PDA

View Full Version : Religious Beliefs



Pages : [1] 2

Dreadful Scathe
10th-June-2004, 12:35 PM
Would be interesting to have an insight into the heathen minds of forum users. Everyone will fall into one of the four catagories - make your choice and feel free to start a discussion :)

Of course this isnt really a religious question as you could for example be a buddhist who is very religious but doesnt believe in any gods :D. Religion is a seperate issue to theism.

Gordon J Pownall
10th-June-2004, 03:07 PM
I'm a insomniac dyslexic philosopher - I lie awake all night wondering if there really is a dog..... :sick:

Dreadful Scathe
10th-June-2004, 03:23 PM
shurley shir that makes more sense if you're an insomniac dyslexic agnostic ? as philosophers wonder about practically everything and it would be a big assumption on our part to assume dog=god if your post with not in this thread and therefore not in a 'godly' context. Not that I'm being a pedant or anything :).

I used to be a pedantic procrastinating apathetic transvestite but i couldnt be bothered putting off looking for the perfect nail varnish to match my outfit anymore.

er..sorry obscurity hit me! someone get it!!

jivecat
10th-June-2004, 05:37 PM
Could any gnostic theist out there let me know what the evidence is for "knowing for sure that god exists"?

ChrisA
10th-June-2004, 05:53 PM
Could any gnostic theist out there let me know what the evidence is for "knowing for sure that god exists"?Being sure is nothing to do with being able to prove it to a third party.

I love the words to Billy Joel's song, "Shades of grey"...

"Some things were perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth... no doubts and nothing to fear, I claimed the corner on truth...

These days it's harder to say, 'I know what I'm fighting for'... my faith is falling away; I'm not that sure any more...

... shades of grey, shades of grey, wherever I go; the more I find out the less that I know. Black and white is how it should be; but shades of grey are the colours I see."


Inspired IMHO (metaphorically, of course :innocent: )

Chris

Barry Shnikov
10th-June-2004, 09:12 PM
Could any gnostic theist out there let me know what the evidence is for "knowing for sure that god exists"?

gnosticism - the early christian sect that believed in the divine being and the demiurge, and the demiurge created man and the world. See also William Blake, poet.

You can just imagine the jibes of the other early christians - "You bloody gnostics - think you know everything, doncha?"

>grin<

Gus
10th-June-2004, 09:24 PM
Could any gnostic theist out there let me know what the evidence is for "knowing for sure that god exists"?
This sounds dangerously like one of those subjects that should never be discussed (like politics :blush: ) ... but ...

...having been educated (brutalised? :mad: ) by the Christian Brothers religious order ... the fundamental RC point was something along the lines of "thou shall know him by his works" ... e.g. evidence of the world, miracles, the tales from the Bible, Saints etc etc. How this would differentiate the Catholic faith from any other faith I know not. Actualy I think one of the repeated justifications I heard was along the line of "well, SOMETHING creating the wprld didnt it.." slightly lacking in defined logic ... but it seemed convincing at the time.

Now ... well I just believe ... but dont worry if anyone else does ... religion is a very personal thing ... as long as people repsect one another ... thats what matters:waycool:

DavidY
10th-June-2004, 09:56 PM
Everyone will fall into one of the four catagoriesSorry :blush: but I can't resist asking .... :flower:
If someone believes in multiple gods (but doesn't claim to know for sure that they exist) which category would apply? :confused:

jivecat
10th-June-2004, 10:47 PM
This sounds dangerously like one of those subjects that should never be discussed :


It all seems very civilised so far, Gus. A bit like one of those 1970s Sunday evening discussion shows with Joan Bakewell, very earnest & worthy.

Dreadful Scathe
10th-June-2004, 11:30 PM
Sorry :blush: but I can't resist asking .... :flower:
If someone believes in multiple gods (but doesn't claim to know for sure that they exist) which category would apply? :confused:

Agnostic theist of course - it says so above....should have put god(s) though but who are we to fight over a single letter :)

Boomer
11th-June-2004, 11:01 AM
Smurfey, you forgot 1 catagory, "Of course I believe in god, its me!' I don't know, you mortals, make me laugh you do. I'm off to smite some unworthies.

Sparkles
11th-June-2004, 11:50 AM
Smurfey, you forgot 1 catagory, "Of course I believe in god, its me!' I don't know, you mortals, make me laugh you do. I'm off to smite some unworthies.

OK, really sad I know, but has anyone played the game 'Black & White'. I have it on PC and in it you actually are a God!
The only problem is that, without meaning to, I keep ending up being a bad God :tears: If anyone knows a way of being a good God please help me out!
S. x

Boomer
11th-June-2004, 11:54 AM
OK, really sad I know, but has anyone played the game 'Black & White'. I have it on PC and in it you actually are a God!
The only problem is that, without meaning to, I keep ending up being a bad God :tears: If anyone knows a way of being a good God please help me out!
S. x

:blush: Ummm, try here (see if I can get this new fangled Forum to work...I may be god but Frank is 'The Boss' :D )

Use the fluffy leash and get the patches! (http://www.planetblackandwhite.com/)

Sheepman
11th-June-2004, 12:04 PM
Being sure is nothing to do with being able to prove it to a third party. I wouldn't say asking for evidence is the same as asking for proof. There's nothing that says a sceptic has to have a closed mind, but it's fair enough to ask what convinces people that have faith.

Personally my scepticism increased 10 fold while living for nearly 8 years amongst a supposedly religious society. A society that was the most hypocritical and corrupt that I have spent time with.

Greg

Sparkles
11th-June-2004, 12:19 PM
:blush: Ummm, try here (see if I can get this new fangled Forum to work...I may be god but Frank is 'The Boss' :D )

Use the fluffy leash and get the patches! (http://www.planetblackandwhite.com/)


Cheers - but the most useful piece of information I can find here is "do more good things". I've tried that already :innocent:
Oh well, maybe I'm just destined to be a bad God :sad:

Forte
11th-June-2004, 12:33 PM
It all seems very civilised so far, Gus. A bit like one of those 1970s Sunday evening discussion shows with Joan Bakewell, very earnest & worthy.


...earnest and worthy is good...sense of humour is good, too... : the problem with religion begins when people are abusive, disrespectful and then escalate it into a full scale war... :tears:

Dreadful Scathe
11th-June-2004, 12:33 PM
I wouldn't say asking for evidence is the same as asking for proof. There's nothing that says a sceptic has to have a closed mind, but it's fair enough to ask what convinces people that have faith.

Personally my scepticism increased 10 fold while living for nearly 8 years amongst a supposedly religious society. A society that was the most hypocritical and corrupt that I have spent time with.

Greg
according to the www.dictionary.com ...

evidenced/evidences (verb)= to indicate clearly, exemplify or prove

proof = the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertation as true

so i would say that evidence can be used as proof - just not everyone will come to the same conclusion with the same evidence. So what ChrisA said is perfectly valid - you can be sure of something with out providing proof or any evidence and in that context it wouldnt have mattered which word he used . If you see what i mean :)

If someone is sure in their knowledge that something is true its not up to them to prove or provide evidence for anything - you may still be sure of what you believe even if you are also sure that you have no convincing argument for this belief that you could explain to anyone else.

...back to work...

Will
11th-June-2004, 12:45 PM
Could any gnostic theist out there let me know what the evidence is for "knowing for sure that god exists"?
What you need to remember is that for anyone votes "gnostic theist" (as I did) OR "gnostic atheist", they are making a statement of faith in that there is nothing that they can do to prove to someone else that God does or doesn't exist.

Only the 2 agnostic points of view could claim to not be statements of faith. I guess agnostics could argue they work on the balance of probabilities i.e...

"Agnostic Atheist" might argue that whilst they can't prove or be sure that God doesn't exist, it seems unlikely that if God existed that there would be so much suffering in the world.

"Agnostic Theist" might argue that whilst they can't prove or be sure that God does exist, it seems that saying the world / universe came to being simply because of a random cosmic "big-bang" is about as likely as an explosion at a printing press bringing into existance the Oxford English Dictionary.

Will

P.S. Could I just add that the above justifications for agnostic theism or atheism are in no way meant to be exhaustive, merely examples, before the theists burn me at the stake or the atheists throw me to the lions.

Gadget
11th-June-2004, 02:17 PM
Why can't I pick three options?
I am my own god. I know I exist. I'm not sure about you though.

Gus
11th-June-2004, 02:50 PM
Personally my scepticism increased 10 fold while living for nearly 8 years amongst a supposedly religious society. A society that was the most hypocritical and corrupt that I have spent time with.

Greg
Arrgghh, dont confuse religious society with religion. The RC church has at its base such saints as Mother Teressa ... and at the top one of the most corrupt and dispicable organisation ever to sully this planet, i.e. the Vatican (no ... I wasn't talking about the Eurovision Song Contest Judges :wink: ).

Dreadful Scathe
11th-June-2004, 03:12 PM
Why can't I pick three options?
I am my own god. I know I exist. I'm not sure about you though.

Thats fair enough but you would still fall into one of the 4 catagories, even if you believed you were the very god you believed in. Whichever moderator added the 'i am a god' option turned a perfectly sensible poll into a silly one.

Forte
11th-June-2004, 03:29 PM
Thats fair enough but you would still fall into one of the 4 catagories, even if you believed you were the very god you believed in. Whichever moderator added the 'i am a god' option turned a perfectly sensible poll into a silly one.


It's not often DS gets annoyed... :sad: I like him happy. Put it back to the way he wanted it. He has a point. Not all threads can be silly. :flower:

Sheepman
11th-June-2004, 03:39 PM
evidenced/evidences (verb)= to indicate clearly, exemplify or prove

If someone is sure in their knowledge that something is true its not up to them to prove or provide evidence for anything - you may still be sure of what you believe even if you are also sure that you have no convincing argument for this belief that you could explain to anyone else. I thought before my last post, "shall I look that up in the dictionary first - nah, can't be bothered, someone else will do it if necessary!"
Anyway, I stand corrected, but my point is, that it is not unreasonable for people who have faith, to explain the reasons why to those who don't? There's no compulsion, but who knows, you might change someone's mind?


Arrgghh, dont confuse religious society with religion. Yes but if that society holds itself up as being based upon a particular religion, and where the "guardians" of that religion are amongst the most corrupt in that society, it is hardly likely to endear me to their teachings.

Greg

Gus
11th-June-2004, 05:09 PM
Yes but if that society holds itself up as being based upon a particular religion, and where the "guardians" of that religion are amongst the most corrupt in that society, it is hardly likely to endear me to their teachings.

GregFair point ... but the deeds of Man, who is mortal and subject to temptaation can rarely be held up as a shinning example of the religion aspires to. In my limited perspective, most fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, Sun Worshiper) seem to behave in a somewhat un-religious way.

Interesting thing .... the most common statement made about my late dad at his funeral was that he was "a model of a good christian man" ... nice sentiment, especially as (as far as I am aware) he never went to Church a day in his life and wasn't exactly an avid reader of the Bible :sick: .

Gadget
13th-June-2004, 01:18 AM
Thats fair enough but you would still fall into one of the 4 catagories, even if you believed you were the very god you believed in. Whichever moderator added the 'i am a god' option turned a perfectly sensible poll into a silly one.Not a silly one at all: see {ulr=Aaarg - it's gone!} this (gone!}@gtthis) thread {/url} for a more detailed explination, but my religious belief runs along the lines of "I am my own god." I control my destiny and have omnipotant powers within my universe. I can create life, destroy life and my actions are instrumental in shaping the lives of everyone arround me.
This is not complete egotisim: I beleve that everyone is there own god. God is the creation of man to give rules and form to society. Believing in a Diety is beleiving a specific structure of ethics and morals. If multiple people 'worship' this diety, then they are all moulding their universe to follow the same set of rules. Anyone not adhearing to the rules is not of this religion, and most religions are fairly specific in the ways to deal with heratics. {"Brother Fang: Bring out the fluffy cushions!"}
Don't get me wrong; I see nothing wrong with organised religion {except perhaps Jehads} They served a purpose of unifying people and creating the 'plesant' society we live in today. Modern versions of religion tend to be more "comunal" where people agree to a 'nicer' set of ethics and morals between everyone of the same belief system. Nothing wrong with that either. But personally I would rather be an individual than one of the drones.

"I am a god" is not a silly option. For me it's a trueism: What features do you attribute to godhood? Which of these cannot be applied to yourself?

...And I still say I want to pick three options. :wink:

Dreadful Scathe
13th-June-2004, 02:43 AM
"I am a god" is not a silly option. For me it's a trueism


It is for this poll, your belief in yourself as god would not be the common view of what is meant by the word god in the first place and would therefore require a different poll altogether. For the purposes of this poll you could have picked Strong (gnostic/explicit) atheist because you are sure that god i.e. the normal definition of what that means in todays society is something you dont believe in or you could have picked Gnostic theist because you are sure you are the god in question and would rather go by your own definition of the meaning of the word rather than other peoples expectations. As with all polls, this discussion we are having is more interesting than the poll itself, which demonstrates how adding extra catagories to a poll is generally going to spoil the point and the intention of the originator as it draws the comments into a statistic rather than forcing people to talk about them...
err..... Unless it wasn't serious to begin with, and my serious to not serious record on polls is certainly biased toward the not serious i have to admit :) So this is a serious poll, but i think TOO serious for most because there has been very little discussion on it so far. Too personal possibly ?

Martin
13th-June-2004, 06:19 PM
Well Simon de-Lisle, who I used to see as my "dance mentor" (many years ago), use to quote when he cracked a particularly hard computer network problem "I am a god".

Can a man be a god?

OK, so not too taken with the god thing (follow me), I do however think we have gods in our lives at any one point, things/people we follow/admire/worship/wish to be like...

I do not know many gods, I do however know a lot of "princesses" and "show ponies" :eek: :eek:

Dance Demon
13th-June-2004, 10:37 PM
well ....I think there are several million French people who now believe that there is a god............and several million english who think there ain't........ :wink:

Gadget
13th-June-2004, 11:06 PM
It is for this poll, your belief in yourself as god would not be the common view of what is meant by the word god in the first placeNot as god, but as a god. And the whole philosophy is based arround what people mean by the word "god" in the first place.


For the purposes of this poll you could have picked...Well, any of them actually; and been able to justify each choice. It's the same with any multiple choice or question that requires you to answer with a black or white answer - people choose the option that on ballance reflects their view point: The selection does not indicate they agree with the answer, just that it's the closest approximation to what they would say.
The statistics and results from polls are very good for proving or disproving theorys - because the answers are bias towards what you want to prove or disprove. By allowing moderators to add/delete/modify the answers in response to the underlying discussion, you are allowing the statistics to be less bias.

As with all polls, this discussion we are having is more interesting than the poll itself, which demonstrates how adding extra catagories to a poll is generally going to spoil the point and the intention of the originator as it draws the comments into a statistic rather than forcing people to talk about them...Erm... nope - I don't agree with your conclusion: By having a poll rather than a regular post, you are encouraging people not to discuss it; just tic a box and move on. (And I'm not sure that "more interesting" is the right descriptor :sick: )


So this is a serious poll, but i think TOO serious for most because there has been very little discussion on it so far. Too personal possibly ?I think that we are living in an increasingly apathetic society; people just don't care and can't be assed. I also think that with the elimination of "natural evils" like crops failing, people with swords looting and pillaging, desease, dissability,... there is less and less to blame "God" for - there is less and less for people to prey for that will directly effect them. Most strong beleivers have had some catastrophic event in their past that they have survived or witnessed - and for which they thank their Diety.
If you had asked "Do you believe in God (or other Diety(s)/Icon)?" with a Yes/Maybe/No I think that you would have got a better response: Using theology may also have led to a high-brow shut-off for some folk.

{I bet you used to spend ages discussing what exactly the difference was between "Chaotic Evil" and "Chaotic Neutral" :D :wink:}

Dreadful Scathe
13th-June-2004, 11:52 PM
Not as god, but as a god. And the whole philosophy is based arround what people mean by the word "god" in the first place.

you misunderstood me then as thats exactly what i meant!


By allowing moderators to add/delete/modify the answers in response to the underlying discussion, you are allowing the statistics to be less bias.

I would disagree in the case of this poll or any seriously themed poll - if you disagree with the wording or the answers you simply don't vote in the poll. I dont anyway, I post my thoughts on it instead.



Erm... nope - I don't agree with your conclusion: By having a poll rather than a regular post, you are encouraging people not to discuss it; just tic a box and move on.


I certainly dont see the forum that way and if other people believed that then they wouldnt bother posting anything in a poll thread at all, but they clearly do - yourself included. For this particular topic, the poll simply defined the starting point in a far more concise manner than a 'regular poll' would have done and to my mind would positvely encourage discussion -as other polls have done on other threads. Theres a lot of polls on this forum, they are all popular and they all define starting points for discussions!

Why did you not move on then when you ticked the box ? :D because you wanted to make a point about the poll, which you did, and then you said why , which is far better than arbitrarily adding extra answers to the poll.



If you had asked "Do you believe in God (or other Diety(s)/Icon)?" with a Yes/Maybe/No I think that you would have got a better response: Using theology may also have led to a high-brow shut-off for some folk.

Dumb as they are, I gave my fellow forumites the benefit of the doubt :D.
I don't think a simpler poll would have made any difference, you still would have asked for 'I am a god' to be added to the poll :).



{I bet you used to spend ages discussing what exactly the difference was between "Chaotic Evil" and "Chaotic Neutral" :D :wink:}


No, thats easy :) Chaotic Evil characters are completely self serving with no moral compass what so ever. Chaotic Neutral characters are the same but they try to maintain a balance with law and order whilst being completely self-serving. A lot of politicians fall into this category .

:)

DavidY
14th-June-2004, 01:32 PM
So this is a serious poll, but i think TOO serious for most because there has been very little discussion on it so far. Too personal possibly ?I think it's a tricky area - It is personal but it's also the sort of area where I'm also nervous there's a risk of upsetting someone else with different beliefs.

FWIW here's my attempt at a serious answer.

There's a natural desire for humanity to want to know answers to questions like "why am I here?", "what happens after I die?", "what is my purpose in life". Various religions will tell you their answers to these, and I think it's true that people with such beliefs can lead happier lives, (maybe because they don't spend time worrying about such things).

However I also think that people with religious beliefs would still be happier whether or not there is an actual deity (or deities) that acts as a higher power.

So I think if there aren't gods, then people's desire for order in the universe and a purpose in life means they would need to invent them.

And people with religious beliefs can often be happier.

But it doesn't mean they're necessarily happier because of existence of some divine power.

But it might be.

...erm not sure if that helps at all :confused:

Forte
14th-June-2004, 01:58 PM
well ....I think there are several million French people who now believe that there is a god............and several million english who think there ain't........ :wink:


:clap: :clap: :rofl:

CJ
14th-June-2004, 02:01 PM
However I also think that people with religious beliefs would still be happier whether or not there is an actual deity (or deities) that acts as a higher power.

So I think if there aren't gods, then people's desire for order in the universe and a purpose in life means they would need to invent them.

And people with religious beliefs can often be happier.
So, are they happier because they can blame/rely on/turn to another "better" being to help with life?

Or weaker for needing to do so?

And if there weren't gods, people would invent them in order to control, divide and conquer.

CJ (The chaotic Neutral) :devil:

Forte
14th-June-2004, 02:01 PM
Well if you want discussion and not just personal comment I think you need to do a google search on the name Nietzche.. (think I have spellt it right). I think he started the whole "man is god" theory...

Gadget
14th-June-2004, 03:47 PM
I would disagree in the case of this poll or any seriously themed poll - if you disagree with the wording or the answers you simply don't vote in the poll. I don't anyway, I post my thoughts on it instead.And you don't spend hours deliberating "daddy or chips"? I do both - vote (to see the statistics), then disagree with everything :whistle:.
... I think that every poll should have an "I don't want to tic any of the above, but want to see the results" option as default.


I certainly don't see the forum that way and if other people believed that then they wouldn't bother posting anything in a poll thread at all, but they clearly do - yourself included.yea, but I can hardly be called a true representation of the target audience ;). I think that the more comprehensive you make your answers in polls, you are less likely to explain your selection, and therefore less likely to get reply postings.


Theres a lot of polls on this forum, they are all popular and they all define starting points for discussions! I know :rolleyes: they are popular, however I never know if someone is actually contributing to the thread, or just ticking the box - I would estimate that a normal thread gets quite a bit more (relevant) posts than polls. Some of this I would contribute to people seeing the same poll rising to the top again and again - and not going into it because the last time they did, there was nothing new; just someone voting. I know I am guilty of that; it would be nice to show that there were no new posts, even though the poll is last contributed to (by voting) recently. The other alternative is to force a reply when voting, but then I don't think as many people would vote.


Why did you not move on then when you ticked the box ? because you wanted to make a point about the poll, which you did, and then you said why, which is far better than arbitrarily adding extra answers to the poll.Nope: I'm just an opinionated wee shyte.:D


Dumb as they are, I gave my fellow forumites the benefit of the doubt.It's not that I was accusing anyone of ignorance; it's just that this forum is a light and fairly easy read - you have to be in the mood to wade through heavy text. This place is getting so popular that you have to skim-read a lot, and anything that requires more attention or thought than normal tends to get passed over for later digestion... and then forgotten. {:blush: or is that just me?}


No, thats easy :) Chaotic Evil characters are completely self serving with no moral compass what so ever. Chaotic Neutral characters are the same but they try to maintain a balance with law and order whilst being completely self-serving. A lot of politicians fall into this category .See, I tended to play the Chaotic part more than the alignment :)

Back on-thread; {:what:} what benifit will knowing the result of the poll be? You would have to know the result from a similar poll of the general population, and one of all dancers (not just those who have internet access and can waste time here :wink: ) Any speculation on what the results indicate without this can only be applied to the forum population. And I still can't see why. :confused:

Dreadful Scathe
14th-June-2004, 04:55 PM
... I think that every poll should have an "I don't want to tic any of the above, but want to see the results" option as default.

er..if you dont want to tick any of the above, then just DONT TICK ANY OF THE ABOVE :D. I'm going to make you a t-shirt with 'THIS T-SHIRT LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK' on it, give you it at the forum gathering ;).

Mind you I cant remember if the old forum had the option to show results without voting first, but even if it didnt you wouldnt want to switch off your right to vote as you may want to vote later.


I think that the more comprehensive you make your answers in polls, you are less likely to explain your selection, and therefore less likely to get reply postings.

Indeed...and you were initially complaining that this particular poll wasnt comprehensive enough as it never had your option...hang on ! are you agreeing with me and disagreeing at the same time :).



Nope: I'm just an opinionated wee shyte.:D

You're not wee ! You must be at least 6 foot tall ? :)




It's not that I was accusing anyone of ignorance; it's just that this forum is a light and fairly easy read - you have to be in the mood to wade through heavy text. This place is getting so popular that you have to skim-read a lot, and anything that requires more attention or thought than normal tends to get passed over for later digestion... and then forgotten. {:blush: or is that just me?}

It may just be you :) People are quite welcome to ignore my posts completely if they contain 'heavy text' or 'require more attention' but i usually dont worry about that...for some reason ! :D



Any speculation on what the results indicate without this can only be applied to the forum population. And I still can't see why. :confused:

All statistics EVER are not conclusive or completely indicitive of what they are talking about. I just thought it was an interesting poll, I wasnt going to write a book on it. Mind you thats not a bad idea :)

The subject is interesting but mostly we've just argued, some others could come up with some god related comments now !

Gadget
14th-June-2004, 05:29 PM
Mind you I cant remember if the old forum had the option to show results without voting first...cool!, does this one?... need to investigate...


Indeed...and you were initially complaining that this particular poll wasnt comprehensive enough as it never had your option...hang on ! are you agreeing with me and disagreeing at the same time :).:whistle:


You're not wee ! You must be at least 6 foot tall ? :)6ft and a little bit. So are you intimating that I'm a big shyte? :angry:


All statistics EVER are not conclusive or completely indicitive of what they are talking about. I just thought it was an interesting poll, I wasnt going to write a book on it. Mind you thats not a bad idea :)

The subject is interesting but mostly we've just argued, some others could come up with some god related comments now !
What was the question anyway? :rolleyes:
BTW the post I was referring to that had been removed was kindly PM'd to me, so if anyone is remotley interested I could send it on - rather than posting it again.

Dreadful Scathe
14th-June-2004, 06:42 PM
6ft and a little bit. So are you intimating that I'm a big shyte? :angry:


Oh no, I was intimating that you were opinionated, I was only insinuating that you were a big shyte :D

Andy McGregor
14th-June-2004, 07:09 PM
So this is where everyone's been thinking...

charlie_no_socks
14th-June-2004, 09:23 PM
Arrgghh, dont confuse religious society with religion.

'And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together' (Heb. 10:24-26).

In the Christian faith assembling together, or in other words being part of the religious community/society is part of the deal.

