. Why subject my little ones to evolution, homosexual diversity training, and sex education (with free condoms nonetheless) with mediocre education to boot?!? My wife and I can do twice as good in all subjects (math, reading, and science) and enormously more capable in making important moral decisions. I'm sure that brings joy and happiness to your heart, now, doesn't it?
Actually, with respect @ Epic, I disagree, no one should have the right to brainwash little children at such a young age, when they do not know any better. It should be against the law. Period!
@Laurie:
You make me roar with laughter!! Are you sure you are not a comedian?
Again, another big, big, load of doggy pooop that you write!
I don't know enough to go to hell? why do you say that? is their a hell college or something? Actually, maybe you are right, heaven and hell g*rb*ge doesn't concern or bother me, I spend no time at all in contemplating or dwelling on the religee's heaven or hell, I have more important things to do, like living. Are you sure that you are a Canadian? if you are, you are giving us a bad name! You religee's are almost child like!
@charles, if you KNEW your religion was true i would agree with you. but you do not. you believe it to be true based on faith. you are not honest with yourself enough to realize that you have no evidence you only believe, so you feel you have the right to instill that same type of illogical belief in your kids.
that is fine you have the right to. I just hope the education system will be able to reverse any illogical thinking you may instill.
Laurie, i dont know enough about heaven to go there either then.
why do i have to know about hell to go there? i would REALLY REALLY love to watch a mormon argue with a christian about which one is right.
Laurie...again why do you follow a KNOWN CON MAN?!?!
@ Prix
Just as I presumed. You again accuse me of things I never did or implied. That's why you are tedious to talk to.
I've exerted much effort in showing you examples of where you go off at tangents, misunderstand, and get lost. Don't tell me I'm "running away" from you. Oh Please.
You've misquoted me, accused me of saying things ("the last laugh" thing is an example that completely eluded your logic yet again!) Go discuss last arguments in complete disregard of previous ones, cannot follow trains of thought, and accuse me of "running away" from you? Lol.
Let me give you an example once more, that I know WILL AGAIN COMPLETELY ELUDE YOU'RE MIND FOR WHATEVER INSANE REASON:
You say in your last post :
"When you said I didn’t understand, I asked for an example. You didn’t give any of it and just kept replying I can’t follow. "
--Ohh geez. At my last post this is the example I gave of you being Insanely illogical:
"I never said anything that is remotely akin to a “you don’t understand bye”. You keep accusing me of things I’ve never done, never said... "
I never told you you simply don't understand so "bye"! I explained to you, SHOWED you HOW you are NOT following the conversation, and how you are unable to avoid going off at weird tangents. I illustrated to you how, gave you examples. So I didn't JUST assert it. Then you accuse me again of merely saying "bye" once more? And at your latest post, accuse me of not giving you examples of where you "don't understand"? Are YOU REALLY THIS DENSE?! geez..
You say:
"The last response you gave me was nothing more than “Let’s see how you’ll take this out of context”"
-- See! The last post completely erases any thoughts of the previous ones for you. And look at what I just wrote, which was part of my last post, I showed you an example of you accusing me of something that wasn't true.
"Whatever you’re going to write is just going to be nonsensical I’m presuming."
-- Lol! You are so odd! Really you are. Anyone can read what we've been discussing --if they cared to --and see how you are unable to stay on topic, avoid tangents, and avoid accusing people, misquoting them and all that jazz. You should be thankful that some people here you *try* to debate, even take you seriously. I find you difficult and tedious because of the above.
I'm avoiding debating you for the reasons I just stated. I love these informal discussions. And you cannot accuse me of being difficult, I've already conceded 2 debates here. I concede if I have to. But, for the reasons I stated, I cannot go on at lengths with you. Until you get your logic straight.
@ Randy
When the Heaven deporting bus with the Hell bound fallen angels with one third of Heavens population departed with much chatter and gnashing of teeth you were on your favorite plush cloud dreaming of literature and history. The Heaven police didn't bother looking for you because your name wasn't on the voted out list. You were not a threat to Heavens population, you were just a fence- sitter. A dreamer dreaming of taking shortcuts. You were very intelligent and you brought that intelligence with you but you lack commitment to real truth wherever it may be found but you have justice . Justice and commitment are rulers qualities. Commitment like a muscle needs to be exercised or it becomes soft. Get your priorities in order and shape-up and decide which Kingdom you want to live in for eternities. In some matters you don't get to vote. You were born to serve. You can go yelling and kicking if you want.
The choices for habitation in the future are Terrestial Kingdom Telestial Kingdom and Celestial Kingdom one like unto the stars one like unto the moon one like unto the sun
Hell is not a choice. It is for the fallen angels (who have never taken a body) and those who have had their calling election made sure and then sinned against the Holy Ghost. So very few belonging to the Adamic culture (us) are going to Hell. So Randy you don't know enough to go to hell.
@ Epi
Way too much emphasis is put on the fear of Hell. Epi you don't know enough to go to hell.
@Acham You don't know enough to go to hell.
Charles, Charles.
What are we going to do with you? Can't believe you are putting the fear of death and hell into little children, to be little is to enjoy life and not have any worries, especially of going to hell when you die. They should not be thinking of death and hell Charles, "whats a matta" with you.
Leave them kids alone!
Epic: It would be morally wrong not to try and instill what you believe to be the utmost importance in life to your kids. Even you will try and teach them some "morals" won't you? I've thousands of kids in church an none of which seemed "abused" by learning about God. If someone has a preoccupation or "fear" of Hell, and that fear actually does help him or her escape damnation in Hell, isn't that unspeakably better than a person who has nothing but scorn for believers and is never told about repentance and Hell and finds themselves damned forever?
Epic, if you don't give your kids "boundaries" and "morals" then that will be a parenting failure on your part, and I'm sure you'll try in your own way. My way includes direction for their immortal soul's protection.
Yet, when they reach 18, they can make their own decision. Prix did. I did. I chose to follow after my parent's religion (Christianity), but many do not. I just want to give them the best I can give as a man of God and as a parent.
As soon as I saw the helmet, I was instantly reminded of H.A.A.R.P. and project bluebeam.
@Charles B.
This is going to be a long post again. I apologize for that sir.
That's exactly what most of the people do with everything. Even if I write a simple story, If people love it enough they will find it deeper than it already is. Every deep answer is different.
I see where you're going with your kids singing and being happy. Everyone wants best for their children. Humans tend to always lay their own beliefs on to others(usually without evidence). Just because "If I feel good, you'll feel good". It's nothing uncommon, al thought that does remove thinking outside of the box. You have such a wonderful feeling about God and you want same for your kids. Just like I would like my kids to feel happy. But I will actually tell them to think on their own and if they need words to explain things, I will be always there for them.
Charles, you're doing everything to not question you. When kids are young they don't know where to look for answers. To give them only one side of the argument is like telling them there is a Red ball they need to believe in. Hell is a true trauma for them, it's like the red ball. If you ask someone that is around 30 years old now about hell. They can still be scared because of this trauma. I would never scare my kids into believing things.
Also, religious people thinking that there is a dooms day coming. Most of us think it's going to happen in our life time. If we follow religious people we should let all the chaos that goes around in the world to happen. If we had technology to stop volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, meteorites, religious people should stop science from using these kinds of tools. It's the natural law and we shouldn't disturb it.
Think of it this way, in the future natural disasters can be avoided. Your kids who think it's the dooms day are happy that the day has finally come. Would you really be happy about it? Even thought your kids are going to die and other people leave this earth for another planet? To be honest, even I would try to save your kids from thinking "oh it's the dooms day let's stay here" and taken them into the ship.
The people that fight because they are doing God justice...dark ages, witch hunt or other such superstitions that belief has brought. The plague could be avoided if everyone had focused on science and medicine. So many peoples lives would be saved.
There are a lot of books written about dooms day, yes. But for people to explain WHY things are happening is like speculating for something we have no clue about. Like every religious person says "God has a divine plan"...I highly doubt that even when reading the Bible. I'm so hard hearted is because what religion has done to humanity and how it tries to push us backwards. And that's even IF- ANY of the religions are correct.
But what if we were just waiting for doom to come to us? I want my children to survive, find their own way of thinking.
Also, I've seen many religious people being racist in this age. For us to say "oh that's just not kind people". All of them are kind and nice, they do a lot of good things. Actually most of them are Christians. Now to say "they aren't true christians" is incorrect. I've found not one standard definition for a true christian. Even they have heard the so called Gods voice. You cannot disprove it to them because it's their belief and what God has told them.
If we take everyone in the world (All christians) and ask them to pray to God and hopefully someone can give an answer. Everyone would PROBABLY give different answers.
If racist people have the BELIEF that they are correct, why should we question them? There is no way for us dispute that belief is it? Yes there is, if everyone asks questions and tries to find answers for themselves.
Have a Good day and take care sir
@ilovemyselfmorethani
You haven't given me any precise evidence, just slipped on to something whole different. When you said I didn't understand, I asked for an example. You didn't give any of it and just kept replying I can't follow. Why not explain in more details? I've asked you several times. You even wrote "ah not with the proof part again". I didn't pull out anything from the air. Except when I misquoted you. When you even wrote "Don't you believe in this this and this" I gave you answers back and you didn't even reply to those in details. You're running away and hiding, changing the subject and accusing me without backing your arguments up. Like being born and believing in God you had it wrong and then turned the subject just a little bit. Even thought that even come in handy for you. You even wrote to me in childish manners.
The last response you gave me was nothing more than "Let's see how you'll take this out of context" I don't do that. You simply can't follow me either and don't understand me one single bit without changing and accepting you had something wrong.
Keep doing that, I'm done with you. Whatever you're going to write is just going to be nonsensical I'm presuming. After the claim you made from the beginning was disputed you have tried to change things into something whole different.
I'll listen to your advice and stop responding to you and your comments that take things into argument without you giving any example or proof to back them up with.
Take care, it was nice writing with you from the start and It's too bad it ended in this way.
OF course we now know that MLK and Ghandi and these people were wise and the rules were actually wrong... etc. etc... don't get me wrong!
yes ilovemyself you should give children the freedom to learn that on their own. however like i said racism is something that directly effects others and is shown to have a negative effect on society. so it shouldnt be used in a comparison here.
and yes religion has changed...look at how the catholic church views the earths position in the solar system, or its stance on evolution. the religions rules change all the time. the religious issues of today are different from that of your grandparents. the religions political focuses always change.
you do have the choice to teach your kids your religion. and i will see it as mental abuse since you are keeping your child from having a critical open mind. you are indoctrinating them into your belief system. one that has safeguards in place to make people not question it when they are adults.
and here is some arguments from some other people
Critics such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term "child abuse" to describe the harm that some religious upbringings inflict on children. They claim that children are especially vulnerable to mental harms related to religion, including:
* Terrorized by threats of punishment, such as eternal damnation in a fiery hell
* Extreme guilt about normal, healthy sexual functions
* Trained to disrespect science and reason
* Indoctrinated into a particular religious faith, thus depriving the child of the opportunity to make their own free inquiry later, when they are mature
Dawkins is angered by the term "Muslim child" or a "Catholic child". He asks how a young child can possibly be considered intellectually mature enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child."
Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer spoke of the subject in 19th century:
And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence.
—Arthur Schopenhauer, On Religion: A Dialogue
Religions change constantly as do the rules for society.
Game rules. In Egypt it ths the law that the leader marry his sister. In America it would be considered insane if our President wanted to marry his sister.
MLK was a law breaker and should have been put in jail, so was Ghandi-gi... etc etc etc...
Enlightened thinkers shake their heads and say, "This is madness... let us use a method that proves and tests results that are palpable over many predicable variations and iterations."
So, Epicurus you are saying that whatever current society dictates is morally acceptable is the standard for moral behavior. Therefore the individual has no role in this as they had nothing to say in the past when religious groups have persecuted individuals for their own beliefs. Just because society has condoned certain behavior we as parents always have the choice of what to teach our children about racism, bigotry or any other subject. This is why these things persist even when society has condemened them. Were the people who accepted Homosexuals a hundred years ago and rejected societies morality wrong for teaching their children to accept them? The point is what you teach your children is always the choice of the individual in the same way what the individual believes about the existence God will always be an indiviual choice.Even if you are the last person on earth to believe it.
Religions don't change. If you look at the core principles/doctrines of Christianity. They've been the same for thousands of years.
Sure, some things have changed, but those are the peripheral aspects of Christianity.
Then by the same token, we should also give the child freedom to choose whether judging people by their skin color is right or wrong.
and religions also change...constantly.
it is about giving the child the freedom to choose and if the child chooses religion you love it the same. you dont influence him/her either way.
@epicurus
"my point is a child is no more capable of deciding which religion to follow intelligently then they are able to decide which political party to follow."
-- False analogy. Political parties change and are expected to. Yesterdays liberals are todays conservatives, and etc.
Than it really is about getting rid of religion, because for some people it's harmful. Why then all the masquerade about giving children "freedom" to choose and all of that bull plop.
teaching your child that people are equal (homosexuals are normal) or that hating people because of their skin is wrong is something that we as a society have collectively agreed on to be a moral way to live.
teaching your child mythology as truth is not a very nice thing to do to children who are willing to believe almost anything their parents tell them.
my point is a child is no more capable of deciding which religion to follow intelligently then they are able to decide which political party to follow.
now does religion HARM the child?? hmm well there are certainly many people seeing psychiatrists right now because of their fear of hell. they are unable to live normal lives because they honestly feel that some things will doom them to an eternity of torment after they die....do you want your child thinking there is a chance they might suffer in hell? or possibly one of their loved one? even if they just start to doubt and question their parents religion....that is a very damaging thing to do to a child.
@ epicurus
"charles if you loved your kids you wouldnt indoctrinate them into this belief system JUST because you believe it."
-- I never really got this point. Why not? Just because I believe homosexuals are normal, doesn't mean I shouldn't teach this to my child? Just because I believe Racism is evil, I shouldn't teach this to my child? I should let him learn these things for himself? I think we should teach children what we believe is right. If we are wrong in what we believe, and in the process are harming them, then that's when society should step in. That's when society ought to step in.
Ah, but you'll say, religion does harm them. Then it's not really about letting children have "freedom to discover" things for themselves, but about eradicating religion.
@Laurie, im not sending ANYTHING to your email. you have the box checked off in here that says "notify me of followup comments via e-mail"....i do not know your email address.
so you say that the claims that joseph smith was a con man and someone who wandered the forest with seer stones looking for treasures are untrue? but what about the DOCUMENTED papers of joseph smith being arrested and wanted in particular states? those are not made up.
you follow a con man just like scientologists.
charles if you loved your kids you wouldnt indoctrinate them into this belief system JUST because you believe it. you would admit that its just a belief or faith and you would allow your children the freedom to discover their own spirituality or lack thereof.
@Charles
"I love my kids more than I love my own life"
If what you say is true then give your kids the choices that you never had. For me it is the most difficult and challenging part of being a parent.
@Prix
I just dedicated a lot of posts illustrating how you are unable to stay on topic. I didn't just assert it, I showed you exactly how you do it.
But here you go again:
I never said anything that is remotely akin to a “you don’t understand bye”. You keep accusing me of things I've never done, never said, never implied. I've exerted a lot of effort in showing you why I cannot debate you at these lengths if you keep going off at weird tangents. It is tedious.
I suspect your reply to this will be another unfounded, weird accusation that will once more seems to have been pulled out of the air.
@ Randy
You mentioned something about depression and Mormons because we don't believe in doctors and therapy and alcohol. I have several friends who are doctors and a brother-in -law.
About liquor
from Laurie
Why Can't Mormons Drink Coffee or Alcohol?
In 1833, the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith reported receiving a revelation from the Lord which is known today in the LDS church as the Word of Wisdom.
The revelation is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 89, and includes prohibitions on using tobacco and using alcohol and "hot drinks" (which are interpreted by LDS prophets to mean coffee and tea.)
@Epicurus
What do I see on my e-mail but don't see in this house Epi do you believe everything you read and why are you sending me literature to my e-mail?
from Laurie
Many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world.
The church started with 6 people and growing strong. There is no stopping the growth.
@Randy
It is far better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven…
from Laurie
Randy you don't know enough to go to hell. Don't worry you're not going there and if you want to be a ruler you need to look elsewhere.
Do Mormons Think Everyone Else Is Going to Hell?
Mormons reject traditional notions of heaven and hell, believing that almost all humankind will inherit a heaven of sorts. They interpret Jesus' teachings that "in my Father’s house are many mansions" (John 14:2), as well as other Biblical and modern LDS teachings, to mean that there are various "degrees of glory" within the broad umbrella of eternity.
Laurie: Yes, my friend was the perfect Mormon in every way all ways all through high school. She never wavered in any way. I even sang in her church's musicals, went to the picnics, etc. but never converted to Mormonism. Ironically, our churches were litterally only about 20 feet apart on the same street. She went on her mission to Utah, and I told her that was like a priest being sent to the Vatican to evangelize! She still lives there now. Try googling the name "Wendy Weston Elliott" and see if you can find her blog. She's got some good stuff out and wants to write fiction like Lord of the Rings, etc.
Epicurus: Well, If I was a negligent father, I wouldn't care about my babies, nor their eternal souls. But, I would view myself an utter failure if I have all the degrees in the world, or money, and my kids turn their back on God later in life. Statistically, men are very important to instill faith in their kids. I read that if the mother alone is a Christian, they have a 40% chance of following in the faith. If the father alone is a Christian, it's close to 70%. If both parents, then it's still about 70% or a little better, so I take my role as a father and Christian example very seriously. It's not child abuse, it the most loving eternally significant thing I could ever do in life. I love my kids more than I love my own life. I'm quite sure when you have kids, you'll start at age one with the evolution pollution solution, and that is your right as a perent. Don't worry. Your kids statistically will most likely be faithless their whole lives and follow your example step by step.
But, as for my kids, they are happy kids. They have a wonderful life now, and the prospect of a wonderful life as adults and hopefully will follow in their perent's wise footsteps. I had a wise man of God once tell me, "Charles, your first ministry will always be your family." I took that to heart.
I write some of my own songs too, including 3 new verses to Jesus Loves Me. Would you like to read them? :-) BTW There's no blood mentioned in that particular song. I think what you're thinking of is "What can wash away my sins? . . . nothing but the blood of Jesus!" Hum. Good call. That's one I haven't taught them yet. Thanks!
@Epicurus
Vlatko, when you let my post out of moderation do you think you could move it to the bottom of the list so that it doesnt get missed…laurie really really needs to learn about the early years of joseph smith and his con-men family.Who is Joseph Smith?
from Laurie
Joseph Smith, Jr. organized the so-called "Mormon church," which is correctly called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830.
Smith reported having been visited by God and Jesus Christ in answer to a prayer in 1820 about which church he should join. He said he was told to join none of the churches around him because important gospel truths had been lost since the time of Christ. Smith was subsequently directed to restore them in the LDS church. He also is credited with translating the Book of Mormon.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
I am staying on topic, I know what you mean by mathematics. I do respect you as well but when you're answering me like the previous posts, it doesn't lead anyone anywhere.
Not everything can be taken into mathematical certainty. We just haven't reached that yet. I don't see math in evolution just yet. At least not fully implemented math that explains evolution. I also know what you mean by taking mathematics certainty taking into account for our beliefs. But if there is enough evidence that supports it, it doesn't have to be related to math. I can write everything of what I know to be without mathematical certainty because there is enough evidence supporting it without it. If someone shows me and explains to me exactly what i "believe in" in mathematical terms and breaks them down. Well I'll welcome it. You're taking mathematic certainty as a huge role. I wouldn't agree with that, many things can be proven with mathematics, others cannot just yet. That's why we go with other kind of evidence to have "solid" and "exact" proof.
If i'm still incorrect, explain it to me in details. You can't simply push me off just because you think I don't understand you. It's as if someone was debating and the other person went "you don't understand bye" without giving an explanation in details of what they mean. Give me an example and let's see if I haven't already answered you or not.
You wrote what I believe in, even if it was an example I layed out what evidence there is to support that I don't simply believe. So no i'm not putting words into your mouth. You have written it and I gave an explanation.
Laurie you keep showing us mormons who have succeeded....no one has said they cant....WHY DO YOU KEEP DOING IT? should i list off all the atheists who have become scientists or done something in the world? do you really think there will be more mormons?
please please please never mention how you are brain washing your poor children who are too young to decide somethilng like this for themselves.
what you are doing i believe is akin to child abuse. mental child abuse.
i really really really hate hearing or seeing people teach CHILDREN about religion. it is disgusting. your child is not old enough to make a logical decision about which political party to follow so what makes you think they are old enough to pick a religion...oh and look they dont even GET TO choose for themselves. they have you there to indoctrinate them with these fairy tales...ugh. makes me sick.
especially THAT song...jesus loves me...perfect chant to get children into it...but the lyrics?!? talking about washing in blood and being sinful and going to hell?!?! you actually let your children sing that and dont think that you are damaging them??
Vlatko, when you let my post out of moderation do you think you could move it to the bottom of the list so that it doesnt get missed...laurie really really needs to learn about the early years of joseph smith and his con-men family.
@Laurie:
If you belong to the "cult" of Mormonism, they do take care of their own,
they have a lot of "moola" from all their tithings, business assets, land holdings, etc:
They are a godment of their own, they use their religion as a base, they have their own police force, their own universities and colleges, and I might add, the mormon tabernacle choir, which I witnessed first hand when was in Uta at their major shrine to their gods. they perpetuate their own form of godment.
It is all there for the almighty dollar, nothing else, plain and simple, end of story!
@ eireannach666
What are your degrees Mr. know it all?
Also please do tell me your true feelings on polygamy and having sex with kids. Or maybe how you feel about forcing a 14yr old girl to have sex with and marry her own older adult 1st cousin?
From Laurie
Before you start talking like that get your facts straight. It will look better on you and you won't scare yourself so much. Look at the credentials this man has below. That is a quality person and I would listen to what he has to say before I listen to the garbage that comes out of your mouth. Untrue, wild accusation. You belong on that T.V show where accusation of all sexual scandals where stupid stupid people can't mange their lives. He cheated on me with my best friend etc.
Dallin H. Oaks
Philippines area president. Sustained to Quorum of the Twelve April 7, 1984, and ordained apostle on May 3, 1984, at age 51. Graduate of BYU in accounting; received juris doctorate cum laude from University of Chicago; was law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, practiced law in Chicago, and was professor of law at University of Chicago for 10 years, and was executive director of the American Bar Foundation for a year. Served nine years as president of BYU, and three years as Utah Supreme Court justice. Former regional representative and counselor in stake presidency. Born Aug. 12, 1932, in Provo, Utah, a son of Dr. Lloyd E. and Stella Harris Oaks. Wife June Dixon Oaks, parents of six children.
@Charles B
There are many unanswered questions about how the earth was created but these will be answered in the Lord’s due time. What do you think Charles?
What city do you live in or what country? I don't know your friend the author. What kind of books does she write? I hope your friend was a good example to you.
I heard that joke before. It's funny. God is not only in Salt Lake. You do know that.
Sorry, I was trying to say "hard heart" in Prix's post. good grif! :-) I'm a bit tired.
Ok! Joke time! This one's for Laurie.
My best friend in high school was/is Mormon. Do you know Lady Weston Elliott, the author? She's my friend. Anyway, she told me this joke and I had to admit it was pretty funny! Here it goes . . .
A bishop in the Catholic Church runs up to the Pope and says, "Your Holiness! I have good news and bad news!" "Yes, go ahead. What's the good news?" The good news is that I have Jesus Christ on the phone! He's returned!" The Pope replied, "Oh, that is good news!" The bishop then said: "But the bad news is that He's calling from Salt Lake City, Utah."
Prix: I read your whole post. The passage about the snake having legs is in Genesis, but you have to "read between the lines" actually. When God cursed it to crawl on its belly and eat the dust of the earth (meaning always be in the dust), you have to assume it was different before the curse. But if you don't believe in the Bible as God's word, it's just a story anyway
Yes, I understand the story about the red ball, and I have to assume you were inferring that as I was taught Christian things as a child, I believe it now as an adult fervently. Well, yes, that may have a lot to do with my faith. I'm trying to instill that concept of love of God in my kids every day. It really pleases me when I hear them singing "Jesus loves me" even to themselves. I need to be more consistent now that they are young so they have a good example to follow.
As far as Jesus (God) coming to Earth in a bodily form, that will happen someday, but only after what most Christians call the Great Tribulation. It's a future even. In order to actually see it with your own eyes, you'd have to survive the worst disasters of human history and there's no guarantee you'll be one of the lucky ones. Even then that doesn't mean you'll accept Christ even then. A hear heart now, means a heart heart then as well (most likely). But, whole books have been written on that subject.
Shazam! You guys have been busy!
Dr. Randy: Did you find my post for you from last night?
Mr. Razor: I do have an electrical socket above where I sleep, and unfortunately I have the entire building's electrical wires right above our apartment as we're near the top or our high rise, but I don't hear voices when I sleep nor feel any "presence" most of the time while here. I usually hear God's voice when I pray and then only occasionally and it doesn't matter where: at work, while walking, or at church. It's not predictable location wise, and it's always very purposeful.
Just a thought: Electrical infrasound can cause panic, nausea, a feeling of an evil presence, correct? Well, have you ever considered that infrasound could be used by the demonic as well? Alligators, elephants, and even hippos use it now just as natural animals. As science advances, we can learn more about the spiritual realm as well. Perhaps a real angelic and/or demonic encounter creates an electromagnetic field as well. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.
eireannach666: I watched a doc like that here on design. Not sure which one, but it talked about the electrical fields.
@prix
let me give you an example. Here you say:
"You still avoided the real question WHERE DID I WRITE I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING?"
-- See, I didn't say that you said you "believed in something". I was saying that we cannot have "solid", "exact" proof of anything of which we cannot have mathematical certainty. Therefore, we cannot have "solid" "exact" proof for most of what we believe. I've explained this 3 TIMES now. And you still don't get it. You'll ask me again to show where you said you "believed in something" --AARARARAGHHG!!!
You don't get this. You cannot follow where the conversation is going. You still accuse me of putting words in your mouth, when that's NOT what I'm doing. That's why this is getting tedious.
@Prix
I really don't have time to read your kilometric diatribe that doesn't even really deal with what we were previously discussing. You go off at weird tangents too much. You cannot stay in topic. You now talk about completely different things, and ascribe to me completely different ideas. It's just a waste of time.
I respect you, a bit. But you cannot follow multiple trains of thought, as evidenced by your posts. Bye now.
...is my whole point...
TO be fair, eireannach666, that is a seperate even MORE cultish branch of LDS.
They did finally have to change that part in order to assimilate into "proper" society, however there are still the hold-outs that cling to the original whacka-doodle-ideas...
Why not throw it all away?
@Laurie
Also please do tell me your true feelings on polygamy and having sex with kids. Or maybe how you feel about forcing a 14yr old girl to have sex with and marry her own older adult 1st cousin?
Laurie
So let's talk about joe smith. Why don't you explain to those that don't know how he came to be a "prophet" and how he convienced his peers that he indeed spoke to a divine being. But don't skip the good parts like when he said that nobody could read through these seer stones but him. Or how when Martin Harris and his wife "lossed" the first script but joe couldn't even redictate the script,instead he came with some lame excuse about how god said he needed some new stones to read from the tablets etc.
Etc.
But try to with a straight face. I can't.
Laurie
In fact the universe does NOT respond to elegant and profoud laws. The laws are brutal, chaotic, and random.
Science sees this now. We are lucky to have survived this long. It's like a pinball machine out there! If it weren't for the moon we would have been destroyed eons ago by come asteroidal collision.
Plato was a bit of a whacko, too, in fact, because HE denied the scientific method.
This doesn't frighten me. Does it frighten you?
Epicurus
laurie yes those scientists are absolutely delusional if they believe in the mormon religion or any religion.
from Laurie
At a time when some other Christian faith were still smarting from the Copernican revolution Joseph Smith's revelations as recorded in LDS scriptures include frequent reference to God's vast creations "worlds without numbers".
In another departure from traditional Christian orthodoxy, Joseph taught that God works in accordance with natural laws rather than by transcending natural laws.
True science is the discovery of the secret, immutable and eternal laws by which the universe is governed.
Joseph specifically denied creation ex nihilo, teaching instead that matter is eternal.
Other early leaders of the church expressed similar progressive views. Orson Pratt, who authored a number of scientific and mathematical works, advocate the Platonic view that scientific truths are known to God and that humans merely rediscover them as they progress in knowledge.
Revelation does not only come through the prophet of God nor only directly from heavenly visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, or of the test tube out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration
Why does the universe appear to be governed by profound and elegant laws?
It is my conviction that to the degree the theory of evolution asserts that man is the product of an evolutionary process the offspring of animals----it is false and Charles B agrees with that right Charles.
Plants and animals are not ruled out of being the product of an evolutionary process nor an old earth.
There are many unanswered questions about how the earth was created but these will be answered in the Lord's due time
Dr. Robert Anton Wilson once commented about a clinical phsychiatrist who, in turn, wrote a famous paper about one of his schizoid/delusional patients.
You can look that up, I'm not going to do all the hard work for you!
The delusiac was convinced that a giant turtle held up the world in space. Of course, she was terrified that she would fall into the mouth of this turtle and it drove her poor brain to distraction.
Her mother had drilled this idea into her head since she was a small child, you see.
The doctor asked, "What holds up the turtle that holds up the world?"
She responded, "Another turtle, obviously..."
"I see, and THAT turtle?"
Agitated she angrily responded, "IT'S ALL TURTLES, MAN! TURTLES-TURTLES-TURTLES all the WAY!"
Infinite regress.
Dr. Wilson added in his book: "We're afraid! BECAUSE, we're afraid... because we're afraid..." And so on...
If you don't think that applies to any religious ideology?
I don't know what to do for ya...
Laurie
You can look it up, I guess on the YouTube you kids enjoy, of course.
And you know that Utah is like the Holy Roman Catholic Church of Mormonism, right? It is the center of your religion.
I would think you'd get that connection immediately. Did you not study your religion at all?
Epicurus
HAHAHA! What would we do without religious people?
We'd probably be exporing the nearest stars by now!
(In actual manned space-crafts, I mean. You get that?)
@Randy
Do you think that only Mormons live in Utah? I have never been there. Do you think that all Mormons are perfect? No one is perfect. To believe your brutality story I would need more information. There are coo-coo people in all walks of life. Don't blame the religion. How do you know the offenders are Mormons?
I live in Canada.
laurie yes those scientists are absolutely delusional if they believe in the mormon religion or any religion.
Delusion - Psychiatry - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact
and i have a comment in moderation that is just the story of Joseph Smith's early years...so funny.
mormonism is as kooky as scientology if you actually learn about them...magic underwear? native indians are lost jews? garden of eden in missouri? a planet when you die to rule over? hahahaha ohhhh what would we do without religious people eh?
Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont, to Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith, a working class couple. Stricken with a crippling bone infection at age eight, he hobbled on crutches as a child. In 1816–17, the Smith family moved west to the village of Palmyra in western New York. By July 1820, the family obtained a mortgage for a 100-acre (40 ha) farm in the nearby town of Manchester, an area that had been the scene of repeated religious revivals during this time known as the Second Great Awakening.
Smith and his family participated in the religious enthusiasm of the period. Although he may never have joined a church in his youth, Joseph Smith participated in church classes and read the Bible. With his family, he took part in religious folk magic, a common practice but one condemned by many clergymen. Like many people of that era, both his parents and his maternal grandfather had mystical visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God. Smith later said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven and that all churches were false.
he Smith family supplemented its meager farm income by treasure-digging, likewise relatively common in contemporary New England. Joseph claimed an ability to use seer stones for locating lost items and buried treasure. To do so, Smith would put a stone in a white stovepipe hat and would then see the required information in reflections given off by the stone. In 1823, while praying for forgiveness from his "gratification of many appetites," Smith said he was visited at night by an angel named Moroni, who revealed the location of a buried book of golden plates as well as other artifacts, including a breastplate and a set of silver spectacles with lenses composed of seer stones, which had been hidden in a hill named Cumorah near his home. Smith said he attempted to remove the plates the next morning but was unsuccessful because the angel prevented him.
During the next four years, Smith made annual visits to Cumorah, only to return without the plates because he claimed that he had not brought with him the right person required by the angel. Meanwhile, Smith continued to travel western New York and Pennsylvania, being paid to search for precious metals; in 1826, he was tried in Chenango County, New York, for the crime of pretending to find lost treasure. During one of these treasure quests, he met Emma Hale and, on January 18, 1827, eloped with her because her parents disapproved of the match. Claiming his stone told him that Emma was the key to obtaining the plates, Smith went with her to the hill on September 22, 1827. This time, he said, he retrieved the plates and placed them in a locked chest. He said the angel commanded him not to show the plates to anyone else but to publish their translation, reputed to be the religious record of indigenous Americans. Although by then Smith had left his treasure hunting company, his former associates believed he had double-crossed them by taking for himself what they considered joint property. They ransacked places where a competing treasure-seer said the plates were hidden, and Smith soon realized that he could not accomplish the translation in Palmyra.
Quinn, D. Michael (1998), Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (2nd ed.), Salt Lake City: Signature Books, ISBN 1-56085-089-2 .
it continues if you want more...lol but how can you believe a known con man who walked around the forest with "seer stones"? when did you start believing in this stuff? WHY do you believe it??!!? what about the story is believable without very compelling evidence....?
@Epicurus
no one is saying that delusional people cant be right and intelligent in certain areas of life.
Are you saying that Mormon scientist are delusional?
How about these characteristic: a fertile imagination, unbounded curiosity, a warm and outgoing personality, a high degree of intellectual talent, the ability to work hard, and a determination to succeed Wouldn't it take those qualities to succeed in science and church.
@Laurie that is fine...
Here is something that alarms me:
Ready?
Just recently, two gay men were walking hand in hand in front of Brigham Young University.
The "Mormon-Police", these guys that dress in suits and walk around looking for a fight... but have no real gubment authority... beat them mercilessly and it was recorded on a surveilance camera.
These thugs were never even approched, let alone arrested for their crime.
That should never happen in America.
Land of the free? Not with religious people in charge, it ain't.
Science doesn't care what two concenting adults do to each other sexually. That's for the frightened superstitious...
no one is saying mormons cant hold a PhD in something...does the fact that so many Muslims have doctorates mean that they are not wrong about their religion?
i dont understand what you are trying to show here Laurie.
@Randy
Because you people reject therapy and doctors, (and booze!)
Randy Randy ! You are right we reject booze. You win the prize this time.
@ Epi
from 1940 ancient times updated to 1972
another Mormon scientist
James Fletcher
Had a doctorate in physics from University of Utah and was head of NASA under Nixon in 1972 and then again to deal with the Challenger aftermath in 1986.
Sorry, room, that message above was posted at Laurie but there seems to be some confusion in the order of posts, probably due to moderation and stuff.
Or my systems. Or the wonky e-mail on this (one of my redundant) network...
Or nutty intertubes traffic at this hour...
Here is another man interested in science. You might say it's a lie he never existed. Why can't you believe that people can have religion and be interested in science. ====James Talmage
Elder Talmage graduated from Lehigh University
and studied at Johns Hopkins Univeristy. He received his Ph.D. following correspondence work at Illinois Weslan University. As a geologist he undertook several pioneering studies of the Great Salt Lake area before receiving his call as an apostle in 1911.
Hey, there were a lot of great Mormons, Orson Scott Card for example wrote some amazing books.
And I did spell out the good things about Mormonism.
But you know why Utah has been showed to be the "Most Depressed State" in America?
Because you people reject therapy and doctors, (and booze!)
And you can't have science and religion, according to Paul.
All of the Cosmos and Nature have lived without god, or the bible, or Paul or Satan, for about 14 Billion years... (you really have to factor out human existence as it is so insignificant...)
It doing fine.
You can live without it TOO!
@Prix:
Yes, electrosmog does have huge effect, it 's been on the news lately, where classrooms of kids getting sick by lots of wireless computers.
I once working in a place of about 180 computers, felt like (you know the word, starts with "c") all day long.
They do have meters that can check for ambient current, an experiment, stand under hi-tension towers with a fluorescent tube, it should start to glow.
no one is saying that delusional people cant be right and intelligent in certain areas of life.
look at John Nash who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia but won the nobel prize and created Game Theory.
Hitler became ruler of an entire country...you can be delusional and still intelligent in CERTAIN respects.
@ Randy
Why can't a person believe in science and religion?
Henry Eyring (1901–1981) is undoubtedly the most celebrated scientist produced within the Mormon faith to date. He published over six hundred scientific papers and about a dozen books, and he received almost every prize science has to offer. His theories form the core of modern chemistry. One of his colleagues said, “The contributions of Dr. Henry Eyring touch practically every field of chemical science and technology in a very fundamental manner” (xx). Not only was he a brilliant scientist, he was also a man with deep faith in God and in the restoration of the gospel in modern times.
Randy
Holy Batman! I didn’t realize she was a mormon. That is some delusional christianity, right there.
Laurie answers
What do you know about Mormons? The following should tell you that Mormons are interested in science.
A 1940 study established that Utah led all other states in the number of scientific men born there in proportion to the population (Thorndike, pp. 138-39). A thorough analysis of state-by-state contributions to science from 1920 to 1960 found that Utah led all other states by a wide margin in the proportion of its university graduates who eventually received doctoral degrees in science (Hardy, p. 499).
@Laurie
You were very mad at me before... but I will answer you if you don't mind.
Evolution is a fact and we see it happening all the time, in nature, in laboratories, it can be studied and measured. And has been studied and measured for about 2000 years now.
Darwin, had a "theory" about how it worked, or what engine "ran" it, that was called Natural Selection. It does have some holes, and I do not agree with everything he wrote in "The Origin of Species" but that does not mean that EVOLUTION can be refuted.
Evolution tests out. It saves lives. It makes money. It's the best bet.
More people have been actually saved from disease by medical science (updated by genomic facts), than by going to shamanic witch-doctors, for example.
It's the law of large numbers, as opposed to insignificant digits... etc...
Statistics, math, you know what that stuff is, right?
@ Randy, Achems, Epi
“what do you mean by evolution”, or “are you refering to evolution as espoused by Darwin, or molecular evolution as taught by current biologists”, or “should I consider Darwinian evolution” or “do you mean survival of the fittest” or even “do you mean the process of natural selection”.
@eireannach666
I tried to search I've found a couple of names.
Maybe it's one of these.
5th Dimension Ghost
Also I read this, "I watched a show this evening on the Discovery Channel called "Tigers Attack. It was about how scientists are learning that many animals use infrasound (low frequency sounds beyond our ability to hear) to send messages to each other and sometimes evoke reactions in prey. Unexpectedly, the show went from talking about animals to talking about haunted places, and how the reactions that some people have to "haunted" places are actually caused by infrasound present in that particular area. Infrasound can make you feel panic, fear, nausea, wanting to run away...stuff like that. I've seen shows on hauntings where a medium in a room with a lot of activity describes going through those feelings."
Was it this show maybe? If not i'm off to sleep now. Have fun and take care.
@Achems
Ha! I wonder if anyone has even ran an extensive test of any kind on infrasound and cells.. Computers for sure do.If they did I'd like to see the results. Might be a little disturbing depending on how much we actually intake. I knoe they tested the whole cell phone to cancer stuff but infrasound has been proven to do some strange things. I actually can be contributed to some physical reactions and bodily responses people associate with ghosts ,angles ,etc.
In fact , I saw a good doc on this topic. I can't recall if it was here on SeeUat Videos oe not. Hmm...
Vlatko , do you have such a doc here? I forget the name , though.
@Achems Razor
"Electrosmog" Thanks! I'll look it up as well. Didn't know about this. But do you think this can have huge affect on people or is it something small? Is there a way to detect this, as in a device you can buy to measure the electrical energy? I hope you don't tell me to put multimeter into the air hahaha xD. My girlfriend might think I've gone completely nuts.
@eire666:
Yes,ambient electric current can have pervasive fluctuation on the nerve synapsis of the brains functioning, Even if everything is shut off, if it is not shut off at the source like a multi-breaker, the electrical energy leading into the wiring and receptacles will still give ambient current in the atmosphere, almost like standing under high tension wires.
Came apon this info. by accident, do electronic work as hobby It came up on a website....google "electrosmog" it is actually prevelant in our society, cell phones etc: etc: Maybe that is why so many religee's (LOL)
@Achems
Infrasound Achems? In reference to the clock/radio post.
(I spelled that right , right?)
But yea, a lot of "ghost" and "para-normal" mumbo jumbo , hocus-pocus has been linked to the infrasound off of things such as fans , electric boxes , etc.
Haven't really thought about that in a long time.
@Achems Razor
That's true, but I would like to try out my luck with this discussion. I mean it doesn't hurt anyone, I hope. Also learning new things! I love it.
ALSOOOOO. Sorry about the earlier post having spelling errors, I didn't have the time to go through it once more. Get some popcorn for this long read.
@Charles B.
By the way, I forgot to write one thing before. When you wrote "Even Jesus chose his words wicely" or something. I consider myself and everyone else as being just Humans. Making mistakes and not always making the right choices.
Now back to the post.
Hmm, Charles there is only one way I can prove faith is something that can fool anyone. It all depends on if you're willing to challenge your belief or not. Like Derren Brown did his trick and the things we have learned about our brain so far. Most of us are deluded when it comes to how we think about our selves and what we BELIEVE to be the truth. I'm assuming you're going to go with the route of "Derren brown was a trick. Has nothing to do with the TRUE faith. And most of the experiments are done and science doesn't know what true faith is".
Tell me if i'm wrong. Think about it, to believe everyone else are worshiping demons and you are the truth. Isn't that somewhat...deluded? I still have respect for you but I couldn't use any other word. There was an psychological experiment done with a Child. The parents told him he had a red ball he loved to play with when he was a child. They started to tell him that around the age of 8...I think. And after about 3 years they asked him about the red ball and he replied "Oh! I used to play with it there and there" He even managed to make images of how it was and how it looked like. He believed in it SO MUCH! He refused to believe his parents once they told him their was no red ball. Even for a child, if they start to believe in something, It cannot be disproved. It's must be a horrible feeling to tell the child that it was some experiment. And for the child to have done so much just to have their favorite thing being a lie.
When I wrote childish, it was correct. Children always believe in things and they will stand firm without letting it go even with proof. Like the experiment I wrote before. Children amongst children always think they are have everything right. That they know everything around them. Even if they do something selfish they will say it's the right thing to do. Even if they state something it's right. Faith is the same thing.
Tell me if this reminds you of something.
If you have a hindu child and a muslim child. I'll write H for Hindu and M for muslim.
H: Oh it stopped raining. I prayed to shiva.
M: You mean God. There is only one god, my parents told so and it's the truth.
H: You're a liar, my parents told me there are several Gods.
M: My god is the true one. You are lying!
H: My gods can beat your gods.
M: My god created everything, even your God. So he can kill them too!
H: No! My gods created your God.
(Now their thoughts)
H: His one God is nothing compared to our God. His parents are just lying. My Gods will show him that he was wrong! One puny God! hahaha!
M: Hmpf! He thinks his Gods are better. My god is true one. Elephant God? That's stupid. It's demons! God will strike him down for believing in such ridiculous and st*pid gods. When he dies and goes down to hell he will know our religion is better.
So Charles sir, does that remind you of anything? All of the things you've written that Hindu believe in demons. Christianity is held by higher status. Isn't that by faith...childish? I'm not saying this out of any anger. I hope you take this argument seriously because I do say it with good enough proof. Why? Because I was once like that when I was a kid. It wasn't just me but a lot of other kids thinking their religion is the best.
Everyone is still one way or another child at heart. Nearly all of the human history has been wars about religion. To think that it might not happen again and that "We aren't like them" is just as childish. Humans can still be fooled. I can't remember the name of the film, but a teacher does an experiment to show his students that the tricks hitler used can still be used. Humans, you, me and everyone in this whole world can fool ourselves better than anyone else trying to convince us to foor ourselves.
Charles...I've written before how humans trick themselves into thinking things and imagining things.
I actually like this question. I answer it a lot. I'll give myself as an example and others I know that don't believe in God. I treat other people just as I would treat myself. If they do me harm I let them, they are just loosing a good friendship. I knew a guy who had a bad back. He had a back like that cartoon film "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" I thought to myself. If i was like that and everyone teased me in school. Would I really want some help? I swore in front of him that I will protect him and do my best. Not because I wanted to get into heaven just because if i was in that state I would want help. I stood up and fought people twice as larger than me. I learned how to scare people without getting into fights. He even tried to be with a gang and teased me. But I waited for him knowing they are just making fun of him. And he returned with better knowledge about humans and I kept on pushing. I didn't care if girls found him disgusting, he was and is my friend. I remember there being a huge crowd and everyone watching. A little kid was talking about his mother and everyone were laughing, my friend couldn't defend himself. I went straight in and told the kid "I talked about your mother, what are you going to do?" And took my friend out of there.
NEVER ONCE did he say thanks for protecting me. I didn't care one bit.
After some years, he asked me a favor and gave me the money before I finished the task. I asked him "Maybe you should give me money after i'm done" He told me "After what you have done for me, I trust you". That is thanks enough for me. If your God is really that cruel then send me to hell. I don't care, I care about people around me and that they are happy.
Religion makes people afraid, I know people that worship God and are selfish. Just because they think they are better than me. I don't care, I treat them still kindly. Yes, they have read the bible and follow it completely. Science for them is just a myth. They say "why make it harder than it is? Believe in God and forget about science". I still discuss with them while smiling. They learn, I learn and everyone benefits. Now they are realizing more of what i'm talking about and understand that not everything can be based on simply FAITH.
Why divide ourselves? Science doesn't teach us how to behave. We already know how to behave. Being selfish doesn't lead anywhere, being cruel doesn't lead anywhere, lying doesn't lead anywhere. Even a child can understand difference between all of them. Just ask them "what if someone was selfish\lying\cruel towards you? Would you like it?"
If i'm incorrect well then I am, for the time being there is not much logic and evidence to support God in many ways. Humans can ask more questions and go forward. Even if I end up burning in hell, I don't care. As long as I know my mother, father, friends, girlfriend and her parents enjoyed being with me.
But what if i'm correct? All these wars, all these humans dying and churches being built where poor people live. All the false faiths that have been there, all the science we would miss. All the beauty we cannot explain. The beauty of our evolution, how simple things can do so much. Arguments that have no evidence and just rely on something that anyone can do...trick our brains into believing something that is not there. All the new planets to explore, all the money catholic church keeps and all the molestation that haunt children. With science we could grow better crops and have food for everyone in the world. All the politicians using religion to trick their people into BELIEVING they have chosen wisely. All the money people have earned by tricking others that they can read minds(having faith is still there)or talk with the dead or they can heal others.
Sir, after all this. Please don't tell me "Don't throw your faith away, satan can trick anyone" Well dear sir, if everyone stood on solid proof and no faith, this won't happen all that much. I can't remember where i got this quote but it was from Richard Dawkins (I do agree with him but he does some things that I think are not the right way to go)
If there was no religion, Good people would be Good and the Bad people Bad. Right now people who are religious THINK they are doing the right thing when in reality they are doing harm.
Yes sir, I know it is false that "we mirror the stages of evolution during our embryonic ect". Science never stands on one solid ground. Also the fish out of water is totally false. The stages not exactly look like the same in the same time period. As in, if you take a picture of dolphins womb and a human females womb picture at 5th month. They don't look all that alike. I'm sorry that your teachers shoved down that in your throat. What if the faith that has been shoved down your throat is false? You seem quite annoyed at your teachers doing so but can you imagine the shock of religion being false? (Shoving comment, please don't take it offensively I didn't mean it like that. I just used your words sir. If you do take them as an offense, I apologize in advance)
There are many claims that have been proven false in science. It's nothing new, the only thing is science disproves itself. It's not like religious people all over the world get together and try to disprove this.
I'm going to be completely honest to you about this. I haven't studied in that specific direction all that much. Evolution has it correct, birds do need their claws at that point. It's for survival. (I'm just assuming that at the moment) Just like T-rex had its arms. No point of them being there but science doesn't precisely know what they were for. If we can reverse the evolution and hopefully have a T-Rex we might know. Most of the stuff is based on what good use they can have in their life time. For example peacocks and their feathers, we know now that it's for attracting females. Healthier the better, every animal does this.
Btw, when bible says Snakes had limbs. Can you give me the chapter and the precise placement for the line?
Sir, they will never ring "true" in your mind, soul and spirit. Something that crushes the whole perception of reality and death, truth and lie, good and evil...is never going to do that.
You lose nothing if nothing happens after death? I really wish there was a heaven and hell to be honest. So I can see what God would tell me. No one on this earth can tell me that. Or if Hindus were correct, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, ancient greek were correct. But you do lose a lot. Science looses a lot. Humanity loses a lot.
Everyone on this earth is special. To have faith and dispute others faith, wage wars and all the other things i've mentioned before. You do lose. Science looses a great mind that could be used to push science even further. Disprove theories, build new theories. Discover things that no one knows of. Humanity loses the perception of right and wrong...if we still followed the bible word by word. We would see a lot of war, blood and deaths. Humanity loses a kind person trying that closed his eyes about humans(brain can be tricked). More good people thinking they are doing the right thing even though it might be wrong.
No sir. There is nothing that can change my mind. Unless God comes to earth physically and answers everyones questions. He doesn't need to answer mine, I've got both mindsets. But to everyone in the whole world. Tell his children "oh you humans actually did that to yourself. I actually let Satan be there, also i created all these religions to show Satan you humans can be tricked. Btw I haven't written any religion yet, you people did this all by yourself. I never talked with anyone! Btw, the wars you created were fun to watch. I supported the winning side, Get it?"
Sorry Charles, there is enough proof and evidence for me to stay put on where i'm standing.
Like I already wrote, humans are really good at fooling themselves. To think "I lost nothing if i believe in God and follow a religion" is the same as saying "We won right? Horay!" After a war between humans. When the reality is completely different.
@Prix,... with respect , BUT you guys are going around in circles about "belief" that has been done before on other docs. ad naseum, you guys can be talking about beliefs till the cows come home and go back out again in the morning, round and round, where she stops nobody knows!
@ilovemyselfmorethani
“What I BELIEVE IN? When did I ever write I believe in something.”
–What? You don’t believe in anything?? Don’t you believe that the Christian God doesn’t exist? Don’t you believe that you’re a human being, or that your mom loves you? Are you saying you don’t believe in anything?! I said, YOU CANNOT prove anything that cannot be reduced to a mathematical certainty. So you cannot prove most of anything you believed in. So don’t go asking me for “solid” “exact” “proof”, because that would be impossible for selection pressures.
Believe if Christian God doesn't exist? I can believe the hindu,ancient greek, egyptian, batman any of the gods can exist. But the evidence for it is low and having faith doesn't mean it can be proven. There are so many Gods out there so with the mathematic certainty it's very low that CHRISTIAN GOD exists. There you go, another good reason not to "believe". There ie evolution to try to explain things instead of believing in something that has been repeated through out seveal cultures. So the whole "If i believe christian god exists" is going out of the window. It's that i'm certain of it. No believing there.
If i believe i'm a human being? It's just a name for us, we can examine WHY we are human beings. So yes I KNOW i fall into the catogory of human being. With mathematic principle you talked about, every animal can be divided by their abilities. We have a good enough brain so we are humans. No believing there.
If my mother loves me? You don't have any reason to go there at all. I know with my own ways and the "mathematic" certainty that she loves me. I know her and she knows me, what me and her have gone through is none of your buisness.
You still avoided the real question WHERE DID I WRITE I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING?
Also, I couldn't follow you was because you jumped into another catogory and I was having a headache and it was late. Excuse me for that but now i'm back on topic.
Now you're just getting rude, I can be that too. Do I want to? No not really. Liar? Really?
Who's the one lying? You stated that arguement as a fact and when i show you the evidence you call me a liar?
You simply don't BELIEVE. Yes, you believe in that NOW. All of a sudden you change and state something without anything to back it up with?
Even animals have these insticts of sex. You can't simply say we "evolve" into believing so. Animals don't have a religion? Or do they? Let's explore idea as well.
What you can't do is simply realise that your argument is left in dust and resort to "omg lol! that's funny HA!" now isn't that childish? I can resort to that kind of behaviour as well but it's not going to get anywhere.
I actually talked about something being "perfect" which is never possible. Even in mathematics something is never absolute perfect. Al thought you can take the probability on which side it falls on the most. If you really can reduce something to mathematics please do so about our discussion?
