Be the first to know about breaking news, articles, and updates.
The Coast | News, events, restaurants, concerts and Burger Week for Halifax, Nova Scotia
Home of the Best of Halifax Reader's Choice Awards, the award-winning independent newspaper covers the Halifax news, politics, events, concerts, movies, restaurants, and nightlife scene.
With all the kid-diddling bishops, evangelical perverts and self-righteous holy cunts who hold a little dog at ransom, isn’t it time people clued in and realized that all religion is EVIL, full of hypocrites and liars???
—Get Real
This article appears in Oct 15-21, 2009.
312 Comments
could not agree more……BUT …..people like religion because they have someone to blame for the bad shit that happens to them instead of accepting responsibility……
Man, given all the hatred towards religion these days, I’m surprised there are any religious people left to hate on.
Maybe, when you get past your own negative experiences and the tired rhetoric of calling religious people ignorant sheep you can calm down enough to realize that religion is just like any other human institution….flawed. However, like other institutions, it persists because it offers people something they want and something they can identify with. At the heart of all major religions is the concept of love and a philosophy of self improvement. That isn’t a bad thing and not all religious people are idiotic fundamentalist child molesting nut bars. It’s just that the well-behaved ones don’t make for good news stories. Atheists can be just as immoral and hypocritical as religious folk.
I’m pretty sure there are atheist perverts too.
I watched Religulous with Bill Mahar the other night which just confirmed my long-held belief that religion is a fucking fairy tale and not even a good one at that. I can’t even imagine existing in the southern USA where these evangelical morons rule the roost and rationalism doesn’t count. I say turn all the churches into legalized whorehouses and be done with it.
Right, because comedians make the best theologians and journalists. Comedians are great at picking the easy targets, but not so good when it comes to offering a fair analysis of a subject.
Let’s think for a minute about the horrible acts committed by Halifax’s Religious community. Let’s see, maybe it’s the 3700+ meals per month provided by Hope Cottage or the thousands of other meals served in other church basements. Maybe the worst is when churches turn their basements into shelters for the homeless. And who can stomach the indecency of packaging up emergency supplies for people in war-torn or disaster stricken countries….or sending school supplies to children in Africa. Oh! the inhumanity of it all. Yes, let’s abolish these horrible, evil institutions full of human trash.
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm#
I wonder who set the age of consent at the Vatican?
Frenchie, I do believe Buddhism is a form of religion, and I do believe an important aspect of Buddhism is taking responsibilities for your own actions.
It’s true that atheists can be perverted. Take me for example LOL!
Religion can and is a great thing; its the agents who tend to fuck it all up.
Re: Religulous with Bill Mahar
Although a done by a comedian (amoung others), this documentary was very well done. Everyone was given the opportunity to explain their beliefs while merely being asked simple questions. While his position was clear, he did not force his beliefs on any of the people interviewed.
Excellent film.
I am not sure of the religious inclinations of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevara but I doubt there are similar people here in metro.
Hitler went to a black gospel church, Stalin was a Scientologist, not sure about Pol Pot (Jewish?), Mao was Mormon, and Che was in the United Church of Canada of course.
I thought Stalin was Joe Blow because he sent a lot of people to knock on doors late at night
The problem I have with organized religion is that it is hard to tell the wolf from the sheep when they are all wearing the same clothing. In fact, my experience revealed that there were more wolves than sheep. Rather than getting eaten up, I just avoid the whole lot. (As well, since it is not in my nature to be wolf or sheep-like, I didn’t really fit in.)
But, that does not mean that I disrespect and scorn the ideal of life being about more than survival–that there is something beyond the laws of earth (here and now/time and space) that is also beyond our understanding. There is so much I don’t know, and so much that can never be known, that I would never close up my mind to possibilities–just as I don’t close up my mind to other ideas while exploring one possibility.
I liked Carl Marx’s take on religion personally :).
All of the most prolific mass murderers (Hitler,Mao Zedong, Stalin, Pot, Jong Il, Castro) of the last century were atheists.
I’ve got to step right out of this one. When human beings feel no responsibility toward something greater than themselves the world goes to hell… literally. If we were to simply follow instincts we’d be at war with each other 100% of the time and over the pettiest of things. Most religions teach tolerance and forgiveness. I don’t really care what church you go to as long as they teach you to look upon nature and other human beings with kind eyes. Needless to say “death to the infidels” doesn’t really cut it in a world we get to share.
I see – you cannot be moral if you don’t believe in a higher power – what a load of fucking bullshit, kay.
TTFN, what are the consequences to amoral living without a higher power? Do those consequences outweigh your desire to rip off an unattended purse or take the kid’s candy because you want it or or or ?
its called being empathic or having a conscience it has nothing to do with a great spaghetti monster in the sky…i have no desire to steal/murder the guilt would eat away at me…but my family unit learned me right some good
Kay being without religion does not exclude one from morality. I am agnostic and live a perfectly sane, moral, life. I do look to a higher power for inspiration. Her name is Mother Nature.
Kay, humans are capable of kindness and evil on their own…religion doesn’t hold the monopoly on morality…take a look at the news to see examples of immoral people within religious groups. There are moral atheists and moral theologians and there are immoral varieties of the same. Religion is too widespread and includes too many people for anyone to lay down blanket statements like it is evil or it is the salvation of the world. It’s just people getting together, trying to figure out how to be better people. If the fear of eternal damnation is your only reason to try and be good, I think you’ve missed the point.
If there was a religion to describe my beliefs, I would be a member of the Who-The-Fuck-Knows congregation. Just because I don’t believe in man-written fairy tales doesn’t mean I am without a conscience – it means I value rationale over believing in some old guy with a beard sitting on a cloud, dispensing his idea of justice – and don’t forget, HE ALWAYS NEEDS MONEY!!!!
As witty and funny as George Carlin was, he was no theologian. He never bothered to understand the religion he was forced to grow up with so he just rebelled as a “free thinker” and tells jokes about his half-assed misinformed concepts of theology.
There are billions of people who follow one religion or another and you can’t tell me with a straight face that all these people are rotten human beings who are too dumb to think for themselves. Maybe some of them are actually good people who identify with the underlying theological and philosophical concepts of forgiveness, love one another and treat others as you would like to be treated. Maybe these people like to get together with like-minded people to explore and celebrate those beliefs.
I don’t really ‘believe’ in anything. My general guide for living is live my life to make myself and the ones I love happy and treat others the way I want to be treated. I really don’t agree with the whole *if you don’t beleive in a higher power then you will succumb to an immoral lifestyle* notion. I don’t look above, below, or around for any sort of spiritual inspiration or guidance, I just live my life. And to specify what keeps me from killing, stealing ,etc. (other than the fact that my *instincts* aren’t murderous) are the laws of this country which I happen to completely agree with (95% of the time). Stop for a second and realize that there is always room for improvement. The world is not black or white, it’s grey. I’m happy for that blend because without it, life would be pretty dull and it would be very difficult to learn to appreciate the good things and recognize and attempt to change/fix the bad.
There’s a “Who-The-Fuck-Knows” congregation? I would love to check that out = ). My ‘religion’ is based basically on that premise, but I haven’t yet found a congregation geared toward this type of thinking. Once I discarded the “old guy with a beard sitting on a cloud, dispensing his idea of justice” idea, things got a whole lot clearer–and more believable. Until I could dispense with that idea, I remained an atheist.
They may not be rotten human beings but they are too dumb to think for themselves. And that’s exactly what organized religion wants. You do not have to have religion to be good, decent human. You simply have to follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. That’s pretty straight forward to me and involves no hocus-pocus and pointy hats.
Although the golden rule is probably the best guide line we have, it is not without fault. A masochist takes pleasure from being beaten by others, which would mean (from his perspective) that it is good for people to be beaten.
That’s one side of religion TTFN. I’ve met many religious scholars who are not too dumb to think for themselves. They have a lot of insight into the human condition and have a lot of useful things to say. I don’t like organized religion for a lot of the reasons you’ve mentioned, but I’ve met MANY religious people who are not mindless sheep. They are some of the most wise and caring people I know. They just don’t let the pointy hats and ceremony get in the way of exploring their spirituality. That doesn’t imply that the religion is needed for that exploration, but for some people it works. For others, it is what you and others claim….a system of control and deferral of personal responsibility. But remember, the golden rule has come to us from religions….so they can’t be ALL bad 🙂
you are a wise man miles…the 2 funniest smartest guys in religulous were the vatican astronomer and the old priest but what pointy hats are we be talkin about…i wear mine at hallowe’en…and as i’ve said before i worship the sun and trees so i think that makes me a pagan…but we are all ants on a big ball of dirt
Maybe we’re just a giant Sims game and there’s a gigantic hairy thumb ready to squash us in December 2012.
I have no problem with religion per se, but I DO wonder if it’s not a bit of a waste of time, since there is clearly no such thing as a god(s), and the bible/Talmud/Qu’ran are no more than a collection of desert scribblings by a motley collection of men who were fearful of death, desirous of power, misogynist and warlike….
Other than that, if it takes a fear of hell/promise of heaven to get some folks to help the poor among us, and not murder, steal or lie….than go for it, I say…Just remember, at collection time – “god don’t want the stuff that tinkles, he want the stuff that crinkles!”
“”But remember, the golden rule has come to us from religions””
Bullshit.
First of all, the smiley indicates I was kidding BMF…but it’s not totally bullshit. Variations of the Golden Rule are the cornerstone of most world religions. Why? Not because it’s given from on high, but because there is a basic understanding among humans that it applies to their life. So, when a bunch of people get together to try and understand human nature and they come up with something like the Golden Rule and try to teach it to others that pretty much lays down the foundation for a religion.
And I would say no, religion is not a waste of time just because God may not exist. It’s not about keeping bad people under control for fear of damnation, it’s about teaching good people how to be better. Just because religion has twisted the theology to serve their political desires, doesn’t mean the underlying philosophy of that religion is false. Good people can look past the hocus pocus and focus on that kernel of truth. If that makes them better human beings in the end, then it is absolutely not a waste of time.
Man people can be really cynical. Funny how it’s usually the most free thinking and enlightened ones who refuse to see the positive side of religion.
“Funny how it’s usually the most free thinking and enlightened ones who refuse to see the positive side of religion.”
People who refuse to ‘see’ are not truly free thinking and enlightened, they are educated to appear free thinking and enlightened.
Yeah, that should have read “…self-described free thinking and enlightened ones…”
As I’ve said before my difficulty with religion is they set themselves up as the pinnacle of morality and then commit some of the worst sins imaginable themselves. I can’t think of any group or organization that has such a paradox within its collective.
I mean it’s not as if cops run around breaking the law while preaching adherence to the law. Oh wait, some do.
Well, it’s not as if politicians run around wasting tax-payers money while preaching restraint and conservatism. Oh wait, some do.
OK, well, um, it’s not as if Haligonians preach friendliness and camaraderie while berating and abusing people who have differing attitudes. Oh wait, Kay does.
Seems likes there’s messed up hypocrites no matter where you look.
It’s not religion itself that is evil. It’s the teachers of religion. Let’s face it, a book can’t hurt us. But someone reading “What he says” is on the page and making sure we MUST believe it can have dire consequences. Oh, right, that’s Mormons…
Without a moral compass, if we see something we like, we take it without a second thought. Without a moral compass if a girl turns you on you fuck her, without a second thought. Without a moral compass there’s little reason to be kind to your neighbour. Where moralistic order is absent women are raped and the weak succumb to the strong. Now, what kind of world do we have when the law is your religion? One with a bunch of do not disturb and private property signs… oh look at that. This is the world we live in now. Go figure.
Cheshire, please substantiate your bullshit with reason. Exactly how have I EVER “berat[ed] and abus[ed] people”? Maybe it’s because I bitch at bitches for fun? Could it be because I don’t teach my children that it’s okay to become a gay prostitute? Perhaps it’s because I dislike laws that prevent social communication. Come on, kay really really wants to know!
The argument Kay, is that the source of the moral compass does not have to be religion. It doesn’t follow if the church is not your religion that the law must be. Many atheists have a good moral compass…in fact it’s that morality that helps them recognize the blatant hypocrisy in a lot of organized religion and causes them to turn away from it.
I do believe that religion can help people understand morality, but it’s certainly not the only resource available.
“Many atheists have a good moral compass…in fact it’s that morality that helps them recognize the blatant hypocrisy in a lot of organized religion and causes them to turn away from it.” – Miles
I can’t think of any better response than this.
Okay miles, tell me the consequences of amoral behavior by the atheist? Prison? Judgment by your peers? Very motivating. And what is the motivation behind moral behavior from the atheist? The problem with atheism is that nothing and nobody matters except “me” and “mine”.
That could be the most narrow minded thing I’ve ever heard Kay. Because I’m not catholic I’m going to run around killing and raping and pillaging? I’m not a maniac, and I’ve never been to a service or read a single verse in the bible. Prove me wrong Kay.
Kay, the problem here is your perspective. You cannot understand Miles because you think that most everyone is inherently bad. Miles thinks that most everyone is inherently good, but sometimes they do bad things.
kay, you are implying that people will only behave morally when confronted with repercussions from the divine. That might work for some people, but people who actually understand morality, atheist or not, will not behave immorally because they care about other people. Their own understanding of morality is what motivates them. If you are only behaving yourself because you are afraid of the consequences of bad behaviour, you are not really a good person. This is the message that is often missed in most religions, especially Christianity. It’s not about God saying “be good or else” it’s about God saying “you can do better and you will be better if you do”.
There’s an assumption that Atheists are selfish and that’s not true. ALL humans, no matter their belief system struggle with a desire to behave selfishly and to behave altruistically. Finding a balance between those two desires is what most religions try to reconcile. Some do it by codifying laws to live by, some do it by promoting introspection and meditation, but that’s one of the underlying purposes of religion, to explore that duality of human nature.
“The problem with atheism is that nothing and nobody matters except “me” and “mine”
The problem with you is you stick your foot in your mouth and don’t know anything about atheism besides what you come up with in that interesting imagination of yours.
Who mentioned Catholicism, Shanty? Not me.
HKM, I don’t think everyone is inherently “bad”! I just think many Haligonians really really suck!
Who’s version of “bad” is right or wrong when there is no moral compass? How can you have an “understanding of morality” without a foundation? You can’t even DEFINE “morality” without a foundation for comparison. It’s up there with the “there is no light without the darkness” and “there is no good without evil” perspective.
Example…
Horny guy. Horny because nature made him that way. Turned on by passing female. Whose moral compass says he should ask before taking what he desires (respect the female, “altruistic”) and whose moral compass says to serve his not-wrong, not-evil instincts? And who is right? And how do those compasses differ where “respect the female” is interpreted? She’s weaker and smaller. “Mother Nature” says she’ll die, murdered in fact, without the protection and/or cooperation of a more powerful force like an alpha male or a society that cares about the weak.
My point is that I don’t need religion to know not to try to bang every hot woman that walks by. It’s not necessarily even “morality”. For me, things like that seem more like common sense.
We collectively decide what is right and wrong Kay. Governments and laws now fill the role of religion when it comes to determining good and bad behaviour. It’s more fair this way.
As for morality, I think humans inherently know that hurting others is bad because you don’t like being hurt yourself (Golden Rule). We may find ways of justifying why, in some circumstances, it’s OK to hurt others, but the fact that we have to justify it to ourselves shows that we know it’s inherently wrong to hurt others without just cause.
Ever question where you got your “common sense” from? You’re a “victim” of western culture and learned beliefs if you think NOT following your instincts is “common sense”.
You would think common sense would preclude “death to the infidels” too. Everybody knows to hate the infidels, right?
Question everything especially where your own beliefs are concerned because that’s what your “common sense” is, a set of learned “beliefs”.
When you’re raised to believe you are charged with killing infidels killing another human being does not stir the emotions we, who are western and mostly Christian bred, feel. People do NOT value human life the world over the way you’d like to believe. Not even democracy does that. Ever kiss an Indian girl on the street in India, a democratic nation? That government brands you criminal and amoral for kissing in public. Is this the “more fair” approach you speak of? Just because the majority sees nothing wrong with a behavior or just because the majority sees something wrong with a behavior does not make the behavior right or wrong. It just means the behavior pisses off your neighbour or doesn’t. People pleasing does not, in my book, comprise “moral” behavior.
How did the law against kissing in public come about Kay? I would guess religiously, so where is your blame lying?
blame?
Kay, it’s true that western culture confers some of our understanding of morality, but that’s not the only influence. If you look at all world religions and laws you will notice that not murdering people is high on the list of don’ts. I think the universality of that speaks to the “common sense” of such laws. Even the “death to the infidels” folks agree that murder is wrong…they just justify the killing in another way. Again, the fact that these acts require justification speaks to the inherent understanding that hurting others is wrong.
When I was young, I knew when I did something bad because I got a lurch (an actual physical response) in around my solar plexus that left me feeling ill. It was not a stress response due to fear of punishment or anxiety about being caught. It happened even when no one knew about the thing or could know about the thing that caused me to feel ‘bad’. With only me to judge myself, I was overcome by a sense of guilt for my actions. Whenever I heard people speak of conscience, I assumed that they were speaking of that lurch feeling. I also assumed that everyone had it, only some ignored it. I have since learned that not everyone has it, but I think most have some form of it. It is that feeling that deters people, I believe, more than the fear of punishment. Law/Religion/Punishment was developed for the people who either were missing that feeling or disregarded that feeling.
Think of it this way kay. You have noted before that humans are social creatures. As beings that live in communities, there have to be an understanding of expected behaviour for its members. Mind you, not all societies have been run with an idea of fairness, but throughout human history, you find the same themes coming up with respect to moral behaviour and good conduct. I have yet to see an example of a historical society that told it’s people to murder each other and steal from each other and hate each other. Such behaviours do not sustain communities, they destroy them. If being in a community is good, then behaviours which promote community are good. Self-serving behaviour can get you kicked out of that community, which is generally bad.