You can't be a Christian who follows scriptures such as the above (there are plenty more - 1 Thes. 5:12, Heb. 13:17. ) without being part of religious society.

Islam and Judaism also emphasis society as part of the fabric of their faiths.

I think in most cases religious society and religion are very much the same thing.

Dreadful Scathe
14th-June-2004, 09:58 PM
'I think in most cases religious society and religion are very much the same thing.

Gus was only pointing out that Sheepman shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush as far as religion is concerned. A society based on religion and religion itself may be connected in a lot of cases but they are nowhere near the same thing in my opinion.

Heres some examples of what defines a 'religion' - society is only one possible aspect. (apologies for making it sound so clinical)


Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
A distinction between sacred and profane objects.

Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.

A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.

Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt,
adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.

Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.

A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.

A social group bound together by the above.

charlie_no_socks
15th-June-2004, 07:39 AM
Gus was only pointing out that Sheepman shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush as far as religion is concerned. [/i]


My understanding wasn't that Sheepman was saying all religious people are corrupt etc. He simply said that his experience of religious society is corruption and hypocrisy.

Religious society is what happens when there are lots of religious people in one place. If you think religious society is bad, then you probably don't want too many religious people around, since its only a matter of time!

I think the test of any belief system is in society. Communism on paper sounds like a Utopia. In fact, the original Utopia described by Thomas More in 1516 was essentially communist. But in practice every attempt at communism has ended up to varying degrees in dictatorship and a police state.

On paper most religions preach acceptance, tolerance and love. In practice, these principals have not been the result.

Personally I am wary of anyone that tells me their beliefs are divinely ordained.

Gadget
15th-June-2004, 11:45 AM
My understanding wasn't that Sheepman was saying all religious people are corrupt etc. He simply said that his experience of religious society is corruption and hypocrisy.
?? my take on it was that a religious society, (ie one where everyone in it agrees to follow the same moral & ethical codes), results in corrupt religious people, or corrupt religious people form religious societies - same end result.


I think the test of any belief system is in society. Communism on paper sounds like a Utopia.
What, everyone having the same things in the same quantities? Everyone works the same amount for the same pay? Individuality and specialist skills are ignored? Hard work reaps the same rewards as laziness? Communism doesn't even work on paper. "Society" is just the interaction between a group of people - if like-minded people gather at regular times or in regular places form a social circle, and a society is born. How people act and react within that social structure is based on their ethics and morals... which is basically what religion defines. The fact that most religions gather people together and a religious society is formed is hardly surprising.

The problem and corruption stems from people - everyone interprets things differently. What one person may think a passage from scripture reads "Go forth and copulate with as many people as you can" another may read it as "Go forth and find someone to produce lots and lots of offspring with" and another may combine the two. Different actions, different beliefs, all could be posing as the same religion.


On paper most religions preach acceptance, tolerance and love. In practice, these principals have not been the result.
not quite: On paper most religions preach acceptance, tolerance and love to their own doctrine. Most religions preach rejection, intolerance and hatred of any other religion. This has been watered down through the ages, but it is still there if you look for it.


Personally I am wary of anyone that tells me their beliefs are divinely ordained.yea - "because god told me to do it" has never washed with me either.

Zuhal
15th-June-2004, 01:37 PM
Oh Moderators. Yoohoo. This discussion is in Chit Chat.

I have an idea that some religions have a concept of Heaven (ie upstairs) and Hell :devil:

Before I am taken apart to define "concept" "Heaven" "Hell" can I suggest that no element of this learned discourse is 'chit chat'.

Let it soar to "take it upstairs" :whistle:

Zuhal

CJ
15th-June-2004, 01:38 PM
Religious society is what happens when there are lots of religious people in one place.

Does that count an Old Firm game?

:whistle:

Dreadful Scathe
15th-June-2004, 02:07 PM
Before I am taken apart to define "concept" "Heaven" "Hell" can I suggest that no element of this learned discourse is 'chit chat'.
Let it soar to "take it upstairs" :whistle:


"take it upstairs" is there 'to keep the rest of the forum cleaner' so if you're suggesting 'religion' is in some way unclean - Im sure I can find a few fundamentalists that would like to 'have a word' :) This is Chit Chat, not porn ! :)


How people act and react within that social structure is based on their ethics and morals... which is basically what religion defines

No it doesn't, a religion could define your ethics and morals but you could equally have a different set despite what your religion preaches, or of course you could not be in the slightest bit religious yet still be a very moral and ethical person.



not quite: On paper most religions preach acceptance, tolerance and love to their own doctrine.

Thats a fairly good generalisation, there are very few religions that are compatible with any other religion as they tend to define themselves as the one and only religion. In fact the only exception i can think of some mid-east religions like buddhism, shintoism, confuccism etc..



If you think religious society is bad, then you probably don't want too many religious people around, since its only a matter of time!

Not sure who 'you' is in your context here - to say 'religious society' is bad is waaay to much of a generalisation. The majority of the people in the world say they are religious therefore all society would be bad if anyone ever thought what you suggest. Individuals and individual societys are 'bad' but as gadget intimated, its then down to the definition of 'bad'.

Forte
15th-June-2004, 02:15 PM
Oh no, I was intimating that you were opinionated, I was only insinuating that you were a big shyte :D

:rofl: :rofl: and let there be love and peace amongst nations....

Gadget
15th-June-2004, 04:06 PM
No it doesn't, a religion could define your ethics and morals but you could equally have a different set despite what your religion preaches, or of course you could not be in the slightest bit religious yet still be a very moral and ethical person.I wasn't saying that your choice of morals and ethics defined your religion, but your religion will have a huge bearing on your choice of morals and ethics - the more religious you are, the more the influence it will have.
If your morals and ethics do [u]not[/i] match your religion, then you do not follow that faith. Simple. So called "converts" have just found another religion that matches their own moral and ethic codes better than their last one did.
What is a religion without a set of moral and ethical rules? A belief of/in a "greater power"? If so, then you must assign moral and ethical rules to It; and you will follow these because of fear of being smited if you don't and hope of being rewarded if you do. My argument is that all religion consists of is a set of social rules.

You can have a strong sense of ethics and a rewarding code of ethics without conforming to a religion, but you cannot truly belong to a religion without following it's own codes.


Before I am taken apart to define "concept" "Heaven" "Hell" can I suggest that no element of this learned discourse is 'chit chat'.
Let it soar to "take it upstairs" :whistle: So your religion worships sex, porn, promiscuity, inuendo and general crudeness as a state of heaven :what:

...actually that dosn't sound too bad - where can I sign up :wink::devil:

Lynn
15th-June-2004, 04:30 PM
So called "converts" have just found another religion that matches their own moral and ethic codes better than their last one did.
What is a religion without a set of moral and ethical rules? A belief of/in a "greater power"? If so, then you must assign moral and ethical rules to It; and you will follow these because of fear of being smited if you don't and hope of being rewarded if you do. My argument is that all religion consists of is a set of social rules. And for many religions, those rules are set out by men (thus leading to literally thousands of 'new religious movements' across the world, some of which I have studied). You find that a lot of 'religious' people are following other people - not God. Often 'religion' has little to do with a God-man relationship.

Dreadful Scathe
15th-June-2004, 04:38 PM
My argument is that all religion consists of is a set of social rules.

Oho..got to disagree with this one. See my points above about what makes a religion, a set of social rules is only a small part of it.




You can have a strong sense of ethics and a rewarding code of ethics without conforming to a religion, but you cannot truly belong to a religion without following it's own codes.


Theres only one form of Christianity right ? ......clearly, there are A LOT. Why is that ? Generally i would say its because people will interpret things differently (as you yourself said in this thread) and where you have a big book written hundreds of years ago (and translated etc..) as your main reference there will be differences in interpretation. So these religious codes you refer to are open to interpretation, some religious people also clearly make it up as they go along - so it seems your definition: 'you cannot truly belong to a religion without following it's own codes' is not going to stand up to more than 2 seconds scrutiny :). Certainly people can believe in their religion and believe they are devoutly religious without adhering to the ethical and moral codes that someone else of the same religion adheres to - and they may BOTH be wrong, they may both be missing something out for many differnet reasons :). A good example is creationism, the bible talks of adam and eve, garden of eden etc.. yet even most christians now subscribe to the thoery of evolution. Ok, thats not an ethical or moral code but it still amounts to taking what you or think you'll need from your religion and ignoring the bits you don't need/want.

Dreadful Scathe
15th-June-2004, 04:47 PM
ooh heres a few things to get you all going :)


And for many religions, those rules are set out by men (thus leading to literally thousands of 'new religious movements' across the world, some of which I have studied). You find that a lot of 'religious' people are following other people - not God. Often 'religion' has little to do with a God-man relationship.

Well said ! What i find funniest is that often to defend their own religion or to make it appeal to others, people can often criticise other religions whilst being selective about what is good about theirs. Its like one big PR exercise :).

Its also often said that wars are caused by religion! Wars are caused by people, usually because they want power. Religion as an excuse for war is used by leaders for the same reason as Napolean introduced medals, it gives the cannon fodder something to fight for :).

Bring back Ghandi :).

Barry Shnikov
15th-June-2004, 07:40 PM
OK, I tried to hold back, honest I did.

Let's face it, religion is the final fairy story. For centuries the human race has struggled with the essential irrationality of existence: we live, we feel, emotional storms rage inside us, music makes our spines tingle, sunsets take our breath away, death of our loved ones makes us feel pain that seems to swell up until it's as big as the universe - and yet, one day we know it will be snuffed out when we die. It just seems impossible that all this raging sea of sensation can be, as the Bard put it, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Plus, of course, there were so many unexplained things. Put a piece of dust in the ground and it could grow into a hundred foot tree, sometimes the sun would shrivel the earth and sometimes the rain would drench it, sometimes the sky went black and thundered and sharp tongues of lightning flashed, sometimes a healthy shrub would produce fruit that was rotten and diseased, and there was no clue as to why these things happened.

And so people decided that there must be something more. It wasn't rational, it wasn't reasonable, but they couldn't accept the alternative. Over generations this approach to life grew into organised religion. Then we began to get other explanations for germination and weather and infection, but most people still can't accept life for what it is, an accident borne of organised complexity. They ask the question 'What is the meaning of life?' without ever asking the earlier question, 'Why should it be supposed that life has a meaning?'

Children are told about Santa Claus, and the Tooth fairy, and Rumpelstiltskin and Snow White and Cinderella, but parents are careful to let their children know, in good time, that these are fairy stories and won't help you live your life when you're an adult. The other great fairy story, the nativity, the passion, the virgin birth, the miracles, the ascension, transubstantiation, the doctrine of the trinity - this balloon is left unpunctured. These things are accepted without question, despite the fact that many of them were only adopted after years of doctrinal disputes and quarrels, often bloody, amongst the christians of the first few centuries.

So, to sum up: religion is like a comfort blanket, that the human race cannot let go of. For those of you who are offended, I would say this: it's one of our remaining taboos. Ask yourself whether an atheist should not be able robustly to put this point of view without offence amongst the faithful.

Lynn
15th-June-2004, 09:00 PM
...the nativity, the passion, the virgin birth, the miracles, the ascension, transubstantiation, the doctrine of the trinity... These things are accepted without question... You've never met anyone who studied theology then? :wink: :nice:


So, to sum up: religion is like a comfort blanket, that the human race cannot let go of. For those of you who are offended, I would say this: it's one of our remaining taboos. Ask yourself whether an atheist should not be able robustly to put this point of view without offence amongst the faithful. This forum is somewhere people can put forward their point of view and I think that is the point of this thread. Except that it doesn’t sound to me like you are putting forward a ‘point of view’ it sounds like you are stating facts. You are not saying ‘this is what I believe’ you are saying ‘this is how it is’ and everyone who believes otherwise is deluded – and isn’t that exactly the same attitude that religions were being criticised for earlier in this thread?
:flower:

Dreadful Scathe
16th-June-2004, 09:59 AM
You've never met anyone who studied theology then? :wink:

Lynns right as usual :) The people most likely to question religion are religious people- atheists are likely to be less bothered by definition, its harder to question something you dont believe in i.e. I could argue the case for the non-existence of 'purple people eaters' but I cant be bothered :) (wonder if that songs jiveable ;) ). Of course both believers and non-believers alike can get exasperated at the others sides pig-headed stupidity in believing/not believing ! We're all stupid, just to different degrees :)




This forum is somewhere people can put forward their point of view and I think that is the point of this thread. Except that it doesn?t sound to me like you are putting forward a ?point of view? it sounds like you are stating facts. You are not saying ?this is what I believe? you are saying ?this is how it is? and everyone who believes otherwise is deluded ? and isn?t that exactly the same attitude that religions were being criticised for earlier in this thread?
:flower:

Indeed, the point of this thread was to raise discussion, and we have a sensible enough group of people on here that I thought it would be interesting and not run the risk of becoming a religious war :). Its been quite quiet so far, possibly because people are so sensible that, although Im sure they are in no way embarassed about what they believe (or don't), they are refraining from 'preaching' which is a good characteristic but not necessary..feel free :). Well done Barry for not holding back!

I know where Barry is coming from its very hard to write what you believe strongly without stating it as fact - nothing wrong with that in this thread. If Barry went round peoples doors 'preaching atheism' (whereas here he was asked first) then I would worry about his sanity - how can you preach at people to not believe in god(s) ? at least not without being specific about all the god(s) they shouldnt believe in (could take a while, I'd spent extra time telling them not to believe in GADGET god of masterful spelling). No one can deny that several religions do indeed do this though :). The more established religions don't need to do it this way, they control society, or schools, or TV etc...so I don't think Barrys post is the same as Religious preaching, I dont see atheism and theism as direct opposites, after all theists tend to believe in one god and deny the rest (all 6 trillion or so gods) atheists just deny them all - only one god of a difference between the two :).

Lynn
16th-June-2004, 10:12 AM
I know where Barry is coming from its very hard to write what you believe strongly without stating it as fact - nothing wrong with that in this thread. :yeah: You can get onto a whole discussion there about 'truth' and if you believe something then it is 'truth' for you etc. If you have strong belief in something, then you must regard it as true and so would state it as 'fact'.

But is there an 'ultimate' truth? And how do we find it? Discuss.
(Sorry, that just sounds a bit like an essay question!)

White Knuckle Ride
16th-June-2004, 12:51 PM
God loves us all - but I'm his favourite! :D

Father Christmas
16th-June-2004, 01:05 PM
Children are told about Santa Claus, and the Tooth fairy, and Rumpelstiltskin and Snow White and Cinderella, but parents are careful to let their children know, in good time, that these are fairy stories and won't help you live your life when you're an adult.

:confused:

TheTramp
16th-June-2004, 01:16 PM
This forum is somewhere people can put forward their point of view and I think that is the point of this thread. Except that it doesn’t sound to me like you are putting forward a ‘point of view’ it sounds like you are stating facts. You are not saying ‘this is what I believe’ you are saying ‘this is how it is’ and everyone who believes otherwise is deluded – and isn’t that exactly the same attitude that religions were being criticised for earlier in this thread?
:flower:
Quite agree with Lynn.

This is why I'm a weak atheist. I personally believe that there isn't a god. However, to even think of telling the billions of people worldwide that do believe in various gods that they are all wrong, and I am right (which is what you've done Barry), smacks of a self belief and arrogance on a truly godlike scale.

So, maybe I'm wrong in believing that there are no gods.... :whistle:

(This is also my main reason in not believing that there is a god, for all the people who tell me with cold certainty that there is one, and it's theirs...!!).

Trampy

Rachel
16th-June-2004, 01:47 PM
Wow, I'm quite surprised at the large proportion of believers according to the poll - 14 to 21. I wonder if that's representative of society as a whole, or whether partner/MJ dancing attracts more religious types? (or is that just Morris dancing?)
Rachel

Sheepman
16th-June-2004, 02:11 PM
This forum is somewhere people can put forward their point of view and I think that is the point of this thread. Except that it doesn’t sound to me like you are putting forward a ‘point of view’ it sounds like you are stating facts. You are not saying ‘this is what I believe’ you are saying ‘this is how it is’ Am I the only one that is getting very bored with the "you're not stating a point of view, just saying that what you say is right" kind of argument. When I read Barry's post, I took it as his point of view, mildly amusing, well reasoned, and was hoping to read some interesting counter arguments. I think in too many cases in too many threads, arguments break down because people are affronted at the way others express their "points of view.".

(And yes, I know this post isn't helping to get away from that, but is there any chance that we now return to the main subject . . . )

Greg

Dreadful Scathe
16th-June-2004, 02:12 PM
Wow, I'm quite surprised at the large proportion of believers according to the poll - 14 to 21. I wonder if that's representative of society as a whole, or whether partner/MJ dancing attracts more religious types? (or is that just Morris dancing?)
Rachel

14 isnt a large proportion really - I would have expected it to be slightly higher - here are some estimates about religion based on population .....



The World England & Wales
Christianity: 33% 71.6%
Islam: 22% 2.7%
Hinduism: 15% 1.0%
Nonreligious: 14% 15.5%


although they do count JEDI as nonreligious remember :)

Rachel
16th-June-2004, 02:21 PM
14 isnt a large proportion really - I would have expected it to be slightly higher - here are some estimates about religion based on population .....



The World England & Wales
Christianity: 33% 71.6%
Islam: 22% 2.7%
Hinduism: 15% 1.0%
Nonreligious: 14% 15.5%


although they do count JEDI as nonreligious remember :) Gosh, and I thought we were far more heathen in this country. What a great educational tool this forum is!

TheTramp
16th-June-2004, 02:24 PM
14 isnt a large proportion really - I would have expected it to be slightly higher - here are some estimates about religion based on population .....



The World England & Wales
Christianity: 33% 71.6%
Islam: 22% 2.7%
Hinduism: 15% 1.0%
Nonreligious: 14% 15.5%


Ummm. 71.6% of people in England & Wales are Christian?!?

Is that why the churches are so empty??

Where did those figures come from? Quite frankly, they look totally ridiculous to me.... How many of the 71.6% go to church (or do whatever practising religious people do) more often than weddings and funerals??.

I'd have said that this poll, where 2/5 (ie. 40%) of people either think that there is a god, or are sure that there is a god (although, it doesn't actually say WHICH god) and 60% of people would be "Nonreligious" is a far closer figure. In fact, like Rachel, I'm surprised that it's as high as 40% of people who believe that there is a god.

Of course, only 20% of the people here are sure that there is a god, and the other 20% are presumably just hoping that there is one.

Trampy

Dreadful Scathe
16th-June-2004, 02:25 PM
Gosh, and I thought we were far more heathen in this country. What a great educational tool this forum is!

found this site for all of Britain

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

apparantly only 67% of Scots are religious compared to 77% of English and Welsh.

I like this quote "[non-religious] This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight."

Dreadful Scathe
16th-June-2004, 02:27 PM
Ummm. 71.6% of people in England & Wales are Christian?!?


You dont need to go to church to think you're a christian :) For some denominations the time would be better spent going round peoples doors or shouting at passers by in the street :)


I would be inclined to agree with you though, people may say they are christian simply because they grew up as such but they may not believe in anything. This poll was about belief..and...er..yeah it probably does sound a bit high based on my own experience at least, but I don't bring this up in every conversation thus i would have expected maybe 50/50 between belief non-belief.

Lynn
16th-June-2004, 02:28 PM
Am I the only one that is getting very bored with the "you're not stating a point of view, just saying that what you say is right" kind of argument. When I read Barry's post, I took it as his point of view, mildly amusing, well reasoned, and was hoping to read some interesting counter arguments. I think in too many cases in too many threads, arguments break down because people are affronted at the way others express their "points of view.".

(And yes, I know this post isn't helping to get away from that, but is there any chance that we now return to the main subject . . . )

Greg Of course I knew it was his point of view, and took it as such. But I commented on how it came across as it was directly relevant to the subject of the thread - the 'I am right and you are wrong if you believe something else' attitude is one thing that puts many people off religion.

TheTramp
16th-June-2004, 02:31 PM
attitude is one thing that puts many people off religion.
Or in this case, lack of religion!! :D

Trampy

Andy McGregor
16th-June-2004, 02:31 PM
Am I the only one that is getting very bored with the "you're not stating a point of view, just saying that what you say is right" kind of argument. When I read Barry's post, I took it as his point of view, mildly amusing, well reasoned, and was hoping to read some interesting counter arguments. I think in too many cases in too many threads, arguments break down because people are affronted at the way others express their "points of view.".

I've been watching this debate and feel that I've got nothing in particular to contribute, so I've not contributed. But, like Sheepman, I thought that Barry's post was his point of view: it is very obviously so. I think that it's not necessary to say "this is just my point of view" to qualify each point of view. I'm only really posting this in the role of referee rather than sticking my neck out and debating religious beliefs - I know I don't know enough to add to the debate.

I've noticed this phenomenon in political debate. People don't agree with the point of view of Debator A: but for Debator B, C, D & E to state a counter argument and get into a debate about the counter argument might result in B-E having their argument proved wrong or flawed. The answer is to pick on the way A framed their point of view or even prove that A has been wrong in the past - and I think this is the wrong answer and I've been stuck in many debates, late into the night, where this navel gazing has diverted the discussion - I've even been in long debates where the grammar of a particular item was discussed for ages rather than it's content.

I'm with Sheepy, let the debate continue on-topic rather than the debate about how the debate is being debated.

p.s. Yes, I know, this whole post is about how the debate is being debated - but I hope it brings that particular debate to an end:flower:

Lynn
16th-June-2004, 02:37 PM
apparantly only 67% of Scots are religious compared to 77% of English and Welsh. 86% for Northern Ireland. Of course here which religious tradition you come from is seen as being very important (affecting education, politics, cultures and employment). But religious affiliation in those statistics means just that - it doesn't mean church goer (though % of church goers would also be higher for NI). Western society is extremely secular. Especially when compared to say African society where religion shapes worldview much more strongly.

TheTramp
16th-June-2004, 02:38 PM
I'm with Sheepy, let the debate continue on-topic rather than the debate about how the debate is being debated.
Sorry Andy, while I agree that Barry is quite entitled to having his opinion, comments like:

Let's face it, religion is the final fairy story.

The other great fairy story, the nativity, the passion, the virgin birth, the miracles, the ascension, transubstantiation, the doctrine of the trinity - this balloon is left unpunctured.

So, to sum up: religion is like a comfort blanket, that the human race cannot let go of. For those of you who are offended, I would say this: it's one of our remaining taboos.
don't really add to the debate. As said, Barry is entitled to his opinion, but if I was a committed Christian, I would find comments like this about my faith to be offensive, and other people have (IMO justifiably) been called patronising *people* for making comments of this type previously.

Back to the debate :rolleyes:

Trampy

Lynn
16th-June-2004, 02:39 PM
I've been watching this debate and feel that I've got nothing in particular to contribute, so I've not contributed. But, like Sheepman, I thought that Barry's post was his point of view: it is very obviously so. I think that it's not necessary to say "this is just my point of view" to qualify each point of view. I think you missed my point!!! :flower:

Lory
16th-June-2004, 04:10 PM
I would be inclined to agree with you though, people may say they are christian simply because they grew up as such but they may not believe in anything.
:yeah: For years I filled out forms, Religion = C of E, only because my Mum told me that's what I should tick, I never even questioned it! :rolleyes:
I am an Athiest but probably somewhere, on some official statistic, I will show up as Christian!

Dance Demon
16th-June-2004, 04:28 PM
Hmmm........just a wee side thought.........but isn't it funny how lots of people who claim to be non believers suddenly look for a supreme being ( whatever name you want to give him/her) to help them when they are in severe difficulty or life threatening situations.......almost like saying....well I'm not sure if there is a God or not, but just in case there is I'd better say a wee prayer, or else if I snuff it i might not get into Heaven or wherever you go .......Similar situation to the people who say " I don't believe in trade Unions"...but can't wait to fill in the form if they are in trouble or face a discipline.....maybe these sort of people only subscribe to something when there is something in it for them.......rather than thinking about how their subscription can help others.... :)

TheTramp
16th-June-2004, 04:38 PM
S'okie. I don't believe in trade unions either :whistle: :D

(Is there one for Ceroc DJs??)

Trampy

CJ
16th-June-2004, 04:40 PM
I like this quote "[non-religious] This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight."

I am a Jedi.

Unfortunately, not made it to status of knight, yet...

However, is Jedi a religion or belief system?

Dance Demon
16th-June-2004, 04:44 PM
S'okie. I don't believe in trade unions either :whistle: :D

(Is there one for Ceroc DJs??)

Trampy

Why d'ya ask Trampy...has someone threatened to sack you.. :wink: :whistle:

TheTramp
16th-June-2004, 04:47 PM
Why d'ya ask Trampy...has someone threatened to sack you.. :wink: :whistle:
Not yet!!