Cultures who believed in God? You mean dietes? Several thousands of them by now. There hasn't always been the notion of one God. Believed in God survived better? No, actual proof to support that argument even IF it was true.
Again with PROOF? Is it getting old? Oh sorry, I thought science was all about proof and evidence? You have surely not provided any evidence except avoiding direct answers. Yes you DO that. Here take a look, at your own writing.
"–What? You don’t believe in anything?? Don’t you believe that the Christian God doesn’t exist? Don’t you believe that you’re a human being, or that your mom loves you?"
Avoiding without reading what i wrote. I specifically wrote QUOTE ME WHEN I WROTE I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING.
"YOU CANNOT prove anything that cannot be reduced to a mathematical certainty"
Still dodging by using mathematics, that's not going to work here. You had no solid proof, you also say "Oh we shouldn't look for answers in Bible" and that takes Bible out of the picture for answers of proof for God.
"Well we probably aren’t “born” with it. But we collectively evolved to have such a behaviour."
You stated something else before and changed it now so it still KIND OF supports you. No, it doesn't. Like Ramachandran said, it's only in religious people that this is available, only the ones that BELIEVE a lot. It can have several purposes that has nothing to do with God.
"– What’s you’re evidence? Statements like “that’s totally false!” ? Lol."
Where is your evidence might I ask? Because you specifically wrote about us being born believing in God. It's a completely false claim. You stated it as if it was 99% the truth. No, it's not. Not even close. As i previously wrote "There can be many possibileties". To state that is completely false. If you take a Hindu and did the same experinment and he believes in many gods. Does that prove that there is a proof for many gods? No, it means there is something totally different going on. It might not even have something to do with GOD AT ALL. Who knows.
I accused you? I'm not even going to touch that.
Well, I wrote those things about you because that's the way you were writing. I wanted to get my own impression of you. I did support them by first reading what you wrote. Plus I asked if they could stop because it won't get anywhere. You're still behaving like a child with "OHH GEEZZ!" Anyone can do that. I think most of the people learned to do that in Kindergarden. But i assumed most would grow out of it...guess you didn't.
"–Oh NO! Please reply!! please!!! Duh.."
See what I mean?
"– That’s right. You understood ZERO of what I said. But you think, your’e the one making sense. Hilarious."
Maybe you should read instead of acting like a 5 year old? When you took mathematics into the discussion I got lost because I didn't think anyone would just into that as a self diffence once they were cornered. Cornered how? What you claimed before was incorrect and now it's mathematics without at least argument. Yes, you can take mathematics into anything. You didn't even take a claim I made into mathematics and prove it to have less chance of being true. YOU are the one making no sense.
"– And is that wrong? If people choose not to reply to nonsensical retorts. How is that wrong?"
So I should stop writing to you? Hey that's good advice! Thanks.
Carbon doesn't dazzle me as much, it is very common throughout the Universe...
Buckminsterfulerine, or "The Bucky-Ball" as engineers nickname it... now THAT dazzles me.
You know, because of the geo-desic dome that R. Buckminsterfuller invented... and I know I ain't spelling any of that correctly but... if you are well educated you get what I am sayin'.
Actually, the emergence of life CAN be explained by Cosmology and Biochemistry.
I mean, I have conducted the experiment in which simple proto-plasm can be created with all of the elements present at the "Young Earth" (4 billion years ago, apporx.), as Carl Sagan showed in the series "Cosmos"...
And THEN there is evolution of forms...
Was that your point, D-K, or am I way off...
Evolution doesn't explain the emergence of life, it only explains increasing complexity in biochemical organisms. At some point, theorethical science will have to tackle the abiotic to organic matter question.
Or circumvent it with panspermia, I guess, which explains life on earth but still leaves the question of organic matter to be answered.
Carbon dazzles me
HAHAHA, yes, sir! I am 57 years old and cranky and my little mieces and nephews love me even though I call them "sammiches" and chase them with electric carving knives!
And you are right, I did, grudgingly, respect the church for the Vatican II conference (1964) when they accepted evolution as indisputible, but they then said, "but god did it..."
And I love the ritual... but... you know it's a show, like a movie... there are real things to think about...
@ Charles B
"IlovemyselfmorethanI: An evolutionary theist, eah? Hum. What does that mean anyway? "
-- It's theistic evolutionist (this is more commonly used). It means I don't take the Genesis Account of creation literally. I'm fine with evolution.
@ Randy
A theistic evolutionist… oh brother… I see you coming from a mile away…
-- Come on now, you know you prefer us over creationists.
"What are you, a catholic?"
--I used to be. But I just consider myself a Christian.
"I have an Irish uncle who is a catholic priest, he was happily married to a 12 year old boy in Thailand."
--Ah.. getting the nit-wits to represent the whole. A common tactic. But there's a fallacy lurking in there somewhere, won't you agree?
Randy, may I ask how old (or young) you are? You seem like a really fun kind of grandfather. I bet your grandkids love you. (No sarcasm involved)
@Charles B:
When you go to bed, make sure you don't have any electrical appliances on or near your bed, like clock radios etc: it is called "electrosmog"
If you hear voices like your god or whatever talking to you in the middle of the night, could be just the interference of the ambient electrical waves/current coming from such devices interfering with your brain synapses, or if you sleep on steel box springs type of mattress, could be generated by magnetic field also, I actually just throw my multi-breaker off in bedroom for the night, don't want to hear any voices or any body talking to me, don't need no crazy's (LOL)
Vlatko: Sorry I'm getting all mushy and "religie" here lately. I do appreciate the docs and your hospitality. It's just part of who I am.
Epic: Try not to blast me out of the water if you can help it; if you can't afford to allow me to express a little faith, then please allow me to have a little "grace"! Thanks.
I was joking about feeling guilty Dr. Randy! CSI probably got it right, and I just misunderstood when I saw the hair growing (ya know how they do those zoom shots). But I'm sure you know that. And I'm sure you were talking about something deeper than that as well.
I feel peaceful tonight. My lovely wife and my precious little ones are already sleeping. Whenever I feel peaceful like this, it's a prelude to a deeper understanding from God and I come out on the other end trusting Him even more, if not always understanding all I'm going through.
On the day I was born, my mother prayed, "What should we name him? God replied: "Name him Charles Matthew," and later she found out that meant "A man who is a gift from God" when you put the two names together. At the age of seven, I made the conscience decision to follow Him, and I can honestly say I've never turned back. I may have made moral mistakes along the way, but my heart was, is, and always will belong to the Way, the Truth, and the Life; the Lord Jesus Christ. I've never consciously rebelled, even in troubled times, even when miserable, even when down-trodden. It still amazes me when I find people such as yourself whom once believed, if only for a moment, but no longer do. The concept truly is unimaginably "faithless" to me.
I cannot place my soul in the hands of men who say there is no God as long as there is still a spark of truth in what I know and as long as there is a shadow of a doubt in what others say might to be the origin and source of all life apart from God.
This documentary says that God might only be in the mind and you can trigger a reaction (a presence) with a magnet in the right place. What it failed to postulate is that perhaps that is how God makes Himself known when he chooses to do so. Perhaps that is the place where God makes himself know when He chooses to do so. The eye is not the source of what it sees; it is the means by which we see. The brain may contain the means by which we have "faith" and experience God, but not be the only source of that faith. It would be a great fallacy to confuse the means and the source as certainly being 100% the same. I very disappointing documentary.
Dr. Randy, should you tomorrow, or even on your last day and with your last stuggling breath, change your mind, He won't hold your stubborn past against you. He'll meet you where you are and I'll meet you someday in Heaven.
As almost always, I leave you with a purposeful blessing; peace to you! And I will pray for you again tonight.
Charles B.
Study the Arca-Toothus Vampirus Infernalis, literally "The Vampire Squid from Hell" and it's environment and how it makes a living.
Or as I meantioned earlier, the camel spider that our soldiers have to contend with in Iraq... they have much to teach us about evolution and where we fit into the scheme of things.
I could go on and on and on, these are just a few examples...
Actually, Charles, I DO feel guilty.
It is hard to take candy away from a child and it cries, but you have to if they are intolerant to sugar, for example.
It'll break a good man's heart, but, you know-- you gotta do what you gotta do...
And the SMART guy usually wins... sometimes that is the good guy, sometimes it is the bad guy. There have been many evil geniuses in world history that have saved the world.
But, those distinctions are purely human and really have no place in the natural world.
Nature has a morality that can be seen in say... the ocean... which is the womb of the planet. The creatures there are some of the oldest and most adaptable and most resiliant.
There is a drama in the interplay of life there that will teach you everything you need to know.
P.S. Thanks! I do so hope the Vlatko doesn't get overly upset with all the chatter on his website. It's masking my frustration at all you "faithless" ones that still have rather irritatingly hard to deal with snide remarks. But, I still believe, that in the end, the good guy (yeah that me) wins the day! :-)
Dr. Randy: You're got to be kidding! I'm crushed! I saw that on a CSI episode, so it's gotta be true! What is the world coming to when you can't even trust TV to give you the real truth anymore? I'm rather depressed now. THANK YOU, Dr. Randy for yet another disconcerting comment to my little world. Don't you feel guilty? Where there no soul, I'd be a little more upset about this revelation! :-)
Epic: Ok! Let's try this again. If I die and all that's really cool going on is my digesting decomposition and the shrinking of my over-indulged skin on my well-nourished frame, then you will have my well deserved apologies for intending to inspire you to something more than just thinking we're all bacterial all-you-can-eat buffet!
Oh and Charles, that WAS a funny joke!
@Charles
Actually, sir, the hair/beard and nails do NOT continue to grow after death. That is a myth, perpetuated by dark ages medical knowledge, and they also believed in Vampires...
We know now that it is the skin shrinking from dehydration, pulling away from the teeth, and bones/nails, and hair protien fibers, that give the APPEARNCE that they continue to grow after death.
There is no cellular structure growth or re-organization after the brain dies. Except the batcerium and microbial organisms that eat you, of course.
Epic: Ok, ok! Let's not get personal about my Funk and Wagnals and how they met their end! It was probably just a yard sale anyway.
Should I die and the only groovy thing happening two minutes after I take my last breath is that my hair and fingernails are still growing, then you will be the first person offered my apologies in my eternal non-existent state! If you want, then just give me one thing most worthy of my time to study.
Razor: Ain't sure why I have such a "morbid curiosity." Literally. Perhaps because death seems like such an "unnatural" thing, as we have eternity planted in our hears and want to keep living, even after life has passed. Maybe I should study to be a mortician, but actually I think being a pastor would be more worldly and Heavenly good for more people.
IlovemyselfmorethanI: An evolutionary theist, eah? Hum. What does that mean anyway? Sounds compromising, Perhaps I could call myself "a pre-Adomite life agnostic", meaning, I'm not entirely sure what life was like before God reformed the world and created Adam and Eve to fill it with people. Earth itself could be quite old, but modern man is not.
Ok. Joke time! Dr. Randy talked about his "Irish Uncle" so as I Christian I'm the only one that can make fun of us without being utterly rude. Just for a joke.
3 backslidden unrepentant former preachers went to Hell: The Catholic priest, the Southern Baptist, and the Pentecostal (of which I most closely relate to). In utter surprise, the Catholic priest said, "Oh my! I firmly believed the worst I'd get was Purgatory! This is dreadful!" The Baptist pastor said, "Oh my! I didn't believe I could ever walk away from salvation! This is dreadful!" However, the Pentecostal preacher, true to his nature was up-beat and cheerful! He kept a positive attitude and just kept saying: "I'm not here and it's not hot! I'm not here and it's not hot!" :-)
It is about AGE not gender, you get that right?
I do not care what any two consenting adults do, but no children should be involved... ever, but christians seem to really like the youngin's...
@ilovemyself...
A theistic evolutionist... oh brother... I see you coming from a mile away...
What are you, a catholic?
I have an Irish uncle who is a catholic priest, he was happily married to a 12 year old boy in Thailand.
(that's a line from "The Departed" but it applies very well, I, too had an uncle Jackie that ended up in a landfill and a catholic priest uncle... it just happens that way... art imitating life, I guess...)
@eireannach666
"So what exactly are you saying? That you are on the fence of our coming to be? So which side are you on? What is your theory on how we came to be us as a species? What makes you think that us and everything that exists is more than just star stuff?"
-- Was this for me? Well I'm a theistic evolutionist, so I really don't have any problem with evolution. If that's what you mean.
@ Prix
"Dude, what are you on? Can someone help me with this guy? He is dodging questions and not making any sense what-so-ever."
--Are you kidding me with this? What question am I dodging? YOU'RE THE ONE WHO ISN'T MAKING ANY SENSE.
"What I BELIEVE IN? When did I ever write I believe in something."
--What? You don't believe in anything?? Don't you believe that the Christian God doesn't exist? Don't you believe that you're a human being, or that your mom loves you? Are you saying you don't believe in anything?! I said, YOU CANNOT prove anything that cannot be reduced to a mathematical certainty. So you cannot prove most of anything you believed in. So don't go asking me for "solid" "exact" "proof", because that would be impossible for selection pressures.
"Mathematic, what? I’m so lost. It seems like you answered someone else and not me. "
-- No, I answered you. You just cannot follow a train of thought. That's why you're lost.
"My whole argument was “No one proved we were born believing in higher power”. Simple as that…You base your this argument over what you BELIEVE."
-- Well we probably aren't "born" with it. But we collectively evolved to have such a behaviour. We aren't born immediately wanting to have sex, but we will eventually, because this behaviour has been instilled in us through evolution. That's just the case with anything pertaining to evolution, we cannot have proof, but we can have evidence. And I don't simply believe this. Not only can you NOT follow a train of thought, you are also a LIAR.
"You wrote that twice in your sentence. Please look up a word I wrote where I wrote that? How about you apologize for me now instead?"
-- Oh Boy, You are so lost now aren't you? All this twisting and turnings. Why don't you read my responses again.
"Who believes and who states with evidence? Me or you?"
-- What's you're evidence? Statements like "that's totally false!" ? Lol.
"Alright, if you think i’m only writing that to have the last laugh go ahead. I’m through with it. No more mentioning of that instance."
-- See there you go again. I never said you're "writing to have the last laugh". What I said was you always want to have the last word, without bothering for your last word to make sense. So you just, ONCE MORE, accused me of something that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. OHHH GEEZZ..
"My logic seems a bit dodgy? You wrote about this “– You usually will be born thinking a creator exists.” No solid proof backing that claim up. "
-- There can be NO "solid proof" for anything that cannot be reduced to a mathematical certainty. You really OUGHT to get this by now. The evidence is that MOST people who've ever lived believe in God. That's not to say that God exists, but it could possibly be because of selection pressure --cultures who believed in a God survived better -- who knows.
"And then you’ve been dodging this whole thing with other mindless answers without any proof. Am I being dodgy? You’re just avoiding your actual claim without giving up."
-- Hahaha When I said your logic is dodgy, I didn't mean you were dodging anything. Again with the proof thing.. This is getting OLD.
"You know, I didn’t consider what others were writing about you before but now I can fully understand them."
--Oh No. YOU fully empathized with them before you even started talking to me. Which was hilarious, coz you would go talking to them and saying mean stuff about me-- as if I couldn't read what you were saying-- and then below you're comment you would ask me something in your politest. You really seem like an odd person to me.
"If you try to avoid these questions once more I’m never going to reply. You were talking about"
--Oh NO! Please reply!! please!!! Duh..
" “I won’t answer unless someone has a good argument” Dude, I’m not going to look up that sentence,"
-- And is that wrong? If people choose not to reply to nonsensical retorts. How is that wrong?
"this is getting way to long of a page to search through again. Well, you do exactly the same thing you claim others of doing."
-- That's right. You understood ZERO of what I said. But you think, your'e the one making sense. Hilarious.
Dr. Randy: Yeah! That's great news, my brother says that I'm just a "freak"! Fortunately neither one of my kids had a third nipple or breast. I checked. :-) That's why weren're not supposed to marry our sisters so that all those add little things are less likely to keep going, eah?
Peace to you. I hope you live long and prosper, actually.
Sincerely.
@Achems
Yes, sir. When you are knee deep in entrails, and the stink almost makes you pass out- it is very difficult to think of crystally-- angelic-- spirits and how "divine" we are...
However, you can see that we are just the same as every other organism on the planet... the veil is lifted away and reality becomes clear and simple...
@Charles
You have nipples because you started out in the womb as a female. All vertabrate mammals do. You mutated into a male but your nipples are vestigial, like your tail bone, or your appendix, etc...
A third nipple, has a medical name, and I cannot bring it to mind right now... but there are one of two reasons for it... The most common is that you absorbed a twin in the womb and the third nipple is his...
Yes. That's how gross nature is...
The second reason is not going to be mentioned here.
Apparently, this condition seems to be more common in Asia... there is no explanation for that, except that my theory is statistical. Asia, (Including India and Pakistan, Taiwan and the rest of the sub-continent, of course...) make up the majority of the people in the world.
Therefore... it stands to reason- mathmatically- that more third nipples would have been recorded there.
My Advanced degrees are in useless subjects, as far as money-making goes, World History and Classical Literature, but I washed out of medical school and law school.... and I am writing a dissertation to get a masters in Evolutionary Biology, although I will probably not make it before I die.
Also Charles, the pictures of embryos with gills was shown to be wrong yes. go take a look at the embryo in different stages of all different types of animals. you will be amazed. this isnt proof however it is evidence and the exact type that the theory of evolution predicts. theories make predictions and when those predictions are shown true it strengthens the theory.
you can SPECULATE with your lack of information that whales may have a use for legs as an embryo but anyone who actually studies whales or snakes will tell you not only that the legs are not developed on the fetus for a long while but they are also of no use (vestigial, look it up its an important word to know for biology) AND they will also show you a progression of fossils of the animal that became the whale.
Cetacean evolution has been extensively studied as a matter of fact....actually if you look at all mammals in the water not only do they share the skeleton of their land relatives, but they breath oxygen and when they swim, unlike fish who move side to side, cetaceans move up and down like the spine of a four legged land mammal. The amount of work done on this particular subject is staggering and to see someone who isnt trained in it argue it based on what they feel in their heart (what they have been indoctrinated to believe without evidence) is either hilarious or an insult to all the people who actually went to school for this.
I dont know how you can take the positions you do and still claim to be intellectually honest.
and you sort of end with Pascals Wager?!?!?! have you never honestly thought about this?
"But, if I’m not correct, and you are, I’ve lost nothing at all. I’ve had a full and fulfilled life; when I close my eyes in death if that’s all there is, then I won’t even know my error. However, if I’m correct, then the best is yet to come for those that do have faith, and the worst is yet to come for those that don’t."
actually you and I have JUST as much chance of being wrong about hinduism or islam or religions we havent discovered or many number of things that if you dont believe in they will send you to a hell type place like christianity has.
you have just as much riding on the bet as we do. also if god will punish good people just because they dont believe in him then i would willingly never worship that kind of being.
if that being also made me knowing i wouldnt believe (omnipresent) and knowing what it would take for me to believe in it yet still not do that...then i absolutely find this being repulsive.
@Charles B:
So you like blood do you? (LOL) then you should of been a paramedic like I was, lots of fun picking up blood and guts and body parts at times. (LOL) I won't go into the more gory details or anything though.
Great Doc!! I especially liked the reference at the end to being on the other side of the glass....I had an experience very close to this...I was at the zoo, sitting and watching the gorillas. I wondered what the gorillas who were born in captivity thought of us on the other side of the glass. Plenty of possibilities entered my thoughts. When I thought of God being on another side of the glass looking at me looking at the gorillas, except, that glass isn't transparent.
LOL @ CHARLES B....im laughing at you if you think kids teasing someone JUSTIFIES bears killing them...actually i just thought about that and stopped laughing. you are sick!
there is nothing just about killing kids. they were NOT of age where they would know the full scope of their actions..
a MUCH better response form you would have been. "OH! that story must be made up....i wonder what else in there is made up....?"
here try this one,
Numbers 31:1-54
Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins
P.S. Dr. Randy: Why do men have nipples and why do I have three?!? Just curious. :-) I know, I know! TMI!
@eire666:
Hi, from me also man, thought you had disappeared.
Prix: You're brilliant in a way, but to say that "faith" is childish or any ting less than noble is world-play. Human language cannot convey every concept that is held in one word at this present time. Faith is active and strong; it's a choice after a well-researched look at the other possibilities.
You said: "You’re making no other point than “Christianity is the best! I know it because I have faith”. It’s childish and harmful. Harmful to yourself and towards others."
You don't think it's harmful or hurtful to me when you tell me I'm being hurtful and childish? You can say that about my faith in God, and when I disagree with you, I'm being "childish"?
Prix, you're missing a huge concept here. Just because there are counterfeits doesn't mean there is not an ultimate "reality" or ultimate truth. I may not understand Christianity fully as it's deeper and more wonderful the more I learn and study and as it unfolds in my life year by year, but that doesn't mean that I know know truth when I've found it.
We can agree to disagree, but science and your attempt to explain away all that is Divine will eventually prove shallow for you. What if YOU'RE the one that's incorrect? What then?
Much of what you put forth as "proof" for evolution, etc. is assumption, arguments complied from previous assumptions. For example, even Epic mentioned that we mirror the stages of evolution during our embryonic progression in the womb. That has now been totally proved to be false as a fetus when it looks like it has gills does not actually have them, and that part turns into the pituitary glad, part of the jaw, etc. Yet, for years, that was shoved down my throat by well-meaning teachers in biology class as "proof" of evolution along with all the little pictures! Assumptions and presumptions built upon other assumptions and presumptions.
The whale embryo example that Epic gave, with it having legs that it reabsorbs before birth is interesting, but as usual, atheists view that as yet another "proof" of evolution. It's yet another assumption that may or may not be fully accurate. Even the Bible says that snakes used to have limbs, which seems to be the case as they have little ones where they used to be. Do the limbs have a purpose in the embryo that is not needed later on for the rest of their life in the ocean? Birds with claws loose them after they fledged. It's not an evolutionary indicator, but has a very valid reason at that point in life for the birds.
Nonetheless, I'm ready to move on. Your arguments are logical in a odd sort of way, but they don't ring "true" with my mind and soul and spirit.
But, if I'm not correct, and you are, I've lost nothing at all. I've had a full and fulfilled life; when I close my eyes in death if that's all there is, then I won't even know my error. However, if I'm correct, then the best is yet to come for those that do have faith, and the worst is yet to come for those that don't.
Let me ask you this in conclusion: Is there anything that could change your mind?
Dr. Randy: What are all your degrees in? I'd love to cut up dead people. I think I would have been very good at it, except that I'm colorblind. I would have loved to have been a pathologist or a post-mortum examiner. Maybe. I do feel compassion quite strongly sometimes and it might be difficult at times to be objective.
Peace to you! You're still my favorite grumpy old disbeliever! You and Razor.
I'm doing ok. Things are normal again. Can finally do some relaxing and doc hunting. What about you?
Oh and I must add that they want to put those animal down for being animals and that erks me. But then I think of all the humans that kill. I think a lot of them should be put down and it seems a little hypocritical at first, but as you said " they had a choice.". So our free will and ability to make decisions on a personal level, makes us human but our ability to disregard all rationality and logic for pure emotion seperates us even more so from other animals.More so than our thought process. Animals don't do emotion. Only instinct and memory.
We , with what we have done to eachother and al inhabitants on this rock, make us the beasts.
But hey, we are what we are because we grew into a most greedy being since we were able to gain so much from our evolved brain of ours that we forgot what got us there. Instinct,rational and logic. Not religion and not aliens. Just the evolution of the mutant species called the apes.
Then,our predecessors would ' perhaps , taken a bite out of ole Seigfreid and roy themselves.
Let's here it for the Apes! Three cheers. Hip hip hooray.
And by the way... you did not answer me earlier.
How are you?
IF you don't anser me I might have to drive over to California and kick your a@@ with karate!
And then, of course, we would stumble, bleeding to the nearest pub and knock back a few "jars"!
LOL!
I guess I'm in moderation for some reason. I keep those guys busy.
So anyways,How goes it Randy? Long time no see! Glad to see the champ come out of retirement! I'm just talking , Richard Dawkins.
@ILMMTI
So what exactly are you saying? That you are on the fence of our coming to be? So which side are you on? What is your theory on how we came to be us as a species? What makes you think that us and everything that exists is more than just star stuff?
Hello, my gaelic brother!
Excellent point. Just leave the poor creatures alone, am I right?
Otherwise... you know... animals gotta eat... and the food of life is LIFE!
Or "crikey" Steve Erwin who got impaled by a "gentle" beast.
Like when that dude got killed by that tigar or that chick who got her face ripped off by the chimp. Then they want to ask why as if the animal wasn't just doing what it does. Funny note, that lady had been giving the chimp xanax and didn't have any that day. Ha!
@Prix
Exactly. The human had a choice. He could have stayed at home, got an education and made money enough to build a house to protect him from the bear.
The bear, on the other hand, has no choice; they have to eat whatever is around to eat. And in Alaska, the salmon runs are going extinct, so the bear have little food. A human hanging around his environment, is a tasty snack.
Grizzlies are one of the largest, most ferocious land mammals on the planet... we all need to stay away from them, even as we admire them...
@Randy
I saw that documentary too. I don't know if should feel bad, no not about the guy who got eaten but about myself. I thought the guy was self centered, paranoid and crazy. I can understand why the bears didn't challenge the guy when bears had enough food, but why would he still stay? Why did all of those people cry for him? I mean I would've felt sad if i was his friend but I would've said "btw, that guy was nuts. It wasn't a surprise at all when i heard this news"
Am I a weird person for not feel sorry or any sympathy at all? Just want to see if I'm alone on this one.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
Dude, what are you on? Can someone help me with this guy? He is dodging questions and not making any sense what-so-ever. What I BELIEVE IN? When did I ever write I believe in something. Mathematic, what? I'm so lost. It seems like you answered someone else and not me. My whole argument was "No one proved we were born believing in higher power". Simple as that...You base your this argument over what you BELIEVE. You wrote that twice in your sentence. Please look up a word I wrote where I wrote that? How about you apologize for me now instead?
Who believes and who states with evidence? Me or you?
Alright, if you think i'm only writing that to have the last laugh go ahead. I'm through with it. No more mentioning of that instance.
My logic seems a bit dodgy? You wrote about this "– You usually will be born thinking a creator exists." No solid proof backing that claim up. And then you've been dodging this whole thing with other mindless answers without any proof. Am I being dodgy? You're just avoiding your actual claim without giving up.
You know, I didn't consider what others were writing about you before but now I can fully understand them.
If you try to avoid these questions once more I'm never going to reply. You were talking about "I won't answer unless someone has a good argument" Dude, I'm not going to look up that sentence, this is getting way to long of a page to search through again. Well, you do exactly the same thing you claim others of doing.
Here is an interesting thing, speaking of bears:
Remember that hippie what they made the documentary about called "Grizzly Man"?
You know why he deserved getting eaten by that poor starving bear? Because he was a very silly, hippie person.
All apologies to his family, certainly, it was horrible, but I actually felt more sorry for the bear...
My LOVE of Nature, or my positive thinking, or what ever faith you worship, will never, never preclude me, or you from getting eaten alive by a shark, or stung by a snake, or utterly destroyed by bacteria, or bitten by a brown recluse spider, or torn apart by a Camel Spider... etc...
Only science can protect you from these things. We build the houses that keep you out of the rain.
If you think that faith will make you safe? Or protected by some Natural, Universal, Dietific, imaginary friend...
Then, you should listen to the dying screams and death agonies of that hippie surfer new-age dude...
And then, you should buckle down and get to work on math, science and engineering so you can stave off the supertitions that will get you eaten.
100,000 years ago we had NO choice. Now, it's the 21st century. We can do better...
Or not, dudes, it's your choice... I will be in the house. With a weapon.
Oh, boy. Way to much to cover should I actually have the ambition to cover it today. This is my busy day.
Epicurus: The she-bear story is interesting, isn't it? I've known some "kids" that were evil to the core, and obviously they were old enough to know good from evil and evil is what they were dishing out and God allowed Elijah to make that "judgement" call then and there. God is love, but God is also just. That's the two sides to the Divine Being I love and serve.
But, no worries; if you're not an evil little moster, no she bears will be sent your way by me or any other man of God any time soon.
Peace to you.
@Prix
You still insist “I believe we’ve evolved, if you will, to believe in a God”. That is totally false, we don’t exactly know of it.
--We cannot "exactly" know of anything that's not reducible to a mathematical equation. Butthere is evidence that would suggest it. We can dispute whether it's strong or weak evidence. But saying that "That is totally false" is not an argument. I can say that everything you said is "totally false".
"Well then you’re just believing without and final and solid proof."
-- See, here you go again. We can only have "proof" for things of which we can have mathematical certainty. You don't have "proof" for much of anything you believed in. And again, saying "you have no "final and solid proof" is not an argument. Well it is, but it's a very flimsy one.
"Btw, can you stop about me not getting a direct quote? I’ve already apologized."
-- I KNOW you did. But you did so while simultaneously justifying it, and making preemptive judgements. So it's not quite a sincere apology don't you think? Be that as it may, I already accepted you're insincere apology.
"Stop repeating. And if you can read, you’ve actually written more about the mistake than response itself."
--Lol! So what? I've written more about the mistake than the response itself, so what? Amusingly, here you go again, you're so caught up with having the last word, instead of trying to have your last word make sense. Concentrate on what's being said, understand it, and don't rush your responses just so you have a response. Your logic seems a bit dodgy.
And, you know? I have kissed Satan... it wasn't that great.
He's gotta little bacteria problem, you know, he needs to use more of the antiseptic to strengthen his gums, like that Listerene.... there was some odor...
I'm just sayin'
*that word above should be SCORN, sorry...
@Abrahams Son
LOL! I don't know if you were being friendly there or not, (and I would agree that I would deserve your scron for my remarks, although I stand by them!)
But, back in the day, I heard some preacher say... "You see, the Dinosaur bones were put there by the Devil to fool the Satan-kissing scientists!"
Oh, Batman.... that always makes me laugh...
Yeah, that was great Randy! Dont you know God just put all those fossil bones here just to mess with your mind like I am dong now?
@D-K
YES!!!! Excellent! I just pulled out a book as your e-mail went through! Thank you!
@Prix
Yes indeed! As you are younger you have plenty of time! Use it wisely my friend!
@Randy
haha, D-K wins I guess.
Sir, you've got huge amounts of knowledge I wish I had. Haha, I guess we just have to live with our current states. But I still have time to catch up with you MOHAHA!!
Got it! Stromatolites! By the good graces of Thor, I can let it rest now.
I suddenly realized I should just check google for Cyanobacteria, and there it was. Huzzah.
OH, I know what you might mean... wait... no I don't!
OK, now you are driving ME nuts! Because it is on the tip of my tongue; hanging from my frontal lobe...
I will get my books and you do your thing and the first one with answer wins!
@Randy: I don't mean the great barrier reef, these are actual individual living rocks, among the oldest living organisms in the world.
I swear, this is driving me up a wall, I just cannot figure it out. A name akin to Trilobites
@Abrahams Son
I've been reading your comments. You know, when you say non-believers well i'm one of them. You don't know how I'm thinking you can't possibly know. Even if I tried to explain to you what I think of when I see the nature and every human. You wouldn't understand me or feel the way I feel. To categorize the believers and the non-believers is just not smart.
Everyone has different views for you to try to summit all up with "For non-believers the entire purpose of human evolution is to find a way to survive on this rock hurdling through the infinite cosmos"
That's a no go. I see the future in different way than this. The beauty of everything from a rock to the ends of the universe is stunning. Trying to figure the beauty out is the most ambitions thing humans will ever achieve. I love to read about Black holes. What's in there? What happens once you do survive it? We have so much to learn. It seems like all of human science is just touching a small grain of sand when there is a beach to explore and examine.
When you wrote "If the evolution of the brain is simply driven by the desire to “survive” it can never be completely trusted in the quest for truth"
Well that's correct, the only problem is. We don't always have to see things. Like for example atom, we know through mathematics how it works and scientists did experiments to try to understand it. We can't see but the proof is there with experiments and mathematics. We can't trust our brains as much as we should. Rational thinking and logic make the chances of understanding something a lot higher.
In other words PROOF, solid proof. Experiments that can be done to try to understand. Mathematics to make it logical. Science never stays at one place and sits there, it keeps on moving.
God on the other hand is just belief. The circle of...never mind I've written that like 30 times now.
Good day to you too sir.
OH NOOO! I wrote another comment and it's sitting in (as you say) moderation heaven. Please Vlatko help! I wrote the word Idi**ic about myself and that comment goes to moderation control. Yay!
Charles, my answer is coming up sooner or later. If you would like I can copy it and paste it with the word censored.
No worries. Your comment is there @Prix.
D-K
Are you talking about the Great Barrier Reef? A very important living creature that is vital to the planet and yet we are destroying at an alarming rate?
That living rock?
@Randy
Haha, No sir. I don't think she lied to you. I think most of the Indian people have different answer about what Namaste means. It can be used with Hindu people as Hello and Bye. I'll try reading James Joyces book soon. I'll just get these comments that i need to answer out of the way.
@Epicurus
Thanks for covering. I appreciate that. You've written many things that I can't cover because my response would be too long and you also written many things I forgot about and just learned new things. Thank you!
@ilovemyselfmorethani
You still insist "I believe we’ve evolved, if you will, to believe in a God". That is totally false, we don't exactly know of it. To say that without completely analyzing and the final answer you cannot state that as a fact. If you believe on the other hand (which you wrote). Well then you're just believing without and final and solid proof.
Btw, can you stop about me not getting a direct quote? I've already apologized. Stop repeating. And if you can read, you've actually written more about the mistake than response itself.
@ Charles B.
You know, some of the evolutionists just collect all the bones and fit them together and take a look at how they've evolved in each and every stage. In other words, proof that anyone can touch and analyze. If someone thinks it's just believing and faith...well you can touch the bone, even a blind person would know that it's a bone. If the blind person goes and feels even they can tell it's real and evolution did happen. There is no faith about it, and i only took the bones as a small example. You can go into more complicated things to make sure they are out ancestors. I mean take a look at Neanderthals. We know why they fit in. We aren't the ONLY so-called humans. Science doesn't rely on faith...EVER.
Still you go on to faith, your whole sentences can be shorten down to "I have faith, I believe in this and that". That's not a valid argument or good way to verify your point of view. We all can have faith, faith in ridiculous things. Even if it might sound ridiculous and illogical even for you. As long as someone has faith no one can question it. Even if someone tries to put it into logic the person will never move from their faith. Even if you show the person that it's false they will still retain their faith, specially if they've been brought up with that faith.
Faith doesn't lead anyone anywhere, it'll still go in circles.
Exactly faith and obedience without any evidence. You still insist that the circle of infinity is the way to go when in reality there is no way out of once you fall into it. No questioning, only faith and that's all.
In other words chance. People go to head their twisted ankle, how much do you think they will be cured? We all know that it's a big chance their bodies can cure it by themselves. The cancer and such, I cannot point out because like we've said we don't know EVERYTHING about our body. To straightly point out "It was God" is just that kind of mistake everyone in the history has made. Newton, when he didn't understand the relationship between how planets gravity affect one and another he wrote "only the divine knows about this". In the whole book there was no word of god and when he hits this wall he says "It's divine power that i don't know of". Einstein came along and stepped up newtons theory even higher. Where Newton wrote "It's divine power", in other words where newton gave up that's where Einstein picked up. So just because science might get stuck we cannot simply say "We don't understand and never will, it's God" That will never get us any further.
This faith, look up Derren Brown voodoo doll on Youtube. Faith can do a lot of weird things, just believing in something can make the brain respond in different way. Having faith doesn't mean it's the truth. Like I told you before, our senses are weak, our mind is weak. It can be fooled into believing things. I'll give you another example. Look at that Derren brown video about voodoo doll. This woman believes that the voodoo doll is real, she believes already in that kind of stuff. What Derren brown does is, he takes advantage of that. She believes in it so much that she follows his instructions all the way through. Even she says she bases her beliefs in FACTS. Everyone in the whole world can fool themselves, it's just not only her. Even I can be fooled but as long as I have rational thinking and don't jump on "It's divine power" answer straight away, then it is possible for me to list out.
Btw, I know how Derren Brown did that. No, I don't BELIEVE how he did that. I know for fact, exactly how he did it.
Most of your post is only "I believe because God says so and I need to believe! Otherwise God wouldn't talk to me" Still, it's all about belief and no evidence sir. The Bible will put you in that circle without you questioning it at all. It's like Bible made a cage for you and you can't look outside of that cage.
Exactly, you made my point about Satan. There is no going out of this cage\circle of irrational thinking. It's just another way of putting you in a box and locking you inside. So you're afraid to go outside and think. If someone wanted to take over the world, first thing they would do is to make sure no one questions them. NO QUESTIONING AT ALL.
The trauma you're talking about, you still don't see what I was pointing at. I've gotten over my trauma without God and listening to voices in my head. If I had done that, I would've ended in a very bad path. I don't want to talk about that path at all. You're still insisting that I fall into the circle where you are at this moment. No Charles, that's not the way to go sir. At the moment, I don't see any chances of there being a God. I would love to believe so! But no, no proof unless you take faith as proof. And faith can be demonstrated to be misleading.
Now i've lost even more respect for you. Hindu and such "demonic" nature. Christianity is basically like any other religion. To say we are better than them is proving me right all this time. Most religious people do consider themselves as higher than everyone else. Closer to something that "no one" can get because they believe in the "right" thing. That's exactly what's in mind of most of the religious people. I was once like that, but that just made me feel bad inside. Now I see every human as human. I'm part of humanity and they are part of me.
Even animals know to be kind to each other. Nothing new there.
Humans have always wanted special place for themselves...you're just proving me even more right.
Because I thought you were at least over the kids phase of religious thinking. "My religion is the right one and everyone else is just believing in demons". I actually regret starting this discussion with you because you're basically simple minded as any other religious person. It's really hard for me to say such harsh thing.
Bible...written by humans and people believing it comes from God. Humans writing rules how to think without questioning is the best mistake human kind has ever made. Hinduism written by humans and people having faith that it's the truth. Judaism, Islam, Mormon, Sikhism, Jehovahs witnesses, Scientology...written by humans. Each person considering themselves higher than other and then resolving to conflict and people getting murdered because they didn't believe in the right God. It's just sad to realize this, what humans have done to themselves. If you go to a Scientology they will tell you they know for certain that they are the truth and fall into circle of ignorance.
Charles B, I wasn't trying to convert you into anything. I was just questioning your belief. But now I actually see you're basically a human trapped in a cage and you don't let anyone touch you. Believing they might be from the bad side. Haha, look at this. I came with kind hearted thoughts and Bible can basically rip that apart by saying. "Oh the Satan works in mysterious ways. Even if it's a nice person, he is controlled by Satan to divert you". Simple word...Paranoia. Infinite circle of paranoia and false faith.
Christians are held by higher standard. Charles that's just ridiculous that's what most of the other religious people think about their own religion. You're making no other point than "Christianity is the best! I know it because I have faith". It's childish and harmful. Harmful to yourself and towards others.
I look at others humans as good and as bad as me. Humans as humans. Simple as that.
One last thing. You wrote "I’m one of the deepest thinkers I know at the moment."
That should tell something about yourself. Think the opposite of it sir. That's actually you in reality. Science doesn't stop on the answer "god did it" but you do. Is that really how deep thinkers do? Don't tell me you don't because that's another thing to waste our time on. Like I wrote before, people are really good at fooling themselves. I have scientific proof to demonstrate that. When you consider yourself deep thinker that's just fooling yourself into it Charles. I'm not writing this out of anger or jealousy. No one can see their true self. I question myself all the time, even if I think I did the right thing. I never sit down on any of the decisions about myself.
Let's just end it here. You're never going to question yourself so for me to question you is a waste of your and my time.
Thank you for your time and good luck with your life. Hopefully you'll realize one day what you've been trapped in. But i'm pretty sure that's never going to happen. And you'll probably tell me to fall into circle of never ending Faith. Sorry Charles, I can't do that again. I've already tried and didn't realize it was never ending and had no real proof to support and it also made me have an idiotic logic toward science and rational thinking.
@Laurie Robillard
I'm sorry you think that way. Mormons...I'm not even going to touch that. It's the same religious like every other religion. But you will obviously think your faith is the true one, just like Charles.
Oh, but I do loves me some sauteed mushrooms in butter, with garlic and onions...
@D-K
I don't think I am familiar with these "living rocks" of which you speak...
But sea sponges... I have an entire shelf of very solid work on these creatures... one of the first "Super-Colonial" organisms to arrive on this planet and from which we are very closely related.
Interestingly, or maybe not to anyone else but me, did you know that mushrooms and fungi are more closely related to animal protien than to plants?
More specifically, that they are very closely related to US, (we primates, orangs, chimps, gorillas, etc...).
It's true.
... good onE... :-)
That was a really good on Randy :-)
@Randy::
That was hilarious HA,Ha, you made me laugh out loud. (LMAO)
... grow by dying, and live by growing.
It's a doozy alright.. I don't know why sponges would lead me to ...., but there you go.
I forget what ... is, those big living rocks along the coast of Australia, supposedly some sort of evolutionary marker. Damnit, this is going to drive me nuts.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? I think Carl Sagan spoke of them in Cosmos..
Abrahams Son, who wrote:
"It would of course require the mind of God to fully understand everything God is thinking..."
That is such a lame and tired and raggedy-a@@ argument, it really wasn't even worth you pausing in the kissing of your boyfriend to type it!
But here is an old and tired answer that you delicious children have never been able to counter:
Why would I care about the mind of this alien monster? IF it does not choose to reveal it to me, then I can go about my business... why should I care about some cowardly creature that hides in the sky and wants to be my king?
I didn't vote for him... he can eat me...
that would be a good excuse if you had already shown god to be true. the more reasonable explanation is that there is no god. that would be the default position until shown the evidence.
It would of course require the mind of God to fully understand everything God is thinking.
King James Version, Second Kings 2:23-24
23: And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up that way, there came forth little children of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; Go up, thou bald head.
24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tare forty and two children of them.
what does this mean? what is the "parable" here in the story where God sends or allows the she bears to rip apart the children?
oh also read Numbers 25:4-13 and tell me what god what thinking there.
@Charles. first off i have laid out all the evidence for evolution. the only reason you refuse to believe it is because you already have a belief system that doesnt allow it. if you were honest though you would go with the evidence.
i am sick and tired of you proselytizing. the definition means to convert to your religion. i dont have a religion therefore im am not proselytizing. you however are. i am showing you evidence you are depending on faith.
you say you dont know how god will respond to others who dont know of him however you dont KNOW that. its just more faith. you are arguing faith using faith. its just silly. its childish. if you cant see how illogical this is i feel extremely sorry for you.
i dont believe there is a position that is "pure of heart" however if you mean being true to yourself i dont see why you would get an experience from god and we wouldnt. but then again you just have faith that is all.
the fossil absolutely shows gradual change from simple to complex and not JUST the fossil record but also the genome record and the retrovirus record. as well as the geologic strata. it all matches exactly how evolution would predict.
you say no, i say yes....yes has more letters...i win. no but seriously you can close your ears and go lalalalala all you want but it wont change the evidence and reality.
sponges themselves are the predecessors. but organisms like them that were pressured through natural selection have changed and we see this in the fossil and genome record.
why do you think scientists would drive out people that show them they are wrong?! science is about being wrong and finding the right solution. the peer review is in place for ANYONE to go over the work and show how or why it is wrong.
are you saying there is a collective conspiracy of independant scientists all over the world (who have no way of organizing) to fake results that show evolution takes place?
why would they do that? why wouldnt they be more concerned with the truth? Evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications.
James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.
you do not have a clear enough understanding of science OR evolution so if you REALLY REALLY wanted to be honest you would just admit that with the information you have and understand that YOU DONT KNOW. you should not be taking a position either way with your ignorance.
finding tool marks on bones that 2.6 million years old doesnt necessarily mean the bones arent that age....when you use at least 10 different dating methods and they all line up, then that number is correct. if you find something like tool marks on bones when you think humans didnt have tools the FIRST thing you do is question if maybe humans had tools (even simple stones to cut) earlier than we suspected....that doesnt disprove evolution. lol i actually got a good laugh about that though. so did my girlfriend. that is some funny reasoning you got there.
ICR is not a science based website it is a church based scam that you are falling for.
out of 100,000+ scientists only 300+ disagree with evolution...think about that.
Oh and Joe, of course there were comparative anatomy classes in which I discected cats, dogs, frogs, etc... and saw that we were all the same on the inside...
@Joe
Well, that is a rich and complex question...
But, I would guess I might say it was in medical school when I was performing autopsies on human bodies.
When you hold the human organs, the brain and the liver, the heart, in your hands--- the mystery of life tends to fade away from you.
Plus, the bowel ducts are some foulness that you never want to smell and think we are "holy"...
Plus, it was all the reading and the knowledge, and stuff...
@Randy
If you don't mind I would like to ask you a personal question.
How did you come to understand that we are just flesh and bones?
Ah, ok. Hum. Welcome, comrad fellow believer! I think.
Non-believers, my point is simply you by your own definition of your existence, can never know more than what you can see with your eyes or process in a human brain. This does not allow you to prove or disprove anyone elses belief system. No matter how illogical or ridiculous faith may seem to anyone it's validity can never be proven or disproven by the logical arguments as these arguments are always the product of what our brains which have evolved to allow us to comprehend. If the evolution of the brain is simply driven by the desire to "survive" it can never be completely trusted in the quest for truth. For non-believers the entire purpose of human evolution is to find a way to survive on this rock hurdling through the infinite cosmos. ENJOY!!!
@Prix
Apparently, you have a comment in moderation, but it showed up in my mailbox. I enjoyed it though,, so I would like to answer you... if Vlatko doesn't mind.
The Dumbell excersise is very taxing, and, yes, my wife exhausts me with her needs. Whatever, woman, I got stuff TO DO! Is what I say to her.. (and then, she beats me...)
That was a joke...! (she would beat me if she read that...)
And yes, sir, I was a born-again a**hole for awhile in high-school. It is a great shame to me...
Much more of a shame than when I was a Wiccan Priest, or a Satanic priest, or a Freemason, or any of the other many cults I looked through for some Truth...
Only science, maths, and engineering liberated me-- Illuminated me.
Like you, I read everything, which is why I know religion, science, mythology, biology, etc... I just wish I had learned more world languages!
I love language... you have a vast advantage on me there...
Dr. Randy: Ain't gonna listen! Ain't gonna listen! Watching docs only tonight!
Charles, sweetheart...
That was a very thoughtful, well written, and cogent defense against Epicurus.
I must say, very good!
However, you wrote:
"I don’t know for sure, but I leave that in God’s hands, whom I trust intrinsically..."
WHO is this guy? Where is he? Why would you trust all of your poker chips to some amorphous creature you read about in a book, or saw on the Sistine [sic] Chapel?
It would be irresponsible of you to trust your children's lives on this painting by Michealangelo, or some horror novel you read, or something your mama told you was true.
In Louisianna they have a saying, "Who do you know who your father is? Because your mama told you so!"
But, who's your mama? Why the hell can you trust her?
I'm just sayin'
Also, I am going to answer my friend, Prix, in a minute... but I have some other stuff to do...
Dr. Randy: The fig tree was cursed, I think, for the purpose of the parable on faith. We have a fig tree in our school. It produces fruit before it puts out leaves. If it has leaves, then it should have some fruit, no matter the season. I've been told this tree was "barren" and there it was not fulfilling it's purpose for being. The way I understand it, it's not a condemnation of say, unbelievers such as yourself, but rather a warning for people like me who are called "Christian" that we should also be fruit-barring, and not just professing Christians.
But, to counter act this seemingly heartless act against the tree, Jesus also gave the parable of the land owner that wanted to chop is barren fig tree down, but the grounds keeper said, "Wait! Let me tend it and fertilize it, and if it doesn't produce again in due season, then we can chop it down." Mercy is given when mercy is needed for god is merciful and patient, but judgment is given when judgment is undeniably deserved as God is also just. I believe.
Good night. Logging off now! Seriously. I think. :-) I want to actually watch a documentary sometimes rather than just comment on this one! LOL
Epicurus: The heart of the matter is that I still have just enough doubt in Evolution as you've laid it out, and just enough faith that God is real, that I can both intellectually and spiritually maintain my philosophical position. Besides, what have I to gain from changing my mind? Dr. Randy thinks we are just bones and meat walking around without a soul. Now that's a lovely thought. I'd be giving up all that is dear to me to be "walking meat".
You also mentioned that you were sick and tired of me "proselytizing" and wouldn't hold back your insults in the future. We're both trying to convince the others on this topic. Aren't you trying to persuade me? That's a double standard as you're "proselytizing" for atheism as much as I am for my beliefs.
As far as people whom have never heard of the Gospel or who lived before modern day Christianity, I don't know for sure, but I leave that in God's hands, whom I trust intrinsically. However, for those of us who have heard, we will be judged according to how respond to the truth we've been shown now.
s far as the "pure in heart" issue is concerned, let me ask you this, "Do you consider yourself 'pure in heart'?" Yes or no? I generally think people know when they are "pure in heart" and when they aren't, but if for some reason they are totally clueless, then what is the standard God has set for purity? If you meet that standard, then you fit the bill; if you don't, you don't.
The fossil record doesn't show gradual changes. Fossils come in batches fully formed and in mass numbers. Then they disappear just as suddenly
"Evolution" is a term that holds connotations of changing from one distinct form to another separate form of a different kind. Adaptation is possible, and changes within the possibilities of a species, but kinds stay within kinds.
I agree. Sponges are "simple" as you describe them, but they aren't predecessors of higher forms of life. Evolutionists use that term almost interchangeably with life they expect to be predecessors to life we have now.
I'm unfamiliar with the "peer review" process in science related material, inside or outside of the institute in question, but the articles seem to be based on the work of scientists that AREN'T involved with the Creation Institute. However, my gut feeling is that Evolutionists are so biased and one-sided in their understanding of things that they would drum out of their profession anyone that disagreed with them and ignore important information and discoveries that they didn't like, such as the tool marks on bones found on "Lucy Era" bones. They'd never publish what they didn't want the world to hear contrary to their own model now, and that's the truth. In fact, your dissing them right now! The likes of you wouldn't even publish God should he wright an article on how he form a thing. Had it not been for this web sight, I'd have very little to ponder other than your one-sided conclusions. It was just by chance so much of what you mentioned in your post was also mentioned on the first page of their website.
Anyway, I've got to go. It was a good discussion. I just wish I had the vast amounts of time to research it all and to get the degrees needed to back up my opinions more solidly. But, I've read stories about existing researchers that made conclusions contrary to the evolutionary model, and then were drummed out of their own profession mercilessly. You guys are not "tolerant" people of dissenters even in the slightest, with or without proof.
It sounds like you got the website I used already, but it's icr. org I do believe.
It would be interesting to hear a response to the "soft tissue" issue, however.
Dr Randy: I like your heart, if not your conclusions!
Peace to you! :-)
@Prix
Yes, I have seen the movie "The Man From Earth"...
I was transfixed by it. The writing was very, very transcendant.
There has been a great deal of speculation about how Bhuddists' traditions, (very Far Eastern) might have metriculated into the Middle East with the myth of jesus...
However, this jesus character was a lot more insane. According to the horror novel the dude cursed a fig tree because it had no fruit for him to eat! What kind of bi-polar wierdo is that???? A tree? Really?
Leave the trees alone, you crazy man!
Also, as it is all just a silly myth... what-have-you... and people are inserting ideas into fact not in evidence, there is no reason to concern yourself with it. I'm a PhD in world history, I know these things...
(Also, as I have said many times in other posts, even the Bhuddist religion is very cruel, and so is the Hindu... I'm sorry, Prix... I'm just sayin'...)
I'M sorry, allow me to revise THAT statement...
Organized Crime provides a very real service whereas, cults provide pipe-dreams and afterlives that are wispy and insubstantial...
So...
But, don't get me wrong! I am a law abiding American citizen! I serve jury duty when asked, vote in every election, pay my taxes like a religion... I love my country...
I'm just sayin'
"When I was a kid they said you can either be a cop or a criminal... but when you're facing a loaded gun...? What's the diffrence..."
I just re-read Laurie's post... she with the magic Zero Point energy wand and stuff...
Holy Batman! I didn't realize she was a mormon. That is some delusional christianity, right there.
I have a book of mormon around here, some place, and I have read it... and I have read the biographies of Joseph Smith...