Jesus must be rolling in his grave.
You better hope so, Senor Campana, or you’re in big trouble. = p
Nihilism makes me constipated.
Ok, so Kay is postulating that there are no “consequences of amoral behaviour by the athiest”. (Quote is hers, spelling correction is mine – this *is* Canada, Kay…)
Let us get our definintions on, shall we? (Gotta love Wiki…)
ATHEISM
“Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist …”
THEISM
Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.
DEITY
A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.
AMORAL
Amoral is not believing in or caring for morality and immorality
So, let me get this straight; if I do not believe in some being that someone else respects, it gives me the right to engage in behaviour without caring what other people think of it.
So I guess the fact that I make choices and base my actions solely on my *own* belief system makes me an amoral Atheist running amok doing whatever I want… Wow. How freeing…
There are consequences to *every* action, whether performed by an athiest or a crazed religious fanatic, or someone in between. And to assume that all athiests run around being “amoral” because there are no consequences, and that “theists” don’t do bad things solely because of repercussions brought about by their “deity” is just ridiculous.
Come on, Gidget, take it a step further and define “moral” for us. Define “moral” in the face of hunger. Define moral in the face of your enemies. Define “moral” and THEN you can define “bad”.
Is it “bad” to do what’s required to feed and protect your family or yourself? What about feeding and protecting your neighbour in harsh times?
Does morality change in light of harsh circumstances? For example, is it suddenly okay to kill if, generally speaking, killing is “bad” but you caught a killer? The majority of Americans think it is. Canadians do not.
Go ahead, Gidget. Define “moral” for us.
Why don’t you define ‘moral’ for us Kay, and we’ll go from there. What is your source of morality or good and bad?
And yes, it can be bad to do what’s required to feed and protect your family, especially if that involves stealing, or bludgeoning or killing.
And no, morality doesn’t change in harsh circumstances. Your actions might change, but morality does not. In fact, I would argue that maintaining your morals is more important when it’s difficult to do so.
Well, isn’t that the point, Miles?
I’m a Christian but my view of Christianity is much different than many others. Most say you must declare Christ your savior, a deity, not a man. I think He was a living example of maxed out human potential and He plays a starring role in my world.
Bottom line, I think CERN’s HPC up and running will shed some light on the fabric of the universe and reveal “God” in a different way than we’re used to seeing “him” (some guy on a throne in the sky). I think sometime soon we’ll be able to definitively say you and me and that tree and that rock and that nebulae are all of the same system and made of the same stuff, “God’s love”, if you will…. “energy”, if you won’t. The trick is to discover your purpose when the mystery is gone…. I think. I’m not exactly sure, nobody is, but I can’t imagine people-pleasing being the end-all-be-all to the spiritual purpose of a human life because we have intelligence, we have the ability to choose and we’re not mindless animals operating on instinct so what’s the point of it all? To please another human being who also suffers “the human condition?” I think not.
HKM’s described a “lurch” in the face of wrong-doing. She claims this comes from within and is not actually a product of her upbringing, environment or a system of learned beliefs. Either way I think there’s substance to that lurch. The “little voice” knows and, as far as I can tell, that little voice knows no fear. However, psychopaths listen to that “little voice” and the “lurch” all the time so one has to wonder where instinct, past experience and environment sit in the determination of right and wrong. There arr some out there who “lurch” in the face of a child speaking out of turn… food for thought.
Please consider/explain Americans executing prisoners (harsh circumstance) in the face of “morality” keeping in mind the death penalty is not accepted in Canada. If morality defines the difference between right and wrong or good and evil for all human beings, if we’re all the same (human) and our western laws so accurately moral and just that an atheist could or “should” base their morality on man’s law… which atheist is “more moral,” the Canadian or the American?… perhaps this is a better example than kissing an Indian girl on the street in India since we all agree killing people is a morality issue whereas only a small sector (democratic majority in India) considers public affection as amoral.
And just to throw it out there… no amount of “empathy” adds up to going without what you need. I think only “morality” can do that.
Well, I only asked for your definition of moral so we could be on the same page when discussing it. There are several ways to define it and it’s source, so I thought it would be helpful to make sure we understand each other clearly. Pardon me if I’m being obtuse, but I’m still not sure if you think morality is relative, if it comes on high or if it is inherent. Based on what you just wrote (god’s love/connectedness), it seems you might support the latter which is why I’m confused that you would say atheists are amoral.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by people pleasing being the end all and be all to the spiritual purpose. Do you consider “love one another” people pleasing or are you talking about democracy?
As for the death penalty example…I would say that laws do not define morality, they are our attempts to codify it. Religion does the same thing with the 10 commandments and other do’s and don’ts passages in the Bible. As our society changes our understanding of morality changes as well. Things that were once acceptable no longer seem appropriate. WE change, MORALITY does not. So, Americans and Canadians will both agree that murder is bad and loving one another is good. We would both generally agree that people who commit crimes should be punished. We disagree on that punishment. Canadians don’t necessarily think that capital punishment is amoral, it’s just unnecessary. There are other areas where Canadians and Americans still think it’s appropriate to kill…such as when a police officer uses lethal force or soldiers in combat. Note that none of these examples are technically murder, which most human cultures throughout history understand as being wrong.
Kay, according to you, religion is a form of control. Since humankind has now progressed to the point that they have developed their own form of control (government/law) independent of any higher power (outside of the power of the majority), doesn’t that render religion obsolete?
moral (noun)
means the lesson or principle of a story or event – (adjective) relating to lessons or principles of right and wrong;
So technically, wherever you learned your disctinction of right and wrong will define what your morals are… those of you who take the Bible as the literal word of God are going to have a significantly differnt list of rights and wrongs than those of us who have been taught from the other side of the fence…
Gidget, you could have defined morality as a verb since we’re referring to it in that context but you said it anyway, “been taught” Morality by this definition is “general consensus” and probably not an accurate measuring stick for what’s truly “right” and what’s truly “wrong”. No consensus among human beings changes darkness to light or the nature of the universe (or does it?) Since our definition of morality changes with the times and given certain circumstances it’s pretty safe to say “morality” is a set of convenient standards and likely is not a “truth”. (ie, public affection is bad… if you’re an Indian)
HKM, I guess you could sum up what I’ve said as meaning religion is “a form of control” but when you put it that way it negates the “self control” part. From a self control perspective yes, religion, faith, a code of ethics are all, in practice, forms of self control. You say religion is obsolete in lieu of government. You’ve honed in on one of my pet peeves… thinking government is “Daddy for adults” and that following the rules of a society or simply staying under the radar means you must be a good person and fulfilling your purpose. I feel the role of government is NOT to dictate culture nor to dictate morality to it’s members. Instead government is to be a reflection of the culture and a reflection of the society’s collective morality (as has happened in India the majority seeing public affection as a crime against humanity). You see, to other human beings if you don’t piss them off you’re great! I don’t think the universe is that ignorant of your energy or capacity for “evil” so it hardly matters if every person on the planet thinks your just the best… it matters who you actually are.
Miles, FTR I don’t consider a valid and relevant line of questioning as being obtuse. I think you see my point though in that we require a foundation to even begin defining good or evil. I propose that foundation is the fabric/nature of the universe and not the opinion of a bunch of human beings trying to live together.
I am a Christian and when I meet God my gut tells me he’s not going to require the thoughts or opinions of any other human being to see me for what I am.
Kay:
I used the Webster’s Dictionary site, and what you see is the definition in its entirety…
Here’s another point to ponder – what about separation of church and state? If that is true, why do our laws still reflect archaic religious rules?
I don’t understand the Daddy state reasoning.
If the people are the government (at least, in Canada), and each of us, as individuals, decide what is good and what is bad, and then as a majority, we write the rules according to our decisions, how is it Daddy telling us what to do? We allow for exceptions (errs) and we have avenues to make changes. It is we who decides the punishments and it is we who enforce those punishments. So there is no Daddy–there is only us.
A good person (as judged by the community as a whole) is the person who follows the rules. (An exceptional person is the person who breaks the rules, as long as they do it according to the rules. = ) To protect ourselves as best as possible from corruption, we provide an education to each individual so that critical thinking might be taught. Everything is set up in such a way that policy is simply a stroke of a swinging ideological pendulum that readjusts according to experience gained from that single stroke.
Religion as a source of law has become archaic. Our government is designed to avoid the traps and perils that religion as law presents.
Religion as a source to promote and hone higher ideals and spiritual wholeness is something else.
Good points HKM….Politicized religion is top-down imposition of rules/moral codes, democracy is bottom-up…the latter is more fair.
There’s not darkness or light because people agree there’s darkness or light. I’m interested in the real deal between right and wrong, not a human being’s current preference given certain circumstances or a certain address. I’m interested in the TRUTH of right and wrong.
Daddy state reasoning… again I’ll point out the example… public affection in India (DEMOCRATIC nation) makes a person bad but not when it’s done in America. If we’re talking the difference between good and evil the Daddy state knows nothing of this. And if we’re talking morality that changes too depending on where you live! I guess when a human being looks to law and government in forming a foundation for their own morality you are a people-pleaser and nothing more. How does one grow from that? Hold an election? And what is the truth of the results? Perhaps that’s what an atheist really is, a people-pleaser.
Critical thinking and educating the masses… ever wonder why the theory of evolution is still a “theory”. Just because they give you a little doesn’t mean you’re getting it all and this point really pisses me off but that’s for another bitch.
Finally, there’s nothing impractical or archaic on the list of ten commandments if you exchange the word “God” for “Truth”…. a modern interpretation, if you will…
1. Don’t accept lies as truth (I am the [truth]…)
2. Don’t dress up a lie and pretend it’s a truth (Don’t worship idols)
3. Don’t lie to yourself or others (don’t take the [truth] in vain)
4. Take time to seek truth (Sabbath Day)
5. Wish a long a life onto others (honor your parents)
6. Don’t steal life (don’t murder)
7. Don’t lie (don’t commit adultery)
8. Don’t steal
9. Don’t lie
10. Don’t think about stealing (don’t covet)
Each one of these points is supported by our government. I wonder what it would look like without foundations in religion?
kay don’t you get tired of being stupid?
Ever here of “Theory of Relativity”? Yeah, it explains gravity, and yet..it is still classed as a theory! That’s weird. Is the MAN keeping us down, trying to convince us gravity doesn’t exist too?
The Theory of Relativity is taught as fact in physics. Right? The Theory of Evolution is not taught as fact but as a speculative, unproven theory of biology. Right?
interesting… define ‘gravity’. Einstein died trying to do just that.
Such is the nature of the scientific method. Science is dis-proven, re-interpreted, and re-arranged on a daily basis. Some say intelligence is the ability to humor an idea without accepting it.
nope, kay never gets tired of being stupid…
In biology, evolution is taught as fact. Einstein never ‘died trying to prove gravity’. Kay, I’d love to argue science with you, but it appears you don’t have the prerequisites to be in my class.
Evolution is often referred to as “both fact and theory” as the genetic change in organisms over time has been proven, though I believe the mechanics are still in the theory stages. Then again, there’s the school of belief that absolute certainty cannot exist and thus all facts are provisional. Point being, who cares, and does anyone know how late KFC on quinpool is open?
Religion has a place. As long as we’re social beings and have the ability to philosophize, we will always have a need for direction. Honestly, it’s because of people like kay that religion has a bad name, because we can always look past the face of criminals like the former Bishop. Zealots are the ones who ruin religion for the normal, or more moderate, or even open-minded people.
The Theory of Relativity is taught as fact in physics. Right? No. It remains a theory; it’s hard to prove correct, also it hasn’t been proven incorrect – Yet. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/26…
Evolution has facts to support the theory, but not enough to prove it.
When are people going to toss religion on its ass? When self-righteous evolutionists prove otherwise?
“There are two infinites that are thought to exist; the universe and human stupidity. I’m not so sure about the universe.”
-Albert Einstein-
Gee I thought gravity was about Newton and Einstein about the impossibility of travelling at the speed of light.
Fever, how is it that I give religion a bad name? And who are “people like me,” the other 95%+ of human beings on the planet who believe in a higher power? I don’t know ANYBODY like me. Please qualify your BULLSHIT.
I think everyone here should rent and watch Contact. Matthew McConaughey’s character says, “did your [dead] father love you?… Prove it.” The atheist would have you believe your “father” never existed, there’s no substance or energy related to “love” and there’s no purpose for your life other than to consume, multiply then die. My gut, or maybe it’s instinct, or maybe I’m simply a product of learned beliefs but I just cannot believe your life and my life and the choices we make are as significant as that of an arthropod’s.
Einstein died trying to unify the very small with the very big and gravity presents quite a conundrum in that it’s both depending on your viewpoint. Our current understanding of the universe does not allow Newtonian physics and particle physics to reconcile. Wave functions simply don’t compute in the land of integers and solid matter. So we don’t really know WHAT gravity is. We’ve never observed a “graviton” particle (but CERN’s LHC is up and running… YAY).
We can feel, measure and even predict the force of gravity but go ahead and define exactly what it is. Whatever it is, it’s a very small force and scientists wonder about it’s symmetric particle, if one exists at all, which would be a HUGE anti-gravity force. Some surmise that’s the force that keeps our universe/brane together in a multi-dimensional universe. The singularity of a black hole falls into the particle physics camp whereas the gravity and density of the same black hole are massive and fall into the Newtonian physics camp. Since the two don’t reconcile we don’t know what a black hole is either.
I’ll take another leap here and suggest because Newtonian Physics, Einstein’s field equations and the Theory of Relativity are all used again and again to send rockets into space with accurate watches on the wrists of astronauts, I dare say the Theory of Relativity is not only taught as fact but also used in practice.
One just needs to look at the controversy surrounding Darwin to discover evolution is still, much to our chagrin, NOT taught as fact. Today’s proposal is that “intelligent design” be taught along side evolution, each of them unproven theories. And the debate continues today.
So, sarey, what is it YOU think Einstein was working on when he died if not unification theory? (which would go to define gravity, among other mysteries) And do you still think I lack the prerequisites for such a discussion? Explain this and I’ll eat ALL of my words:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-42…
Here are the possibilities of string theory wrapped up into a 20 minute presentation by physicist, Brian Greene, of Columbia University: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-10…
If you get your head around it the way I have you’ll be sitting on the edge of your seat waiting to learn exactly what gravity and the rest of the universe is made of. Bring on the graviton!
Unfication theory is not trying to ‘define’ gravity. It’s trying to place gravity into the bigger picture, as in UNIFY gravity. And yes, Darwin is taught as a fact. Um, even in Grade 9 biology it was taught as fact. What biology classes have you been taking? Or are you just watching the news ASSuming it is NOT taught as fact?
Exactly how much evidence do some people need to be convinced that evolution is a good theory? I have yet to see any EVIDENCE that would justify accepting something like the theory of intelligent design. The intelligent design camp isn’t interested in collecting evidence to support their theory, just in refuting the evidence supporting the competing one. That’s not science at all. If there were any evidence to suggest that natural selection is NOT the process of speciation scientists would accept it.
Actually, kay, I would hazard a guess that less than 90% of people in the world believe in a higher power. In fact, Buddhists don’t believe in a higher power… they believe in enlightenment. Qualify your bullshit. Hindus believe in a pantheon of gods, but not in a “higher power” as a Christian would define it. Of your 95%, that’s about 50% of it. Zealots are the ones who push their belief on others, and usually case the issues that people have with religion. They’re the ones who start the wars, the persecution. By the way, referencing a character played by Matthew McDouchebag, and a movie that was based on a book written by a man that firmly believed in the laws of science, is not doing anything to serve your argument.
I don’t know why evolution AND intelligent design cannot co-exist. Evolution and an intelligent designer both needed building blocks. If the designer is finite, than a couple of billion years bring about Kay is nothing (speaking of which, I think a creator can make mistakes (dinosaurs, and maybe humans) and surprises (mutations) can occur = )
Well, evolution and God can co-exist, but not evolution and intelligent design. Intelligent design predicts that speciation does not occur and scientific evidence (and evolution) says that it does. The problem, I think, is that religious people want science to fit into their concept of God when it should really be the other way around. God needs to conform to our understanding of the natural world. If you believe in God as a creator, then one way to understand God should be to understand the creation. If God is real, then it should be possible to understand God (or at least a part of God) in real terms.
An invisible, all powerful being, up in the sky watching us all, who created one man & then used his rib to create a woman, who then somehow populated the whole planet with people of many races, without nary a mention of incest or the proven problems associated with that.
While loving all of us, although he flooded the world & killed everyone except a few people & 2 of every animal (there’s that little problem of Genetic diversity again)except he’ll damn us to hell for all eternity if we so much as break one little requirement in his book .
Well now, doesn’t that makes perfect sense !
Big
Imbecillic
Book of
Lies &
Embellishments
That anyone can be fooled into going along with this scam is unbelievable… no conning politician anywhere can hold a candle to a clergyman !
The biggest scam in history…1700 years and counting L O L
“Intelligent design predicts that speciation does not occur”
How so? I mean, it could be speciation is actually part of the design.
IF the bible (what’s left of its original text) is simply a combination of metaphorical myths (the story of creation), interpretations of visions by humans with minimal knowledge/experience (compared to what we know today), and wisdom gained through generations of experience and reflection, then it can still serve a purpose–just as all scriptures can.
Well, that’s the other problem with the Intelligent Design camp…a lack of unity when it comes to the theory. However, most Intelligent Design proponents claim that God created all life pretty much in the form it is now but genetic diversity allows for minor variances within species. So, dogs can come in a variety of shapes and sizes but can’t become cats. Apes can’t become people and so on. That’s the standard view. Others will make concessions here and there and say that maybe wolves can become dogs, but they definitely can’t become cats. It all demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Natural Selection anyway.