:waycool:

Trampy

Franck
16th-June-2004, 04:59 PM
Why d'ya ask Trampy...has someone threatened to sack you.. :wink: :whistle:
:rofl: don't tempt me :wink:

Only kidding Trampy, but don't go slagging Apple again!

Rachel
16th-June-2004, 04:59 PM
.......Similar situation to the people who say " I don't believe in trade Unions"...but can't wait to fill in the form if they are in trouble or face a discipline..... Tell me about it!!! I'm the union rep at work here - see this all the time!
Rachel

TheTramp
16th-June-2004, 05:02 PM
:rofl: don't tempt me :wink:

Only kidding Trampy, but don't go slagging Apple again!
Apple are wonderful. Fantastic. Best thing ever :clap:

Full of fruity goodness.... :flower:

Trampy

Dreadful Scathe
16th-June-2004, 05:16 PM
Hmmm........just a wee side thought.........but isn't it funny how lots of people who claim to be non believers suddenly look for a supreme being ( whatever name you want to give him/her) to help them when they are in severe difficulty or life threatening situations.......

I suppose under pressure, especially life threatening, people are liable to shout and pray for mummy/god/superman or anything else they can think of that they see as worth praying too :). Everyone is born an atheist, you only believe what you are brought up to believe until you are old enough to think for yourself and then you may or may not change your mind.

Dreadful Scathe
16th-June-2004, 05:25 PM
I am a Jedi.

Unfortunately, not made it to status of knight, yet...

However, is Jedi a religion or belief system?

Interesting that the statistics website quotes 'Jedi Knight', as far as I am aware the word used was always 'Jedi' - they are assuming the people who put that see themselves as knights and insinuates that its somehow frivilous. Theres bound to be some who really meant it :). I wonder how many other religions people put down that were statistically counted as such? there'll be a few scientoligists etc..

I think you could argue that 'Jedi' is both, there is enough information about the subject and enough 'holy' sources of information - online, books, the films. Are the 'I hate Jar Jar Binks' sites heretical I wonder ? Seriously though, Im sure its possible to 'prove' that Jedi is a religion.

jivecat
16th-June-2004, 06:32 PM
I think that there should really be only two options in the poll: weak agnostics and weak theists, as nobody can "know" there is, or is not, a god. Some people may choose to believe there is a god, but that is not the same as "knowing", it is a matter of faith. If I remember rightly from my methodist upbringing, even Christians believe that faith is necessary to overcome the sheer irrationality of religious belief. I have no quarrel with people who have faith, but I can't accept that anyone can claim to know there is a god without the reason, proof and evidence which we normally expect to accompany "knowledge".






Let's face it, religion is the final fairy story. For centuries the human race has struggled with the essential irrationality of existence: we live, we feel, emotional storms rage inside us, music makes our spines tingle, sunsets take our breath away, death of our loved ones makes us feel pain that seems to swell up until it's as big as the universe - and yet, one day we know it will be snuffed out when we die. It just seems impossible that all this raging sea of sensation can be, as the Bard put it, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Thanks, Barry, for expressing this. I had been trying to articulate this myself, you've done it so well!



And so people decided that there must be something more. It wasn't rational, it wasn't reasonable, but they couldn't accept the alternative.

I think early religion must have grown out of a desire to control a hostile, unpredictable and uncaring universe. Hence all that talk of making offerings and placating angry gods. And seeing as we have just as little control now as then over the ultimate reality of death, I think a desire to achieve some control over our existence and to impose some order on the randomness of the universe still underpins contemporary religious practice.




..... most people still can't accept life for what it is, an accident borne of organised complexity. They ask the question 'What is the meaning of life?' without ever asking the earlier question, 'Why should it be supposed that life has a meaning?'

Because it's too painful and difficult to accept that we are just meaningless little atoms whizzing through space. So I have some sympathy with with people who want to have faith in a benign, loving and fatherly god who has our best interests at heart. But I find the idea of god as a conscious entity who controls and oversees the activities of all beings on earth down to the last minute detail (which is what Christians, and as far as I know, Muslims, believe) completely laughable in it's childishness. Sorry, I know this is a bit uncompromising.

The closest I can get to an understanding of god is to think of it as a way of exploring man's relationship with infinity, or nature. That's suitably vague!



The other great fairy story, the nativity, the passion, the virgin birth, the miracles, the ascension, transubstantiation, the doctrine of the trinity - this balloon is left unpunctured.

These stories have meaning for me because they are an inescapable part of the culture in which I grew up and are immensely powerful stories. I don't feel that I have to view them as literal truth in order to appreciate them and I do feel that everybody should be educated in them- but also in the equally rich traditions of other major religions. But I'm not really interested in the separate cases made out by various religious groups that their's is the best god - they are all one.




So, to sum up: religion is like a comfort blanket, that the human race cannot let go of. For those of you who are offended, I would say this: it's one of our remaining taboos. Ask yourself whether an atheist should not be able robustly to put this point of view without offence amongst the faithful.


I fear the faithful will be offended. But if their faith is strong enough they won't be! Because reasoned argument will be an irrelevance.

I've been enjoying this thread so much -there is not much opportunity in everyday life to discuss these matters. I never dreamt all these things went on in the minds of fellow Cerocers!

Andy McGregor
16th-June-2004, 08:32 PM
This forum is somewhere people can put forward their point of view and I think that is the point of this thread. Except that it doesn’t sound to me like you are putting forward a ‘point of view’ it sounds like you are stating facts. You are not saying ‘this is what I believe’ you are saying ‘this is how it is’ and everyone who believes otherwise is deluded – and isn’t that exactly the same attitude that religions were being criticised for earlier in this thread?
:flower:



I think you missed my point!!! :flower:


No, I don't think I did miss the point. At the risk of receiving more negative rep (yep, I was anonymously told my post was "unclear and unecessary (IMHO)" ). No on-topic point was made by Lynn regarding Barry's post, at least none that I can discern. And that was the point I was making. As far as I can see, Lynn's criticism of Barry was the way he made his points, that he didn't put his argument forward as his "point of view", when IMHO, it was very obviously his point of view. Lynn did not agree with, disagree with, support, debate, etc any of the points Barry made, just the way he made them.

Speaking personally, I neither agree, nor disagree with either standpoint. But I do disagree with woolly debate on a subject that is of prime importance to a significant proportion of the population. And I certainly feel that people should be able to debate their views freely.

This is a freedom of speech issue. If someone disagrees, but does not argue against what is said, just the way it is said it is more likely that people will stay silent. If people who support other peoples right to express their views are given negative feedback that is a further gagging attempt.

Having said all of the above, I don't think that was Lynn's intention, but IMHO, it could be the result.


Finally, here is and example of the way I think the issue should be debated.


As said, Barry is entitled to his opinion, but if I was a committed Christian, I would find comments like this about my faith to be offensive, and other people have (IMO justifiably) been called patronising *people* for making comments of this type previously.

Back to the debate :rolleyes:

Trampy

The Tramp is making a valid point. And I am 100% behind him making it. He is disagreeing with Barry and giving reasons why he disagrees with him. That's what debate is all about and the Tramp has done it very well, IMHO:clap:

Andy McGregor
16th-June-2004, 09:03 PM
I end with an appropriate quote by Benjamin Franklin: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.".


I think it's what I've been trying to say on this thread.

Lynn
16th-June-2004, 10:14 PM
I end with an appropriate quote by Benjamin Franklin: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.".


I think it's what I've been trying to say on this thread. :yeah: I wasn't trying to cause any problems and didn't intend there to be a debate about how to discuss things. :flower: I didn't criticise the post, I pointed out how it could come across thus highlighting a similarity between that post and the dogmatic approach taken by many religions - therefore relevant to the topic. I was just raising a question to be pondered about how we present our faith or non-faith to others.

Dance Demon
16th-June-2004, 10:29 PM
I remember Irish comedian Dave Allen used to finish his shows with " Thank you, good night, and may YOUR god be with you". I once saw him being interviewed i think by Parkinson, and he was asked if he thought that god existed. he replied that whatever your religious beliefs were, if you believed in that god then he exists for you. I think the problem starts when you try to inflict your beliefs on someone else, or vice versa. Whatever deity you believe in, they should be a guide to help you live a peaceful life. I would doubt that any God would want to see the fighting and bloodshed that exists in the world in their name.

Barry Shnikov
16th-June-2004, 11:27 PM
I cannot deny that I realise that my views were expressed uncompromisingly; I'm not sure that they are patronising. Is it possible, in a country with an established religion, and in discussing a subject in which one finds oneself in a silenced minority every time it's broached, to patronise the other side?

It's a shock tactic, and it was designed - and I've used it before - to make people who have been comfortable hitherto in their warm cosy blanket of unquestioned belief, sit up and take notice. Maybe one in a thousand might start, possibly for the first time, to apply the most powerful problem solving device in the known universe - their own brain - to considering the question of religion and how they came to believe the things they do.

There are so many holes in any theory of divinity that I am afraid I find it literally impossible to understand why really, really intelligent people - like George Carey, for example - not only believe in it but devote their whole lives to it.

But at this point my big bugbear about the posts since mine is this question of subjective truth "Whatever is true for you is alright". This is arrant nonsense. You might say it to someone to comfort them, but to suggest that this is a viable philosophy of life is downright dangerous. There are opinions, and there is objective truth. There may often be a great difficulty in discovering the truth, it may be necessary to proceed as if something were true, when you aren't quite sure, and sometimes the truth may be painfully uncomfortable. But to accept that truth can be subjective is to literally strip the word of all useful meaning.

I'll give you an example. Hands up who's heard of Jasmuheen? This is an Australian woman who claims that she has, for many years, lived without food or water; she lives on 'pranha', the mystic essence that (rather like The Force) infuses the entire universe. She makes a fabulous living, apparently, selling books setting out her 12-step plan - "You too can learn to live on light!", and selling expensive tickets to weekend retreats where she shows people how it's done, and that sort of thing. An Australian TV channel persuaded her to demonstrate her ability by confining her in a hotel room, without food and liquid, and after three days their medical advisor told them to shut the thing down as her life was in danger. 3 days, mind you. Her explanation: "It was the vibes at the hotel - I need fresh air", and then she admitted that she ate the 'occasional' chocolate biscuit.

I first learned about Jasmuheen from an ineffably sad TV news item about a woman who'd been found dead in the Peak district (or similar). She was found with her trousers round her ankles, dead from exposure. She'd gone out to be by herself, in a tent, and go through Jasmuheen's 12-step process, but she grew so weak without nourishment and fluid that she passed out whilst taking a pee and died while unconscious.

This is why I feel that both religion and 'subjective truth' subscribers are barking up the wrong tree. After all, where's the difference between saying 'If you're a saint you can live for forty days and forty nights without food and water' and saying 'I can live on pranha alone!'

I say this: the truth is that it is impossible for a human being to survive more than a couple of weeks without fluids, nor more than a month or two without food. And during that time, as Bobby Sands demonstrated, they will become progressively weaker and after only a few days will have done irreparable damage to their own body. And no other truth exists. Consequently it must be obvious what my conclusions are as to what Jasmuheen is doing.

Now - anybody seen my hobby horse...

Dreadful Scathe
17th-June-2004, 12:02 AM
As said, Barry is entitled to his opinion, but if I was a committed Christian, I would find comments like this about my faith to be offensive, and other people have (IMO justifiably) been called patronising *people* for making comments of this type previously.


Also its worth pointing out that although this thread did seem to steer toward the christian god and therefore the christian religion (and really religions in general with Barry :) ), the actual poll is about belief in god NOT religion. They are NOT the same thing, there are many religions where no gods are involved at all. Sheepman started it with his 'religious society sucks' comment :) (maybe not his exact words :) but its all his fault ;)). Look back to the post I made that had possible definitions for religion - there are quite a few criteria that people have used in the past to describe what makes a religion.

In fact - heres a thing - some argue nowadays that some scientific thinking covers some of the same criteria that would define a religion especially ......

A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

..'we' take so much science for granted and to such a degree that we 'know' it to be true! Anyone want to say they are 100% sure that all current scientific thinking is correct and not going to be proved wrong at any point in the future? i wouldnt - we've only had computerised offices for 20 years for Zeus's sake !?!? ;)



Because it's too painful and difficult to accept that we are just meaningless little atoms whizzing through space.

I'm not about to agree my atoms are meaningless, speak for yourself :D. People can find meaning in life regardless of their beliefs !



I think that there should really be only two options in the poll: weak agnostics and weak theists, as nobody can "know" there is, or is not, a god


Knowledge is based on your thoughts and experiences, I have no problem with people claiming they 'know' god exists as they are basing it on criteria that satisfies THEM that it qualifies as knowledge. Who 'knows' that man landed on the moon ? lots of people claim to, but there are thousands who think its a big conspiracy - i think thats pretty much the same thing.

TheTramp
17th-June-2004, 02:13 AM
Sorry Barry, but I found your comments extremely patronising. As I've found your follow-up comments.

Your basis comment is: I don't believe in a god. It's a fairy story. People who do believe in a god are deluding themselves because of a need for a comfort blanket.

In what way is that not patronising???

You then make a big deal about one person who believes in "pranha", as if that proves your point. Well, who cares about one nutcase (if that's what she is (although, if she makes a fabulous living, she can't be that much of a nutcase)). If you need to quote the example of one nutcase (out of billions of people who believe in a god), then your arguement must be bloody weak.

As it happens, I agree with you totally, and I don't believe there is a god. However that is just my belief, and there is as much factual evidence to there not being a god, as there is to the fact that there is one (ie. none). To state that I am right, and all the people who do believe in their god are wrong, is just arrogance beyond belief.

You say that you are using 'shock tactics' to make people sit up and take notice. Well, sorry, but that's just a load of crap. All people will think is that you are an arrogant, patronising *person*. Putting a point of view across, without rubbishing other people's opinions (especially since you have no factual evidence), would be a much better way of challenging someone's belief's (IMHO), rather than just spouting off.

Incidentally, should there be a god at the end of it, you're going to be in for a hell (literally?) of a surprise :whistle:

Trampy

TheTramp
17th-June-2004, 03:20 AM
Whee. I just got negative reputation (anonymously of course), saying:

So many insults, (because I used the words 'arrogant' and 'patronising').

For whoever left me the reputation, then let me just re-iterate: My point of view appears to be the fundamentally the same as Barry's. I also don't believe in a god. However, the way in which Barry has put his view across, I consider to be arrogant and patronising towards those people who do. I don't make any apology for this. I wasn't intending to be insulting, just commenting on how I found his arguements. If he'd put them across in a less insulting way towards those that do believe in a god, I wouldn't have made those comments. I think that whoever left me the anonymous reputation (at 2:31am?) has kinda missed the point.

To paraphrase an oft commented quote:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. However, if your arguements are spurious, patronising, insulting, stupid, defamatory, arrogant, illogical, etc. **, I reserve the right to point this out to you".

Trampy

** delete as neccesary

under par
17th-June-2004, 07:28 AM
Isn't it funny how discussing GOD/Religion always ends up with a spat/fight/war :whistle: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:


:cheers: :cheers: :hug: :hug: :hug: .

Andy McGregor
17th-June-2004, 09:08 AM
Whee. I just got negative reputation (anonymously of course),

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. However, if your arguements are spurious, patronising, insulting, stupid, defamatory, arrogant, illogical, etc. **, I reserve the right to point this out to you".

Trampy

** delete as neccesary

I'm afraid that religion gets some people's blood pressure up like nothing else. Some people will hate you for challenging their faith: others will see your challenge as a test of their faith. I subscribe to the latter. If your faith is not tested, time and time again you are probably not strong in your faith - in fact there is a school of thought that it is these tests that strenghthen your faith.

So, if someone "tests" your faith on the anvil of their disbelief should you hate them, and give them negative reputation:wink:, for putting you and your faith through that gruelling test? Your faith is now stronger for being tested. IMHO we should love the person who has so sorely tested us because they have brought us nearer to our God - what greater gift could you be given?


p.s. If it makes you feel any better Trampy, I've been given 2 lots of negative rep for my posts on this thread. And by some big hitters too - I think it was a test:wink:

Dreadful Scathe
17th-June-2004, 09:36 AM
I'm afraid that religion gets some people's blood pressure up like nothing else. Some people will hate you for challenging their faith: others will see your challenge as a test of their faith.

Very true but we seem to be falling into the trap we have in other threads, that of spending too much time on the way people say something rather than what they are actually saying. This is a discussion that will have great extremes of feeling on both sides and we just cant expect people to post their comments in a style that tries to please everybody, they will make comments according to their own beliefs and the discussion continues. These asides where we criticise 'arrogance','stating as fact' etc...dont serve the discussion well at all, they lead us into bickering. We are all arrogant in any argument because we take up a contrary position and assume the other side is inferior in some way, but we can at least listen to what the other person has to say - hopefully at the end (if there is one) there will be some sort of conclusion without anyone felling belittled. Barry and Jivecat have made good points albeit in an uncompromising way, Lynn also had a point about Barrys original big post coming over like religious dogma, and I thought it was quite preachy too - but very interesting nonetheless. All we need now is a fire and brimstone style evangalist to post a response to balance it all out...any takers ? :D

Emma
17th-June-2004, 09:36 AM
Isn't it funny how discussing GOD/Religion always ends up with a spat/fight/warFundamentalism is what starts the spat, not the issue. People insisting that their belief should be another's belief. What fascinates me in this case is that we seem to have more fundamentalism on the aethist side :devil: :cool:

To come back on topic I'll come clean - I sit firmly on the fence, and voted for weak agnostic/implicit. It's my opinion, I don't have to explain or defend it - it is just how I felt at the moment of voting (actually I would quite have liked an option for 'uh...not sure and I'm not sure I care either'). I retain my right to be eternally confused but vaguely optimistic on the god(s) front :)

Lynn
17th-June-2004, 10:19 AM
........isn't it funny how lots of people who claim to be non believers suddenly look for a supreme being ( whatever name you want to give him/her) to help them when they are in severe difficulty or life threatening situations....... Interesting point. If the traditional teaching of most religions is that God created man in his own image, the approach by many to God today is the reverse – they attempt to create God in the image of man. This leads to the idea of a god or gods who are like really like good and benevolent humans who have power to be of assistance in times of trouble. If this is their thinking about the divine then it will be the ‘comfort blanket’ that Barry referred to. Thus the popular approach to God in Western society today is as someone/something to meet their needs. And if people don’t find that in one particular church or religion, they may turn to another, or follow none in particular but select options from different belief systems as they have need.

Lory
17th-June-2004, 11:13 AM
I have a very good friend who I met in hospital 17years ago, after the births of our first children, we became close. She was there for me when my daughter was very ill and I intern, when her father died, we've been on holiday, laughed, cried, argued and shared silences together.
She went on to have 3 more children and had each of them christened into the Catholic faith, when it came to the last child, Harry, she asked if I would be a Godparent, I thanked her asking and felt flattered but I had no option but to say no, as I don't believe in any of it!

This was the one topic we'd never discussed before, I accepted she had faith and up till then, she accepted that I didn't.

It was then, she came out with a question that really shocked me, 'Why aren't you scared NOT to believe in God?' I explained to her, its not a case of having a choice, wanting or NOT wanting to, I just don't.

She told me every aspect of her childhood was drenched in religion, she was taught by Nuns, and went to church and confession every Sunday. And God was ever present, looking down on her at ALL times, judging her every action, she even felt scared talking to me about it and even more scared for me doubting him.

I found it all fascinating BUT she looked very uncomfortable SO we decided to bring the discussion to an abrupt end as we realised we were never going to see eye to eye on the subject and we agreed never to talk about it again, as for us, it was a subject best left alone! :)

We're still best of friends! :hug:

Can you believe it, in the middle of writing that, a Jehovah Witness knocked on my door! :what: :rofl:

TheTramp
17th-June-2004, 11:16 AM
Can you believe it, in the middle of writing that, a Jehovah Witness knocked on my door! :what: :rofl:
Did you let him read this thread?? :whistle:

Trampy

Andy McGregor
17th-June-2004, 11:17 AM
Can you believe it, in the middle of writing that, a Jehovah Witness knocked on my door! :what: :rofl:

I've always thought they're sent out to speak to us as a test of their faith, has anyone ever heard of a doorstep conversion?

Dreadful Scathe
17th-June-2004, 11:36 AM
I've always thought they're sent out to speak to us as a test of their faith, has anyone ever heard of a doorstep conversion?
yeah, swapped mine from plain stone to a nice marble effect :)

Gadget
17th-June-2004, 01:08 PM
{I've been avoiding looking in here because I knew I would want to reply to some posts...}


My argument is that all religion
consists of is a set of social rulesOho..got to disagree with this
one. See my points above about what makes a religion, a set of social rules
is only a small part of it.No, I don;t think so: the ethics and morals are the backbone of the
religion - everything else is storys and parabels to provide examples and
explinations that uphold its social rules .


You can have a strong sense of ethics and a rewarding
code of ethics without conforming to a religion, but you cannot truly belong
to a religion without following it's own codes.Theres only one form
of Christianity right ? ......clearly, there are A LOT. Why is that ?
Generally i would say its because people will interpret things differently
~snip~ Certainly people can believe in their religion and believe they are
devoutly religious without adhering to the ethical and moral codes that
someone else of the same religion adheres to - and they may BOTH be wrong,
they may both be missing something out for many differnet reasonsThat's sort of my point: since there are so many differeing doctrines under
the one religion, each with a subtally different moral and ethical rules,
you may try to follow one path, but find that their own beliefs tie
closer to another path, so change your "god". IMO If you do not have faith
or belief in the social rules of that religion, then you are not of
that religion.
If you disect a religion and re-assemble it with only the bits you like, you
create a new sect/cult/religion. You may like to call it the same name, but
it's not the same thing.

What i find funniest is that often to defend their own religion or to
make it appeal to others, people can often criticise other religions whilst
being selective about what is good about theirs. Its like one big PR
exercise"Religion" is about social rules. To apply social rules, most religions need
a society to apply them to. So you need to recruit new members to your
'faith'.
The coruption now seeps in because who makes up these social rules in the
first place? Who interprates the voice of god? One person (as Lynn says,
more than likley a man) has to be the high preist. They define how the
society should work; they decide moral judgements; they have power over the
society.
Some 'sheep' may follow this faith blindly, but some will now look at the
high preist and envy that power... now internal politics and corruption come
into play to jostle for favour and become closer to god.

And so people decided that there must be something
more....hmmm I admit I had not taken into account "the unknown" in defining
religion, but I think that mysteries are used more to prove puishments and
rewards for not following the religion's rules: It is not the mysteries that
are unique to the religion, but the explanations for them, and these
are based on the moral and ethical views of that faith.
Barry's definition of religion is based on the unknown rather than the
morals woven into the storys that are used to explain them away. Just
because the charicters may be fictional, does that stop it being a
good story? One that can be learned from? There is one theory that the Bible
was actually created from several local folk-storys and ledgends that were
pulled together in one volume and given some comomon threads to link them.
{PS I don't think that his post was strong at all: at the start of it he
confirmed that it was his views, and the monologue was spoken from first
person - how can you impersonalise belief? Even if it's the belief that
something does not exist?}

Of course both believers and non-believers alike can get
exasperated at the others sides pig-headed stupidity in believing/not
believing!Mainly because those with faith in a god do not believe that it needs
justifying and those without faith are looking to be proven wrong.
I am open to be persuasion that I am wrong in my beliefs - just come up with
a better one that matches my world view, morals and ethics. :wink: The only
arguments that I cannot produce persuasive counter-argumets are ones that
are already embeded within my faith.

(could take a while, I'd spent extra time telling them not to believe
in GADGET god of masterful spelling).Damn straight: that's the evil, anti-god GADGET :devil: You must believe in
the benevolent GADGET: god of masterful spieling! :worthy:

isn't it funny how lots of people who claim to be non
believers suddenly look for a supreme being to help them when they are in
severe difficulty or life threatening situationsNope, it's perfectly natural: it's in our language and in our culture.
Expletives use religious terms. Church steaples are visible for miles in all
directions. TV has channels devoted to religion. People get cristened,
married and last-rights said over them in church. Our whole society has been
developed from the rules laid down by religion - are you surprised that when
things get basic, people resort to the basic faiths they emerged from?
Unfortunatly that's the down side to my own ("I am my own god") philosophy -
I have no-one to prey to. I have no-one to blame. If I'm in sh*t, I have
only my self to look to for solutions. :what: With the wrong mind-set, this
can be lonley or depressing; but just because others do not share your
universe, does not mean that you cannot influence them when they are within
yours. I can be a part of eveyone's universe and they can influence a part
of mine. :cool:

I think that there should really be only two options in the
poll: weak agnostics and weak theists, as nobody can "know" there is, or is
not, a god. Some people may choose to believe there is a god, but that is
not the same as "knowing", it is a matter of faith.And do you "know" how electricity gets to your PC? Do you "know" how the
glass, metals and plastics are made that are infront of you? Do you "know"
how the letters you type are converted into 1's and 0's to form words on the
screen?
You have faith that what you have been told is correct. You have faith that
since it's happened a few times, it will happen again. Start looking into
quantum physics: then your "faith" in what we "know" of the way the world
works really gets screwed.

it's too painful and difficult to accept that we are just meaningless
little atoms whizzing through space. So I have some sympathy with with
people who want to have faith in a benign, loving and fatherly god who has
our best interests at heart. But I find the idea of god as a conscious
entity who controls and oversees the activities of all beings on earth down
to the last minute detail completely laughable in it's childishness.I agree, that idea is out-dated. And I severley doubt that you will find
many people actually prescribe to this idea - religion is not really about your belief or faith in the storys, but a belief in what lies behind them.