Wow. But, as science fiction as that religion is, they do take care of each other, and they are very rich and powerful...
I mean, you can go anywhere in the world, basically, and say, "Where is the Mormon Welcome Center" and you can get a job, a place to live, etc... all you have to do is serve the church.
Whatever...
Again, though, people, "taking care" of you... that makes me queasy...
But, what are you gonna do, they own Utah and most of the midwest of America... they have HUGE banks and can buy and sell politicians at will.
Much like the mob, with which I am familiar... Organized Crime and Cults, very much the same.
Charles, dont you question why the institute of creation research or answers in genesis people have to make their own "peer reviewed" journal or dont allow outsiders to examine it?
do you know the importance of peer review in science?
Charles,
Listen, there is really NOT two sides of every story. There is just what we see in front of our eyes. What we measure and test. These men that you listen to are biased and just as frightened as you...
Evidence judged by unbiased, detached humans is the real measure of reality. In fact, the only measure of reality that we have.
Epi-genomic research clearly shows that all life on this planet shares a common ancestor and no god is needed to explain it.
The only reason you hide your eyes from this idea is that you are frightened by it.
Be a man, Charles. You can walk away from this vaporous idea. I promise it will not hurt you to do that.
@Epicurus
Obviously, as a smart guy, you do not understand that the Devil has totally twisted your mind...
As it says in Poopoplus 20: 13:
"For the wisdom of the wise will be pooped upon by the lord of hosts and the king of kings..."
You see? I mean, totally get over yourself, because you are being lead astray by evil spirits...
I'm getting my chicken bones out to pray for your Canadian ass...
I'm just sayin'
Epicurus and Dr. Randy: It's insulting to say that I'm unthinking. In fact, I'm one of the deepest thinkers I know at the moment.
Just for your information, Epic's long post was very good, but there's always two sides to every story. Just out of curiosity, and because I have free time between classes where I litterally have nothing else to do, I looked up the Institute of Creation Research site, and found the very first articles all had to do with a lot of what Epic was spouting: There was an article about the marsupials and retroposons DNA, took marking on bones from "Lucy's Era" and even about soft tissue structures found in "80 million year old fossils." There was even an article about the transformation of the sticklebacks to cold water as being a result of pre-programmed adaptability. Like I said before, God programmed things to survive and the variants that are most adaptable to the current environment quickly kick in that programming in their DNA that is needed. One of my kids is chubby, the other stick thin. Whatever environment comes in the future, one or the other will have an advantage. It's not evolution, it's pre-programmed contingency from God.
Lastly, I was interested to find an article (this was all on page one by the way) of the complexity of sponges that have 80% of the human equivelent genes. The best I understood it, they were concluding that the concept of a "simple sponge" is a misnomer, and they never were "simple" but are as they are now, incredibly complex and they share commonality of genes not because of ancestory, but because of the same Creator.
I was very happy to find poeple with more letters behind their name than I have, and that have put in the time to study it in depth to have similar ideas to myself. Imagine that! It was quite coincidental that nearly every thing that Epicurus had mentioned did in fact have two sides the argument.
Ok. Got to run.
Charles B.
@Charles B.
i cant believe you came back at me after what i put up there, with....Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort style excuses....
"Similarity between spiecies may not mean commonality of decent, but a common creator as well."
there was MUCH MUCH more there than just similarity of species...MUCH more...and by grasping at a straw saying that is could be sign of the same creator is just sad.
if you read the list in went in order where each progressive point proved upon the one before it....it answered what you just claimed there.
you also said
"I read the Talk Origin list of the “new spiecies” and it’s very miniscule at best and all within a kind."
or as creationists OFTEN word this:
"Species may undergo minor changes, but the range of variation is limited to variation within kinds."
Response:
1. What is a "kind"? Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in historical time.
2. Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).
3. Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past.
as for your question: "What I would give you is the layer mystery for me. I would like to discover why fossils come in layers that are not better mixed."
what do you mean? the strata is lain down with fossils just the way evolution would predict. what do you mean better mixed? why do you think they would be mixed?
@Charles
Listen, god did it, or the Devil did it, is just too easy...
Do you not like to think? Is that hard or painful for you?
I mean, I am really trying to understand, here... what is it about thinking that you and your ilk do not enjoy?
I would rather be a depressed genius than a happy i***t...
Do you like someone else taking care of you? I do not get that, either...
I like taking care of others, but if they try to take care of me, I reject them utterly...
I would much rather be dead than helpless... don't you see that?
Or... what, then... give me some help that is NOT in the bible horror-novel. I read that already... talk to me about real things...
Epicurus: That was very well written. If you are right and I am wrong, or I am right and you are wrong, both of us will find out soon enough.
Similarity between spiecies may not mean commonality of decent, but a common creator as well. You have said the new spiecies are being formed. I read the Talk Origin list of the "new spiecies" and it's very miniscule at best and all within a kind. To explain the vastness of spiecies would require more change than what has ever been observed, even in the very limited time we have been trying to. God has creted DNA, etc. to do as it does, and there is flexability built into the structure for the survival of animal/plant created. It's not surprising if divergence to some degree happens, but what is surprising is the uniformity of all creatures great and samll for untold generations.
What I would give you is the layer mystery for me. I would like to discover why fossils come in layers that are not better mixed.
Sincerely Yours,
Charles B.
OH Batman, YES, I'm sorry Vlatko, another author/book I wrote about with a name that gets into moderation...
Let me ammend...
Here is another piece of Melville from the top of my head, and I should get my copy of “Moby D*ck” to check this, but I will just shoot it out here, you guys will forgive me…
“From hell’s heart I spit at thee, from the depths of hell I stab at thee…”
Etc…
Here is another piece of Melville from the top of my head, and I should get my copy of "Moby Dick" to check this, but I will just shoot it out here, you guys will forgive em...
"From hell's heart I spit at thee, from the depths of hell I stab at thee..."
Etc...
@ Prix
"Now lay out what proof you have. Btw VS Ramachandran quotes the thing Times wrote as false. Publisher taking a quote and blowing it out of proportion."
-- I admire Mr. Ramachandran. I believe we've evolved, if you will, to believe in a God. Most of the people who've ever lived do exactly that. See, I never argued that this is proof that God exists. And you try all your best to make it seem like I did. That's why I said you seem unable to follow multiple trains of thought. Many evolutionary Psychologists will argue that there was selection pressure for belief in Deities, and I'm fine with that. I'll remind you that I'm a theistic evolutionist.
"I’m sorry for not directly quoting you by your own words."
-- You should be. You've completely, COMPLETELY, altered what I said when you did
"Also, don’t start picking on this small thing about “but you wrote something I didn’t write!”. I’ve said sorry and let’s move on."
-- You've said sorry. And, O.K, I can accept your apology. But here you go again, being much to generous to yourself. You apologize, and yet assert that it's a "small thing" as if I'm groundlessly pulling your leg about this. It's not a small thing, as I've said above. If you apologize, then be sincere about it. You're apology is slightly irritating because you simultaneously try to justify what you did and make pre-emptive judgements on how you think I will respond. It's like you can't help but go off on weird tangents whenever you try to follow a train of thought.
@Laurie
Yes, of course, you are right...
However--- I will repenteth when your god repenteth.
Otherwise I will fight the creature with every last fiber of my being.
It is far better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven...
The Chruch says kneel, stand, kneel... if you pay attention to that then I don't know what to do for you...
Non-Servium...
@Prix
Really? "Namaste" just means "bye", in Hindi?
I had a beautiful Indian woman tell me it meant "I see the god in you..."
I respect your word, of course, as you live it, and I am a struggling i****t with world languages...
Do you think she was lying to me?
@My Gaelic brother!
How are you? It is good to see you again!
@Vlatko:
Can you get me out of moderation. I want my email removed.
Meaningless chatter, gossip, and sarcastic humor replace genuinely rich interpersonal communication in this house.
It seems religion is a weapon to judge and condemn others in order to feel superior and exclusive.
People are threatened and defensive and there is no learning, no growth, no progression, no development.
This house is a thief of time. My last words.
"Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing--unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance." (Alma 26:22) Book of Mormon
@Epicurus
Thanks for replying first to that. Saved me a lot of typing.
Bravo.
Continued:
called by the name "Christian" are held to a higher standard whether we want to be or not.
Also, I meant "hard-hearted" not "heart-hearted" in the story of the soils. Sorry. I'm rushing.
Prix: There seems to be a ring of truth to your posts, especially for those that hold your view already. In fact, we all have a form of "faith." You believe there is no God, ergo, I suppose you believe in evolution, etc. Those things take a great deal of "faith" as well, and much more than I have!
Nonetheless, my previous thought is a valid one; if God exists, and I believe He does, then what does He value most in the universe? Material objects would hold enjoyment in their beauty, just as it does for us, as we are made in His image and have a concept of awe and beauty when we see it, therefore I'm sure He does too. That's true I'm sure.
But, to the heart of the matter, what pleases God most is trust, obedience, and love. Trust is another word for "faith" here. It's the first of process.
I'll be exceptionally open with you, so that you might know my heart as well as my mind. Your arguments exclude God and you work your words around your active "disbelief."
I was praying on the work today, "Lord, I wish you would make yourself more plainly known." (visible/easily verifiable), but before I even finished the words, I received an answer, "But it IS about Faith!" I remembered the fact that very real manifestations of God didn't bring faith and trust to the evil-hearted (like I said before) and those healed by Jesus was often attributed to their "faith."
Then the verse came to mind: "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." I had never thought of that verse in the present tense before, but always in the future tense. I realized that the pure in heart will know and see God even before they see God Face to face, because of their ability to have "faith."
Visible sight of God does not bring repentance, as will be seen in the future (should you live to see that day), nor does the way God chooses to speak to us and show Himself to us now exclude those that have a pure heart from finding Him.
The Bible often tells us not to "harden our hearts" or "burn our conscience' so that we can no longer tell right from wrong for a reason. When I'm apart from God's will (prolonged involvement in sin that I know is sin), I can hardly hear God's voice except to say "Turn around. Don't do that!" But when my heart is calm, pure, and focused, and at God's discretion only, I do hear His voice.
When you were a child, you might think your mom was calling you sometimes, and then realize she wasn't, but when you do hear her calling you, there's no doubt it's your mother's voice you hear. You just know.
Jesus said the souls of men had 4 kinds of people (soils): the heart-hearted where Satan can easily steal the truth away, the shallow-hearted where they have no depth of character, the crowded-hearted that has no room for God even as they know in the back of their mind that He is real, and then, lastly, the pure and receptive-hearted that accept and believe and nurture what has been given them and return it with service and love and devotion.
To what extent each man has dominion over what type of heart he has, I don't know for sure. I just know for sure that my heart has belonged to Jesus since the age of 7 when I choose to follow Him, knowing full well what I was doing. I've had my struggles to overcome, but God's voice has always called me back, and I've always been wise enough to listen to it's gentle soft whisper.
But, someday our faith will be sight and this argument will be moot. At that point it will shift to allegiance or not, but not based on whether God is real or not, but on a matter of the soil of a person's heart. Choose to be "pure hearted" Prix. We've all had trauma and injustice in some way. You said you were willing to call out to any God that would help. Don't turn your back on the only one that can, even if you don't think He has done so in the way you wanted him to.
Dr. Randy: You are quite right. Any encounter or answer to prayer by Hindus or the such are of a demonic nature, most likely. Yet, God answers prayer. I've prayed for non-believers before for God to spare their life and for healing, etc. Who are we to say that God is not answering a believers prayer even for the unsaved. And at last, can He not do a sovereign work and meet a person's need before they come to faith while they are still in darkness and ignorance? Perhaps. I've prayed for you on numerous occasions; for your health and for your heart and soul. Isn't there even a "spark" of the desire to return to what you have given up from your younger days? Just curious.
Peace to you.
Charles B.
P.S. Prix if you've lost respect for me for my response to James Smith, then why? Even Jesus chose His responses and didn't mince words with those He knew to be spouting the most unfounded accusations against Him. I just didn't feel like masking my real opinion of the man (assumed). I'll consider that, however, as is usually the case, those that are
@eireannach666
Ah! I found the book! I'll see about this tomorrow, I need to go to sleep now.
To you and Randy, Good night to you and I'll check back tomorrow. Maybe I'll get some responses from Charles B and ilikemyselfmorethani.
Good night and take care!
@ Randy and Prix
It was Stephen Hero in which Joyce spoke of this the best I say.
Sorry about that, I checked on IMDB and this is what it reads about "The man from earth"
IMDB- "An impromptu goodbye party for Professor John Oldman becomes a mysterious interrogation after the retiring scholar reveals to his colleagues he is an immortal who has walked the earth for 14,000 years"
@Randy
Ah now I see where people get the "It is far better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven" from.
I'll search the smaller stuff so I get to understand at least a little bit about him.
I usually don't read books, I watch documentaries and read articles. My attention span isn't all that long. But while I'm watching something, I usually ask myself questions and the film itself questions. It's a habit that has grown. I need to read books if I want to learn how to write properly and increase overall intellectuality.
Have you seen the movie "The Man From Earth"?
Written by Jerome Bixby and it's about a man that "confesses" to his friends that he is a 30 000 year old man. His friends have majors in all kinds of fields, history, physics and religion. So they start asking him questions about what happened in the past and whom he met.
The whole film is in a room, no flashbacks or nothing. The whole conversation is so intense and incredibly interesting!
Have a nice day sir.
As I try and fix computers, I have one of my favorite movies on the movie screen... "The Departed"...
Irish mob, very cool...
Here is some James Joyce, "Non Servium..."
Or, the Scottish version, "It is far better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven..."
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product, of ME!"
Also, "...no one is going to give it to you, you have to take it..."
Etc... just a snack of thought for the room...
@Prix
No need for patdon, on my account. I certainly make about a hundred spelling and grammatical errors a day on this site...
WEll, I don't know if you will find any James Joyce online... I am old and only trust books...
I mean this site, is great but... really, for me, if it ain't in a book, I don't trust it much...
You may be able to find "The Power of Myth" either on this site, or on YouTube... and Joseph Cambell speaks about James Joyce a bit...
@Randy
Thanks! I'll check it out right away. Haha, btw Namaste is bye in Hindu saying bye to another Hindu. India has so many languages. Most of the Muslims say Al Vida and Christians...I can't remember. But yes, I don't remember a common word used for good bye. Just letting you know sir. hehe, I do feel nice when you wrote Namaste don't take me wrong.
I'll write back when I've found "The Epiphanies" online. I see there are couple of links but I'll see if I can find the whole book.
Have a good day sir!
Oh, I see I made a few mistakes while writing in an earlier post. Pardon me for that.
@Prix
Yes, James Joyce spoke of that too with his work on "The Epiphanies"
An Irish fella...
@Joe_nyc
hahaha, yes I know. As long as it bring a laugh for you then I don't mind. You should check out more of his stuff. Check out Neil DeGrasse Tyson speech as well. Go to Video Google and search for VS Ramachandran and set the filter on more than 20 minutes.
His speeches are easy to understand and at the same time it explain the complicated details. As far as we know, press only wrote "it is the religious sensor! So everyone is born in believing in higher power". That's not true, we can't explain it completely because completely yet but it's just not religious. If we were in ancient Greece and did this experiment they would respond the same way to images of Zeus. Meaning it's not true, religious people do something else that needs an explanation.
There is a lecture with VS Ramachandran about art. Search for it in Video google. "VS Ramachandran art" He gives results on theory they had about Art and human mind.
He explains what Art does to the brain and how the brain processes that information.
Thank you for the feedback.
@prix (u kno dat sounds like p r i c k s)
Just checked out V S Ramachandran on youtube.
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
thanks
@Prix
Yes I will check those out as soon as I can! Thank you.
I did see "The God of the Gaps" but I could refresh my memory if it, certainly.
Namaste!
@ilovemyselfmorethani08
You wrote:
@Prix
If you’re going to quote someone, please quote him accurately.
“[people] usually will be born thinking a creator exists” is what I said. Which is Ginormously different from saying “We are born to believe in God” –which you said I said.
You cannot refute what I said, if you quoted it accurately, because it is true.
This seems to be the problem with you. You seem to only remember the last argument your opponent makes, while somewhat disregarding of the previous ones. No offense, really. But it seems you’re unable to follow multiple trains of thought."
It's not true, here I'll write to you. Go to Youtube type in "VS ramachandran beyond belief 2006". There is part 1 and 2.
Now lay out what proof you have. Btw VS Ramachandran quotes the thing Times wrote as false. Publisher taking a quote and blowing it out of proportion.
I'm sorry for not directly quoting you by your own words. But why do you even try to correct it when the whole argument is false? Also, don't start picking on this small thing about "but you wrote something I didn't write!". I've said sorry and let's move on.
@Randy
Sir, That VS Ramachandran speech is the one I tried to give to you. If you don't mind please have a look.
Also there is another one, go to youtube and search for "The God of the Gaps Neil DeGrasse Tyson" or just "The God of the Gaps". Really interesting speech.
My other post where I gave the links doesn't show up. It reads "Your comment is awaiting moderation".
Have a good day
I don't know if they can think, but they sure are tasty!
MMmmmMMM... human infant sammiches.... *drools like Homer Simpson*
Was that inappropriate, I can't tell anymore...
@D-K
But infants do "think". You seem to have implied that they don't.
Yes, D-K, indeed.
Here is an interesting thing to think about: when was your first consious (sorry about the spelling there) memory?
Studies show that for most people it is anywhere from 4 to 7 years old... for me it was 7, just in time to experience some horrible abuse and molestation! Sorry... that was off-topic... let me start again...
This seems to indicate that there certainly is no concsious thought before that age...
I mean, no one remembers the experience of being born, for example... and thank Batman for that! Can you imagine what a horror-trauma that would be?
Infants "think" like pets. They equate certain physical actions to certain responses, and exercise those functions to interact with the world.
At this point, the child is a semi-autonomous learning machine, linking behaviour to effect and setting up neuronreceptors/connections. It has no notion of anything other than what's practical to him/her, certainly no notions of spirituality.
An infant is in no position to reflect on his/her position in the universe. Children cannot even understand spirituality up to an age where they learn to think critically and develop natural skepticism. I personally, will do everything in my power to raise my child intellectually/philosophically objective.
I think it's morally wrong to teach children about intellectual subjects such as religion or m-theory. Their frame of reference is not fully developed so rather than seeing logic in the matter, they see the matter as logical. Indoctrination isn't righteous. Not ever.
You try explaining the "divine spark" or "the self" to a child, much less an infant and see if he understands it contextually as well as conceptually. There is simply no way.
The only way to make religious beliefs even remotely understandable to a child is to use the heaven/hell concept. Good is rewarded and bad is punished, and you hardly need religion to teach right from wrong. A human brain starts in debug mode, and isn't even "done" up until a good few years into puberty
@Randy
O.K, but they do think, I think.
@ilovemyself...
Of course, human infants are born with intsinctual "hardwiring" that comes from the r-complex or brain stem, and to a lesser degree some mid-brain...
But the high-mind, the frontal lobes, those are not fully developed until the age of 19-25 depending on the individual.
That means if you are younger than that, your brain isn't done cooking, yet!
Yes, actually the only thing a baby wants is a breast! For him or her that is the only god that exists...
Hmmm... that's kind of ME, too...
Sorry, wandered off there...
"I also think you need to explain this further: ““[people] usually will be born thinking a creator exists” because people don’t yet “think” when they are born."
-- Hmm.. Are you sure new-born babies don't "think"? Are you suggesting an infants mind is a tabula rasa?
A newborn comes into the world not as a passive receiver, but as a participant, ready and eager to interact with the environment. Babies' intellects are working, and working very well, long before they can talk. They perceive a great deal, and they have decided preferences as well.
ya i also have to disagree with the claim that “[people] usually will be born thinking a creator exists”
what happened to tabula rasa? i dont see any reason to assume a new born is able to hold a thought on a creator.
my family has never been religious and growing up i always thought of the christian stories as i do christmas stories (rudolph or frosty) or the way i saw fairy tales. it wasnt until i got on the internet and found people ACTUALLY believed the bible was true or the stories in it happened or there was a god-man thing named jesus who rose from the dead....it was a huge shock.
lol in all honesty that comment made my day ilovemyself. im at work and you just made it better!
if i can suggest some reading, pick up The Moral Animal: Why we are the way we are by Robert Wright.
Ilovemyself: Going in expecting to find alternate explanations or debunking it on a whim isn't the way to go about it. Again, eliminate the bias.
I also think you need to explain this further: "“[people] usually will be born thinking a creator exists” because people don't yet "think" when they are born.
Ah, a glimmer of hope for ilovemyself...
Indeed, as we have been saying, Nature is very moral, religion is very IMMORAL...
Who taught you it was the other way around? Religious people... see?
Religious people have only been around for a few thousand years... NATURE has been here for 14 BILLION years... Nature wins...
@ Epicurus
I checked out all your links re: animal morality. And, well, I concede your point. For now. I got quite interested in the topic, and so I'll be studying it as much as I can. There must be some salient difference there somewhere.
Very well put, Epicurus, but you must understand that Charles would argue that anyone else who saw Shiva or Kali, or Allah, etc... were being fooled by the Devil!
See how the argument feeds itself? I mean it is a frightening trap for the mind.
Horrible... I was there, man, I am SOOO happy I was able to free myself from it...
@Prix
If you're going to quote someone, please quote him accurately.
"[people] usually will be born thinking a creator exists" is what I said. Which is Ginormously different from saying “We are born to believe in God” --which you said I said.
You cannot refute what I said, if you quoted it accurately, because it is true.
This seems to be the problem with you. You seem to only remember the last argument your opponent makes, while somewhat disregarding of the previous ones. No offense, really. But it seems you're unable to follow multiple trains of thought.
Also, I would submit this, as well, although it is an unpopular idea:
"Spirituality" is not just an individual property, it is a myth.
And to me, anyway, it seems a waste of time to concern yourself with...
There are so many more important things to do...
People need to make peace with the fact that we are all just walking bags of meat and bone... there is nothing wrong with that, in fact I find it much more interesting than any silly myth about a "soul" or a "spirit"...
You do the best you can with what you have and then you lay down and go to sleep forever... simple... easy and clean.
i dont think you are a liar charles but i think you are extremely gullible if you believe all these peoples accounts of angels and miracles without putting them to logical scrutiny.
what do you say charles to anyone that claims they have witnessed Shiva (hindu god) or witnessed Mohammad and Allah? do you believe that people of other religions are seeing the deities they believe in? or are you skeptical? would you say there is some other explanation?
you might claim that what they are seeing is your god and they are interpreting it wrong but im sure they would say the same thing about the people you know who make these types of claims.
you have created a double standard of evidence allowing your bias a free pass when it comes to accepting extraordinary claims.
and both of you have no excuse for behaving the way your religion condemns. you ought to know better. you are reacting in an emotional way because you have no real evidence to support your claims.
Allow me to condense Prix' giant post into something a little easier on the eye. You might also noticed I made this point before;
spirituality is an individualist property. Can't be taught, shared or learned. You cannot debate faith, you can debate logic however. Debating faith is essentially an ad-hominem and isn't constructive in nature.
Other than that, have a ball, kids.
Wow, the room got really ugly while I was away!
Listen, youse guys, this is nothing that a little gunfire won't solve...
On three, everyone rack up your weapons and open fire!
You'll all feel lots better... READY?
One... two...
@Randy I've posted a comment further up and given you some links to some websites and very interesting answers about the whole "We are born to believe in God" that statement is completely false. No such thing, most people don't even know what they are talking about when stating that. Also, another thing that religious people take as proof for their "there is a God". That's what ilikemyselfmorethani did when he recalled an article in Times saying "we are born to believe in god".
Hope you get the link, have a good day sir!
@James Smith
I know what you mean but please don't resort to offending. Charles doesn't mean anything bad towards you. But I can understand how it's offensive towards you, when he tells you to have faith instead of rational thinking and logic.
@Charles B.
When you answered him like that, I kinda lost a little respect for you too. Back to the answer you gave me.
You wrote this to me:
"Jesus Himself used the example I gave about hearing God’s voice. It IS a good one. You don’t believe me because you don’t believe in God. If God is real, when why would it be so difficult for Him to speak to whomever He wants in whatever way He wants. And then why couldn’t these to whom He speaks to, know it when He does?
Are you strictly atheistic and do not believe in angels and demons as well? The Indian Christian man that I met knew there was a God because he served the demonic gods of Hinduism for years and encountered them in various ways. He then found Jesus. Let me know about your story if you don’t mind."
Exactly Charles, that's what I meant by spiral. You will never move from that one point. Have faith, faith is a spiral that is never ending. It's just to fool yourself. There are plenty of articles saying how we humans are really good at fooling ourselves. Most of us are delusional, and to say "have more faith" is just like saying "put more gasoline in the fire it's not bright enough" When there is no fire there at all. No logic at all.
You won't see from my point of view because you need to believe without evidence. Like the Shepard example you gave, I gave you a rational answer back yet you insist without any true motive "You just don't believe enough". Just because Jesus "said" it doesn't mean it has to be true.
The Indian Christian met Hindu Demons? Dude, Humans have the ability to fool themselves SO HARD it's impossible to comprehend! My mother have had stories about super natural and I believed in them when I was a Kid. I can now examine them in logic and explain them. My mother insists I'm wrong, but she can't argue HOW I'm wrong. She just says "you're wrong". I have great deal of respect for my mother.
Also, if this Christian Indian found Jesus. But he actually saw these Hindu demons, why even bother with Christianity? Why not believe in Hinduism?
Praying doesn't do anything. Praying has 0 percent of chance of even happening. Sheer luck is better than a prayer.
You'll never even think on the other side. It's impossible for you, it really is. A person is paralyzed in left arm, that person says "That hand is my fathers hand". Doctor tells him "Alright with your right hand and touch your left shoulder". The man does so, the doctor then tells the patient "With your left arm touch your shoulder". The patient lifts up his arm with the right hand and puts it on his right shoulder. If our minds have made up a decision then it's hard to get the facts right. You are exactly like this, you simply don't think with facts. I can give you a link showing this in several videos. Also you're going in circles again, you just wrote "it IS a good example" Yes Charles that is a very good answer. No it's not you didn't question my answer at all and just wrote "NO! my answer is correct". See what I meant by the whole you just have to believe? You simply don't want to see it from my perspective. You just insist it is a good example. You have no good argument there at all, you just insist without anything backing up your point.
I'm not going to tell you in details what happened that let me to be believe in God and not believe in God. There are just too many thoughts and way too long to write. I've had hell for a life and tried to pray. To any religion, to any God. The thing is, finding the "right" religion is impossible. You can never state what true religion is. It's just what you believe in. It's not a speculation it's a FACT.
Also the testimonials you're talking about. You just see them as proof, you don't speculate at all. Everything can be explained with logic. Now I know that we might not know everything about our brains. We at least know that our brains are easy to food and misdirect. Misleading information is so easy, even the smartest people in the world can be tricked. They can trick their own mind into believing things. Our eyes get tricked by optical illusion. If you showed optical illusion to 1000 year ago humans they would've said "We don't understand, it's demonic" or "It's a God that made this image". When we don't understand our confusion leads us to say "I'll give up and believe in a simple explanation, God!". Our brains are made to understand everything around us. We can't walk away from something that is impossible. We are so intrigued by the impossible.
It's quite easy to understand this, I'm a magician and I've seen Christian people asking me "Is that real magic?".
So, even if you give proof. You'll mix it up with something that your own mind has created. Even the people that witnessed this in first hand aren't reliable.
Take another example, A woman sees a guy killing another guy. She sees him just a few seconds and tries to remember. Her mind will actually lose the image quite quickly but she will insist "I remember perfectly!". And at the police station with a few people lined up she will point to one that committed this crime. In actuality the murderer isn't even there. That's why the justice system doesn't always rely on testimony without any physical evidence.
All our senses are weak and pathetic compared to what the animals have. We only have our brains that give us the advantage above all other animals. Without our minds we are useless.
Even if I tell the people that the things they saw can be explained they would never listen just like you. They have made their mind up and there is no going back. Like i wrote before, to have something you believed in for so long to be crushed is not so easy to get over.
Dude, don't rely on this "faith" too much. You even tell other people to try to fall into this circle of infinity. You don't realize it but that is a dangerous circle. Killing all other possibilities and logic without even looking at them. When you say wrote that to James. I find it kind of rude, people actually take offense to that. For them it's like saying "stop being smart and become dumb, remove your rational thinking and logic. Believe in faeries". And I know you don't mean it in that way. I know that because I can think from both perspectives. Both religiously and scientifically. In this case I can fully understand you and them. That's why James offended you because you offended him as well.
I'm not trying to say you did something wrong or that he did this first. Just try to understand from both point of views.
@ James Smith
"You are even worse. What a disgrace you are to all religions. Not just religion but to the human race. "
-- Hmmm.. That's a bit saying too much isn't it? I'm a disgrace to the human race? Come on now.
"You’re both hateful, intolerant, arrogant and s!@#$%. Then you’re also moth moral and intellectual cowards."
-- The irony burns..
"You evade questions and spout nonsense in reply to honest inquiries. Is it any surprise you are treated with contempt and derision? "
-- And "honest" being the operative word, right? I challenge you to quote me on any insult I've made against someone who did not do it to me first. I've been treated with contempt and derision because of my Christian views. And If you read up, that's a lot of questions for lil ol me to respond to. I am more than willing to respond to anything, as long as it's asked properly and in the spirit of interesting debate. Unfortunately, seems like there are none.
Charles B. You ARE a liar. You think telling lies for the "faith" is a good thing. You are the snake and a disgusting example of humanity. Testimonies from "friends" is not proof except to diseased minds like yours. When rational people (unlike you) speak of proof we mean independently verifiable facts. Not common fables people tell each other to make themselves feel good. Only delusional morons, such as yourself, would believe those.
As always, you evade all questions and are continuing to prove what a horror of a human being you have chosen to be.
Abraham's son. If you could read with something approaching grade school comprehension, you would realize I said I have never known a christian that was not a fool, liar, and hypocrite. You would also recall that I have said that, every time I have been cheated, abused, taken advantage of, or otherwise mistreated, it has always been by a "good christian". SO I have a pretty good handle on what they are like. Certainly not all, but, as a group, they are not to be trusted. The replies on here amply demonstrate that. All the evasions, dissembling, and straightforward lies do not speak well of theists as a group.
Yes, I leave for Canada in a few hours. SO I will be happy to not have to deal with a bunch of arrogant, hypocrites that lie with every word. You will notice folks, that none of these hypocrites have even tried to prove that anything I have posted is not true. As soon as they are sure I am gone, they will be congratulating themselves on their "victory" and posting more absurd "proofs" of their self-righteous stupidity.
But they should be careful, I may be back and call them out again. Moral and intellectual cowards can never resist being shown up again. That's what makes them so amusing.
@Vlatko:
Can you get me out of moderation heaven please! per my last post.
@Charles B:
Wow! Charles, you are getting all vitriolic now aren't you? Good for you!! I say fight fire with fire! no p*ssy footing around there man.
Enough of this goody, goody two shoes, Ha,Ha,
@James is no evil little snake in my books Charles, he is just asking questions per se: all you have to do is answer him, without resorting to hysterics.
The rapture?? Au Contraire! no such thing a-happening, Ever!!! You have to get real on that complete fairytale.
It is actually very scary stuff that you are spouting. No benefit to mankind at all, puts everything right back to the dark ages! If only you put your resources into science as you do your religion, then you probably would be a great benefit to humankind!
You are an American first and foremost, you should not loose sight on that Charles.
One of your founding fathers "Thomas Paine" a Diest, said it succinctly, and I quote..."The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the the "Sun", in which they put a man called "Christ" in the place of the "Sun", and pay him the adoration originally payed to the "Sun"
THOMAS PAINE
1737-1808
My conclusion is as always Charles, you are praying to the "Sun" that is "GODS SON" period!
James, thanks for your persuasive argument for the proof of God which you must be. For only a God could know that ALL Christians are liars, hypocrites and have no ethics or morality. You could have your opinion based those you have actually had contact with but thats as far as you can go with it. Why do Atheist have such a hard time dealing with the fact they will never be able to disprove the existence of some type of God? The very meaning of faith in a God tells you this because it is a statement of belief in something which is not proven by empirical evidence and thus it cannot be disproven by empirical evidence. The only important questions is why believe in something you cannot know to be true. The answer to this nmay be unsatisfactory to you and all Atheist but its all anyone can know that is not a being with supernatural powers which I assume you would agree humans are not Gods. My own opinion is that all humanity are agnostics at times whether we admit it or not.(believers and non-believers) I will not be responding to any comments other than rational argument since name calling and personal anger is a waste of time. Thanks
IlovemyselfmorethanI: Touche! Good quip there. Well said. Ah, I'm not even half as upset as I may sound. Rarely do I call people a vile evil snake, but ya know, if the scales fit! I just don't like being called a liar and accused of evading questions that I answered fully and quite well in fact. I really got him fumin' didn't I? ;-)
Peace to you.
James Smith: I thought you were off to Canada and would bother us no more with your mocking faithless Christian-hating mislogic of yours . . . . . liar! Sorry I called you a "snake," but you ARE "faithless" and that's actually even worse.
Good night to all!
Charles B. Yes, unless you are willing to show proof of your statements, I am going to say you are a liar. I have challenged you and instead of responding like a truthful person you reply with insults and name calling. While I am making simple statements of observed facts, respond with more lies. But I am not at all surprised. Every christian I have ever met in my life has been a liar, a fool, and a hypocrite; often all three at the same time. So, prove your statements or slink away like the cowardly, lying dog you are. No, that's an insult to dogs. They are far more honest than you.
Who do you think you are to tell me to shut up? Oh, I forgot, you're a christian, so freedom of speech and thought is not part of your world view. So I say to you, you're another liar and a fool as well as a hypocrite. I see from your comments that, when faced with a direct challenge to prove your lies, you become very defensive and resort to insults like "shut your faithless mouth" and "You evil little snake". If you want respect, you would either respond in a civil manner with the facts requested or be a real ethical person and admit the stories were "anecdotal" (lies). But nope, like all christians, you have no real ethics and morality is whatever is convenient for you. Disgusting!
Ilovemyself... You are even worse. What a disgrace you are to all religions. Not just religion but to the human race. You're both hateful, intolerant, arrogant and s!@#$%. Then you're also moth moral and intellectual cowards. You evade questions and spout nonsense in reply to honest inquiries. Is it any surprise you are treated with contempt and derision? If you even once, responded with facts and verifiable evidence instead of lies that are insulting in that they show that you expect people to be so stupid they will believe anything you say, no matter how ridiculous.
Lucky for both of you there is no heaven, no hell. Your totally typical, but "unchristian" behavior would put you both on the express train to the "fiery pit".
@ Charles B
"James Smith: You need to shut your faithless mouth!"
"You evil little snake!"
-- Charles B, please don't embarrass a fellow Christian with your rudeness! (Now you know why I had to resort to these kinds of words.)
Mr. Razor: I'm still thinking about ancient Earth time lines. I too think the Earth is very old, but I don't think that humans were created at the time the Earth was. In the Book of Revelation, the whole earth is toast in one form or another. Natural disasters and supernatural calamities decimate the population to just a fraction of the population it is now. I'm personally hoping all the mega-disasters wait until that time (which I believe will be after the Rapture), but if not, then I'm ready to go. Are you?
Laurie: I'll try and find the movie. If I get the "ax" any time soon, let's hope it is for the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, and my sincere convictions, and not just my loud-mouthed opinions over the Internet!
OK, funny true story: I was afraid of Achems Razor when I first logged on here last year, and didn't want to "offend" him just in case he was a radical Muslim that would find out my I.P. address, hop a plane, and take the time to hunt me down and use that "razor" on my Christian loud mouth! It took me a few weeks to learn the name was based on some philosophical argument about trimming down an argument to it's basic elements and therefore the most logical truth. Phew! Now I can insult him without fear . . . should I want to! Honestly. Ha! :-)
Prix: Jesus Himself used the example I gave about hearing God's voice. It IS a good one. You don't believe me because you don't believe in God. If God is real, when why would it be so difficult for Him to speak to whomever He wants in whatever way He wants. And then why couldn't these to whom He speaks to, know it when He does?
Are you strictly atheistic and do not believe in angels and demons as well? The Indian Christian man that I met knew there was a God because he served the demonic gods of Hinduism for years and encountered them in various ways. He then found Jesus. Let me know about your story if you don't mind.
James Smith: You need to shut your faithless mouth! How dare you call me a liar! That was unbelievably rude. I know every one of those people I mentioned, PERSONALLY. None of my stories are second hand, unless I mention I saw it on say like Sid Roth or something. If I didn't have common sense and respect for Vlatko, I'd' post a testimony or two or three from them that I have saved from e-mails, in their own words, nonetheless. My dear mother alone has been doctor verified healed from both glaucoma and life-threatening asthma. My spiritual mother, Fayrene, whom I just spent the summer with too was healed after prayer of cancer. If you are praying to God and the healing comes, then you should give God the glory for it. I need to record the testimony of the man whose mother was raised from the dead, and I regret not having thought of that while I was in the U.S. last.
You said: "You’ve met people that have “talked to angels”? What are their names? When was this? Where is evidence other than your word? Sadly, you seem to be no different than most of the other theists I’ve know. Lies and dissembling are OK when 'witnessing for Christ'”.
You evil little snake! I won't let you get away with that! My adopted grandmother, now in Heaven, was only one of several people I've known that have been helped by/talked to angels. She broke down in a tunnel and prayed "Oh, God! We're going to get hit by another car! I wish we had some flares!" At that very moment, God sent an angel with a box of flares and set them up around the car and when they turned to thank him, he had vanished into thin air. Now, whom am I to believe, my beloved honest grandmother or your wicked little faithless hash? That's just one example. I could cite others.
You may ask why I meet so people that have extraordinary experiences. One reason is I run in those circles. I talk to missionaries, and pastors and evangelist and intercessors! I ask them, "What stories do you have to tell? What has God done in your life that was miraculous?" I'm never surprised when they say, "God healed me of cancer and the doctor was just a cussing and cursing the next day because he couldn't find the tumor!" (Estelle Greene) or "God sent an angel, who called me by name, lead me by the hand, and kept me from being raped when I was a teenage girl that disappeared when I was safe." (Pat Maynard)
Before you call a man a liar, make sure he's a liar, rather than revealing your own faithless, unbelieving wicked heart.
@Pissed: several reasons.
Great qualitym even when streaming, quick buffer speeds, very versatile player and loads on any browser that has flash.
The 72/54 minute problem can be circumvented for those who are familiar with google.
@ Charles B.
I have an idea that you need to watch the movie A Man for All Seasons. I think it is an excellent movie. I saw it in two great personalities who demonstrate this first principle of private victories preceding public victories. Sir Thomas More was the man who opposed King Henry V111 in his desire to divorce his wife and marry Anne Boleyn. For some reason it violated his conscience, and he would not take a particular oath of succession to the king. Because he was a man of such honesty and integrity, his influence, even in silence, assisted in disrupting things in the British Empire..
Eventually he was condemned to die, and right there at the guillotine he looked right at the anxious, hesitating executioner and said, "Do not begrudge your office. You only send me to God."
Then Archbishop of Canterbury spoke up, "Oh are you so sure of that, Sir Thomas?"
Sir Thomas answered , "God would not refuse one so blind."
In other words, his total commitment and faith resided in the unseen God. That was the oath he had made in the various private battles of his life.
The other fascinating character in then movie was Richard Rich. His life became totally buffeted as compared to More who led a life anchored and true and powerful, and very very influential.
@Prix
Well, I have much, much respect for your knowledge of world languages!
I humbly bow to you...
It is something I always aspired to!
@Randy
Haha, no need to apologize to me. You're married so I'm guessing you're older than me. So, no need for apologies sir.
Yes, English is my second language. I was born in India and moved to Sweden. So I know Hindi, Urdu, punjabi, Swedish and English. I can speak and understand a few other languages but not as good as the ones I wrote before. I know I don't use advanced words, it's mostly because I'm not used to writing in English. Also, I like it simple so everyone can read and understand.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
"If you want a real debate, you should lose the adhominems and I’ll be happy to seriously engage you. The problem is, you atheists start with adhominems, then hypocritically cry-afoul once it’s shoved right back at you. “Oh he’s acting like a child!”. Oh please."
I've read your comments before and you were really acting like a child. No one is being bias when writing you acted that way. Because they can obviously read what you have written.
Also the "hypocritically cry-afoul", not everyone does that. Even you acted that way! It's like you're not even examining yourself and labeling others for such things. That's another thing that is quite childish. Sorry if that might seem a little to "bias" to write that, but if you were someone else and looked at your replies you would understand.
@ Charles B.
I'm sorry, I don't consider that as a good answer. You took a psychical example and threw it in a direction that cannot be explained. We can examine why the sheep listen to the Shepard, we can examine even how come the sheep react that way and know where to find their master.
Take that example and put it into God now. It doesn't work, everyone can hear voices if they really want to. Even I hear voices, no one can comprehend Gods motives so to presume "oh that's the answer" just because something happens by chance is just not going to work with logic.
Even animals mix voices, for example horses. Even if you make a noise that is not close to what a predator might make, they react. Their insticts say "listen carefully! It might be something, try analyzing it. How does a lion sound like?" That might not resemble our minds but they think in very simple ways. So if we think "oh what was that? Was that God? Analyze it, ignore the chances and then believe in it. I know it's god because I've been brought up believing in God so there is a God"
I've always found it intriguing when humans take examples they cannot understand(not saying you don't) as an example for higher power. Humans have done that through out ages. I've got loads of them but they can never fit in with God. I mean think about it, even science doesn't always rely on math. They need psychical evidence and experiments to make sure it's correct.
If I don't know the voice of God? Well no one knows the voice of God. What if you're just fooling yourself with it? Quite interesting what people can do with their minds right? Fooling themselves into thinking they have a "Shepard" when they actually don't?
There is no way of truly confirm that the voice you're hearing is God. Logically speaking, it's you who believe in God so much that you hear voices. Come on, if I started to worship Zeus and there is a "good" voice telling me what good deeds to perform, does that mean Zeus exists?
Let me guess, you get answers sometimes that you go "Wow! Is that really how?" Everyone gets surprised when they think they have come up with a good explanation. Like for example Einstein, he must've felt that way when he wrote theory of relativity. It's nothing new, everyone gets surprised whenever they discover something in a different way. There is always a good feeling when you reaffirm your belief. To think all of what you've dedicated your life to is just a lie, no human-being can endure that easily.
Think about it, each and every "voice" you've heard must be a good voice. Even if it might sound harmful one way or another you will feel good because you're just reassuring yourself into believing "Yes, God is there for me".
Everyone likes to be special, kids always love to see themselves as center of the world. Religion is childish in that way. To think "I'm special! I'm the one hearing this!". It's common among us humans to think we are special. Also, no one wants to be evil. To think "I'm doing good for the world" must be a great feeling. Well, what if you're actually doing harm? As far as I've seen religions go, it can do a little good and A LOT OF HARM.
And you have so much strength in your faith that all of what I write will go to no good use. You'll just think "You can't understand because you don't truly believe", that kind of thought only goes around circles.
Look at the circle here.
If you don't believe in God then you can't hear his voice. If you do believe in god but can't hear his voice then you need to have more faith.
There is no way out of this circle, religion always goes around circle. Never ending spiral.
@GOD
U R 14... do some homework!
You are all wrong, but keep the guesses coming. Know what u need to know close your mind..know, then ask yourself why you know what u know and then and only then u will truly know.
Sincerely,
GOD
@D-K
Well if you going to sleep like a normal human then you are going to miss out on some drama!
LOL!
Honey, I'm ho- oh holy hell.. You people sure are prolific. Seems the discussion is over now though..
Too bad.
Yes, Achems, the Super Volcanos! Very cool stuff!
Mass extinctions are just "par for the course" in the Earth's history. She just shrugs it off... life goes on.
And, the reversal of the magnetic poles? That is some serious sh*t... I mean, it's happened already a couple of times in the geological history of the planet, and seems to be creeping back to another shift soon...
But! Can you imagine how devastating it would be to us, now? I mean, no electronics would work, electricity, as we use it, would simply... STOP!
And Epicurus, I apologize for earlier when you wrote this poignant essay about morality and I came back with,
"Pigs and cows are delicious!"
What a drooling i***t I seemed to be there, and I completely missed your point like a total whanker...
@Charles B:
As you said to @Kalampok:
You believe that your God will be sitting on a throne in Jerusalem some day? Well he, or she, or it, better get his rear in gear, and do that as soon as possible, at least before the Yellowstone national park that is actually a giant volcano decides to erupt again, sending the world into a global catastrophic event, (a mass extinction event) as it did 700,000 years ago. There are signs it might become highly active again.
Or maybe the one that might precede that, is one that is happening as we speak, the loosing of the earths magnetic shield and the reversal of the magnetic poles.
not counting the Earths 5 mass extinction events that already happened, how many times is your so called God going to keep doing that? He ain't a very good builder! Charles.
@ Everyone
Sorry that I won’t be able to respond to any more silliness here, but I am going to Canada for a while. Packing, farewell stuff and so on are taking my time. Maybe you theists can spend some of your time educating yourself and learning to think rationally about religion?
@Charles B.
You'll "pray for me" You don't care about offending people do you? Your "praters are as offensive to me as my direct questions that are unanswerable are to you.
Tell you what, if I knew a couple of devil worshipers would it be OK to ask them to sacrifice a baby or two for you? What arrogant people you theists are.
"God is big in Brazil"? Obviously, you know nothing about Brazil. I know hundreds of people here. Maybe 1% take religion seriously. Church attendance of all kinds is down so much that That there are two that have closed just in my neighborhood. Even of the people I know that do attend services, I suspect some are doing so for social, political, or business reasons. So learn something about what you're talking about before you post more silly statements. But then truth and reality are not conducive to faith are they?
Sorry that I won't be able to respond to any more silliness here, but I am going to Canada for a while. Packing, farewell stuff and so on are taking my time. Maybe you can spend some of yours educating yourself and learning to think rationally about religion?
@Charles B.
I will pray for you, too!
I just need to find a black goat... hmmm...
Well, I've yet to personally meet an angel or Jesus Face to face yet, but I'm willing. Would sound a bit wacky if I didn't believe it myself I suppose. Dr. R. I sure wish you were on our side. :-) Ok. Truly. Good night.
James: We can't expect "Heaven" on Earth now, or Heaven would hold nothing to look forward too. Bad days come to us all; I just have something better to look forewad too eventually.
Prayer worse odds than "chance"? Well, if you're praying for something that easily obtained by "chance" then why pray? But if you're saying that the "miraculous" happens 0.01% of the time when Chrstians pray, then great! That's good news! I think I'll do some tonight before I hit ths sack. For you and Dr. R.
And Charles!
Dude, you are killing me with your talk about angels and god moving around and such...
I have a hard time defending you when you talk all crazy-insane like that!
Listen, you and I have talked about this before, I do not respect the bible as any authority in this world. It is a novel, like "Lord of the Rings" or any Batman comic...
Actually, 66 novels all bundled together and written by hundreds of cranky men with sand in their shorts.
@Abrahams Son:
Well, the thing is, our personal experiences mean nothing. They are a grain of salt in the vast ocean of human experience.
You must study as much of the history of the world as you can and read every piece of information that humans ever wrote...
Because there is SO much more in this world than you could ever hope to see and live in your tiny life-time.
You and I are insignificent motes of dust; we barely exist.
I find great comfort in that...
Dr. Randy: You made me laugh too! I'll pass on any prayers that involve "blood". Thanks, but no thanks!
@Randy
Maybe he has had a bad day. I wonder why god has not protected such a "good christian" from all of that? I'd also be interested in how the "prayer worked for him. Considering that the "success" rate for prayers is somewhere around 0.01%, far less than even random chance would dictate. Yes, I know the excuse is "sometime god says "no". But doesn't the bible say, "With faith, nothing is impossible"? And what about the "Faith as small as a mustard seed" bit?
I suspect many theists, deep down, don't really have much faith. Otherwise, why would they need to evade direct questions and make up weak excuses for their religion. Yes, "god does work in mysterious ways". Those ways are often inconsistent and contradictory, too. No wonder so many evasions and excuses are used to deflect attention from direct challenges.
"Do not tempt the lord, thy god" How can one tempt an omnipotent, omniscient deity? When one asks the most simple, logical questions, the entire fragile construction of religion collapses like a toothpick house.
You will notice how few even attempt to answer my questions. Well, when you have no facts or logic to bolster your position, it's better to pretend the question was never asked. LMAO!
James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil: You made me laugh! Talking to myself?
If I were the one talking to myself, looks like I'd do a better job of it when I really wanted to hear an answer! I've found that only the devil is a "babble on" and God choose His words precisely and very timely, and hardly ever on OUR timetable.
And what about "failure of prayer"? Well, if you're willing to allow "answered prayer" as proof of God existence, then great! I've seen a lot of that in my lifetime! I've seen God heal of cancer, heart disease, and other doctor-verified illnesses. Those are just the "physical" answers to prayers that I've seen. The ones such as, "Lord, guide Julie tonight as she makes a hard decision about her family's financial situation" is a little harder to verify.
But, to be specific, my nephew was planning to commit suicide, and God woke his sister up and she prayed all night for him! He later said he had the gun to his head, but changed his mind. Now isn't it just a lovely coincidence that his sister was so "wacky" as to have prayed all night for him on the same night he was planning to "do it"!
My pastor in Arkansas felt lead to pray for one of his congregation in Iraq. Sincerely. Earnestly. Desperately. He later asked that young man when he came home "What happened on this day at this time?" The young man said that he had just entered a house with people in it, and was about to leave when he noticed a closet that he check and it was filled with weapons! They fired on him when he found the closet, but he escaped unharmed in the firefight. Now isn't that a coincidence that the very day that he needed God's protection the most, his pastor in Arkansas was praying for him?
James, I've even met people (personally) that have talked with angels and I've talked with a man who's mother-in-law was raised from the dead after prayer and had a specific message from God for a sinning leader in the church. I even have a personal friend that died and met Jesus (twice). But, surely none of that would serve as "proof" to someone that has already made up his mind that there is no God. Or would it?
When I hear God's voice, rarely is He telling me what I really want to do. If asks me to fast and pray, I really hate that! That's not fun. Prayer for someone is hard work and sometimes exhaustingly long.
"Blind faith" in anything, say like a "rock," is fruitless and worthless, but enlightened and genuine faith in the One true God is never wasted. It yields righteousness now, and eternal life in the life to come. Good night. I had a rough day. Not in such a good mood.
Brazil, eah? I hear God is relaly moving big time down there! Just go to church, man. Get healed, get saved, loose that "faithless" heart of yours!
Peace to you.
Charles B.
Again, their is no way to prove or disprove the existence or absence of any type of "God" as we are all individuals with our on experiences. The only important question becomes how we respond to the each other's personal belief. For Atheist your "belief system" is your interpretation of the world which you are able to experience. Make no mistake, this is a belief system in the same way all religions are based on a belief system. We only have access to what information our senses provide us and our minds allow us to interpret. We would all be better off accepting this as our "fate" and go from there but thats just my "life experience opinion".
@James...
I shouldn't say anything, I have been just as hard on Charles in the past...
Hmmm... that sounded gay... Sorry Charles and James...
@Charles
I am sorry you had a bad day... do you want ME to pray for you? There will be blood involved...
And James!
Wow! You blasted my man Charles really hard! I agreed with everything you said but, holy Batman! The poor guy has had a hard day!
Laurie: That was an awesome letter. Thanks! We were posting at the same time. I have it saved in my e-mail and will re-read it again later. I had such a bad day at work (really quite depressing). Do you mind saying a prayer for me if you feel lead to do so this evening? Then next few months are key in making major career choices.
I had the thought cross my mind: "Ask Laurie to pray for you." even before I read your letter. :-) If your willing, I'd appreciate it.
IlovemyselfmorethanI: Wow!
Chill, buddy! You're embarrassing me as a fellow "Christian". Very little we say as believers will be accepted here, but you have to do it calmly and respectfully. Vlatko's website is very generous, but I've seen him kick off hot-heads before (always Christians, sadly). I would change my pen name from something not so weird sounding, and then cool my jets and come back with a more level head. Don't be rude to the host. Trust me. You're being "counterproductive". Peace to you.