What you suggest is possible, but that’s strictly not Intelligent Design. That would be HKM’s Theory of Guided Evolution or something like that. There is room for a creator God, but not one that made everything 6000 years ago to look like it’s billions of years old.
More, summarizing Christianity like that is a great way to make fun of a religion while completely missing the point of it.
Man, I wish I was more articulate! Reviewing what I wrote, I realized that it made no sense, really. Between not being able to express what I mean exactly and not wanting to make the effort to explain properly (and bore everyone in the process), I think I’ll just let it go = p
I found the book Ishmael had some very interesting takes on metaphorical and historical interpretations of the bible, especially pertaining to the fertile crescent, subsequent agricultural boom and the advent of civilization… I’m curious, has anyone else read it? I think it’s mandatory in a lot of ecology classes.
HKM, if you are saying that even though the bible may not be historically accurate it can still offer insight into the human condition then I think you did OK
The point of religion ! ! !
Isn’t that what the Bishop said, to the choir boy as he bends him over a table & lifts his robe ?
Hopefully he used some lub !
Yes, I am saying:
Do not throw away a valuable source of wisdom just because different people through the ages have made interpretations that do not sit well with you. I am saying, you cannot reject anything until you know what it is you are rejecting (which means you have to read it for yourself). I am also saying, you do not throw away a whole thing just because you find a part to be bad. I am also saying, read other scriptures. Christians do not have dibs on the wisdom of the ages.
The trick is to throw away everything you have been taught and go into it as you would go into any new book–open and objective. Ask questions! Be tough! Put it down and give it thought.
I will give an example:
When I read the Gita, I sided with Arjuna in his argument to the Charioteer. I did not agree with the Charioteer at all. I threw the book down in disgust. A year or two later, it suddenly dawned on me what the Charioteer was saying. My reading made me aware of the argument, and the argument stuck in my brain waiting for me to gain the experience needed to understand it. It actually answered questions I asked in regard to the bible (and the nature of humankind).
The ‘point’ of religion Miles…is control.
That there maybe/are good people involved, who truely want to help others. Changes nothing of all the atrocities commited by the church.
Now we are constantly being made aware of criminal acts by priests, members of the clergy, so called trusted members of the church etc.
When exactly does all the harm being done, get compared to all the good being done ?
I believe we would be better off without it.
Have organizations like feed NS, or Hope Cottage be run by people who want to help out others.
I have alwys been leary of ‘church goers’ who do good, because their religion tells them to…if you don’t do good you don’t get to go to heaven. Which for me anyway means a good atheist who’s helping others is a much better person than the religious person right next to him helping out as well !
You see the atheist is helping because he wants to…but is the religious person doing it because they want to, or, so they can be rewarded ? ( I personally believe most of them are, looking for that ticket to heaven )
More, I mostly agree with that assessment…especially the part about doing good because you want to rather than to get the reward of heaven. However, if you look at Christian theology, it pretty much says the same thing as you. It’s the religious organization (i.e. the church) that facilitates the attitude that you can buy your way into heaven by following their protocols without ever having to change your attitude. It’s the religion, not the philosophy that is fundamentally flawed. Also, this is more of a problem with the Catholic church, but there are many other Christian denominations that promote attitude over actions. That’s why I keep writing on this thread. I hate the generalizations. There are lots of problems with religion but there’s lots of sensible and decent people who belong to these religions and should not be branded as mindless sheep.
Also, I know religion can and has been used as a form of control, but that is a corruption of the theology, not the point of it. I prefer to look past the crap associated with religion and try to understand the truths it has to offer. As I said before, I am not a church goer myself (much for the reasons you state More), but I really do believe that religious theology has something to offer to people who are looking to understand human nature and the nature of goodness. Although there are lots of non-religious sources for that stuff too, there’s no reason to ignore the thousands of years of collective thought given to the subject by the religious community.
The problem with intelligent design is that you can never “unprove” it and it gets worse. Declaring evolution as fact without comprehensive explanation for “the beginning” supports… intelligent design.
sarey, Unification Theory does not “unify gravity” so much as it mathematically unifies Newtonian physics (E=MC2) with nuclear/particle physics, which doesn’t HAVE an equals sign, only a range of possibilities in solving any problem, all of them startlingly accurate in predicting reality just like Newtonian physics accurately tells you how fast you have to go to get there on time. That’s how electromagnetism came about, mathematically unifying electricity with magnetism. We have to go the next step now unifying everything together and create the “equation of everything” and that’s what Einstein was trying to do when he died, the definition of gravity being a byproduct and the perplexing stimulation for the research in the first place. One of the biggest problems Einstein faced is the necessity of a multidimensional universe. Did I mention CERN’s LHC is up and running and this is exactly what they’re studying?… create a graviton, observe it flash out of existence and see it take it’s place in another dimension… and you think ghosts are hard to believe in? Reality extends to that and much much more. Wait, you’ll see.
If the stories of Christ, and others like him, are true and if He understood and was able to manipulate the universe at will then… I want some of that. A lie won’t just won’t do.
Well, Kay, there are some pretty science-based explanations for the “beginning” of life on earth that don’t require invoking a deity. The basic concept of natural selection (survival of the fittest) doesn’t even require life…it would apply to an RNA-based world or a primordial soup where things that are best able to propagate, do. There doesn’t have to be an intelligence behind creation. That does not mean that there isn’t…just that there doesn’t HAVE TO be.
I suppose that depends on your idea of “the beginning” and where these primordial building blocks came to be… and why.
came to be = came from
you get it.. sorry about that
Yeah, it may. But we have a good enough understanding of biochemistry to expect that all the components and conditions needed to support amino acids and nucleic acids (i.e. building blocks) could have emerged and persisted on early Earth. Understanding “why” is not necessary for understanding how.
Theories of creation, whether it be due to a big bang or God, still cannot explain the original movement or the most elementary of building blocks. Whatever is believed still requires a leap of faith in some way, I think. Even if you consider God to be all (everything in existence as one conscious living organism, of sorts), the same questions would come up. We are limited by our inability to comprehend finiteness–no beginning or ending (if there is such a thing).
Miles you obviously haven’t been to the Southern United States lately… THose people are fanatics…the southern Baptists & the Evangelicals are…well they’re whacked, crazy, the preachers are celebrities for F^(#’s sake. They get up & say give me more money & the people throw money at them even if they can’t afford it & they promise the moon , they’re personally speaking to god…& don’t you for a second go against them or some nut bar(s) from the church will be hunting you down. Miles there are towns down there that if your not a member of the church, your not going to be able to live there…totally screwed up IMO.
So it isn’t just the Catholic’s… I say they are a business, a business that shouldn’t be tax free. They all claim to be ‘charity work driven” fine…then they should be regularly audited by the Government & any extra funds not given to the poor, should be confiscated & actually used to fund soup kitchens & homeless shelters. Some of these ‘religious’ groups have multi millions of dollars , some even top that ! The Evangelical preachers own TV stations & live in multi million dollar homes…protected by their ‘tax free’ status, its nucking futs IMO !
Understanding or acceptance of the “why” about creation is required to form foundation for morality unless, of course, pleasing people is the whole purpose of your being like the atheist would have you believe it is.
What if there really is a war going on between good and evil in heaven and it’s being played out here on Earth? A proven string theory (or unification) would provide for a talking, burning bush quite easily in a quantum world as well as man parting a sea with a thought, walking on water with such desire or, boo!, inter-dimensional travel.
What if you’re wrong, kay? To be quite honest, there’s nothing that the string theory that would provide for a talking, burning bush, or a Jew being able to part the Red Sea by the will of an unseen force. The only thing in that entire tirade that string theory would provide for is the multiple dimensions. Even those are not what we would consider “dimensions”. Do you ever stop to think before you open your bigoted mouth?
If it is not obvious to you a great deal of my time and my life has been in pursuit of such truths… whatever
I’m “bigoted” now? Please justify that. Tell us WHAT THE FUCK YOUR PROBLEM is… because WE CARE. We really do.
NOT
“Not” is so 1991. So much for an “original thought” 😀
Hey, Dr. Fever!!! Hi, I’m in Delaware.
Absolutely kay, you’re bigoted. Which is what the OP’s comments really boil down to. Not about string theory or any of that other bullshit, but the bigotry that seems to be perpetuated by Christianity (and to a much lesser extent, Muslims). That bigoted, and arrogant attitude for that matter, is the reason why people do not respect the Christian religion. The never-ending belief in that everyone else is wrong and are going to hell, and it’s our job to save them. Christians actively go out of their way to preach, which is something unique to Christians, and is completely against your teachings. You don’t see Buddhists out on the streets handing out prayer beads and telling you that the path to enlightenment is at the Karma Dzong temple. However, you do see Christians out on the street asking people if they’ve found Christ today. Not to mention the damage they’ve done to the indigenous cultures in Africa, by converting whole villages, and eliminating century old “Heathen” customs and traditions. Eventually, when crimes are perpetuated, especially by those of higher positions in the church, of course it’s going to be questioned. Christians don’t seem to like that. I’ll defend those in the Church that do not diddle little kids, and those that actually follow the teachings of tolerance and love. That’s why you, and every religious zealot like you, are bigoted. You don’t see the forest for the trees.
NGF— Dude, how’d you get past the boarder? I heard stories that you needed give up your left nut and submit to an anal bio-metric scan to get past the security.
I’m no bigot and I’m no zealot, Fever. I haven’t written anything here for you to say such a thing except that I am a Christian… and by unique association! Just like I’m not a kiddie diddler, a nun, a priest, a “Catholic schoolgirl”, a missionary… I’m not like anybody you know so I don’t appreciate your blanketing statements at all.
I take time to seek the truth. I’d like to unravel the mysteries of the universe to discover and live the purpose of it all. Maybe you should too but I’m not going to push you. I think you have a right to be educated and informed in forming your own opinions though. Does that make one a bigot? Does that make one a zealot? I think not.
Funny, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of being a zealot, especially in a negative sense. I quote: “If the stories of Christ, and others like him, are true and if He understood and was able to manipulate the universe at will then… I want some of that. A lie won’t just won’t do.”. You’ve said plenty to indicate that you’re a zealot. Wasn’t it also Christ who also said: “The meek shall inherit the Earth.”?
“What Jesus doesn’t realize is it’s the meek that’s the problem isn’t it?”
Agreed Miles. That is indeed a problem. Although kay seems to have a solution. Manipulating religion to suit her design. She’s not a zealot though.
Kay is a good example of the (so called) Christians who have made religion repugnant to me. I understand that Christians are still humans with all their faults, tendencies and desires, but I expect more from them than a person who does not follow the Christian faith. Immense (false) pride/vanity, wrath, hopelessness (presumption), malice (scorn), deception, adulation, indifference, ingratitude, and possibly envy are all exhibited by Kay daily (I think most of her negative traits stem from her pride/vanity problem).
When she is told that she gives Christians a bad name, she doesn’t pause for a second to consider that there may be a good reason that someone would say this.
She states, Jesus “plays a starring role in my world”. I would like to know what that means exactly considering she appears to not have absorbed much of his teachings. I guess she summed it up when she said:
“I’m a Christian but my view of Christianity is much different than many others.”
I would agree to this.
hes not the messiah hes a very naughty boy
“Manipulating religion to suit her design”????? WTF does this mean? Do the masses know about this?
In seeking truth I “manipulate” religion? Do I also “manipulate” physics and the nature of the universe in searching?
What makes me different from you is my interest in the TRUTH and my disinterest in what other people think. Opinions and interpretations do NOT change the nature of the universe… if that were the case the Earth would have really been flat when human beings thought so… because a human being thinks it it’s true? come on! Gimme a break!
HKM, you should try and stop summing me up into a fucking paragraph. Your presumption is entirely wrong but hey, “what [you] don’t know won’t hurt [you]” so back to the really really important things in your life… hair, nails, what other bitches think of you.. the REAL important stuff. And No, I don’t pause even for a second over your bullshit assessment of me, HKM, because none of you bitches know me. All you know is about some anonymous bitch called kay who forgives you for being sheep… sometimes.
I hate to quote Religulous (well not really), but does anyone have in depth information on Horus? Why doesn’t he get his worship’s worth? Almost the exact same story as Jesus.
His publicist sucked.
Kay, give it up. You’re a zealot. Facts are facts. Deal with it and move forward.
Almost all religions are based on the same underlying assumptions, up to and including most important dates such as Jesus’s Birthday falling on the 25th of december…please… Anyone with a brain whom does the required research on the subject will come to one final conclusion, it’s all bogus… Now if someone choses to follow religion, to each their own. Its helps some cope and who can argue with that. When it comes to a religion’s being correct, or “the right one”, they’re all BS…
Kay’s arguments are as redundant as starting a legitimate critique/analysis with something like, “So let me get this straight…”
I just realized something while catching up on this thread:
Jesus “plays a starring role” in Kay’s world.
Kay says her “husband” Desi is so “famous”.
Kay can’t provide proof of the existence of Jesus *OR* Desi.
Desi’s posts often indicate he’s God’s gift.
Therefore, I put forth that Desi = Jesus!
Is it too late to continue this thread?! I have been away for months and can’t believe I missed the start of it!
The #1 thing I want to do is ask kay if it really makes sense for her to be on the edge of her seat waiting for EVIDENCE to roll in from CERN about anything. The thing is, I’d wager that if EVIDENCE were discovered tomorrow that refuted her religious beliefs, she would just refuse to accept it, or might adjust her beliefs to accommodate it but try to change them as little as possible. …kind of like the half-hearted change from creationism to ‘intelligent design’ instead of to what the evidence really pointed to (evolution).
It’s completely inconsistent for people who stand for faith over reason and science to pretend that science could change their mind about anything.
That said, kay, I’m GLAD you care about acting on evidence in this case. I just wish you and everyone else would get off the fence about it.
What fence, Dogma? I’m an (non-traditional) Christian, no two ways about it. My faith is not blind (because it’s not ‘faith’, it’s logic) and that’s what sets me apart from most Christians.
I fully expect CERN to validate string theory confirming a multi-dimensional universe and trust the conclusion will be something along the lines of “our universe as a whole is (currently) an independent system and each of its components WITH specific purpose (just like every other natural system we’ve observed). Some ‘components’ fail to fulfill their purpose damaging the system. Other components do fulfill their purpose and contribute to the overall vitality and ‘good health’ of the system.”
Fight about what ‘God’ is and ponder ‘judgement’ after that. It may even come down to a simple math equation to assess your own energy level in relation to the rest of the universe to determine what might happen to your soul (‘life energy’ if you will) if you dropped dead right now. I just want to be sure my “soul” is “strong” enough to escape the gravity of the earth, the sun and whatever else stands between here and ‘Heaven’.
I sit on no fence presuming my energy state matters and I strive to live without guilt, shame, etc (negative energy… thank God for an outlet like LTWWB) I truly believe we manifest our own reality most obviously proven by what’s happened in my own life when I become destructive.
The reason I sit on the edge of my seat is because the necessary experimentation is happening right NOW. I sit on the edge of my seat because, if string theory accurately describes the universe then ‘heaven’ ain’t so far away even for the disbelieving. Talking, burning bushes are easy to get your head around as is healing the sick with a thought, creating an abundance of food, taking your body with you to travel the universe (or other universes) and back… if you think the story of Christ is strange and unreal just wait until you discover how strange a multi-dimensional universe really is… and this is where you live!
Atheists, if you think life here is so straight-up and you’ve thought past the “mystery” please wrap your head around this 5 minute video and explain how the particles know you’re watching. And then explain why it should matter:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=414…
Now tell us where all the materiel in the universe came from. If the Big Bang was a collision then what did our universe bump into and what created that? Since we know the universe is cooling, what made it hot in the first place? Where is the heat of our universe going? Questions like these, at first, caused resentment of the church in trying to refute all that was shoved down my throat about Christianity. I rebelled clinging to science as my ‘proof’. Low and behold I’ve come full circle and faith had fuck all to do with it (unless trusting conclusions born of your own logic also requires ‘faith’).
Oh, and if ‘Desi’ were Jesus I wouldn’t need an outlet like LTWWB and I certainly wouldn’t be living in Nova Scotia. Enough said.
Just to be clear, Kay, are you saying:
The universe, as a whole, is a living organism (God). Our galaxy is like a portion of its brain (rather than bowel = ). Our solar system is like a cell within that portion. Earth is like an atom within the cell. And, we are like particles. We can choose whether to be a positive proton, a negative electron or simply a neutral neutron (free will).
Are you also saying:
As particles, we can appear (birth) and disappear (death), but we don’t actually die, we just go elsewhere (ghost particles)?
And that:
In order to keep the universe in a state of balance (rather than chaos), our purpose (as individual parts of the whole) is to maintain a healthy and balanced energy?
Kay = May Ocean? 😉
I would like to disagree with you who quote ‘the golden rule’. You IMO have it wrong, the truth is “Those with the Gold make the rules” that is the true golden rule. sometimes called rule #1
The second rule is “those with the gold hire some of the poor to control/kill the other half of the poor “!
Which is why they’ll always be in control, and whenever a war happens they’re all safely , back at home. Whle the poor form up on both sides and die.
kay, without getting into what I think of the conclusions you believe could be drawn from string theory or anything else being proven correct (and I honestly have not looked into that much, so I wouldn’t have much to offer right now), my point is that you WOULD be willing to draw conclusions that match what you already think, but would only, if at all, be willing to accept evidence to the contrary with a lot and kicking and screaming.
The fence you are one is the one dividing faith and reason. …and the fact that you use the term “BLIND faith” is a big tip-off. Faith IS blind. There is no other kind.
*the fence you are on
The way I see it, people who have belief in a particular scientific theory, which is based on some facts but has not yet been proven, are no different than people who believe in God. Belief in both instances require an act of faith.
I haven’t read all of the May Ocean article, but based on what I did read, I wonder if Ms. Ocean would have the time and energy required to play Kay at LTWWB. Although, she does fit the mold, doesn’t she? (Or breaks it if you look at it from a different angle : ).