{now I'll go and read the rest of them...}

Dreadful Scathe
17th-June-2004, 01:36 PM
{now I'll go and read the rest of them...}

yeah - after you've repeated some of the things I already said :) Nicely put points made in reply to Dance Demon, better than the way I put it :)

Dance Demon
17th-June-2004, 06:48 PM
{
Nope, it's perfectly natural: it's in our language and in our culture.
Expletives use religious terms. Church steaples are visible for miles in all
directions. TV has channels devoted to religion. People get cristened,
married and last-rights said over them in church. Our whole society has been
developed from the rules laid down by religion - are you surprised that when
things get basic, people resort to the basic faiths they emerged from?


Yep, Im well aware of all these points, but what I was trying to say was that sometimes people try to reap, when they have not sown..........like most things in life, you get out of things what you put in. If you have not contributed in any way ( not financially) to the faith you finally turn to in time of need, what right would you have to expect help........is it right for someone who has led a wayward life to suddenly expect salvation when the end is near ?

jivecat
17th-June-2004, 07:41 PM
....... we seem to be falling into the trap we have in other threads, that of spending too much time on the way people say something rather than what they are actually saying. :yeah:

I don't think that someones's being patronising if they disagree with me- I just think they disagree with me.

I don't think they're being arrogant because they say what they think- what else could they possibly say?

Barry Shnikov
17th-June-2004, 08:10 PM
You then make a big deal about one person who believes in "pranha", as if that proves your point.

Well, if I come across as patronising in my attempts to rubbish religion, I'll have to take the knocks.

As for Jasmuheen, she was used to illustrate my argument against this idea that there are 'subjective truths', and nothing to do with my argument against religion. If other people did not get that, mea culpa.

On this question of being 'patronising' - I realise my 'fairy story' schtick may verge on being offensive, but in my view to be patronising means - um - suggesting to someone 'Your actions/words/beliefs are OK, but not adequate for us clever folks'. I would be saying, essentially, 'OK be religious, believe in God, but we smart types know better'. I'm not saying that, I'm saying "HEY!! Wake up, smell the coffee, it's a fairy story!"

To illustrate it in another way, A says to B, 'Who's your favourite writer?' and B says, 'JK Rowling'. 'Oh dear', says A, 'well, never mind, I'm sure one day you'll grow out of Harry Potter'. What I'm trying to do is say 'Harry Potter's all very well, but try Joseph Conrad or Jane Austen'; that's not patronising him, it's literary criticism. [NB I have read and enjoyed all the Harry Potter stories, before the true believers take offence.]

Sheesh. Religion gets all sorts of special pleading: there's the blasphemy laws - and when a new religion starts bleating about not being included, instead of throwing the lot away and saying "You believers will have to stand on your own two feet and defend your faith", they extend blasphemy to cover all religions. Thank - oops! - goodness the UK has the good sense to keep turning down the Scientologist's demands to be declared a religion in the UK. There's special tax treatment of religions (which is why Scientology wants to be one); the Today program has 'Thought for the Day'; it's taught in schools -to the very youngest of children 'Look at the baby jesus in the crib!!'; every other street corner has a church; opinions of church officers are given special weight in the reporting of current affairs; we have to allow animals to be slaughtered in ways that offend ordinary people because some book thousands of years old says so; science teaching is under attack from people who prefer biblical fables; attempts by scientist to find ways of relieving untold pain and misery (stem cell research, right to die, etc) is stymied by people who assume that they have the right to prevent these things because of some belief system they subscribe to...

GOOD GRIEF!! and Trampy's moaning because I'm being patronising...

Gadget
17th-June-2004, 08:13 PM
{I've replied to the rest... but saved it at work 'cos the forum was down}

is it right for someone who has led a wayward life to suddenly expect salvation when the end is near ?
Cristianity (and a few others) make this one of their great selling points: Bathe in the waters and let them wash away your sins. Confess to god and ye shall be forgiven. In taking vows to follow this god, you are starting a new life. etceteras. Do you think that a religion would turn away a devotee?
Many prey on {pun intended}those who have led a wayword life for their converts - "You have nowhere else to turn; why not turn to my god? look I will help you. I am good. I follow this god: he must be good. Come, join me and help others see how good our god is..." Now they are embeded into the religion and guilt/fear/duty will keep them, even if their own beliefs differ from that cult's.
Is there anything wrong with the above scenario?

Lynn
17th-June-2004, 08:32 PM
Now they are embeded into the religion and guilt/fear/duty will keep them, even if their own beliefs differ from that cult's. This is a very common pattern with many groups which can be described under the umbrella term 'new religious movements' (as distinct from the major world religions) more commonly referred to as cults. They discourage questions and may seek to separate the individual from family ties. They also usually will claim that only by following their teaching, their specific interpretation given by the leader of that movement, can salvation be obtained - thus converts fear to leave. In very extreme cases they will even kill their members rather than lose them (eg as in The Movement for the Restoration of the 10 Commandments in Uganda 4 years ago - over 700 died)


...like most things in life, you get out of things what you put in. If you have not contributed in any way (not financially) to the faith you finally turn to in time of need, what right would you have to expect help........is it right for someone who has led a wayward life to suddenly expect salvation when the end is near ? Actually this is what the Bible teaches - that nothing you can do could ever be good enough anyway as God is perfect. Of course that's not always what churches teach, they do imply or directly say that you have to give, obey the church, be good, in order to gain salvation. But the Bible is big on grace, salvation as a free gift.

Gus
17th-June-2004, 08:42 PM
.....attempts by scientist to find ways of relieving untold pain and misery (stem cell research, right to die, etc) is stymied by people who assume that they have the right to prevent these things because of some belief system they subscribe to...

And you dont think that reservations to genetic research and cloning dont some fomr a pragmatic fear of where this technology could lead? Sorry ... a very practical and non-religious view is that allowing indivduals to develop extremely powerfull science without a moral framework or boundaries can lead to tremendous danger both social and physically. Dont forget its not so long ago that the world was on the cusp of extinsion from nuclear weapons ... who knows how close we will be to extinsion from bio-chemical waepons ... and who doesn't fear the mass production of clones ..... these objections are not neccesarily religion based ...

Barry Shnikov
17th-June-2004, 11:52 PM
And you dont think that reservations to genetic research and cloning dont some fomr a pragmatic fear of where this technology could lead?...these objections are not neccesarily religion based ...

Well, there can be discussions on that basis. But those views, I should have thought it is clear, are not the ones I complained about. I specifically directed my comment to those who object "because of some belief system they subscribe to". The objections you mention are rational, and therefore subject to rational discourse and resolution. Religious objections are, by definition, irrational, and cannot be resolved by discussion. Furthermore when advanced by believers such arguments are usually presented as unarguable simply because they are irrational!

Gadget
18th-June-2004, 10:25 AM
These stories have meaning for me because they are an
inescapable part of the culture in which I grew up and are immensely
powerful stories.oops - only half read your post. :blush:

But I'm not really interested in the separate cases made out by
various religious groups that their's is the best god - they are all
one.No they are not: The divine figure known by sect A and the one known by sect
B may both be attributed with the same powers, may both be called "God", may
both be 'responsable' for the same events; but the social structure and
rules that the religions follow (and hence the god's follow) are completley
different - it's like saying that twins are the same person.


Is it possible, in a country with an established
religion, and in discussing a subject in which one finds oneself in a
silenced minority every time it's broached, to patronise the other
side?It is possible to patronise anyone. And the previous posts on ststistics
have confirmed that athieism is not a "silenced minority". I was taught in
school that attoms were the smallest bits that made up the universe. Then I
was taught that Protons and Neutrons Electrons were in the hub of an atom
and little electrons orbited it and these held atoms together to form bonds.
This theory is now "wrong" too. In fact they are now puzzling over why
particals move like waves, (like energy) instead of in straight lines, (like
matter "should") {there was a cool artical in New Scientist about it a
couple of weeks ago}

"Whatever is true for you is alright". This is arrant nonsense. There
are opinions, and there is objective truth. And who is to say what is TRUTH ? Where is your proof of the
non-existance of a divine entity? Who's "truth" is it based on?

the actual poll is about belief in god NOT religion.
They are NOT the same thing,oops. But I did say that the god has to follow the ethics and morals of the
religion, and people have to follow their god; the god is an embodyment of
the social structure within the religion. You may have religion without a
god, but you cannot have a god without religion.

She told me every aspect of her childhood was drenched in
religion, she was taught by Nuns, and went to church and confession every
Sunday. And God was ever present, looking down on her at ALL times, judging
her every action, she even felt scared talking to me about it and even more
scared for me doubting him. Obviously this is moraly correct and just within the religion, but is the
"brainwashing" of people, especially young children, that common? Should
people not decide their own path? How much of today's population that class
themselves as "religious" (or even "athiest") are the conditioned puppets of
their peers?
I was cristened, I went to sundy school, I went to church, my school was
prodominantly prodistent who accepted anyone of any creed or faith; there
was a catholic school just up the road who only accepted those of the
catholic faith. There are muslim schools, Jewish schools,... why? Should
religion be a part of education? Should specific religions be taught
exclusivley at the expense of others?

Barry: I think that you are getting "irrational" and "illogical" mixed up.

Dance Demon
18th-June-2004, 10:34 AM
{I've replied to the rest... but saved it at work 'cos the forum was down}

Cristianity (and a few others) make this one of their great selling points: Bathe in the waters and let them wash away your sins. Confess to god and ye shall be forgiven. In taking vows to follow this god, you are starting a new life. etceteras. Do you think that a religion would turn away a devotee?


Yep...but not all religions look on it this way. Some religions might turn away a "devotee", if they thought that their devotion was more about self preservation than actual belief, and their devotion would be short lived because they know that their time on this mortal coil is near an end. Many religions are NOT heavily into forgiveness, and are more into taking punitive action against those that act against their teachings......e.g. women being stoned for adultery, people having hands removed for stealing etc.
It is nice to know that if you are in time of need or peril, that you can have salvation by repenting all your sins, but if everyone took this approach, then religion would only ever be practiced by people who are close to death
Is it enough only to believe when you need to.

Rachel
18th-June-2004, 10:39 AM
DS I think you've done brilliantly here to spark off such debate - it's been great reading the postings, getting inside forum members' brains, learning stuff, challenging our own perceptions ...

(Though sorry to say I haven't got any useful/interesting contributions to add to this discussion. I just think of myself as an atheist, simply because that suits me and it's what I chose to believe right now. But what anyone else likes to believe is fine by me as long as it doesn't lead to violence and bigotry.)

Anyway, what I was posting to say (albeit somewhat flippantly) was that I enjoyed this thread so much - can't we set up a Weekly Discussion Topic???
Rachel

Lory
18th-June-2004, 11:26 AM
DS I think you've done brilliantly here to spark off such debate - it's been great reading the postings, getting inside forum members' brains, learning stuff, challenging our own perceptions ...


:yeah: I've really enjoyed it too!

Dreadful Scathe
18th-June-2004, 11:45 AM
No they are not: The divine figure known by sect A and the one known by sect B may both be attributed with the same powers, may both be called "God", may both be 'responsable' for the same events; but the social structure and rules that the religions follow (and hence the god's follow) are completley different - it's like saying that twins are the same person.

With the exception of the 3 big religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
3 levels of the same god (in that order) or as one person put it once - jews are muslims who didnt subscribe to the updates :).



And who is to say what is TRUTH ? Where is your proof of the
non-existance of a divine entity?

I would imagine its difficult to prove non-existance of something. The idea you would even try to do this is pretty ridiculous...theres no god ? prove it ..er..shes not here, or here, nope not behind the sofa..erm.. the onus is on the people who do believe in something to prove it to others, assuming they want to and the 'others' actually care about the proof!



oops. But I did say that the god has to follow the ethics and morals of the
religion, and people have to follow their god; the god is an embodyment of
the social structure within the religion. You may have religion without a
god, but you cannot have a god without religion.

course you can, you can believe in a deity without being religious. It may be personal for your whole life or you may be the first one to believe in this particular god and a religion and the other followers and books come later :).
Some people believe in fate and nothing else. Maybe they see fate as a god, it doesnt make them religious.



Obviously this is moraly correct and just within the religion, but is the
"brainwashing" of people, especially young children, that common? Should
people not decide their own path?

Children grow up believing that reality is what they are told, so all children brought up with religion can be said to be 'brainwashed' so yes the vast majority of us are brainwashed by that definition. Not just with religion either, if you'd been brought up a few hundred years ago you may believe in such bizarre things as 'mental illness is simple demon possession', 'the earth is flat'..and..well i could go on for a while but you get the idea :)
People should decide their own path but its not always that easy depending on what society they belong too. Try proclaiming yourself as an atheist in Saudi Arabia for example, or Nigeria where a census showed that 100% of people polled believed in god.



There are muslim schools, Jewish schools,... why? Should
religion be a part of education? Should specific religions be taught
exclusivley at the expense of others?


Personally I think religion should be taught in school because it is important to know about it. No one can deny its very important on this planet. It should be as open as possible, including covering atheism to show that a non-belief is just as possible as a specific belief in god(s) and religion.

Dreadful Scathe
18th-June-2004, 11:49 AM
Anyway, what I was posting to say (albeit somewhat flippantly) was that I enjoyed this thread so much - can't we set up a Weekly Discussion Topic???
Rachel


:) thats a good idea, I would never run out of topics to suggest and thats just me. You can pick the next one :)

Lynn
18th-June-2004, 12:35 PM
I was cristened, I went to sundy school, I went to church, my school was prodominantly prodistent who accepted anyone of any creed or faith; there was a catholic school just up the road who only accepted those of the catholic faith. There are muslim schools, Jewish schools,... why? Should religion be a part of education? Its very much part of education here in NI - there are very few integrated schools - almost every child goes to either a Protestant or Catholic school. (It is even sometimes used for the employment monitoring form - you are asked which school you went to to determine if you are Protestant or Catholic. This is try to ensure fair employment) Aside from the religion issues, I feel this can contribute to the division in society here - but that's another topic.


Try proclaiming yourself as an atheist in Saudi Arabia for example, or Nigeria where a census showed that 100% of people polled believed in god. Probably for different reasons. Saudi Arabia because its a Muslim culture and there may not be freedom to openly declare yourself to believe anything else. African culture doesn't separate the sacred and secular the way we do in the West - religion is not separated from the rest of life but part of the framework in which life is lived. Some people follow both a traditional African religion and Islam/Christianity. I wouldn't think many would be aetheists in Nigeria for that reason

Lynn
18th-June-2004, 12:37 PM
Also really enjoying this thread! :nice:

Gadget
18th-June-2004, 12:52 PM
Yep...but not all religions look on it this way. Some religions might turn away a "devotee", if they thought that their devotion was more about self preservation than actual belief, and their devotion would be short lived because they know that their time on this mortal coil is near an end.So the religion's god would want to be seen as selective in it's enrollment? It's possible I suppose, but I was under the impression that the majority of religions want to be seen as all inclusive... actuall now I think about it, most are actually exclusive and promote/encourage several 'isims' and discriminations. :what:

Many religions are NOT heavily into forgiveness, and are more into taking punitive action against those that act against their teachings......e.g. women being stoned for adultery, people having hands removed for stealing etc. That's back to the social engineering again - moral and ethical taboos being upheld and re-inforced by the followers of that religion: Forgiveness is in their religion, just not for certain things. There may be a religion that forgives the elimination of another person, but would kill all those who spat in the street. You are judging their "forgiveness" by your own social, moral and ethical rules - not theirs.

It is nice to know that if you are in time of need or peril, that you can have salvation by repenting all your sins, but if everyone took this approach, then religion would only ever be practiced by people who are close to death
Is it enough only to believe when you need to.Yes - Dosn't insurance work this way? Do people only insure their cars when they are about to be stolen/vadalised/minced? It's there, in the background; just in case you ever should need it.

Dance Demon
18th-June-2004, 01:00 PM
[QUOTE=Gadget
Yes - Dosn't insurance work this way? Do people only insure their cars when they are about to be stolen/vadalised/minced? It's there, in the background; just in case you ever should need it.[/QUOTE]



Yep....but you have to already be subscribed to it before it iworks......you can't go to an insurance company and say," my car has had a bump, can I take out your insurance to get it fixed"...you have to already have that insurance........you get nothing for nothing
:wink:

Gadget
18th-June-2004, 01:09 PM
I would imagine its difficult to prove non-existance of something.True, possably the wrong tack to take - my point was that "proof" relies on deductive reasoning: something must be because the majority of the evidence points to it. If another conclusion can be drawn from this evidence, then both may be possible - it is then a personally bias opinion as to which is the more plausable.


course you can, you can believe in a deity without being religious. It may be personal for your whole life or you may be the first one to believe in this particular god and a religion and the other followers and books come later :). {:whistle:}
Some people believe in fate and nothing else. Maybe they see fate as a god, it doesnt make them religious.So belief does not equate to religion? If I were to beleive in Fate I would live my life according to a social and moral structure based on either the 'fact' that everything is pre-ordained and there is nothing I can do about it, or try to thwart Fait's plans at every opportunity.
Giving a persona to a theology does not eliminate the theology behind it - and in believing in the persona, you must believe in what they stand for.


Personally I think religion should be taught in school because it is important to know about it. No one can deny its very important on this planet. It should be as open as possible, including covering atheism to show that a non-belief is just as possible as a specific belief in god(s) and religion.:yeah: that's what I was taught, and was my first introduction in budism etc. But if there is a social/religious group, do they have the "right" to educate their children exclusivly in their own doctrine's morals and ethics? If they teach other view points, can/should it be done without bias?

DanceDemon: Yea, but you don't start preying after you're dead, do you? {well, you could I suppose: it would depend on your religion :D}

Gus
18th-June-2004, 01:14 PM
Wondered ... what came first .. the belief or the religion? If you have been brought up as , say, a muslim ... then on attaining maturity you decide to challenge your existing beliefs ... how? How can someone assess what is an inate belief by them as an individual and what has been indoctrinated into them either by society, peers, family or religious orders. Religious beliefs in this sense are no different than political or even football supporting beliefs. What type of mind set/belief system makes a normal human being try to kill another just because they support a different bunch of jessies who run around on a piece of turf kicking an imitation inflated pig's bladder?:tears:

Went I finished Uni I'd been through the full RC indoctrination process but felt there were areas that I still firmly believed, areas that I thought were quaint but c*bblers and a whole raft of stuff that I simply didnt know about. even regarding the afterlife there is conflicting scientific evidence .... existence of superior forms of intelligence ... conflicting evidence ..... if minds immeasurably superior to mine have debated such topics through the centuries and failed to come to a consensus, I challenge any member of the forum to make an authoritative statement as to what IS and what ISN'T.

At the end of the day, many people will turn to religion as a way of dealing with life, which is too complex and too 'big' to be able to comprehend in its entirety. However, whether it be factualy right or wrong, I prefer to live my life in a world where the likes of Mother Terressa, Ghandi and MLK represent some kind of 'saintly' example ... rather than a cold factual life based on pure science.:waycool:

Will
18th-June-2004, 01:18 PM
As for Jasmuheen, she was used to illustrate my argument against this idea that there are 'subjective truths', and nothing to do with my argument against religion.

Barry's arguement against subjective truth appears to be backed up by the Bible ( 1 Cor 15 : 13-15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=1+Cor+15%3A13-15&version=NIV) ).

Andy McGregor
18th-June-2004, 01:51 PM
Anyway, what I was posting to say, was that I enjoyed this thread so much - can't we set up a Weekly Discussion Topic???
Rachel

Your wish is my command. I've set up a thread to discuss the most obvious next taboo topic of politics here. (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3127)

jivecat
18th-June-2004, 11:09 PM
And do you "know" how electricity gets to your PC? Do you "know" how the
glass, metals and plastics are made that are infront of you? Do you "know"
how the letters you type are converted into 1's and 0's to form words on the
screen?
You have faith that what you have been told is correct.

Well, you are absolutely correct in assuming that I don't know any of these things. But even if I'm too dim to take it all on board at least I know that there is sound, irrefutable, scientific evidence for all these phenomena (admittedly within the limitations of the human intellect) . It's not a question of me having faith in what I have been told, rather that it would be unreasonable of me to disbelieve what the evidence clearly shows. And nobody has come up with any sound, irrefutable, scientific evidence for the existence of god, yet. I'm still waiting!!

Gadget
18th-June-2004, 11:51 PM
Erm.. have we lost a few posts? I'm sure that I posted in here today? :confused:

Tiggerbabe
19th-June-2004, 01:11 AM
Erm.. have we lost a few posts? I'm sure that I posted in here today? :confused:
You did Gadget - 3 times I think, they're on page 6 :nice:

TheTramp
19th-June-2004, 08:25 AM
Or possibly pages 11 and 12, depending on how many posts you view to a page!! :D

Trampy

Barry Shnikov
19th-June-2004, 11:58 AM
I prefer to live my life in a world where the likes of Mother Terressa, Ghandi and MLK represent some kind of 'saintly' example ... rather than a cold factual life based on pure science.:waycool:

First, that's a false dilemma: the two options are not mutually exclusive. You don't need to believe in supernatural beings to have a very high opinion of those three and the example they set.

Second, more fool you if you believe that a life based on pure science is "cold" and factual. I cannot tell you the feeling of wonder that is provoked in me - just to take one example - when I look at the Horsehead nebula. The black horsehead shape is a cloud of an almost perfect vacuum: a few particles per cubic metre; only a little less of a vacuum than the space we see it through. Nevertheless the vacuum cloud is so LARGE that light from the ionised gas behind it cannot penetrate it, and so we see it magnificent silhouette against a firework display of the star birthplace behind it.

Barry Shnikov
19th-June-2004, 12:16 PM
You have faith that what you have been told is correct. You have faith that
since it's happened a few times, it will happen again. Start looking into
quantum physics: then your "faith" in what we "know" of the way the world
works really gets screwed.

This is a different type of belief, and I don't think it's right to characterise it as 'faith'.

The SOED defines faith as:

"1 Confidence, reliance, belief esp. without evidence or proof. (Foll. by in.)
b Belief based on testimony or authority.
2 What is or should be believed; a system of firmly-held beliefs or principles; a religion."
My belief - that what I have read and watched and heard about electricity, digital processing, computing and so forth - is true is not 'belief...without evidence or proof'. It's based on probability, or - if you like - is an application of Occam's Razor. To proceed on the basis that such evidence is untrue or mistaken requires a larger number and more complex hypotheses than accepting that it is the best evidence available.

Religion (or at least Christianity), on the other hand, requires a stupendous number of hypotheses of enormous complexity in comparison to the alternative. Amongst others, a communication system which is undetectable except by the human brain; a method of controlling matter and energy which is undetectable and unrepeatable; the existence of something outside of the universe and of time, and quite a lot more.

Gadget
20th-June-2004, 09:15 PM
My belief ~snip~ is not 'belief...without evidence or proof'. It's based on probability, or - if you like - is an application of Occam's Razor. To proceed on the basis that such evidence is untrue or mistaken requires a larger number and more complex hypotheses than accepting that it is the best evidence available.But your "belief" is based on a 99.99...% probability - which does not completley exclude the existance of any other explination of the facts as presented. Your statements and arguments do. If there is any other explination of facts, no matter how improbable or implausable, then the choice between one and another is based on your opinion of what can or cannot be: Your opinion.
Some folk believe that Aliens sparked life on this planet rather than a diety or science. There is a lot more up-to-date documnetation on alien contact than the scriptures that "God" is based on. Do you conceed to the possbility that this theology puts forward?
Another point is why the two beliefs have to be seperate? Couldn't "god" have postioned the universe in just the right way that our planet revolves in just the right place with just the right amount of primordial goo to start life? I mean, every star in the sky is a sun - most will have planets revolving arround them; isn't it concevable that something played with the odds to bring us here?

Religion (or at least Christianity), on the other hand, requires a stupendous number of hypotheses of enormous complexity in comparison to the alternative. Amongst others, a communication system which is undetectable except by the human brain;ESP? undetectable by whom? by what means? it can't be undetectable by the recipricant or the sender, so how do you conclude that it's undetectable? if it were, how would we know about it?