Kalampok: How do I know that there is a "Creator?" God values "faith" in His followers. It has been proved that even those that had no doubt there was a God didn't always prove "faithful." Seeing may be "believing" but it does not mean "accepting"! Even if God was sitting visibly on a throne in Jerusalem (a future event that I believe will literally come to pass some day), there would be people like you and Dr. Randy that would hate Him all the more! Dr. Randy plans to flip Him off as he's being sent to Hell, and I'm hoping Dr. R. changes his mind before that time comes so the good Dr. doesn't have to go.
To expound on this further, Jesus did miracle after miracle and was hated to the bone by the wicked-to-the-core Pharisees and Seduces, etc. The real question is not if I can prove to you there is a creator using whatever measure YOU choose, but even if I did, the real question is "Would you yield and trust Him if you knew for sure He was real?" I think not. A pillar of fire by night and a cloud of smoke by day leading the hard-hearted children of Israel couldn't keep them from rebellion and "doubt" in God's love and care in the wilderness. The rebellious have hopelessly "faithless" hearts it seems. I think we all have that nagging feeling in our hearts that God is real, and even a true "atheist" can't fully get rid himself of that gnawing feeling that he might be "wrong" after all.
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does NOT exist?
Prix: Unless you believe there is a true God to listen to, then all arguments for hearing it correctly is a bit mute.
The Word of God says that His sheep know His voice and will not follow another. The key word is HIS sheep. In Israel, many shepherds could mix their flocks and when it was time to shelter them for the night, each shepherd would call their own sheep individually by name, and as they passed between their legs into the fold, they would check their health. If I called out: "Big Ram! Come!" Then "Big Ram" would come, and I'd check him and let him pass into the fold. Then, "Mama Ewe! Come!" and she would come with her lamb and pass into the fold. Apparently they had names for hundreds, and the sheep would wait for their name to be called by their own shepherd. They wouldn't go to another shepherd even if someone called out: "Hey, you, Ram! Big Ram, come here!" Why? Because "Big Ram" knew the voice of his shepherd. He would come only to his shepherd's well-known voice. I know the voice of God, and if you don't then perhaps that is because you belong to another, hum?
Sometimes God is indeed "silent" for many times when I would like an answer to a problem or situation, but other times His voice is more than clear. Occasionally, I've even had a long conversation with Him where I hear the mental "answer" to each question immediately for a whole conversation, but that's not very often and always for a purpose and usually for the purpose of prayer for someone or something. I suspect nothing I could say will mostly change your mind, but I just wanted you to know I had an answer, and a good one.
@Charles B.
Sometimes you need credentials to turn the ear of the same.
from Laurie
I was not judging and rejecting you. I don't know enough about you to formulate such a judgement. I was asking a question to make sense of what was being said. I know God knows your heart and your motives and you sure don't owe me anything. I am grateful that you took the time to send me a note. I am very impressed that you stand up for the correct spelling of the name Jesus and that you let the world know that He is dear to you and if they have respect for a likable person such as you they will co-operate. I like your style because you connect. You teach in response to the statement that I seem to perceive from Randy and Mr. razor "I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care." You see you are already teaching and connecting without a PhD
I am not against education. I have two children with university degrees myself. One in international business and he speaks Spanish,English, French and another who just finished teachers college and she landed a job in Alberta Aug 2010 teaching French immersion. I've encouraged my children to higher education and they have seen me study and improve myself taking courses all their lives. However I have four children and only two walk in my footsteps and keep the faith. The reason the other two are rebels without a cause is they feel values are restrictions and somehow they don't seem to have self worth the other two have. Smoking allows them to feel they are part of a group, smoking weed makes them feel accepted by their peers, drinking alcohol allows them to have a good time. God is not finished with them yet. Life is their teacher now. My atheist son who doesn't have higher education sends his two kids with me to church every Sunday. Why? His life is not as blessed as my other two faithful children. He goes from job to job and periods of not working same as his girlfriend. Education is not a priority for him. Now they are apart and the kids are introduced to various partners. My heart aches for my grandchildren who are very sweet and sensitive and know what is right and love God. Kids are not born with a set of instructions.
Even Adam and Eve had wayward children and they themselves were instructed by angels and they walked and talked with God. You can only do the best you can.
I understand social and economic systems. One may be grumpy and disagreeable with the elevator man or simply ignore him because he seems unimportant; but when the president of the corporation hops aboard, one's disposition and gentlemanly manner suddenly change. Material and social values become terribly important because they represent or symbolize or confer individual value.
Does it mean that Ronald Ragan has more individual value? His position of influence and prestige allowed him to talk to Gorbachev. God is all powerful He chooses who, the place, the time to teach someone. If it wasn't Ronald Ragan it would have been someone else maybe a 19 year passenger on a plane. Knowledge does not save or convert it is the spirit.
Almost from kindergarden, students are compared against each other. If graded on a curve, one gets a B because another got a D and vice-versa. Yet the B student may be a goof-off, a cramming artist with a lot of ability to find a takes shortcuts, whereas the d student may be really producing in terms of perhaps fewer talents. What is a grade? It becomes more than an indicator of performance. It carries social value. The family and society reward and punish based on these grades.
The purpose of learning getting more education is to keep intellectually alive, to renew ourselves, to learn how to learn, how to adapt, how to change, what not to change.
I think you are asking yourself "How can I best serve God and man?"going the second mile. That is great but you are already serving . Put value on where you are now because you are communicating value to all of us. You are a great Gospel salesman. You don't need a new coat to give the right impression. You have an attitude of love and regard for the human soul. People sense your whole soul integrity.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
I repeat. What proof do you have of any god at all? You claim so many questions, so little time. Then answer just that one. Like other theists, you will evade that question like any other where you have no answer. I maintain, you are a moral, intellectual and ethical coward. You are a liar, a fool and a hypocrite. Prove you are not by answering a direct question.
With id**** like you representing theism, is it any wonder it is regarded with derision and contempt by those capable of rational thinking? Either answer the first question or slink away like the cowardly hypocrite you are.
You know who I think is really cool? Batman.
I believe that Batman created the Universe. He is cool and has a great cape and stuff... I totally think he rules the Earth.
There is no argument. You can not dissuade me from this opinion. Batman is GOD! And there is MUCH more documentary evidence of his existance than there is of this christ person... (another superhero...)
Hmmm... what were we talking about?
So, I have THAT goin' on...
Vlatko, let me axe you this...
The descriptions of the documentaries that you post, are they all written by you?
Because, I gotta say... a big WOW. Lots of admiration for your writing. I have been looking around the site and reading just the intros for your docs and I have been hugely impressed!
You are a powerful smart man! I do NOT mean that in a gay way... although, I wouldn't kick you out of bed for eating crackers...
I'm just sayin'...
@ilovemyself, you didnt respond to my question still about other peoples experiences about god that are different than yours. how you know yours are geniuine and theirs arent. and yes by saying you have had experience of a god is a pompous position. if people have to believe in a god but some like you get chosen for revelation that is either a bulls*** deal or you being delusional.
your entire posts are made up of ad hominems. you don't respond to anything put towards you but try to show why you don't need to answer.
if you claim the responses on those animals are "evolutionary pressures" maybe you could list them.
for the hippo saving the impala from the crocodile, the apes sharing tools, or the puma looking after the baby monkey after eating its mother....could you give me the "evolutionary pressures".
and realize that morality (from the view point of evolutionary psychology) is evolved. so you are committing a genetic fallacy.
yes i do realize when my posts and others on here come off harsh and childish. it happens. and your last post before this one was like reading a child.
in response to god wanting to create holy and moral people...prove it. there are many humans and things in nature that are flawed, how can you say something cant deviate from perfection yet make imperfect objects...remember god made adam and eve and expected them to behave yet they disobeyed (shouldnt he has known that) he also flooded the earth saying it was bad...he messed up twice. how can he know everything taht is going to happen yet claim people have free will...can you prove people have free will? you are making a claim for free will without providing evidence that free will is real. what about determinism? have you solved that puzzle and just withheld it from the rest of the world?
better yet, why does he have to create humans and put them through this? what is the point? why did he decide to do this? when did he decide to do this? if he exists outside of time how is there moments of creation and decision for him?
should i go through your posts and copy paste every ad hominem? dont accuse others of it.
Point, Proof, Comment....try it out.
I'm Sorry, Prix... I was going over your posts and I see that you have a strong grasp of English and even the vernacular... I think I spoke completely out of turn there...
Please forgive me...
@ Epicurus
"you keep saying you dont think they can…why dont you think that? what would convince you?"
-- See. This is what I've been saying. READ my response. Actually read it, and don't be glancing it over for things you can easily STRAWMAN. You would've seen that I HAVE given something that could convince me. When an animal does something that we consider moral, and does it seemingly in contradiction of evolutionary pressures. I have explained why I think the tool-sharing example and your other examples, STILL can easily be explained as being influenced by fundamental evolutionary pressures. Thats the response you give when you don't READ your opponents answers and just glance them over looking for things that you can easily strawman.
"im not saying your experiences ARENT real so dont try brushing it off by asking me that ridiculous question…"
-- That "ridiculous question" was trying to brush off, your ridiculous response, where you immediately accused me of pomp, feeling superior, feeling special -- just because I had an experience you believe to be false. So don't try making me look like an ass, when it was YOU who was the ass, and therefore deserved that "ass" response.
"if god couldnt deviate from perfection he wouldnt have been able to create anything with a flaw (humans) anything from god would have to be perfect based on your argument."
--NO. God wants to create Holy and Moral people. These attributes are dependent on free-will. No human can be holy and moral upon creation, they have to choose to be out of their own free-will. There is a reason why we don't call a tree, that provides us with it's fruit, generous. It's not like it can withold it's fruit. For the created, generosity and other moral attributes are dependent on free-will. As free-willed agents, we have the ability to choose to be immoral.
"prove it…prove you are usually born thinking a creator exists and then explain why there are so many cultures that dont believe in a creator."
-- An article in TIME magazine I once read saying that we are hardwired for believing in God. I'll try to remember the title and author. The cultures though that don't believe in a creator, interestingly believe in some sort of transcendent reality.
"like many have said, you come off as a child."
-- You only see me coming off as a child. But you don't see yourself or your friends when they clearly do it. That's because you're biased.
I will leave your other questions.
Wow, I've been having debates all around the internet. And if the atheists at sophisticated websites like Pharyngula were as... how should I say... smart as you guys (with the exception of one guy), there would be a significant reduction in the number of conversions to atheism.
If you want a real debate, you should lose the adhominems and I'll be happy to seriously engage you. The problem is, you atheists start with adhominems, then hypocritically cry-afoul once it's shoved right back at you. "Oh he's acting like a child!". Oh please.
@Prix
I stopped responding to ilovemyself... he is a silly person. But you are quite interesting.
Your writing seems to indicate that English is your second language... from what nation do you hail, my friend?
Please do not take offense if I assume incorrectly... I totally "get" everything you write... and I struggle with languages other than English and I have GREAT respect for the rest of the world that is multi-lingual!
However, if it is just that you type too fast, like me, and I am making an ass of myself please feel free to tell me so!
@Randy Thank you, I can understand how ilovemyselfmorethani is not very understanding and tries in every way to provoke instead of trying to listen and understand what people have written to him before. He got a lot of responses and still didn't bother to look at them or at least not respond to them. Also, he's acting childish which I find kind of..ehhh..
Btw Randy I like to read your, Achems and I think last one is hate machine? Charles B. is memorable as well. So, thank you for the entertaining comments! Keep it up!
@ ilovemyselfmorethani
"When science finds out about everything there is to know about this universe, it will come to a dead end, and the answer will be “well that’s it folks, nothing else to see here”. I think the most fundamental question is ‘why are we here?’ And religion, as primitive and dogmatic it may be, at least tries to answer this question, while science will say that the question is meaningless."
I stole this little comment while reading through your comments. So, forgive me I'm a little too late to reply to this.
No, you don't know. No one can for see the future or what science will say about us. Also, you're saying you would STILL believe in what HUMANS wrote in the old ages just because science doesn't give you an answer to that? Even if all of them turn out to be lies? Based on nothing more than faith itself?
Btw, have you seen Banned from the bible? It's right here on this site. I'm presuming you know by now that humans wrote with the help of "divine" power. I know by experience that people will lie thinking it might be good for someone. Even if it's a small lie. Now so many books that didn't make it into the new testament. That's just mind boggling! Humans wrote something that didn't make into new bible? What gives? Humans had a gathering and patched a book together for followers to read. And took out things that they thought didn't fit the holy book image.
Dude, Nothing came before God? Isn't that an impossible feat by itself? Illogical?
I don't know why but you answered some of the questions where I kinda know the answers you would provide. I mostly write what's on my mind directly. So you kind of picked the easy ones. Except the last two.
If God has a sign saying I'm here was one of the easier ones. I knew the answer to that and your answer is exactly what I guessed you would write. In other words faith, if you were born into another religion you wouldn't believe in the Christian God. But what if you're completely wrong? What if other religions are right? I can tell you this, Zeus exists and the only way to see him is if you believe in him enough. The greek "mythology" is rich with religious stories about moral and Gods. What existed before the Zeus and the titans and all that? Nothing (same answer can be applied here).
"– There are many answers to this that will be incredibly lengthy to explain. One is “Molinism”. Maybe you can start with that, and then learn about the different kinds or branches of it."
Molinism, yep I've read through it shortly. See what I'm trying to say is, logic doesn't apply for God. You can just speculate without verifying. Yes, I did read about Molinism and the reference to Bible. You said it yourself didn't you? When people try to find answers to their questions in the Bible it's just silly? You wrote this yourself "I think it’s O.K to look for guidance from the bible, but not answers".
It doesn't matter how you look at it, you can even take the bible and see the future with bible codes if you pick sentences out.
Dude, the animals and morality...you just wrote the answer yourself. "influenced by evolutionarily built in pressures"
That's what we humans do also. It's not like Animals follow humans with those smaller morals. We take their basic knowing of right and wrong and make it advanced. Hmm, i'll try to find some documentaries about this. But I think Epicurus gave you some links.
"– Not silly at all! To do so would be an illogical feat. God cannot be illogical, because being illogical is an act done by imperfect beings. This is just like asking if God can be immoral. No He can’t. Because an immoral being is an imperfect one. You’ll say, then He isn’t all-powerful since there is something He cannot do. What God cannot do serve to define who He is (albeit limitedly). He isn’t illogical, and imperfect."
Very nice answer. But what I was trying to get across was "there is no such thing as perfect". Even in mathematics you can NEVER be 100% sure about something. Even in math, so being perfect doesn't exist. There is no such thing as perfect, nothing will ever be perfect. You can get close it, of course, but never perfect.
If God can be perfect and non-perfect in the same way and in the same place (monolism quote right? Wikipedia woohoo).
Still there is no perfection in ANY of them. (now this will get confusing) If God was perfect at the same time he was perfect, he wasn't perfect. When God isn't perfect then...well he can't be perfect.
You gave a good example, if I was perfect and if I died. I was not perfect. If I was perfect and immortal then i couldn't die. Still not perfect.
Nothing is or ever will be perfect.
Someone might want to start on a new theory instead of molinism and use the 11 dimensions. Really, I would be interested in that. Only problem is, it'll still be just speculation without any experiment, without any evidence, without anything.
You seemed to take things in the wrong way, Vlatko isn't making rules only on religious people. That's ridiculous, the kind of paranoia I was talking about in my post which i wrote to Charles B. If you have some time to spend, just read that post of mine.
Btw, that "why so much suffering" Well I meant religious people that waged wars in earlier history. I'm guessing that one is too easy to pick on as well right? It's because humans and their free will. hehe, it's like going around in circles. People fight thinking it's gods will and god doesn't give an answer so people die, get raped and looted. Yet, we blame it on humans. In reality religion was created by man and wage war so their religion can take over.
Hope you reply! Have a nice day!
I apologize for the use of the term "chicks"... I love women and, generally, I only use that word when I am given permission by them to do so.
My wife doean't mind it, so I use it sometimes, but I understand that it is offensive to some women.
I bow to you women, and give you great thanks... you are the keepers of the magic poonami, that I love so well...
Please forgive me for using that word...
@Achems
Listen, I have an excersise (sp?) that is great for the gluts... LOL!
I call it, "F*cking the Dumbell" I am sorry, Vlatko...
You take a free-weight, like 20 pounds or so... maybe 40, depending on your fitness level, and you assume a position on the floor like you would a sit-up, with your legs folded up and your heels a few feet from your butt.
With the weight, (or dumbell) on your hips, you crunch upwards like you were... well... maybe you get the idea...
You can really feel the burn in your lumbar back and gluts...
I'm just sayin' HAHAHA!
If you were serious. But, you and I both know... chicks love the butt...
LOL!
@ilovemyself
i did give you a couple links and the rest is up to you. if you refuse to look up whether scientists think animals behave morally or not that is not my problem. you are the one insisting on staying ignorant.
if you want something to show animals know right from wrong yet you wont take the studies done as examples would you please create an experiment where we could find out if animals have the ability to discern right from wrong. you keep saying you dont think they can...why dont you think that? what would convince you?
the rest of your response to me sounds like it came form a child and doesnt deserve me picking it apart but i will restate somethings you brushed over.
how do you explain people of other religions claiming to have experiences like you have had but witnessing other gods or coming to the conclusion of a different religion?
how are you so sure your experiences are real and not just your imagination or a misinterpretation based on your bias?
im not saying your experiences ARENT real so dont try brushing it off by asking me that ridiculous question....i want to know how you can be sure your experiences are real and that of a hindus for example are not real or are misinterpretations?
you said
"Just the same way that, in the Christian Worldview, God cannot create a square-circle, or married-bachelor. Those things are illogical, and a perfect being cannot devolve into imperfection. A perfect being cannot be immoral, that would make him imperfect."
those are problems of semantics. if god couldnt deviate from perfection he wouldnt have been able to create anything with a flaw (humans) anything from god would have to be perfect based on your argument. however you will just say that this rule ONLY applies with the morality issue and nothing else. and that will be easy for you to say because everything you have said thus far has been off the top of your head out of your imagination like a child with a comic book character. its amusing.
you said
"you usually will be born thinking a creator exists. If you sincerely want to have a relationship with God, and you call out to Him, He’ll make you know He exists. Obviously this will all seem subjective to the next person — as it should be. But there are arguments for the existence of God. You can find them out for yourself."
prove it...prove you are usually born thinking a creator exists and then explain why there are so many cultures that dont believe in a creator.
the arguments for the existence of god are junk and easily refuted. actually i did a whole paper in philosophy of religion debunking every single one of them.
my point is this....provide evidence for ANYTHING you are saying. provide evidence that animals dont know right from wrong. we have given you examples and links where people who study this for a living recognize that animals are recognizing right from wrong but you just cant seem to get it. you and your...sorry how many years of education in zoology?
give it up, you look silly and have not brought anything forward other than sad apologetics to deflect attention away from everything asked to you. even when you answer, you give an answer (claim) and dont back it up with any evidence or logical reasoning as to why you would take that claim.
like many have said, you come off as a child.
@Randy:
I am fine, have been building up my glutemus maximus, (LOL) I kid you not, am working on my home gym trying to get ripped again, your fault (LOL)
I can't resist this... ilovemyself wrote:
"– I don’t see anything here that shows animals being able to perceive morality. Again, all of these things/examples you just mentioned can be explained away as actions influenced by evolutionarily built in pressures..."
And just WHAT do we respond to, exactly? Evolutionary pressures, I would imagine. I mean, we have science to back that up...
Hmmmm... still you seem to be clinging to that "Divine Spark" comcept that is entirely silly.
You need to step off of THAT, son.
@ Achems Razor
"You are sounding like a child having a temper tantrum"
-- You don't see the temper tantrums of your fellow atheist friends? Selective aren't ya.
"dissing Vlatko and other people on top of that."
-- Huh? How?
@Achems
How are you, my friend?
@ Prix
"Did I get an reply by the way? Can’t seem to find any. Anyway I’m going to move into this discussion."
-- I'm sorry, I didn't see your question.
I will try to answer some of your questions, but will skip the ones I think will be easy to find out for yourself.
"So from what I’ve gotten you believe in God but not Christian God"
-- No. I believe in the Christian God.
"If there is a God what came before it? "
-- Nothing.
"If God is so perfect why this pain and suffering?"
-- More opportunity for people to choose to be moral. Pain and suffering makes better people. Pain is also relative; for a child, that flu-shot may be the worst pain it has ever felt, but her mother knows better. She knows that the pain is inconsequential and needed for her child's own good.
We also experience pain and suffering when we do not get what we want. But if we got whatever we wanted, how would that make moral people? You also cannot limit pain and suffering. Imagine it being limited, then we would experience pain and suffering from every trip of the foot -- that would be the worst pain ever. You will see people asking God "why God why!? My foot hurt, why!?"
"if God exists why not directly put up a sign saying “Alright everyone here I am”"
-- Divine coercion. If there was a sign in the sky saying "I'm real! --God" People will all act differently. God wants people to be holy and moral our of their own free-will.
"Also, if we take God from the Bible. That god is not perfect. There are several instances where God is disappointed. Let’s take Adam and Eve, a perfect God would’ve KNOWN that they would eat the apple. God must’ve control over time? God must see everything in the future and in the past?"
-- There are many answers to this that will be incredibly lengthy to explain. One is "Molinism". Maybe you can start with that, and then learn about the different kinds or branches of it.
"One last question that might sound silly.
Can God create a huge rock that not even he\she\it can lift?
The answer is paradox."
-- Not silly at all! To do so would be an illogical feat. God cannot be illogical, because being illogical is an act done by imperfect beings. This is just like asking if God can be immoral. No He can't. Because an immoral being is an imperfect one. You'll say, then He isn't all-powerful since there is something He cannot do. What God cannot do serve to define who He is (albeit limitedly). He isn't illogical, and imperfect.
"Is it that hard to see? Most of the animals have standards and know right from wrong. Even apes and monkeys know what friends are and who the enemies are. They can see the difference between good and bad. There are documentaries on this site telling how animals can co-operate and do good for one and another. Look at bees, ......"
-- I don't see anything here that shows animals being able to perceive morality. Again, all of these things/examples you just mentioned can be explained away as actions influenced by evolutionarily built in pressures.
@ilovemyself:
You should listen to yourself kid, all a-ranting and a-raving, I tell you there is a god, and so on. You are sounding like a child having a temper tantrum, and you are dissing Vlatko and other people on top of that.
You have basically just scr*wed yourself!!
@kalampok
"I have one question to those how believe in creator : how do you know that the creator exists?"
-- You usually will be born thinking a creator exists. If you sincerely want to have a relationship with God, and you call out to Him, He'll make you know He exists. Obviously this will all seem subjective to the next person -- as it should be. But there are arguments for the existence of God. You can find them out for yourself.
@ James Smith whatever
"I am not a nutjob, but you certainly are."
--Oh yes you are!
"Unlike you, I am not a liar and a moral and ethical coward. You, like all other internet cowards, hide behind your keyboard to say things you would never dare say to a person’s face."
-- O.K. Mr. Fortune-teller man!
"But then, most theists are liars, hypocrites, and fools. Usually, all three at once."
-- ...imbecilic, unintelligent, nonsensical... You are all 6 at once!
This is Vlatko's house. We obey his rules.
You need to step off, son.
@Vlatko
"Do not direct your comments personally and stop calling people nutjobs. I had to edit your last comment."
-- Really? I shouldn't direct my comments personally? This rule for theists only? No "nutjobs"? What about 'dillweeds'?
"And you’ve been asked a question: How do you know your creator exists?"
-- Which I will get right to. Cmon, so many questions, so little time.
@ Randy
"Charity? Every evil organization that ever existed on this planet, always gave richly to charity. That’s how you fool the sheep, by pretending to be “charitable”… c’mon, you know this…"
-- So you're saying they cynically use soup kitchens to be able to rule the world? Geez, Mr. Doctor with a Phd who knows all about History and can build satellites to spy on my illicit love-affair, that's not such a bright comment there.
@Prix
Yes. Yes, indeed. You spelled it out very well.
I would also add, to your excellent essay, that this "god" as he is supposed to be perfect, is an unattainable goal for human animals. It is an alien monster.
Satan, on the other hand, (Hades, or Dis, the gods below...), is a very HUMAN creature, full of lust and vengance, anger and imperfection. A very understandable god!
Who among us has not felt these very human emotions?
IF these gods actually existed... (and I do NOT believe that they do...) Satan would be the guy that I would hang with.
This weirdo-god-dude is silly and a little too homo-phobic for me.
Sorry for the double post but I can't edit, I forgot to mention one last thing. Sorry about this Vlatko.
I forgot to mention that instead of trying to figure out if there are demons talking or God talking. Just get help from psychologists instead. I'm quite sure none can tell the voice of a demon from voice of God. Let's take this as an example.
Let us say demons exist, demons can behave nice but are doing selfish things to cause someone else great deal of misery. Or they can do like in exorcism the movie.
Gods voice can tell you to do something that might go against society standards because no one knows what Gods purpose might be. We can complicate things even more. It's a spiral of confusion and paranoia. We also know God can make good people poor and have hellish life just to test them. Or God can make a true believer rich and wealthy with happiness and love. Satan can do all of these things as well. Hellish life just because they would turn away from God. Make them rich and wealthy with happiness and even love.
Don't tell me "It depends on if you believe enough and if you do your work in a way to benefit humanity and build your relationship with God" You can invert that as well.
There is no way out of this madness...You can try to answer it but it's so simple to reverse it. Paranoia is the easiest way to make people do the wrong things even if they might seem correct at that time.
Humans always have thought themselfs to have big meaning in their life and long to hear "You are great! You are higher than other. You follow the truth and you're so kind and friendly. You will have a special place in (insert any religions good place)"
No one in the whole world cares what you do and don't do. Humans think universe revolves around them yet universe doesn't care about humans at all. Universe isn't just here for us to look and think "wow, someone made all of this for ME!".
@ilovemyselfmorethani
Did I get an reply by the way? Can't seem to find any. Anyway I'm going to move into this discussion.
"– Just the same way that, in the Christian Worldview, God cannot create a square-circle, or married-bachelor. Those things are illogical, and a perfect being cannot devolve into imperfection. A perfect being cannot be immoral, that would make him imperfect."
So from what I've gotten you believe in God but not Christian God(too many posts to read from so I apologize if i'm incorrect). If there is a God what came before it? If God is so perfect why this pain and suffering? If God exists why not directly put up a sign saying "Alright everyone here I am". If God exists why so many religions? Why can't their be many Gods? If God is so perfect why even apply him\her\it to our logic? That's waste of time because there is nothing that can be absolutely perfect. If God does exist why even create us? It's like he\she\it is just watching people suffer\let unjustice go on\starvation and so forth. If people have to trust themselves (Which can be very harmful for everyone) to find the true answer how do we know it's the right answer?
Also, if we take God from the Bible. That god is not perfect. There are several instances where God is disappointed. Let's take Adam and Eve, a perfect God would've KNOWN that they would eat the apple. God must've control over time? God must see everything in the future and in the past?
One last question that might sound silly.
Can God create a huge rock that not even he\she\it can lift?
The answer is paradox.
Now if you say our logic can't be applied to Gods ways...well we are all doomed. The knownledge we have gained is quite useless. Even trying to understand gods ways are useless, to think WHY god does something is useless. God is not logical because the word we use for logic is different than Gods or there might not even be logic in God. Even saying "No, there is logic in God"...no there isn't. Logic doesn't apply to God. There is no such thing as perfect then because something being perfect needs to be explained in logic. No...logic...at...all
"– Then cite them, and illustrate how they are moral acts, and I’ll try to show you why I’m not convinced. Saying “many many experiments we have done showing…” doesn’t really amount to anything at this point."
Is it that hard to see? Most of the animals have standards and know right from wrong. Even apes and monkeys know what friends are and who the enemies are. They can see the difference between good and bad. There are documentaries on this site telling how animals can co-operate and do good for one and another. Look at bees, they work and if someone isn't working the right way they throw that person out because it doesn't HELP everyone. Sharks can eat fish easily but there are fish that clean them up and the sharks don't attack them because they benefit. Morals are everywhere, co-operation is the key for it. But yes, there are several experiments done that show animals knowing right from wrong. Just search the web and you'll find those experiments.
At the moment it's quite late and I've been writing for a long time. Sleepy time.
@Charles B.
That someone who mentioned voiced in head was me. You still stand firm on demons being inside some people and doing harm to others and themselves. So tell me what is the gods voice? What if when you think Gods voice is gentle AND it doesn't make sense for God to say "kill your kids"? If God has higher purpose then you or me have no clue of it. Maybe it was a test for the mother to show how much she really loves God?
Simply put neither you or me or anyone else can tell right from wrong when it's voices coming and telling you. It's illogical and wrong. Even in the Bible there are several references which no not make sense and only leave "It's for higher purpose". There is no way anyone can know ANYTHING about God. Also if we look at psychology, we sometimes can't even trust our minds. Our minds can be tricked easily...btw I'm a magician and if anyone wants to ask I have this to tell. Talking with dead\future telling\mind reading and so forth are just simple tricked covered with dramatic acting.
Everyone can be fooled but people have sooooo much faith in stuff that they tend to brush away the facts and the criticism. NOW! Why am I writing this? Well, fooling yourself is quite easy. Anyone can be tricked, religions are both old age and modern age tricks. Having faith in something and then just to find out faith is only based of...nothing and to find that faith is a lie\trick...That feeling just crushes ones perception of reality and for most of the people they can't even imagine it.
To think that talking with an invisible friend and that might give you the truth is just....hmm I can't think of any good word here.
Also, If there are people around the world thinking they have a special invisible person for them and it tells them the truth, there is conflict. What if Hinduism\Buddhism\Judaism\Islam\Sikhism\Ancient Greek religion\Jainism\Norse religion or any of them are right instead of Christianity? Yes, we call Ancient Greek religion now a mythology...what if all of the religions are mythologies? Or what if all of those religions are true?
When you ask questions about religion (any religion) you will always find yourself going in circles and thinking "I'm going forward".
Wait, what if you weren't a Christian? You would obviously tell your kids to go after the religion YOU THINK IS TRUE.
PS: Christianity and Islam didn't get to be such huge religions without nothing right? Must've done good to the world and spread out through peace right? I think you know the answer to that. War, forcing people to convert, making them afraid of the devil, total control of people and making everyone paranoid about everything around them.
ilovemyselfmorethani
I am not a nutjob, but you certainly are.
Unlike you, I am not a liar and a moral and ethical coward. You, like all other internet cowards, hide behind your keyboard to say things you would never dare say to a person's face. But then, most theists are liars, hypocrites, and fools. Usually, all three at once.
@ James
Whoever says he believes God exists because "The Bible says it is the word of god, so god must exist.", is a nutjob.
@ilovemyselfmorethani,
Do not direct your comments personally and stop calling people nutjobs. I had to edit your last comment.
And you've been asked a question: How do you know your creator exists?
kalampok: That's a great question. I have asked it many times and usually the question is ignored or the answers given are something meaningless like "The Bible says it is the word of god, so god must exist." Theists usually evade direct questions that require a direct answer or anything resembling verifiable facts. Perhaps because they have none of those?
They claim to be honest and moral, but when questioned fairly and honestly, they show themselves to be deceitful, evasive, and cowards morally, intellectually, and physically.
I have one question to those how believe in creator : how do you know that the creator exists?
@ilovemyself....
Charity? Every evil organization that ever existed on this planet, always gave richly to charity. That's how you fool the sheep, by pretending to be "charitable"... c'mon, you know this...
The Nationalist Socialist Party had some of the best soup kitchens!
There is NOTHING good about chrisianity.
Nothing.
@ D-K
"Wouldn’t that make him not-omnipotent? Isn’t the whole christian system of belief based on the notion that God is omnipotent?"
-- Just the same way that, in the Christian Worldview, God cannot create a square-circle, or married-bachelor. Those things are illogical, and a perfect being cannot devolve into imperfection. A perfect being cannot be immoral, that would make him imperfect.
"This statement illustrates bias, perhaps you should re-phrase."
-- Which is why I said "try". If I couldn't then I will concede. When I conceded our previous debate, that doesn't mean I will now doubt the historicity of Jesus. I don't think anyone here is not biased. No one will be changing anyone else's worldview here. But I will concede defeat when I have to. You know this, I've conceded defeat to you once.
"Please enlighten me, how would you be able to distinguish an animal percieving right and wrong? Do you expect them to tilt their head, cartoonishly scratch it, excuse themselves for a moment of ethical contemplation?"
-- I have no idea. An act that would clearly seem to go against evolutionary pressures would be a start. Iv'e explained why I'm not convinced by the tool-sharing example.
"Lastly, you claim morality to be objective, but that would imply there would be no such thing as a moral or ethical dilemma, everything would be clear-cut."
-- No, it wouldn't mean that. Math is objective, but everything isn't so clear-cut. We would have to be infinitely smart for it to be that way.
"Also, if morality was objective and controller by god, he’d need to have a way of answering any moral pseudo-dillema at him, or it’d have to be written in the bible. How do you solve moral psuedo-dilemma’s that aren’t specified in the bible and without having direct acdces to god’s answer?"
-- I don't answer moral dilemmas by looking at the bible, but I know fundamentalists do. I think it's O.K to look for guidance from the bible, but not answers. If we had access to all the answers somewhere, we wouldn't bother trying to understand anything. So no, I don't agree with the premise of your question.
wow.. typo-palooza up there, forgive my quickness of hand.
@Ilovemyself:Couple of things;
"Yes “god is confined in a certain way”, in the sense that He cannot go against His nature"
Wouldn't that make him not-omnipotent? Isn't the whole christian system of belief based on the notion that God is omnipotent?
"Then cite them, and illustrate how they are moral acts, and I’ll try to show you why I’m not convinced"
This statement illustrates bias, perhaps you should re-phrase.
"but none that would seem to show an animal’s ability to perceive right from wrong"
Please enlighten me, how would you be able to distinguish an animal percieving right and wrong? Do you expect them to tilt their head, cartoonishly scratch it, excuse themselves for a moment of ethical contemplation?
Lastly, you claim morality to be objective, but that would imply there would be no such thing as a moral or ethical dilemma, everything would be clear-cut. Are you suggesting that? Also, if morality was objective and controller by god, he'd need to have a way of answering any moral pseudo-dillema at him, or it'd have to be written in the bible. How do you solve moral psuedo-dilemma's that aren't specified in the bible and without having direct acdces to god's answer?
@Randy
"It doesn’t matter whether you are a fundamentalist or not, you support a HORROR CULT, filled with the destruction of the human, primate, species."
-- Really?? Soup Kitchens can do that to "human, primate, species"? Doctor, you need to get yourself checked. Seriously.
To all
Humans are to act and everything else in our world is to be acted upon. Rocks are to be gathered to build fences and houses etc. Animals for our food clothing etc. However it does not mean that we can abuse the animals and cause suffering. We should take care of them. The animals are also here to teach us.
Once there was a trapper and when he checked on his trap he found a male bear trapped and the female by his side with a tear down her eye. He quit being a trapper.
A scientist was sent to the north for three months to study wolves. A female wolf got injured and found an abandoned cabin for shelter against the cold , wind. This scientist watched a male wolf for three months bring a fresh kill every day for the female as she wasn't able to hunt. When the scientist got picked up after three months he informed the project management about this injured wolf and help was sent to help the wolf.
Yes animals are capable of compassion in some instances. However a female dog will mate with several dogs and have a litter of different breeds. Is that moral as we know it?
Morals are taught by parents culture community school church government. However the light of Christ which is given to all as a free gift allows us to recognize truth. Is murder bad or good? Is stealing bad or good? Until greed gets in the way and blinds and desensitizes.
P.S. Bacon is yummy, you're right! Korea loves their pork; so hard to eat well here sometimes.
Laurie Robillard: God knows my heart an my motive; to know my name is written in Heaven in the Book of Life is beyond all wealth or glory or accolades or degrees this world could ever bestow. Both my kids are probably genius I.Q. If I want them to not abandon their childhood "faith" I need to keep it real and sharp intellectually as well as genuine spiritually, so they know science and faith are indeed compatible, and not at all at odds. I want them to be able to say, "Both my mom and dad are Ph.D.'s and they're solid as a rock in their faith, so I can be as well!"
The Apostle Paul was brilliant and a scholar's scholar; highly educated for his day. He stood before kings and the Roman Emperor as well as the peasants in the marketplace. He said, "I become all things for all people that I might gain some." Sometimes you need credentials to turn the ear of the same. Ronald Reagan talked at length with Gorbachev about faith in God -- who else could do that except another president and get away with it? Very few.
Yes, I agree with you that we need to increase correct religious faith, but a brilliant Christian scientist is more likely to influence another brilliant atheistic scientist than Billy Graham for Christ. We have far too few highly educated among us. If I can, let me be one that reaches out to ones like Dr. Randy. If a few letters behind my name help, then I'll do it! If I can. My ambition has always out-weighed my abilities, but I still want to try if I can.
Dr. Randy: There is a real possibility of me getting at least a B.S. in archeology or even the masters degree from U.P. (University of the Philippines) in the near future. I want a PH.D. but my wife says "Get a masters first." Why not? I can study for my M.Th. also from a Christian seminary, but why not get an advanced degree in something I find exciting as well? I looked up the program tonight on line. Both my wife and I want another degree from U.P. If I could, I'd like to get my Ph.D. in archeology as well. All it takes is time and money and effort! Even if it takes a while, why not? I could study Biblical archeology nonetheless (perhaps for my thesis). I'd be as happy as a kid in a candy shop I think! A little paleontology would be very interesting too if that's an elected course I can take. Well, I'm hoping. My boy looooooooves dinos!
Dr. Randy, you've never met a Ph.D. that was Christian? That's sad. I have. My Christian professors in history, and anthropology and Greek and Hebrew and communications and English lit. were all Ph.D. I think. It IS possible.
Ya know, that was nice of you to say; I think I'd take a bullet for you too! my motive would be different, but the outcome would be the same: I'd go to Heaven; not so confident 'about your odds at the moment, but as long as there is breath in your lungs, there's hope of repentance. It would give you one more chance to change and to repent at least.
Mr. Razor: Thanks! the big "J." is my all-time hero and friend, as well as my Lord. Nothing about him "sucks" even if you don't agree with the rest of the story and disagree with everything else. I appreciate it!
Someone mentioned the "voice" of God thing. I have an answer to that. The Bible tells us to "judge" every spirit to see if they are from God or not, that means some are not, and they DO come our way, Christian or not! "Kill your kids" is NOT the voice of God, I'm sorry. There's no if's and's or but's about that! God's voice is gentle, but ironically not very often. It's very purposeful. Our own voice is the most common (as we think to ourselves), "I want a sandwich for lunch." But, there ARE voices that are demonic in nature and often use the "first person" when they speak, such as "I'm going crazy!" Or "I'll never be truly loved by anyone, so why even try?" etc. Unless you keep close to God's heart, you can sometimes confuse the three. If you suspect a mental suggestion is "demonic" in nature, you can say (even as a non-Christian): "I forbid you in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth to use the first person!" and when it switches to "You're going crazy!" You say, "Oh, no I'm not! You're outta here!" Demons can temp/taunt/distract/hinder/torment/persecute a Christian (especially if we don't stop it cold), but they can't stay permanently when we "evict" them purposely from our lives/minds/families. It does take effort, sometimes, however.
Special note: A true Christian has an advantage as the Word of God says that we hear God's voice and will not follow another. When we have that "suspicion" in our heart a thought or feeling or suggestion is not of God, we can check it with prayer.
Note: If any one want to know more about that, let me know and we can e-mail personally.
Charles B.
@Epicurus and all others...
Pigs and cows are extremely sensitive and intelligent. BUT, I love beef and bacon...
Hey, for now, anyway, I am at the top of the food chain.
There is an ancient Zen dialogue. One of which I have written before...
The student says to the Master, "Eating flesh is wrong. Animals are our brothers. I will not eat my brothers."
The Master responds, "Why should we not eat our brothers?"
Think about that. We are all animals on this planet... it is horrible to eat pigs and cows but they are delicious.
Also, because pigs and cows are so prized by homo-sapiens, we domesticate them and protect them and "husband" them, Maybe it's not too bad of a life for them? Evolutionarily speaking...
Think about all of the plants that we love to eat, and that we protect and serve for our food source... I think the plants totally love that...
Evolutionarily, they hit the jackpot. We serve them and protect them and refine their genetic lines.
Hmm! I smell the lex regia concept of the Roman system. In one place the le gislative , the executive, and the judicial powers.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
Christianity is kind of funny...in a weird way. If anyone tries to find God and doesn't find then they need to believe in god more just because god might give a sign. If you doubt God then Satan will get you. Even science might be made up.
Gravity, evolution and quantum psychics are made up by Satan so we stop believing in God. They are Gods way of testing us.
Seriously Christianity is paradox by itself and is a paranoid religion like most others.
I mean, you can stop listening to everybody because religion makes people close minded (not everyone).
In science there are close minded people also yet if they have a theory and a firm proof to support it. Scientists will change their views to certain degree. Religious people on the other hand are impossible, IMPOSSIBLE. Unless they start to ask questions them selfs. I mean how can someone argue against someone that believes in something that no one else can hear, touch or see?
The sad thing is when schizophrenic people are mistaken for having demons inside them. Talk about pouring salt on a wound.
Worst of all...people that have "heard" voice and said it was God telling them to kill someone. Like that one case about a woman killing her kids because she heard gods voice saying it to her. That can't be God right? How do we know if it was gods voice or not? God can't be that cruel can he? Read through Bible and God isn't "as nice" anymore.
It's just madness...to submit people to such mental torture as Christianity and Islam. I've recently started to read Qu
ran. I've always thought it was a bit fishy, some Islamic people are nice and others say they need to use force to make things better. And as far as I've read...it's not a peaceful religion at all.
I've been religious, back then I tried to find answer in every religion and I was broken down. When I found my answer in Science...I felt so wonderful but I was still afraid of Satan and such mumbojumbo.
I don't know about anyone else but just reading or watching about evolution and how everything is connected, is just wonderful. Human and a flower, even if it's a small percentage it's still amazing. The complexity, the huge amount of evidence and a rich theory...I'm speechless.
I've researched a lot of religions (mostly the larger religions at the time...except Buddhism. And a few older) this is the conclusion I've come to. It's nice to actually see from both sides perspective. I had a hard time getting out of religion and but now I feel at home. Everyone should learn to see from each others perspectives and learn about one and another.
I love discussions and I love arguments. You learn, you defend your knowledge and you learn to see from new views.
Ditto about all, from me also!
@Charles B. who wrote:
"Now that was funny! I hope I (and you) live long enough for me to get my Ph.D. in something or at least a D.D. so I can say something like that to someone someday and I would be delighted if it were you! Hang on for 5 more years, won’t ya? I just wanted to let you know I’m earnestly seeking to instill my faith and wisdom to hundreds and perhaps thousands of young minds and souls...."
----------------------------
I gotta tell ya Charles, that idea scares the cr@p out of me!
But, you are my favorite whacko-christ-lover!
And I pray to my dark gods that you get your PhD! (I'm kidding... I certainly do not worship dark gods... as far as you know...)
I'm kidding! I kid you because I love!
Seriously, good luck, Bona Fortuna, to YOU!
Vlatko is AMONG US! *Randy bows low*
There is much admiration from me, sir... it is embarrassing to you, but you provide a great service to our species.... so...
Just suck it up!
(LOL, much reverence for your work... etc.)
Thank you very much @Randy... and @Charles B. welcome back.
I will only allow for a documentary on this site, (I am plugging for Vlatko... "Religulous"), which states that 93% of acedemics are atheist/agnostic... but I think the truth is somehwere in the middle--- let's say 89%, still, advantage me and science...
I certainly have never met a PhD who believes in the christian god... so I got that goin' on...
It doesn't matter whether you are a fundamentalist or not, you support a HORROR CULT, filled with the destruction of the human, primate, species.
Congratz!
@ Randy
"maths, and sciences, and engineering," isn't the antithesis of religion. You're a doctor. Then you must know that 70 % of doctors are theists. (I might be mistaken by the percentages, but I'm quite sure it's a significant majority.)
Only fundamentalists are not functionally atheist. But many theists are. Theists won't attempt to pray themselves off a continent, they'll ride planes. Like I said, it's fundamentalism that's the problem. And there seems to be lots of them here, on both sides.
@ Achems Razor
"Don’t know about religion? I know about more about “all” religions, probably more than you will ever know! there kid. Well I shouldn’t say all, taking into account there are approx. 28,000,000 gods in recorded history."
-- O.K. Allow me to re-phrase what I said; You seem to know little about Christianity.
Because if you did, you wouldn't be expecting true Christians to want to off themselves.
@ilovemyself:
Don't know about religion? I know about more about "all" religions, probably more than you will ever know! there kid. Well I shouldn't say all, taking into account there are approx. 28,000,000 gods in recorded history.
@Laurie:
Do you have a semblance of any thoughts of your own, instead of always copy/paste?
@Charles B:
Just for you, and because you asked, I will no longer call Jesus, Jesux! ever.
You are the only religee that I like.
Burning hippies, Ha,Ha, I smell burning snake oil.
Yes, of course...
Well, Charles knows, I think, that if I was in South Korea, and some radical religious crazy was gunning for him, I would jump in front of the bullet to protect him.
He is smart, and he has beautiful children, I have no children, therefore, evolutionarily, he is more important than I...
I just wish he would teach his childre maths, and sciences, and engineering, instead of worrying about a horror novel written by arabs a few hundred years ago... but...
I can't help it.... I like him!
@ Randy
"I would take a bullet for Charles B, or anyone in his family. But, I wouldn’t p*ss on you if you were on fire…"
-- I wouldn't want you to piss on me if I were on fire.
And as for taking a bullet for Charles B or anyone in his family, I seriously don't think you would.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
I would take a bullet for Charles B, or anyone in his family. But, I wouldn't p*ss on you if you were on fire...
What does that mean? He is as christ-y as they come?
Hmmm... let's think about it...
@ Randy What is amusing to me is that deists will protest what you say and denigrate it and you personally, but when you ask them to disprove anything you say r to prove anything they say, those questions are ignored. Any direct questions such as, "What proof do you have for the existence of any god? They pretend the question was never asked and instead attempt to deflect attention from it by going off on another senseless rant.
Is it any wonder I accuse them of being liars as well as moral and intellectual cowards?
@Charles B. who wrote:
“We’re on the same side, but, Dr. Randy worked hard for those degrees. He desirves the respect he’s earned.”
Thank you, Charles! I am touched and moved by your defense of me, a dirty athiest!
I like you, too!
@James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil
You and I seem to be speaking the same language! Merci!
@ Randy
"but I can build a satellite that can keep you in-touch with your illicit love affair"
-- Yes Randy, we know how awesome you are. You don't have to keep telling us about it.
@ Charles B
"We’re on the same side, but, Dr. Randy worked hard for those degrees. He desirves the respect he’s earned."
-- Yeah I know, that's what he keeps saying. He must've worked oh so hard for them. Let's not forget though that respect begets respect.
blah... blah... blah... etc. But finally, what I have is--- everything you live for and with, and what you have is... opinion...
*Randy gets the scales" Hmm... still, what you have is weak and unprovable... but I can build a satellite that can keep you in-touch with your illicit love affair, or your SILLY-ASS Facebook/Myspace.youface, page!
You Children. So Sad.
Study maths, science, engineering--- constantly, or stand in line while the Great Indian Peoples take us over.
Your choice. I am dead. I do not care.
@ James Smith Whatever
"How arrogant you christians are. You think you have the only way and all others, deists and atheists alike are completely wrong."
-- Gotta love the irony here.
@ Achems Razor
"If you religee’s so stridently believe in all this gooblydok that you are spouting why are you even wasting your time here on this earthly plane?....Or are you doing all this religious mumbo-jumbo because you are scared sh*tless of death! of dying?"
-- Doesn't really seem like you know anything about the religion you keep bashing. Typical.
@ Randy
"I know the history of the world and you play video games…"
"Randy sees all…"
--Oh, you know the history of the world, and you're also a "Doctor" and have a PHD right?
Somehow I have to doubt that you are actually as learned as you purport yourself to be after your ridiculous attempts in arguing from authority --while invoking yourself as the authority. Or, maybe the old-age is getting to you. Oh, and your little playground insults just shows you to be the intellectually insecure douche that you really are. No wonder you always have to remind people of how smart you are. Hilarious.
Hmmm... I smell the telltale aroma of burning hippie... does anybody else smell that...?
Laurie... listen, as I have told Charlse B. many times, over the many posts that we have shared... I too was like him. A brain dead, intellectually suicidal whacko... I went from christianty to Satanism, to, Wiccanism, to any kind of "ism" you can name, until I realized that it was all CR@P!
Science and maths and engineering liberated me a thousand times more than any religion could ever HOPE to.
I have been all over the map, and I come to you to say, quietly, and with humility... walk away from the monster and step into the light.
Math and science and engineering... if we don't do it, the Great Indian Peoples will... (and your children will be left behind...)
for Laurie
How arrogant you christians are. You think you have the only way and all others, deists and atheists alike are completely wrong. According to you, everything good comes from religion. What a crock that is! Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion.
Religion when it was the most powerful prevented science, reasoning, and learning. It was called "The Dark ages" Is it any wonder that religion, with it's patently absurd idea, unprovable assertions, and suppression of freedom of thought and speech is regarded with disdain and contempt by rational people? Religion demands "respect" while doing absolutely nothing to show it deserves any. Furnish some verifiable proof that even one of the tenets of the "faith" are true.
For christianity, even the basis of jeeezus is a lie. It is simply a myth stolen from those of Horus, Attis, and Mithra. Can anyone believe it is all a coincidence that they all bear an uncanny resemblance? You expect everyone to accept that but refuse to believe evolution could "just happen". Theists always want to have the most ridiculous parts of their stories accepted with no evidence at all, yet refuse to accept obvious facts with an infinity of supporting evidence.
Every time I hear about religion is the "basis for morality" I want to throw up. The basis for morality is genocide, murdering babies, brainwashing children and promoting lies?
Religion is the black yoke of humanity and people will never be truly free until t is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.
You may not like what I have said, but prove one word is not the truth. While you are at that, prove one thing about religion is true.
@ James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil
Does academic freedom include the right to teach something as patently absurd as creationism and parade it as “science”? That is a greater obscenity than all of the porn on the internet.
from Laurie
Every nation which has dropped out of sight can trace its downfall to the breakdown of its moral structure. There are no walls or forts which can protect a nation or a people from invasion but the wall of righteousness. France built the series of impregnable forts along its borders, but the Germans paid no attention to the Maginot line of forts, for there was an easier way in-- through the flimsy veil of the country's bad morals. China could never be safe behind the GREAT WALL or even one ten times as high and long and thick so long as corruptible officials have the keys to the doors through it...
Our complacency and feeling of security toward honour and integrity in our teachings starts our children on their way to dishonesty and corruption. In an uncorrupted world it would be sufficient to point out that certain speeds were dangerous to ourselves and to our neighbours whom we are commanded to love and we would obey the rules without officers and sirens and tickets.
When an individual in his thinking and actions unhitches himself from integrity, he lets himself go so to speak. He is anchored to nothing more stable than whimsy, momentary impulses, mere whiffs of fickle opinion. He is adrift and without compass.
@Randy
And he will come around someday… I think!
from Laurie
concerning Charles B
Why would you wish the narrowing of Charles B's horizon of spiritual things? No worse evil could befall him in his course on earth than to loose sight of heaven.
What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
@James Smith João Pessoa, BrazilSo
I have more right to criticize this than you.
It is high sounding to deny divinity and to say that man must make for himself whatever he has or may ever have.
A civilization and its culture may go on after a fashion after it has lost faith in the power from which it rose, carried on its acquired momentum. But unless it is nourished at the roots, it will ultimately exhaust the surplus on which it draws. You can no more go on drawing indefinitely on moral reserves without replenishment, than you can go on drawing from a bank without keeping the account current by new deposits.
Maybe you have never seen or met a person who lives virtue but only met people who preach virtue.
Myself if I had to choose between talent and integrity , I would choose virtue and integrity, for without them we are lost. Don't say that I'm discounting brain and know-how. I stand in awe in the presence of a great mind with superior intelligence devoted to human welfare.
@Laurie
Whose, statement, I suppose is in moderation as I recieved it in my mailbox, but do not see it here...
She wrote:
"Why to you flatter the vanity and presumption of Dr Rany PhD?"
Because, I flatter Charles B., who, even though he is christian whacko, I think is a GOOD man, with a beautiful family, and I like him!