OK, OK, HKM on HRM…you got me. I was oversimplifying.
Of course we all act on things that are not sure. In fact, we never know anything for sure. Instead of a fence with two sides, there is a scale…some grey area.
There is always a given amount of evidence about something that a person will consider good enough to act on. …a certain amount of certainty they are willing to run with.
…but that doesn’t change the fact that some people are wildly inconsistent about how much evidence they will act on for different things, and it doesn’t change the fact that ‘faith’ marks the ‘no evidence’ end of the scale.
Rather than being on a fence, people who will believe tall religious tales on one hand but are not gullible when it comes to other things are just…incoherent.
Agreed.
I have faith in the fact that what I believe to be true will inevitably change = ).
Sister, if everyone thought that, the world would be a much better place.
…or maybe it would all go to shit because of moral relativity and no standards to cling to. Oh, wait, religions change, split, disappear, and appear all the time.
Holy conjoined twins, Batman!
Miles, I think you’re right!
Kay=May
http://twomay.spaces.live.com/default.aspx
Kay=May and Desi=Jesus… and I forgive you Miles. LOL
That’s the irony: Desi=Cathy
http://ofscarabs.blogspot.com/2009/05/rema…
Cathy? May? If there weren’t two NOVELS to read to understand who you were going on about I might humour you.
Dogma, it’s not so much ‘faith’ as it is an educated guess… kinda like how scientists guess at what gravity is. Sort of like how we all “know” the theory of evolution is accurate. Not enough intrinsic proof to draw a conclusion but the evidence is pretty convincing from a certain perspective. Hey, if new information is to be added bring it on! If it disproves my current ideas, indeed, ideas must change. I’m a realist, believe it or not. haha
HKM…. no. I didn’t say any of those things. You can reasonable assume, however, we are but energy and one fact very clear about energy is that it simply changes form.
I think chaos is a necessary ‘evil’ to allow for motion (and time) to play out on our ‘plane’ of existence. Every galaxy we’ve observed is caught up in a game of consumption where balance and chaos work in tandem. The universe is expanding despite gravity trying to keep it together… no balance, a very precise imbalance and that’s where “choice” rises up as a very very special characteristic in the ways of energy. My elders tell me it matters what I do with that energy. Consequences of misspent energy tells me it matters what I do with it. Is it so hard to see where you fit in the grand scheme of things? What happens ‘out there’ happens ‘in here’ so isn’t it reasonable to conclude, since free choice is involved, should we not choose to be on the “winning team” or “the bigger galaxy”, if you will?
Haven’t you noticed? Making order of chaos is a natural thing for human beings to do. (wearing clothes is a good example, farming and tending lawn another) Nature prefers variation when left on it’s own so why do we have such instincts? Are these the result of learned survival or maybe such inclinations lend to discovering our purpose?
That’s too bad, Kay, because I wanted to ask C(athy)/(M)ay if she noted that her consciousness of the number 2 combined with her daughter consciousness of the number 3 created a synchronicity that supports the 23 Enigma (the belief that most incidents and events are directly connected to the number 23, some permutation of the number 23, or a number related to the number 23). And, I wondered, since her daughter is her creation wouldn’t her conjoined twins contribute to her daughter’s make up in someway? I mean, if May’s daughter took on the traits of her mother’s inner twin (subconscious), wouldn’t that mean that May could, technically, combine her daughter’s and her own intuits to get the full and true meaning of things in a way that most people could not? So, May ‘seeing’ the pattern of 2 and her daughter ‘seeing’ the pattern of 3 combines to create a ‘key’ that up until recently few had access to–the 23 Enigma.
C(athy)/(M)ay = Cay kay
I don’t know what you’re talking about… sounds like a Hollywood thriller starring Jim Carey.
If “The Little Engine That Could” manifested his own reality so can May/Cathy/whoever… and so can you. In fact you do. Do you do it “well”?
I guess I’ll have to use another syntax to evade LTWWB’s excellent use of the strip (html) command:
C(athy)/(M)ay = Cay != kay
“!” in this context means NOT
Good night, bitch.
kay,
I don’t think I’ve disagreed with anything you’ve said since I jumped in (most of it I haven’t followed, but still…), and “Not enough intrinsic proof to draw a conclusion but the evidence is pretty convincing from a certain perspective. Hey, if new information is to be added bring it on! If it disproves my current ideas, indeed, ideas must change.” is right on the money…
…but if you identify yourself as a Christian at all, that means you believe a whole lot of things you are not asking for much evidence about. The fundamental problem with Christianity and all the big religions is that they hold (blind) faith in high regard. That’s what sets a mind—what makes it unable to be conviced of new ideas, even if just about some things.
You seem to appreciate how important it is to be open-minded and able to have your mind changed, but anywhere you buy what the Xtians or anyone else are selling (with little to no evidence) you are dropping the ball.
I guess it all depends on what passes for ‘evidence’
Some people will accept a religious experience as all the evidence of God they need. From the outside, you might have a medical or scientific or secular interpretation of that experience, but for the person who had the experience, it will have been all the ‘proof’ they need.
Some religious people don’t believe in God because they believe in the Bible, they believe in the Bible because they believe in God.
It’s difficult to convince someone who has ‘experienced God’ that their experience is not real, and really, who’s to say it isn’t?
My point here is that religion isn’t just about what makes logical sense, it’s often about what makes emotional sense. Religion is the way people try to explain their spiritual experiences and they can get pretty defensive when people tell them those powerful experiences are not real.
Skipping (for now) what look to be some interesting posts, it occurs to me that:
“”isn’t it time people clued in and realized that all religion is EVIL, full of hypocrites and liars???””
…in fact HAS already happened. The trouble is, people have only realized it about each other’s religion…
Yep. If only people could see others’ misguided religions as mirrors on their own.
It might be a way to get through without the defensiveness.
Apart from that, the only way I can see someone snapping out of belief is this:
Being able to recognize circular reasoning—being able to say “If I thought like THIS, is there anything that could convince me otherwise?”. If the answer is “no”, that should indicate circular, unhealthy reasoning.
Tell that to Christian adults, No Dogma. I tried very hard as a girl to not question–to go to God as a sheep, but it was not in my nature. And, frankly, it just felt wrong somehow. Some of the adults were very mean about it, and they treated me like I was the devil (in fact, I was called that a few times as a child = ). But, mostly, the adults tolerated me and tried to pick away slowly. There were the few Christians (very few) over the years who did not mind at all and they just patiently answered my questions the best that they could. I think that if it wasn’t for them, and what I saw in them, I wouldn’t have bothered to continue questioning.
It’s too bad people are afraid to question. I don’t know if it is because they are afraid of the answer or they are afraid that there is no answer. Well, let me tell you = ), all of the greatest questions have the same answer, and if you imagine following your question until you find a box labelled ANSWER, and you open that box, you will find inside many more questions–the questions inside are your answer. So, don’t be afraid, be bold. It is the questions themselves that reveal. If you open the box and find a neat little answer and no further questions, then be concerned (or not) because you are dead. : )
As someone who, as a child, was brought to an Orthodox (Russian) Church, I’d have to say that blind faith is something that the Catholics invented. While they preach basically the same, I found the message at the end was: “if you believe in God, then He is in your life.” My mother’s family is Catholic. I endured one mass of “Believe in God and Jesus, or go to hell”, and I had made up my mind about that whole philosophy. That and the whole talk of “you didn’t participate, do you not believe?”, every time I get singled out at a church type gathering (weddings and the like) by the attending Priest/Bishop that oversaw the gathering. But I digress. Blind faith is a defense mechanism, I think. It’s a programmed one too; because you’re taught that you will be challenged, and the best answer is that God is the answer. It It’s an effective response for those lacking in any conversational skills or too simple to answer a complex theological question effectively. Any though questions about faith are to go to the priests. It’s kinda like the CSR at the returns desk who has to go ask their supervisor about you return.
…and don’t forget, Dr. Fever:
Anything we find that goes against the church’s version of things—like, oh, say, dinosaur bones—was planted there by The Devil to FOOL us. …the tricky bastard.
Indeed. Let’s just make sure we don’t brush all Christians with the same brush. Some are good, some are bad (i.e.: Catholics, Jehovahs, Mormons). Although, lets be clear: I’m not absolving all types of Christianity of blame for the ills of the world.
Of course they are not all bad, but I see a higher likelyhood of them (and those of other religions) being bad.
A Christian is more likely than a member of the general public to bomb an abortion clinic, disown their gay child, get Michael Jackson with altar boys, etc.
A Muslim is more likely than a member of the general public to bomb…anything else(?), go treasonous and shoot up one of their own country’s military bases, etc.
The lists go on for every religious sect.
These are facts. …and they indicate underlying ills with all of them.
“circular, unhealthy reasoning.” What came first? The chicken or the egg? Ouch. my head hurts. I must be “unhealthy” to have such a thought or to contemplate such a question….. Dogma?… what a stupid point for you to try and make. What if I told you scientists speculate a powerful enough telescope will show you your back? Is that circular enough for you? Still think it’s unhealthy to explore such a thing? Perhaps you’ve discovered a reason for “religion”. These are the mysteries of the universe!
“blind faith is something that the Catholics invented” I think one must have their head in a very small box to consider this statement to be true. If the pagans had some hard proof of “tree spirits” and what-have-you and if Voodoo wasn’t some kind of alchemy there might be some truth to entertain in the statement. Unfortunately that’s NOT the case.
Personally, I find security and safety sitting in a room of God fearing Christians. Sure, they are just people and some are hypocrites but I think many who come to such a gathering without coercion likely share similar, if not the very same, values I do. Why would I want to know people who DON’T have such values? (You’ll notice I refer to “values” rather than “beliefs” here.)
kay, it’s true. Go to any Orthodox service, you’ll find their interpretation very different. There’s no such thing as blind faith with those folks. Ancient followings like nature worship are barely a religion at all, and Voodoo (again, very loosely considered a religion, less so than nature worship) is very real to those who practice it.
I wonder, if religious people are so prone to do bad things in the name of God, is our prison system full of fundamental religious types who committed crimes in the name of their God?
I suspect the statistics will show that the religious affiliations of criminals roughly mirror the religious affiliations of the general population. I would expect perhaps that atheists and non-religious-types might be slightly under represented since they tend to be more educated and earn more money, which is a demographic that is itself under-represented in the prison system. Similarly, the poor and less extensively educated have a higher representation in the prison system and are more likely to be religious. What I don’t expect to see is a large number of criminals in prison because they committed crimes in the name of God. What I do expect to see is a large number of rapists and murderers and drug dealers and petty criminals who, even though they identify as religious, don’t care about God any more than they do about the people they victimize with their crimes.
Religious ideology is only one type of ideology. Anyone who is angry enough and idealistic enough can be convinced to kill for their cause. Look how violent Greenpeace protesters can get and they aren’t religiously motivated. How many people have been massacred by the anti-religious communist regimes of the past? How many millions of young men have been convinced to join the army and go overseas to protect our “freedom” which is a thinly veiled euphemism for “political and economic interests”? People like to blame religion for the ills of the world, but the fact of the matter is it’s people that are the real problem.
So Miles, are you saying that it’s like ytzpilot said on the ‘But You Are Canadian First, Right’ thread?
“Too many white people scare me…They come up with crazy laws and do stupid things…
You need a few Muslims, Jews, Asians, Afro’s….you name it, to mix it up a bit. As a collective we keep the stupid ones in-line.”
Only is not just white people, it any group of like-thinking people who focus on an idea to the point that they cannot allow for disagreement or change. And, to the point that they will use force to defend that idea and coercion to promote it. Are you saying that it is human nature to do this? Or, that only a certain type of people fall into this trap?
kay, let me try to explain the circular reasoning point again. Consider these two questions:
Q: What experience could an atheist have that would change their mind, or begin to change their mind about whether there are any gods?
A: I could come up with a big list, but it would start with seeing a huge super-hero like person appear in the sky and say “Hey, peeps! It’s me, God! …sorry I’ve been hiding for so long! …anyone have any cancer they want me to cure?”.
Q: What experience could a theist have that would change their mind, or even begin to change their mind about whether there are any gods (or about other religious concepts they may have)?
A: Nothing. That’s what faith is…perfect resistance of an idea to being changed. (anything less is not quite faith, by the way…it’s just good suspension of disbelief) Faith is continuous thoughts unable to be broken by anything, perhaps even being reinforced by false experiences (imaginings). Maybe be circular reasoning is not the best term to use here. Maybe it’s insular reasoning. Either way, though, it’s obviously problematic.
For more info, look up the word ‘falsifiability’. If something you believe in is not falsifiable, you have a big problem.
HKM, I am saying it’s the nature of human groups. We will always have leaders and followers. We will always have extremists and moderates. The goal is to develop political and social systems that minimize the extremes and maximize fairness.
The best thing to happen to the Catholic church was for it to lose it’s political influence. Now that the Baptists have political influence in the US, look how they have become compared to other Baptists with less influence. It’s the same with Islam. In countries where that religion is mixed with politics, you have more extremism and fundamentalism then where Islam is less political. It’s also the same with communism. The leaders of communist countries use the ideology of communist theory to motivate the followers into compliance or action against a perceived enemy. The same method is used under the banner of “freedom” and “patriotism” to motivate young men and women to go to war for their countries.
If it’s not religion, it will be something else. There will always be those who can be manipulated an those with the power to manipulate. Diversity, democracy and dialogue are some of the best tools to minimize and prevent the negative consequences of fundamentalism and extremism.
Just so I don’t have to do a whole lot of research when you may have a quick summary… = )
Do you know why democracy crashed and died (for the most part) so long ago? Did it have something to do with it being mixed up with their religion? Or did it go out of favour simply because corruption could not be avoided?
My history for that period is pretty spotty, but I don’t think religion played a significant role in the fall of democracy in Rome, which I understand to be the last real democracy before the United States. Rome suffered more from political infighting, an over-extended empire and civil conflict which led to Caesar taking power as emperor. It wasn’t until about 300 and something that Constantine converted to Christianity and we see the rise of the Catholic church as a political power. I don’t know if Democracy went out of favour…I would guess that it just wasn’t really given a chance until the masses were in a position to demand it.
Even then Miles, the Roman Empire’s form of Christianity was the Orthodox versions, which is completely different. The Catholics didn’t become important until the Schism, which happened in the eleventh century, I think. Democracy didn’t really fall out of favour. Just a bunch of impotent old men who liked to in fight, and the Empire being pounded by Germanic (damn Germans) tribes to the north.
Technically speaking, the bi-cameral parliamentary system used by the Brits pre-dated the Americans by more than a few years. The first, “free” elections(and by that I mean everyone voting, not just men or land owners) goes to the French, but they threw out just about every form of religion right after the Revolution.
I’m pretty sure Americans’ modeled their government on an Iroquois form of democracy–only they eliminated the role that women played in the power structure.
Democracy failed due to a kind of stagnation that developed after time which allowed an opportunity for another kind of power to take over? So, is it inevitable that good ol’ boys parties will form and solidify to the point that any new blood which can actually infiltrate the inner circle (and still maintain their integrity) becomes bogged down in the groundwork laid by the others? Is there supposedly something in place to prevent what history has shown us to be a problem?
Dogma, cast the atheist into the open ocean without a life jacket. Within an hour or two you’ll find them crying out to whom…? not their mothers. It’s even instinctual to think some greater intelligence is running the show. Again, have a look at the double-slit experiment and tell me why the particle cares if you’re watching. What does this very real phenomenon tell you about the nature of the universe? That it was an accident? Think hard on that one and tell us what you come up with.
Do you “believe” in King David? He was just another name in the Bible, wasn’t he? Do a little research and you’ll discover King David did exist as a matter of history. So, which parts of the bible are fiction? Can you say for sure? Dig in and we find artifact and evidence the bible is an historical document. How much “faith” does one require to take in a history lesson?
I would be crying out to the sharks to stop nibbling on my giblets after an hour in the ocean.
Kay, even if there are some (or a lot) of historical facts in the Bible, there’s still a lot of stuff that’s pretty hard to swallow from a science-based perspective (Genesis, Noah’s Ark, Jonah and the whale, resurrections, virgin births loaves and fishes). Besides, the Bible isn’t supposed to be a history book or a science book anyway. It’s a book about how the Jewish people and early Christians have come to understand God, their relationship to Him and explore the nature of their humanity. It’s much better at that than science and history.
Bible = Biggest Fairy Tale of All Time. Written by man to control the masses – not unlike L. Ron Hubbard.
…I’m just gonna leave this whole thing alone…
Atheist OUT
That’s a pretty unfair assessment TTFN. It was not written to control the masses. It may be used that way, but that’s not the purpose of it. It’s written by about 40 different people over about a thousand years. Try to put aside your distaste for religion and take a look at it sometime. You will see that there are some really wise, moral and profound things in there. Even if you take God out of it, the Bible has lots of meaningful things to say about humanity.
Kay:
You said “cast the atheist into the open ocean without a life jacket. Within an hour or two you’ll find them crying out to whom…? not their mothers”.
I have personally experienced this phenomenon – without the “crying out to whom” part. (and I was an “educated Athiest” at the time – that means I had intensely reviewed/experienced several religions and decided they were all wrong). It’s amazing how you can feel peaceful, and at one with the world when you assume you’re not going to be rescued… I didn’t call out for any “god”, or my mother for that matter. I just floated peacefully (after intial panic of course – I’m not a moron!) and felt comforted by the fact that being completely alone with my own thoughts was not as scary as I imagined it to be.
Since that experience I learned to meditate, and I started practicing Wicca which is, for me, a more personal-oriented set of beliefs without all of the “sheep” mentality you say you hate so much. I also get to pick whatever “god” I want, or none at all (which is my chosen path). It also allows me to question my beliefs regularly, which most Christian-based religions frown upon (even to the point of kicking children out of church for asking uncomfortable questions). So yes, you *can* find new beliefs after an experience like this, but not necessarily a “religion”.