... a method of controlling matter and energy which is undetectable and unrepeatable;?? If I took some of today's technology back 50-100 years, I would seem to be controlling matter and energy with no detectable means (if I could find a socket) Magicians pride themselves in this illusion. Just becuse we cannot at this moment in time explain, replicate or be privy to how it was done does not mean that we will not in the future.

the existence of something outside of the universe and of time, and quite a lot more."outside of the universe" - now that's a statement! "Outside of the known universe" I will accept. Time is an elusive quantity that scientists, mathematicians and brains immesurably superior to mine have described as the fourth dimension. They then went and did silly things like explain a fith and sixth dimension, which are "outside" of our perception and means of measuring. If these things exist, why can't "God" exist within them? Why do we need to justify It's existance in our (limited) four dimension reality?

Time travel... now there's a good "topic of the week." :wink:

Gadget
20th-June-2004, 09:33 PM
It's not a question of me having faith in what I have been told, rather that it would be unreasonable of me to disbelieve what the evidence clearly shows.My point is that "evidence" is subjective. "clearly" is subjective. And "shows" is a conclusion based on the prior two. You mention "scientific" and "irrefutable" as well; "science" has grown from theologies and ideas into experimentation and practical application - if "science" has it's roots in the ideas of man, then it shares the same base starting point as faith in god: another theology - it's just a bit harder to perform experiments to get the desired results.
And I challenge anything to be "irrefutable". Nothing is ever pure "black" or pure "white" - it's all shades of grey.

Barry Shnikov
20th-June-2004, 10:50 PM
But your "belief" is based on a 99.99...% probability - which does not completley exclude the existance of any other explination of the facts as presented. Your statements and arguments do. If there is any other explination of facts, no matter how improbable or implausable, then the choice between one and another is based on your opinion of what can or cannot be: Your opinion.

In the end, we each have to decide whether we can proceed on the basis that something is overwhelmingly probable, or whether inactivity can only be ended by absolute certainty. I choose to proceed on the basis of overwhelming probability. I'm even confident enough to be scathing about religious claptrap on that basis. I can't prove that the world wasn't covered by water for forty days and forty nights, as per the Biblical story of the Flood; but since no-one is able to explain where the extra 4½ billion cubic kilometres of water went, I'm happy to proceed on the basis that it is a fable, and not intended to be taken as literal truth.


Some folk believe that Aliens sparked life on this planet rather than a diety or science. There is a lot more up-to-date documnetation on alien contact than the scriptures that "God" is based on. Do you conceed to the possbility that this theology puts forward?

Do I believe that aliens began life on this planet? No. It's slightly more probable than the 'divine being' solution. I figure that whatever else might separate us from species from another planet, intelligence is largely going to be predictable. They may have three digits on each hand and count in base 6, but the question arises: taking into account the unbelievably astronomical ( :o ) cost of interstellar travel - what would be the point of pottering around the galaxy seeding life on planets? Still less travelling all that distance only to kill cows in a mysterious fashion and kidnap people for weird experiments and then put them back where they were.


Another point is why the two beliefs have to be seperate? Couldn't "god" have postioned the universe in just the right way that our planet revolves in just the right place with just the right amount of primordial goo to start life? I mean, every star in the sky is a sun - most will have planets revolving arround them; isn't it concevable that something played with the odds to bring us here?

Clearly it's conceivable, millions of christians conceive of nothing else. We don't need God to explain anything. Example: pick a particular hand you might like in bridge, and the odds of getting it dealt to you are of the order of 2.5 times 10 to the power 22 against you. But nobody looks at the 13 cards they've just been dealt and concludes that the dealer must have had divine help...


ESP? undetectable by whom? by what means? it can't be undetectable by the recipricant or the sender, so how do you conclude that it's undetectable? if it were, how would we know about it?

I mean, undetectable by any other means. What's unclear about that? We can detect light with our eyes, sound with our ears, infra red, ultra violet, X-rays, gamma rays, alpha rays, neutrinos and so forth all with the relevant machines. Given the number of prayers said every day, they ought to be easy to detect, especially compared to neutrinos!


?? If I took some of today's technology back 50-100 years, I would seem to be controlling matter and energy with no detectable means (if I could find a socket) Magicians pride themselves in this illusion. Just becuse we cannot at this moment in time explain, replicate or be privy to how it was done does not mean that we will not in the future.

The hole in your argument is 'if I took some of today's technology back...'. Only you can't. Not without postulating time travel (Occam's razor again.) Anyway, you'd have to go back more than 100 years - plenty of electricity around in 1904. Most of today's technology was implicit in known science of Einstein's day. With the honourable exception of quantum mechanics, of course, without which we could not have discovered the semi-conductor; but even that was an established theory by 1930.

[QUOTE=Gadget]"outside of the universe" - now that's a statement! "Outside of the known universe" I will accept. Time is an elusive quantity that scientists, mathematicians and brains immesurably superior to mine have described as the fourth dimension. They then went and did silly things like explain a fith and sixth dimension, which are "outside" of our perception and means of measuring. If these things exist, why can't "God" exist within them? Why do we need to justify It's existance in our (limited) four dimension reality?

Not sure what you think the difference is between 'the universe' and 'the known universe'. As for the additional dimensions - you may be referring to string theory, or 'M-theory', which requires 11 dimensions. The thing is that the extra 7 dimensions are all smaller than the Planck length (1.6 x 10-35 metres; this is billions of times smaller than an electron which is 10-13 metres) so if that's where God is he's REALLY small! And I'm not attempting to justify anything - on the contrary I'm simply suggesting that what is, is; we don't need mysticism of any variety. Not to explain things, not to enjoy them.


Time travel... now there's a good "topic of the week." :wink:

I'd love to go back in time and talk with Jane Austen...

Barry Shnikov
20th-June-2004, 11:44 PM
My point is that "evidence" is subjective. "clearly" is subjective. And "shows" is a conclusion based on the prior two. You mention "scientific" and "irrefutable" as well; "science" has grown from theologies and ideas into experimentation and practical application - if "science" has it's roots in the ideas of man, then it shares the same base starting point as faith in god: another theology - it's just a bit harder to perform experiments to get the desired results.
And I challenge anything to be "irrefutable". Nothing is ever pure "black" or pure "white" - it's all shades of grey.

This idea that science is a type of theology is a nonsense that must be shown up. The defining characteristic of religions is that they are 'received wisdom' and they usually depend on a 'revealed text' - the Torah, Gospels, Koran, etc - and uncertainties or disputes are resolved by appealing to the text - often as interpreted by guardians of the truth. (See the vicious 16th century wrangling concerning the first appearance of an English text of the Bible.) As a way of explaining new and existing phenomena it's like a straitjacket: every new thing has to be fitted in to the existing framework.

Science, however, works from the other end. As a way of explaining new phenomena it uses hypotheses, testing them for falsifiability, seeing how the phenomenon links up with other phenomena, gradually building toward a structure that works. We don't believe in science because someone tells us so, we believe because it functions well. People who believe in religion cannot say this, because religions do not function well.

Where there is a gap in scientists' understanding, they begin to seek explanations, striving to fill the gap. Where there is a gap in religious understanding - and there's no answer in the revealed text - it's just left to faith. "God works in mysterious ways", "the [whatever] of God passeth all understanding", blah blah. There have even been great divines who have, like the Red Queen, taken pride in their ability to believe frankly incredible things.

OK, so a lot of quantum mechanics defies belief in a similar way. Most of us are not smart enough to follow quantum mechanical proofs, and so we do have to take the word of those who can on trust. The difference is it will only take one person to show that a better answer is provided by some other system, and quantum mechanics will be abandoned; it's just a hypothesis, a tool scientists use to find answers. How many people would need to show that there's a better answer than the one provided by christianity, before christianity would be abandoned? Every last mother's son of them, that's what I think. You can point out ludicrous absurdities in the Bible, you can question the sense of believing in omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent divinities who are such bad designers that in human eyes the blood vessels are positioned in front of the light receptors, but you'll never shake the faith of a true believer.

Andy McGregor
21st-June-2004, 12:25 AM
you can question the sense of believing in omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent divinities who are such bad designers that in human eyes the blood vessels are positioned in front of the light receptors, but you'll never shake the faith of a true believer.

I am a true believer in Darwin. The eyes have evolved that way because it was the way that was the most fit to survive.

And wasn't Darwin in huge amounts of trouble with the established church because his theories were contrary to Genesis?

p.s. I vaguely remember than one to the theories regarding evolution was that once something worked it didn't need to further evolve. Can't be sure, hung up my lab-coat in 1980.

Dreadful Scathe
21st-June-2004, 02:30 PM
They may have three digits on each hand and count in base 6, but the question arises: taking into account the unbelievably astronomical ( :o ) cost of interstellar travel - what would be the point of pottering around the galaxy seeding life on planets? cost of internet travel ? pah - theyll be able to manufacture dilithium crystals for their warp core and replicate food - no cost at all as far as i can see :).



I mean, undetectable by any other means. What's unclear about that? We can detect light with our eyes, sound with our ears, infra red, ultra violet, X-rays, gamma rays, alpha rays, neutrinos and so forth all with the relevant machines. Given the number of prayers said every day, they ought to be easy to detect, especially compared to neutrinos!
Got to disagree with this, 'ought to be easy' is not a particularly sane statement for anyone to be making :) Try explaining those concepts to scientists from just a century or 2 in the past you'll get laughed at. As Arthur C Clarke once said 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. Spirituality could be considered the same way - maybe god had dvd players eaons ago but they're old hat now - hes into creating entire universes :)







I'd love to go back in time and talk with Jane Austen...
just talk ? no hanky panky ?

Forte
21st-June-2004, 02:48 PM
just talk ? no hanky panky ?


Jane Austen didn't believe in hanky panky ( well there's none in her books.... :wink: )

Dreadful Scathe
21st-June-2004, 03:17 PM
Jane Austen didn't believe in hanky panky ( well there's none in her books.... :wink: )
but its the quiet ones you have to watch isnt it ? :D




linda

Tiggerbabe
21st-June-2004, 07:32 PM
but its the quiet ones you have to watch isnt it ? :D

No, don't think you have to watch if you don't want to :wink:

Dreadful Scathe
21st-June-2004, 09:55 PM
No, don't think you have to watch if you don't want to :wink:

I have to watch so I can give directions to the camera operator, sound engineer...etc...

Tiggerbabe
21st-June-2004, 10:10 PM
hee hee hee - silly me :blush: how you "suffer" for your profession :wink:

Barry Shnikov
22nd-June-2004, 01:54 PM
I am a true believer in Darwin. The eyes have evolved that way because it was the way that was the most fit to survive.

And wasn't Darwin in huge amounts of trouble with the established church because his theories were contrary to Genesis?

p.s. I vaguely remember than one to the theories regarding evolution was that once something worked it didn't need to further evolve. Can't be sure, hung up my lab-coat in 1980.

Hmm, the 'true believer' thing makes me a little uneasy - sounds too much like something Billy Graham might say...not about evolution, obviously :)

The thing evolution of working systems isn't so much a theory, but you're right it's a sort of inevitable corollary. Two things are needed to power evolutionary change: a threat, and an adaptation. The threat means some of the species dies, and the adaptation means some survive. After a while, all the species has the adaptation - and is a slightly new species. There's no need for human eyes to improve, so there's no evolutionary pressure - they work 'well enough'. But for a species of bird of prey, competing with other species of bird of prey for meagre pickings, the species that has the better eyesight gets more food, and this immediately puts pressure on the other species so that the poor-sighted birds will be selected against.

Lynn
23rd-June-2004, 10:44 AM
Faith in science is really faith in men. Science is often seen as some abstract body of knowledge with scientists as the ones who are revealing its secrets with steady improvements in technology. It would be nice to think of scientists as objective and unbiased seekers of fact, but in practice they can have their own prejudices and agendas. They may be concerned with their own status, under pressure from funding agencies to publish results, or simply wanting to get ahead of their competitors. And they can make mistakes. What was scientific ‘knowledge’ 150 years ago is not accepted now (Lamark had his followers too!), 100 years ago, even 50 years ago. So our ‘evidence’ and proof of scientific fact today, may change in 50 years time. (Not knocking scientists here, I’m sure any scientists will agree, especially about the funding bit!)


I can't prove that the world wasn't covered by water for forty days and forty nights, as per the Biblical story of the Flood; but since no-one is able to explain where the extra 4½ billion cubic kilometres of water went, I'm happy to proceed on the basis that it is a fable, and not intended to be taken as literal truth. The main reason for lack of ‘evidence’ in a global flood is that geologists have worked taking Charles Lyell’s ‘The present is the key to the past’ as a given – i.e. that geological processes of rock formation in the past must have always worked at the same rate as today, rather than a sudden deposit of sedimentary material which would be the result of a global flood and which would leave lots of buried fossils… which is what we have… As regards the water, it has been considered that a very different set of climatological conditions might have prevailed – a meteorologist friend thought of doing her PhD on it, but opted for a more commercially viable topic.

Interestingly, it isn’t only the Bible that includes a major flood – many ancient cultures around the world (not just from the Ancient Near East) have passed down stories of a flood, complete with some sort of a wooden vessel which animals and men went into to survive the flood.

CJ
23rd-June-2004, 11:21 AM
A point of order, here, really...

Looking to the setter of the original Q for answer:

Given recent theories suggesting Jesus was an alien, and that there is no missing link because we, ourselves, are extra terrestrials dumped here because of our own stupidity/willingness to war/destroy our own environment etc....

My question is:

If we were placed here by aliens (which is atheory gaining creedence) or we are indeed a mutation: a sort of GM grey/chimp type being, then we are resultant of "greater beings."

BUT

Are they Gods?

Dreadful Scathe
23rd-June-2004, 11:24 AM
Faith in science is really faith in men. Science is often seen as some abstract body of knowledge with scientists as the ones who are revealing its secrets with steady improvements in technology. It would be nice to think of scientists as objective and unbiased seekers of fact, but in practice they can have their own prejudices and agendas.
Yes people often hold scientists in high regard by merit of them having that label in the first place, but of course you'll get as many useless scientists as you get useless people in other skilled professions. This doesnt change the fact that science is about 'looking for answers' and the good scientists look for the answers as well as think of the questions they should be asking. Any good scientist will as objective and unbiased as they can be, the scientific process cannot work based on any bias or assumption on the scientists part, if they dont obey process then they might as well be science fiction authors ;).

Spooky that we are 'looking for answers' when the number of votes in the poll at this time is 42 :)

Gadget
23rd-June-2004, 12:30 PM
I you are a true "Darwinist" and believe that the process of evolution is how man came about, do you similarly believe that this "process of natural selection" should continue into the future?
In the past, those too weak or infirm were left to die and removed from the gene pool. Today we are expanding life expectancy, brining back those on the brink of death, eliminating disease, and spending vast amounts of resources to go against this process. "Natural selection" has had it's day - man is the ruling force on the planet now, not nature.
Perhaps this change of balance can be paralleled with the decline of religious belief systems and the rise of "scientific" beliefs?


CJ: If a "higher life" meddled with stuff to bring us to being, would they be a God? Depends on your definition of godhood. I would imagine that some people do prescribe to this philosophy and do worship "alien life" in a parallel to conventional thinking of worshiping God.

Gus
23rd-June-2004, 12:56 PM
Are they Gods?

Excellent summation. I'm RC but have no problem in regarding God as an 'alien' as there is nothing inherrently exclusive in the two terms. There was an episode in a Deep space Nine when the Federation managed to communicate (sort of) with a vastly superiour race with awesome powers. The Federation regarded this as an Alien Contact, the local System regarded the beings as Gods ... who was right ... possibly both.

It isnt beyond the realms of possibility that our existence the direct result of an alien culture with powers beyond our current comprehension ... but, if we continue to evolve at our current rate, will there be a time when we too have such powers ... and then would we be Gods?

Emma
23rd-June-2004, 01:11 PM
If we were placed here by aliens (which is atheory gaining creedence) or we are indeed a mutation: a sort of GM grey/chimp type being, then we are resultant of "greater beings."

BUT

Are they Gods?

I think this is the same question, but....if something is a 'greater being' but is not worshipped/believed in as a god, is it possible for it to be a god?

Shades of Schroedinger's Cat. Miaow.

Andy McGregor
23rd-June-2004, 01:27 PM
If you are a true Darwinist and believe that the process of evolution is how man came about, do you similarly believe that this "process of natural selection" should continue into the future?

In the past, those too weak or infirm were left to die and removed from the gene pool. Today we are expanding life expectancy, bringing back those on the brink of death, eliminating disease, and spending vast amounts of resources to go against this process. "Natural selection" has had it's day - man is the ruling force on the planet now, not nature.

No, natural selection is still going on. Just at a different level. We, as a species, are better equipped to survive due to our intellect, application of that intellect is part of the natural process.

To give a simple example, thousands of years ago we invented clothes, that meant we could survive in colder climates - did 'natural selection' end for those people who wore clothes? I don't think so.

Gadget
23rd-June-2004, 02:05 PM
No, natural selection is still going on. Just at a different level. We, as a species, are better equipped to survive due to our intellect, application of that intellect is part of the natural process.

To give a simple example, thousands of years ago we invented clothes, that meant we could survive in colder climates - did 'natural selection' end for those people who wore clothes? I don't think so.That's not "evolution" through natural selection: it's development. "Evolution" was the enhancement of a protrudence at the front of the face that warmed the air before inhailing it. Natural. Clothing is not a "natural" thing - it's manufactured and created by Man, for Man.

We may have evolved intellegance through natural selection, but the application of intellegance is not IMHO "Natural Selection" - if it were, then only the brightest would survive... and I know some seriously dim people. :rolleyes:



I think this is the same question, but....if something is a 'greater being' but is not worshipped/believed in as a god, is it possible for it to be a god? I think that for it to be a "god", someone must believe in it - whether it's the entity it's self, or some other 'lesser' entity that it does not even know about.
However, an equally obtuse question is: If something is worshiped as a god, does that make it one?

Andy McGregor
23rd-June-2004, 03:15 PM
That's not evolution through natural selection: it's development. Evolution was the enhancement of a protruberence at the front of the face that warmed the air before inhaling it: natural. Clothing is not a natural thing - it's manufactured and created by Man, for Man.

Selection by survival of the fittest in not about something being natural or otherwise: it is about the most fit to survive and competition for resource. Taking clothing as an example, those with enough sense to wear clothes survived the winter, naked people froze to death.

I think the reason that we survive and have a diversity of ability it due to the social/tribal nature of mankind. Also, there is abundant resource which means that Gadget's "seriously dim" people still get to eat, breed, etc.

Dreadful Scathe
23rd-June-2004, 04:42 PM
Looking to the setter of the original Q for answer:
that'd be Ian Fleming ?



If we were placed here by aliens (which is atheory gaining creedence) or we are indeed a mutation: a sort of GM grey/chimp type being, then we are resultant of "greater beings."

BUT

Are they Gods?
Entirely depends on your definition of "Gods" but as "Gods" used to be blamed/worshiped for things as simple as the sun rising in the morning in pre-christian days - a big YES is the answer to that. Sun/Moon/Tree/Animal gods may not be as in vogue as they used to be but if they can be gods, powerful alien entities certainly merit that label :). The problem arises when we actually PROVE that these beings exist - if there is a god of trees or there are aliens that visited the earth - once we know about them it would be human nature to denounce them as gods :) even if they can prove they created us all, we have evolved to have free will and most of us would probably not feel we owed them anything ! or am i wrong ? :) If you had gods email address would you still be happy to worship him...especially if he added you to a spam mailing list!!!

CJ
23rd-June-2004, 04:45 PM
that'd be Ian Fleming ?


He wasn't in, so you'll just have to do :rolleyes:

Magic Hans
23rd-June-2004, 05:53 PM
Could any gnostic theist out there let me know what the evidence is for "knowing for sure that god exists"?
No!!!!

As religion/theism/philosophy/spiritualism is (IMHO) entirely subjective and entirely non-scientific, then it can not possibly have no proof!!!!

Reasons maybe, but proof definitely not (in capitals!!)

Gadget
23rd-June-2004, 06:04 PM
Selection by survival of the fittest in not about something being natural or otherwise: it is about the most fit to survive and competition for resource.No it's not: If that were true, then to follow it to it's conclusion would mean that the most efficent, most powerfull, most able to survive entity is man. To be "fitter" than your competitor you need to be the most efficent at gathering resources. More and more efficency leads to better and better harvesting leads to less and less resources to be harvested leads to getting more efficent to get more from limited resources leads to better harvesting,...untill we have no more resources. If we live by the "survival of the fittest" rule, we are all doomed to self-destruction - we consume all untill there is nothing left. Then we starve. Then we die.

"Natural Selection" takes care of this; when there is a shortage of resources, the population decreases. When there is an abundance, the population increases. Everything is either self-sufficent or lives in a self-sustained eco-system. It's a big "circle of life" thing. Man breaks this cycle and over-rides the "natural selection" process and screws up eco-systems.

What we don't do is live by a "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" process - weakness is aided instead of destroyed. Resources are expended to prolong a life that absorbs even more resources without giving back to the pack. Population is controlled and limited. We have evolved past natural selection. The only "evolution" I can envisage happening is forced genetics.

Which leads to another branch of discussion...
Those that prescribe to the "no god; science is king" theory; is genetic manipulation to inprove some attributes or eliminate others right? Is the genetic modification of food stuffs right? Are we right to start 'growing' life so that we can harvest raw materials? After all, we can't be treading on God's toes - he dosn't exist. We can't be "playing god" because there are no gods.

Andy McGregor
23rd-June-2004, 06:14 PM
No it's not:

I wish I was a sure about anything as Gadget is about everything...

Magic Hans
23rd-June-2004, 06:26 PM
I wish I was a sure about anything as Gadget is about everything...
Touchèe ...... errrrr .... I mean touchÉe !!

..... I guess that's something about belief!!! Being sure. No imposing that "being sure"-ness on someone else .... no that's a bit different!!

Dreadful Scathe
23rd-June-2004, 06:40 PM
I wish I was a sure about anything as Gadget is about everything...


no you're not :)

Barry Shnikov
24th-June-2004, 12:31 AM
A point of order, here, really...

If we were placed here by aliens (which is atheory gaining creedence)...

...only amongst people who believe e.g. that you can cure cancer by waving a crystal about :D .

As for evolution and natural selection, it doesn't operate on human beings as it does on lower animals; this is because we have free will and intelligence; we can disobey the promptings of animal instinct. Of course it will still operate to some extent; if women begin to prize a (previously unvalued) particular characteristic amongst males and this continues for several generations, males with that characteristic are more likely to produce offspring than not.

Gadget
24th-June-2004, 08:33 AM
I wish I was a sure about anything as Gadget is about everything...I was responding with an equal amount of conviction as the post - You are so sure of your beliefs and so confident that there is no other plausable way of looking at a subject. My only certainty is that nothing is as simple and 'two dimensional' to only propose and accept one solution to a problem. I still have a slight doubt that 1+1=2. :what:

DavidY
24th-June-2004, 12:28 PM
I still have a slight doubt that 1+1=2. :what:One current forum signature would seem to imply that 1+1=10...

Sheepman
24th-June-2004, 01:43 PM
No it's not: If that were true, then to follow it to it's conclusion would mean that the most efficent, most powerfull, most able to survive entity is man. To be "fitter" than your competitor you need to be the most efficent at gathering resources. More and more efficency leads to better and better harvesting leads to less and less resources to be harvested leads to getting more efficent to get more from limited resources leads to better harvesting,...untill we have no more resources. If we live by the "survival of the fittest" rule, we are all doomed to self-destruction - we consume all untill there is nothing left. Then we starve. Then we die.
I think it is clear from what you say that the "Survival of the fittest" rule is mostly to do with intelligence (when it comes to man). It seems to be suggested that we are now too intelligent to "suffer" evolving, especially as we can control our use of resources in an intelligent way.

Now I'm not one to go spreading gloom and doom. Anyone heard about consuming carbon based fuels profligately, leading to wars and destruction? Possibly global warming, which doesn't just mean that Scotland will be the place to spend the summers . . .
Couldn't happen could it, we're far too intelligent.

Greg

Aleks
25th-June-2004, 11:02 AM
...only amongst people who believe e.g. that you can cure cancer by waving a crystal about :D .
Oi, wotchit! You're now messing with MY beliefs! :(

Dreadful Scathe
25th-June-2004, 11:03 AM
One current forum signature would seem to imply that 1+1=10...
its the implication that makes it funny though :)

Rachel
25th-June-2004, 11:45 AM
...only amongst people who believe e.g. that you can cure cancer by waving a crystal about .


Oi, wotchit! You're now messing with MY beliefs! :( I'm with Aleks on this!
Rachel

Aleks
25th-June-2004, 12:24 PM
I'm with Aleks on this!
Rachel

Whew! I thought I'd be out alone on that one :flower:

Gadget
25th-June-2004, 12:32 PM
Curious:
Is it the crystals that work the mojo? Or is it the 'healer''s belief in the crystals that work the mojo? Or is it the 'client''s belief in the healer and/or crystals that work the mojo?