As much as I hate chiristianity, I know the good guys from the bad guys... Charles is one of the good guys...
And he will come around someday... I think!
#
@Randy
Well, I have a computer, actually 12 compuuters… that was all done with science… that is a large part of my argument… but then I have evolution, medicine, architecture, biology, paleantolgy, archeology, geology, HISTORY, documentation, verifyable and testable results… etc.
And you have what? Exactly? A strong feeling? Really?
OK.
from Laurie
I know something you don't have. H U M I L I T Y
@Author: Charles B
When moral obligations cease to exert an influence, and virtue hides its face, and the unblushing effrontery of sin and foul corruption takes it place, then may the nation consider there is danger. "When the wicket rule the people mourn"
"Men will either be governed by God, or ruled by tyrants" (William Penn)
Why to you flatter the vanity and presumption of Dr Rany PhD?
The wealth of the world cannot heal a broken heart, and the wisdom of all our universities cannot turn into paths of righteousness a wayward soul. Men can be born again only through religion. (David O. McKay)
Religion is the creator and the conservator of our social ideals.
Men are in need of a safe pilot to serve as a guide over the troubled and turbulent waters through which we are now sailing.
When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are." (Daniel Webster 1830)
we do not need more material development, we need more spiritual development. We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more laws, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen , we need more of the things that are unseen. It is on that side of life that it is desirable to put the emphasis at the present time. If that side is strengthened, the other side will take care of itself. It is the side which is the foundation of all else. If the foundation is firm, the superstructure will stand." (Calvin Coolidge, The price of Freedom)
My sermon's ready (mostly), so I have time to "play" a bit before bed.
Dr. Rany: "This life we lead is not sustainable, history proves that. I am a Doctor, I know." Now that was funny! I hope I (and you) live long enough for me to get my Ph.D. in something or at least a D.D. so I can say something like that to someone someday and I would be delighted if it were you! Hang on for 5 more years, won't ya? I just wanted to let you know I'm earnestly seeking to instill my faith and wisdom to hundreds and perhaps thousands of young minds and souls. With all my heart, when I breath my last, many other "believers" shall I leave behind me, God willing! Now doesn't that just bring "comfort" to your cranky old heart!?! I thought it would. ;-) Wish me luck!
Mr. Razor: Please don't say "Jesux" as that's horrendously offensive to me and I like most of your comments even though I diasagree with them 99% of the time. That other jerk said that all the time; just let him monopolize the blasphemy on that one if you can. ;-) Please. "Jesus" is more precious to me than life itself.
also, when I thought I could be dying with heart trouble (speaking as a religee to the max), I had no fear, only regrett that I would make my children "fatherless" at such young ages, and sadness that I might not do "more" for His service before I went. Turned out my son just hurt me jumping on my chest and may have just cracked my sturnum. Yea! Gonna live a while more, I suspect. Happy day!
To all: Good news bad news with my job interview . . . Bad news: I can't be a professor without advanced degrees. Doh! Go figure! Good news: The pastor/school director who interviewed me seems to really like me and if things work out, I can be a high school principal, or even a college president (administrative level), or even a head pastor (he pastors 3 currently), or at least a high school teacher while I study for my advanced degrees, . . . . barring the Rapture, of course. Smirk smirk. :-) That was your Razor!
IlovemyselfmorethanI: We're on the same side, but, Dr. Randy worked hard for those degrees. He desirves the respect he's earned. I was saddened today to learn that half the faculty of a "Christian college" were non-Christians because so few of us hold the credentials and walk the talk. Let's both try to load our "guns" with some good education and the letters behind our name to garner the respect our wise words hold.
Peace to all.
Charles B.
@Laurie and @Ilovemyself,
If you religee's so stridently believe in all this gooblydok that you are spouting why are you even wasting your time here on this earthly plane?
Why wait for your so called rapture, you always have the option to go and see your Jesux, et al: or maybe it is Horus, Attis, or Mithra?
Or are you doing all this religious mumbo-jumbo because you are scared sh*tless of death! of dying?
You and I spoke before, on the "Why Does Everybody Laugh at Creationists" documentary forum.
I tried to be nice to you there, but no more...
I know the history of the world and you play video games... you are young and inexperienced, even if you are biologically middle aged.... still someone else pays your way... am I right?
No... you would never adnit that... you are too proud and full of christ-y indignation... but--- I see you...
Randy sees all...
@ Randy
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the worldview of theistic evolutionists. And none of those branches of science deals with the divine, so I don't think bandying about scientific terms lends your...uh.. argument any credence.
So saying you're a Doctor and you have a PHD, and you are an oh so smart man, doesn't seem like an argument to me.
And no one said I base my beliefs on a "strong feeling". I'll leave you to keep talking out of your ass.
Well, I have a computer, actually 12 compuuters... that was all done with science... that is a large part of my argument... but then I have evolution, medicine, architecture, biology, paleantolgy, archeology, geology, HISTORY, documentation, verifyable and testable results... etc.
And you have what? Exactly? A strong feeling? Really?
OK.
@ Randy
And your argument is, what exactly? Apart from telling people how learned you are.
You said so yourself, money is all that matters in life. Yet you decry religious con-artists, because what they do is unethical? Religious con-artists do their best to get what YOU admitted is all that matters in life --MONEY. Contradictory much?
When you have an actual argument, then maybe I can waste some of my time addressing them.
And, I do not care if it, (this silly notion of god), gives you "comfort"... life was not meant to be "comfortable". It is brutal and savage-- short and bloody, you must struggle to survive in this world, that is what Nature teaches us, and that is what every civilization before the "comfy" Western World in which we live, knew very well.
This life we lead is not sustainable, history proves that. I am a Doctor, I know.
Oh, holy, BATMAN!
This "Divine Spark" nonsense makes me want to have a stroke...
Epicurus, D-K, and many other athiests, and I, have a powerful, robust, scientific method behind what we talk about. Everything we know to be truth is verified, quantified, and shows real results in the real world.
You have, what mama told you, what daddy told you, and what you saw on some Afterschool Special... a bunch of lies, and hot air.
We have science and engineering, which builds everything you live in... everything you eat... everything you wear... everything you appreciate as a convenience, (cell phones, computers, lights, building materials and a long history of civilization...) as well as everything you ever enjoyed in your life...
And you have... opinion, "your heart", silly aphorisms and bumper stickers, and some idea given to you by some book written by insane, middle eastern, cultists who thought there was a "Divine Spark"...
As evolution is a fact that we know is true... when in our development as a species did this "Divine Spark" inculcate into us?
When we were bacterium? When we were sponges? Flatworms? When we evolved into vertibrate, mammalian form?
Your argument is nothing. It is opinion and can not be measured, therefore it is meaningless. Hot air. Airy breath.
By the way, there is no conclusive evidence that this "jesus" ever existed. I am a PhD in World History... it is just a mytholgocial character that goes back some 20,000 years... There weren't even any JEWS then, let alone a bible or anything resembling a "Divine Spark"...
The idea of a god-man that gives his life to save the world is as old as primates. Get over yourself and move on... it's a silly myth.
@Laurie Laurie, you do NOT bear the tax burden that belongs to religion. I bear it too. So I have more right to criticize this than you. You think it is fine to inflict the burden of religion on people, I say it is not. You think it is fine to brainwash children, I say it is evil. You think it is a good thing to instill fear and guilt into people. I say it is not.
Those are a few differences between theists and rational people.
Does academic freedom include the right to teach something as patently absurd as creationism and parade it as "science"? That is a greater obscenity than all of the porn on the internet.
When direct questions about proof are asked about religion is it OK to evade the issue and try to deflect the thoughts by deception and outright lies? Such as you ignored my questions about Horus, Attis, and Mithra? Many would look at those myths and see that christianity, like other religions, is founded upon lies. But if you have no answers, perhaps it's easier to pretend the question was never asked?=
@D-K
This is the exact argument I was trying to refute with my tool-sharing example. Sharing tools isn’t in any way beneficial to the one lending them out. In fact, she deprives herself of the means to gather food (albeit temporarily).
-- See my response above
Also, what is your reason for believing that in the first place? I don’t know of any mention of a divine spark in the bible or scripture, and wasn’t able to find anything on google either.
-- Did you use the words 'divine spark'? Because that's a metaphor I frequently use, but I don't think it's the most common one. My reason for believing this is simple. I've been fortunate enough to have experienced God in so many ways. So I've embarked on a journey to know him better, which entails reading about the man Jesus, and studying theology as much as I can.
@ Epicurus
"the problem with taking the second horn of the dilemma is that it is STILL subjective to gods whim."
-- No, because 'whim' is not 'nature'. I'm sure you can appreciate the distinctions.
"but then you will have to argue that it was moral to keep slaves, moral to sell your daughters to their rapists....."
-- Sir, I was afraid it would get to this. As much as I love these kinds of informal discussions, I do not want to get into a debate about scripture, biblical inerrancy and the likes. What I assert, and I believe this answers your initial question about Christian morality, is that it isn't subjective when you take the second horn of the dilemma. Nature is not akin to whim. God is described as being all-powerful, but one thing he cannot do is go against His own Nature.
"D-K has cited an example and i can show you a video of an animal acting moral. i would also say there are many many examples in nature where social animals will behave in a way we call moral."
-- Certainly we can see many examples in nature. But the fundamental question is: "are they able to perceive right from wrong?" When an animal acts in a way that we would consider moral, do they know they are doing such? Will they be able to go against evolutionarily built in pre-dispositions to *choose* to do the moral thing?
@ D-K and Epicurus
I'm not convinced by the 'tool-sharing' example. I would be more convinced if the chimp knows of the risks of sharing the tools. Say, if it knew that there was significant risk in sharing the tools because there was a big chance the other chimp would run away with it etc. They do things that would seem moral, but morality is dependent on knowledge of what is RIGHT and WRONG, and choosing to do the RIGHT, without expecting any consolation --I do NOT think animals are capable of this, and your examples would seem a bit thin in the face of this.
lovemyselfmorethani08/20/2010 at 17:10
@ Laurie
While I admire your persistence, and respect what you believe, you won’t get far with atheists if that’s how you frame your comments.
from laurie
It requires great courage to stand up for my peculiar standards and doctrine including the more weighty principles such as the principle of freedom.
Reason and experience forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.
"so in actuality EVERYONE is agnostic, but do they live as an atheist or a theist"
I giggled a little at the oxymoron in there. :D
Indeed there is a lot of back and forth of the actual definition of an atheist. I, like Epicurus, adhere to the greek definition considering the word itself is greek.
However, it does bring to mind the question of whether it means to "live without god" (individualist) or "life without god" (general).. Funny how a single letter can make a world of difference, as only one of those explanations holds up logically.
@James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil
As long as I have to bear part of the tax burden that should be aid by religions, I have the right to say what I please and tell them what they may and may not do.
from Laurie
There is a wide difference between academic freedom and academic license. The public teacher has perfect academic freedom to believe that opium is a food and good for humans. He can talk about it, he can write about it, but he must not teach that to my children.
@Achems Razor
Most of us know that Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25 and yes it is a pagan traditional festival. Jesus was born on April 6 in the spring. However we celebrate it on Nov 25 and it is a great celebration.
The thing to always keep in mind is no matter how rationally you approach the question, it is not possible to answer the question unless you are a deity yourself as all other speculation is just that. Only a being with access to supernatural powers could know his or her answer is correct and not another form of self deception or delusion. The definition of a "God" precludes humans from ever knowing if a God exist. This would indicate Atheist are the ones who must be wrong,the agnostics and believers can only say what they believe not what they know.
"but the ability to perceive right from wrong, and to choose to do right– despite every evolutionarily built in disposition to do the opposite — is unique to humans"
This is the exact argument I was trying to refute with my tool-sharing example. Sharing tools isn't in any way beneficial to the one lending them out. In fact, she deprives herself of the means to gather food (albeit temporarily).
Why?
Also, what is your reason for believing that in the first place? I don't know of any mention of a divine spark in the bible or scripture, and wasn't able to find anything on google either.
@ D-K
Yes we shouldn't get tangled up on semantics. I could have sworn I said "raised themselves" somewhere up there, but not on the particular comment you quoted. Also, I apologize if my semantics can be confusing -- english is not my first language, and I don't speak it on a daily basis.
I have to say that what you said didn't seem clear to me, since you added the part about hormones doing much of the influencing. But I do think that that was where you were leaning towards.
I have to say I don't agree animals can perceive right from wrong. They can show behaviors we once thought were uniquely human, but the ability to perceive right from wrong, and to choose to do right-- despite every evolutionarily built in disposition to do the opposite -- is unique to humans. And this is what I was referring to as the 'divine spark'.
I have no problems with evolutionary psychology and it's seemingly reductionist approach in explaining away human behaviors though.
"what influences behaviour to a degree where it overpowers self-preservation instincts."
-- Many people commit suicide, so I guess a lot. But the better question is what makes humans able to go against fundamental evolutionarily built-in behaviours. I don't know of any naturalistic answer for that.
"I don’t think children raised as monkeys will be like monkeys. Sure they’ll turn out weird, but they’ll still be vastly different"
By this statement you implied Epicurus or myself stated that feral childs are like monkeys. The term "raising" is especially contradictory to the concept of a feral child. I really think we shouldn't get hung up on semantics though (again, lol).
"No your comment did not confuse me. Did my question confuse you? I’m asking if you believed that animals (at least some animals) are able to distinguish between right and wrong; do they percieve the moral realm; does a chimp, say, know he’s being immoral when he kills another chimp?"
I think my example provided a very clear example of counter-instinctive behaviour. I also believe it to be clear enough to understand it's context and implications, I see no reason to "validate" my example with a "yes, I believe this" when it is quite clear that I do. Chimps have a lot of documentaries, watch some and see how group-dynamic and group morality comes into play. I believe Epicurus provided a nice link to "group morality" in the "million dollar mind reader" doc page, it's a good read, have a look.
Perhaps I have overlooked something though, in my "tool-sharing" example, I simply attribute the behaviour described to be influenced by morality. Perhaps you can tell me what influences behaviour to a degree where it overpowers self-preservation instincts. The example sketches a picture of compassion and empathy, traits belonging to the moral perspective, which I found to be convincing.
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …
Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?” - Stephen Hawking
@ Laurie
While I admire your persistence, and respect what you believe, you won't get far with atheists if that's how you frame your comments.
I see that the religee's are still and always, pushing the misconception of there gods.
Well they are paying allegiance to the wrong type of god of course.
There god plain and simple is anthropomorphized from the Sun as god giving light to the world, a saviour of mankind. etc: etc:
The name easter has its roots in ancient polytheistic religions (paganism)
A pagan celebration of the spring solstice. Even though the death/resurrection story in pagan rituals actually occurs from Dec. 22nd to 25th the Roman Catholics who own the copyright thought it would be cool to celebrate the birth on Dec 25th and the resurrection at the time when the days grew longer.
Christmas...a pagan celebration of the winter solstice.
It has existed for well over 3500 years as the festival of Horus, long before Jesus came along and bought the copyright.
For more on this google...Christianity on trial; final hearing<<the world according to Xenocrates
@ilovemyselfmorethani
Our world is in turmoil. It is aging toward senility. It is very ill. Long ago it was born with brilliant prospects. It was baptized by water, (The Great Flood) and its sins were washed away. It was never baptized by fire, for that is still to come. It has had shorted periods of good health, but longer ones of ailing. Most of the time there have been pains and aches in some parts of its anatomy, but now that it is growing old, complications have set in, and all the ailments seem to be everywhere.
The world has been "cliniced," and the complex diseases have been catalogued. The physicians have had summit consultations, and temporary salve has been rubbed on afflicted parts, but it has only postponed the fatal day and never cured it. It seems that while remedies have been applied, staph infection has set in, and the patient's suffering intensified. His mind is wandering. It cannot remember its previous illness not the cure that was applied. The political physicians through the ages have rejected suggested remedies as unprofessional since they came from lowly prophets. Man being what he is with tendencies such as he has, results can be prognosticated with some degree of accuracy....
Today is another day, but history repeats itself. We read headlines. The great powers warn and threaten. Bombs are detonated. Terror is substituted for reason. Defense stockpiles increase. Nuclear races get swifter. The radios whine. The newspapers carry glaring headlines, politician wrangle, students and authorities harangue. Everybody expresses opinions, but few approach the real cause or the real cure.
What is the real illness? Its symptoms are manifested in every corner of the globe. They are found among men in high places, in hut and mansion. Its symptoms are carelessness, casualness, covetousness, slothfulness, selfishness, dishonesty, disobedience, immorality, uncleanness, unfaithfulness, ungodliness. compiled by Jerreld L. Newquist
Laurie, jesus is not dead because he never existed. If you look up Horus, Attis, and Mithra, you will see where the entire myth was stolen from far earlier myths. You might also consider that there is not one contemporary account of jesus. The first account is the gospel of Mark, written at least 4 decades after his supposed death.
Do you think it strange that the Romans, who kept such good records on everything else wound never mention someone who was supposed to perform miracles , cause political and civil unrest, then executed in a very public manner?
What you choose to believe is your own business but when christians demand respect and try to enforce their beliefs by passing them into laws and forcing them to be taught in public-supported schools, then it become my business.
Then there is the free ride religions get on taxes, flouting the law, and restricting freedom of speech that moves religion from the realm of private beliefs into a disruption of freedoms. As long as I have to bear part of the tax burden that should be aid by religions, I have the right to say what I please and tell them what they may and may not do. Start paying your own way and stay out of the public sector and you can practice anything you like in your personal lives.
@D-K
So your saying animals have the ability to be moral? They have the ability to perceive right and wrong? Really?
Animals have a God given instinct to survive and have joy in their sphere.
z103
Dont belive in DEAD, trust in LIFE.
Jesus isn't dead. He is a resurrected being. His body and his spirit was reunited on the first Sunday we call Easter. But you're right prayers should be addressed to Heavenly Father.
Wow! This is quite the topic. I'll have to watch the doc and get back to it. Thanks for the welcome back.
Yes, Dr. Randy! Still believing in that which is most believable! In fact I'm the preacher this Sunday, so no time this weekend to read this thread. Also, I'm interviewing for a professor position at a Christian college Saturday. Secretly. I'll have to go get my masters degree most likely while/before I can be full faculty I bet, but I want to do that anyway. In Theology of course. :-) I have a good feeling about it. I think they'll bring me on. My wife might get hired on too. She's already got the masters degree she needs. I bet we both get hired together. The director is coming in by train to meet us in person and said he's thinking about asking my wife to teach also.
I had a wonderful vacation! My Mom's still living and so is my Dad. Can't be better than that at this point in time.
Personal highlight: 3 LB 20" Rainbow out of Diamond Lake! Yea! I wonder why we can find so much joy in killin' da "big one" just to take pictures with it? My cousin's nighbor smoked it, so I didn't get a bite . . . . but I sure love my pictures with it! LOL These are happy days.
Peace to you all.
Vlatko still rocks with docs! :-)
@ D-K
You seem to be slightly overstating the mental situation of feral children.
Epicurus argues they are "extremely animalistic". In reality, feral children simply lack the *basic social skills* which are normally learned in the process of enculturation. I don't think this makes them extremely "animalistic", and incapable of fundamental notions of morality.
@ D-K
No your comment did not confuse me. Did my question confuse you? I'm asking if you believed that animals (at least some animals) are able to distinguish between right and wrong; do they percieve the moral realm; does a chimp, say, know he's being immoral when he kills another chimp?
You say:
"I’d also like to interject in your conversation with Epicurus, since I brought up the “feral child” matter. A feral child isn’t “raised”, also a human is not a monkey (or an ape, which I’ll just assume you were going for).
-- Which is why I said they've "raised themselves" in specific environments. And my exact words were this: " I don’t think children raised as monkeys will be *like* monkeys. "
you say:
"Noone here equated a feral child to a monkey."
-- Just as noone here accused anyone of doing such.
you say:
"Also this; -”You agreed with this by saying “they may have a higher cognitive ability and be able to learn better than animals”, and obviously that’s all the materialist will agree with. He’s not in any way going to say “Oh yeah I agree they have the divine spark”, so Go figure”- is not an argument."
-- It wasn't meant to be one. Read it again.
I'd also like to interject in your conversation with Epicurus, since I brought up the "feral child" matter. A feral child isn't "raised", also a human is not a monkey (or an ape, which I'll just assume you were going for).
Noone here equated a feral child to a monkey.
Also this; -"You agreed with this by saying “they may have a higher cognitive ability and be able to learn better than animals”, and obviously that’s all the materialist will agree with. He’s not in any way going to say “Oh yeah I agree they have the divine spark”, so Go figure"- is not an argument.
Excuse my butting in, Epi.
Did my comment confuse you?
@ D-K
So your saying animals have the ability to be moral? They have the ability to perceive right and wrong? Really?
@ Epicurus
Take the "Second Horn" of Euthyphro's dilemma. That's it. But it's not arbitrary, because Holiness and Morality IS HIS NATURE. It's not that God *chooses* to be Moral, He IS moral. So that pretty much shows how, from the theists perspective, morality isn't fundamentally arbitrary.
you say:
"and no i wont agree that feral children are vastly different from animals. they may have a higher cognitive ability and be able to learn better than animals but that has come with many years of social evolution, and even then after a certain age of living feral the child is not able to learn basic “human” functions."
-- Then don't agree. I don't think children raised as monkeys will be like monkeys. Sure they'll turn out weird, but they'll still be vastly different. You agreed with this by saying "they may have a higher cognitive ability and be able to learn better than animals", and obviously that's all the materialist will agree with. He's not in any way going to say "Oh yeah I agree they have the divine spark", so Go figure.
@Ilovemyself:
“But I believe that the most fundamental characteristics of people, the Law of Human Nature as C.S. Lewis terms it, is this inherent ability not only to perceive right and wrong, but to choose to do either the right or wrong”
Really? Decision-making in context of cause-effect is not inherently a human trait. Social structures within the primate branch allow for choices based on what is socially accepted within that group. These rules are however, not absolute. Wiggle-room is left, indicating ethical implications to be considered within that group, which constitutes one of the many responsibilities of the patriarch.
Primates across the board are succeptible to moral influences when making decisions, although I will admit that studies have shown they are heavily impacted by hormonal flow as well.
A particular touching scene comes to mind, in which a banned mother with a b*stard child stumbles upon another group of apes. Recognizing her vulnerable state, a female, after having recieved permission from the patriarch, inches closer the mother and infant. She then shares the “tools” used for extracting termites from a nest that’s also being used by the apes from the group.
While not being accepted within the group, she finds herself being allowed passage, where it just as easily could have been a game over for her and her child. She returns her borrowed tools after having fed her child and she dissapears into the distance.
Unless god bestowed his spark on apes as well, which somehow went unmentioned, divine command theory is propostorous and only seems to be the pointless elevation of humans above other species. Humans aren’t special, just further along on the evolutionary ladder.
(c/p'd 'n reposted, censored) (also, b*stard is not a word that's inherently offensive, weird auto-censor, might wanna check on that Vlatko)
If belivers trust in Jesus and not in them selfes, then those peopels are denying the gods powerfull force which created them. If they think Jesus was better than they self, then they are telling to to GOD that he did wrong programing with them, their God is then not perfect...
If belivers trust in church, and call it gods house, what did they call the nature wich is the real gods house...
If you belivers want to send a package from A to Z , will you first send package to G and then further to Z ?
Then know why your prayers never came frame to god, because you sent them to jesus first, and u can never be sure jesus send them back to god because hes dead... Only alive human can comunicate with god.
Dont belive in DEAD, trust in LIFE.
@Ilovemyself:
"But I believe that the most fundamental characteristics of people, the Law of Human Nature as C.S. Lewis terms it, is this inherent ability not only to perceive right and wrong, but to choose to do either the right or wrong"
Really? Decision-making in context of cause-effect is not inherently a human trait. Social structures within the primate branch allow for choices based on what is socially accepted within that group. These rules are however, not absolute. Wiggle-room is left, indicating ethical implications to be considered within that group, which constitutes one of the many responsibilities of the patriarch.
Primates across the board are succeptible to moral influences when making decisions, although I will admit that studies have shown they are heavily impacted by hormonal flow as well.
A particular touching scene comes to mind, in which a banned mother with a bastard child stumbles upon another group of apes. Recognizing her vulnerable state, a female, after having recieved permission from the patriarch, inches closer the mother and infant. She then shares the "tools" used for extracting termites from a nest that's also being used by the apes from the group.
While not being accepted within the group, she finds herself being allowed passage, where it just as easily could have been a game over for her and her child. She returns her borrowed tools after having fed her child and she dissapears into the distance.
Unless god bestowed his spark on apes as well, which somehow went unmentioned, divine command theory is propostorous and only seems to be the pointless elevation of humans above other species. Humans aren't special, just further along on the evolutionary ladder.
@ Epicurus
"You claimed morality exists in humans and was given like a spark by god….if that were the case why can we have feral kids. why, if people are not raised in a society, are they extremely animalistic?"
-- Obviously, we don't expect kids that have raised themselves in the jungle to be like us. They've had to live through certain things. When I said the "spark" thing, I was in no way de-valuating the significance of cultural evolution, and other societal pressures that can influence our moral senses. But these 'Feral Kids' are still vastly different from animals, I think you'll agree.
"IN FACT, you claiming morals are given to us by god goes against evolutionary psychology."
-- Not so much if you are a Theistic Evolutionist. Though Man is created in the image of God, he is still a creature, and shares many attributes with the rest of the created order. Made of the dust of the earth, he is a biological system and has certain needs that are similar to those of other organisms. But I believe that the most fundamental characteristics of people, the Law of Human Nature as C.S. Lewis terms it, is this inherent ability not only to perceive right and wrong, but to choose to do either the right or wrong.
@ Epicurus
"you also believe morality to be subjective. subjective to god’s will.
Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"
-- Christian Worldview: God wants us to be Holy and Moral, because these attributes are a part of His nature. You can google 'Divine Command Theory'. This will explain what I just said in more detail. I'll probably be butchering this notion if I attempt to explain it myself.
@Laurie:
When you cut and paste stuff as you put on in your previous blog. you should tell all the sources.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
you also believe morality to be subjective. subjective to god's will.
Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?
ilovemyself... wrote at me:
"And you rant that the world is such a garbage dump because of religion? Imagine everyone adopted your worldview, as expressed rather eloquently above. Doesn’t seem like such a nice place to me."
Well, since poverty is the number ONE cause of premature death and suffering the the ENTIRE world: yes, I think less poverty would be a wonderful thing.
Listen, this is Evolutionary Nature talking to you: "You were put here to EAT-- so you could live long enough to--- BREED--- and then you EAT--- so you can live long enough to--- raise your offspring and provide for your primate troupe--- and then you must die and become food for something else which must--- EAT--- and on it goes..."
For human primates, the EATING is MONEY. Making a living so that you can provide for your family and for the welfare of your troupe/tribe/community... that is morality, my friend.
@Laurie who spoke of how sad people who are dpressed or anxious need coddling, I say, well, sure, for awhile... but if they can't get over it by 50, (and especially if they can't get over it by the time they have kids?), then they need a kick in the pants, and they need to snap out of it.
Listen, I was horribly abused as a child, and my life has been a constant struggle and wracked with pain... I said, "Life-- bring me your worst, you nasty B*TCH!" and I achieved anyway.
I believe in support and compassion, but too much is just too much.
Besides all of that, my sister-in-law thinks she is doing just fine. She won't except our help because... I don't know... the lord has a plan for her silly-ass, I suppose...
Throughout the centuries men have had to struggle to be free. They have had to contend with usurpers. They have had to fight dictators. This is what lovers of freedom are doing today.(David O.McKay) It is not to the State that we owe the multitudinous useful inventions from the spade to the telephone. all these are the results of he spontaneous activities of citizens,separate or grouped.
Human liberty is the mainspring of human progress.
The one great revolution in the world is the revolution for human liberty. This was the paramount issue in the great council in heaven before this earth life. It has been the issue throughout the ages. It is the issue today.
A Personal Responsibility
May I call to your attention to the fact that at no given time was it designed that any individual should think it is his business to control or dominate the lives of others.
"It is the nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, that they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion--hence, many are called, but few are chosen"
Indeed, it is our right as the poet declared, "to call, persuade, direct aright, in nameless ways be good and kind. But never force the human mind" It is man failure to understand that basic truth which underlies much that has afflicted mankind from the beginning. (Harold B. Lee)
DENOUNCE COERCION
Free agency is a divine gift more precious than peace, more to be desired even than life. Any nation, any organized group of individuals that would deprive man of this heritage should be denounced by all liberty-loving persons. Associated with this fundamental principle is the right of individual initiative, the right to worship how, where, or what one pleases including Snow White for some, without having to skulk out a culprit at the risk of being shot and killed.
To all truth seekers: Besides the preaching of the Gospel, we have another mission, namely, the perpetuation of the free agency of man and the maintenance of liberty, freedom and the rights of men. This is the test to distinguish the true from the counterfeit.
@ Epicurus
I'll answer you tomorrow.. I'm at Hong Kong right now, so it's 1am.
@D-K
O.K. If that was your thesis, then I'm sure you have some very persuasive arguments up your sleeve. But again, your thesis seems to be at odds with current notions of evolutionary psychology.
@Ilovemyself, i am studying evolutionary psychology at the University of Toronto and I didnt understand the point you were trying to make there.
You claimed morality exists in humans and was given like a spark by god....if that were the case why can we have feral kids. why, if people are not raised in a society, are they extremely animalistic?
IN FACT, you claiming morals are given to us by god goes against evolutionary psychology.
The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (though to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.
In this respect, morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology to get ideologic unity. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining selfishness in order to make group living worthwhile. Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation.
Shermer, Michael. "Transcendent Morality". The Science of Good and Evil. ISBN 0805075208.
Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as "a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups." This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness. In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts. They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics' prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.
Bekoff, Marc and Jessica Pierce Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 2009)
O’Connell, Sanjida (July 1995). "Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind?". Primates 36 (3): 397–410. doi:10.1007/BF02382862. ISSN 0032-8332.
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
@Ilovemyself:
" You go against evolutionary psychology if you believed this. Ofcourse, cultural evolution has a big effect; Say, we can be desensitized to horrible things if we are exposed to them enough. But there’s no conclusive evidence that our perception of the moral realm is wholly dependent on our current frame of reference. To the contrary, some findings indicate that we seem to have built-in moral notions."
Actually, "feral childs" are the cornerstone of my thesis, perhaps you should look up some research and docs concerning the matter. These humans act purely instinctively, with patience and dedication they can be "domesticated" but that's besides the point. Feral childs teach us that instinctive behaviour is natural (the default) and that morality is purely a cultural trait. There is no divinity in that which is taught.
Morality is intrinsic to modern day society, not to human nature.
@ James Smith Dumb Whatever
You say:
"You think it is not right to value someone’s (apostrophe needed) life? That’s typical Christian morality and illogical thinking."
I made no such statements. So not only are you an imbecile, you're also a liar.
@Laurie:
Family means nothing if it's members aren't a positive influence on your life. There is nothing altruistic or heroic about dragging along a ball and chain, just because you share genes. It is by all means, irrational.
@Albert:
"1) Everything all religious people believe is wrong
2) They are foolish to believe it
3) Even if we allow you to believe it – you should never, ever express any tenets of your belief in public in any shape way or form because the very act of doing so violates my atheists rights"
1) Well, you can't really be an atheist wtihout thinking all theists are wrong. Not everyone who doesn't believe is an atheist though. Be mindful of generalizations.
2) That's a personal opinion, and neither right nor wrong. You may think that non-believers are closed-minded or deliberately obtuse, this is your right. You also have a right to voice that concern, albeit a bit of a shin-kicker.
I have certain opinions about theism and atheism as well, it is natural for humans to judge opposing assessments. For instance, I find the act of believing to be unscientific. That goes for both Atheism and theism, both require belief.
3) I've said something to this effect, but I think you misenterpretet. Your beliefs mean NOTHING to anyone else, unless they share those exact beliefs, or see logic to adapt or change their beliefs to suit your vision. Belief is inherently individualistic, there is no actual need to vocalize unless you wish to start a discussion.
The problem most atheists/non-believers have is that religious parties influence governments, and so influence decisions of national importance. For instance, I have been battling with my own government for a while, trying to ban christian religious teachings from middle schools set programs. A school is a house of knowledge, factual knowledge, christianity isn't that and as such as no place in a school's set program. At the very least it should be optional, although I feel banning it all together to be much more logical. As I said before, you cannot teach beliefs.
4) I think you mistake intent, instead of focussing on emotional charge in comments, you should check them for merit and valid points and discard information you deem useless. Stick to the points of discussion and pay no mind to what you consider to be ad hominems. It's as simple as that.
@ James Smith Dumb whatever
You stupidly say:
"Doing what is right because is right is “galactically stupid”?
--Why do I even bother with the likes of you.. Read the statement "We should do what is right because it is right". Read it a million times if you want to. Consider that you believe morality to be subjective (an opinion). And then try to discover the galactic stupidity of it all.
Come on now slugger, you can do it.
@ Randy
This pretty much summarizes your idea of what life should be about:
"Learning science and math and things that effect the real world, can put money in your bank account.
And that, my brothers and sisters, is the only thing that matters in this life."
And you rant that the world is such a garbage dump because of religion? Imagine everyone adopted your worldview, as expressed rather eloquently above. Doesn't seem like such a nice place to me.
@ D-K
"Well. I think we could be discussing this metaphorical “spark” all year, mostly because that is just vague. God bestowed humans with the spark of morality, thus enabling them to see right from wrong?"
-- In the Christian WorldView, that's the belief. Yes.
"Without frame of reference/paradigm, no system of judgement, no right and wrong. Right and wrong are not programmed, morality derives from the frame of reference (culture/upbringing/environment) and imposed standards, both implemented after birth. Both also absent if never implemented."
-- You go against evolutionary psychology if you believed this. Ofcourse, cultural evolution has a big effect; Say, we can be desensitized to horrible things if we are exposed to them enough. But there's no conclusive evidence that our perception of the moral realm is wholly dependent on our current frame of reference. To the contrary, some findings indicate that we seem to have built-in moral notions.
Epicurus
NEVER under any circumstances jump out of an airplane without a parachute…why? because im a fundamentalist when it comes to gravity.
from Laurie
A little laughter is needed here. Laughter is good medicine.
Epi If I gave you a million dollars you wouldn't jump out of an airplane unless you have a parachute?
You just lost a million dollars the airplane was on the ground.
@z103
Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God?
If universe was created by god then who created him self , was he come into being by random chance? Then the God should be the random. If he are the random, What did the random come to?
When you stop search him you will find him.
That is a very good comment. God is the CAUSE. Some people need to be taught how to search. The door to the heart has only a doorknob on the inside. There is no force used to open the door. If there is force it isn't of Christ. He died for free agency. Some well intended person may use force but it doesn't make it right. That means that they don't have a full understanding or they have issues. Believing in Christ doesn't make a person perfect. We have our whole life and the next to perfect ourselves. One step at a time. God does not expect a person to run when they can't crawl.Grow where you stand.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
It’s not that religion is needed for people to be moral. atheists can just be as moral as theists, because no matter what the belief, they have been given that divine spark.
from Laurie
I call that spark the light of Christ. Every human born on this planet has the light of Christ. The light of Christ some people call it conscience the knowledge to know the difference between good and evil. Knowledge doesn't save because people also have free agency the right to choose between good and evil.
Albert Couillard:
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is not true. Religious people ARE foolish for believing in something that is patently untrue and no one can produce even a tiny bit of evidence that it is true. Instead, they demand everyone "have faith" and reject all contrary proofs and attempt to forbid reasonable questions.
In addition, theists consistently attempt to enact their foolish beliefs into laws so as to impose them upon everyone.
You may not like the above but they are facts. If you think they are no, prove it.
Yes, hypocrisy and arrogance are "crimes" common to all believers. I have never me even one religious person that really practiced what they professed to believe. If that is not hypocritical, perhaps you have another definition?
Believers are universally arrogant in their insistence that only they are right and have access to the "truth". Arrogance when one preaches to be humble and respectful is another example of hypocrisy.
No one on here that I have seen has ever said anyone should not express their beliefs in public. Just don't try to force them on others by laws or threats or actual violence. Suppression of beliefs is a strictly theist approach because they know their views cannot withstand free and open discussion.
Tell me, when have you ever known an atheist to threaten believers with violence, imprisonment, or eternal damnation? Those are all theist methods.
So anyone can believe what they want and make every attempt to persuade others as long as they stick to logic and facts. When they attempt to enact their beliefs into law, threaten others, forbid questions, or use violence such as murder and bombing, they are to be stopped. If theists were bombing churches and mosques, shooting evangelists, and passing laws making it illegal to practice a religion, they would be as guilty as theists. But none of that has happened, has it?
Are you not participating because you have contributed nothing worthwhile or because you cannot successfully respond?
@Randy:
Bumper stickers, fishes, money?
Right, the only bumper sticker that made sense to me and was funny was one of my general managers one that was on the back of his Mercedes sport convertible, that said..."F*ck The Poor"
She basically lives in her car
from Laurie
Maybe that person has a mental illness like maybe she is disfunctional maybe she has anxiety, depression and can't keep a job . It doesn't mean it's her religion that is to blame for it. We live in an imperfect world where there is illness. Sometimes ill people are put in our path to teach us a lesson if we are teachable
She basically lives in her car, sleeping at her daughters' house in a spare room cuz she can't even afford a place of her own at 50 years old...
from Laurie
I think that is what families should do help one another out. If a family member asked me to borrow three hundred dollars for a car repair and I had it in my bank account as savings I wouldn't lend it I would give it because if a family member is struggling to pay for a car repair of $300.00 they will struggle to pay it back or won't pay it back and it would create bad feelings between family members. We are stuck with family members for a long time so so if you can help to make them good relationships everyone will be happier.
To D-K
I appreciate what you are saying but here is the problem I have with this supposed discussion.
My interpretation of many of the comments by many of the apparent atheists here are the following:
1) Everything all religious people believe is wrong
2) They are foolish to believe it
3) Even if we allow you to believe it - you should never, ever express any tenets of your belief in public in any shape way or form because the very act of doing so violates my atheists rights
4) Ok,let's discuss
What is there left to discuss? Given these conditions anything any religious person, or supporter of their right to believe, says will be shut down as irrelevant and based on falsehood.
In my view what is not sought is a discussion but the chance to attempt conversion and/or simply the chance to say "Well I'm right becasue I'm right and your wrong because you are wrong". It becomes tiresome to "discuss" in such an atmosphere.
On a final personal note all I will add is I find many of the "crimes" such as hypocrisy and greed being leveled against, seemingly, all believers is unjust. Examples of such actions, and more, could easily be found everyday in the secular world. But again I feel any defence offered by any believer, or supporter of their right to believe, will simply be ignored or belittled.
Again, such "discussion" seems pointless and quickly become tiresome and I have chosen upon the conclusion of this posting to no longer participate.
Ultimately, I will repeat an axiom of mine that I have often used all over this site: If it isn't testable, verifyable, measurable, it isn't worth worrying about.
Philosophical debate is fun, but meaningless, pointless, and a waste of time. Much like watching "Bridezillas" or "The Jersey Shore".
Learning science and math and things that effect the real world, can put money in your bank account.
And that, my brothers and sisters, is the only thing that matters in this life.
You believe in god/gods? Great. Can it make money for you to support your family? Yes? Then you are selling dreams for profit and that makes you a con-artist, (a profession I HAVE been successful at, but I realized it was ethically WRONG). Does it make you NO money? Well, then move on to something else...
Ever notice you don't see a lot of "christian fish" on the backs of Mercedes or BMW's. But you see them all over junked up station wagons and bombers with duct-taped plastic over a broken side window...
My sister-in-law is nuts in love with the lord and has been a member of some christian cult based in Florida for decades...
She basically lives in her car, sleeping at her daughters' house in a spare room cuz she can't even afford a place of her own at 50 years old...
But, she tithes ten percent of her part-time salary to the church every month.
Where is HER god, now? How is this helping her?
Albert, you do yourself a disservice. Intelligent discussion, positive conflict, clear listed (counter)arguments and respecting eachother's opinion goes a long way.
Ad hominems are lousy cop-outs.
@Ilovemyself:
Well. I think we could be discussing this metaphorical "spark" all year, mostly because that is just vague. God bestowed humans with the spark of morality, thus enabling them to see right from wrong?
2 words; feral child.
Without frame of reference/paradigm, no system of judgement, no right and wrong. Right and wrong are not programmed, morality derives from the frame of reference (culture/upbringing/environment) and imposed standards, both implemented after birth. Both also absent if never implemented.
Ha,Ha, another one bites the dust!
good, more straw-man from the child who cant have an intelligent discussion with differing views without being a knob about it.
but thanks anyways. i often am.
To Epicurus,
There are many things I am tempted to say in response to your last entry but I have realized it would all be for naught.I feel all you really want to hear is that you are right and everyone else is wrong.So,since it will I must assume,help you sleep better at night here it is: yes Epicurus, you are right and I am wrong. How foolish of me and others not to see the world exactly as you do. The world would be so much better if you were dictator. There,have a good sleep now.
Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God?
If universe was created by god then who created him self , was he come into being by random chance? Then the God should be the random. If he are the random, What did the random come to?
When you stop search him you will find him.
To: ilovemyselfmorethani
My apologies I meant to direct those comment to Epicurus.
I mistakenly copy and pasted the wrong name. Again my apologies for the confusion
@ Charles B.
Welcome back! Good to see you :-)!
ilovemyselfmorethani You have yet to demonstrate that a single word of what I have posted is not true. What you have shown is your own ignorance and determination to never learn anything.
It's obvious to me, as it must be to most, that I know far more about the bible and your religion than you. You might ask yourself, when have I said you were a fundamentalist? You are the one that uses that word consistently.
You think it is not right to value someone's (apostrophe needed) life? That's typical Christian morality and illogical thinking. Doing what is right because is right is "galactically stupid"? Sure, you only do what is right because of fear and force. Truly good people (unlike you) do what is right because it is the honest, good thing. Apparently without the threat of hell, you are so morally bankrupt that you would run amok, committing any manner of atrocities. Again, a typical theist. t makes me even more proud to be an atheist. Thank you for that.
I have no more time to waste on you, So I invite you to obey the biblical imperative to "Go forth ans multiply thyself."
@ D-K
"What I think you’re forgetting (ilovemyself..) is that religious morality is also subjective, it’s just that judgement derives from external input, rather than the self. Religious morality differs in both nature/motivation and execution between the various religions. To say morality/ethics is/are objective is to preach a falsity."
-- We can debate this all year and still won't be breaking new ground. But what I can say about this is that in the Christian Worldview, we DO know what is right and what is wrong, because God gave us that divine spark (or whatever the metaphor is).
So Theists, at least Christian theists, believe that morality IS derived from the self.
We don't look at the bible or the commandments and derive our morality from there. The Good Samaritan was a story of a gentile, who knew not of any Jewish Tradition, moral codes, and practiced no Mosaic Law, but knew what the right thing to do for his neighbor was. Theists believe that the recognition of Morality is a God-given characteristic.
It's not that religion is needed for people to be moral. atheists can just be as moral as theists, because no matter what the belief, they have been given that divine spark.
@ James Smith Dumb whatever
"You claim I am like fundamentalists but I have not said theists should “shut up” be imprisoned or in any way restricted in what they believe. What I have said many times, but apparently not enough for it to sink into your mentality, is that theists should not attempt to force their views on others by force of law or other means of intimidation."
-- And you also say this :
"Of course not, you’re a theist so ignorance and denial of obvious facts are your life." And this "another theist liar". And this "If theists want respect there are a few things they should do to get it. Respect is given to truth and logic, not ignorance and rejection of truth and reality." And many other things of that sort. You want to sugar coat your stupid fundamentalism by now saying that all you want is for them to stop imposing their beliefs on you? Are you really this disingenuous?
Read what you say. Do you really think you are NOT a fundamentalist? Well, maybe you will still think you aren't, but that's coz you're a half-wit.
"Christianity is not based on a system of rewards and punishments? Are you expecting anyone to believe that? They entire principle of heaven and hell is reward and punishment."
-- Yes it isn't. You try to argue against something you know so little of. Then you bandy about your crayon understanding of Christianity and expect real Christians to take you seriously.
"I repeat, true morality is based upon doing what is right because it is truly right for yourself and others."
-- O.K. Let me indulge this little child for a moment. Why do you think it is "right" to value someones life?
("You do what is right because it is right" -- Geez.. You seriously don't know what's wrong with this galactically stupid statement of yours?)
I have to half-agree with Ilovemyself... on the fact that non-religious morality and ethics come with inherent nihilism. Without (or with) ultimate consequence, morality and ethics are subjective, as well they should be.
What I think you're forgetting (ilovemyself..) is that religious morality is also subjective, it's just that judgement derives from external input, rather than the self. Religious morality differs in both nature/motivation and execution between the various religions. To say morality/ethics is/are objective is to preach a falsity.
While humans are adapt in collective subordinance, ethics and morality does not derive from actions, it derives from motivation and purpose. The difference between religious and non-theist morality/ethics is, and ONLY is, it's origin of motivation and purpose.
Do you supply your own purpose and motivation, or do you follow established patterns, i.e religion? Just because a pattern is widely shared or collectively endorsed, does not make it objective.
@Charles B.
Hey! Buddy. How's my favorite nut-job, fundie christ-lover?
I prayed for you to... but, I don't think you would like the gods I prayed to... JUST KIDDING! You know I don't believe in none of them! (Maybe...)
How's your health, these days? Still experiencing that psychotic-break from reality known as christianity, I see... Well, that can pass, as I am a testament to...
Good to hear from you!
@Charles B:
Well, your alive! I missed you! we all missed you am sure. Fill us in on how you are doing! How was your holiday? etc:
Ah, Dr. Randy! I prayed for you this morning. Sincerely. The thought occured to me that you perhaps I as a Christian could apologize for Christianity as a whole to you in as much as whatever one or many of us called by that name have done to hurt you. There's power in repentance, and as a true blue believer, I would like to ask for your forgiveness on behalf of those of us (myself included) that sometime act totally contrary to the way we should and proclaim to believe. As you've said before, we can act just as "evil" as anyone else sometimes, and that ought not be. I'm sorry.
On a personal note: I had a great vacation! How are you doing? Vitrolic as usual I see! :-)
I can't post much, but I'll try and check back to see if you read my post for you.
Peace to you.
Charles B.
@ James Smith Dumb whatever
“We need religion for morals” has been the great falsehood spread by theists forever. "
-- Without the divine, our morals are socio-biological spin-offs. That's fine if you want to believe that. But you probably aren't smart enough to realize that what that does it it makes morality subjective. You can still be fine with that. But for theists that makes morality akin to opinion.
So yes "We need religion (or the divine) for morals" to be objective
"True morality is not based on a system of rewards and punishments as in religion. It is based upon doing the right thing because it is the right thing."
-- True religion is not based on a system of rewards and punishment. Christianity is certainly not based on this. So again your ignorance leads you to say things of which you have no clue. Doing the right thing because it's right? How do you know it's the "right" thing if morality is subjective? You seem to be implying that morality is objective when you say "doing right coz it is right". Like I said, You have no clue about what you're talking about. Hundreds of years of philosophers studying ethics and you say we should do the "right thing coz it is right!" Lol.
"The real danger is that religion persecutes anyone that doesn’t believe as they are told, proof, evidence or not. Ignorance and suppression of learning, speech and thinking are how all religions prosper."
-- You're talking about fundamentalist religionists. By the way you blab, it seems you want to do the same thing to Christians. Like I said, Fundamentalism is the problem. You still don't get this?
"When religion stops allowing children to die because they will “pray them to health” and doesn’t attempt to force their sick beliefs on other by force of law, threats and acts of violence, and suppression of human rights, maybe then it will get some respect."
-- More examples of fundamentalism. More examples of people who are LIKE YOU.
@ Epicurus
I said Fundamentalism is the problem, not religion. Which was a response to someone who was implying that religion was the problem and in the process became as radical and fundamentalist as the group of people he tongue lashes.
Then you said it's O.K to be fundamentalist if you know you're correct and then made some analogy about gravity.
So I assumed that you were answering my retort on Atheist Fundamentalism. It wasn't straw-manning anything, it was logical inference.
If you're saying that you didn't mean that it was O.K to be a fundamentalist with respect to atheism, then I think you're being DISINGENUOUS. I'll leave you to it.
@ Albert Couillard
Why are you addressing me with those answers? I'm not sure I've asked you anything in that spectrum. I think you've mistaken me for someone else.
Epicurus wrote, expounding on a point I made and then I will further expound on HIS point:
"...back to @ilovemyself, are you completely ignoring the Greco-Roman moralists? and politicians? our whole government system? Cicero? Seneca? Epictetus? Plato? Aristotle?
why assume any of the morality that Christianity claims is exclusive to Christianity?"
------------------------------
In fact, there is an old saying among classical historians and other acedemics of the like, "christianity is just Plato for the masses..."
But, I have argued this point, "islamo-christianity/religion-in-general is evil and muct be destroyed..." over and over, for months and I am getting sick of it...
America will fall as an horrific taliban-like theocracy soon enough, there are no Americans with the cajones left to fight it. I am certanly too old and really don't care as long as I can retire in comfort.
The sad thing is, we will be dragging down other, more deserving Democracies down with us...
The suffering will be epic; and I will smile on my death-bed, hearing the screams outside my windows. My last words: "I told you aas**les! Where is your god now?"
@ilovemyselfmorethani
So,what you are saying is because someone doesn't believe what you believe - you can belittle and ridicule them. And that shows respect towards your fellow human beings?
Also, I don't know what the Hell schools you went to but I went to Catholic schools all my life and we were taught evolution.Yes we talked about creationist theory but it was NEVER taught as something we MUST believe. I am suspecting you heard about one school or a few teachers somewhere that pushed creation and you ASSUME all Catholic schools must do the same thing.
Also I did not say ALL atheists are anything, I said "many". If you are going to accuse people of something,might I suggest you get the facts right.
Also as far as "beliefs don't respect us"I am confused. If you areanon-believer why do you care if a religion says you will go to Hell, a place you reportedly don't believe in? How does it actually affect your life in any way?
Abortion is allowed, stem cell research is allowed, gay marriage is allowed. A quick search on the Net showed me 22 states allow gay adoption. So again I ask how exactly has a religious person impeded your life?
Again,the only pushing of beliefs I see are on the part of people like you arguing the fact that someone else should believe exactly what you do.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
my point up there was you are saying the problem with anything is fundamentalism and i said no not at all. i didn't say it was okay to be a fundamentalist atheist. it is okay to be a fundamentalist about evolution or gravity or germs. it is okay to be a fundamentalist that the earth is not 6000 years old and that a magic man didn't make everything out of nothing.
it is not okay to say there is no god and you know it. that is not what i was saying.
dont straw-man my points it wont work. especially since they are there for you to go back and see. My point was FIRST that saying atheism is or can be fundamentalist in nature doesn't mean that the position that there is no god is the WRONG position. it doesn't make it wrong, my second point was that there are many things you can be a fundamentalist in that doesn't make it bad or negative.
@Albert Couillard.
the reason you are seeing an almost aggressive stance by atheists is because of the nature of our society. society is mostly steeped in religion. we have it pushed in our face almost everyday everywhere you go. churches are tax exempt yet influence voting, they try to teach creationism to children as if its a viable theory, they try to ban abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, gay adoption...they aren't just sitting around in churches praying to a personal god. they are pushing their religion on society through politics and people who dont believe in there particular god are sick of it.
we have been taught our whole lives that you have to RESPECT other peoples beliefs. but those beliefs dont respect us. they dont respect us so much that they are taught that we are going to hell to suffer for eternity because we dont believe in the same stone age superstition as they do...so how come the atheists cant speak up for themselves? how come if someone says they have an imaginary friend that will burn you forever if you dont say you believe in it, you cant point and laugh at them? what happened to respect being earned?
and how come the actions of one person is proof for you that all atheists behave that way. remember the things i said Christians do is all doctrine and all ordered from their book (which i know very well and would happily back up my claims with scripture). where as atheism has no doctrine. all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in any god. it doesn't mean ANYTHING else. someone could believe in fairies and ghosts and leprechauns and tarot cards and psychics and still be atheist. it is impossible to try and group them together with behaviour, and just silly.
back to @ilovemyself, are you completely ignoring the Greco-Roman moralists? and politicians? our whole government system? Cicero? Seneca? Epictetus? Plato? Aristotle?
why assume any of the morality that Christianity claims is exclusive to Christianity?