I don’t believe in the traditional omnipotent/omniscient being who created everything, but I *do* believe there are forces at work which are greater than human beings. I believe that any “god” is a character created by humans, and humans are fallible, therefore how can a “god” be infallible?
As for the bible being an “historical document”, it’s also “an hysterical document”.
A collection of stories handed down by word of mouth gets written down years later, if the bible really was the “literal word of God” (as some people claim), they why does it contradict itself so much? Wouldn’t this all-perfect God have checked his facts first?
Why is nobody interested in the truth of things? You practice wicca because you prefer to believe it, god or no god… pfffft whatever.
How come no one of you offer explanation for the double slit experiment phenomenon? Got your head in the sand? Go ahead and keep it there. I won’t lose sleep over it
I did a double slit experiment once but one of the girls got shy and left.
The “truth of things”, as you say, kay, is different to who approaches it. Why is that a difficult opinion for you to grasp? People see things differently. Just because you feel that your religion is enlightened does not mean that a Buddhist is less enlightened. In fact, to me, Buddhism gives greater insight and peace than any Christian Church has ever done, but that does not mean that I would persecute those that feel differently, which is the greatest singular problem that Christianity and Muslims face in today’s world, and you’re a glowing example of it.
What are you talking about Fever? Are you saying the sky is blue depending on who you ask? Maybe the term “North” varies depending on your religion? Perhaps we should agree on the term “truth” which has NOTHING to do with your feelings, thoughts, actions, experience, beliefs or mine. And I haven’t persecuted anybody for their beliefs. I just shake my head when evidence is overlooked to favour some lie, or worse, some “belief”. I’m a Christian and I’m a truth seeker. Yes I am.
I’m not even a traditional Christian in that sense of the word. The whole idea of damnation is bullshit in my opinion but doesn’t remove the truth of how things work in the universe. If you don’t have enough energy to escape Earth’s gravity you’re gonna fall down. That’s a truth and since we agree matter is energy and you and me are matter just do the math, there’s really no room for opinion. You can even check your answer!
The day we can better identify and measure “life energy” this confusion will cease.
I’m talking of spiritual issues in general. Of course nobody is going to argue the existence of gravity or the sky being blue, because those concepts are universal. Spiritual guidance and belief however, are not universal. Some also think that reality is just a human concept in and of itself, does that make those people wrong? Cogito Ergo Sum.
Unfair assessment of the most contradictory book of all time? A book that contains nothing but hatred, violence, sin and the almighty fires of hell, all things justified in Gawd’s name? I’d get more truth out of Dilbert.
“I think therefore I am” still implies God exists, just replace the G-Word with your own name… and THEN ask another if they believe in God LOL
I see no reason why spirituality cannot be addressed with facts and truth. A leap of faith is not really required when you perceive the universe as a system and yourself a part of it WITH meaningful function to fail or succeed at.
TTFN, perhaps you should actually READ a book BEFORE critiquing it on a public forum, yes?
Miles, the flood recorded in the Bible (Noah) is actually found in all cultures’ mythology. I think it was Mayans that talk about their ancestors using the longest hollow reeds they could find to breathe under water until the waters went back down.
One of things about the Bible that I got snagged on was the fact that when you read the list about who (or what) you can have sex with, it doesn’t forbid a father to have sex with his daughter. It is very detailed list, covering all possibilities, so when I was given the answer that it was oversight, I knew that was bullshit. Especially when the person who had said it had told me another time that the bible was complete–nothing could be added nor taken away.
TTFN, there are a lot of cool things to be found in scriptures. It’s really too bad that people have twisted them to serve their own purpose. And, of course, part of the problem is that you don’t know for sure what has been left out or altered. I just use common sense. It clear away a lot of the shit so you can find the gems.
Miles: Caste not pearls before swine lest they trample them beneath their feet.
Ha Ha Ha = )
One of the lessons of the bible says to wait and see what kind of fruit a tree bares before speculating about the kind of tree it is. This opposes the idea of “blind faith”. I’m comfortable with that and I’ll bet you are too. St Thomas was warned not to question the “lord” but the lord said, no, do ask the questions! I think that guy MUST have been my ancestor because I question EVERYTHING man would dish out and have me believe.
Not only is the flood mentioned in religious texts but there is geographical evidence of it as well.
I keep coming back to the double slit experiment since it’s modern day “magic” and cannot be explained by either science nor religion, however, there’s meat in the idea that t matters to a particle if it’s being observed. Apparently it DOES matter on a physical level what we do since the act of OUR observation has impact on the universe. No God? hmmm No purpose to your being? Doubtful since you change the universe by being in it. And I have yet to see a natural system whose parts do not all have a specific purpose to succeed or fail at. The bigger question is, what fails in the bigger picture if human beings fail to perform their intended function? Take it a step further and ask, what succeeds in the bigger picture if human beings succeed in performing their intended function?
TTFN: Dilbert IS pretty funny.
Kay: I agree that spiritual questions should be addressable by science, but keep in mind that YOUR view of reality, as you’ve described it to us, is based on a lot of theory and supposition and not much actual fact. You may very well be right about the universe, but you still can’t prove it….yet. So, at this point, other people’s interpretations of reality can be just as valid as yours.
HKM: I specifically said “Noah’s ark” and not “the great flood” because I am aware that there are records of a flood. The tough to swallow part is the notion that the flood was God’s punishment or that ALL life was wiped out except for the animals that made it onto the ark.
It would explain the disappearance of dinosaurs = ). I mean, if I was Noah, there would be no way I would willingly bring animals along that had turds bigger than me. Who would get stuck cleaning that mess up?
Actually, kay, that’s just another Christian twisting something to their favour. Existentialism was completely against all forms of religion, and focused on the human thought as reality. Thus, Existentialism.
Miles, what’s really funny about the flood story is that it’s been recounted not only in Christian texts (and therefore a heavy part of Christian myth) but in Babylonian writings as well as ancient Jewish writings. The Babylonians based their entire creation myth around it. But the Christians have to be right.
Miles: A good book combining God and Dilbert is “God’s Debris” by Scott Adams or the sequel The Religion War. They’re pretty good reads on a “thought experiment” of Adams’. You can download God’s Debris free from the Dilbert website…or at least you could.
Basically, God gets bored with being omnipotent (knowing the future and the past all the non-time can get rather tedious and unremarkable) and decides to blow him/herself up (big bang) and the subsequent coalescing of matter and information is the restructuring of “God”. In essence then, we are all parts of God and we are combining through global, and eventually universal, networking to reproduce him/her in our own image.
Thanks Cheshire. Sounds interesting, I’ll check ’em out. 🙂
A few thoughts, now that the thread has ended, and I missed it…at least I get the last word…
1) “Evolution”, or speciation (or “transmutation” etc etc) was NOT thought up by Darwin…his is NOT the “Theory of Evolution”. It’s on how “natural selection”
is the process by which evolution occurs in nature.
2) Evolution itself does NOT explain (or try to) the origin of life, OR the universe.
3) I keep hearing that there are very few atheists. I disagree. There is a huge difference between those that actually check “atheist” in a poll…and those that really don’t believe in the god of the book(s). I expect that if you defined “Christian” as not just following the teachings of Christ…but also having to belive all that other bible hooey, there are fewer “Christians” than you think. And by that definition (the bible as 100% true), there are NO credible scientists that are Christian. None.
“When Are People Going To Toss Religion On Its Self-righteous Ass??”
On April 17, 2019 at 3:42 pm AST. Less than ten years to go now!
Kay, although I frequently dispute your statements and I sometimes tease you, I do know where you are coming from. The difference between us is that I do not think that science proves God. I do think, however, that an intelligent designer (God, if you will) is more believable than the idea that (against all the odds involved) this complex machine that we call the universe just happened to come together in such a way that it started itself up (never mind fueling and maintaining itself). I mean, the odds of everything coming together in an exact and perfect way to enable us to create energy inside us are phenomenal alone. As well, things like free-will, imagination, inspiration and love do not seem to have any place in such cold calculations and theories, and yet, they are a part of the experience we call reality.
That said, here is a gift for you that expresses what I am saying (one of my favorite poems)–that although science can explain the workings of things, it cannot explain the reason for things:
The Conjugation of the Paramecium
This has nothing
to do with
propagating
The species
is continued
as so many are
(among the smaller creatures)
by fission
(and this species
is very small
next in order to
the amoeba, the beginning one)
The paramecium
achieves, then,
immortality
by dividing
But when
the paramecium
desires renewal
strength another joy
this is what
the paramecium does:
The paramecium
lies down beside
another paramecium
Slowly inexplicably
the exchange
takes place
in which
some bits
of the nucleus of each
are exchanged
for some bits
of the nucleus
of the other
This is called
the conjugation of the paramecium.
~Muriel Rukeyser
“”I mean, the odds of everything coming together in an exact and perfect way to enable us to create energy inside us are phenomenal alone.””
They may well be, but that is no reason to introduce some supernatural being that “created” us the universe , after all, though it be rather cliché, that does beg the question “Who created your creator?”…
At any rate, having a “God” who simply created the universe and set in motion all the natural laws, life, evolution etc, and then rested on his holy laurels is one thing….but the “God” of the bible – frowning down upon me when I “sin” in the shower, is quite another! The former is a cop-out, the latter would be kinda awful…
Ah, but I said ‘God’ (intelligent designer/creator) was MORE believable than the coming together of an unimaginable amount of coincidences. And so, for now, that’s the way I lean = ).
I happen to think of God as impersonal (not omnibenevolent), for the most part. As well, I think hell is something we create ourselves not a place we go to. Also, I don’t think of God as resting, I think of God as constant motion–that even God is evolving in a sense. Therefore, I don’t think of God as being omnipotent except in the sense that if it can be done than God can do it (that even God is limited in some ways). And, I don’t think God is omniscient either, at least, I don’t think God knows exactly what we are going to do 100% of the time (although if God could lay bets on us, God would probably clean up). I like to think that God can move (not physically, of course) from a holistic view to an narrow view, and in that way, be a more personal God. But, overall, no, I don’t believe in the God taught at any church I know of, although I arrived at my feeling once I had cross-referenced many theological and metaphysical texts (including philosophical arguments on atheism). And, as I continue to read, I am sure that I will one day look back on what I believe and think how ignorant I was = ).
As far as where the original movement came from, I am pretty sure it is unknowable. Actually, after going over it and over it, I came to the conclusion that the whole thing is like trying to wrap my head around infiniteness–I can’t. The bottom line is there are lots of things I don’t understand but I think it is the pursuit itself that is important, revealing and meaningful. I mean, to discard everything contributed throughout the history of humankind just because it doesn’t make sense to you is kind of arrogant, don’t you think? Or even, disregarding all wisdoms because some self-serving or narrow thinking people throughout history twisted or tainted them to serve their purpose seems kind of foolhardy. This is where the virtue of humbleness comes in handy:
If you believe that you can never truly know the whole truth than your mind will always remain open and receptive. As soon as you believe that you know the whole truth your mind snaps closed making it impossible for you to ever learn that you were wrong.
“”I mean, to discard everything contributed throughout the history of humankind just because it doesn’t make sense to you is kind of arrogant, don’t you think?””
It depends. Why are we content to discard 500 years of bloodletting, mistaken astronomy, bad geography, false alchemy and so on and so forth….and in fact we are happy to continually revise and improve our knowledge base on medicine, science etc – but when it comes to “god”, we’re stuck with a 2000 year-old textbook, lol!?
I disagree that just because something is passed on down through the generations, it is necessarily “wisdom”….we like to think it is. Sometimes it is.
I think the true ‘arrogance” is to claim as absolute truths those things we have had passed down to us by our parents, teachers and clergy…
Your concept of God actually reminds me of some modern (and liberal) Quakers I know…lol, not to be confused with that darn oatmeal puritan..
“Your concept of God actually reminds me of some modern (and liberal) Quakers I know”
I’ll take that as a compliment = ) (There are many Quakers throughout history that I have admired.)
You say sometimes it is wisdom (knowledge passed down). And, that’s what I say too. But, you have to actually go through the pile (read and reflect) with your screeners of intelligence, commonsense (experience), and current education in order to know what is garbage and what is gold. Then, somewhere down the road, you have to re-sift the information you kept with your new screeners in order to revise (or eliminate) again.
As well, I think that I revealed that I distrust absolute truths. Anything I think valid or likely is merely a directional sign that points me in a new direction. A lot of questions I ask, I already have an answer to, but hearing the answer from the another person allows me to pick up subtleties that can change the meaning of how I understand it (or even, discard the answer because hearing it from someone else may reveal that we are both wrong somehow). I am fortunate to have an excellent long term memory, so my ‘sifters’ are pretty good. It is only when I get lazy (don’t want to pursue the new information) that I find myself falling into the trap of regurgitating information that I have not thought through for myself. I hate when I do that. That’s why I rather enjoy people calling me on it–it prompts me to get back to work = ).
I must be the only one who questions learned beliefs.
Perspective is important in that changing it may help uncover truth, however, your opinion or your feelings or learned beliefs do not change facts or the nature of the universe. Dark is dark. Light is light. Anything else is your speculation.
As far as intelligent design versus evolution is concerned… it seems to me God would be smart enough to set in motion a universe that would lead to evolution much in the way we throw a bowling ball and (more or less) accurately predict the outcome of our action.
Frosty, “last word”… that was a good one!
“I must be the only one who questions learned beliefs.”
Yes Kay, you are the only one. You are unique in so many ways. Maybe we should all be afraid because you are actually Jesus come again as prophesied in the bible:
Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:12
oh yeah, be afraid. That’s exactly my point.
you’re such a fucking IDIOT sometimes HKM.
PISS OFF.
That’s it? Well then…I guess I will take your wisdoms, give them great thought and place them in an appropriate place. *Flush*
And that’s how one stays an idiot. Good on ya! Would expect no more from the likes of you.
The likes of me? = )
If not agreeing with what you say makes me an idiot (at least in your eyes), there is nothing I can say except…
“D’uh.”
= p
How many posts do you need to have a discussion, HKM? This page takes like 20 seconds to load on a wireless connection and you beg for more “wisdoms” (however that can plural, I don’t know). Why don’t you just move on or actually reference something that has been posted or even reference the OP. Like I said, I’m not your fucking buddy and LTWWB is blog not a chat client. Go bitch some more and try and to stay on topic.
What’s really funny is that if I had agreed with you I would pronounced myself the second coming and you balk. You’re an idiot. Go write a bitch or something.
“How many posts do you need to have a discussion, HKM?”
I’m pretty sure that about 35% of the comments on this thread alone are yours (the same percentage as me).
HKM: “Maybe we should all be afraid because you are actually Jesus come again…”
kay: “oh yeah, be afraid. That’s exactly my point.”
kay: “What’s really funny is that if I had agreed with you I would pronounced myself the second coming and you balk. “
Um, just so we’re clear, Kay:
You are not Jesus come again. A guy I met on the bus is Jesus come again (or he was until he spent a few years in the NS Hospital, now he goes by John).
“and in fact we are happy to continually revise and improve our knowledge base on medicine, science etc – but when it comes to “god”, we’re stuck with a 2000 year-old textbook, lol!?”
Actually, religious scholars and philosophers are continually reinterpreting the content of the Bible to keep up with our growing knowledge about the natural world and our relationship with it and the divine. In fact, the Bible, as a collection of writing by over 40 authors and over 1000 years of writing is the story of how the Jewish people’s understanding of God and their relationship to him has evolved over time. The idea that the Bible is irrefutable fact is a relatively new idea that started around the time of Galileo and has become entrenched by some Christian denominations since Darwin. The rise of multiple Christian denominations is also a reflection of this trend towards revising and improving our knowledge of god.
I’m a fan of religion on Facebook. God gives me brownie points.
Perhaps human learning should start from the perspective that god is a myth as are all other supernatural beings. Science gives us a basis for questioning everything that can be proven with enough time and effort. All books are written by man. The bible, koran, scientology, mormon, talmud, buddism, etc. were to be used as reference books based on the popular control mechanisms of the culture that they were written for. All humans need is to NOT be indoctrinated at an early age with these texts for a new perspective on behavior toward our fellow humans. Perhaps that would trickle down and we could treat each other and all forms of life on earth better. Because people only speak from their own belief systems ie. christianity, they cannot let go of the fact that gods, ghosts, faeries, etc. are not based on fact but on an ingrained behavior pattern that will not allow any outside / contrary ideas. There is no proof that any of these faith based phantasms exist but you cannot disprove them so like intelligent design it becomes another point for believers in god to use as a tool in their arsenal to move onward.
The trouble with that, 1+1, is that for most religious folk…everyone ELSE’S god is a myth, just not their own…
And Miles, while i agree that some of the older more traditional sects like the Anglican’s and so on have embraced science, evolution etc, (for the most part)…their memberships are in a steep decline.
The only “growing” sect of Christians, I think you’ll agree, are the fundies…and to them, the bible IS the word, and no wavering on that is allowed, period. Although, myself, I expect that many folks that join these churches do so more for the social and business networking they provide, at least I like to hope that 100,000,000 North Americans don’t REALLY believe that Christ walked on water?
Do They?
Aren’t they much more “enlightened” as you imply?
😉
Yeah, I’ll agree with most of that assessment Frosty.
I just like people to keep in mind that not all religious people are nutbars. Not all peddle their religion door to door and not all believe in stupid things. There are ways to be a spiritual and religious person and still be an intelligent and rational person. Humans of all cultures and throughout history have gravitated towards religions because they feel that there is more to existence than what they can see and hear and touch. They explore that spiritual side through things like religion, but also through reading fiction, writing poetry, creating art. I would argue that even the atheist approaches their understanding of the world with a bit of emotion and passion once in a while. Humans are emotional creatures and emotion isn’t always rational. It’s one thing to dissect the biochemistry of love, but it’s another thing all together to experience it. Feeling things, not thinking about things, is what leads many people to religion. The thinking comes later…hopefully. It’s because of these things that I still see value in religion for people, even if the theology is fictitious.