My opinion is that the healer uses the crystals as a focus; different materials trigger different 'emotions' - same sort of way that different colours have different psychological effects on people. They then 'extend' their awareness (or 'aura' for lack of a better word) to read/heal/diagnose their client.

People that don't think such things are possible; how can the Shaolin monks be explained? Fire walking? Driving in nails with bare hands? ... there are some physical things to do with the human mind and body that current scientific thinking says are imposable.

I also found this web site (http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/) that seems to run parallel to my own philosophies and "explains" scientific proof of "god"'s existence. Obviously my conclusions based on the evidence are different to his, but it's a nice theory.

Aleks
25th-June-2004, 12:43 PM
Curious:
Is it the crystals that work the mojo? Or is it the 'healer''s belief in the crystals that work the mojo? Or is it the 'client''s belief in the healer and/or crystals that work the mojo?
My understanding (belief) is that everything has a vibration or energy wave/pattern (all those electrons moving around?), some stronger than others and at different frequencies. What we perceive to be our universe is our brain's coding of these vibrations, creating what we see and our perception of the experience of being alive. If this is true (as I believe it to be), anything with a vibration (energy) has the potential to influence anything else that vibrates. This is my personal "coding" of why and how crystals/colour/any energy therapy works.

Gadget
25th-June-2004, 01:18 PM
{I'm about to be seen as even weirder... oh well :grin:}
I like the theory of everything having a particular 'phase' it vibrates at - sort of like sound being able to shatter glass. Light is commonly held to behave like a wave; waves are produced as a result of vibration, so it could be true - different colours have different wavelengths and so absorb/reflect the light. So the body must radiate and absorb energy, even if it's just light, depending on what the composition is at that area. Most of the body is semi-translucent, so bad/different cells or tense muscles just under the skin would absorb/dissipate energy differently on the surface of the skin from normal/good areas.

I'm slightly at odds with "brain's coding of these vibrations, creating what we see and our perception of the experience of being alive." - I agree that perception may be based on these vibrations, and memory may be formed from them, but I think that the experience of being alive is based on interpretation of these perceptions.

Interesting view point... might explain a peculiar phenomenon:
On occasion I can run my hands over smooth walls, railings, people etc. and 'buzz'; as if out of phase with the world: sort of a cross between the static if you run a hand over a TV and running your hand the wrong way over velvet. It's almost a sound that your skin hears. If it's over a person, they feel it too. {weird, uh? :what:}
Might also explain the compliments I get from massage.

Rachel
25th-June-2004, 01:57 PM
...Or is it the 'client''s belief in the healer and/or crystals that work the mojo? ... I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge or understanding of Aleks and others. My belief has always been extremely simplistic - it almost doesn't matter what you believe in [thinking complementary therapy there], if you want it and believe in it enough, it will work for you. Basically, I have a huge faith in power of the mind over body, and think we know so very very little about the way the mind works.

However, I will readily accept, for example, the effects of vibrations/energy patterns of crystals as Aleks so clearly explained. I don't really need to have a deep understanding of how it works - I like the idea, and if I believe in it enough, it will work for me.
Rachel

BTW- always had a [burning!] ambition to walk over hot coals ...

ChrisA
25th-June-2004, 07:29 PM
My belief has always been extremely simplistic - it almost doesn't matter what you believe in [thinking complementary therapy there], if you want it and believe in it enough, it will work for you. Basically, I have a huge faith in power of the mind over body, and think we know so very very little about the way the mind works.

....... :yeah:
I have a lot of time for this view. Despite a background in physical science, the whole creative visualisation thing has always resonated very strongly with me for some reason.

Success with the techniques has been tantalisingly unreliable, though, with the bizarre exception of car park spaces, which I seem to be able to create even at the most unlikely times, in the most unlikely places, with ease, provided that I start working on them early enough. If I don't remember to do the 'make the space' thing at least a couple of minutes before I need it, I stand no chance. If I do, though, I'm very successful, and more than one person has remarked on the rather unexpectedly high success rate...



However, I will readily accept, for example, the effects of vibrations/energy patterns of crystals as Aleks so clearly explained.

This I have trouble with. It is one thing to contend that there are things we can do with mind that are not yet understood; it is quite another to use the semantics of physics (waves, vibrations, energy, etc) to support a set of propositions that are virtually untestable in any serious manner.

If crystals can heal, then lets have a proper study, which is carefully designed to eliminate confusion arising from the placebo effect, to be repeatable, to be free from anecdote, to be statistically significant, in fact to be scientifically rigorous in every way.

If it's true, then bring it on. Our jaded experience could do with some fresh reality to rock the boat of establishment scientific thinking.

If it's false, of course, bin it completely, and let's major on understanding how to exploit Rachel's 'mind over matter' thesis.

Chris

DavidY
25th-June-2004, 07:55 PM
....... :yeah:
Success with the techniques has been tantalisingly unreliable, though, with the bizarre exception of car park spaces, which I seem to be able to create even at the most unlikely times, in the most unlikely places, with ease, provided that I start working on them early enough. If I don't remember to do the 'make the space' thing at least a couple of minutes before I need it, I stand no chance. If I do, though, I'm very successful, and more than one person has remarked on the rather unexpectedly high success rate... What's your technique for doing this then? Sounds like a useful one for the rest of us to experiment with...

DavidY
25th-June-2004, 08:03 PM
I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge or understanding of Aleks and others. My belief has always been extremely simplistic - it almost doesn't matter what you believe in [thinking complementary therapy there], if you want it and believe in it enough, it will work for you. Basically, I have a huge faith in power of the mind over body, and think we know so very very little about the way the mind works. :yeah: I think I tend to agree with Rachel (and ChrisA) although I don't necessarily get it to work for me.

If "mind over body" does work, then it's hard to disentangle from religious beliefs. For instance, if you firmly believe that a deity will help you get better from an apparently incurable illness, then it also means you firmly believe you will get better.

So if in the end you do actually get better, it's difficult to prove if it was an effect caused by your own your own "mind over body" self-belief, or some sort of divine intervention (or indeed some other effect).

ChrisA
25th-June-2004, 08:13 PM
What's your technique for doing this then? Sounds like a useful one for the rest of us to experiment with...

Well, I'm pretty shy about it, cos it sounds so completely daft - and a million miles from my sceptical, physical science background.

It's pretty much standard 'see it in your mind's eye' kind of thing, let it develop in your imagination, and it becomes real.

So I imagine the parking space, sometimes but not always where I want it, a few minutes before I need it, and much more often than not, and even at ludicrously busy times when you'd think a space would be as likely as a lottery win, there it is. If I fail to imagine it, there's never a space.

It's weird - I can visualise the spaces very clearly, and they say that the more clearly you can visualise what you want, the more successful you'll be at getting it...

I know, I know. Complete *******s, just coincidence. Yeah, I know :rolleyes:

Chris

Gadget
25th-June-2004, 08:48 PM
If crystals can heal, then lets have a proper study, which is carefully designed to eliminate confusion arising from the placebo effect, to be repeatable, to be free from anecdote, to be statistically significant, in fact to be scientifically rigorous in every way.But what if the results only shows up as the placebo effect?


If "mind over body" does work, then it's hard to disentangle from religious beliefs.~snip~ So if in the end you do actually get better, it's difficult to prove if it was an effect caused by your own your own "mind over body" self-belief, or some sort of divine intervention...:D
So if "mind over body" works, and the results are similar to divine intervension, then it is not a huge leap to see that we are all gods within our selves. Belief in "self" rather than an external divine authority. {now where have I heard that theory before? :innocent:}

ChrisA: mine works for traffic lights - Unforunatly it's as a pedestrian, so inevitably I get 80-90% red lights. My brother refuses to travel with me in the car, or plans routes to avoid traffic lights (so do I.)

ChrisA
25th-June-2004, 10:30 PM
But what if the results only shows up as the placebo effect?

An easy question at last.

If the results are indistinguishable, statistically, from a placebo, then it must be concluded, regrettably no doubt, that there is no actual efficacy of the treatment in question.

Interesting to note that with prescription drugs these days, the notes tend to include a reference to how much better the drug is than a placebo.

If it's no better, I can't see health services paying for it :D

Chris

Barry Shnikov
27th-June-2004, 11:59 PM
Curious:
Is it the crystals that work the mojo? Or is it the 'healer''s belief in the crystals that work the mojo? Or is it the 'client''s belief in the healer and/or crystals that work the mojo?

My opinion is that the healer uses the crystals as a focus; different materials trigger different 'emotions' - same sort of way that different colours have different psychological effects on people. They then 'extend' their awareness (or 'aura' for lack of a better word) to read/heal/diagnose their client.



Uh-oh. Looks like I woke up the crazies.

"...extend their awareness..." What do you suppose that entails? I mean, do they waggle their pre-frontal lobes so that their 'awareness' swims further out than it usually does? Or maybe they can just do it by focusing the 'awareness waves' with their ears?

Piffle.

Barry Shnikov
28th-June-2004, 12:22 AM
I have a lot of time for this view....This I have trouble with.

If I'm not bonkers, you appear to be saying that you're comfortable with the idea that you can provide yourself with parking spaces just by thinking about it, but you want solid proof that crystals work. :eek:

This is just one more element of the loopiness of the whole thing. You have * crystals * auras * kirlian photography * zero-point energy * magnet therapy * telekinesis * mediums * psychic healers * reflexology * homeopathy * remote viewing * ghosts * bioenergy * scientology * NLP * breatharians * telepaths * reincarnation * chiropractics * clairvoyants * dowsing * numerology * psychic surgeons * bioharmonics * and so on. Which of these is true? There's just as much (i.e. no...) evidence for any of them as there is for all the others. And yet even the most die-hard 'new-ager' must look at that list and wonder - "surely, they can't all be true"? But they all rely on the same basic formula (cue Twilight Zone music) "we don't kno-ow everything about how the mi-ind works and the universe is filled with energy which flows through all things.." (or maybe for some of you it might make more sense if you read "the universe filled with energy is, which all things flows through it does, ye-es")

IT'S JUST NOT TRUE, and I'm afraid to say that even though treading on new-age corns is even more frowned on than treading on the christian variety...

[If you have been affected by any of the issues mentioned in this post, and wish to achieve further enlightenment, try http://www.skepdic.com/]

Andy McGregor
28th-June-2004, 01:49 AM
This is just one more element of the loopiness of the whole thing.

I am 100% behind this view. But I temper my view with the following statement.

Belief, in the context of crystals, religion, etc is what IMHO, makes it work for those that believe. The power of the human mind is phenomenal. If someone truly believes that the crystals will cure them there is a good chance that they will provide a cure - especially if the disorder that the crystals are asked to cure us caused by another 'belief' in the first place:wink:

Gus
28th-June-2004, 07:39 AM
Uh-oh. Looks like I woke up the crazies.

"...extend their awareness..." What do you suppose that entails? I mean, do they waggle their pre-frontal lobes so that their 'awareness' swims further out than it usually does? Or maybe they can just do it by focusing the 'awareness waves' with their ears?

Piffle.


Ahh the cut and thrust of a well balanced argument :whistle:

ChrisA
28th-June-2004, 08:11 AM
If I'm not bonkers, you appear to be saying that you're comfortable with the idea that you can provide yourself with parking spaces just by thinking about it, but you want solid proof that crystals work. :eek:

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."


And what if it just amuses me to imagine occasionally that I have the power to create parking spaces, despite the fact that I have no proper evidence for it, and despite the fact that there are plenty of far more likely explanations for the apparent success?

Lots of things amuse me, including the way you get so wound up about all this :devil:

Chris

Aleks
28th-June-2004, 09:45 AM
If I'm not bonkers, you appear to be saying that you're comfortable with the idea that you can provide yourself with parking spaces just by thinking about it, but you want solid proof that crystals work. :eek:

This is just one more element of the loopiness of the whole thing. You have * crystals * auras * kirlian photography * zero-point energy * magnet therapy * telekinesis * mediums * psychic healers * reflexology * homeopathy * remote viewing * ghosts * bioenergy * scientology * NLP * breatharians * telepaths * reincarnation * chiropractics * clairvoyants * dowsing * numerology * psychic surgeons * bioharmonics * and so on. Which of these is true? There's just as much (i.e. no...) evidence for any of them as there is for all the others. And yet even the most die-hard 'new-ager' must look at that list and wonder - "surely, they can't all be true"? But they all rely on the same basic formula (cue Twilight Zone music) "we don't kno-ow everything about how the mi-ind works and the universe is filled with energy which flows through all things.." (or maybe for some of you it might make more sense if you read "the universe filled with energy is, which all things flows through it does, ye-es")

IT'S JUST NOT TRUE, and I'm afraid to say that even though treading on new-age corns is even more frowned on than treading on the christian variety...

[If you have been affected by any of the issues mentioned in this post, and wish to achieve further enlightenment, try http://www.skepdic.com/]

You seem to know a lot about a subject you enjoy ridiculing!

I am not interested in debating the "science". My intention was to explain how I interpret these things to work. At the end of the day, whether you believe they do or they don't, you're probably right!

Andy McGregor
28th-June-2004, 10:15 AM
And what if it just amuses me to imagine occasionally that I have the power to create parking spaces, despite the fact that I have no proper evidence for it, and despite the fact that there are plenty of far more likely explanations for the apparent success?

I've always thought of this as positive thinking. My parking strategy is to drive to the place I want to be and park in the space that is right outside the front door. I usually do this to a chorus of passengers pointing out other spaces well before we get to where we're going. My answer is "I'll park in the space in front of where we're going". And I am so frequently successful in this that my friend Plankton now calls these spaces "Andy's space" and looks for and parks in them all the time:waycool:


Lots of things amuse me, including the way you get so wound up about all this :devil:Chris

ChrisA accusing someone else of getting wound up - high praise indeed :whistle:

And I haven't seen any evidence of BS getting wound up. To me it looks like he's joining in with and enjoying the debate.

Gadget
28th-June-2004, 10:45 AM
:D Barry, this would be so boring without you in here.

"Extending Awareness" is just about concentration and focus. Most sports have "the zone" where all your focus and concentration is directed to one thing - all peripheral noise and distractions fade out so all that fills your attention is this one thing. In sports it's a target, objective, goal,... so what would happen if you directed that same level of focus towards (eg) someone's sore shoulder? What would happen if you closed your eyes and ignored all sound, focusing on touch? Would you be able to feel the body heat radiating from them? Would you be able to detect subtle differences moving over muscle and bone? Between tight and relaxed muscles? It is possible. "Extending" could be replaced with "heightening" - does that seat easier with you?

If the senses are heightened and you see/hear/feel with more clarity in this state, could the brain not subconsciously pick these subtle signs up and interpret them as a "sixth sense"? You open the door before the door-bell rings because in the sub-conscious you've heard someone approach the door underneath the sound of the TV, kids, dishwasher...
You answer the phone and say "Hi ..." before you know who's on the other end - {caller display withstanding} - have you sub-consciously glanced at the caller display, or put together wild jumps of logic that lead you to a conclusion.

As to the other "new age" phenomenon's... so if there are so many of them, with so many believers, they can't all be wrong, can they? Same argument you used saying they can't all be right - if one statement is true, then why isn't the other one?

Personally, I think that most/all of them could be explained by the individuals who believe in them: Their belief is working on an internal sub-conscious level so that their own minds try to form hypothesis round "observed facts" to further substantiate the theology. Their own belief alters their perceived universe so that it is true - in their world at least.
Why are there so many people believing in the same explanations for similar chain of events in their universe? Well, because it's a similar chain of events - even science follows the same prophetic rules.

Barry Shnikov
28th-June-2004, 12:52 PM
Lots of things amuse me, including the way you get so wound up about all this :devil:
Chris

Me? Wound up? I'm having fun. Dealing with clients who just won't accept my advice - that winds me up.

Visualisation is, IMHO, a very important psychological device for dealing with fraught situations - first time speaking in public, for example. It wasn't apparent to me that your skit on parking spaces was a reverie. :grin:

ChrisA
28th-June-2004, 01:15 PM
Visualisation is, IMHO, a very important psychological device for dealing with fraught situations - first time speaking in public, for example.

And trying to park in a busy town on a Saturday isn't a fraught situation?

I'll buy anything that works. Even if I only imagine it works, I bet my blood pressure's lower as a result. And I get a laugh into the bargain.

:rofl:

Barry Shnikov
28th-June-2004, 01:24 PM
so what would happen if you directed that same level of focus towards (eg) someone's sore shoulder?

Um - nothing.

What would happen if you closed your eyes and ignored all sound, focusing on touch?
Hold up! Where did 'touch' get here? If you've got physical contact with someone, that's different. Of course you can focus your awareness on the information that's coming into your mind from your fingers, or any other of the five senses, for that matter. But that's not what we're talking about. Psychic healers claim to be able to do this over the phone, to diagnose and to heal by the laying on of hands (not 'examination', mind you) and that's where nobody's "awareness" can be "extended"!

If the senses are heightened and you see/hear/feel with more clarity in this state, could the brain not subconsciously pick these subtle signs up and interpret them as a "sixth sense"?
Self-evidently. But it isn't a sixth sense, is it?

As to the other "new age" phenomenon's... so if there are so many of them, with so many believers, they can't all be wrong, can they? Same argument you used saying they can't all be right - if one statement is true, then why isn't the other one?
Ehh-urhh! Logic Failure Alert! All airlocks will be closed and the atmosphere will be purged!
The multiplicity argument goes as follows: most of these (and I didn't by any means list them all) 'new age' type claims require a separate postulation of a mechanism unknown to science

homeopathy now requires water molecules to 'remember' contact with the active homeopathic substance (and not, mind you, with any of the other substances with which the water molecule has ever been in contact) so that it can work its healing magic on the patient
clairvoyance requires that information from the future (NB this means that the future must be fixed - so bang goes free will) propagates backwards through time (by a mechanism forbidden by current scientific principles) and be 'received' by a human being (via another mechanism forbidden by current scientific principles)
astrology requires that some type of 'influence' carrier signal affects an infant - not whilst it is in the birth canal, not whilst it's being cleaned shortly afterwards, not two weeks earlier while its mother was on holiday in another part of the world, and not three months later after she's gone back to work, but - on the instant of its birth, which apparently has a greater effect on the infant's character and lifestyle than whether its father died in infancy or whether it was an only child or the last of ten

For all of these principles to work requires a humungous number of effects unknown to or forbidden by ordinary principles, such as cause and effect. And since each one claims to be uniquely authorised by a discovery or stipulation explaining why it is not governed by 'the limitations of science', we are forced to accept that they are all equally unlikely.
To accept that they are all equally likely means that science, literally, becomes useless and unable to explain anything. If all the magical effects claimed by the believers actually happen, then an aircraft might just as well be flying because there is a St. Christopher medal around the pilot's neck as because of the laws of physics.
Agreed, the placebo effect is extraordinarily powerful. What must be borne in mind is that the people who advance these pseudoscientific ideas do not say that is the placebo effect that is working, and many times they are making enormous sums of money out of their scam and it's not always without danger to the 'victim'.

Why are there so many people believing in the same explanations for similar chain of events in their universe? Well, because it's a similar chain of events - even science follows the same prophetic rules.
It's been shown that people don't understand cause and effect and probability. It's the 'double six' question. Many people incorrectly think that two sixes are less likely as the result of throwing two dice than a three and a four. In fact, the probability is the same (1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36). On being questioned subsequently, those same people who incorrectly understand probability are very much more likely to believe in pseudoscience (such as astrology or homeopathy), than people who have a better understanding of probability.
It's not because people see a 'chain of events' (by which I understand you to mean a chain of cause and effect, correct me if I'm wrong) but because they incorrectly attribute significance to trivial juxtapositions. 'Last time I won a case I was wearing my Spiderman boxers - I have another case today so I better wear them again!'
Spot the error... :sick:

Barry Shnikov
28th-June-2004, 01:36 PM
You seem to know a lot about a subject you enjoy ridiculing!

Yup! :wink:
And for the same reason that I once read a Barbara Cartland novel to see how bad they really are, and that I read the Sun every so often just to check it didn't turn into a hotbed of investigative journalism when I wasn't watching... :D
NB These attacks are not personal; if you're happy believing what you believe, that's fine (to a large extent, anyway). Just be aware that for every 100 people who believe in, e.g. mediumship, there's a huckster gleefully counting his $10 notes...

Barry Shnikov
28th-June-2004, 01:38 PM
And trying to park in a busy town on a Saturday isn't a fraught situation?

I'll buy anything that works. Even if I only imagine it works, I bet my blood pressure's lower as a result. And I get a laugh into the bargain.


Yeah, but do you visualise yourself with a lower blood pressure, or do you visualise yourself finding a parking space? :waycool:

DavidY
28th-June-2004, 01:44 PM
astrology requires that some type of 'influence' carrier signal affects an infant - not whilst it is in the birth canal, not whilst it's being cleaned shortly afterwards, not two weeks earlier while its mother was on holiday in another part of the world, and not three months later after she's gone back to work, but - on the instant of its birth, which apparently has a greater effect on the infant's character and lifestyle than whether its father died in infancy or whether it was an only child or the last of tenIt depends how far you think astrology can work.

I personally don't believe that the exact hour and place of your birth can determine your future for years ahead.

But I am more openminded to the possibility that, on average, people born at a certain time of the year can have similar personality traits - for instance Pisces folk may on average be more creative (or whatever Pisces are supposed to be).

I wrote some of this in a previous post here. (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22486#post22486)

Also a news story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1191374,00.html) recently seems to show this sort of linkage.

Andy McGregor
28th-June-2004, 02:18 PM
But I am more openminded to the possibility that, on average, people born at a certain time of the year can have similar personality traits - for instance Pisces folk may on average be more creative (or whatever Pisces are supposed to be).


I am open minded too. Consider this, identical twins are born 2 hours apart one at 2300 on March 20th: one at 0100 on March 21st. The first twin is a Pisces, the 2nd an Aries*. I'm certain that an astrologer would tell you how people with these 2 star signs are so very different :confused:


*I had to look this up. Us Librans don't believe in astrology :wink:

Gadget
28th-June-2004, 03:18 PM
Hold up! Where did 'touch' get here? If you've got physical contact with someone, that's different.
You don't have to have "physical contact": Can you feel heat without touching? Can you feel static? Can you feel the movement of the air? Very subtle changes, and the theory is that by physically touching, you are drowning out what you are feeling for - hence many "Psychics" just hover their hands above the body.


But that's not what we're talking about. Psychic healers claim to be able to do this over the phone, to diagnose and to heal by the laying on of hands (not 'examination', mind you) and that's where nobody's "awareness" can be "extended"!
And I would say that most of these people see what you see and exploit those who do actually believe in things like that. You are bundling hoaxers and charlatans in with those who can actually do what they say. How do you separate them? Don't know. I think that they both work in roughly the same way: instil belief of the "healer" or their methods into the subject. The only difference is that one believes what they say and the other just pretends that they do. Would they both have the same success rate? Possibly. So what's the difference? Belief.


[Quote=gadget]
If the senses are heightened and you see/hear/feel with more clarity in this state, could the brain not subconsciously pick these subtle signs up and interpret them as a "sixth sense"?
Self-evidently. But it isn't a sixth sense, is it?

Isn't it? Because you label it as "the unconscious mind at work" and someone else says its "the sixth sense" does that make it two different things? A mother's instinct of when a child needs fed or changed - subtle signs that the subconscious picks up on, or true "mother's instinct"? again the difference is belief.

[quote]The multiplicity argument goes as follows: most of these (and I didn't by any means list them all) 'new age' type claims require a separate postulation of a mechanism unknown to science
No, I don't think so: it requires a different thinking on how to apply the rules already known to science.
homeopathy now requires water molecules to 'remember' contact with the active homeopathic substance (and not, mind you, with any of the other substances with which the water molecule has ever been in contact) so that it can work its healing magic on the patient
Scientists never dilute things? Residual traces? Doesn't water pick up a bit of just about everything it is in contact with? Carries it along until the particle becomes too heavy or the gap between the molecules becomes greater? {PS Doesn't this remind you of "holy water"?}
Homeopathy has probably led to the majority of modern medicines - the practice is just going back to un-refined drugs and cures instead of "science" taking out the bits of plants that it doesn't know about, doesn't understand or thinks it doesn't need. Homeopathy is one area that science has actually researched.
clairvoyance requires that information from the future (NB this means that the future must be fixed - so bang goes free will) propagates backwards through time (by a mechanism forbidden by current scientific principles) and be 'received' by a human being (via another mechanism forbidden by current scientific principles)
Depends on what level of "clairvoyance" you are talking about - are weathermen clairvoyant? does it take a clairvoyant to tell you that if you stand under a falling brick you will get hurt? Predicting the future is also a scientific field: examining trends and patterns from the past to predict actions in the future. Most farmers would be lost without some sort of forewarning about the climate.
If you are talking about immediate predictions of individuals without any obvious research into their past, you could again point towards the sub-conscious, body language and "reading" the person involved.
If you mean the likes of Nostradamous or the Brahn Seer - how far does "coincidence" need to stretch the odds before it becomes "prediction" rather than "coincidence"?
astrology requires that some type of 'influence' carrier signal affects an infant - not whilst it is in the birth canal, not whilst it's being cleaned shortly afterwards, not two weeks earlier while its mother was on holiday in another part of the world, and not three months later after she's gone back to work, but - on the instant of its birth, which apparently has a greater effect on the infant's character and lifestyle than whether its father died in infancy or whether it was an only child or the last of ten
But the instant of it's birth is nine months from the instant of conception and every mother due on the same day goes through the same climatic influences during those nine months; their foetus is at the same stages of development during cold weather as warm weather; during times that various foods are in/out of season.
Admittedly, the difference in different zodiac signs may have been more pronounced before predictable food, shelter and warmth, but I think that this is a good explanation for why there may be similarities between people born close to each other.