MANY MANY cultures believed life an intrinsic value. in fact Christianity didn't actually endorse that. what they did endorse was that any CHRISTIAN life had value...anyone who wasn't white and christian sometimes wasn't even human.
here is a question....why Christianity and not Hinduism? what makes Christianity more probable or logical than Hinduism? (directed to any Christian)
@ilovemyselfmorethani You are obviously another theist liar. Morals have nothing to do with religion but cooperation for survival. "We need religion for morals" has been the great falsehood spread by theists forever. But what morals do they teach? Genocide, intolerance, hate, guilt, fear, and murder.
True morality is not based on a system of rewards and punishments as in religion. It is based upon doing the right thing because it is the right thing. But, as a theist, you cannot accept that. If you accept that, then you surrender the power of religion to common sense and human decency. then bam, there go your "love offerings" cathedrals, and all of the trappings that help religion to subjugate people.
The real danger is that religion persecutes anyone that doesn't believe as they are told, proof, evidence or not. Ignorance and suppression of learning, speech and thinking are how all religions prosper.
Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.
When religion stops allowing children to die because they will "pray them to health" and doesn't attempt to force their sick beliefs on other by force of law, threats and acts of violence, and suppression of human rights, maybe then it will get some respect.
Everyone ask yourselves, when has any atheist attempted to force their views any anyone by violence, threats, or passing laws restricting their freedoms? Most of the American founding fathers were atheists or "free-thinkers" as the term was in those days. Those people guaranteed the theist's right to believe as they wished. The theists are the ones who have abused that right.
@Albert Couillard I have proven nothing for you except that you are a self-centered, delusional fo**. Because I made truthful statements about theists, you immediately assume I am speaking directly to you. As far as the Constitution being your "proof" what an i**** you are. The US Constitution guarantees us freedom FROM religion while leaving people free to practice whatever fantasies they please as long as they do not attempt to force them into public law. But that is exactly why Christians have always one. Those are fact. You may not like it, but prove me wrong. You can lie and while but facts do not change to suit your delusional beliefs.
If you want to feel sorry for anyone, pity the theists that are wasting their lives and resources on religion. Did you ever look at a cathedral or even a modest country chapel and wonder how much better humanity would be if those resources had been devoted to health care, education, and genuinely caring for people? No, I am sure such logical and practical thinking never crossed your mind. After all, it's for the "greater glory of god" isn't it? What kind of omnipotent god would need "glorification" from mere humans? Or perhaps those resources were really for the glorification of the lying hypocrites leading the sheep into religion?
I'd just like to pop in and say that any notion of spirituality beyond that of an individualist nature is bunk.
I believe people should be free to have a belief if they want to, intellectualism isnt for everyone. Having said that, anything spiritual, or spiritual in nature, should not be a teaching. Ever. You can't teach spirituality, you can't learn belief, people should be encouraged to think for themselves.
No religion-class in schools, no religious parties in government, no indoctrination, nothing spritual beyond the individualistic. No person anywhere should be affected by spiritualism unless it's of their own choosing.
Religion should be done away with, it;s merely an instrument to guide spirituality (with certain motives/goals).
@ Randy
"Our country was more based on Greco-Roman ideas than any biblical silliness. Most of the signers of the Constitution were anit-christian and tried to release us from the christian oppression Europe was steeped in."
Can you cite a "Greco-Roman" moral notion that has arguably influenced a large part of our moral history? Or were you referring to their architecture?
The notion that Life has intrinsic value and that people should be treated as ends in themselves and not as means to an end is a notion that the West has got from Christianity. You won't get anything like this from believing that life has no objective meaning, or we are just blobs of matter that happen to be organized in such a way that would seem interesting.
And for those atheists that say religious people are doing nothing but destroy society explain this: The largest non-governmental provider of social services and homeless shelter in Canada is the Salvation Army, a religious based organization.
I am starting to feel very sorry for the atheists that feel a need to attack anyone with religious beliefs. I am starting to understand they have all had very tramatic experiences at the hands of evil religious people. I must conclude this because they seem the need to defend themselves as if they had been grabbed by a roving band of religious people and beaten in a dark alley with bibles. Or a law was written in their communtiy by religious people that forced them to go to a church rather than a hospital to be treated for some illness. Or, gasp, they were forced to walk by a church and the very fact of seeing a cross caused eye damage. Something, must have happened that makes them feel so violated by people that don`t believe exactly what they do.
@Loveyourselfmore, Etc:
Your Quote "in large part American ideals have been based on it" On what? Christianity??
How come most Americans do not even know the history of their own country? Deism anyone?
Again. Wrong. You people have no idea of American history or the works of our Founders... you make assumtions based on the biased opinions of men who loved their sainted christian mamas.
Well, I don't like them or their mamas...
Our country was more based on Greco-Roman ideas than any biblical silliness. Most of the signers of the Constitution were anit-christian and tried to release us from the christian oppression Europe was steeped in.
Afterall, only two of the "ten-commandments" are actually law... stealing and murder... and those are open to debate in most courts of law...
@ Randy
Only Fundamentalists will try to impose things on you, whether they are Christians or not.
Western Moral Foundations however are largely based on Christian teachings. I'm not making this up; even Daniel Dennett conceded this point. So it isn't an assault on American ideals. In large part, American ideals have been based on it.
When something devolves into fundamentalism, that's when it can be dangerous. Let's be careful because radical atheism can do the same. Atheism is not just a lack of belief; this lack of belief entails many many other things that when followed to their logical end, may not be dangerous to a Dawkins or a Harris figure, but will obviously be VERY dangerous to someone with James Smith Joao Pessoa's level of thinking.
To : James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil
Thank you for proving my point. You assumed that because I defended the right for someone to enjoy their beliefs that I then must be religious. I am not. You then accused me of participating in brainwashing, fear mongering, intimidation and violence, even though we have never met. All, this, because I believe in the constitution of our country that gives people the right to religious beliefs. This, by the way, is the "verifiable proof" that anything you have posted is not true. And the proof, for me at least, that many atheists are more insecure and hyper defensive of their beliefs than most of the religious people I have ever met.
In my country, (USA, trying not to assume nationality to anyone else here, and speaking only for my own country), christianity is a hugely powerful political force. It imposess its archaic, bronze-age ideas on "morality" to a 21st century world.
It is an assault on both American ideals, as set down by our Founders, (and seldom used in the last 30 years or so...), and on human dignity.
It is evil and must be destroyed.
Why am I so aggressive in my atheism? Because islamo-christianity, and all that support it, are my enemies and the enemies of all human freedom and expression.
That's just me...
"The problem with this also is that somethings are completely okay to be fundamental about, especially when you are correct."
So you're saying it's O.K to be an atheist fundamentalist because you know it's correct. In other words, you know that theists are delusional? How do you know this? Can you prove this to a reasonable certainty? Go ahead, do it.
@ James Smith
"lovemyselfmorethani What atheists like to prove is how ignorant and stupid theists are. Thank you for proving that, once again, we are right. "
O.K. Go ahead and prove it. If you can't, then you're just talking out of your ass.
Fundamentalism is what's the problem. Don't be a hypocrite now. You are no different from the religious radicals who you so deeply despise.
@Albert Couillard If theists want respect there are a few things they should do to get it. Respect is given to truth and logic, not ignorance and rejection of truth and reality. Respect is earned by teaching beliefs with facts and verifiable proofs, not by brainwashing children and forcing beliefs on others through law, fear, intimidation and violence.
What gives atheists the right to belittle these things? The same freedom that fives theists the right to push your sick, twisted theology on everyone else whether they believe it or not.
You may not like these things but they are the TRUTH. I know that truth doesn't matter to you, as all of christianity is founded upon lies. But show me verifiable proof that anything I have posted is not true. Rejecting reality and forcing stupidity like creationism into the classroom will not get any respect. Behaving like decent human beings will. I am not holding my breath waiting for proof or decent behavior from theists.
While I am not a Christian, I see no reason to bash every Christian or their belief system. Many atheists seem to think they are superior and act arrogant and asinine. Hey guys, you are showing your ignorance acting that way. You don't know 100% what this thing is all about, either.
Let creation reveal its secrets by and by.
Equating man with a cancer seems to be popular these days. Some people want someone to blame humans for everything. We are thrown into this "soup" like every other living thing. Give humanity a break, will ya?
Mankind is capable of wonderful things, as well as terrible things. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I will not apologize for being human. I am no cancer. If you feel you are, that's your problem.
Most of the blatant arrogance I see is on the part of the obvious atheists that have commented here. Most of the Christians I know ask for something very simple: that their beliefs be respected. They will answer questions if you ask them but they do not throw their beliefs into every conversation and try to convert everyone to believe exactly as they do. Many atheists, however, that I have either read or met seem to be on a mission not only to disprove religion but to belittle anyone that dares has a belief. What gives them the right to do that? Why is that ok? Someone dares believe something that you don't and that gives you the right to not only pick those beliefs apart but character assassinate the person for daring to have said beliefs. That is what being an atheist means? That is what society should model itself upon? How is this different from radical religious fundamentalists? Oh wait, of course, because atheism is right and everyone else is wrong. Kinda ironic isn't it?
ilovemyselfmorethani What atheists like to prove is how ignorant and stupid theists are. Thank you for proving that, once again, we are right.
Your statement is as lacking in facts and logic as your religion.
Atheism has no more no less of a chance on becoming fundamentalism. but that doesnt make atheism wrong or an invalid position. you are not adding anything by saying this.
The problem with this also is that somethings are completely okay to be fundamental about, especially when you are correct. i will express fundamentally that you should NEVER under any circumstances jump out of an airplane without a parachute...why? because im a fundamentalist when it comes to gravity.
being a fundamentalist doesnt make you wrong or bad. it depends on what it is, and whether your position most accurately fits reality.
@ James Smith Joao Pessoa
Atheists always like to argue that atheism does not devolve into fundamentalism. Thank you for proving them wrong.
As most "christian" witnessing, this is an absolute lie.
Jacob M: My mantra for over 50 years has been, "there is no god" Not one person has ever been able to furnish an iota of proof otherwise. Every "christian" I have ever met has been a fool, a liar, or a hypocrite. Usually, all three at once.
As far ethics and morality, every time I have been cheated, abused, taken advantage of, or otherwise mistreated, it has been by a "good christian". Real morality has been left to atheists who do good because it's the right thing to do, not because of fear of punishments or a promise of mythical rewards. That isn't morality at all.
There was a young man, who's mantra was "I need proof." As you can not prove that things such as love are real, he lived somewhat with out them. On the day of his death, he approached God in his spirit body. Staring in awe, all he could repeat was his phrase for life. He breaks down to the floor crying, "I just need proof." God understands that this man has been brainwashed by the human way of life and understanding. Such things as faith and belief can not, and never will be proved scientifically, and movies like this will constantly change the face of God to those who can not see him with their own eyes.
Indeed, Albert, ultimately it is meaningless.
But evolution and science teach us that we exist to eat, breed, and then die, becoming food for something else. For me, that is all I want from life. How can you ask anymore?
Making a living is "eating" and providing for your tribe, but everything comes down to what you contribute before you finally succumb to the ravages of the Earth.
I find great comfort in keeping it just that simple. As far morality, evolution gives us all of that, as well. We are social mammals. We work together to perpetuate the life of our tribe/troupe/family, what have you.
'Course, I decided NOT to breed, because I have genetic anomolies that would cause my offspring to suffer as I have, so, evolutionarily, I did the right thing.
But, not every organism gets that priviledge-- to pass on its genetic code. They struggle mightily to do just that, but, many can't succeed. Evolution tries to weed out the weak stuff, (of course, we humans have been cheating for some time now, and that will be our species' downfall...)
Sorry if I am repeating something that has already been said. I will state that I am not particularly religious yet neither am I comfortable with a completely scientific approach to the world. Science is suggesting that God is simply the firing of certain neurons in the brain. I imagine the same can be said of love, hate, loyalty, dedication, trust, pride and any other emotion or feelings humans may display. So if the entire human experience is nothing more than chemcial and electrical processes in the brain then any sense of value we place on those feelings and emotions are also nothing more than chemical and electrical processes. They are then akin to flicking a light switch or the binary code of a computer. Who is to say that the chemical processes inside the brain of a scientist are any more valid than those in a serial killer. Who is right? Why? What becomes the goal? Find out how it all works and bottle it? Lacking loyalty? Take this chemical. Want to think you love someone? Take this potion. You are a killer? Take these drugs and then you will think like us "normal" electrical processes. It all becomes a commodity and meaningless.
There was a comment that no one was talking because of something that I said... So, that message was put up there for that reason... not just directed at you...
leah,
lol. you're not stopping me from talking to people here at all. why would you think that?
well, i had a brief look back through the comments and percieve you to be a pretty gullible person, pardon my honesty.
i found this to be your most, lets say contentious comment.
"call the aliens god… we are their experiments. They are the ones that sped up the evolution from monkeys… It would have took longer, but they abducted us, and did their little scientific experaments on us… The government knows all about the aliens, and they even have meeting with them… The government made a deal with them… For the technology that they had, we let them abduct people for their experaments…
So, really there is no god, there is just us, and the aliens that take our eyes, blood, and our private parts…"
whilst your comment does sound extreme, i've seen a great amount of alien story spinning c!"P on the net, so i'm not suprised by gullible people giving credence to such ideas.
as i said, the 2nd last posted "documentary" here is "ancient aliens".
the net is riddled with "crazy conspiracy theories (G bush)". they compromise the validity of the real ones. coincidence? no.
a deliberate "turd in the punchbowl".
And I'm thinking I should do the right thing here...
From what I said earlier... don't let what I say keep you from talking on here... I feel that there are alot of people out there that would probibly put me straight into the loonie bin if they heard what I said...
So, don't let me stop you from talking to people on here... And I'm just the crazy lady remember...
Well, Hawkpork...
I won't lie...By the way I sounded, now that I go back and read my own writing...If I didn't believe what I believe now, there are some doozies...
I do kinda look crazy saying it all...but I do strongely believe it all...
hi all,
just wanted to add that i think you\re all being a bit hard on leah.
she\s not the first person i\ve heard goin on about aliens.
second most recently added doc is about "ancient aliens". heaps of people are absorbed by the idea.
and can anyone give deffinitive proof that the earth wasn\t seeded by extraterestial life? intelligent or otherwise?
shouldn't you all be a bit more humble? or did i miss some real crazy comments?
I would read that book...but I can't really read that great... I can read what you guys are saying to me...But if I want to actully sit down and read a book... I would have to get someone else to read it to me for me to understand what it's about...
@Epicurs
Holy Batman! I haven't read that book in years! Now I will have to run and get my dog-eared copy and add it to my already insane reading list!
You are absolutely right, it should be required reading for everyone!
Don't feel ashamed...Everyone picks on me...It's their idea of fun...
Clever monkeys indeed...
Leah, you are breaking my heart! And I am more ashamed of myself for picking on you.
Listen, it is not about what you deserve. None of us "deserve" anything. It's about what you can build/make!
You get what you work for. No one is going to give it to you!
We all claw our way through the world... as do all animals on the planet. We are no exception, just because we think we are clever because we can drive and build computers... and Las Vegas... etc.
(I just flashed on my last trip to Las Vegas and I looked around at the electrical, gaudy splendor of the place and said, "What clever monkeys, we can be...")
@leah have the government come to your house to tell you to stop talking about this stuff?
you claimed earlier that they would and that is why no one speaks...however many people speak yet they are all unreliable like you.
i will say that you need to learn how to think critically and rationally rather than jumping to such insane conclusions.
even carl sagan, didnt believe that aliens visited us.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read The Demon haunted World by Carl Sagan.
if you TRULY care about truth rather than just blind belief i would urge you to read this book (which ought to be necessary reading in all grade 9 science classes)
I'm not really sure... I was bullied and called names all of my child-hood... And I'm not sure which one that falls under. And because of the bullying...I couldn't let go and I am facing some depretion and not nice thought about myself. I don't believe that I deserve any of the nice comments that people give me, actully I don't believe that I deserve anything in life... And I want to hide from it all...Like a hermit. So, your guys called me crazy, fits right in with the hermit inside I guess...
So, I can't agree or disagree with you just yet...
The "god isn't real..." part-- I am on board with!
But let me let you in on a little secret:
We are ALL crazy in one way or another!
Me? I am as mad as a March hare!
No one gets out alive, and no one gets through this life unscathed. Mental scars are worse than physical ones...
Don't you agree?
I'm not going to stop trying to get the word out that Aliens are real and god isn't, and the governments are liers... And I'm not crazy either...
Thank you for your advice... I don't mean to ignore it, but it would go against what I believe...
I didn't understand alot of the video that Morgan Freeman did... Although I did think it was rather neat that they picked him... Considering that he did play the part of god in Bruce and Even Almighty...LOL
Leah Ohh, High School. The American school system is so good almost ever high school graduate is a literary maven. You can still use a spell checker.
Leah, you are also a liar. No one shows up at your house for "proving" anything about UNOs or aliens (no caps required). Perhaps that is another one of your delusions? In any case, no one has ever "proven" anything about UFOs or aliens
Note that "prove" has only one "o" as does "proven". I'd think a high school graduate would at least know that much. Also, "nobody" is one word, too.
Randy, I type quickly and on the fly, too. But my spell checker (part of my OS) checks every word I type in any program. I recommend to anyone that does not want to appear to be a lazy, semi-literate m****(like Leah) to use one.
As for hitting me, you are an i****. Hiding behind the Internet to make threats you wouldn't dare speak face to face shows you are an intellectual and physical c*****. You may have "advanced degrees" but you are still uneducated. Are you saying Leah is educated? That says more about you than it does about her.
@Leah...
HAHA! I wasn't trying to scare you, sweetheart.
It was just friendly advice, which you are, naturally, free to ignore.
You can't scare me with that...
@Leah, who wrote:
"That’s the way it works,the government always wants to keep the truth from everyone… So… that’s why it is never prooven…"
Can't you see the infinite regress and cyclic argument you are making there?
"There is no proof and that proves it..."
This is the crazy argument of conspiracy theorists and UFO people and, yes, religious zealots...
There is madness at the end of that path.
Of course, I have been accused of being "in on the cover-up.." so maybe you should be wary of my advice? Maybe I am one of them!
LOL! Seriously Leah, get a good job, find a nice boy and settle yourself for life.
It's all over before you know it!
Randy... The crazy lady thanks you for standing up for her...
@James
C'mon, to be fair, I have advanced degrees but I still make silly spelling errors on this site.
I type quickly and on the fly... and there is no "edit" feature here, so...
If anyone tries to tell me I am uneducated because I make spelling errors here, I would hit them so hard their mama's will feel it!
The reason why no one has ever been about to proove anything with studies done on UNOs or Aliens, if because if you said anything then a couple of men would show up at your house and tell you that if you said anything that you would go to jail or they would kill you... That's the way it works,the government always wants to keep the truth from everyone... So... that's why it is never prooven...
I graduated from high school... and no body is perfect!
Judging from your spelling, and other writing, I suggest you get some education or at least a spell checker.
The depth of your intellect is shown by the fact that you thought I was trying to hide sarcasm. (correct spelling)
If you couldn't detect deliberate and ostentatious sarcasm why should anyone place any credence in your other statements?
@Leah
I have studied UFO's since I was a little kid. I was always fascinated by the idea!
But, eventually, I had to face the fact that the "evidence" is compelling, but certainly not conclusive.
There are no tests that we can perform to prove it out. And only things that can be tested should be considered.
But, I do think more study should be done on the subject, less because of "aliens", more because it probably has a great deal to with our human psyche.
We may find out more about ourselves, through study of the phenomena, than about "visitors" from other worlds...
Sarcasume... what I funny thing to try and hide...
Even in that last little sentence, you failed at hiding it...
No Leah, we do not call you crazy. We all know how truthful and reliable TV documentaries are. TV news too, is never wrong and never broadcasts anything that is not the absolute, verifiable truth. Naturally, you could not have had an auditory hallucination or been mistaken about some other noise in the garage. So many people have reported pig spirits that how could anyone doubt you?
Interesting how there is not even one other report of this "home movie". Everyone should be willing to accept that any "object" not instantly identifiable to a single observer has to be a UFO. What else could it be? A reflection in the camera lens? A balloon? Or even another hallucination, but visual this time?
No Leah, no one thinks you're crazy. Maybe stupid or a liar. At the least, extremely gullible. But crazy? Why would anyone think that? ROFLMAO!
And Randy... I would rather die then to take some drugs full of cemicals with side offects that will mess me up... I am perfectly fine the way I am...
I didn't think anyone to believe me when I tryed to tell what I have heard, and believe to be true and what I believe... So why do I even bother... sigh!
@Leah
Ok. You are crazy.
Listen, there are some wonderful anti-psychotics that may alleviate some of your delusions.
But, seriously, as long as you are harmless, and no danger to yourself or others... Rock on, little sister!
So, let me get this straight...You all think I am just a crazy person, with crazy notions and beliefes... And yes I was serious about it... But to explain what I believe is impossible for me. I couldn't even know where I am to begin with all this. All I know is that I have seen things, in documentries, in the news. I even heard the spirits of pigs running around in my fathers garage after they were killed for meat.
I saw a home movie once that was takin by a girl in a plane of some kind. It was takin just 5 minutes before the planes hit the WTC... And the object that was seen in this home movie was seen at the top of the WTC... It was a UFO... And it nearly hit the plane that this girl was filming this in.
Like I said before, call me crazy if you want...
No, Leah, you don't have to explain yourself. Your statements made it plain. But they are so ridiculous that you have to understand why many thought it could be a clever joke instead of a wacko releasing insane thoughts on the world. But as I quoted Einstein, "Human stupidity is infinite." Thank you for confirming that the great man was right again. :)
@Leah:
I am interested also, is this first hand experience that you are referring to? Or something you watched or read?
You have piqued peoples interest now, can you please explain all this to us?
Ooops, I got Leah confused with Laurie... all the whacky-hippies are a blur...
@Leah
Wait, you were actually serious? Oh wow.
...
wow. I'm interested though, what motivates those beliefs? Were you or someone close to you abducted?
Leah, forgive me, I can get cranky about this, because I have seen too many people who were "trusting and think the best in people..." end up in shallow graves...
I warn my nieces and nephews to assume anyone they meet is trying to rape and murder them...
I'd rather scare them then attend their funerals.
But, I was too harsh... I'm sorry.
Anyone that has a mind, has an opinion...
What I said was my opinion, and my beliefes... call me what you want. I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else for that matter...
Oh, and one more thing! Ceramic blades are a must! They are deadly sharp and do not set off metal detectors!
You can get them now from info-mercials! I remember when ceramic blades were so rare you had to have connections with either the Massad or the Russian mob to get one!
Now, I have dozens...
Uh oh... I think I just went on some "no-fly" list... Don't worry FBI, Home Security, etc... Randy will NOT be flying anywhere in the near to late future... (Doctor orders that I do not, so... whatever!).
BUT, the ceramic blades are awseome at cutting tomatoes!
Anyways, Laurie, get some ceramic blades and be vigiliant and aggressive towards the animals that surround you!
Was THAT creepy? I don't know...
Oh, and Laurie, let me give you some important advice...
When I am incapacitated by my MS, I prefer fire-arms, just because I am weakened, although I find them vulgar.
But, when I am healthy, I love knives! I have a huge collection and have many hidden sheaths. You should look into keeping some on your person.
Studies show that most gunshot victims live, but with knives you can take your time and make sure the job is done right!
Was that creepy? I can't tell, anymore...
@Laurie who wrote:
"What a sour comment. If it can be considered a comment. Well you show a belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns. You believe the worst of others. The opposite of that would be optimistic..."
All human beings that ever lived on this planet, and who will EVER live on this planet, and every animal and plant that ever evolved or will ever evolve on this planet, are motivated by "base or selfish concerns"...
That includes you, me, your kids, your hubby, every single creature that ever drew a breath on this world.
That is basic biology.
Also, optimism kills. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. This is the only way I have found to go through life, and I am fairly wealthy.
I expect all strangers to be murderers and thieves. I always meet strangers well armed, with knowledge and with deadly weapons... Of course, sometimes they turn out to be friendly, but...
"Nobody knows anybody, not that well..."
There are monsters inside of us all, and we all have bloody thoughts... I enjoy that! I find it fun!
I play by the rules, until someone else don't, then, there could be pain...
I'm just sayin'...
D-K. I have to agree with you. Yes, it is a sad reflection on human intelligence that it could be a serious comment. But conspiracy buffs, like theists, can accept the most preposterous claims based on the most ridiculous evidence when even mountains of contrary proof exist.
As Albert Einstein has been reported to have said, "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and human stupidity."
The fact that Leah's statement could be taken as anything other than a joke is somewhat disheartening.
Although I must say I have had my run-ins with undeniable stupidity.. still, c'mon..
C'mon....
Thanks for the explanation. But I suspect you could be right now that you mention it. Leah may have been jerking the collective chains of some others. If so, it was pretty well don. Over the top, yes. But not so over the top as to be unbelievable.
@James Smith Joao Pessoa, Brazil:
You misunderstood, was not calling you a troll, was referring to @Leah:
I agreed with everything you had said.
Must be a language barrier.
No, I am not a troll. I am very serious. Nothing I saw in Leah's post was beyond the stupidity of conspiracy theorists.
So Leah if you were being factitious, my apologies, if not, everything I posted still stands.
Ha,Ha, @Leah: is just being facetious, aren't you Leah?
I think he is just trying to troll to stir people up.
Then tell is Leah, exactly what evidence do you have for your totally absurd statements? You are postulating a conspiracy that would involve thousands of people over a period of at least decades. That's totally ridiculous. Keep in mind, "Three people can keep a secret - if two of them re dead."
So either present some independently verifiable evidence or be prepared to be dismissed as the wacko you obviously are.
There is no god... Unless you want to call the aliens god... we are their experiments. They are the ones that sped up the evolution from monkeys... It would have took longer, but they abducted us, and did their little scientific experaments on us... The government knows all about the aliens, and they even have meeting with them... The government made a deal with them... For the technology that they had, we let them abduct people for their experaments...
So, really there is no god, there is just us, and the aliens that take our eyes, blood, and our private parts...
when ever people quote the bible, or other "holy" document, they are really admitting they have no argument at all. They're just trying to baffle you with BS. Because they are incapable of recognizing reality or thinking rationally, they think that will work.
First you have to define what is meant by "god". If you are talking about the omnipotent father-figure of the jewish/christian/islamic tradition, there is not one iota of evidence for that. But there is plenty of evidence against it. So theists, get real, get logical and furnish some proof that even a skeptic can verify. Of course, most will not even answer this because they know they cannot. The rest will engage in evasions and offensive comments like "I'll pray for you." So you do that and I'll have a devil worshipper sacrifice a baby or two for you.
@Achems Razor
What a sour comment. If it can be considered a comment. Well you show a belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns. You believe the worst of others. The opposite of that would be optimistic.
@Laurie:
I have only one word for that..."Bull-Shyte"! or maybe that's two words.
@Achems Razor
And they are not giving away their own money it is the contributing peoples money, and yes, they have to spend money to make more money, they pay no taxes, everything is tax free for the Mormon “cult” You say they are helping people, I say it is to get more converts. And to make more money.
Laurie to A R
Wall Mart made a big financial and goods contribution during hurricane Catrina. They did it for social responsibility. Some say they had an ulterior motive. I say if it benefits its good. Some say its not genuine or pure. It doesn't matter what the reason they are doing it, at least they are doing it. Some cynical people will always say its window dressing, vaneer, superficial. Do you think that Wall Mart got tax credits for the truck loads of bottled water and blankets they gave away? So what if they did. Do you think they got more customers from all the press coverage? Yes they did benefit from the press coverage. So what?
I say love is an action word. So when the Mormon church helped Haiti during and after the earthquake with sanitary kits, medical supplies, food, pre- built houses etc. It is out of love. The members donate to the church humanitarium program out of love.
@Laurie First thing: there is no such thing as "ether-space." You probably heard that term at the same place you heard about "q-waves" and "bio energy healing" and all of that bull. Secondly, "the gravity field" is called spacetime. Gravity is the warping of spacetime. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity; look it up. If there were no, ahem, "ether-space," there would be nothing to warp, and hence no gravity. Of course, there wouldn't be anything for particles to exist within, so there'd be nothing for gravity to affect either, but I digress. Gravity cannot be distorted. Gravity is, again, the distortion of spacetime. One cannot really distort a distortion; it will still be a distortion. Regarding your second paragraph: if by "higher" you mean stronger, then yes. Gravity warps spacetime; that is, time and space. Time is affected too. If space expands, then time does not necessarily expand. It may, but it may not too. There is no "speed of time." Speed relative to what? Time can only be sped up or slowed down relative to time at another point in space. Time cannot "arrive." You are trying to apply the concept of time to time itself. How would time take time to arrive? That is logically inconsistent.
tl;dr
Laurie's comments make me feel stupider for having read them.
As usual, anything the ignorant theists do not understand, they immediately say it "this must be proof of god". This has been the rallying cry of non-thinkers for all history. We should admit, yes, it IS a lot easier than thinking, especially if you have nothing with which to think.
Is gravity a property of matter? If all ether-space would be eliminated would the gravity field still be able to exist in absolute nothing? Can gravity be distorted?
Does this make sense that the higher the gravitational field the slower time moves?
As space expands does time expand? I mean does the speed of time in expanded space arrive at the same time as the non-expanded space?.
@Laurie:
You are talking of gravity between the ships when they are close together. Forming a warp just like in spacetime gravity, but only on water from the water tension.
The Casimir effect in a vacuum is a different thing entirely.
The Casimir effect has been? known by sailors for centuries. If two ships lay up alongside each other, but not touching, they will slowly draw together, even if they are not moving. If they are big ships it can be quite hard to get them apart again.
@Epicurus
@Laurie from Achems Razor
First Cause?? now you are getting into the CA. ask @Epicurus: on that, he is the champion on the cosmological argument.
@Achems Razor
The story about the mice might appear as fanciful myth. However, it might bear a kernel of truth. Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, also mentions Sennacherib's defeat, explaining that it was caused by a plague. He cites an earlier historian who had written: "Now when Sennacherib was returning from his Egyptian war to Jerusalem, he found his army ... in danger [by a plague], for God had sent a pestilential distemper upon his army; and on the very first night of the siege, a hundred fourscore and five thousand, with their captains and generals, were destroyed" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter I, Section 5).
@Epicurus:
My point is that no god, gods came down from above, played sides and ordered any defeat on anyone.
everything laurie said is straight copy pasted from wikipedia and the actual wikipedia page is full of [needs citation].
either way what are you both arguing...what is the basic points on each side? i think you have both been chasing red herrings for a while now.
Achems Razor
Some passages in the Old Testament agree with at least a few of the claims made on the prism. The Bible recounts a successful Assyrian attack on Samaria, as a result of which the population were deported, and later recounts that an attack on Lachish was ended by Hezekiah suing for peace, with Sennacherib demanding 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold, and Hezekiah giving him all the silver from his palace and from the Temple in Jerusalem, and the gold from doors and doorposts of the temple
That is when Hezekiah gave gold and silver to Sennacherib not when Sennacherib's general besieged Jerusalem.
So it is very clear that the mice did it!! That is a story (myth)created from the real account.
@Laurie::
You are still pushing your fairy tales are you?
Well here is the real lowdown of what happened!
Egyptian sources mention of Sennacherib's defeat in the conflict with Judah, but gives the credit for the victory to an "Egyptian God" who sent field mice into the camp of the Assyrians to eat their bowstrings and thus they fled from battle!
So it is very clear that the mice did it!!
That is my story and I'm sticking to it!
@Razor achems
Back to the essence you wanted to talk about
The OT states that Isaiah assured Hezekiah that the city would be delivered.
The OT states that during the night an “Angel”??? of Yahweh brought death to 185,000 Assyrian troops. The OT states Jerusalem was spared destruction.
The Assyrian account as discovered in the ruins of Nineveh in 1830, and now stored at the Oriental Institute, Chicago, Ill. completely contradicts that in the Tanakh, and as stated in the OT.
Archaeology gives us confidence that the places and people mentioned in the Bible are accurate.
Recorded on a clay tablet now in the British Museum
Now when Sennecherib was returning from his Egyptian war to Jerusalem , he found his army under Rabshakeh his general in danger (by a plague) for God had sent a a pestilential distemper upon his army and on the night of the siege a hundred and four score and five thousand, with their captains and their generals were destroyed. Antiquities 10.1.5
Jerusalem was besieged by Sennacherib, with unclear results as sources from both sides claimed victory, the Jews or (Biblical authors) in the Tanakh and Sennacherib in his prism.
The validity of Assyrian records is not reliable due to Assyrian records indicating themselves that the Assyrian army never lost any battles. (well known Taylor Prism)
Archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the Bible's veracity in every instance.
681BC the king was murdered by his sons Isaiah's prophesy fulfilled
@achems Razor
Gravity is affected by mass, only gets affected by motion if travelling up to the speed of light.
What travels at the speed of light?
@Laurie
Gravity is affected by mass, only gets affected by motion if travelling up to the speed of light.
Nobody really knows what time is, infinite, had a beginning, has an end, what happened before time.
First Cause?? now you are getting into the CA. ask @Epicurus: on that, he is the champion on the cosmological argument.
The rest you mentioned, my answer is, is that I do not know.
@Laurie:
Gravity is affected by mass, only gets affected by motion if it is going up to the speed of light.
Nobody really knows what time is, infinite, had a beginning, has an end, what happened before time.
First cause?? now you are getting into the CA, not interested in that. @Epicurus: is the champion on the cosmological argument, ask him.
The rest you mentioned, my answer is, is that I do not know, nobody does.
@Achems Razor
Yes, gravity can cause time dilation,
Is that effected by a motion of the sun?
or
a change of the relative position of the earth?
I’m only replying for the comedy of some your answers, at least you make me laugh
I'm glad I can make you laugh but this is not what I was thinking concerning the solar eclipse its what I thought you would say to poke fun at me.
Do you think that motion and time is an illusion?
It would be hard to measure speed without time. We would have to change our language. I was there. I am here. I will be there. How do you plan an event?
Is time finite or eternal?
Did it always exist?
Did it have a beginning?
What happened before time?
If a chain of loops is hanging in the air and each link is holding up the one under-- doesn't there have to be an original link to hook it to a nail? There must be an original event that began the chain. There has to be a FIRST CAUSE to all the effects of the universe.
Do we agree on this?
If you have one hundred dominoes a thousand dominoes a million dominoes that you can count at some point you must still get to the FIRST CAUSE. Who? or What? is the cause of all causation. Are you saying that CHANCE is the CAUSE of our universe and all creation.
The universe is cooling meaning that the available amount of energy giving light and heat to the universe is running down. No new energy is being created.
The universe could not have been cooling down for eternity or it would have completely burnt itself out by now. To me it means that time and all creation had a beginning. How can CHANCE be beautiful,structured,and obedient to laws?
@Laurie:
I'm only replying for the comedy of some your answers, at least you make me laugh!
The Assyrians laid siege to the city and withdrew by being paid off with gold/silver.
If a Solar eclipse happened they would not be looking at any dials, only the sun. And would be so stated in their books.
Gave the impression that time had been reversed?? I think not, all the dial would do is to get dark.
You asked a question of stellar dynamics. Stellar dynamics concerns gravity throughout the cosmos, it is a complicated issue, Everything due to gravity is being held together in a sort of equilibrium, Yes, gravity can cause time dilation, but that does not have any applications to what you were referring to. People living in caves looking at sun dials will not cause time travel. Written in antiquated books by antiquated people that did not know any better.
By stating you do not have a clue, was only fact, nothing else.
@Achems Razo
Following is what I was expecting you to say or something dicussing the sun dial and what happened. So when you are unfamiliar you resort to telling me --you haven’t a clue!
A solar eclipse seems to have happened, making the shadow move in a way that gave the impression that time had been reversed.
Achems Razor
The OT states that Isaiah assured Hezekiah that the city would be delivered.
The OT states that during the night an “Angel”??? of Yahweh brought death to 185,000 Assyrian troops. The OT states Jerusalem was spared destruction.
Yes! I am aware that the Assyrians encamped around Jerusalem were smitten and suffered many casualties. The Assyrians who survived broke off the campaign and withdrew to their homeland. There Sennacherib was assassinated as Isaiah had prophesied.
I didn't think that I had to give every single detail to get to the point of the sun dial where day light was extended.
The essence here is -----was it the mechanics of stellar dynamics or was it achieved by the simpler and direct device of manipulating the rays of light and thereby causing the shadow to be shifted backward.
No I'm not a scientist. I was asking you a question.
@Laurie:
Wow! You must of got that info. from the Mormons.
The OT states that Isaiah assured Hezekiah that the city would be delivered.
The OT states that during the night an "Angel"??? of Yahweh brought death to 185,000 Assyrian troops. The OT states Jerusalem was spared destruction.
The Assyrian account as discovered in the ruins of Nineveh in 1830, and now stored at the Oriental Institute, Chicago, Ill. completely contradicts that in the Tanakh, and as stated in the OT.
Jerusalem was spared by the exchange of a lot of gold/silver.
What!! stopped the world and either reversed or forwarded time, Won't even go there, with that type of fairytale.
I recommend you leave the science to the scientists, you haven't a clue!
This is my point
Obviously Sennacherib was planning to eventually haul the people of Judah back to Assyria, precisely the way his father , Sargon 11 had hauled off the ten tribes.
This was enough for the delegates from Jerusalem. They rushed back into the city, tore their fine robes as a token of distress, and went to the temple. It was not until he had been reduced to this abject level of complete desperation that he finally thought of sending for Isaiah. It was obvious that the material fortifications on which Hezekiah had been instinctively relying were not enough. If God would not save them, nothing would.
The Lord tests the Faith of Hezekiah
The king's servants dressed themselves in sackcloth and went as a large delegation to see Isaiah. It is amazing that some contact had not been made with this great spiritual leader long before. Isaiah herd their plea, and then bluntly told them : Say ye to your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.
It was a fantastic promise, almost unbelievable in its fullest implications, but there it was. Hezekiah found the strength to rely upon it, and therefore apparently sent the Assyrian delegates away without any satisfaction whatever.
But barely had Hezekiah received what he thought was going to be certain relief from Assyria's monstrous threat when a hole cloud of catastrophe settled down upon him. As far as we can tell, it was right at this juncture that Hezekiah came down with a deadly illness caused by a lethal infection or abscess in his body. He became so ill that he asked Isaiah to visit him and disclose what his expectations might be. Isaiah had bitter news for the king. Said he, "Set thine house in order; for though shalt die, and not live." Even under normal circumstances this would have come as a terrible shock to the king, but in view of the national crisis sweeping down on Judah it seemed completely irrational that the Lord would take him just now.
As soon as Isaiah left the room, Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and sobbed out a special pleading to the Lord. "I beseech thee, O Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth an with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
By this time, Isiah as just leaving the middle court of the palace. "suddenly the Spirit stopped him and said : "Turn again an tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father (forefather, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears:behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord. And I will add thy days fifteen years; and I ill deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the kinf of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.
Isaiah returned to the palace with this magnificent news. However, lest the healing of the king be taken too much for granted, Isaiah determined to require something at the hands of the king's servant. Just as Naaman, the leper, had been required to dip in the Jordan seven times, so now Isaiah required that a poultice of figs be spread over the king's abscess.
But the king Hezakiah heard all that Isaiah had to say, it soon became apparent that he was not taking any part of this message for granted. These prophecies were all so thrilling to contemplate that he did not dare believe them! Perhaps Isaiah was just trying to make him feel good in his last hours. The king therefore begged for some kind of confirmation, saying "What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shallgoup onto the house of the Lor on the third day?
Isaiah could have said , "Be still and wait patiently on the Lord," but the spirit apparently authorized Isaiah to demonstrate to Hezekiah that the power of Go as behind his words. The prophet therefore referred to the famous sun dial hich ha ben built by Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah and asked, 'shall he shadow (on the dial) go forward ten degrees or go back ten degrees?
This as rather a fantastic proposition since the changing of the shadow on the dial would apparently involve some dramatic change in the working relationship between the earthband the sun, and Hezekiah so interpreted it. Said he, "It is a light thing for the shadow to go down 10 degrees (since that would only involve speeding up of existing processes..) but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.The scriptures continue, "and Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord:and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." It was a phenomenal miracle and must have impressed the king deeply, not only because of its spectacular implications but also by giving comfort to his tormented mind.
My question is was this done by direct intervention in the mechanics of stellar dynamics or whether it was achieved by the simpler and direct device of manipulating the rays of light and thereby causing the shadow to be shifted backward.
@Julian...oh goody did you say i mouthful. this out to be fun.
you say:
"I agree many religions are human made, because God has oriented man to seek him, as can be clearly seen from the lack of atheistic cultures throughout history throughout the world."
This is not completely correct however i love how you say it like its so matter of fact. not only do you say there has never been an atheistic culture (there are a few im sure you can look up, i dont want to do the work for you) but you also claim that this is because god has oriented man to seek him. in a conversation discussing the existence of a god you cant presuppose he exists and is directing things like you have here. i can give you a much more logical explanation as to why MOST cultures have a religion and it would be based upon two theories. one is social solidarity theory (look it up) and the other, Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (also look it up).
You say:
"...grouping all religions into one basket and failing to analyze them individually on their own merits shows a lack of critical thinking. It is the lazy man’s answer. Some religions do not claim divine revelation, and so are human made."
I most certainly have studied them individually during my numerous philosophy or religion classes.
exactly how do you know they are human made since they do not claim divine revelation??? that is a non sequitor.
You say:
"Some religions claim divine revelation and are doing so falsely, whether the founder was deluded or attempted to deceive others, one has to study the religion and its founder and discern the truth."
talk about creating a double standard...there is not enough evidence to say the people were not crazy, lying, or mistaken. but there is plenty of logic and reasoning and probability pointing to superstition and other psychological attributes.
"But where we disagree is I believe that my religion is true because it was divinely revealed, and base my decision on a rational faith."
what does rational faith mean? and you believe your religion is divinely revealed just like mormons do and muslims do.
this is interesting:
"Religion has to be analyzed philosophically and not scientifically. You cannot prove or disprove God, and agnostic is an irrational decision because you are sitting on the fence on the most important decision, and there will be consequences for not choosing."
only consequences if certain religions are right.
"Atheism is irrational because you cannot prove that God does not exist, and there could be consequences."
Atheism is the default position just like you are an atheist of unicorns and leprechauns and invisible teapots between here and mars. without proper evidence for something you dont accept it to be true unless you have been tricked into this pascals wager you are trying to pull....which - heads up - im about to destroy.
"That the burden of proof rests on theists is garbage, and a poor escape from important decisions."
If the theist proposes an entities existence, MOST ABSOLUTELY the burden of proof is on them. if i propose the existence of ANYTHING the burden of proof is on me to show its existence not on you to show its non-existence....otherwise, i have an invisible "wiggyboo" under my bed.
actually an important point here. the more CLAIMS that theists make for their god or religion the more it enters the realm of science or at least logic and able to be scrutinized meaning the theist must also back up those claims, and if they are logically inconsistent then they dont stand up.
now for your choice:
"One cannot do wrong in choosing Theism. If wrong, so what? The most logical decision is Theism. If you cannot prove beyond all possibility (which is impossible given even the limits of human reason, and the potential for God to even choose to not be known) that God does not exist, it is not logical to be an atheist."
you are BETTING on god for fear of the punishment of being wrong. this isnt belief or faith or love. this is fear or desire for reward. this is pathetic...AND it doesnt account for the millions and millions of gods you ARENT picking that will punish you for choosing wrong. you have the exact same chance as the atheist.
"I did not presuppose that there must be meaning and purpose, but that to have objective meaning and purpose, the only real meaning and purpose, there must be belief in God. Otherwise the two options are either to understand that there is no real purpose (as the classical atheists clearly did), or try to pretend there is meaning and purpose, or make your own, which is really logically incoherent. Meaning and purpose cannot be made, it is either there or not. Everything else is just to make you feel good and cannot withstand logical scrutiny."
your need to assume there is meaning and purpose is just there to make you feel good. there doesnt HAVE to be meaning and purpose. especially if you look at the size of the universe and the length of time it has been around and will be around without us....to think we are some important focus rather than some necessary by-product is logically incoherent.
@Laurie:
You cut and pasted that right from Wikipedia.
What is your point??
Stellar dynamics is the branch of astrophysics which describes in a statistical way the collective motions of stars subject to their mutual gravity. The long range of gravity and the slow "relaxation" of stellar systems prevent the use of the methods of statistical physics. The motion of stars in a galaxy or in a globular cluster are principally determined by the average distribution of the other, distant stars, and little influenced by the nearest stars.
The "relaxation" of stars is the process deflecting the individual trajectories of stars from the one they would have if the distribution of matter was perfectly smooth. The "2-body relaxation" is induced by the individual star-star interactions, while the "violent relaxation" is induced by a large collective variation of the stellar system shape.
@Epicurus
People's concepts of God and and his attributes are largely the projection of their own experiences -happy or bitter with the authority people of their lives.
……and you believe this guy? WHY? and why do you never answer my questions?
What is the greatest and highest law in the gospel? The law of love. Upon this law hang all the other laws. That is the reason WHY Epicurus
@Julian:
You figure that I should waste my time and keep arguing with you?
I think not, try someone else.
What are you worried about? I already told you, do not care what you believe. You seem like a kid having temper tantrums.
Not interested!
Achems Razor
What new arguments have you made instead of stating the same nonsense ad nauseam? Same old circular logic.
@Achems Razor
I guess you have to resort to dismissing arguments because you cannot address them. What is the subtitle of this documentary? All you say are statements denigrating belief without any substance or proper argumentation behind your statements.
@Laurie:
Ah Contraire!
I am not angry, just bored with you religee's. you are the one that is angry, hostile, and defensive. I have nothing to defend, except maybe all that science has to offer. You want me to respect the Mormons?? Ha,Ha, so funny.
Of course you have the right to express your feelings, but you are pushing your religion dramatically and incessantly. When are you going to stop? not to many people are interested. I am not.
It is apparent you hardly know anything about your religion. Just cherry picking what is suitable for you.
If you feel you are being judged, and all that jazz, so then stop already.
Ah Revoir!
@Achems Razor
Anger, hostility, and defensiveness has replaced sincerity and honesty. No feeling of acceptance between us seems to be the problem here. Accepting the fact that we think differently and feel differently. No respect. I have learned from you the absolute futility of using the mind to dominate the heart. There are two languages- the language of logic, the "shoulds" of this earth, and the language of sentiment, how people feel. People behave more on how they feel than how they think. Unless there are good feelings between people, it is almost impossible to reason intelligently. Unless people feel that they are accepted and that they have a right to express their feelings without fear of embarrassment or ridicule, that all they will do is react and rebel and struggle for their identity- fight for their individuality. So you feel judged and evaluated and moralized and preached to. Have to go to work.
@Julian:
I really do not care what you believe in. It seems you are the one that will not let it rest.
These doc's. are supposed to be primarily scientific not religious.
Anybody would be hard pressed to "not" find the inclusion of religious mumbo-jumbo in almost all of the doc's on SeeUat Videos, no matter what the topic, could even be a doc. on how to build proper outhouses, if there was such a doc. on SeeUat Videos. the religee's would find a way for the inclusion of there gods.
I personally am getting bored with the religee's because it is the same old, the same old. Nothing ever changes with them, could refute them almost automatically as all my posts will attest. If they actually presented something new, then I would sit up and take notice, instead of their repetitious circular logic. Ad Nauseum.
Like I have said, believe what you will, it does not matter one iota. We all end up in the same place, wherever that place may be.
@Laurie...what does the large number of people have to do with it?
Schizophrenia affects about 24 million people wordwide. are you saying because something is accepted en masse that makes it less crazy?
how many people need to be taken from your number until it doesnt matter?
"Smith and his family participated in the sectarian fervor of their day. Although he may never have joined a church in his youth, Joseph Smith participated in church classes and read the Bible. With his family, he took part in religious folk magic, a common practice but one condemned by many clergymen. Like many people of that era, both his parents and his maternal grandfather had mystical visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God. Smith later said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven and that all churches were false.
The Smith family supplemented its meager farm income by treasure-digging, likewise relatively common in contemporary New England. Joseph claimed an ability to use seer stones for locating lost items and buried treasure. To do so, Smith would put a stone in a white stovepipe hat and would then see the required information in reflections given off by the stone. In 1823, while praying for forgiveness from his "gratification of many appetites," Smith said he was visited at night by an angel named Moroni, who revealed the location of a buried book of golden plates as well as other artifacts, including a breastplate and a set of silver spectacles with lenses composed of seer stones, which had been hidden in a hill named Cumorah near his home. Smith said he attempted to remove the plates the next morning but was unsuccessful because the angel prevented him."
......and you believe this guy? WHY? and why do you never answer my questions?
@Laurie:
Case in point, No wonder Mormons are everywhere trying to convert people!
They come knocking on peoples doors dressed in white shirts, black tie, black pants, sans black jackets, because it is summer. They look like the movie "Men in black"
I see them in our "Canadian Super Store" pretending they are shopping.
They are in local parks, in their Mormon outfits, chase you down the bloody road even if riding a bike, the odds are yes, they do get converts when they take advantage of gullible people, Worse that the Scientologists!
And they are not giving away their own money it is the contributing peoples money, and yes, they have to spend money to make more money, they pay no taxes, everything is tax free for the Mormon "cult" You say they are helping people, I say it is to get more converts. And to make more money.
@Epicurus
i dont know how an adult with a working brain can fall for any religion LET ALONE mormonism
Reply
Total church membership 13,824,854
vlatko
You also don’t have any evidence to refute my God (Snow White). I wrote down everything she said to me, so I have a book now. There is no way you refute that.
That is your road and I'm not even going to go there but I know you are selling yourself short. I hope it enhances your self worth and self -actuation and invigorating mentally.
Statistical report 2009 from The Church Of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints
Here is some comody for you vlatko
Total church membership 13,824,854
new children of record 119,722
converts baptized 280,106
Dozen of LDS humanitarian volunteers rotated on and off the United States Naval Ship Comfort on a four-month humanitarian mission August 2009 as part of a government-sponsored mission to provide medical care to countries in the Caribbean and Central and South America.
Church Humanitarian Services further contributed by sending 10 shipping containers of medical equipment and supplies, which were unloaded along the way at each country. All this is paid for by membership tithing.
A new partnership between the Church and the Dikembe Mutombo Foundation promises an additional water source for the Biamba Marie Mutombo Hospital and Research Hospital and Research Center. located in Kinshasa, the capital city of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
"By their fruits you shall know them."
actually i would argue the similarities in religious myths stems from the similarities in human desires fears, and ignorance.
please read this Julian
thefreelibrary . com/The+evolutionary+psychology+of+religion.-a0151548842
@Achems Razor
It is almost completely futile to attempt to convert anyone by argument. People are convinced of what they believe in, and often have too much invested emotionally to objectively look at the facts and evidence and make a wise decision. This goes out to people with all worldviews. Like Bertrand Russell stated on his essay regarding Knowledge and Wisdom, it is important how you arrived at the conclusion regarding your worldviews. I arrived at religion through pure intellectual speculation and logical analysis, not blindly following what are the societal norms or familial views or following any ideologies, such as a common one of atheists, which is scientism through which they analyze the question of God.
Anyway, how can stating my views make people convert? If my argumentation exposes people to new views or ideas, it is up to them to critically analyze them and discard them or contemplate on them as they see fit. I am not hypnotizing, deceiving, or bribing anyone here. Everyone should be free to express their views regarding the topic of the documentary.
How can you force people to convert online? In what way am I forcing people? How come everyone can state their agnostic views but a person cannot state their views on their belief in God which stems from their religion? If that is not on topic, I do not know what is. Trying to convert someone, or reason why you see the world they way you do, or instigate a change in beliefs happens both ways and to say otherwise is pure semantics.