1 + 1 = 2, what you are saying is very practical and logical, and overall, it would make things much easier in many ways. Being (mostly) a practical and logical person myself : ), it was a direction I was headed in for many years. And even though it may very well be that you are right, I changed direction because the further I got down that road the more regret I felt.
It was comforting in a way to have my reality grounded in sensible things, but it was stagnating in a way too. I mean, when I considered that I was only another something that came into being on a fluke of sorts and that my only purpose was live and work as long as I could before I went out of being again, the act of living suddenly lost a considerable amount of appeal. Living a spiritual life gave me purpose, inspiration, motivation, hope, and sometimes just the will to live this life to its natural conclusion.
So, I thought, why does it have to be either/or? Why can’t both states be possible and right? Anyway, to make a long story short: I eliminated religion and most everything that it taught me. Then, I started thinking and questioning everything I knew (which I still do). Until finally all that I had left were questions. Then, I read. Sometimes I listened. Until finally, I found a way to balance both my logical and spiritual needs. It is and will always be a work in progress, but it gives me both motivation and peace.
What am I saying is that spirituality might have lead to religion but that does not mean that they are one and the same. Anyone who has a sense of purpose (that does not have anything to do with survival and ego) should understand this.
“”(Some folk) explore that spiritual side through things like religion, but also through reading fiction, writing poetry, creating art. I would argue that even the atheist approaches their understanding of the world with a bit of emotion and passion once in a while.””
Agreed. In fact, growing up as I did with Quaker parents, I have fond memories of Sundays spent at the sea shore poking at anthropods and baby crabs, or searching the cliffs for fossils while the adults “meditated”…
No talk of a 6000 year-old earth, parting seas and virgin births here, lol…
Other than the liberal arm of the United Church (Greta Vosper rules!), the Society of Friends is the only other “church” that I could imagine stomaching.
Other than that, the homophobia, misogyny, anti-choice (abortion), anti-birth control, intolerance of most Christian and Muslim sects, and the self-righteous and controlling “priests”, ‘imams’ and “pastors”…most of them hypocrites at best, liars at worst…the sooner this world is rid of them, the better…
Frosty, you have probably read “Jonathon Livingston Seagull’ written by Richard Bach, but did you ever read “Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah”? Bach explores the idea that reality is merely an illusion through Jesus and his ability to perform ‘miracles’.
Actually, I think that you could probably relate to Bach’s Jesus. = )
I always liked The Little Prince: “Everything essential is invisible to the eyes”
I never read it, but now I will = ) These are my favorite types of gifts! Thanks = )
For anyone else who is interested:
http://wikilivres.info/wiki/The_Little_Pri…
Read most of the thread, but got bored shit less with the Kay thing. If she isn’t an Internet troll, she should be. Jesus Kay, just pack it in already.
The attitude that athiests or agnostics need something in their lives, “spirituality” comes to mind, seems archaic in that all humans need a reason to live. To say that you cannot be in love or loved unless you seek a higher power is such bullshit. We shouldn’t confuse love or desire as a spiritual aspect of our lives.
Biology shows us that certain pheromones are released when we love someone. As we age, we see that many types of love exist. To equate the need for meaning in our lives as a search for some god does not preclude the fact that a non-religious world would still continue. The life long search could be realized by seeking to do everything possible in our lives to acquire self fulfillment because this is all there is. A non religious person can be happy or sad, can be passionate or a dullard and the fact that there is no afterlife does not mean that there is no reason to live. We can be afraid of that or we can revel in the fact that our lives do have as much meaning as we choose.
“To say that you cannot be in love or loved unless you seek a higher power is such bullshit.”
I never said that you have to seek a higher power in order experience love. I said:
“things like free-will, imagination, inspiration and love do not seem to have any place in such cold calculations and theories, and yet, they are a part of the experience we call reality.”
The context that I put this in was: we come into being, we strive to survive (work), we go out of being. A lizard can do this. Yet, we have evolved to be so much more than a lizard. A lizard does not feel so deeply about another lizard that it will give its life for its mate. It does not exhibit joy at the birth of its child. It does not become so consumed by the art it is creating or the discovery it is about to make that it denies sleep and forgets to eat. I was making a comment on why we evolved to this point if it wasn’t necessary for our existence.
“The life long search could be realized by seeking to do everything possible in our lives to acquire self fulfillment because this is all there is.”
Can you define the fulfillment that you will spend your life searching to achieve and why you would bother to do it? (I truly want to know how we differ/ if we differ.)
So HKM you ask why. Why would we bother to search for fulfillment. Why not? What else is there for us to do for 70 – 80 years of living? Each person has a different view on what is important to them on an on-going basis. Been there done that takes on a whole new meaning for each stage of our life. When you compare lizards to humans that is like comparing a horse and buggy to a rocket. Look at the great apes, do they not have similar behavior and emotions as humans? Why? because they have evolved further than lizards from the primordial soup. Stagnancy is good enough for a while then the adventurous part of us asks “how can I learn more, achieve more, see more , do more for myself, my children or my fellow humans”. The advances in science come about because we strive to search for new ideas.
The old systems worked well for people in the past. But when questioning the status quo (read religious dogma) the old fall back answers come to the front. “It is in the bible, so it cannot be questioned”. Free will, imagination, inspiration, and love have a place in every humans life. To even ask if they “have any place in such cold calculations” is another extrusion of the ass hole. Once again you are dividing humans into categories. Those that believe and those that do not and cannot possibly understand the world around them because they hold another belief system. Whenever I am passionate about something I never assume that it is because some imaginary creator allows me to think that thought. It is a good thing that humans strive for things beyond their grasp. We have to reach further in thoughts and actions.
Man, your answer just raised so many questions! Some that haven’t even occurred to me yet = )
“Look at the great apes, do they not have similar behavior and emotions as humans? Why? because they have evolved further than lizards from the primordial soup.”
Yes, you are right, but why have they evolved further? What was the catalyst for change? How could it be done? If DNA is the instruction manual for putting a living thing together, how does the thing built suddenly have a part that there were no instructions for? Or even, no physical parts for? How did physical things come together to create something like ego, or wonder, or depression? What purpose do these things serve?
As well, when this world ends, what difference would any act by a human make? Anything you think, feel, do means nothing. Even that you existed at all means nothing. The universe does not acknowledge. Not your goodness. Not your contributions. Not your discovery of a cure for cancer for an organism that will cease to exist anyway. Everything that we are means nothing because everything that we are or did or will do ceases to have any meaning once the last person dies.
What else is there for us to do for 70 – 80 years of living?”
Exactly. What else is there for us to do for a couple of billions years besides live and die for no reason at all?
Yeah I read Illusions (and One and another one about his wife)…great stuff.
In fact, I used some of the little Haiku-type “poems” in an English course project years ago.
Oddly, I remembered it being more of a Buddha/Zen thing, but re-gooling it all these years later, I see the ‘Messiah” connection in the other pilot, Don. Of course.
I was saddened to read just now that after all that “soul-mate” carp, he was divorced from Leslie parrish in 1999, lmao
Still, interesting guy
HKM, check out Desmond Morris’ “The Naked Ape”. It’s oldish (1970’s), but has some neat ideas in it about how Humans are torn between our ape-like genetic history and the social changes we had to go through when we started walking upright, living in groups, hunting and gathering, etc. It’s interesting to read his ideas while keeping in mind the theological interpretations of good vs. evil, humans being torn between selfish desires and altruistic acts.
If you look into neuroscience and evolution and anthropology you will see some discussion about the things you asked with respect to why/how emotions and mind and consciousness evolved. There are clear evolutionary advantages to each which is why those traits are retained. As our brains gradually became larger, they allowed us to be better at understanding and manipulating our environment which selected for genes that lead to bigger brain size/complexity.
I started the one about his and his wife’s soul-mate experience, but I don’t think I finished it (it was kinda corny/gushy = ). I don’t believe in soul-mates actually. And, in light of the divorce, I guess that’s the reason why = )
Anyway, I asked because it did explore an explanation of sorts for the miracles. It’s been awhile since I’ve read it too, but if I remember correctly, Don was a kind of a potential Messiah/Messiah in training.
Ah yes, Desmond Morris : )…we have been introduced, eh, Frosty ; ) (To All You Drivers bitch)
Actually, I meant to suggest this book to Frosty (and other readers of The Naked Ape):
A GENERAL THEORY OF LOVE
By Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini and Richard Lannon.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/02/27/revi…
“some imaginary creator ALLOWS me to think that thought”
I don’t believe this.
“THE ADVENTUROUS PART of us asks…”
“we STRIVE TO search…”
“We HAVE TO reach further in thoughts and actions.”
“IT IS A GOOD THING that humans strive for things beyond their grasp.”
You know, 1+1=2, we are actually saying the same thing only I am saying that these built in impulses are there for a reason beyond staying alive long enough to give birth to the next generation. I think our spiritual texts of the past are dated, but I also think that there are things in them that do not date. Virtually all writings of the past are rooted in some kind of ‘religion’, their authors misinformed, biased, and even sometimes dead wrong in some of their suppositions, but I am sure you would protest if I suggested we discard the works of someone like Plato, Galileo or Descartes. The thing is, we don’t know for sure if there exists (or not) a universal consciousness, so why would we discard everything that explores it? Even if god is defined as being a conscious original energy before form, I am fine with that. I mean, it takes no great leap to think that there is some original ‘being’ who was the first to think, explore, play and create. And, the thought that we have attachments to that being like a child has attachments to a parent is not beyond belief.
Again there is that assumption that life has more meaning than it just is. To delve deeper into these questions, the need to prove that it is some being that created us or everything and that we are all part of some universal connected consciousness has been beaten to death with no real results except more questions arise. Why? How? If? These can never be proven given the complexity and vastness of the universe. For us to compare ideas is great but in all of human history there are these mysteries that cannot be solved without scientific discoveries. Baby steps have been taken and will continue until the last human ceases to be. The universe will continue without us. Why does there have to be a reason? Is the fact that we are here not good enough? Ask dinosaurs? Ask neanderthals? They did not evolve or were wiped out. Is a non-caring universe changed in any way? I don’t think so. We have to get over ourselves to move forward and then we can do more for our fellow humans. If we start from a new perspective than to think that there was some original being who was “the first to think, explore, play and create, we would all be better off.
I think one reason a lot of people want to believe in a higher power because it is more comforting to believe that there is (are) a heavenly being(s) who is (are) looking out for us and keeping our departed loved ones close until we meet again in heaven. The finality of death is easier to accept if there is something beyond to aspire to instead of death being the end of the journey with nothingness beyond.
Religion and spirituality are matters of faith. There is no concrete proof. People have faith that what they believe is the truth. Spirituality is a personal thing and should not be imposed on others.
The double slit experiment proves you matter and so does what you’re seeing. The simple action of noticing changes the universe. Each of us does “it”, some of us take care in doing it while others are in denial they have any impact on the universe whatsoever.
No Kay, you don’t matter at all.
You missed me with your bible.
You can’t be in two places at once.
Check this out for another take on the slit experiment.
Oh, and take care doing “it”.
http://hasylab.desy.de/news__events/resear…
I don’t doubt that life will go on just fine if everyone decided that what we see is what we get. No purpose. No higher meaning. No alternative reality. No escaping this spinning rock. When we die, we cease to exist in any form. (I don’t believe in heaven or hell, by the way, and I think the grave sounds quite peaceful = ).
I can’t seem to articulate my reason/meaning for why I think that there is more (okay, okay, I am just tired to do it this evening = ). But, I don’t understand how you think it is important to pursue/move forward/improve when ultimately it will be for nothing. Wouldn’t it make more sense to indulge our senses in every way possible?
CAN WE END THIS FUCKING THREAD ALREADY
never!!! 1000 or bust.
I think we all sense there’s something after life. What we KNOW is energy changes form in a predictable way. Since we can’t define “life energy”…
1+1, readers would have more fun observing the double slit phenomenon with this. YOU might even have half a chance of wrapping your head around what it means to BE the observer. You said, “You can’t be in two places at once” and one would think a particle knows this too. Explain WHY the particle cares what you think… then think again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Ya know, Dino?! My head hurts.
Thanks for the ping trick Kay. I tried to ping YOU, but to no avail. Either you live in Bracknell, UK or Wichita, Kansas. Still investigating.
Kay, I don’t need the double-slit experiment to tell me that I and everyone else affects the world. In doesn’t follow, though, that the universe therefore has any great purpose. …seems like you’re skipping a huge step.
HKM, I don’t need to think that my impact on the world will ‘matter’ forever, or that I’ll stick around in some way to see it after I die, for it to be worth my while to try to have one. I fully expect (‘believe’, if you like) to be dead and completely gone someday, and yet I still have the drive to carry on this conversation, to not litter, and just to live.
Also, HKM, I have to disagree with your line on a suddenly appearing god being more likely than a suddenly appearing universe. The main problem is that you’re comparing the likelihood of a god to the likelihood of the universe as it is now. For most or all of the things you find hard to believe winked into existence, though, we can trace the history of the universe back to a time when they did not exist. You should be comparing the likelihood of a god with the likehood of a random mass of matter and energy. From that point we have a pretty good idea how everything else, with GRADUALLY climbing complexity, arrived on the scene.
Complex organization comes about through either evolution or design/creation.
With evolution, less complex things can create more complex things. Some branch of descendants of a bacterium will eventually be us, or something as intelligent and introspective as us…all it takes is time.
Knowing about evolution, saying that the (primordial) universe ‘appeared’ is only saying that simple things appeared.
With design/creation, complex things can only be created by other complex things—intelligent beings. A watch is created by a watchmaker, a ship by a team of shipbuilders, and a universe (some think) by a god.
Starting with design/creation, saying that a god ‘appeared’ is saying that something incredibly complex (intelligent) appeared, and is clearly the far, far, far less likely option.
So Kay, you still think that the slit experiment that was first tested around 1805 and has been redone hundreds of times since then with different results is your anchor for proving that there is a god. Refer back to my last entry. Try reading about the co-existence principle.
The fact that we co-exist on this bitch board with differing opinions, in disparate locations, with obviously different levels of tolerance for believing whatever is convenient makes it easy to be the observer. Of course results change when matter is observed.
No Dogma, you make a lot of sense. And thanks for not littering.
Results change when matter is observed? If a tree falls in the forest the result is the same whether it has been observed or not: i.e. the tree will fall and lay on the forest floor whether or not it’s arrival there has been observed. The only way it would be changed by the observer is if the observer was hit by the tree on it’s descent to the ground.
In the case of the photons in the double slit experiment, though, Oceanlady, my understanding is that the only way to detect them IS to have something hit by them. Unlike the tree, there is no crashing sound to listen for, no wind rushing to feel, and of course no sight of a falling object to see. …detecting a falling tree by direct touch alone WOULD change how the tree falls, however slightly.
For most things a person could ever observe, there are secondary things to see, hear, feel, etc. and you would be right that the thing would happen whether or not it is detected. …but that doesn’t hold true when we are measuring things that can only be measured by interfering with them.
Of course, as I think 1+1=2 is saying, that fact doesn’t prove any of what some posters here (kay…maybe more) are trying to say it proves.
I agree No Dogma. It is an interesting physics experiment but it does not prove what some posters are implying.
Dogma, “I fully expect to be dead and completely gone someday”… do you expect ice that melts becoming liquid water and then boiled to become steam you can’t see anymore is completely gone too? You’re energy just like the water. Trust me. The water didn’t “go” anywhere. There is no place in the universe called “Gone”; that place is called “Transformed”. However, your choices and beliefs are powerful things. I’m positive, if you expect or desire winking out of existence when your time comes your energy will likely conform to your intention just like energy that’s not you conforms to your observation/expectation proven by the double-slit experiment. (“the act of observing collapses the wave of potentials”)
Lady, yes, the act of observing either matter or quantum particles DOES change the way the material behaves. It’s an easy experiment to repeat and see the EXACT same results as were observed in 1805. With all of our history, knowledge and technology we are unable to say why and we’re unable to change the outcome of the experiment. What is plain is that the particles are impacted by your observation. Yes, the universe carries on if you’re not looking but the fact that you change the behavior of of things in the universe simply by observing should be pivotal in determining your purpose.
Dogma, the act of observation is considered “interfering” proven by this experiment. Also, you said, “we are measuring things that can only be measured by interfering with them…” We look at interacting objects all the time to determine the shape, size, etc of the objects we cannot see. Finding the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way required the mapping of objects around it to give rise to physical evidence that it exists. Roll the clock further back and you’ll see we continue to look for another planet in our solar system given the orbits of planets around the sun are perturbed by the gravity of other objects we can’t or just haven’t seen yet. Knowing this led to the discovery of the planets in the first place and fuels the research into dark matter.
1+1, did you actually read the article you posted? Perhaps you just didn’t understand it. Neither the Complementarity Principle nor the Co-existence Principle account for the “other” behavior. It’s a modern day mystery… “miracle” of you prefer. The universe behaves the same way today as it did in 1805 so what “different” results do you speak of? So far, only M-theory (badly) and string theory account for both quantum and physical behaviors actually observed (AKA “reality”) and both theories REQUIRE a multi-dimensional universe to manifest. The simple fact that one universe is distinguished from another should lend to “purpose” of the universe in much the same way as one biological cell serves a similar but UNIQUE purpose from it’s neighboring cells… anything different is cancer, corruption and kills. And, of course, “killing” is a definite “purpose”. Ask any H1N1 virus or opposing antibody.
Thank you, No Dogma. I appreciate that you broke down the argument so that I can understand it easily. = ).