For all of these principles to work requires a humungous number of effects unknown to or forbidden by ordinary principles, such as cause and effect. And since each one claims to be uniquely authorised by a discovery or stipulation explaining why it is not governed by 'the limitations of science', we are forced to accept that they are all equally unlikely. To accept that they are all equally likely means that science, literally, becomes useless and unable to explain anything.
so if something has a 90% chance of being false, then it doesn't have a 10% chance of being true?:confused:
No - science is a tool for providing answers to the un-known:
If everything known is based on science, then everything un-known (by definition) has no basis in science - any current explanations for the 'un-known' are bunkum.

If this is true, then what are current scientists actually doing? Everything is known, there is no more research to do.
Some people would rather "I don't know why it happens - it just does." than "it works because of Belief".


Agreed, the placebo effect is extraordinarily powerful. What must be borne in mind is that the people who advance these pseudoscientific ideas do not say that is the placebo effect that is working, and many times they are making enormous sums of money out of their scam and it's not always without danger to the 'victim'.
So what do "Penile enlargement" pills or "Dietary miracle" programmes" do? Make obscene amounts of money from scamming people and it's not always without danger to the 'victim'.
Science can have just as dangerous (or even more so) "get rich quick" scams as the "new-age" stuff.

Many people incorrectly think that two sixes are less likely as the result of throwing two dice than a three and a four. In fact, the probability is the same (1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36).
:D Before the first dice lands, you have a 2/6 probability of getting a number you need (either 3 or 4) - after that it's a 1/6 to get the right one, so the chances of getting a 3-4 roll are (1/3 x 1/6 = 1/18) which means you are twice as likely to roll 3-4 as 6-6 :innocent:
Shucks, I must believe in psudo-science! :rofl:

[quote]It's not because people see a 'chain of events', but because they incorrectly attribute significance to trivial juxtapositions. The error is in assuming that the trivial is not of significance.

DavidY
28th-June-2004, 06:28 PM
I am open minded too. Consider this, identical twins are born 2 hours apart one at 2300 on March 20th: one at 0100 on March 21st. The first twin is a Pisces, the 2nd an Aries*. I'm certain that an astrologer would tell you how people with these 2 star signs are so very different :confused: An astologer might tell you that. I would agree with you. :wink:

However I could believe that, on average, people born on 20/21 March may often have personality traits that are different to people born on 20/21 September. This doesn't necessarily mean it's all predetermined "in the stars", but that there could be seasonal environmental factors either before birth or in early childhood which may affect our development.

Andy McGregor
28th-June-2004, 07:12 PM
However I could believe that, on average, people born on 20/21 March may often have personality traits that are different to people born on 20/21 September. This doesn't necessarily mean it's all predetermined "in the stars", but that there could be seasonal environmental factors either before birth or in early childhood which may affect our development.

This would be so easy to prove. I've just done a quick search on Google which turned up this (http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/personality/2559) . In a study of 2000 people in Sweden there was a difference between the personalities of people born at different times of year. Could someone observing this phenomenon have invented astrology to explain it in the same way as alchemists belived that all matter was made from a mix of fire, air, earth and water - or some other fabricated explanation based on observation and creative guesswork?

Barry Shnikov
28th-June-2004, 07:16 PM
We're in danger of posts that exceed the size of an average thread.


The error is in assuming that the trivial is not of significance.

The error is more likely to lie in not understanding that "trivial" is defined as "not significant"... :what:

Barry Shnikov
28th-June-2004, 07:23 PM
An astologer might tell you that. I would agree with you. :wink:

However I could believe that, on average, people born on 20/21 March may often have personality traits that are different to people born on 20/21 September. This doesn't necessarily mean it's all predetermined "in the stars", but that there could be seasonal environmental factors either before birth or in early childhood which may affect our development.

Nobody here - certainly not me - is denying that there may be seasonally-linked differences in personality. For example, I am an essentially grumpy person, being born in late December; this is because every year I got one present from relatives whilst my sister, born in May, got two!

What is being EMPHATICALLY DENIED is that there is any scientific basis - scratch that, any basis whatever - for suggesting that looking at which 'House' each of the planets is in at the time of birth can be of any use at all. Mars, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter etc. will all be in radically different positions for those born in winter 1960 compared to those born in winter 1961; this cannot explain any 'seasonal' character differential since (and these are examples plucked from air) it's possible that the 'chart' of someone born on midsummer day 1950 is more similar to that of someone born midwinter 1978 than one born midsummer the following year, i.e. 1951. The only big difference will be the 'sun sign'.

Gadget
29th-June-2004, 09:54 AM
We're in danger of posts that exceed the size of an average thread. {:whistle:}
The error is more likely to lie in not understanding that "trivial" is defined as "not significant"... :what:
Subjective. Who is to define what is "trivial"?

Statistics? - there is a very low number of infant deaths put down to "cot death". About 350 out of 700,000: 0.05% Is this 'insignificant'? (*)

Attention to detail? - a stray hair found on clothing of a victim, a half formed imprint on a carpet, a fingerprint on a door handle, dust marks from an object moved on a shelf,... Each item could be "trivial", but far from "not significant".

One of the masses? - Dropping a sweet wrapper; 'everyone' does it. It's a small spec compared to industrial polution. It keeps people employed in sweeping the streets. Is it insignificant? trivial?


Just because there is a low probability of something, does not make it insignificant or trivial. Just because something is small in the "grand scheme of things" does not make it any less worthy or right.
"Insignificant" needs to be taken in context, and is wholey subjective - what is unimportant to you may be of vital significance to someone else.
{what were we arguing about again? :innocent:}

(* data from various web sources)


BTW that dice thing is really screwing my head up: I work it out to be actually a 1/11 chance of rolling the same number on a second dice - not a 1/6. :confused::what:

Andy McGregor
29th-June-2004, 10:10 AM
BTW that dice thing is really screwing my head up: I work it out to be actually a 1/11 chance of rolling the same number on a second dice - not a 1/6. :confused::what:

The way you've said it you're only considering the odds on the second dice. And, of course, the odds of a number coming up on the second dice are 1 in 6.

The chances of throwing a double are probably another number which is irrelevant to this debate.

Franck
29th-June-2004, 10:17 AM
Subjective. Who is to define what is "trivial"? In this case, I think Barry meant the dictionary does! :nice:

Dreadful Scathe
29th-June-2004, 11:09 AM
In this case, I think Barry meant the dictionary does! :nice:
I think Gadget should be in politics :)

Andy McGregor
29th-June-2004, 11:30 AM
I think Gadget should be in politics :)

He'd have to go in for national politics. In local politics the amount of time you spend on your feet talking is limited to 5 minutes :innocent:

Gadget
29th-June-2004, 12:55 PM
:what: politics :eek:
I'm too honest for that! :whistle:

Barry Shnikov
29th-June-2004, 01:04 PM
Subjective. Who is to define what is "trivial"?

That can be discussed or argued. All I'm saying is that a juxtaposition cannot be trival and significant simultaneously.


BTW that dice thing is really screwing my head up: I work it out to be actually a 1/11 chance of rolling the same number on a second dice - not a 1/6. :confused::what:

Oops. Silly me - I blame - um - something else.

The question the researcher asked (see where I originally mentioned this) 'If the first dice is a six, what is more likely: the second dice will be a three, or another six?' Here, the answer is the same: 1/6. Those people who thought a six was less likely showed the propensity to believe in the supernatural.

The illustration I originally gave was cobblers. The chance of a three and a four is (1/3 x 1/6 = 1/18) because the first dice can be either a three or a four (2/6) but the next dice can only be the other number (1/6); for two sixes (or two anythings for that matter) it's still 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. Think of a six by six table representing all the possible outcomes of throwing 2 dice: only 1 square represents two sixes but two squares represent a three and a four.

Profound apologies.

Barry Shnikov
29th-June-2004, 01:06 PM
In this case, I think Barry meant the dictionary does! :nice:
:yeah:

Andy McGregor
29th-June-2004, 04:45 PM
:what: politics :eek:
I'm too honest for that! :whistle:

I think everyone who goes into politics starts off that way. Once you've been in it for a while people do, whilst still being honest, start to get selective with the truths they reveal:tears:

Moodi
30th-June-2004, 10:13 AM
Could any gnostic theist out there let me know what the evidence is for "knowing for sure that god exists"?

let you know?
LET YOU KNOW..??

He wants someone to let him know God....

How sweet!


:D

Dreadful Scathe
30th-June-2004, 10:42 AM
erm.. i think jivecat is a girl...and she did ask for knowledge of god, why is that sweet ? its the topic of this whole thread !!!

jivecat
30th-June-2004, 07:29 PM
erm.. i think jivecat is a girl...

I confirm that I am (or rather was, many years ago) a girl.



and she did ask for knowledge of god, why is that sweet ? its the topic of this whole thread !!!


My very badly worded first post aked for someone to cite the evidence on which they base that state of mind described as "knowledge of God's existence". Probably still very badly worded. Pleease let's not start at the beginning again.

However, I am sweet.

Gadget
6th-July-2004, 12:54 PM
This was on the back of Computer Weekly this week: :rofl:

Dreadful Scathe
16th-December-2004, 10:25 AM
Hmm Christmas time again...time for another thread :)

CJ
20th-December-2004, 03:16 PM
I'm not a fan of Chris de Burgh, but I think he got it right (or bloody close) with "A Spaceman Came Travelling."

Why has no-one come up with a carol/xmas song with the
"do-do-do-do-dooo" Close Encounters Theme, I don't know...

Dreadful Scathe
30th-August-2005, 02:52 PM
So 2 good questions.....

How is it possible to be sure that God does not exist? (as 14 pollers claim)

How is it possible to be sure that God does exist? (as 10 pollers claim)


Any takers ? :)

Stuart M
30th-August-2005, 03:07 PM
So 2 good questions.....

How is it possible to be sure that God does not exist? (as 14 pollers claim)

How is it possible to be sure that God does exist? (as 10 pollers claim)


Any takers ? :)
I think Douglas Adams had a stab at proposition 1 with the "Babel fish argument" :wink:

CJ
30th-August-2005, 04:37 PM
How is it possible to be sure that God does exist? (as 10 pollers claim)



I am sure God exists.

Even if he doesn't exist, man invented him. Therefor he exists. (if only in the mind of believers.)

Dreadful Scathe
30th-August-2005, 04:42 PM
I think Douglas Adams had a stab at proposition 1 with the "Babel fish argument" :wink:
indeed :)

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Donna
30th-August-2005, 04:52 PM
It's funny isn't it how people have had paranormal experiences and there is evidence to prove that these funny going ons exist - like ghosts for e.g. It seems that people only believe in such things if they have experienced something that was just too real to be a coincidence or an illusion/delusion of some sort. (especially if a group of people all experienced the same thing at the same time) What i'm trying to say is, out of hundreds and hundreds of spiritual experiences that people have had and believe.....why don't people believe in god???

I reckon some people are just too scared to believe so therefore don't want to except it.

As Will said last year:


"Agnostic Theist" might argue that whilst they can't prove or be sure that God does exist, it seems that saying the world / universe came to being simply because of a random cosmic "big-bang" is about as likely as an explosion at a printing press bringing into existance the Oxford English Dictionary.

I don't believe the universe came to being because of a "big-bang" either. Something had to start it off. You expect me to beleive that one minute it was a big black nothing out there and then 'woommphh' a big bang???? :confused: Naaahhh I don't think so!!!!

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 05:14 PM
So 2 good questions.....

How is it possible to be sure that God does not exist? (as 14 pollers claim)

How is it possible to be sure that God does exist? (as 10 pollers claim)

Any takers ? :)
Creation/emergence of life and biological discontinuities. That's the tricky one for me.

From the bits I recall.

Let's assume matter/energy and space-time can pop out of quantum nothingness.

Let's look at life. It's very diverse, it's very complex in the individual and in the totality of the world as an eco-system.

The approach to explain its origins and complexity is to go back in time and assume that more complex emerges from less complex. We assume evolution occurs by incremental change to the organism not by "big bang" changes. If the change confers biological advantage on the organism etc. etc. etc. standard stuff.

I accept that biological precursors amino-acids etc. can form without biological "agents".

We look at the simplest single cell organisms. They have a complex membrane boundary that separates the organism from its environment and controls its interaction with the environment. There is cellular material to assimilate chemicals to generate usable energy and build other cellualr material. There is genetic material that is accurately reproduced. How do you move from chemical precursors to such a complex, interdependent object like a cell? No one part of the cell has a useful purpose independent of the others. So an incremental move from chemicals to cells is too large a step. And there is no meaningful, viable, evolvable intermediate between the two.

Let's look at viruses. We say they are alive because they have genetic material, can metabolise and can reproduce. They are less complex than cells - so could cells have evolved from viruses? However, to reproduce viruses require to invade and high-jack the cellular mechanisms of a host cell. So a virus can't be a form of life that pre-existed single cell creatures. You can't make the jump from chemicals to viruses smaller than the jump from chemicals to cells.

Also in single-cell organisms, why evolve from asexual reproduction to sexual reporduction? There is a fundamental change in the replication process and the need to mix rather than replicate genetic material. The sexual organisms need to connect and make their DNA available to each other. You need specialised gamete production cells. How can there be a viable, meaningful intermediate step from an asexual single cells to the sexual reproduction? The jump is too big. If evolution is the outward manifestation of an organisms reponse to environmental pressure we should see these intermediates evolving continually. We don't.

I accept, as a matter of faith, the purpose of the organism is to reproduce the genetic material in its cells . Why is this a matter of faith for me? Because I have no intimate knowledge of the science. However, the proposition of the selfish gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) is compelling because it is so straightforward, it is universally applicable and is so wide-ranging in its ability to explain many things, I accept it. However, how do we move from complete single celled organisms to multi-organ creatures? The jump is too big.

Because of these biological discontinuities we need an external agent, God, to span the gaps.

Doesn't help me step back on my left though. :sad:

CRL

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 05:39 PM
<< snip paranormal stuff >>
What i'm trying to say is, out of hundreds and hundreds of spiritual experiences that people have had and believe.....why don't people believe in god???

As Will said last year:

"Agnostic Theist" might argue that whilst they can't prove or be sure that God does exist, it seems that saying the world / universe came to being simply because of a random cosmic "big-bang" is about as likely as an explosion at a printing press bringing into existance the Oxford English Dictionary

I don't believe the universe came to being because of a "big-bang" either. Something had to start it off. You expect me to beleive that one minute it was a big black nothing out there and then 'woommphh' a big bang???? :confused: Naaahhh I don't think so!!!!
The flaw in that argument, I believe, is:

Your argument looks at the difference in complexity (and entropy) between random atoms and the Oxford English Dictionary. We can actually calculate that the probability that all those atoms assembled themselves to make one book is so vanishingly small, that the event would not happen within the existence of uncountable universes.

Hence, since the universe is so vastly bigger and more complex than a single edition of the OED, it is impossible for the universe to have emerged from nothing.

But, this doesn't address the possibility that the difference in complexity and entropy between nothingness and the created universe, at the point of creation, is so small that it is quite possible that the universe emerged from nothing.



I reckon some people are just too scared to believe so therefore don't want to except it.
It's much scarier not to believe. Some philosopher (Kant, Descartes, can't remember stuff like that - Jockey might remember) argued you might as well believe in God.

If you do believe and there is a God you are setup with virgins (or whatever is your cultural preference) for eternity after your death

If you do believe and there isn't a God, then you lost nothing.

If you don't believe and there is a God you are damned for eternity.

If you don't believe and there isn't a God well you were right, so what?

So on balance, the most favourable outcome results from belief in God, you risk nothing and you stand to gain eternity in paradise.

In fact quite appropriate to refer to Jockey because of the betting angle.


All I think this suggests is that rational arguments to prove the existence, or not, of God are probably doomed to failure.


CRL

David Bailey
30th-August-2005, 07:07 PM
It's much scarier not to believe. Some philosopher (Kant, Descartes, can't remember stuff like that - Jockey might remember) argued you might as well believe in God.
That'll be Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager).

Also known as hedging your bets - so yes, Jockey should know about that sort of thing :)

DavidY
30th-August-2005, 10:45 PM
That'll be Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager).

Also known as hedging your bets - so yes, Jockey should know about that sort of thing :)Yes but (as it says on the link somewhere) can you really choose what you truly believe in?

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 11:22 PM
Yes but (as it says on the link somewhere) can you really choose what you truly believe in?
That seems a bit of a specious argument to me.

The religious tend to concetrate on "faith" as a central part of true religious belief.

The "faith" concept (for me being brought up in a Church School and having attended various churches to age 20 - out of curiosity) means something like ....

"Well I can't give you direct, tangible, corporeal nor experiential evidence that God exists. However, I think, I feel, I believe, for various reasons, that God exists. That gap between physical reality and belief is bridged by faith. And faith is also important because God created us with free-will to choose Him (or Her if you like)."

However, this business that you can't choose whether to believe in God, God chooses you, runs completely counter to the ideas of faith and free-will present in the religions I know. Where's Lynn on this? So asking whether you can choose to believe fails the standards of the believers let alone the non-believers. That one gets the door.

What interests me more is the idea that choosing to believe in God is cost-free. The Christians in Rome and probably many, many groups persecuted for their faith would disagree.

I would dearly love for it all to be true - but, to me, it seems a solace for the lonely and the bewildered. (shamelessly steal SpinDr phrase - "I can feel the neg rep even now") Don't get me wrong I think a world lived according to basic Christian principles (*): "Love thy neighbour as thyself", "Greater Love hath no man that he lays his life down for his friend (adjusted to make gender neutral of course)" would be as near a perfect world as you could imagine. I think they are probably as good a set of humanist standards to aspire to as any.

(*) I just don't believe that Christians (or Muslims or Jews or Taoist or Hindus ... insert others to offend) have the monopoly on these principles and values - nor that these values have any connection whatsoever in a belief in an old guy in the sky with a beard.

So I am doomed for all eternity to burn in torment or suffer dreadful regret and loneliness or will come back as a slug .... etc. etc. In the mean time, would you like to come for tea and maybe some of my delicious blackberry wine will be ready by then.

Clive

DavidY
30th-August-2005, 11:45 PM
That seems a bit of a specious argument to me.~SNIP~
However, this business that you can't choose whether to believe in God, God chooses you, runs completely counter to the ideas of faith and free-will present in the religions I know.Hope I've snipped the right bit to get at what you meant there Clive. I wasn't trying to argue that "God chooses you".

But I was trying to say you can't always choose what you believe in the way Pascal's theory suggests that you might as a strategy in some sort of cosmic game.

Even if there is some sort of reward on offer if I chose to believe something, it doesn't mean I will or even that I can choose my beliefs. It's not as simple as that somehow. :confused:

ducasi
30th-August-2005, 11:52 PM
... So asking whether you can choose to believe fails the standards of the believers let alone the non-believers. That one gets the door. I think that true belief is a subconscious act. As such the conscious mind cannot decide to believe anything.

And this is why you cannot challenge a belief simple on rationality as it's only the conscious mind that works in any way rationally.

Of course, all statements are beliefs, and therefore the product of my subconscious. And as such I cannot be truly consciously sure about them. However, I think consciously that that's what my subconscious believes as that's what it's telling me to say.

Or to put it another way... I only believe that I believe that. But I also believe that I might be wrong. :)

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 11:56 PM
Hope I've snipped the right bit to get at what you meant there Clive. I wasn't trying to argue that "God chooses you".
Ah. But that's what the wiki entry argues - and that's what you were quoting.


But I was trying to say you can't always choose what you believe in the way Pascal's theory suggests that you might as a strategy in some sort of cosmic game.

Even if there is some sort of reward on offer if I chose to believe something, it doesn't mean I will or even that I can choose my beliefs. It's not as simple as that somehow. :confused:
I'm not following you David.

Are you arguing against free-will - that it's possible we are compelled to believe? It's not working on me.

Are you saying that you might not be able to choose your beliefs because of cultural or family and society pressures? I know people who are Jews and Catholics yet have no belief in God. The religious label defines their cultural heritage, shared values and practices - not their religious beliefs. I am very drawn to the importance of family in the Jewish tradition. I am sure my mother is Jewish - (cliche warning) for all the wrong smothering reasons - probably why I am one of the "difficult" children.

Yes, yes, it's not simple. It's important. I want to understand where the religious come from - no place I understand on my encounters in life.

Do you think I will be saved or damned?

Clive

DavidY
31st-August-2005, 12:18 AM
Ah. But that's what the wiki entry argues - and that's what you were quoting.I just read one sentence out of the wiki entry and didn't read the stuff about Calvinism properly. :blush: It would have been clearer if I'd just asked the question on its own without mentioning the link.
Are you arguing against free-will - that it's possible we are compelled to believe? It's not working on me.Nope - I think Ducasi has put it more clearly than I did: I'm saying true belief isn't always something you can consciously choose.

Pascals's wager says your "best bet" is to choose to believe in God. But, assuming Pascal was logically correct, the information on its own (that you'd be better off) doesn't mean you can suddenly decide to believe in God if that goes fundamentally against other things in your conscious and sub-conscious mind.

Clive Long
31st-August-2005, 12:23 AM
I think that true belief is a subconscious act.
That's not belief - that's autonomic response.

As such the conscious mind cannot decide to believe anything.
I can believe I am a unique, separate human individual yet conected to others through human relationships Or believe I am but a single part of a continuum of existence.

I believe that a single, omnipotent, omniscient God created the universe or I believe that matter/energy and space/time just popped into existence or ... pick favourite Douglas Adams explanation - I like the Mutant Star Goat

These are not conscious beliefs, decisions and choices?
Very :confused:


And this is why you cannot challenge a belief simple on rationality as it's only the conscious mind that works in any way rationally.
The little I understood of The Emperor's New Mind (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192861980/202-1200008-1183046) and stuff by Colin Blakemore , Susan Greenfield and maybe most of neuro-science (not my field) suggests the brain works in irrational and counter-intuitive ways to create self awareness and an illusion of rationality by filtering ensory overload and seeking pattern in a chaotic, threatening universe.


Of course, all statements are beliefs,

ehhh ?
1 + 1 = 2

that's a definition, not a belief.


and therefore the product of my subconscious. And as such I cannot be truly consciously sure about them. However, I think consciously that that's what my subconscious believes as that's what it's telling me to say.

Or to put it another way... I only believe that I believe that. But I also believe that I might be wrong. :)
I believe that I am probably wrong since the few times my arguments have been really taken to task I have been found wanting.

Clive

Clive Long
31st-August-2005, 12:25 AM
I just read one sentence out of the wiki entry and didn't read the stuff about Calvinism properly. :blush: It would have been clearer if I'd just asked the question on its own without mentioning the link.Nope - I think Ducasi has put it more clearly than I did: I'm saying true belief isn't always something you can consciously choose.

Pascals's wager says your "best bet" is to choose to believe in God. But, assuming Pascal was logically correct, the information on its own (that you'd be better off) doesn't mean you can suddenly decide to believe in God if that goes fundamentally against other things in your conscious and sub-conscious mind.
You might be right - I just find the argument hard to follow

I'd still like you to respond on:

"Do you think I will be saved or damned?"

Clive

ducasi
31st-August-2005, 01:08 AM
ehhh ?
1 + 1 = 2

that's a definition, not a belief. Don't have time tonight to give a full reply... But I thought I should correct a typo... I meant to say "All these statements are beliefs..." :)

The key point I'm making is that the rational processes that the conscious mind goes through to decide something isn't either in control of the subconscious, or fully aware of it.

Therefore conscious ("rational") decisions about beliefs don't mean whit to the subconscious.

And as I said, I believe that all true beliefs are in the subconscious mind...

This is different to the autonomic nervous system.

(I believe religious people talk about "believing in your heart" as opposed to "believing in your head." Unless Pascal can believe it in his heart, his belief of God in his head won't win him the potential salvation.)