The origin in sun Gods and pagan myths is not true of all religions, and has been refuted by numerous scholars, and pretty much had its heyday in the 18th century from which on it was pretty much considered a fringe theory. Who, Odysseus? Romulus? Doinysus? Zarathustra? Attis of Phyrgia? Krishna? Horus? All these and other pagan similarities have been found to be either a matter of coincidence, either happening in time after so cannot originate from them, or thoroughly debunked in other ways. Just because things seem similar does not mean they are or does not signify common origin. Its actually a matter of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc in many cases, and happens to have such superficial similarities on closer examination that the argument is pretty much dead in even the most liberal intellectual theological circles.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit arises to the contemplation of truth"
@Julian,
you said:
"But my statement was that only religion can provide true meaning and purpose, not the human made nonsense of atheists."
its amazing you dont notice the fallacy in this statement. RELIGION is human made "nonsense" if you will....religion is a construct ENTIRELY of human minds. there is no evidence or proof for it ANY religion or ANY god. there is just faith and culturally held traditions.
also you ASSUME or presuppose that there MUST be meaning and purpose...why? the fact that we dont have meaning or purpose shouldnt make you upset in anyway. in fact it ought to liberate you and make you realize you make your destiny and are completely responsible for all your actions (and in-actions)
@Laurie.
why did you become mormon? do you not know the history of joseph smith and his family? they were all con men and swindlers in their time. the idea that gold was buried in woods somewhere was rampant at that time and joseph smith cashed in on peoples gullibility.
i dont know how an adult with a working brain can fall for any religion LET ALONE mormonism...magic underwear?? black people are cursed descendants of Cain?? men get a planet to rule over when they die? a star named kolob??
mormons are absolutely 100% crazy
why did you convert? did you marry someone who made you?
also one doesnt need scientific anything to show zeus isnt real or shiva or fairies....why would i need evidence to show god isnt real. YOU need evidence to show he IS real or i can dismiss the hypothesis without evidence
here is a rule...if something is presented as true without evidence it can be dismissed with just as much evidence.
@Achems Razor
Acknowledgement of truth is a matter of choice. You have no scientific evidence to refute God and His gospel. You just don't like what they say. Go ahead through insults to ease your own ego. Its sad really.
@Laurie Robillard, there is no offense there. Achems was just stating what is happening in his neighborhood while having a bike ride.
And he also doesn't have any scientific evidence to refute Cinderella, Zeus, Krishna, Amon Ra, Santa Claus (and their gospels) etc. Therefore they exist.
You also don't have any evidence to refute my God (Snow White). I wrote down everything she said to me, so I have a book now. There is no way you refute that.
On the other hand you have no scientific evidence that your God exists. Nor I have any evidence for the existence of Snow White. Except my testimony and the stuff I wrote about her. In other words you have to believe me. Do you believe me?
The same is with your God.
You say: You can't prove my God doesn't exist, therefore he exists.
I say: You can't prove your God exists, therefore he doesn't exist.
Which statement is valid?
@Laurie:
Sorry I meant you, when was talking about Mormons. Not @Julian:
You said you where trying to explain your world view on this subject? what world view? are you the spokesperson for the world? it is your view entirely!
@Julian:
Noticed you said you were Mormon, Where I live you hardly cannot even go for a bike ride, without Mormons literally running after you, trying to convert you! I say this as fact!
@ Julian:
Stating your views is fine. But with out appearing argumentative, yes, you and most religee's try to convert people into their religions, it is almost a prerequisite is it not? And am not just talking about J.W.'s
Non-believers, atheist's etc: present the latest scientific facts, theories, and views as info. only, not trying to convert, convert to what? something that may change overnight with new evidence? I think not.
Religee's ad nauseum: say the same old thing over and over, that I again will say has all the origins in sun gods and in pagan myths!!
Vlalko
Part of the title is "Is there a Creator?". I call a creator God. I know conversion cannot be done over the internet. I certainly am not trying to bring or convert anyone to my faith.I have never mentioned my faith. Conversion has to be done through the Spirit (the Holy Ghost). The holy Ghost doesn't hang out where there is contention. No conversion will happen here. I don't know Julia and I am not Catholic as she is. I was raised Catholic but I changed to Mormonism 30 years ago.The question of all ages is Where do we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? That in my opinion is related to the documentary.
I was attempting to explain my worldview on this subject.
@Vlatko
I am not trying to convert anyone. I am stating my views regarding the belief in God or not, an important subject in the documentary. I cannot state my views regarding God without reference to my religion. My views would not make any sense because they are one and the same. I am stating my views, just like everyone else. How about the atheists trying to convert people to adhere to their worldview? But I will refrain as far as I can.
No, just because I state an important difference from theism and atheism, does not mean it is because that is the only reason I follow my religion. If religion is not true, it is not worth anything. But my statement was that only religion can provide true meaning and purpose, not the human made nonsense of atheists. But the only reason to chose religion is because you believe it is true. These are one of the in-numerous riches of Catholicism, and other religions as much as how close they are to Catholicism. Truth is the only criteria when choosing your worldview, and not what meaning and purpose they provide, but this comes along with only certain choices.
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important" - CS Lewis
if any being told me i must worship them, love them, obey them, and believe in them WITH NO PROOF THAT THEY EXIST and if i dont i will be tortured....I will go with being tortured.
I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them - Galileo Galilei
Myth:
Life for atheists must be depressing and meaningless.
Response:
This is a very common claim heard from religious theists, especially Christians. It is also a very curious claim because it sidesteps the issues which most atheists would regard as central: does God exist? Is theism reasonable? Is atheism reasonable? By ignoring the important questions about the validity of theism and atheism, this claim is an example of the Red Herring fallacy, attacking an ultimately irrelevant issue.
However, it isn't entirely a Red Herring because, even though it may not appear to address something important, it sometimes does. Many theists believe in the existence of a god not simply because they think it is true, but also because they think it is necessary. What this means is that they do not honestly think that important aspects of life, like morality and purpose and meaning, are possible unless a god exists.
This isn't the same as believing in God because they want it to be true. A person can be reasonably convinced that life must have meaning and purpose; so, if such things cannot exist without a god, it is reasonable to conclude that God obviously exists. The question becomes, then, whether or not a god really is necessary for life to have meaning and purpose. Thus while the issue should be a Red Herring, it may not be if one is dealing with theists who are convinced of the existence of god based upon reasons like this.
One problem for atheists and theists communicating over this is a difference in how they understand the concept — a difference which isn't always immediately clear. For theists, it is typically the case that life must have an objective meaning and purpose, something which is imposed externally. Atheists, on the other hand, do not all regard an objective meaning or purpose as necessary — or even as positive.
Objective Meanings
A theist might appear to be correct that, without God, there is no objective, externally imposed meaning or purpose to life. The universe does not seem to establish purpose to our lives, aside from perhaps reproduction, or meaning to our lives, aside from perhaps the sheer act of living itself. Thus it may not be unreasonable to conclude that, without the existence of a creator god, there may not be an objective meaning or purpose to our lives.
If, however, the need for an objective purpose or meaning is dispensed with, the need for a god is also eliminated. Do we need such a purpose or meaning? To be quite honest, I don't think so. It seems perfectly adequate for us to create our own meanings and purposes. Indeed, it is arguable that this is a preferable situation. When someone else imposes upon us a purpose of their own design, aren't we little more than slaves?
Imposed Meaning
Is it even possible for meaning to be imposed on us by another? No one can make a book or a meal "meaningful" for me. Why? Because such meaning must be created by us, based upon our values. No one else can cause a particular book or a particular experience to have value to me — that must come from within. When we value something, it will have meaning, and when we do not value something, it will not have meaning. Values cannot be imposed upon us because they must develop out of our character and our personality; so if meaning is derived from values, then meaning also cannot be imposed.
Even many theists will acknowledge the truth of this in particular circumstances because they will tend to agree that they are not forced by their god to value their god or their relationship with their god. Thus, their god has meaning for them because of their own choices. It is generally only the more extreme faction of Calvinists who argue that God can only enter a person's life because God wants to and that human effort in this area is worthless. If theists accept this principle in some circumstances, then it's up to them to explain why they don't accept it in other circumstances as well. If they cannot, and if this principle does apply broadly, then they cannot argue that value or meaning can be created for us and imposed upon us by any gods. This means that value and meaning must come from with in and can exist in the absence of gods.
No Meaning? So What?
Finally, it must be asked: even if a personal meaning or purpose is impossible and an objective meaning or purpose cannot exist without a god, so what? A theist who finds this unacceptable might be depressed at the prospect, but since when does a rational person adopt beliefs about the state of the world based upon what is least depressing? Is there anyone out there who believes that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, never happened because the idea that they did happen is too depressing? If someone believed that they are rich because facing the reality of poverty is too depressing, do we praise them for their faith or recommend that they seek help from a mental health professional?
Although it might be true that the question of meaning and purpose in life has no bearing on the reasonableness of either theism or atheism, the fact remains that it is an important concern of many theists. If someone brings it up, it is because their belief in a god is, at least in part, predicated upon the idea that their god provides meaning and purpose to their lives. This is not a bad thing — the problem lies in the fact that they cannot imagine that anyone's life can have meaning and purpose unless it happens on the same terms as their life. In their case, at least, the only way they would ever abandon theism will be if they realize that meaning and purpose can come from themselves instead.
@Laurie
Thanks, yea they can argue all day but they have nothing positive to offer. If atheism is true, that is so depressing for anyone who is not clouded in their thinking.
Yes I agree, and if a lie is repeated often enough and loud enough people will come to believe it. I think it is a matter of their lack of humility and open-mindedness to the possibility of the unseen, and their wishful thinking, unanswerable for any of their life. Also, many of them have the wrong way of thinking about religion, analyzing it scientifically when it is mean to be analyzed philosophically. Science is a method that is not conducive to answering the existence of God irrefutably. They are going to be waiting for proof so long that they have wasted their whole lives for which they will be accountable. They have chosen to close their eyes like you said, and have lost the capability of experiencing God all around them. And importantly, the how beautiful and wonderful and joyful life becomes when you believe in God and submit to reality.
“The atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a police officer”
"To doubt is not sin, but to be contented to remain in doubt when God has provided "many infallible proofs" to cure it, is" ~ Irwin H. Linton
“No man ever repented of being a Christian on his death bed.”
@Achems Razor
Omnipotent God see right through what? My willingness to acknowledge the reality of his existence? My choice not to reject him? I fear and respect the power of God, and the necessity of belief. But I do it out of love for God as any other motive. The person doing it because they want to avoid Hell has imperfect motives, but the end result is much better than yours. And eventually they will come to love God, but atleast its a beginning. But denying his existence leads you nowhere. I am offering a gamble for all those that need proof, saying that you might not get the proof you want until ts too late, and so even through rational analysis yours is a very foolish decision.
When the argument was made (Pascal's Wager), it was in reference to Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. So I guess you can phrase it as it is better to believe in Christianity than to be an atheist. The reason being that if you choose the other religions, according to Catholic doctrine, you will be rewarded for your sincere heart in searching for him and trying to follow him the best way you know how. This does not mean that you are guaranteed salvation, but you have a much higher chance than zero, which is what the atheists have, since they have denied him and he has specifically stated the consequences of that.
And regarding choosing the wrong religion, all religions are not the same and each has to be evaluated individually. But not denying the existence of God is a a start. And here's a clue, rule out right away any religions that have no founder, no historical validity, no logical belief system, no miracles, does not claim exclusivity, and most importantly does not claim to be of divine revelation. These are a few of the ways to analyze religion, and only Christianity withstands ultimate scrutiny. Study all the religions for yourself, thinking philosophically and using logic and reason, and see where it leads you.
Why is atheism so much more prevalent today? Is it because there are any new advances in science that deny God's existence? No actually the opposite. The reason looks more like people want to be their own God so they are free to do what they like. If you look at all the arguments for atheism, there is none that could have not been considered 2000 years ago. People naturally assume that everything progresses through history, but not all fields. Advancements in technology and science are usually the norm, but what was said in philosophy and religion could have been said 2000 years ago. The atheists have said nothing new, and in fact I feel the classical atheists (Nietzsche style) atleast accepted the nihilism inherent in atheism, instead of the delusional fantasies and sophomoric arguments that characterize today's neo-atheists.
And that is my point, all these arguments are going to be worth nothing once your dead, and if your wrong there's consequences, and for me nothing changes :)
@Julian
Your words are like music to my ears. Atheism rules on this page. They keep asking me give me proof, give me proof. They are indifferent to the realities around them. Miracles does not bring people closer to God. Its almost as though they are the "walking dead". They seek for something to struggle out their dilemma but it eludes them so they choose to ridicule and pretend they are not accountable.
@Achems Razor
You talk like you go around like a self-righteous peacock, massaging your own vanity. Your daily life must be spent in weaving against "religee's" like a spiders web.
@Julian:
You like to gamble do you? the odds are better at Vegas than to try to pick the right god, the right religion to bet your life on,
And then if you are picking a religion just to hedge your bets, wouldn't your so called omnipotent god see right through that?
Shows how phony most of you religee's are!
People will deny God until it is too late. He has given more than enough evidence, and if you reject him, that is the choice he allowed you to make by not forcing belief. You have the option not to believe, and woe to those that take it. God Have Mercy. Read Romans 1:19-21
You have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Okay, lets say that there was no God, so what? How does that change what will happen to me after death. We will both be dead and thats it. But if I am right, your loss for eternity. If you want to take that chance on this short journey on earth, welcome. Life becomes full of sound and fury and signifies nothing.
"A little philosophy leads a man to atheism. Depth in philosophy leads a man to religion" - Francis Bacon
Never thought I'd see Morgan Freeman working for the Discovery Institute.
Man he can make physisc sound boring!
Good thing to watch with your friends or recomend to your neighbours if your a closet-atheist in an overly religious area. It will rid them of any suspision towards your religious views and they might even put down the torches.
@Achems Razor
I guess you didn't read the whole thing. Removing the itch from a mosquito bite, removing the pain of osteo arthritis in my feet, removing the itch in my eyes from allergies to environment, allowing my cat to be more flexible, growing my tomatoe plants to the size of a small trees 5 feet tall after one month, changing the molecules in lemons and negating the chemicals then the lemons taste like sweet lemons , turning a cheap $10.00 bottle of wine to the taste of an $80.00 bottle of wine.
Any one else hear that scientists name on the first part at 6:55 as John Pokemon?
darn you vlatko and your moderation ;) *shakes fist*
@Laurie:
Really? removed the itch? Holy cow!... just rub the inside of a banana peel on the bite, itch also disappears and does not cost you 300$. What does a banana cost, 20 cents or so. See am saving you money!
@Laurie
So does anti-itch lotion and most anti-histamines.
@Laurie Robillard
Do you not believe that your mind releases natural explainable chemicals of "feel good" and "awe" when we want to experience something of such and something that feels good. (i.e.)Like the placibo effect.
Just my outlook on "New Age spiritual stuff."
And if its "spiritual healing , is it not really your own mind (spirit) doing the healing or whatever it is your trying to achieve, anyways? Why the need for another source when you have it already?
Sounds like blowing money to me.
@Achems
Ha! Yes , I agree.
@Laurie , just type @The Amazing Randy and he will appear.
(Also if you say it three times in the mirror he jumps out and gives you a whiskey!)
@Epicurus
Who is The Amazing Randy? Tell me how can a scam remove pain? I have experienced it. It removed the itch from a mosquito bite.
@Laurie:
It is a scam, just as crystal healing etc:
If you are so positive, let it go through the million dollar challenge. Contact "The Amazing Randy".
You might as well get rich will you are at it, right? hehe
@ Epicurus
When you go to the theater and see a good movie do you tell your friends about it . Isn't that advertising.
If the AM wand was sold at Walmart who would buy it? It looks like a silver pen but sells for $300.00. Who understands ZERO POINT ENERGY? It is something to experience. I don't have complaints anymore about any aches and pain because I have been wearing my AM pendant and using my AM wand.
My tomatoe plants are like small trees because I have been watering them with energized water. My old cat is able to jump on my lap again and she hasn't done it in three years.That is my testimony.
Laurie, anecdotal evidence is used by these products because they are not allowed to make claims about what the product does themselves or it would be false advertising since there is no studies or real research done.
so what they do is depend on gullible people like you to provide anecdotal evidence like that and they make a whole advertisement consisting of just that and it tricks people into thinking everyone uses the product and it works.
just like the q-ray bracelet.
and about your comment on genesis. those two versions of genesis differ from one another and contradict one another and also contradict known facts.
@ Hate Machine
What Are People Saying?
"Being released from long standing back and hip pain in just 20 minutes of using the AMWand has changed my life. Thanks to Amega, its vision and its technology, the world finally has a product that can help drive a Self-Care Revolution" ~Ann Carlisle
@ Hate Machine
Tesla in his time believed in the existence of the aether and that it could be harnessed for free energy that could be the salvation of humankind. The resolution of life's dilemmas seem to arrive in its own mysterious way in its own time line and place.
My common sense tells me to stay away from snake oil. Thank you so kindly.
@Laurie Robillard - I got a bottle of snake oil infused with Zero Point Happy Energy. Its cures brain damage caused by using Zero Point Sad Energy (the only energy know to cure feet pains). Thomas Edison used it to power the first light bulb.
From your comments it seems you must have used WAY too much Zero Point Sad Energy. If you channel the spirit of Alessandro Volta you will confirm that brain damage is not only a side effect but usually a precursor to using Zero Point Energy to cure feet.
The good news is I can sell you bottle for the cheap price of $19.95. I can also sell you a copy of James Watt's chakra diagrams. The diagrams will illustrate where you need to shove the snake oil.
How does all this knowledge help us? I'm interested in energy vibration for healing.
I have experienced first hand Zero Point Energy. The Zero Point Feild contains the blue print for our existence. In Genesis in the Bible the creation is repeated twice one is the blueprint the other the creation into matter.
I had painful feet my doctor said it was Ostio arthritis. I had ex-rays done and he delivered the results. I know too well the side effects of prescribed medicine. Just on time my mind was prepared to receive and accept this method of self-healing with Zero Point Energy. I was introduced to the the AMwand that creates an environment for our bodies to heal to bless my life. The power of healing is within our body. Try cutting yourself and see what happens. Now I am pain free. Zero Point Energy reminds our cells of source in Zero Point Field where there is no pain no inflammation no virus germs disease. This is not a philosophy or mind over matter; the proof is in the pudding.
Nocoli Tesla about 90 years before his time had lite the Chicago world fair without electricity. He used Zero Point Energy. He invented a tower that all of our machinery could be charged with Zero Point Energy. Free and natural but the government doesn't allow his scientific experiments to go public. Imagine not using oil. We would have a revolution. We live in a world where there is institutional resistance.
I believe there are other earths in the galaxies. Why should we think that we are the only ones.
@SH
Well , well , well. You say Im bullying but youve done nothing but talk trash since the beginning. Im only responding to the statements made to as well. I dont care what anyone believes but if you discuss it with me than be prepared to here my opinion. Im not going to sit idle and just listen to all the god BS and not speak on what I know, when its clearly directed toward me. And respect? I doubt you did. I may have mis-interpreted you on what you were saying , so my bad for that , why do you think I put question marks and not periods?
I have no quarrel with you but be aware that I have been defending myself on here for days now so I am of little restraint.
Now as for UC. If you are saying this than you are still implying that there is a "god" of some sort. Yes you are right about there having to be something before the BB but I disagree with the fact that consciousness had anything to do with it or has anything to do with it now, The implication of this is that there is some from of entity out there moving things along. I cant agree on that at all as it is Creationism.
I disliked this documentary because it was far too heavy on bogus speculation, far too light on empirical science, and contained a few blatant logical errors and omissions of information.
1. The statement that all religions have a God.
This is simply untrue as anyone who has studied religion would know. For example, Mahayana Buddhists don't believe in a specific creative God, and don't treat the Buddha as such.
Also there's no mention of the fact that Hellenistic and Indian religions have MANY Gods, which begs the question of which God they're talking about in this program. They can't all be right because they differ so drastically.
2. The fine tuning argument.
There are so many problems with this argument I don't even know where to begin. People like Steven Weinberg and Lawrence Krauss have said quite a lot on this topic, so look up their counter arguments.
I'm surprised they didn't trot out the old "something from nothing" argument as well... which has also been thoroughly debunked as well.
3. Total lack of good debate on the question posed in the title of the show.
They didn't speak to many of the top scientists and philosophers out there like Pinker, Weinberg, Greene, Krauss, McGinn, Dennette, and likewise the program didn't speak to eloquent theists like George Coyne.
4. The final segment on the universe being one big computer simulation was laughable.
There are many, many problems with this idea, and the guy's notion of "evidence" is ridiculous.... It's not a theory because it's not a collection of facts and observations about the natural world and do explanatory, testable work.
If you're going to postulate a hypothesis that everything is a computer simulation, fine, but you had better make sure that your final theory explains EVERYTHING that all other scientific theories explain because that's what it would take. The idea that we're all in a computer doesn't help explain the CMB, inflation, exo-solar system formation, supernovae, Evolution, entropy, death, etc, etc.
Anyway, in the end this program was far too fluffy and didn't contain enough hard science.
hi all,
i've been ruminating for some time now on the nature of the universe, whether it's infinite or finite. in mass/energy or spacetime.
both scenarios a paradoxical.
either it all came from nothing or we have a chicken and egg scenario ie; "if god made the universe, then who made god?" or "what was before the big bang?" a paradox that's logical conclusion is eternal, infinite spacetime, and maybe mass.
if it all came from nothing, which is kinda easier to comprehend, as at least then we can concieve a starting point, then concepts like finite or infinite mass,energy lose meaning i think.
so either way. from nothing or something, i reckon the universe is infinite in time, space and energy. we just can't observe beyond our "bubble".
@eireannach666- I didn't say that. Either go back & read again, or suffice it to say- I said- there HAD to be SOMETHING before the Big Bang, as NOTHING cannot do ANYTHING, much less explode! When I write "god" I usually enclose it in quotes, as that's not what I call it anyway. I call it the Universe Consciousness. I also said maybe what existed in the physical b4 the Big Bang was hydrogen.
*BUT while I'm at it..let me just say- If others DO believe in a "God", with all the characteristics they want it to have, that's none of your business! Who are you to go around saying there is no ANYTHING? Ruler of Earth? Dictator of the internet? #1 cheese in the Illuminati? Others have a right to their opinion too, just as you do--IF you respect those of others. If you don't, you forfeit your own. I had a lot of respect for you til you said that. It may be popular or socially acceptable to here to be a bully, but not when there are still people like me around.
*Just for the record, I don't believe in a "God" the way people do who go to church. I do believe there is A CONSCIOUSNESS & that we are conscious because we are a part of it. But it's quite different in my mind than a churchy thinks of it. If I wanna express that here, I will. If you don't believe that as I do, that's fine. You have your own opinions. If I give you respect for yours, then be fair & respect others.
*superstition*
@Skye-hooker
What do you really think was before the big bang? Your saying god?
What do you have to support this beside the constant jabbering about god?
There is no god. Dang this statement should be a realization by now. Why the stance of superstion for the unknown?
we created god.. and god created us..
@HM- I honestly did enjoy a LOT of what you wrote above!:)
Sorry for several entries. Didn't read comments 1st.
@HM- Consider that there can be a Soul of the Universe, or Universe Consciousness & have it NOT be "Omnipotent". Humans idea of what they'd want that Universe Consciousness to be like does not have to mean it is. lol And really, you say
"he would already know the outcome of anything we could possible do. He would know all outcomes of everything." HOW? From previous experience? Is that your fantasy? Exactly HOW would He/It know? And you say "Would it be better to never have created man or to have let hundreds of millions of men die horrible deaths. What kind of monster kills for no reason." Oh, please. He/It IS NOT a giant Sim controller! And death of living things, even painful long suffering, is just 1 of the myriad possibilities. He/It does not control your mind. Would you let it, even if it wanted to? I think you'd fight it to the ninth degree with every bit of intelligence you have. Stop wanting to blame a "God" or SOMEONE for stuff like that. Much is even random. You say "If god loves us why does he kill our children. Either he cant stop the death of our children or he likes the death of our children. I hope god kills my children so I can prove I will never lose my faith in him."
1.- Holy cow! OMG! 2.-He/It doesn't kill your children. He/It lets some things happen to children or any of us for many varied reasons. I don't think he/it can always stop something, really. But He/It experiences what we do, even thought due to all the trillions of incoming experiences to He/It, It probably doesn't experience our happenings as strongly/intensely as we do. I would guess. Anyway, we're all just speculating here except those who are just expressing a thank you. Sorry, but you had that comin from when you got me the other day. lol
@Jonas- You said-"If God can create anything he wants"- what makes you think that?? Did "god" tell you that? Don't believe everything you hear from humans. We don't know what other beings are like. We certainly don't know what the Soul of our whole universe is like. You say-"Why does he need worshipers and why does he condemn people who does not believe or happens to sin?" He/It DOESN'T need worshippers. Nor priests, nor preachers. Nor criticizers. Nor "followers". You wanna follow, then do it, but He/It doesn't need you to. He/It is fine just as is. He/It also doesn't condemn humans for errors! Humans made up the word sin. It is error & mistake. He/It may hope you don't do it again, but you learned that about sin from a human. "God", if you insist on following human religious teaching, gave the life & pain of "His" "only begotten son to erase your sin", right? So you can't have it both ways. He/It either did or didn't. Answer me this- imagine for one minute that "God" is experiencing being you too. Now, you do something horrible. If "God" condemned you, wouldn't "He" be condemning himself too? Of course. "He" knows what led up to your doing every single thing you ever do. "He" experienced it too, because you are like a cell in his little finger. Which doesn't mean it's all just great, but it also doesn't mean you are "condemned". If it isn't good for everybody & everything, then in the long run it won't be good for you either. Same as if it's not good for you, it won't be good for everone & everything. That's the nature of violation. Being religious isn't necessarily a bad thing, IF you really think fully about every single thing in it, not just blindly believe everything you hear! I believe in a Universe Soul or Consciousness, a "God", but not the things I've been TOLD OR READ etc. PLEASE, don't even blindly believe ANYTHING, even me, even your own eyes!
@BJ- what do you think? Does It need a sex gender? Is there another "God" to multiply with? :) teehe Just yankin your chain. :)
A few scattered thoughts-
1. Wait = weight. Time = continuum = sustain, for however long, even 10 to the minus 43. Gravity is an effect of time. No time = no gravity.
2.-There HAD to be SOMETHING before the Big Bang, or NOTHING would have exploded. Literally no thing. I believe there was hydrogen 1st. Enough hydrogen & time/gravity would cause a heck of an explosion! Everything could evolve from hydrogen. Even before an explosion, everything can come from hydrogen.
*Let's theorize, for fun. Say there was nothing. The Void. No time. There was no physical matter, no force, no energy, nothing. And then it just exploded, with no cause, as there was nothing. Not even time. Not even consciousness. Nothing just exploded.
That just doesn't feel like the correct thing to me. IMHO. lol
3. The girl in the 1st part who used the helmet- she saw 5 beings, not 1. Sounded like it induced a drug-like state to me. She didn't even say it felt or seemed to be like "God".
4. I don't think "god", or a creator, would be just playing, as the experience is much too intense for that. It is just experiencing BEING, with all the possibilities. It hasn't experienced all those possibilities yet.
"God", IT, is not some giant controller, It is simply experiencing and being aware of all it experiences. Maybe it gives something a nudge once in awhile. There are possibilities & probabilities, and a LOT of randomness. If "God" were being us too, why don't we know it? Because our brains are new, like a new computer, they must learn & figure things out, & we should all be VERY grateful that we are allowed to make ourselves seperate from "God", (seperate-like a knot in a string or an air pocket on the outside of a balloon, with a twist to keep it seperate)and to not know all the universe consciousness is aware of all the time, as we couldn't function in the physical at all if we were knowing all in creation at any given moment. I don't even want to be aware of 1 other person at all times, and everything they are experiencing & thinking.
Time truly is the Universe's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. I don't want to know all about EVERYTHING all the time, do you? :)
@Hate_Machine I already know you won't agree. :) That's ok.
Oops, sorry. I thought Connie came over to this doc. lol@me.
@Connie- to try to briefly answer a bit of your wonderings- Start at the beginning. In the beginning was the "word", & the word was with "God" & the "word" was "God". Word=sound=vibration makes sound, but only if it has something to affect, even air. Then there was nothing, except a vibration. The Void became aware of itself, causing a vibration in the nothingness.
* The hairs on your head could easily be counted by the Soul of the universe, (Consciousness of the Universe), because those hairs, and you, & I & all in creation are part of what that original vibration evolved into, and is still being & experiencing. Everything that IS is a tiny cell in the whole of all that is, in the soul of the universe. Consciousness & energy in it's many forms. And it's possible I'm wrong, BUT consider that God-days are universe days, not earth days or 1000 years of earth days. The soul of the universe took a long time to evolve into all that now is. This physical universe we know about is about 13.7 billion light-years old. (See wikipedia) Divide that by 6+ to see how long "God's day" probably is, as this is still being the 7th day, right? "God" doesn't live only on Earth, right? Unless there's a different "God" for each speck in the sky. I doubt you think that. BTW, "in his image"= soul/mind/emotion. "God" has no body except all that is physical(yeh, giggle), & that's kinda a lot for us to look like. lol:)"God" is consciousness/awareness + all that now exists. All that is physical is energy/light fractals. Some of it has life & consciousness. There is "god" consciousness in all the space between every atom or "thing" that exists. Universal Consciousness is aware of everything because it is BEING everything. I wonder what will happen when the 7th day is over. ?? What do you think?
"The latest science is showing that the four forces governing our universe are phenomenally finely tuned. So finely that it had led many to the conclusion that someone, or something, must have calibrated them;"
Who? Where? Some brainwahsed children in the childrengarden maybe. Some deluded people lacking any normal education.
God may have created human but for sure human have created god !!!
awesome documentary, really made me think.
@ eire666:
Yes, new doc. here on SeeUat Videos. ..."Through The Wormhole-The Riddle Of Black Holes"
See you there.
@Achems
Is it on here? Where did you see it at? I like this series.
I think there may be some sort of risk. Actually could be a small chance of great risk and small chance of small risk. But I agree , they have more than likely addressed these probabilities and are well aware of the risks , no matter how small or large.
Im just glad to see the research being done. I think QT/M should get all the funding it needs. As , Ive said before . I dont buy in yet but I like the direction its taking us. We will never be done asking questions but we will eventually get the answers to the ones at hand and repeat the process.
Does anyone have any thoughts on "negative mass propulsion" and that , there in , may be a use to do further wormhole research to the extent of actually sending something into one,or even someone?
(Well Im not going but , yeah.)
And please nobody bring up Millis’s space drive stuff. It kind of stinks.
Also Achems, I would like to say that I like what you were saying about infinite temp. I will say that , to think infinite anything is impossible , scientifically that is , would be a rather ridiculous statement by anyone that is in any way a science/math fan. (not implying that is what you said , but just in general.)
The universe could expand infinity if the trend we know as the expansion is fact. Infinite is not wrong just because we cant see infinite now as a number. We'll just keep adding zeros and decimal points.
@Epi_Log
Math is math. Addition , subtraction , etc , all of it is just as valuable and essential as the other. Just saying.
I do love these docs and forums. Great discussions. It would be great if some of you guys lived in the same town and formed a sort of doco club. Come together once a week, watch a doc and then discuss. I bet the talks could go well into the night!
@ eire666:
They must have weighed the pros and cons, probably no risk involved.
Did you watch the new doc. in this series? The riddle of black holes, is very good.
@Achems
"If a particle is accelerated to a certain velocity “near that of light”, it gains enough mass to collapse into a black hole.
I suppose that is why some people were worried about the Hadron accelerator."
But do you not think that the work is worth the risk?
Pros out-weigh the cons?
@Epi_Log
Im not as think as you drunk I am. Is there an officer problem? (lol)
@HM
"I dont think we will ever know everything. But we will know who has been wrong the most."
Nice way to put it. And I couldnt agree more.
Hey all,
John, sorry if i seemed to be pedantically picking at your choice of speech.
this can be a very ambiguos subject when one doesn't understand the underlining maths and koreckt terminology. as i don't.
very interesting subject though, just a pity one has to be good at maths to fathom it.
don't we all wish we could discover the mysteries of the universe at the bottom of a bottle, or whatever your poison comes in, as H:M suggested. with so many dedicated workers it surely would've all been figured out by now!
i missed the step that took you in the direction of "is it better to be loved or feared?" (and now i can't even find the quote)
so i may miss the point. but it seems to me its obviously subjective, personally i'd prefer to be loved. but a tyrant would most likely see a greater benefit in fear. at least from the masses.
anyway. i'm out of this thread. so dam long now i get lost looking for the relevant bit.
@anon
it's much more natural to just define addition and multiplication! Thats what is done when defining different algebras. So... it's more natural to define addition of negative numbers... but bear in mind that it is the same as subtracting positive numbers,...
@ Epic_Logic:
Yes, I understand. Inhibitions run wild with a little booze.
Been there, done that. (LOL)
@Achems Razor
Yeah i'm drunk,... who says so... not me....It doesn't mean that H_m or Thabit are wrong... Just that alchohol lets you talk about clit piercings and how to have a nice time...Cosmology is the maths of the heavens and Geometry is the maths of the earth... combine these in a pyramid and you get a pointer to the heavens... It's easy really...
@ Epic_Logic:
Well fine. You like math, I like cosmology, And am having a nice time, It seems you must be to, with H.M. (LOL)
@Achems Razor
If you drink enough alchohol and then accelerate yourself at a speed close to that of the speed of light you will feel very sick and furthermore the gaining of mass is like getting fat after eating to many hamburgers... So we should all just not worry about that and have a nice time instead...
@ H.M.
Even though infinite temp. might be possible, might be impossible to observe.
The thing is, even if an "elementary particle" attains the speed of light, it becomes "infinitely" massive at the limit. But then another paradox, anything that attains the speed of light, would be static, forever frozen in time, because time would stand still.
If a particle is accelerated to a certain velocity "near that of light", it gains enough mass to collapse into a black hole.
I suppose that is why some people were worried about the Hadron accelerator.
It's my opinion that subtraction is more fundamental, that negative numbers are just subtractions. Just saying.
@ anon
addition of a negative number or subtraction of of a positive number mean the same thing! Just different was of representing the same thing!
'Is subtraction the addition of a negative number?'
No. subtrction is the addition of a negative number...
'Is a negative number a subtraction of a positive number?'
yes.
What is more fundamental subtraction or a negative number?
Is subtraction the addition of a negative number?
Is a negative number a subtraction of a positive number?
@ElHaTe_MaChInE
if you travel 8 miles north and then 5 miles south you have travelled 3 miles overall from your starting position... If you travel 5 miles north and then 8 miles south you have also travelles 5 miles from your starting poition. Just in a different direction....
#
comprenede?
Debates that never end.
@ Peeroette - “Let creation reveal its secrets by and by”
I dont think we will ever know everything. But we will know who has been wrong the most.
I always say all the evidence is not in. Then, a quote from a Jackson Browne song.
"Let creation reveal its secrets by and by".
@ Epicurean_Logic - "I have a first class degree in maths and i study masters level analytic number theory "
I don't believe you.
My opinion shouldn't matter to you and you should leave it at that... Im just saying my bullshit meter just went haywire.
"A negative reading on an odometer would depend on how you defined positive! i.e. if positive represents north then negative represents south."
You should print that out and submit it to your professor. I bet once you get published you will get a Nobel prize in no time.
My odometer is measured in natural numbers.
lol @'For loving it you don’t seem very good at it.'
I have a first class degree in maths and i study masters level analytic number theory as a hobby.
I still make a lot of mistakes, but i have no inhibitions about my math ability, or lack thereof. Also my arithmetic sucks. i find it funny though. Did you ever hear about the maths proffessor who got caught arguing about his change in wall-mart only to find out that he was wrong. lol.
Whatever... Im just going to let you stew in your nonsense.
"I’m so glad that we have some thing in common with our love of maths"
For loving it you don't seem very good at it.
For the record I dont love math... but you cant explain nature without it so we are all stuck using it.
If I could figure how to make a viable fusion reactor work by drinking beer and not by doing math we would all have a cheaper electric bill.
A negative reading on an odometer would depend on how you defined positive! i.e. if positive represents north then negative represents south.
@The HaTe_MaChInist
When we talk geometrically about grpghs, It's ok to to say that negative represents moving to the left and positive is move to the right! It really does depend on the context.
Just dropping the sign is definately not a good a idea in general. Only in the context of directions is it applicable, for the aforemntioned reasons ( i.e. it represents a direction).
@Epicurean_Logic - I see where you are going I just dont like it.
I want to say that coordinates on a cartesian graph with a negative just means subtract from... Not go down or left.
It just means that you are adding a negative value to your current value and re-plotting. That means that the negative value is very important. Cant just go dropping negatives and hope your plot comes out ok.
Let me try to understand your point.
If you travel from one point to another, all the movement that occurs between those points is a positive gain.
You cant have a negative reading on a odometer because you cant unmove.
Am I hitting the nail on the head with this one?
@TheHaTing_MaChInE
'I don’t see why infinity couldn’t be negative.'
This is what i was trying to say earlier... When we talk about negative distances, the negative sign usually represents a dirction. Just like a cartesian graph where negative represent 'to the left' and positive represents 'to the right'.
It is better to be feared than loved....
@ Epicurean_Logic - "Is it better to be feared or loved? It’s better to be both"
Both is the easy answer. Its the easy way out.
This kinda reminds me of game theory.
In the case of exclusive disjunction I feel fear would have all the advantages of loved with a few benefits and no drawbacks.
But thats just my INTJ personality coming out.
”infinity can not be negative in a natural real world sence.”
I don't see why infinity couldn't be negative.
Since infinity is a concept forcing a concept on real world isn't a good idea.
But how about a credit card with no limit. There is no limit to how far my finances can go into the red.
But remember that a negative on my side is a positive on the banks side.
So maybe the question is can we have a negative infinity without a corresponding positive infinity somewhere.
I don't think there are any special rules for using positive of negative infinities.
I don't know anything about plank temp. I really don't know much about thermodynamics.
Temperature is usually the realm of Big things.
As for a ceiling on temp... Im sure at some point the numbers break down. Like in a black hole. Ever since Einstein put a speed limit on the universe, we have been hitting these walls.
I was never good thinking about energy and temperature. My noodle does wrap around the many concepts of temperature.
Here are some ideas for a ceiling for temp.
I dont know how energy from the vacuum might effect things but at some point there is a finite amout of energy in the universe. If you could harness all that energy in one point Im sure that would be the ceiling in a Newtonian point of view.
As for kinetic energy, something of mass approaching the speed of light would have the highest temperature. If it could reach c I guess it would be hottest.
If someone figured out a Planck temp Im sure it is going to the ceiling... just by the nature of using the Planck constant.
@TheHaTe_MaChInE.
I'm so glad that we have some thing in common with our love of maths and i know that you already know the math answer that i will give to your question. It's just that I work on the Steven Hawkins principle of maths where every equation and number stated loses many viewers so i am reluctant to answer in view of that.
Is it better to be feared or loved? It's better to be both, but it is very hard to achieve in one person.
I hope that my non-answer answers you in some way.
@ H.M.:
Was going to ask, what is your take on, there is a ceiling on cold, like absolute zero K, but basically no ceiling on hot, even as far as temperatures so hot that everything is converted to the nuclear force, how far can they actually go, do you think there is a limit?
Is this a part and parcel of the singularity.
The maximum temp. so far is Planck temp. of 1.41679x10^32 K.
is there the possibility of still higher temp.
The Planck temp. was reached on two occasions, the first, one Planck time 10^43 after the big bang, the second is concerning black holes.
What is your take.
@ hawkpork:
I don't think that @ Hate machine was trying to be sarcastic, I came to the conclusion that is just how his personality is, over all the many months we were doing battle on the these doc.
Good question on "can anything be naturally negative", the only thing that comes to mind, is anti-matter,
howdy all,
H:M it's hard to tell just how sarcastic you're being in your appraisel of my logic. but i'll take it at face value cause that suits me :)
got 2 questions for yuz re John's last post.
1."infinity can not be negative in a natural real world sence."
can anything be naturally negative?.. (perhaps some peoples attitude is proof it can) isn't the concept a human construction?
2. "I suppose you can’t really half any of the fundemental particles as they break down into thier constituent particles instead"
how are they fundamental if they break down further?
@ Epicurean_Logic - "When you talk about distances they are always positive"
So is this not an accurate statement?
8miles - 3miles = 5mile
Or do you not consider subtraction in an equation a negative?
And how do you get a direction from that equation?
"So it’s common practice to just drop the minus sign if you are not interested in a direction measurement."
Ahh What? Drop the minus sign? What? How do you figure out your mileage for a expense report.
Starting mileage = 23456
Ending mileage = 23500
What is the millage traveled?
23500 - 23456 = x
ahh drop the minus because Epicurean_Logic says so.
23500 + 23456 = x
Man Im going to come work for you... My travel reimbursement will be awesome.
Guys. When you talk about distances they are always positive. and when negatives appear in a distance measurement, it it usually indicating a direction. What kind of direction? It depends on the context of the question.
So it's common practice to just drop the minus sign if you are not interested in a direction measurement.
I agree with hate machine on this one, infinity can not be negative in a natural real world sence. The negative of infinity would be finite, or at least that's one way of looking at it. I have to say that everyone here has made some good points, this has been a productive discussion. We have managed to seperate mathematical construct from actuall natural phenomenon. I have a better understanding of the singularity and the fact that it is purely speculative. I got to see the infinity trick, about cutting something in half over and over, come to its failing point. Like Hate machine said you can't half a photon. I suppose you can't really half any of the fundemental particles as they break down into thier constituent particles insted. All together a very good discussion, thanks guys.
@ H.M.:
Thank you for your input, and pointing out my bad grammar. Ha,Ha,
improbable for me to learn??
I suppose then, really should of went to school. But I learn everyday!
@Epicurean_Logic
Attempted to answer your last question on the bottom of "Life after Life".
On this one I would like to see something more in depth from the Surfer Physicist.
Actually 0 Kelvin inst a theoretical value. Absolute 0 is theoretical. Since Kelvin is a measurement of heat 0K is always absolute 0.
@ Achems Razor - the word quantum isnt bad... the insistence that it is a proper noun is bad. You capitalize Quantum just like someone might capitalize God.
If you cant use the word correctly in a sentience how can you be taken seriously when discussing its implications.
At least you stopped trying to call it "Quantum Theory". It show that its no impossible for you to learn... just improbable.
Since Kelvin is a theoretical value of the coldest thing. The coldest thing you find will always be 0K.
@ H.M.:
I dig, but was looking into topology, and other things, quite a do about infinity, apparently not set in stone.
On kelvin degrees can go to negative, but not by much, when you apply, sorry, again the bad word (Quantum) was just reading this. Was googling all this stuff.
I guess in the terms of like.
5 plancks - 8 blancks = -3 blancks
it is no different then asking if there is a negative meter or a negative inch.
But in the example of temperature Kelvin you cant have a negative Kelvin. By definition of the measurement it cant be negative.
But does that make this equation wrong 5K - 8K = -3K. No. It just means that you are no longer dealing in the realm of nature.
I might be blowing in the wind, but is there negative "0"
Planck's constant is the smallest unit of measurement, might there be negative Planck's constant to negative infinity. Probably in numbers.
But in physical??
I don't know, like I said, might be blowing in the wind.
@John Seals - A ray can start at zero... a ray can start anywhere on a plane. Here is how I picture a finite point ray universe.
A ray starts on one plane. As it moves off in a direction it passes through other planes. No matter how many times you cut the distance you can never cut the very first plane in half.
| | |
| | |
1----2----3--->
| | |
| | |
So this ray starts off in plane 1 and passes through plane 2,3 etc.
| | |
| | |
0----1----2--->
| | |
| | |
So this ray starts off in plane 0 and passes through plane 1,2 etc.
The math is exactly the same even when the place holders change.
@ Hawkpork
You said:
"when all dimensions are compressed to one point volume has no meaning.
if it has infinite curvature and density.how can it have volume?
if it had volume then it’s curvature wouldn’t be infinite. cause we could define it’s parameters in space-time."
If you can logic like this, you are just as smart as anyone here. Looks like your dad did a good job, you got the right "tools".
H.M
why the condescension?
all i'm trying to say, is that human intuition (perhaps useless in context) tells me the universe gets infinitesimally smaller and smaller, and bigger and bigger. and that it therefor can't be broken down to a single element.
i guess you're telling me the photon is the smallest, or most elementary particle discovered. but it's kinda hard to tell when you're to busy taking thpiss.
i thought string theory and the like was theorising on the next level of microness down from "elemetary" particles.
i'm not trying to make stuff up. just reconcile my intuition with the prevailing theories of our time.
@ Hate machine
I thought that a ray would start at 0 so that thier woud be an infinite number of points between 0 and 1. Why is this wrong?
@ Hawkpork
A ray is a line that has a starting point but no end. So, it could be infinte and still have a beginning. A ray however is a theoretical mathemathical construct, i.e. we have never observed one we just theorize that thier existance is possible. Who knows if thier is enough space-time for it to go on forever? I.E. Does the universe have an end, a point at which you reach the edge of the expansion and space-time ceases to be? We just do not know, we peer out as far as we can and then things go murky so to speak at some point. This could mean that the universe has not existed long anough for the light to reach us or, it could be the edge of the expainsion. I am asserting this but, I really do not know if it is right. This is what i have heard others say, not data I have researched. I guess it comes back to that arguement that Chris seems to love so much, absolute infinity- does it exist? If so then a ray must be a viable option. If not then the natural process we understand could not have been the origin of the universe. Why, because every natural cause yet identified needs something to evolve out of (cause and effect), which sets up infinite regression. I personally think that we have just begun to scratch the surface,that we will find the logic to support a natural occurence. But the origin of this belief is not based in fact, I have faith that it was a natural cause. That said, how can I condemn those that have faith in religion. They are doing the same thing as I, following thier gut. I know I have been the first in line to attack religion or belief in the supernatural in the past but, I can no longer do that in good conscience. I still hate organized religion and all that it has caused, but theism in its self is not the enemy. In fact it is not even illogical in a way. All I know is that we all experience the pain and joy of life together. We should be our brothers keeper, regardless of his beliefs.
@hawkpork - you can always half somthing.
1 photon / 2 = 1/2 photon
The problem is when you try to prove that a half of a photon actually exists.
No where in any experiment or in observable nature does a half photon exist.
So yes the math works but no it cant be proven. If you want to use half photons to create some kind of new theory of the universe (Half Photon String Branes in Consciousness Null Voids) that is just fine... you can even back it up with lots of pretty equations showing that in fact 1p /2 = 1/2p.
This is pseudo-science. Its using tools science us in ways that airnt science.
So yes, If I want to create a new universe that starts of as a ray and expands in one direction infinitely, i have created a universe that can be broken down to a single element.
1------2------3------4-----5---->
this example might have infinate points between 2 and 1 but 1 is in fact the "smallest" you can get.
1.000000000000000000000000000000001 > 1 and so on.
@ H.M.:
Can't believe am saying this, but yes, I agree with what you are saying, very logical.
One point though, what is your take on Hawkpork's infinite ray's, question.
Mr machine,
i'm not sure what you mean. are you saying its possible the "ray", is the smallest unit of energy?
something like the strings?
isn't it a logical deduction that one can always look closer, cut in half. like if x is a ray, then x/2.
isn't everything at some level, infinite?
"If you really want to know what’s happening at small distance scales you can’t use the classical physics"
Agreed
I will add the inverse.
If you really want to know what is happening at large scale you cant use quantum mechanics.
So if all of space time is in a volume of 0... is it large or small?
I think the answer is small. But that is just a guess.
Physics is based in math. The analogies used are a crude way to describe the equations. DO NOT base your concepts of the universe off the analogies.
It is very easy to construct a mathematical model that will generate something with 0 volume. Just like the mathematical model of a photon says it has 0 mass.
Volume and Mass are variables in an equation, nothing more. Most models for quantum mechanics
A singularity is a mathematical construct that is very well defined. The big bang singularity is a single special instance of a singularity that is in the process of being described. Not just by us but by the real minds.
I have no clue how to describe the big bang singularity except to compare it to other definitions of singularities I have run across. All the original singularities were in fact black holes.
No one knows how to describe a singularity using general relativity and no one knows how to describe a black hole using quantum mechanics. To combine the understanding of the two is the legendary "Theory of everything"
No one has done so yet. The Math does not exist.
I guess where I am heading is that the same math that we use to make a cell phone work is the math that tells us that a singularity is 0 volume. It has proven to be some of the most accurate mathematical models ever devised.
I just wish I knew more of the math and less of the analogies, but I'm making it a point to learn the math and ignore the analogies.
@hawkpork - "in an infinite universe there is no “smallest level possible” all measurements are arbitrary."
What about a universe based on a ray. It is in fact infinite, yet could start from an arbitrary size.
i really like the series; this must be the six'th time I've seen this episode
@ I love myself:
If there is a way in, there is a way out, but not by religion or any gods. Only by science.
@ Hawkpork:
Yes, I stand corrected, no absolute measurements in infinity.
Will digest everything else you have said. Get back to you later.
@ Achems Razor
Well, that's new. An atheist who thinks there is a purpose to the universe.
Sadly, it is a question to which the answer, if there is one, can always be easily construed as a fairy tale. Even if someone told you the real purpose of existence, you would immediately still say it's a fairy tale, and that's the problem; there is no way out.
hey guys,
i find this a very interesting subject. obviously an irrelevant one to my life as a house painter though :)
my father introduced me to the subject of black holes, the big bang etc; as a child and the tools i learned to think about it then are the ones i still use today. and they're rusty. so i ask you to bare with my simplistic thought processes on the subject, and not try referring me to my doctor ;) pls feel free to help me evolve my thoughts. it's why i'm here.
when all dimensions are compressed to one point volume has no meaning.
if it has infinite curvature and density.how can it have volume?
if it had volume then it's curvature wouldn't be infinite. cause we could define it's parameters in space-time.
the way i see it, when space-time is so wrapped in on itself and there is nothing else, one cannot measure volume because it is the relationship between points in spacetime. which, in a singularity has infinite density so can't really have volume.
as John's prof friend said above,"a quantity which approaches infinity (density)as another parameter goes to zero(volume)."
hope my interpretation isn't to off the mark.
is that quote in relation to black holes and not singularity though?
wouldn't the singularity have infinite density and curvature? not just "approaching" and "going to"?
Achems,
in an infinite universe there is no "smallest level possible" all measurements are arbitrary.
@ I love myself:
Well, you took it wrong, I believe in no religion, "no gods" of any type whatsoever!
If I can make it more clearer, am an atheist.
Religion tries to answer this question? how? by fairy tales? give me a break!
@Achems Razor
Then I take it you are not against theism, but organized religion in general.
When science finds out about everything there is to know about this universe, it will come to a dead end, and the answer will be "well that's it folks, nothing else to see here". I think the most fundamental question is 'why are we here?' And religion, as primitive and dogmatic it may be, at least tries to answer this question, while science will say that the question is meaningless.
@ I love myself:
I agree, should be a purpose, but what? to pay allegiance to some invisible non-entity, that is who knows where?
ScrEw him or it!
@ John Seals:
Well, I should of said, went to school, but very little, to much of a rebel I guess.
Have a major library of every subject conceivable, have studied many theories and facts from minds greater than myself, no PC. or internet in those times (LOL). Used to read up to 2 books per day, Had at least 5 or 6 books going at one time.
Will never stop learning I suppose.
Here you people are, talking about the universe and the fundamental principles behind it. Articulate, eloquent, intelligent, sentient, and able to understand so much about something that has supposedly arrived from nothing important at all. Just the mere thought that creatures with so much capacity arose from all this chaos and seemingly purposeless blobs of whatever, to me cries out for an explanation. It just seems like there is a purpose to it all. If there is none, honestly that would seem very sad.
@ John Sears:
You mentioned supernatural, I thought that myself before, until Knew better.
There is no magic, I wish that there was, would simplify things, I do not really care what anybody says, but everything has its origin at the Quantum level. It makes sense that everything starts at the smallest level possible, from where else could it start from? the macro, from GR? I do not think so. There might even be smaller levels that go to infinity, who knows? nobody. Just like fractals a math construct that go to infinity.
I absolutely will not even go into any QM. on this, had enough hassle on this, especially from you know who.
Peace.
@ John Sears:
Why worry John, at least you where, and are in school, you know more than a lot of people, I myself never went to school, it shows right? (LOL) even the top scientists in the world do not have a clue really about the big bang singularity,
All they can really study is black hole singularity, where it is deduced in gravitational black holes that it is a region where spacetime curvature becomes infinite.
Quantum gravity probably will feature black holes without singularities.
Attention has been drawn by the "fuzzball model" in string-theory.
No black holes as we know it, but for observer, does appear just like an ordinary black hole in GR.
I'm going to a thread about religion and philosophy, where I can feel smart for a while. (LOL) Just kidding... I certainly do better with theology than I do with cosmology though. That's for sure.