My leaning toward the idea of god(s) is based on my belief that we (as an intelligent, introspective and abstract-thinking species) have purpose. A main argument that distracted me from taking the final plunge into atheism (and to re-open my mind to other possibilities of an intelligent creator/designer) is the ‘eye example’. My understanding of this argument was basically that the eye is, as a whole, a complex series of mechanisms that could not function if even one element was removed. So, for the eye to develop over time through evolution, each part had to be added in a series of ‘events’ until the final part was added to create sight. Now, I don’t think that a creator waved a wand and poof! a human came into being. But, I do think it a possibility that evolution is guided–that the primordial soup was a tool box of sorts–and that we are a work in progress (to what end, we can only guess). (I also think that we may be an idea gone awry so a readjustment might occur = ). Anyway…) The idea that a random mutation occurred to lay the first part of an eye, then the next, and on and on (including hard wiring it into the brain) until the final piece was laid which started the mechanism functioning presents a series of unimaginable coincidences that just happen to work to help us to survive. It couldn’t have work out any neater had it been planned (and this is just what went into the development of sight never mind everything else that contributes to our existence as we know it).
Okay, so that was what swayed me to reconsider atheism. Now, you say:
“I have to disagree with your line on a suddenly appearing god being more likely than a suddenly appearing universe. The main problem is that you’re comparing the likelihood of a god to the likelihood of the universe as it is now.”
If our consciousness (not a physical thing) is the result of chemical interactions, why couldn’t a god’s consciousness have come into being in the same kind of way? I mean, before the big bang or what have you, is it not possible that the same chemicals that eventually caused some kind of friction (which resulted in a big bang) first ignited an awareness which evolved to the point that it went on to guide/manipulate the most elementary building blocks into mass? So, if you consider a god ‘suddenly’ coming into being through a fluke of combined gases, wouldn’t this be more believable than a fluke of a perfectly balanced physical universe coming into being?
“Complex organization comes about through either evolution or design/creation.”
Or both? So, a consciousness created from simple chemicals/gases which evolved into a complex intelligence would be the fluke. The universe (as we know it) would be its creation/design.
In this way, wouldn’t ‘god’ be more believable?
What “other” behavior are you referring to Kay? Again, you assume that something that hasn’t been explained is some sort of miracle. I cannot explain how I think certain thoughts so paradoxically it must be a miracle that god has not struck me down yet for knowing he does not exist.
I prefer to infer, not imply.
I smell burning…I think I fried a bunch of neurons trying to find the words to express my thoughts = )
kay, when say I’ll be gone, I mean (and I think you knew this already) that my organization will be gone. My personality, thoughts, and memories are stored in my brain, and the organization of my body as a co-ordinated whole will be gone. I do not mean that the constituent elements of my body will vanish, That’s rediculous.
kay (again), for there to be more than one “universe” (misuse of the term, I’d say, but anyway…) does NOT mean that each one is a cog is a machine—that they are all working together toward some purpose. Again, you are jumping to conclusions.
kay (again), your “the fact that you change the behavior of of things in the universe simply by observing” is wrong for most things. I thought I made it clear how observing a photon is fundamentally different than observing, say, a tree. One has SECONDARY EFFECTS which can be observed without affecting the original actor (the tree), while the other is a SPECIAL CASE that can only be observed through interference. …and even then, this may only be true temporarily. It is entirely likely that we will discover secondary effects caused by photons—things that can be used to detect photons without interfering with them.
HKM, thanks. 🙂 …and please don’t think I’m trying to spell things out because I don’t think you would get them otherwise. I just think it’s a very good exercise to try to put concepts into words as clearly as possible.
HKM (again),
‘matter and energy in chaos –> organization through evolution –> god –> present universe’
could happen, but I hope you can see that the ‘god’ step is unnecessary and therefore makes the whole thing less likely than
‘matter and energy in chaos –> organization through evolution –> present universe’.
HKM (again), creationists often take the eye example right out of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, and always take his quote out of context by giving only the first part of it. Here is the full version:
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.”
The key there is “each grade being useful to its possessor”, and it is true. The first ‘eye’ would have been a very tiny, very crude light-detecting organ, but you can see how it could have helped the organism. …and of course any improvements to that organ would also be beneficial.
The eye is not such an enigma after all. Please spread that around. I don’t like people misrepresenting my boy Charles. 😛
*ridiculous
I wasn’t being sarcastic…I do appreciate it when things are simplified for me. I mean, as well as dragging my feet sometimes when it comes to starting new projects (reading), I have put a lot time/energy into trying to figure things out, so I do want to know if my thinking is based on false or disproved information.
My persistence is based on my strong feeling that our construction might explain how we think and feel the way we do, but it does not explain where our ideas, inspirations, dreams, etc. come from. Inspiration alone…how many times have we heard a person (scientist, artist, etc.) say, I don’t know where the idea came from; it suddenly occurred to me; I had a realization/revelation/epiphany; the book wrote itself; things just came together. It makes me think that we do have inherent information programed into us. And, maybe because we are still incomplete (still driven a great deal by our animal selves) we only get glimpses (are not yet able to access most of it). I mean, we all know that we haven’t come close to using our full brain capacity (and our head hurts when we try to push it beyond our limits = ). I sometimes think that our purpose is just to keep on doing what we are doing: questioning, learning, recording (passing on), and questioning again until finally we reach a point in our intellectual evolution that not only are we using a significant amount of our brain but we don’t many questions left to ask.
I just think that if we don’t at least have a question mark about the idea that there might be a designer/creator, we close our minds off to some potentially pertinent questions that might lead us to the answers we cannot help but seek.
Is it merely the act of observing an event that is responsible for the change or is it some other physical property of the observer that results in change?
Oceanlady, if you try to detect a bullet by putting a can in it’s path (a la photon), the observation results in a change. If you try to detect a bullet by listening for it (a la tree), the observation does not result in a change.
HKM, you are totally correct that keeping an open mind is important. But I would say that you should default to the simpler (and therefore more likely) of two explanations until you get an answer one way or another about why something is. The trouble is that people think “God created it that way.” IS the simpler explanation than whatever scientific theories are out there about a given thing, when really, as I tried to explain earlier, it is the LEAST simple explanation.
By the way, did the eye thing help?
Yes, the eye explanation helped, but I cannot help but wonder how many layers of evolution had to actually go into creating even the simplest of eyes ; ).
I have, by the way, realized that our creator may be one of an endless amount of creators, or even that our creator may have been also created. But, focusing on one is enough = )…the same questions would arise, I would think.
Since I am practical person, I agree that the simplest explanation is the most likely. But, after being burnt a few times following this philosophy, I keep in mind that sometimes there are principles involved that I don’t understand, so I always add a question mark to my conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_…
Because the eye is such a powerful sense organ, there is a huge selective advantage for having any kind of sight and those with better sight have better advantages. It’s not surprising that once a sight organ appears, it would quickly evolve. Note also, that photo-sensitivity may have evolved independently over 40 times. This speaks to the utility of the adaptation. Also, photo-reactive (and UV reactive) compounds are not uncommon in living organisms to begin with, so it isn’t surprising that sometimes these compounds get used in new ways, like sight.
But, this raises an interesting thought. Our understanding of reality (i.e. the universe) is limited to our five senses. Isn’t it being a little myopic to presume that because we can’t detect something it does not exist? Imagine trying to explain colour to someone who was born blind. What proof could you really offer them that colour is real? You can talk about light, and heat and wavelengths and maybe even come up with an instrument to convert light to sound or something, but they can never ‘experience’ colour without working eyes. Maybe our mind is the sense organ for god? Maybe there is a whole lot more to the universe than we can detect with the limited senses we have. It’s good to be open to possibilities, even if they can’t be ‘proven’ with the methods we have. There’s value, I think, in exploring the things that biology and physics might not be able to explain (mind, spirituality, love) given our limitations in how we can experience reality.
“Maybe our mind is the sense organ for god?”
I think this is the summary of my rambling = )
Maybe the difference between a spiritual person and a religious person is that a spiritual person would agree with the above and a religious person would say instead:
“Our heart is the sense organ for God.”
(Note the religious person uses a statement and not a question.)
I don’t see any reason to think the mind/brain is a sense organ at all. Given the lack of evidence for that AND the fact that the brain being a sense organ would be a more complicated situation than for the brain to not be a sense organ, it makes sense act and live as if it is not.
In all seriousness, it is the same way in which I am open to the possibility that (at least some) crop circles are done by aliens, but the more likely scenario of aliens not being involved is the one I run with for now.
What if the observer blinks and misses the event? Does it still change? What if there are multiple observers instead of just one? Does this vary the outcome? Does the proximity of the observer to the event provide any variables? What if the observer is blind and senses the presence of the bullet via the can aurally? Does this affect the result? Must the observer be human or will any species have the same effect? What if the observer is an automated recording device? Does a wave crash against the shore any differently if there is no one there to see it? How does this prove the existence of God(s)?
Your last sentence exactly, Oceanlady. That piece of kay’s logic I don’t understand…
No Dogma, I don’t see any reason to think that either. I just thought it was an interesting concept, especially in the context of thinking about how our other senses might limit our perception of reality. No harm in toying with the idea is there?
I think the most remarkable thing about the eye evolution story is that the environment didn’t change to solicit the evolutionary “cause”. It’s not as if the sun suddenly appeared and the cells reacted. No. The cells suddenly “noticed” the sunlight and then changed to focus it. (hmmm… “let there be light”)
Having the ability to collapse a wave of possibilities into a certainty in a lab double-slit scenario is remarkable. Imagine what kind of possibilities we “collapse” into certainties on the inside with our “mind’s eye”… the thing that “decided” to notice the sunlight.
oh and YES if you “hear” the marker that would tell you if the electron passed through one slit or another you collapse the wave and hear only 2 tones (see 2 bars on the screen)…. if you can stretch your brain around that. In the lab experiment scientists typically spin the electron one way or another to mark it and to check it… and to collapse the wave into a certainty.
Kay, do you know how they ‘observe’ which path the electron takes in that experiment? What instrument do they use?
I don’t think crop circles were made by aliens, but I don’t disbelieve that there are alien lifeforms.
I don’t believe in ghosts, but that didn’t stop me from trying to come up with a theory as to how ghosts would exist if they existed = )
The mind thing…hmmm…I don’t think the mind can actually ‘sense’ god like we sense a presence behind us. I only wonder if it can slowly evolve to an intelligence so great that it can unravel the mystery which may be god.
Oceanlady…I like your questions = )
And, I understand Kay’s enthusiasm about the double slit experiment. I found it gave much food for thought too. I think it was in this or a similar experiment that the term ‘ghost particles’ was introduced to me, but I didn’t think it proof for god. I think it made me more aware of the possibility of alternate dimensions (where did the particle appear from and go?).
The good thing about Kay’s ideas is that she is trying to describe/understand a natural God vs. a Supernatural one. The experiments she’s talking about in no way PROVE the existence of god, but might, someday, allow us to eventually understand/discover God if one actually exists. I also think that IF god is real, it is probably a natural God (simplest explanation), not a supernatural one. At least, that’s the only ‘god’ worth considering if you want to eventually prove his existence.
Ooh, you in so much trouble, Miles…you called god a he.
And No Dogma, maybe we can start with unraveling your clown sweater, and then, we can work on unraveling the mysteries of the universe (it is distracting and very scary = D )
c’mon, nobody really thinks god could be a woman do they? 🙂
Actually, I suspect ‘it’ would be the most appropriate term.
The sunlight was not changed because an eye evolved enough to take note of it. Let there be light? The light was in existence long before there was life to observe it. ‘Let there be eyes’ might be more apt.
HKM, yes, the unknown is always scary, but I’m pretty sure string theory applies there. 😛
Miles, if there were one god and it were ‘male’ or ‘female’, that would be a pretty lonely existence. …yet another reason to wonder why he/she/it would be hiding all this time instead of speaking up. 🙂
ghost particle, hmmm… CERN is trying to detect the creation of a graviton. If we live in a multi-dimensional universe it is theorized the graviton will come into existence as a result of smashing particles together in the LHC. Once created and observed we expect the graviton to disappear or “flash out of existence” taking it’s place among other “anti-gravitons” theorized to hold our universe (or brane) together.
Contemplating a multi-dimensional universe is the only way I can get my head around “ghosts”. It’s far easier to believe an entity has the knowledge and technology to bend space and pay a scared, idiot Earthling a visit than it is to imagine a universe where some “life” energy behaves in a certain way whereas other “special” life energy follows some other path. No. An hydrogen atom is an hydrogen atom is an hydrogen atom no matter it’s environment and will always behave according to the laws of the universe. There is no hydrogen atom that’s special, different or even remarkably distinct from it’s fellows so it’s safe to conclude all hydrogen behaves and is made and destroyed the same way as every other hydrogen particle. I draw the same conclusion about “life energy” but throw in the “gift” of choice, unique to human beings… just for fun.
Oceanlady… probably the brightest line of thinking I’ve seen from you so far, “The light was in existence long before there was life to observe it. ‘Let there be eyes’ might be more apt.” In our example we speak of visible light and a fairly complex organism responding to it. Roll it back a little further now realizing the thing that decided to “notice” sunlight is much more elementary than a complex set of biological tissues and that “it” existed long before the tissues… likely the same “thing” that gave rise to the tissue in the first place.
I think we’re so intimately connected with God and with the universe that we’re too close or too involved to notice it. I mean, did you ask the Little Engine That Could about the power of intention? How ’bout we roll back time and ask that first set of cells that responded to the sunlight what the “power” of intention or desire might be. From this camp it’s not hard to imagine a God creating the universe with intention or purpose.
Miles, how does any scientist observe an electron? More than that, how does any scientist spin a single electron one way or another let alone observe which way it’s spinning? The generic term “detector” is used freely during such dialogue and no, I’m not cracking that book again to look up the nomenclature of some God-awful, complex piece of equipment mentioned in Chapter 4. All I know for sure is the method of the experiment has changed since 1805 whereas the results have not. We used to use radioactive particles that would cause a kerosene soaked screen to fluoresce forming either the two bars or the wave as the radioactive particles passed through one slit or the other or both or none. Now we have machines that describe the attributes of each electron it detects. No, I don’t know what such a machine is called… it’s just really really expensive! LOL
Kay, I wasn’t challenging you, I was asking you because I don’t know. I think it’s important to understand though because how you interpret the double slit experiment depends on how the observer/detector might influence the particle being detected. If the observer/detector is NOT completely passive with respect to the electron’s path then it’s not surprising at all that the results of the experiment change. If you have a completely passive observer/detector and the results change, then that is more interesting.
It seems to me, the more interesting part of the experiment isn’t that the results change +/- a detector, it’s that, in the absence of other influences, the electron acts like a wave and interferes with itself as it passes through BOTH slits at the same time. It only ‘commits’ to being a particle when it hits the screen and is ‘detected’.
If a god turns on a light in the forest and no-one is there to see it, is there really a light? a god?
There is no completely “passive” observation. This is what the experiment proves and ultimately creates the mystery.
The particle hitting the screen doesn’t collapse the wave function, it’s when the particle is KNOWN to have passed through one or the other or both or neither that the two bars form on the screen. As you can tell by the wave pattern (when we’re not looking, marking, etc) some particles don’t pass through either, some pass through both and, of course, some pass through one or the other.
The fact that what we think of as solid MATTER behaves in this way should be rather head turning. How did the particle go through both? If it went through neither where is it? How can the particle cancel another out of existence? Where does they go?
Come on string theorists… point us the way. We’re ready.
‘matter and energy in chaos –> organization through evolution –> god –> present universe’
When I first read this, I felt the order was incorrect, but since I proposed that god also evolved, I agreed. Thinking it over again, I realize that since organization is the point (not evolution), it should be:
matter and energy in chaos –>god –>organization through evolution –>present universe
I think a combined chemical fluke that caused an awareness (god) to come into being would come before any organization.
No Dogma and 1+1=2, you do not have to believe in a designer/creator to toy with the idea of there being one. If I ask:
If the universe as we know it came into being through a designer, what would have to happen for that to be true?
I am sure that following what we do know, you could probably come up with a possible scenario.
The scenario I presented was:
An endless swirl of matter and energy–>an chance combination that creates an awareness–>evolution of the awareness (god) to the point that it can manipulate the direction of matter–>god experimentally directs matter to be drawn into a central point, piling and piling, until finally it can pile no more, a pressure (?) results causing it to spring away from the central point (Big Bang)–>god learns, god experiments further, god starts to create.
Our evolution can be both coincidental and directed depending on what god has learned through the combination/manipulation of matter. As a consciousness, god would direct our evolution according to what god thought of as ‘good’, so in this way, we are made in god’s image. As god evolved, so we evolved. We think, we question, we play/experiment and we create.
IF this was the way it happened, how does that change the way that we perceive god? Does it eliminated such things as purpose? Can we find the ‘secret’ to the universe through consideration of god’s possibly coincidental birth (what combination of energy is necessary to create an awareness or even how can a immaterial thing (conscious thought) impact material things (manipulation of matter). (For this one, of course, the nature of matter must be understood.)
See? You don’t have to believe to play this game…you just have to consider that it might be possible if…
HKM, roll it back a little further now… how did the chemical come to be? You said “what combination of energy is necessary to create an awareness or even how can a immaterial thing (conscious thought) impact material things”.
Something tells me “the thought” had to come before anything… before the cell, before the eye.
So isn’t this interesting? The particles in the double slit experiment don’t care if you see with your eyes. The wave function only collapses once “you’re certain” which slot the particle passed through. hmmm I wonder how the particle knows?
“Oceanlady… probably the brightest line of thinking I’ve seen from you so far, “
To use your presumptuous little catch-phrase: “Roll this back a little further” >>> I am not here to live up to anyone’s expectations. Bass-ackward acknowledgements really only detract from any point you were trying to make.
“Roll it back a little further now realizing the thing that decided to “notice” sunlight is much more elementary than a complex set of biological tissues and that “it” existed long before the tissues… likely the same “thing” that gave rise to the tissue in the first place.”
How do you determine WHEN the ‘elementary thing’ (great nominclature) was capable of ‘noticing’ sunlight? To be an observer requires the capability to observe and be aware of the information received. Plants receive characteristics from sunlight but they do not observe it. Wouldn’t some sort of consciousness be required to acknowledge that an observation or noticing has taken place? Why does there have to be a god who brought about creation? What if it was all just physics, mathmatics and biology until humans evolved enough to make spirituality part of the the equation?
Yes, I find stuff like this very interesting. Although more questions spring up than are answered, you can’t help but feel excited when you consider the possibilities. Especially when you consider such things as sight not actually impacting the outcome at all (at least, that its impact is minimal). Maybe just the fact that we are attentive to it changes the outcome. When we turn our attention to something, do we give off some kind of chemical signal (like when you feel someone is staring at you. and when you turn, someone is).
“Something tells me “the thought” had to come before anything… before the cell, before the eye.”
We would first have to figure out exactly how organic substances combine to create such things as thought before we could consider that possibility, I would think. To say the two slit experiment proves that the particle has awareness is a big leap when it could be simply that we give off signals of some sort when we turn our attention to something. If this is the case, just the fact that we focus on a particular outcome might cause our body to signal our intent (do we send off a wave of our own somehow?) which may repel the particle. (I have not actually refreshed myself on the experiment since we started this thread, so I dare not make inferences.) But still, it is very exciting to consider where the particle goes when it disappears and reappears.
Oceanlady, “Bass-ackward acknowledgements really only detract from any point you were trying to make” Hey POT… you’re BLACK! Imagine that!?!
The ‘elementary thing’, despite a simple nomenclature, could be referred to as ‘life energy’ or, if we weren’t trying to toss religion on it’s ass here, “soul” may be a better nomenclature. Since you seemed to have caught the drift… I didn’t select such a term in case the zealot wanted to remind us of how it was determined for a long time that a woman was a soulless creature. I oppose this thinking so much so that I feel the “soul” is contained within every element of this universe, including you, including me, including that particle that seems to care if you “know” what it’s doing and maybe even as part of space-time itself.
“Plants receive characteristics from sunlight but they do not observe it”
How do you know if or how a plant would or does “observe” sunlight or doesn’t? I think it does. Take the sunlight away and the plant sure notices! It even dies! Extend that thinking… just because an entity is not aware if its role (cleaning green house gases, providing nourishment to the soil and the creatures that live above it, anchoring topsoil, etc) in the bigger picture does not negate it’s role nor function whatsoever. Like the liver, it doesn’t “know” if it fails to fulfill it’s purpose that the body/system it serves will die. The liver has no clue! BUT the liver knows how to be a liver (doesn’t have a choice about it like us) and that’s all that’s required for it to fulfill its purpose allowing the system to thrive. I worry human beings don’t understand their purpose in the universe and might inadvertently damage the bigger system we’re all a part of by not, as a whole, serving our intended function. Religious texts, ALL of them, allude to this but in quite a strange way.
“Wouldn’t some sort of consciousness be required to acknowledge that an observation or noticing has taken place?”
Of course. Is “God” not that consciousness that allowed a particle to “be” in the first place? Chemicals, elements, matter, space, time…. what started the whole thing? That’s what I think of as God. Yes, this means you’re “God”, per se, and so am I… as much as my fingernail is “me” even after I’ve clipped it and tossed it away.
“Why does there have to be a god who brought about creation?”
Because we’re linear thinkers in a cyclical system and everything had to have had a beginning… I’m talking about creation of the universe/space/time here. Something has to have created that first element. Something had to have created the universe in the first place. Our scientists call it “big bang” but even they don’t know if that was “the beginning”. String theorists say the “big bang” was the result of a collision between universes or “branes” causing a shift of “material” or “energy” to transfer from one into another. I ask who created the “branes” in the first place. Actually, who created the space in which the branes “live” in the first place? My linear mind keeps coming back to a creator.
“What if it was all just physics, mathmatics and biology until humans evolved enough to make spirituality part of the the equation?”
I don’t think it’s JUST physics. I think it’s REMARKABLE physics when it actually describes our universe. If we get to a point where we can measure life energy I would hope we’d also be able to identify and quantify the things that diminish it. Right now we have gut instinct and feelings (and priests) to tell us the condition of our own soul. I think our bodies reflect the health of our soul. I think diseases like cancer are a serious reflection of the soul’s “physical” condition. Things like guilt, shame, fear… these cause corruption of a soul. We know it. We’ve gone to war over it but because we still don’t have the technology to describe the difference between good and evil, what a crap shoot in a world full of criminals with no regard for their own souls let alone yours. Scary business indeed.
A 15 minute refresher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
HKM, it’s en electronic detector lacking in pheromones taking notes on which particle went which way. The fact that the observation would LATER “tell” scientists which slit the particle went through was enough for the wave of possibilities to collapse into a certainty. How did the particle know? Why did the particle care if there was an electronic observer that would tattle to the human beings asking the question and performing the experiment?
What if god was merely a being from elsewhere in the universe? A being who has mastered the art of ‘disappearing and reappearing’ the particles of itself who had visited in biblical times to impart it’s wisdom to a much simpler evolved human being, one who could never comprehend the physics behind such an event? I am not saying this was so. It is only a potential scenario. With so much left unexplained by the slit experiment the possibilities to theorize are endless.
Oceanlady, “…if god was merely a being from elsewhere in the universe…”
And WHO created THAT part of the universe? You’re gonna think your way into believing in creation, if you keep this up. LOL
I think the story of Christ tells us all we need to know about our own potential to understand, master and manipulate the universe as WE see fit. He was just a man. He could bleed, he could cry and he could die just like us so what made him different? Some would say an unlikely virgin birth int he “holy land”, others would say a very very high IQ. I vote for the latter and I’m a Christian because I want to be just like Him.
“Why does there have to be a god who brought about creation? What if it was all just physics, mathmatics and biology until humans evolved enough to make spirituality part of the the equation?”
I think it actually depends on how you define “god”. If god was defined simply as the combined energy of every single atom in existence (all energy as a whole being an entity in itself) with awareness of self, would such a god be more believable?
Whatever you do, don’t talk to kay because she’s talkin’ to you.
Sure, just ignore them when they prove you wrong. Don’t actually LEARN anything. No!!! HKM, always PLAYING the “victim”. Pathetic! People like you make me pray.
Kay, I thought that I would re-read the data on the two slit experiment before I commented. I am just too tired to do that right now, and it will take a little time. As well, you are presenting me with some new ideas…considering them also takes time.
perhaps I was hasty… I pray anyway.
Why does the universe have to be created by anyone? Why can’t it be just physics, mathematics and biology? Why does there have to be a higher being responsible for it all?
“KAY: Whatever you do, don’t talk to kay because she’s talkin’ to you.
Sure, just ignore them when they prove you wrong. Don’t actually LEARN anything. No!!!”
Please explain. Not sure who you think is ignoring you. As for proof of wrong, what proof?
The universe has to be created by somebody because PEOPLE WANT IT THAT WAY. Plain and sumple.
We can’t conceive a universe or even just a “void” (contained within what?), without energy to act on energy. The energy had to have come from somewhere/something hence a “beginning”, hence a “creator” since there would have been nothing to start with, no energy, no elements, no space, no time, no potential, no chance, etc. Imagining a universe WITHOUT a creator well… you’ve not rolled the history of the universe back far enough or you’re satisfied that “creation” extends only to living systems and not matter. Either way the gaping hole in that thought processes brings us back to a creator. Unless you have a better idea…?
I’ve been posting clips from the movie ‘What The Bleep Do We Know’ I wasn’t interested in exploring any of that new age shit until I saw a most respected physicist nodding in agreement at these new aged concepts. I’m a serious serious “Doubting Thomas” and had resisted any theological concepts right up until I saw a mathematical equation taking form in relation to our spirituality so I looked at the new aged crap again. I was pretty surprised. I found belief in a creator AFTER reviewing the math. No “leap of faith” required, really.
I’ve posted the double-slit experiment but here’s another short clip on entanglement (which has been proven in a lab, stunning scientists that the particle far away received information from it’s counterpart in faster-than-light-speed time, a concept that is IMPOSSIBLE with our current understanding of the universe)… what does this tell you about your relationship with the rest of the “system”? Perhaps your “purpose” will become clearer when you realize you’re still “connected”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk…
LMAO @ kay accusing someone else of “playing the victim”.
Sorry Kay. These new age theories don’t prove that there was a creator. The universe has many secrets including it’s beginning. You think these theories you have explored provide an answer about God but really religion is a matter of individual faith. Contrary to the way you present yourself here you are not the only person capable of drawing conclusions as the the origins of it all. Without concrete proof of the unexplainable faith is all there is. Just because you personally believe that something is true does not necessarily make it so, as whoever the recipient of your I-know-who-you-are-in-real-life-wink can tell you.
haha… what???? you said a lot of things there but I have yet to see a better idea or hear even a reasonable guess at why the particle cares to behave one way or another. (you know… you, light and everything is made of ‘particles’, right? maybe even gravity too!) I have yet to read any kind of reasonable theory that would account for you, for me, our freedom or for the very existence of a universe, time, matter… all of it. Even Einstein warned, “God doesn’t roll dice” and HE was one of the first people to imagine a multi-dimensional universe give the work he did with unification. But you offer me a better explanation than that of a creator and I promise I’ll listen because “Just because you personally believe that something is true does not necessarily make it so” but it doesn’t make it wrong either.
If you chose NOT to look at the test results wonder if the double-slit experiment produced a wave of possibilities… right up until you peek changing the results to that of certainty. If you can get your head around that I’ll bet walking on water will come easy.
Unlike the science (string-theory, m-theory, quantum physics, LHC experiments with these questions in mind), the “new age theories” are an attempt to make sense of a multi-dimensional universe and get a handle on so-called miracles, ESP, ghosts, the Christ story and others like it, etc…. sounds a lot like religion, right? I think so. I stay away from the radicals and stay close to the brainiacs. I’m hooked on the science. Not the theories but the facts. I assume the “why” will be evident the moment we understand the “how”. Some people call that day Armageddon but my gut tells me its affirmation on the horizon…. for me. I’m not so sure about you.
Way back in Nov Dogma said “we never know anything for sure. Instead of a fence with two sides, there is a scale…some grey area.” I thought it interesting enough to point out this grey area she speaks of is like the double slit experiment: the grey area forms the wave pattern where, when you come off the fence, your faith collapses the wave of possibilities (grey area) into a certainty (on that side of the proverbial fence).
For Christmas this year, I wish for kay to get a new job testing out the effects of stepping on land mines.
Gasp!!!
When are you gonna just get over me, Fat? Don’t you know your hate is corrupting your soul?… and NOT mine.
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein – The Merging of Spirit and Science)
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
Kay,
Scientists Reproduce a Building Block of Life in Laboratory:
http://www.physorg.com/news176721370.html
Have you ever watched the Sun setting over the Atlantic and been so much in awe that you truly wished that you didn’t know what was happening (ie, the Earth rotating whilst revolving around the Sun). Look at the state of the world, that’s where science has gotten us. I know science also brought us this website (for all the smartalecs out there).
All I’m trying to say is that the feeling of wonder hardly exists anymore, which is really sad.
I disagree. The more I delve into the how or why, the more I am awed. You are talking about esthetic value, but the world can be appreciated on other levels too. Yet, even esthetically, there is beauty to found on the sub-atomic level–wave patterns that have been colored to create a visual are very beautiful.
Of all the things I love in this world, I love it when kay calls ‘Fat, ”Fat”.
…………….
That’s piteous.
kay, what do you think would happen if you detected only every other electron in the double slit experiment?
No idea what this discussion is about now, but… I’m the 300th poster!
WOOOOHHH!
What do I win?
You win a place in heaven, the most exclusive of all gated communities!
Just think, according to Christ-ians, there’s no Jews there…
…according to the Jews, there’s no Christians that are deserving.
The JWs inform us there is only room for 144,000.
The Mormons will be on another planet anyway.
If you’re not Muslim, you’re out.
The protestants, of course, know for a fact that all papists are headed for hell, and the papists know that all the Orangemen are…
And since all these “great” religions of the book are, by definition, mutually exclusive…mathematically it is thusly proven that NO-ONE is going to heaven…
Except you. I wonder if God/Allah/YWH likes to play cribbage…?
“Scientists Reproduce a Building Block of Life in Laboratory”… and they were able to do that because Who created those building blocks in the first place? HKM, roll it on back… WAY back.
If I had created a planet full of lego it would just be a matter of time before my “children” learned how to build their own stuff with the blocks. Is evolution really so different?
lesefeir, the sun doesn’t set on the Atlantic unless you live on a boat or you live in Europe but it was a nice sentiment. You said, “Look at the state of the world, that’s where science has gotten us” I’d argue science has brought us to a point where we live longer than any of those before us. The science has allowed for a separation of church and state and that’s sure taken us a long way from the inquisition or with burning. Geeze, there have been so many innovations that benefit human kind that I can’t imagine what you could mean by this statement. In a time where we know it’s not an angry God forming thunder in our skies or withholding rain from our crops I’d say we’ve come a long way. You said, “the feeling of wonder hardly exists anymore”. Haven’t you watched the videos?Are you looking for a modern day miracle to fill you with wonder and awe? Wrap your head around the double slit-experiment and entanglement. If that doesn’t leave you scratching a wondering head nothing will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk…
The fact that this comment blog is still open to comments after having rounded the 255 mark is a prize all in itself, isn’t it qpmzwonxeibcruv? The old version crashed. Kudo’s on the new site, Coast!
Hey Frosty, Heaven’s Just a Toke Away and we dig cribbage. That’s all you need to know LOL
Good morning, bitches.
Miles, I would imagine if you marked/observed only every second particle during the double slit experiment you’d end up with a wave pattern from the “even” particles superimposed onto the two bars formed by the “odd particles”. I’m assuming EACH particle in the test checks to see if it’s being watched and behaves accordingly. I don’t think the particles involved in the test make collective decisions about what they’re going to do. What do you think would happen?
I think it would turn out like you said as well….depending on how the detector works. I still haven’t been able to find an adequate explanation of how the experiment is set up to detect ‘which path?” information. Is it a physical barrier? What property of the electron does it detect? How could it influence the path/behaviour of the electron?
I think what I am having trouble with in your interpretation of the experiment is the idea that the electron knows or cares if it’s being detected. When you say the electron “checks” to see if it’s being watched, I don’t think that’s how it works. The electron doesn’t ‘decide’ to behave differently, the detector ‘forces’ it to behave like a particle instead of a wave.
I’m not sure exactly how a modern day detector works. All I know is the method of marking is to spin the particle one way or the other upon firing toward the double slit. The detector observes the rotation. I’ll look into such a senor and see what I can find.
I’ve quite enjoyed this discussion bitches. Thanks
First! bahahahahahahaha!
the responses on “going hunting” have now surpassed the responses here…screee
Sorry boys and girls, but Paingirl notwithstanding, this thread has never even come close to surpassing “Going hunting on Friday” on November 20 or any other day.
Cheerio!
Going back to the original ‘bitch’, it is my belief that religion is a man-made phenomenon. Organized religions will therefore naturally include a wide sampling of humanity. Cheats and liars, as well as honest folk, pederasts and murderers, as well as gentle and harmless types.
I have seen a lot of good done by believers in the name of their gods and I have seen a lot of evil done by believers in the name of their gods. I don’t really know if the good has outweighed the evil, but I do strongly believe that both the good and the evil that we trace back to religion doesn’t originate in religion but in the hearts and minds of human beings. In my opinion, the ‘good’ does not originate with a benevolent creator and the ‘evil’ does not originate with a malevolent fallen angel. I think that we (humans) have fashioned these constructs in order to give meaning to the world around us.
The so-called ‘Golden Rule’ (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) is an almost universal feature of religions, and I think this is so, not because all religions are somehow reflecting the same ‘creator’, but because all religions are human constructs and as such, it is to be expected that they would all include such a universal human feeling.
As for the further discussion involving modern science, I don’t know of any physical evidence arising in cosmology or particle physics that lends itself to ‘proving’ the existence of a god, Christian or otherwise. I know some arguments have been advanced regarding the apparent ‘fine tuning’ of the fundamentals of this universe so that it turned out ‘just right’ for life to arise, but I find these unconvincing. Other arguments which seek to demonstrate that the complexity of life on Earth could only have arisen from ‘Intelligent Design’ I reject completely. Evolution, natural selection and vast amounts of time are the only tools necessary to explain complex life forms.
“I think that we (humans) have fashioned these constructs in order to give meaning to the world around us.”
It may be that you are right, C.Esp., but it is the drive or need itself (to find meaning) that causes me to hesitate. It seems a fundamental part of our make-up, so why is it there? What purpose does it serve? Our survival does not seem dependent upon the pursual of the abstract so why are we equipped with such things? In fact, our abstract pursuals appear to be more harmful to our existence, overall, than helpful.
I just think that to completely dismiss the history of exploration into the mystical (a branch of abstract thinking) just because we have a new and more practical understanding of tangible things is premature–I think it bad science. I mean, it may be unlikely but until we have more information, it is still a possibility.
aah miss kimmy you opened up pandora’s box again^^i just don’t think that we, as humans, should have the audacity or greed to want more than is presented to us. there is so much to see and do on the earth. ya know there is an island somewhere that has 75 species of bat. now that helps sustain me…yeehaw
I noticed it resurrected in the most-read box, so in honor of its year (or so) anniversary, I thought I would review it = )
I’m glad I did, though. Re-reading it a year later allowed me to understand some points I didn’t ‘get’ last year.
I know exactly what you mean, paingirl. I was amazed by the diversity of frog species in the rainforests. = ) Particularly, this one species found only in that one spot (a square mile or so).