@ Achem
Thanks I'll check it out. I have done some more research and so far I am finding some definitions that call a singularity a curving of space-time. Some though say it is a shapeless mass with no volume, thierfore able to exist without space-time. Then of course I got the answer from Proffessor Chamblee above that makes no sence to me at all as I am a theologian not a mathematician. So what is right man, is a singularity devoid of volume or is it just very, very,very small. If it has no volume how can it have mass? Is it like dark matter, having mass but no interaction with normal matter or energy? I suppose that i will just have to accept that it existed outside of space-time and thierfore had no definable qualities. That just feels like a cop out though. You know, i can't understand it so I'll call it supernatural. Isn't that the definition of supernatural, to be beyond our comprehension or abilty to measure. If so then I guess I found the one supernatural thing i have to believe may have existed. Or would you even say "existed" since that defines something existing within space-time. Wow, I am confused.
@ John Seals:
Google..."A non-mathematical proof of gravitational time dilation"
Should be all the answers there for you.
NN
What's up T pain, welcome to the discussion.
And by the way, I asked a ligitimate question way earlier in this thread and you guys started argueing and no one answered it. It was about the distortion caused by large bodies in space-time. If any one can explain that to me that would be great.
agreed
This just in, attention all. I did screw up, it was a gravitational singularity that I looked at. Oh well, win some-lose some. No need to get upset guys. We are all just talking, right?
@ Hate machine
Well turns out it is not so cut and dry, you are right I am wrong or vice versa. Thier is actually a lot of debate about this very issue in physics right now. Many are still trying to resolve the singularity through newtonian physics and many have stated that only QM will solve the singularity. Neither can say trhat thier equations work well witht the present definition of a singularity. Here are a few definitions from poele whom I think should know. Stephen Hawkins: A point in space-time at which the space-time curvature becomes infinite. Wikipedia: A singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, some of which are a measure of the density of matter. Now these definitions say that it does exist within space-time plain as day. But here is a definition that supports your assertion. Dr. Mohsen Kermanshahi: A singularity is the zero size ultra dense point, which according to the Big Bang Theory, is the origin of our universe. So I called a Professor I know and this is what he said.
"When a physicist refers to a singularity he or she is generally referring to a quantity which is infinite. Specifically, a quantity which approaches infinity as another parameter goes to zero.It isn't true to say that all laws of physics break down at a singularity. You can imagine the problems though -- how do we interpret an infinite mass or infinite energy or infinite force? Usually we assume that there is some new set of laws or some new way of looking at the problem that makes the apparent singularity go away. Here's an example. You may be familiar with Hooke's law for the force exerted by a spring: F=kx where k is the tension of the spring and x is the distance it is stretched. Now write the equation as k=F/x. Written this way it would seem that if you compare the tension between any two points on the spring, it grows and grows the closer together the two points are. In fact, two points spaced infinitesimally apart seem to have an infinite tension! It's just a manifestation of the 1/x limit above. But of course that's not true. If you really want to know what's happening at small distance scales you can't use the classical physics behind Hooke's law. At some point x drops below the spacing between molecules in the spring's metal. Now Hooke's law no longer applies and you have to use atomic physics to explain the spring's properties. So in the large-scale theory (Hooke's law) there was no fundamental distance scale: x could be as small as you want. But at some point this law breaks down. In the small-scale theory (quantum mechanics and atomic physics) there is a fundamental distance scale: the atomic spacing. We would say that the singularity has been 'resolved.'
To which I replied, O.K.
Seriousely though this doesn't solve our delima. We still do not really know wether the singularity has shape or volume or if it is sizeless as one Phd above says. I will concede that you where right though, some scientist do support your assertion. Some support mine as well though so, you can't say my staements where incorrect. You can say in your opinion they where incorrect. I'm glad to see that Stephen Hawkins agrees with my side at least, he's pretty smart I've heard. (LOL)Peace
Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.
The singularity didn't appear in space, rather, space began inside of the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy, nothing.
I've been reading all the previous posts, and Damn it, my head is spinning! I certainly wouldn't think any one of you is stupid, it's just a freaking subject matter that even scientists can't get their head around. So just chill, guys.
Here is another definition of a black hole which is a gravitational singularity.
A black hole singularity is the dimensionless point where all matter pulled into the back hole is concentrated. It has infinite density and therefore does not exist within space-time as it is the point of infinite curvature of space-time.
It is a quote by a student but seems to lead in the right direction.
@ John Seals
Gravitational singularity, a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume
We can argue if the singularity in question is "gravitational". Im very very sure that the reference is in fact a gravitational singularity.
Achems Razor - "why are you even trying to delve into QM, string theory, M theory, parallel universe theory,"
Pretty sure time dilation and spacetime is described by Einstein and the theory of relativity. None of my examples have anything to do with quantum mechanics.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Your ignorance of the subject is actually frightening. You obviously have no comprehension of any of the subject matter discuses in previous posts. I would suggest you take your own advice and re-read the post but it obviously is beyond you and would do no good.
Even though you still disgust me with your incoherence I think I'm actually starting to pity you. I'm starting to think that you really just cant understand.
@ Hate machine
I'm glad you where not being condescending and I apologize for misreading the situation. That said, I have to question the fact that a singularity has no volume by definition. I have never heard that before and i do not believe it is true. We no that a singularity exists within a black hole and that it has a huge amount of mass, that's what caused the black hole to form. If it has mass then it has volume, even if it is so small it can not be measured. I will research this point because this is actually an interesting assertion and I want to know the truth of it. So i am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I think you are wrong. I'll let you know for sure soon.
As far as attacking someones belief system, you are right- we shouldn't. I have been guilty of it in the past and I was wrong for doing it. It's fine to explain your own beliefs or ask someone to help you understand thier beliefs but, we should never attack each other.
@ H.M.:
All you are are is a pseudo-scientist trying to look smart!!
And rule by force.!
@ H.M.:
No? then read your above posts!!
@ H.M.:
And why are you even trying to delve into QM, string theory, M theory, parallel universe theory, when all that is apparently everything you abhor. Leave all that to the scientists. Because you do not have a clue.
@ Achems Razor - "Then you are saying that the universe came from nothing, right? ...time is illusion... it is our consciousness that does it "
I said no such thing.
Do not put words in my mouth, I do not want to be associated with your pseudo-science religion about a "consciousness" as a creator.
@ H.M.:
What are you talking about? some kind of fairy tale? A singularity that has 0 volume, A singularity that needs no space.
Then you are saying that the universe came from nothing, right?
That is funny. Isn't that the same thing that I said in my "Null Physics" blog? that you gave me the gears about.
And then you say that the universe does not need time to exist, so what does that mean? that time is illusion?? Am waiting for to say also, that it is our consciousness that does it, (LOL) Your a riot!
hate machine,
lol. thanks for the explanation. but not the implication that i need medication. although it made me laugh :)
@ hawkpork - "i understand space to be the distance between points"
To find something big (say your Doctor) you need 4 pieces of information. Width (the Ave), Depth (the St), Height (the building floor), and the when (time of the appointment). If you get any of these 4 wrong you will not find what you are looking for.
In spacetime all four have equal weight. No one value is more important then the others. Time is no more important then up.
Dont try to complicate time with grand gestures of beginning and end, before and after.
So an equally plausible chicken and egg question would be. What was first... left or right?
If you can explain if right or left came first. Ill be able to explain if first or last came left, or if left or right came up.
@ hawkpork - "does science have an understandable theory of what caused the singularity?"
No not at all. Science really has no say as to why there was a singularity. It just says that all evidence points to everything having come from one. Play everything we know about the universe in reverse and you end up with a singularity.
But Newton didn't know what gravity was but could observe it. Einstein couldn't put a speck of time on a slide and look at it under a microscope but was able to create experiments to prove his work.
Man kind split the atom before we knew what the atom was made of.
When all the pieces fall together then we will know. Until then its our job to keep finding the pieces.
There is alot of untestable ideas based on some really powerful mathematics that suggest that the singularity is the contact point between two membranes in extra dimensions.
This of course is wild speculation from string, m, or brane theories. All of which are amazing elegant models created by the most powerful minds in the world, but are %100 untestable and therefor not actually science. Just some good fun with math.
John and hate machine,
i don't personally have a problem with the paradox of the singularities existence outside of timespace. as i said, i understand space to be the distance between points. and time to be the observation of those points, or some elemetary part of space.
so that's all good. i think..
but doesn't that still leave use with a "chicken or the egg" scenario? where'd the singularity come from?
or is that the wrong way to think about it?
did it have to come from somewhere if there was no time or space for it to come from?
does science have an understandable theory of what caused the singularity?
@ John Seals - "Why are you being so condecending?"
I didn't mean to be condescending. You seem to posses good logic and I wanted to broaden the scope of the conversation. If you want to talk about time and space there is a lot of discussion that isn't speculation. If you just want to use your imagination then imagine that I might be a little more passionate about (so called) facts and might come off a little blunt. If I'm not blunt, my posts would be pages long.
I dont take the sciences lightly. If someone tried to explain that electricity came from love I would do my best to to see that the are in fact wrong.
I will also not give an inch to anyone that criticizes someones belief structure only to post a different beliefs structure that is also not based in any fact.
People on this site tend to look down on someone that says a book told them "god" made the world, but in the same breath promote a book that says "consciousness" made the world.
To my they are the worst kind of hypocrite because they base their ideas not on the science but on miss quotes from books they have never read.
So let me comment on the follow quote, and take what I say with a grain of salt but not anger.
" I believe scientist do speculate that thier was singularity that was the source of the big bang. And yes, this does set up a parodox as it had no spacetime to exist in."
Since a singularity is of 0 volume why would in need to exist in space. By definition a singularity does not have volume so it does not need space.
As for time... think of time as a stopwatch. The big bang pushed the button on the stopwatch and time started ticking off. This is a honorably inaccurate portrayal of time but the simple answers are sometimes the best.
So we have a singularity that needs no space... but starts to expand. At the same instant we turn on the clock. We are now in a expanded singularity that has fun things like gravity and time.
I see no paradox. Dont try to change the universe to suit your mind change your mind to suit the universe.
A note on time dilation. From studying time dilation you of course have realized that the universe doesn't need time to exist. Just as a photon doesn't need mass to exist, or as a electron doesn't exist in one area of space.. it exists in all possible areas of space.
@ Hawkpork
Yes, I believe scientist do speculate that thier was singularity that was the source of the big bang. And yes, this does set up a parodox as it had no spacetime to exist in. I wish I could help you make sence of that but, it doesn't make sence to me. Our issue is that we see time as a linear progression of events, all humans do. But when we talk of spacetime, it is the fabric in which all we know exists. These types of paradoxes are what lead many to not believe the big bang theory and choose religion insted. I used to scoff at this but, I'm not so sure that we (athiests) are right anymore. I still do not believe the thiest are right either though, I just do not know. You have these people like Hate machine that are so quick to point out your grammar mistakes and so forth but, they can picture this no better. If we don't say "before" then what do we say? If we look at it as a linear progression of events then the singularity came before the big bang, but time is not a linear progression in physics so AHH!!! Sorry I know this did not help but its the only way I know to explain it.
It raises more questions than answers.... Science does not give quick answers... It is more like evolution... :)
"I find it absolutely mind boggling that theists can say, without a shred of doubt “GODS” do not exist… yet you remove ONE letter and it just MAGICALLY changes everything. Give me a GOD damn break."
-- It's not "mind boggling" at all. There have never been any good arguments that a bunch of Gods exist. If the universe was indeed created, then its more plausible that it was created by a single creator. A many Gods hypothesis makes incredibly much less sense, and is a philosophically indefensible position. You can even cite Occams Razor and show that the 'single God' hypothesis is more plausible than the 'many Gods' one. What's so "mind boggling" about that?
@ capricious
"it is completely clear evidence that believing this entity does exist is completely irrational and direct evidence that this belief is 100% based on mythological hearsay."
-- I'm sorry, but where is your argument?
GOD CREATED caps lock so that it could be used in moderation. NOT SO that DUMB comments can somehow have more effect.
GOD CREATED MAN BECAUSE HE WANTED A FAMILY...YET MAN HAS BEEN AN UNRULY CHILD, ONE FULL OF PERSONAL VANITY.
If a father teaches his child all the good things that a child should know but the child goes off and becomes rebellious; is it the fathers fault? The father does not try to stop the child rather the father allows the child to pursue that course in order for that child to learn. Is it fare that the child blames the father for the bad things that the child has experienced in his rebellious course. The father is not the cause of the problems. Like Jehovah he also allows us to pursue our own course and does not cause our problems but we ourselves.
i suggest we all calm down.. have a smoke if it helps :).
John,
you said something which bogles my mind a bit.
'I did not mean that science speculated that a singularity existed before the big bang...as thier was not time or space for it to exist in.'
isn't that what they say? before the big bang there was the singularity?
ok time and space didn't exist yet. because space is the distance between 2 points and time is,, well umm, part of space and there was only 1 point, therefor no space or time.
but the singularity did exist before it expanded to spacetime.
am i misunderstanding you? probably, it's a mindbogling concept. and one regular language is not designed for. take for example 'before' the big bang. we all know there was no time and therefor no 'before'. but it's so hard to break the conceptual bonds to the dimensions we know.
And on a side note --
I find it absolutely mind boggling that theists can say, without a shred of doubt "GODS" do not exist... yet you remove ONE letter and it just MAGICALLY changes everything. Give me a GOD damn break.
I'm sorry but the argument about whether or not god exists has been dead for some time. Any rational person can understand there is absolutely, positively, no reason to believe in god. I can sumamrize it quite briefly, in fact:
The lack of evidence for a god is itself agreeably not evidence that he does not exist - however - it is completely clear evidence that believing this entity does exist is completely irrational and direct evidence that this belief is 100% based on mythological hearsay.
That's it folks. The end.
Good doc... thanks Vladko
i'll perhaps add some food for thought
Can there be something true which cannot be proven but there are signs for the truth of the statement.
A bit like Goedel's incompleteness theorem and the absolute need for infinity in maths but infinity cannot be fully grasped except with certain paradoxes...
@ Hate nachine
Actually they run slower when near a massive object not faster. I'm sure your racing to correct me.
@ hate machine
By the way Gravitational time dialation is just a bunch of fancy words that mean. Objects of large mass speed up time in the imediate vaccinity. This is why we say that if we could orbit a black hole for say a year and then return to earth much more time would have elapsed here. I don't claim to be a master of the subject but I am not as ignorant as you want to imply. They also theorize that since energy equals mass times the speed of light sqaured energy could also have this effect. So if we could go fast enough we could do the same thing here on earth. Travel on the imaginary train for a week and get off you are now in the future.
Why are you being so condecending? Is it my imagination? I really don't want to make an enemy but I am not used to people challenging me to learn something, as if I am in need of more education or something. I enjoy learning and I will look up the exact phrase Gravitational time dialation to make sure that it is what I think it is. That being said my field is theology and I am sure I can stump you with some fancy jargon or challenge your knowledge of some obscure concept having to do with ancient religions, but I will not. What would be the point. If I have misread this situation I apologize.
@ hate Machine
Calm down a bit man, I did not mean that science speculated that a singularity existed before the big bang. I meant that several people had said that in this thread, and if you noticed I said that it was impossible as thier was not time or space for it to exist in. I also said that time and space aka spacetime was created in the big bang so what where you trying to correct?I may not be the geniuse that you proclaim to be but I have a better grip than that. By the way why are you so concerned with what Achem thinks or believes? He never seems to push it on any body so what does it hurt? I may be way off base here and if so I am sorry but I wish thier was less negative hostility toward each other on this site. If you want to show off your knowledge of cosmology you could help me with something I do not understand. They say that spacetime is like a sheet and the sun for example distorts this spacetime, like a ball sitting on the sheet. Well when I look at the sheet and see the ball that represent the sun it is not part of the sheet or embedded in the sheeet, it is sitting on top of the sheet. So if the sun exist in spacetime would it not distort the fabric of spacetime differently as it is not sitting on top of spacetime but actually inside it? If this is so can we ever really get an idea of how it distorted spacetime, i.e. what shape in the spacetime continuum did it create. I suppose we could look at photons and see what path they follow, right?
@ Hate Machine
Have you read some of the work of Stuart Hameroff? (I think I got the name right). He has made some persuasive arguments about the mind being somehow connected to Quantum mechanics --and all of this somehow accounting for free-will. I may have been slightly persuaded though because of my illiteracy in so deep a field. But I thought everything seemed plausible. I wonder what's your take on this.
@ H.M.:
I am done arguing with you, why don't you ask "Stephen Hawking" why he said, "the universe probably came from nothing"! From soap bubbles yet.(LOL) The doc. is here on SeeUat Videos. find it yourself.
@ Achems Razor - If my statements are unclear to you I will elaborate. What statements are you having trouble making sense of?
I have no problem backing up anything I say with something a little more substantial then "The physicists there I’m sure, are much smarter than you."
@ H.M.:
Nice try, but nonsensical, you sound like a school girl throwing a hissy-fit.
Give it up! not interested.
@ Achems Razor - "If you are in supposedly oblivion, you do not exist, so write all you want and use your braille all you want, and good luck!!"
Do you have math to back this up or is it just opinion?
What is the difference between "supposedly oblivion" and regular oblivion... or did you just fail at grammar too?
@ H.M.:
If you are in supposedly oblivion, you do not exist, so write all you want and use your braille all you want, and good luck!!
Talk about fail!!
@ Achems Razor- "So pray tell me how you picture “Oblivion”"
I picture "Oblivion" by writing it down on a sheet of paper.
"and with what do you picture it with."
My eyes! Braille for those with better touch then sight.
Your concepts are lacking in realism. Your expressions are lacking in solidarity. You are full of fail.
@ John Seals - Time in physics is not at all the same concept as time we think of in our day to day lives.
"We speculate that a singularity existed befor(e) the big bang"
This statement is not accurate. There really isnt a before. If people are speculating about it that is all it is "speculation". Modern science is working on getting as close as possible to understanding the early moments of our universe.
Remember that our brain is a 1 dimensional time flowing, three dimensional vector interpolater with automatic image recognition hooked to lizard parts all being ran by a sangria of misfiring chemicals. You are not made to understand quantum mechanics. You are made to understand Newtonian physics.
The odd part of physics is that its not up to debate whether it makes sense or not... the debate is whether it can be observed and reproduced.
The observable and testable universe tells us that all spacetime and energy are a RESULT of the bigbang...
I challenge you to master the concept of gravitational time dilation. After you wrap your noodle around that stuff you will never look at the word "before" the same way again.
The nature of everything outside of our 3 dimensions and time is the realm of speculation. Take it with a brain of salt.
@ H.M.:
Sorry, like I said before, am not your teacher, find out stuff for yourself.
@ John Seals:
I can't pray for you, but I feel for what you are going through.
I have went through all that and more. Both parents, and younger brother that committed suicide when he was 28 years old.
Time does not quite heal all wounds but makes them more bearable.
I know that you are a good man, so be good to yourself.
Peace.
@ H.M:
I know that you are obsessed with me, but stop following me around. You are not my type, sorry.
Why do you always want to kill the messenger? if you do not like it bring it up with "Null Physics" The physicists there I'm sure, are much smarter than you. So pray tell me how you picture "Oblivion" and with what do you picture it with.
You feel like you want to stop all blogs that give food for thought do you? If it goes against your grain. Well, go ahead, knock yourself out! you are hilarious! It is all "QUANTUM", QUANTUM I say, "No Oblivion" (LMAO)
@ Mugan: Just relaying alternate theories that is all, To get further info google "Null physics".
@ Achems Razor- "if you had an operation and you where out say for 6 hours, when you awoke, where did the 6 hours go, no-where, because there was no spacetime involved for you when you where out, it was instant."
Just because Im not laying down memories at the moment doesn't mean that space time has ceased to exist. That is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If I take a sleeping pill and a laxative... does that mean the mess that i wake up in didnt happen in time and space?
"Spacetime is a product of our consciousness, so says Einstein, and QM. They say, it is illusion."
Einstein said no such thing... and no where in quantum mechanics is there mention of "consciousness".
Stop trying to convert people to your religion called "Quantum". You are obviously obsessed with your faith in the pseudo-science religion you have adopted from the internet. Do the preachers in your religion promise some form of after life? Maybe extra dimensions where all the good people go? Do they make you warm and fuzzy spewing their falsities. Do you accept "consciousness" into your heart? Are you a born again "quantum'? Have you been baptized in the "spacetime'?
Do they tell you exactly what you want to hear?
No one wants to hear the rantings or your internet quantum cult. Stop being the sheep and blatting your youtube scriptures. You take a beautiful thing like science and corrupt it with you gospel of quote-mined analogies, then you spread your foul ideas like some failed televangelist who lost his camera and can only find the keyboard.
I say to you. Stop lying to yourself and more importantly stop lying to everyone else. You are not an apostle of quantum. Your are the regurgitater of the pseudo.
@ Epicurean_logic
I hope I didn't get you upset or anything. I know sometimes its right under the surface and once it starts it pours out. It is good to let it go though. I just don't feel comfortable doing it in front of others. I go off alone and cry and deal with that way. I don't bottle things up I just keep them private. I can talk openly when online though, I don't know why. I guess because no one can see or hear me, I know this shows I have some issues but, I deal with that later. first I have to get through this. I just look at it one day at a time. I still have him right now so make the most of it. Speaking of which I want to go spend some time with him now. I will hollar at yall later, after he goes to sleep. Thanks again to everyone, especially those who took personal interest. Your sentiments and kindness has really made a difference. And believe it or not thanks to all those I have argued with about belief in a god. If nothing else I have learned much about how to communicate better and try to understand those that are not like me. I have not changed my mind about his existance but I am starting to question my own stance's static nature. I should start getting the class involved on this site, if it could help them I would be eternally gratefull.
@ Mugen
To say that something is always thier is very vague and sounds sort of incorrect. I would say that something and nothing are human constructs that only imply a meaning insted of having a natural identity. What we have called nothing for thousands of years turns out to be the dominate mass and energy in the universe (dark matter and dark energy). So what is nothing? the absence of something. What is something? what ever we decide it is. We speculate that a singularity existed befor the big bang, but if thier was no spacetime how can we say that. Thier was no where to be and no time to be in, so the singularity may have always been existing only in a demension that we can not understand or define. And since in a universe of no time and no space causation would break down along with effect, the singularity may still exist in that other demension, perhaps waiting to bring forth another universe, perhaps it already has. See the possibilities go on for ever in both directions, toward a devine influence and away. I'm starting to think what matters is what you feel in your heart. I do not feel as if a god created me but you may, and that is just as valid and correct as what I think. I hope you find the answers you are looking for, becarefull not to let all the jargon and circular logic fool you. You know the answer in your heart. It's your answer and yours alone, good luck.
@John Seals.
There's so much i'd like to say to you... nothing you havn't heard from your loved ones and others i suspect, but your story really hit home for me. It's put me in a over emotional state of mind, something i havn't felt since my ex-mother in law died, an incredible lady.
It's healthy for all of us to let out the emotions once in a while as most of the time we have a more practical and logical outlook; and then bam it hits, that bitter-sweet over emotion... it's overwhelming, and as the feelings increase logic takes a back seat for a while until practical reality rises to the forefront once again.
Life is a tragedy because you die at the end and i'm just venting JS so i hope that i'm not to far off the mark with these words.
@ ilovemyselfmorethani
I would be honored for you to pray for my dad. I think many aspects of religion are beautiful, like someone asking that another be well or have peace. This is a selfless act that shows compassion and a sence of brotherhood. I used to say stuff like , " Oh ar you going to sacrifice a goat as well?" a smart a## line I picked up from Richard Dawkins but, not anymore. I think, much like when I discovered we all had it over simplified as teens, I am growing up a little. I see now that while I may be athiest and not believe I have no right to make such derrogatory statements toward well meaning people. So by all means feel free to pray for me and my dad, we wish you peace and happiness as well.
@ John Seals
I know you're an atheist, but allow me to say a prayer for your dad.
HaTe_MaChInE hit the nail on the head. to be honest Achems Razoryou seem inteligent yet say summin like that. i mean i noe that something is allways there. final thought if there is nothing then nothing can exist unless existance minipulates nothing. for example 0+0=0 but if i take zero and do this 0+1=1 see existance is nessacery for existance within nothing. i rest my case. any thoughts ppl?
@ Epicurean logic
Thanks man, you are always helpful. I know that sounds corny but it is true. I really don't want to talk to anyone about it in person cause I have trouble showing real emotion or connecting with people when on the phone or in person, besides I already talk with my mom and a counselor from hospice till I'm blue in the face every week. It helps though to see that someone else would care enough to call when they don't know me at all. That is the most selfless and kind act I have witnessed in a long time.
I am in the US, the southeast at that. Imagine that an athiest living in Alabama, you know I am popular. I've been thinking about finding an outlet online so I can write a description of my dad and his amazing life. He was born in the depression and spent his early childhood in poverty and innocents. This would soon change though as his mother was clinically diagnosed as well "crazy" basically. All I know is she was taken away and institutionalized and died before my dad saw her again. His father turned out to be an alcholic so he spent the next few years trying to provide for the rest of his family ending all hope for an education or a way out of poverty. Long story short he ran off and joined the Navy. He went on to see action in Korea and Vietnam while supporting his family and gaining a education. He completed two civilian degrees after his service and ended up working in a coal mine until retirement. He is also a wonderful folk musician and luthier. He is now dieing of a condition he more than likely developed as a direct result of working in the coal industry, COPD. He is the most courageouse and disciplined man I have ever known, not to mention resourceful and honest. The details of his life read like a great American novel, full of pain, sacrifice, passion, and adventure. Of course to me he is just dad, the most important person in my life. As soon as I find out where I can tell his story and get it all written out I will post a link here for anyone who cares to meet him.
Thaks again Epicurean_logic, believe it or not it is the small things that make us who we are. To every one else you know what, I hate to say this but Chris is right. We should all back up and be more kind when dealing with others who feel differently. I don't think any one here really means harm but when you back off and read some of the statements we sound like a bunch of ranting angry children sometimes, me included. I will make a conscience effort to correct this flaw, I hope every one else will too. Of course you all have the right to be complete a**holes as well, so you choose.
That is a real stretch by the Christian right (or revealed god advocates)to give themselves credence. Cool documentary, but it changes nothing except confirming god's only language is that as math.
@ Achems Razor - "oblivian means just that, nothing. how can you picture it? you can’t"
Just because YOU cant picture it doesn't mean the rest of us cant.
For instance.
U(o)=oblivian... now, not only can I picture it but now I can use it in formulas. Unlike any of your diminutive fancies scientists have to prove their theories. Proofs, formulas and equations are the bases of physics, science, and nature in general.
Please do not infer that the rest of the population is incapable just because you are.
@John Seals.
My heart goes out to you brother. I have free calls to the US (if thats where you are) and i would really like to talk with you about your personal situation if you want to. You know that i'm in a similar situation and it sometimes help to get things off your chest with someone who understands and has similar experiences. If not. don't worry, if you do though, encode your phone number in the digits of Pi (lol) and give me the code. I'll call you.
@ Mugen
That is above my head, I'm not sure what particles or forces combined or didn't to create spacetime, maybe someone else could help us both on that one. I know that the theory says it was created by the big bang so it did not exist befor hand. At least not the spaectime we know and are familiar with. They say the best way to picture it is like it is a huge rubber sheet. All the things of huge mass, like the sun or planets , can be thought of as maybe a bowling ball or something resting on this sheet that is suspended at each corner. See how the bowling ball distorts the sheet as it's mass creates a funnel shaped depression. This is what the stars and planets do to spacetime. We actually see this when photons travel around a object due to gravitational lensing. The photons are just following the shape of space time, think of them as traveling inside the sheet, see how when they come to an object they have to follow the countour of the sheet thier by going around the object. I know it is hard to concieve but it is the most logical explanation for gravitational lensing, the tendency for small bodies to orbit larger bodies, and many other naturally occurring phenomenon so far. It's a trip to me that Einstien was able to figure this stuff out through thought experiments. He let some one else actually go out and make the observations that supported his theories. I can't even imagine coming up with this solution after seeing gravitational lensing, he actually predicted this odd behavior and was right. As far as my take on weather this was all predestined or is just the way things turned out, I think it just happened. I know that everything seems so perfect and designed but that's because you have adapted over thousands of years to this particular environment. So has every other living thing you know. I will say that i am having some doubts lately, my dad is about to die see. I would love to think I could see him again or that he would be rewarded for the hard life he has lived, but i don't. I have based my hole acedemic carreer on the study of history, theology, and science in an atempt to try and understand what is happening around me or to feel some connection to others, but I don't. I am sort of in the middle of a break down right now, so maybe you should ask some one else about thier feelings about god. I don't think I know what i think anymore. Don't mean to be a downer though, thanks for the conversation.
Very intereting. What if it is not only we who cannot get to God but also God himself cannot get to us. If we creat a simulated world that gets to the point of leading his own way, and we only observe it on the screen, that simulated created people will probably start asking the same questions if there is some creator. We know they do, but in the world they make themselves (and we are only observers) we cannot reach them to tell them so, without desturbing their way of life, without disturbing their blieve they are real nd their world is real.
@Epicurean_Logic
In your humble opinion, of course.
@Chris.
We can agree that you cannot prove that god does or doesn't exist. This cannot change and the main reason for this is that he was designed by man in that way.
After the bashing that the earlier gods took from the hands of the classical Greeks, smacked about from pillory to post, the powers that be decided to make god invisible and not of our universe. Thus forever making him unreachable to the rational mind (a good strategy with hindsight!). A clear distinction from the naturalistic pre- monotheistic gods!
It's just the way god was designed gringo.
Lovely conversation. It's quite interesting watch everyone go merrily down the rabbit hole.
@ Epicurean_Logic
"It’s the anthropomorphic argument all over again."
No it's not. The anthropomorphic argument states that the universe was built for us. The fine tuning argument states that initial conditions needed to create the universe we observe are highly unlikely, especially given the fact that few of these parameters are required by the laws of physics. There is no reason for these numbers. It's worse than drawing a royal flush 10 times in a row, or throwing snake-eyes 100 times consecutively. After how many throws do you start to wonder what is going on?
Naturally occurring events most often assume the least organized and least energy state, sooner rather than later. Some of the universal parameters are set on a knife-edge balance. And this is true whether we are here or not.
To everyone else:
Before every one starts digging their silos, consider that these questions are debated in high circles by Ph.D's. Millions of dollars are being spent trying to find ways around some of the observations that indicate fine tuning. Books and papers are written, published, read and debated again, and again, and again.
You are not going to solve it here, with or without Morgan Freeman's help. Most of us are far too isolated in our own struggles and environment to make meaningful contributions. Most, if not all, of what is spoken of in these discussions is merely a repeat of what was read in a book, heard in class, or watched on YouTube.
The whole point, as I stated in an above post, it that reasonable people would reconsider the comforting belief system security blankets they have wrapped around themselves in order to protect themselves from the monsters under the bed. Atheist and theists alike believe the most convoluted out-dated nonsense, and BOTH need to start acting and thinking like reasonable adults.
When the open minded thinking stops, wars start.
Atheists: Don't be so smug. You are never going to be able to prove that God does not exist. It borders on a religious viewpoint. Agnostics are far more honest. The numbers and observations, and their possible implications, cannot be so carelessly dismissed. Doing so means you are hiding your head in the sand as much as religion.
Theists: Don't be so close minded to the facts and advancements of science. You are never going to be able to prove, especially to atheists, the existence of a God who clearly states that He hides Himself. He is found by those who seek Him. If some do not seek Him, He will not be found by them.
One side or the other is fine. The only thing I find objectionable is where either side insists upon pushing their view as the only view, without credible, current, verifiable, science, logic or observations. Or worse, with discredited, outdated information.
Cheers!
@ Mugen:
One way to do it, is try to picture oblivian. No such state exists,
oblivian means just that, nothing. how can you picture it? you can't, because you have to be conscious to picture it, don't you.
Therefore a state of nothing doesn't exist, there is always something. that is why "nothing" always fills "something".
As an analogy, if you had an operation and you where out say for 6 hours, when you awoke, where did the 6 hours go, no-where, because there was no spacetime involved for you when you where out, it was instant.
The same for null physicis. No time involved, no spactime. Always something.
To me it is the same when we die, there is no nothing, no oblivian, because not definable.
We are always here in some form or another.
Spacetime is a product of our consciousness, so says Einstein, and QM. They say, it is illusion.
John Seals: yh but what made spacetime? and how did it split into 2? i think the universe and space and time was all formulated to evolve in the way it has. and whatever made this formula is unreachable. love to hear your thoughts.
@capricious: love the way you describe us in a patry dish lol that would be interesting. but when i say creator i just mean something that created matter or dark matter.
Achems Razor: "Null physics states that the universe began from the number “zero”." how can we think that the universe must have started with nothing when even the number zero is something. if zero is nothing how can you comprehend it? i understand what you explained yet i still find it difficult to get my head around the fact that the state of “nothing” is actually” “something”, because if there is nothing, there would have to be something, i mean if there is nothing do you mean there must have been something there in order for that space to exist? because if that is so isnt space acctually made of dark matter? would love a reply thanks man.
Hey John Seals.
I didn't say that fractal geometry, Mandelbrot set and also Julia sets are useless. you are right about them being the language of nature. I was talking about occult geometry.
In fact, fractal/chaos/complexity may just be the mathematics of the 22nd century it's that far ahead of our understanding at the moment.
I can't believe that we are still arrogant enough as a species to actually think that the universe was designed specifically for us. We, through evolution, have become perfect for the universe not the other way around. If one force where changed and something else existed it would be saying this same thing, "look how perfectly it all fits together for my benefit." I feel this starting place, belief that the universe is designed for us, ends at us being horrible stewards of our world. It makes people think they have a right to exploit the earth and all it has to offer. Truth is we live in a cosmic shooting gallery with comets, mereors, gamma ray bursts, and exploding stars constantly threatening our very existance. When we finally get hit by one of these phenomenon I wonder how perfect and "designed for us" the univesre will feel. Just a thought, believe what you want.
@ Epicurean_logic
Actually I looked into it and fractal geometry and sacred geometry are really different things. Fractals are what I am interested in and they are far from useless. Fractal geometry is just a mathmatical explanation for the geometry of nature, like the way a tree is shaped or the way a mountain is all cut up in different angles. Computer graphic artist use fractal geometry to recreate naturally occurring redundant shapes, like a tree. They don't sit and design every branch on every tree in the forest, this would take forever. Insted they give the computer a fractal equation and it builds the trees for them. You should check out "Fractals the Colors of Infinity" you will love it, I bet. It is all about fractals and how they work and why they are important for us to understand as they give us a glimpse of the mathmatics used by nature to create the world we know. I realize that thier was a huge bunch of phsychedelic hippies that tried to make it all mystical and all, I was one of them, we have all done things we wish we could take back. But in reality it is an important field of actuall mathmatics that is used daily. If you already know all this and still think it is useless, well to each his own I suppose. I think it is really cool that they have found out how nature creates say a snow flake or a sea shell, thier both fractal shapes.
@ilovemyselfmorethani
'You can argue that something else may result that may have the capacity to evolve into something (like us)'
It doesn't necessarily have to be like us at all. In fact it's impossible to predict with or without models what the results would be. Green balls of slime could be the 'norm' given different conditions. Large scale self ordering is not such a simple concept. Models are specific bespoke creations relating to any given observation, so to use a current model and change the fundamentals to suit another model is too simplistic an approach.
It's like creating a model for the long jump and trying to tweak the equations to turn it into a model for a toy glider. It's not that sraight forward. You have to take the new data and laws of physics into account and then create a new model.
@ Epicurean_logic
"It’s the anthropomorphic argument all over again. If the constants weren’t tuned the way that they are, we wouldn’t be here to observe them. "
--Yes.
"If they were different, then we would also be different as would our observations."
-- No, we wouldn't be different. We wouldn't be. If the constants were not the way they were, atoms could not even exist. You can argue that something else may result that may have the capacity to evolve into something like us. But there is no evidence for this, as far as the mathematical models show. What it does show is that when the constants are altered, even just infinitesimally, the result would be a dead universe. That's why scientists love the 'multiple universe' theory so much. So, yours is a very effete characterization of the fine tuning argument.
@ mugan:
Re: "your refusal to believe that existence occurred in nothing makes no sense".
Will add again "Null Physics" that I have included on other doc's.
Null physics states that the universe began from the number "zero".
Physicists hypothesize that the state of "nothing" is actually" "something", because if there is nothing, there would have to be something, that has become nothing. Nothing is filling something, this goes as far as to say, that the universe is nothing, and does not exist. The reason for this is, if everything is to the value of zero, which is the "something" of "nothing", then you would have nothing.
Almost like multiplying a negative times a positive. Physicists call the zero's that make up the universe geometric points, which are similar to singularities, but do not condense matter.
Geometric points only represent what is not there.
And this is how the universe exists.
@Chris.
It's the anthropomorphic argument all over again. If the constants weren't tuned the way that they are, we wouldn't be here to observe them. If they were different, then we would also be different as would our observations.
It's not such a big deal and doesn't require a creator.
@jane hayden and john seals.
Its the mystical side of the subject. I will give you the same advice about sacred geometry that my physics teacher did in 1987 when i exitedly told him that i wanted to learn 'physics' and gave him a book on sacred geometry and hermetic motion. It's not factual and doesn't provide any meaningful testable results.
Stick to the real thing. Its much more interesting and useful!
@Mugen - that is the $10 trillion dollar question - what is outside of our universe? Is it empty? Is it a vacuum? Is it something none of us would have ever guessed and is totally bizarre? We just do not know yet.
Regarding where the singularity would be parked, it would have had to be in something, which is why I always leaned towards there being something outside of the universe. There almost has to be.... at least, my minds cannot comprehend true emptiness.
There is no creator though. At least, none that has been described in any holy document ever written. If there is a creator, it is more likely to be scientists from a much larger species and we're simply floating in a petry dish being observed :) I would humor that idea 100x more than some magical and undetectable deity who REALLY cares if we masturbate or not. That just has "man-made" written all over it any way you slice it.
@ Mugen
I think your haaving a issue understanding the space time continuum. I have the same problem but I'll try and explain it, for both of us. Einstien said, and now most scientists agree, that space and time where not two seperate things but one thing called spacetime. In fact we now know that you experience time at different rates depending on where you are and how fast you are moving. I know that sounds crazy but it is a fact, they have to make adjustments for this concerning GPS sattelites because the clocks don't match our clocks on earth. They experience time faster than we do, I'm not sure of the difference but its very small like our minute is like 59.xx seconds for the sattelite. But the faster and further you go from earth the faster time goes compared to on earth. Or maybe it's that they experience it slower by a little, I can't remember but it's different then here because of gravity and speed. Really huge things slow down time when you get near them. Any way the theory is that this spacetime was created at the same time as the universe.This is why thier did not need to be an empty space to put the universe in, because the universe is space and time, sort of. Boy I really sound conviencing, somebody else explain this please.
Pixels,Nano critters,atoms,fractals,dot drawings,Magic eye pictures(sort of) there is a mathmatical sequence,in these documentaries i think related to fractals that has a sequence that if looked inside is made up of exactly the same sequence on and on ,this was an incredibly thought provoking documentary to me ,no wonder Morgy Freeman had to say something
it is simple there must be a creator. otherwise there wouldn't be existence at all. i mean the universe couldn't exist without some were for it to exist. there must have been something before the big bang for the universe to park its self into, no? or maybe the elements that caused the big bang must have existed some were. i refuse to believe that existence occurred in nothing it makes no sense. can someone help me understand?
Here is one example of the fine tuning of the universe.
The cosmological constant/dark energy/or whatever you want to call it has the potential to either be strong enough to expand the universe faster than would make it possible for galaxies to have formed, or weak enough to have allowed the universe to have collapsed upon itself long ago. The balance point is the ratio between the energy density due to the cosmological constant and the critical density of the universe.
The precise value of the cosmological constant had to have been set near to the beginning of the universe in order for us to have the flat universe we have now. That value would have little or no effect on the observable universe for the first couple of billion years. It is only now that we can see how precise it was set. Like a rocket sent to a far destination (without the capacity for course correction en route), the slightest course deviation could result in thousands of miles off course.
The observed energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10 to the 120th power. This is an unnatural number, made further bizarre in that it is not required by any law of physics.
There are other examples of fine tuning that are equally astounding. Taken as a whole, the math makes a convincing case.
As a final note, the author of the 2003 computer simulation paper that started the current simulation craze, Professor Nick Bostrom, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, does NOT believe that we are living in a computer simulation. It's really just an exercise in logic.
I would agree that the universe is not fined tuned to us but us to the universe. This is the product of evolution. The universe doesn't seem friendly to life at all to me. Look how big it is and yet we have only one small place where life is known to exist. Besides if one thing is all you know it can not be called perfect. You have nothing to compare it to, so it is what it is and nothing more. Why does it seem perfect, because you are able to say it is. What happened to faith? I was always told by my grandfather the preacher, "It's all about faith. You can't look for proof." Every one that is religiouse now seems to want to advance some proof for at least a god if not thier God. I don't think it is possible. Religion is about faith, always has been and always will be.
@ Jane Haydon
Sure it rings a bell, I was around in the seventies as well. Fractal geometry is what youre referring to, right? I love this feild of study, it's over my head but I still love it. If Epicurean_logic is around he probably understands more about it than me, my math is not the best now days. I always got confused about how they came up with those cool pictures. I think you run a set of numbers, like the Mindlebrot set, throuh an equation and then place dots on a graph accordingly. Then the dots get a certain color if they are moving toward the center or going toward the edge of the graph. I am not sure though. Help Epicurean_logic we have a math issue.
@Chris
The idea of having an infinite number of universes, or perhaps some 'random universe generator' does indeed pose more questions. Such a generator would guarantee the eventual existence of a universe with these parameters - at least with enough time. The problem with this idea is that it too would be in need of an explanation.
I find the fine tuning arguments a bit difficult to deal with because I'm not a physicist. I have read an article which argues that when comparing the atheistic and theistic hypotheses the existence of fine tuning increases the probability of the theistic hypothesis being correct. Even if we assume that this is indeed true, many problems remain unanswered. How do you get from fine-tuning to a personal deity? How do you reason from fine tuning to the existence of an afterlife? Much work remains to be done if one wishes to use fine tuning to support particular religious claims.
@ Chris
Also, saying that this movie would not have been created if it did not reflect a huge movement in the field toward the supernatural may not be correct. This was created for the Discovery Science chanell, I watched it thier a few days ago. This is a network concerned more with making money than premoting truth or real science. Ninety percent of thier target audience is christian, thierfore they have a lot of these end of the world, sensationalized, psuedo-science shows on. Watch if you do not believe me. Every other day they are looking for Noah's ark or giving scientific explanations for the biblical plagues in Egypt. If that isn't on then it's "Oh god we are going to die from earth quakes, gamma ray bursts, super valcanoes, killer bees, or a viral out break." All I'm saying is that a few scientists would be all it took cause this show is perfect for thier target audience, it suggests spiritualism as an answer, and it makes a great tv tag line. I mean " Through the Worm Hole Is thier a creator" it's a great hook, I watch it and I am a staunch supporter of the natural cause theories. It may be just as you said, that thier is a huge movement and this proves it, but I doubt that very much.
Sacred Geometry ring a bell with anyone? I really enjoyed the video, thankyou.
@ Chris
You said, "It’s not a proof for the existence of God. But it is evidence that things could not have happened simply by natural causes."
Again this is not necessarily true. We do not know enough about certain natural phenomenon to say that they could not have created the universe. Quantum theory for instance, while possibly incomplete, can not be ruled out if for no other reason than we know it may not be complete. We do not fully understand black holes, gravity, planet formation, etc., etc., etc. So to say that we know a natural cause is not the culprit is premature. You may see some more evidence here to help support your theory, but it is not a conclusive theory yet as it rests on eliminating things that have not yet been discovered. I will say that you come closer than most though Chris, I will definelty say that. peace and good luck.
@John
The problem with the many universes solution to the fine tuning problem is that, considering the extremely high and unlikely degree of fine tuning that exists in our universe, it would literally take an infinite amount of other universes in order to have randomly produced one like ours. In other words, the odds of our fine-tuned universe coming into existence by chance are about the same as a multiverse producing a universe like ours. Of course, a multiverse also has the additional problem of infinite regress and absolute infinities, which are not possible.
@Pheldespat
Your dismissal of the fine-tuning problem shows that you do not appreciate the conundrum it hands to cosmologists. The point is that you CANNOT just randomly turn the knobs of the universe and produce an environment where life is possible.
Fine tuning, always fine tuning.
We could exist in a universe without weak force. Where is the fine tuning now? In fact, hundreds of universes suitable for life as we know it can be simulated switching the magic knobs so precisely adjusted for life in this universe.
Also, the fine tuning argument fails because it is us the ones who have adapted to the conditions of this universe. Is is the fish who adapted to life in the ocean, the ocean is not fine tuned for fish.
In an universe incompatible with life there would be no one there to wonder about fine tuning. This universe is not fine tuned for life. It is fine tuned against life. Life as we know it is only possible in very few selected spots compared with the vastness of space: in planets with the right size, orbiting the right star, with the right temperature, with the right atmosphere, with the right elements. These planets are far less abundant than life-hostile planets. This universe is hostile to life. Life is possible in it, but the universe is not life-friendly.
2 Certain proofs for the the Fine Tuning Argument
1 - The Holy Bible
2 - Jesus rising from the grave after dieing for your sins
G-d made this universe for us so we can praise him
Possible Refutations of the Fine Tuning Argument:
1: It is possible that many universes have come into and out of existence. Some of these universes contain parameters which are suitable to life whereas others do not. Given that life only "appears" to exist within a restricted, yet specified range (something our universe currently has)the vast majority of the generated universes will be without life. However, if we assume that the generation of each universe is random, over enough time it is within the nature of probability that the improbable will happen--namely universes with these parameters will exist.
2. In some ways determinism may be used to refute these claims. For example, it is possible that the parameters for sustaining life cannot vary due the result of some unknown causal mechanism. In other words, the parameters that we currently see are the only possible parameters--they must be this way.
3. Problem of Induction - The constants which are necessary for sustaining life are derived from our own understanding of life, and there is no clear reason why life would not evolve in conditions drastically different from those of earth. It is possible that "odd" forms of life may evolve to exist inside a star or even in conditions we could barely comprehend. In other words, the fine tuning argument takes one version of life and attempts to construct the universe around this version. If this is the case the parameters for sustaining life may be beyond our best estimates.
4. The picture given from fine tuning could lead to an infinite regress. Does the "fine-tuner" itself require fine-tuning, and so on.....
These were just some thoughts and in no way are these thoughts conclusive.
Oh! there you are @ Allan: with your one liners... knew you would show up sooner or later to give us your profound wisdom with your nonsensical monosyllabic platitudes. Now I can go to bed a happy man.
AHAHAHHAA morgan freedman pierced the wrong ear!
Epecurean, I think Chris was saying the same thing you are.
God doesn't care. If he did, he'd give us all hugs.
I Love this. Peace Vlatko.
Is god a he or she? What does the evidence point to on that?
If God can create anything he wants, why didn't he make human the way he want us to be, IE Believers.
Why does he need worshipers and why does he condemn people who does not believe or happens to sin? Why doesn't he show up and tell us that he is real. Cant he speak for himself? And why does he need priests or preachers that make good money in spreading the lie when he could just program us with the bible in our mind from start?
There is no creator or God, period.
The Creator is not a God!
Did I mention that that Dominica girl was really hot?
If god was Omnipotent he would already know the outcome of anything we could possible do. He would know all outcomes of everything. Why experiment? Would it be better to never have created man or to have let hundreds of millions of men die horrible deaths. What kind of monster kills for no reason. Free will is an excuse people use to justify the lack of a god or the indifference of a god.
If god loves us why does he kill our children. Either he cant stop the death of our children or he likes the death of our children.
I hope god kills my children so I can prove I will never lose my faith in him.
I once wanted to sell my soul to the devil for knowledge to cure cancer... he never showed up.
If you look from the sky and see civilization, it resembles the way cancer would move.
That helmet was pretty scary. Massive possibility for manipulation of people...
Fine tuning, always Fine tuning. becoming redundant!
Fine tuning is not a substantial argument at all for creation...
The Universe (including the Earth) and its constants are "not" fine tuned for life and humanity; instead life and humanity, through "Evolution", are fine tuned to the Universe (especially the Earth) as it is.
@Chris.Mathematical models do not,
'come about through a throw of lucky dice.'
I don't think that you understand the nature of mathematical modelling? They are abstractions (simplified versions)of an observed event. i.e. You look at some phenomenon; think about it really hard, and then use existing mathematical tools to describe the situation with a view to finding out some new and unknown information.
The physical application side of things is like an artist drawing a sunset over the beach; you recreate a simplified picture of a physical situation.
'EVIDENCE that things (could) may not have happened simply by natural causes.'
is OK. Will it translates to workable, real, useful answers to relevent questions? I doubt it.
Consider this: This film would not have been made unless there were a substantial number of main stream researchers across the globe coming up with the same answer. That is, the observations and associated mathematical models are far too fantastic to have come about through a throw of lucky dice.
You may prefer that answer, but that has little to do with it.
It's not a proof for the existence of God. But it is evidence that things could not have happened simply by natural causes. It's supposed to get you to think and to calmly reconsider your cast-in-stone convictions. To cover your ears while shouting, "I'm not listening to you!" is a childish as blindly believing in religion.
It is beyond me how people still believe in god. God is dead- F. Nietzsche. good duc though.
Amazing! Don't you wonder how there can still be those who doubt a single God!
When i posted my comment about this being sci-fi, I had only read the description. I honestly thought that this was some sort of ID documentary. I thought they where saying they literally proved the god of the bible. But this was actually a very interesting documentary.
wow this is really good! A new possibility for the theory of everything and more evidence to suggest that electro/magnetic activity in the temporal lobes induces religous experience, i.e. that of being observed by an external entity!
I was expecting a unsubstantiated, speculative, pseudo scientific, god theorizing account and was pleasantly surprised that it was not. I don't like a god model of how/why are we here because it's too simplistic and usually works on the principle that - we don't know why (a) happens implies god did it. Not very useful at all. In fact it's quite regressive...
Re: The fine tuning of the universe.
Apply the anthropomorphic argument, it's very rational and says that because we are here in the form that we now observe the conditions of the universe are such that encourage our form of life. If the roll of the cosmic dice created a different physics with different constants then life would have evolved differently. Thanks.
Looking at these comments makes me wonder if there is much intelligence in the universe at all. I think there is a mathematical equation showing that the angrier the person - the longer it's been since they've been laid. Since when is "gay" a comment? Or was that an ANNOUNCEMENT? Anyway I think it's great even if I don't believe in (or understand for that matter) everything they explain. I'd love to see some angry little piss-ant try to EXPLAIN things to Morgan Freeman. I'd PAY to see that!!!
Once again VLATKO my man - you are the KING!
Didn't know there where sci-fi movies on this site.
This was a tough watch as a militant anti-theist. So many BS lines in it presupposing god exists for no good reason.
Fine tuning of the universe is not a valid argument at all. If I take a jar of coins and flip them one by one (lining each coin up in a row after each flip) I will end up with a crazy 1 in 10 billion pattern. Does this mean god flipped my coins? Of course not. This argument is blatantly preying on the known mathematical weaknesses of the general public.
Too bad no one ever explained these things to Morgan. Kind of lost some respect for him after this one... it had to be a project of choice and not one done to put food on the table.
God creates out of necessity; out of the realization of His own solitude. Reality is God's distraction from this pain. By dividing and manifesting consciousness from an indivisible one into many (Us), God (We) forgets His (Our) divinity and crushing lonliness. JMHO. : )
gay
Gee. That was hardly expected. Glad to see.
quiet bazaar to hear new thought of life that can absolutely change your way of thinking :S
is this narrated by morgan freeman ?
@ bobbyD i think that god would have created us just as we have created virtual reality i agree. but for amusement i do not think so. possibly just because he could i mean why does man do or create anything these days? because he can. and gods interlect would be so vast that he/she would only ever create something if he felt like making it a reality to him/herself.
Oh Boy, doubt there'll be any controversy on this one!
"While skeptics hold that these findings are neither conclusive nor evidence of a divine creator, some cutting edge physicists are already positing who this God is: an alien gamester who’s created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement. "
Thanks for posting this beautiful documentary, well worth the watch.