Dreadful Scathe
31st-August-2005, 09:34 AM
And this is why you cannot challenge a belief simple on rationality as it's only the conscious mind that works in any way rationally.


eh? you cant possibly have a belief unless you have thought about it. I once believed that Anastacia was a black woman till I saw her on video :) Your beliefs are based upon the evidence you have witnessed, our very first beliefs are ones we get from our parents when they make stuff up to toy with our little minds, when we had less of a capacity for logical thought and believed what we were told . e.g. "There are black and white pictures of your grandparents because prior to 1962 the whole world was in Black and White" :)


I reckon some people are just too scared to believe so therefore don't want to except it.

Belief is a conclusion you have come to based on evidence. Its nonsense to suggest you can be "too scared to believe" that would be called "denial", you do believe but won't admit it.


It's much scarier not to believe. <Pascal> argued you might as well believe in God.

And he wasnt very bright. Its MUCH more risky, logically, to believe in one God or set of Gods because chances are the hundreds of others are going to be miffed at the very least that you worshipped a false God(s). Best to stick with unbelief and not directly offend any Gods :). (plus severe punishment for unbelief sounds like terrorism a bit!)

Remember of course that Christians, Muslims, Jews and other monotheistic faithful are only one step away from Atheism - they just believe in one more God but still do not believe in the hundreds of others. :)

David Bailey
31st-August-2005, 09:46 AM
"There are black and white pictures of your grandparents because prior to 1962 the whole world was in Black and White" :)
You mean it wasn't? :tears:


And he wasnt very bright. Its MUCH more risky, logically, to believe in one God or set of Gods because chances are the hundreds of others are going to be miffed at the very least that you worshipped a false God(s). Best to stick with unbelief and not directly offend any Gods :). (plus severe punishment for unbelief sounds like terrorism a bit!)
I'll resist scouring the net for Pratchett "Small Gods" quotes, and try to be vaguely serious...

Your argument is only correct if one assumes that the majority of religions view atheism as a lesser evil than belief in other Gods. You could argue most religions prefer any kind of belief to none at all.

Also, it is of course impossible to set it up as a proper logical equation, because you can't assign "probability of existence" to religions. Do you assign equal probability of existence to every religion - equating, say Catholicism with The Coming-Of-The-Great-White-Handkerchief belief?

In other words, the whole wager is hooey; you can't set the odds because you have no idea about the form.

Dreadful Scathe
31st-August-2005, 10:52 AM
Do you assign equal probability of existence to every religion - equating, say Catholicism with The Coming-Of-The-Great-White-Handkerchief belief?

Each of the faithful assume that their religion is the right one, with varying degrees of confidence of course. If we believe in one but not the others, who are we to say all the others are not equally valid. I would expect that a devout follower would put other religions on a reasonably equal footing.



In other words, the whole wager is hooey; you can't set the odds because you have no idea about the form.

Indeed, the wager is nonsense because it is biased to begin with. Pascal was clearly willing to bet everything on it being true but its not a gamble everyone would take. Most people probably try not to think about it simply because if they dont believe because they have not seen anything to convince them, they dont want to have to pretend to believe because its dellusional :). Its ironic really that for many unfaithful only the afterlife would convince them, but unless they truly believe, they wont get there ;) (again a bias there toward western religions, i cant help it :) )

ducasi
31st-August-2005, 11:47 AM
eh? you cant possibly have a belief unless you have thought about it. I once believed that Anastacia was a black woman till I saw her on video :) Most things you believe you've probably never thought about. Did you think about whether Anastacia was black or white before coming to this belief?

Sitting here, I believe that my shoe will not evaporate into thin air, but I must confess I've never thought about the possibility of that happening or not happening before now.

Donna
31st-August-2005, 12:31 PM
Most people probably try not to think about it simply because if they dont believe because they have not seen anything to convince them, they dont want to have to pretend to believe because its dellusional :).

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who haven't experienced anything yet they still choose to believe. It doesn't necessarily mean they're delusional at all.

It's obvious as we look around us that theism is a popular meme. I'm sure a lot of your friends are theists, and probably have friends who are weekly church-goers.

So why do people believe in the first place?


The easiest answer is that most people were born into a religion of some sort and simply raised to be Catholics, or Hindus, or Muslims. In many cases they're taught not to question their beliefs--"blind faith" is the standard. There are many who believe in God but do not attend any particular church. There are likewise many who currently hold beliefs strikingly dissimilar to those with which they were raised--atheists who have become Christians, Christians who have become atheists, members raised in one Christian sect who are now members of another, or members of one religion who have now joined another or abandoned organized religion as a whole.

But what makes people believe and what evidence is there that God really exists?

Simply looking at the world around us denotes that there is a God. Looking at the beauty of a sunset, or the complexity of the universe, or examining the astronomical odds that intelligent life could have arisen by mere chance, gives many people the overwhelming feeling that "something bigger" must be out there.

Believing in God, comes from personal experience. (It also seems to be the only major reason (apart from social pressures or convenience) for changing religions.) Many people feel that God is watching out for them--they've discovered blessings in their lives because of keeping God's commandments, for example, or perhaps they've received powerful answers to prayers. They've heard voices of warning or had feelings of premonition, cautioning them against danger. They've had feelings of peace or happiness as they go to church or read the scriptures. Others have had other inexplicable, incommunicable "religious experiences". Some have even seen miracles, such as healing the sick or raising the dead. Some people experience miraculous visions, or have prophetic dreams. Such personal experiences are commonly found throughout the religious community. I've noticed myself that of the atheists I've known, most of them are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence. Conversely, most of the strong theists I know have had many such experiences. Some rely almost wholly on the experiences of others, but even with such, they've experienced some little "evidences" of their own.

I never have experienced anything yet, but from some stories I have been and looking at things that have happened in biblical times, I choose to believe it. It all makes perfect sense to me and I don't use this belief as some sort of so called 'comfort blanket' either!!

Dreadful Scathe
31st-August-2005, 01:21 PM
I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who haven't experienced anything yet they still choose to believe. It doesn't necessarily mean they're delusional at all.

Who suggested they were? I said 'pretending to believe' is delusional and it is.



Simply looking at the world around us denotes that there is a God. Looking at the beauty of a sunset, or the complexity of the universe, or examining the astronomical odds that intelligent life could have arisen by mere chance

Thats not a very logical argument. there are plenty of explanations for the world around us - Zeus and the Greek Gods, Aliens, the Big Bang theory. You conclude it "must" be the Christian God but the majority of people in the world disagree with you. As for "odds" - thats a completely irrelevant point. Its astronomically unlikely that you would get a Royal Flush on your first set of cards in Poker. Would it "prove" divine intervention if you did though?



I've noticed myself that of the atheists I've known, most of them are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence.

Any logical person will not believe in something they have no evidence for
- its just that the required evidence will differ from person to person. Early man witnessing the first person to awake from a coma would believe, I'm sure, that the coma victim was resurrected - having neither seen nor heard of anything as "miraculous".


It all makes perfect sense to me and I don't use this belief as some sort of so called 'comfort blanket' either!!

Some do though. To some, religion gives their lives structure and they could no more step away from it than they could stop drinking coffee in the morning :)

Dreadful Scathe
31st-August-2005, 01:32 PM
Most things you believe you've probably never thought about. Did you think about whether Anastacia was black or white before coming to this belief?

umm, prior to having heard Anastacia sing I had no assumption about her as I had not heard of her before. Having heard her sing, certain "beliefs" surrounding her will occur to me. Some of which, as mentioned, will change over time.

So, how can I have a belief in something I have no concept of exactly ? I can lack belief in things I have not heard of simple because Ive not heard of them. Once I have heard of them, through the evidence I have, I then believe something about them. In the case of Gods or purple munchkin men, I can look at the evidence and decide there is simply not enough to convince me that they are likely to be real. Doesn't mean they are not, just that I don't believe so. This is of course different from outright denial, where I would feel there is enough evidence to prove "to me" that the concept of particular Gods and purple munchkin men is a nonsense.



Sitting here, I believe that my shoe will not evaporate into thin air, but I must confess I've never thought about the possibility of that happening or not happening before now.

Can you confess these things to a qualified psychiatrist from now on please ? :)

Donna
31st-August-2005, 03:51 PM
You conclude it "must" be the Christian God but the majority of people in the world disagree with you.

How do you know that a majority of people in the world would disagree with me? Can you prove that??


Any logical person will not believe in something they have no evidence for
- its just that the required evidence will differ from person to person

You can't KNOW if God exists. Everyone believes in something or nothing. If you know God exists, then that is great. You have faith, and faith is a powerful thing. However, faith doen't prove God exists, nor does no proof of His existance prove that He does not exist. Philosophers, theologians, and ordinary people have been trying for centuries to prove the existance of God. Most of them have come to this conclusion: Have faith! It is much better to have faith in any God and be wrong, than to believe in nothing and be wrong.

There are many ways we can know if God exists, each of these ways is especially appealing to certain people, but they are all important.
One of the ways we know he exists is through the things that he created. Just as the wind creates waves in the surface of the water, though we do not see it we know it exists and exerts power. If you were to find a stone chipped on all edges to form a symmetrical shape, like a spear head hammer stone, many would know this indicates it was designed by an intelligent being for a purpose. The same is true of the amazingly complex world around us. The physical laws of circular motion and gravitation, conservation of energy, thermodynamics, chemistry, weak and strong nuclear forces, all are so finely tuned and intertwined that life could not exist if any of them were even the slightest bit different or changing. The complexity of living organisms is also proof that it could not have arisen by chance, and so must have been designed by someone. Another way we know is by the physical evidence in the fossil record. Life suddenly appeared in many complex and different forms, and the chances of it forming at all are impossible except by intelligent design.

When considering if there is a creator, there are many examples of prophecy, future events being told in precise detail before they occur. In science you might call this proof that a theory is true, being able to predict the outcome of experiments. It allows us to be confident that our conclusions are correct, that there is an intelligent creator, a God who formed us out of nothing, and our faith is not blind but built up the weight of the evidence. For many people the fulfillment of prophecy is their main reason for their belief in God. Others are not as impressed by prophecy, but are persuaded by scientific arguments about the fossil records and the manner in which life first appeared. Still others are impressed by the spiritual wisdom of the Bible and it's scientific accuracy, as well as it's objective and accurate history.

David Bailey
31st-August-2005, 04:12 PM
How do you know that a majority of people in the world would disagree with me? Can you prove that??
Well, yeah - no religion has even close to a majority of the world's population as adherents, so all religions are therefore minority views. Or am I missing something?


It is much better to have faith in any God and be wrong, than to believe in nothing and be wrong.
Well, that's a modified Pascal's Wager, certainly. If you removed "in any God" from that sentence, I'd even agree with you.


If you were to find a stone chipped on all edges to form a symmetrical shape, like a spear head hammer stone, many would know this indicates it was designed by an intelligent being for a purpose. The same is true of the amazingly complex world around us.
Oooh, Intelligent Design! I knew it'd come round at some point, I should have posted her rather than the Star Signs thread.


{ snip argument }
Frankly, complexity and improbability do not (to me) provide proof of anything. The universe is as it is.

This version of ID is just slightly-more-subtle creationism, or anti-Darwinism, and that doesn't work for me. Evolution does not contradict God, any more than any other scientific theory does.


Others are not as impressed by prophecy, but are persuaded by scientific arguments about the fossil records and the manner in which life first appeared.
Uh-huh. I've got a name for these people, but let's just call them creationists...


Still others are impressed by the spiritual wisdom of the Bible

And here we agree - and to me that's the only true way to faith.


and it's scientific accuracy
You missed out the smilie icon there, surely?
Sorry, but where on earth does the bible even talk about science? I was extremely bored in physics at school, but I think I'd have noticed if we'd been asked to open our copy of the King James... :confused:

Dreadful Scathe
31st-August-2005, 04:31 PM
How do you know that a majority of people in the world would disagree with me? Can you prove that??


Yes of course. Only 37% or so of the world claim to be Christian, so the majority disagree with the idea that the Christian God is the creator of all things.



You can't KNOW if God exists.

Lots of people who voted in those poll already disagree with you. Many faithful believers feel they have enough information to proclaim they KNOW God exists. Just as many Atheists feel they have enough information to know God does NOT exist. Fair play to all of them I say.



It is much better to have faith in any God and be wrong, than to believe in nothing and be wrong.

Why is that?


The complexity of living organisms is also proof that it could not have arisen by chance, and so must have been designed by someone.

"Because its complex" is hardly proof. A Home Cinema System is going to be fairly complex to peasants in the middle ages but does that mean the employees of SONY are Gods ?



Life suddenly appeared in many complex and different forms, and the chances of it forming at all are impossible except by intelligent design.

Impossible is a stretch, you are not an all knowing God so surely you cannot say what is impossible. But, for the sake of argument, lets say you are correct and Intelligent Design is the explanation for life - can you say why that Intelligent Designer MUST be the Christian God and not Allah, Zeus or a family of Alien Scientists who got drunk one weekend and went on a trip to a backwater solar system for a little experimentation and a picnic?



Still others are impressed by the spiritual wisdom of the Bible and it's scientific accuracy, as well as it's objective and accurate history.

There are lots of "spiritualy wise" documents and books, are you saying the Bible the only correct one? Is the Bible objective? How many non-Christians wrote for the Bible?

David Bailey
31st-August-2005, 04:36 PM
{ snip wise stuff }
Oi, I just said all that...

Donna
31st-August-2005, 04:38 PM
[QUOTE]Well, that's a modified Pascal's Wager, certainly. If you removed "in any God" from that sentence, I'd even agree with you.

I meant to say "God" not any God. :blush:





Frankly, complexity and improbability do not (to me) provide proof of anything. The universe is as it is.

Well that's your opinion and I'm not trying to force you to change your mind because you are of course entitled to your own opinions. People look at it in different ways but this is just how I see it. :)


Evolution does not contradict God, any more than any other scientific theory does.

You know I have recently been told they have just found dinosaur bones with flesh inside it? How can you explain that then?? These scientists believe that the earth has been around for millions of years....but this case might just prove them wrong. There is still much to learn yet.

Dreadful Scathe
31st-August-2005, 04:47 PM
I meant to say "God" not any God. :blush:


but which God is "God" though?



There is still much to learn yet.

indeed, so would you admit you may be wrong about "God" being the creator of everything if not all the information is in yet?

Donna
31st-August-2005, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE=Dreadful Scathe]but which God is "God" though?

Er, the christian God?? Ok as crazy as this sounds but picture this. Before the big bang it was one big black nothing....not a sound....absolutely nothing. A bit like being asleep or death if you like (or as you would imagine it) That is now what we call space. Something had to come to life to make it all happen in the first place and I believe it was something spiritual that suddenly come to life and then it all happened from there. How can a massive explosion just appear out of no where??? Something would have to cause it...something which has feelings, can see things and create things too!!! :nice:

Dreadful Scathe
31st-August-2005, 05:01 PM
Something would have to cause it...something which has feelings, can see things and create things too!!! :nice:

aah you mean Allah dont you ?

or Tony Hart possibly.

Donna
31st-August-2005, 05:06 PM
or Tony Hart possibly.

:confused: :rofl: oh dear....... i remember those days....

David Bailey
31st-August-2005, 06:14 PM
You know I have recently been told they have just found dinosaur bones with flesh inside it? How can you explain that then??
I dunno yet - source?

JoC
31st-August-2005, 07:44 PM
"Do you think I will be saved or damned?"Maybe it'll turn out..."Sorry creator types, I know you had plans for me but busy busy busy, no time for damnation or salvation, things to do, places to go, new people to be!!!"
(I don't know if anyone answered that before, I'm way behind in this thread...)


And :yeah: tell us more about flesh inside dinosaur bones... :confused:

ducasi
31st-August-2005, 07:49 PM
umm, prior to having heard Anastacia sing I had no assumption about her as I had not heard of her before. Having heard her sing, certain "beliefs" surrounding her will occur to me. Some of which, as mentioned, will change over time. But you will believe things about her without them occurring to you. For example, you might believe after listening to her sing that she is a woman rather than a man or even a computer generated voice.

So, how can I have a belief in something I have no concept of exactly ? I think we're talking about different things... I'm talking about simple beliefs, while you seem to be talking about believing in something.

My point about talking about simple beliefs (such as "my plant will not start talking to me" – the sort of thing that you're likely to believe without having necessarily thought about it) is to get across the point that beliefs about the world we live in are not always consciously thought about, as they occur subconsciously.

(Of course, there's the whole question of whether the conscious mind is actually involved in the thought process at all, or merely giving a running commentary of whatever happens to be going through the language centre of the brain at any particular moment, but let's not go there...)

David Bailey
31st-August-2005, 08:23 PM
And :yeah: tell us more about flesh inside dinosaur bones... :confused:
OK, I've done a bit of digging around, and I imagine this refers to the "soft flesh thing". Around March, a team of scientists led by Mary Higby Schweitzer published the discovery of "soft tissues" recovered from dinosaur fossils.

This sparked lots of creationist fervour - remember, these are the people who believe that the Earth was created 4,004 years ago, give or take.

Here's a BBC article on the topic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm).

But, because I'm basically a fair-minded man, I'll post pro- and anti-links:

Creationist nutter site (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2032) ("Institute for Creation Research")
Scientific refutation of nutty creationist claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html)


(Hey, I never said the link titles would be fair-minded :) )

Bottom line - it could be fragments of dino molecules, but certainly not DNA or flesh. Yet another misinterpretation bites the dust.

David The Dino-Slayer...

LMC
31st-August-2005, 09:02 PM
David The Dino-Slayer...
I know your secrets Mr James - but you're right, Barney must die (http://www.senlir.com/jokes/kill_barney.html)

< /extremely silly mode >

It looks like this thread has fallen into an old old error, debunked back in the 19th century.

After Huxley and Stephen Jay Gould (Bully for Brontosaurus, various essays):

The point is that evolution does not prove OR deny the existence of God. We are what we are, and probability arguments are specious. How can the existence of improbability indicate divine intent? The argument of the "religious" runs along the lines that there must be intelligent design because a diversion at any one of countless points in evolution would have led to a completely different evolution - maybe without humans. BUT probability cannot be calculated "after the fact" - we exist, that's it.

Conflict arises when one religion tries to take the place of science or vice versa . Fundamentally, religion is about personal morality. Science is about facts.

Believers should respect scientific evidence.
Scientists should respect faith - because the whole point of faith is that it cannot be proved or disproved and therefore cannot be scientifically dismissed.

ducasi
31st-August-2005, 09:04 PM
On BBC 2 at the moment... Science and the Seance...

JoC
31st-August-2005, 10:51 PM
OK, I've done a bit of digging around, and I imagine this refers to the "soft flesh thing". Around March, a team of scientists led by Mary Higby Schweitzer published the discovery of "soft tissues" recovered from dinosaur fossils.
David The Dino-Slayer...
It would have to be a T.Rex wouldn't it? :rofl:

Interesting articles thankyou (not much of a ranter this Gary fellow is he...?)

Must keep an eye out for the publication of the analytical results to find out what the 'soft matter' was really made of.

I picture God busy in his yard 'distressing' rock to make it seem older so that we buy it thinking it's an authentic antique.

Is it 'Journey to the Ends of the Earth' this is reminding me of? Great film that I've probably got the title wrong of.

ducasi
31st-August-2005, 10:58 PM
Is it 'Journey to the Ends of the Earth' this is reminding me of? Great film that I've probably got the title wrong of. Dunno, but it made me think of this film (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/).

JoC
31st-August-2005, 11:07 PM
Dunno, but it made me think of this film (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/).Wh...oh i see!! :rofl: (That one had co-existing humans and dinosaurs didn't it?)

The one I'm thinking of a group of explorers visits a high plateau, also has lots of dinosaurs, lava and such good stuff (might have also been a few good looking cave people unless I'm blending several films together). It's a classic.

Sorry, not very on-topic... :blush:

ducasi
31st-August-2005, 11:15 PM
The one I'm thinking of a group of explorers visits a high plateau, also has lots of dinosaurs, lava and such good stuff (might have also been a few good looking cave people unless I'm blending several films together). It's a classic. I'm guessing you mean this film (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0052948/) then... (Though the "high plateau" bit sounds like King Kong...)

JoC
31st-August-2005, 11:24 PM
I'm guessing you mean this film (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0052948/) then... (Though the "high plateau" bit sounds like King Kong...)No. Why do you make me follow links? My poor little computer can't cope! I probably made it up.

ducasi
31st-August-2005, 11:36 PM
No. Why do you make me follow links? My poor little computer can't cope! I probably made it up. OK, it has lava and dinosaurs and stuff like that, and almost the title you came up with, but I'm out of guesses...

I put in the links to make your life more interesting, like you do for us every time you post. :)

JoC
31st-August-2005, 11:54 PM
OK, it has lava and dinosaurs and stuff like that, and almost the title you came up with, but I'm out of guesses...Actually you're probably right then. I do tend to merge film memories sometimes, take a slice of this one, a sprinkling of that one, a pinch of...


I put in the links to make your life more interesting, like you do for us every time you post. :) :rofl: Now there's no need for that degree of sarcasm!

Anyway, back to religion... :whistle:
I don't dig it personally. Me and churches and such places...not meant to be. One Christmas I went to a candle-lit service (Christmas Eve maybe? I don't know!) in a remote wee kirk in the far far far north somewhere... I sat near the back with my extremely rural pal, on the wonderfully uncomfortable pew. Being short, my legs didn't reach the ground so I rested my feet on a rest for feet. Not long into the service an unusual aroma began to pervade the air, it turned out I'd been using a heating pipe as a footrest in my rubber soled boots and they'd started melting, it was a melted cheese scenario when I tried to get my feet back...

I took this to be a sign.

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 12:00 AM
This sparked lots of creationist fervour - remember, these are the people who believe that the Earth was created 4,004 years ago, give or take.
<< snip >>
David The Dino-Slayer...
Get it right man.

The world began on Oct. 26, 4004 BC, 6,009 years ago.

Calculated by James Usher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_Usher) (1581 - 1685), Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland,

Lord Kelvin, a very distinguished, brilliant and respected scientist pushed that out to 65 million years (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/clocks_in_rocks/clocks_in_rocks.html) based on heat conduction calculations - still way too short because his calculation did not account for radioactivity from the earth's core as a heat source.

CRL

Dreadful Scathe
1st-September-2005, 12:11 AM
Age of Earth? Personally I think it was created merely last Tuesday and the memories we all have are artifically implanted to convince us otherwise. :)

Lynn
1st-September-2005, 12:26 AM
Conflict arises when one religion tries to take the place of science or vice versa . Fundamentally, religion is about personal morality. Science is about facts.

Believers should respect scientific evidence.
Scientists should respect faith - because the whole point of faith is that it cannot be proved or disproved and therefore cannot be scientifically dismissed. There is a lot of 'faith' in science as well. Look back over history at the things people believed as science - presented as fully proved irrefutable scientific fact - now of course fully disproved by the next generation of scientists... (I did a History and Philosophy of Science module as a undergrad - really interesting!).

A lot of the 'age of the earth' theories go right back to 'the present is the key to the past', the idea that processes in the past occured at the same rate they do today (Charles Lyell - I think - its been a while!) - therefore the earth must be a certain age. Even using that you get lots of very different answers depending on what process you are using for your method of measuring. And of course we have no way of knowing whether those processes didn't go at a different rate.

Of course Usher's 4004 BC date isn't accepted either - he was also using a measurement 'method' that couldn't be verified. Though some scientific methods have put the age of the earth in thousands, not millions, of years. (And there is always the problem that they still tend to use the rock to date the fossils, and the fossils to date the rock... also did some Geology as an undergrad...)

bigdjiver
1st-September-2005, 01:16 AM
Age of Earth? Personally I think it was created merely last Tuesday and the memories we all have are artifically implanted to convince us otherwise. :)To quote an ex-boss - "Nah, it is seven days. If ever there was a rushed job ..."

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 08:43 AM
Get it right man.

The world began on Oct. 26, 4004 BC, 6,009 years ago.

Yeah, I knew it was something like that, I just couldn't be bothered to look it up. I mean, it's obviously silly, it was clearly Oct 14th, not 26th...


Calculated by James Usher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_Usher) (1581 - 1685), Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland,
Ooh, interesting fact - I went to a Midnight Mass in Armagh a few years ago conducted by the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. Presumably not the same guy. My goodness, that was a looong service... and smelly :grin:

Stuart M
1st-September-2005, 10:39 AM
Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne produce a fairly comprehensive demolition of teaching ID in Science in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html) today.

I suspect some folk will call their arguments arrogant, but at the end of the day, Intelligent Design is asking to be judged by standards other than scientific proof - therefore it has no place in a science classroom.

MartinHarper
1st-September-2005, 10:44 AM
You know I have recently been told they have just found dinosaur bones with flesh inside it? How can you explain that then??

You know I have recently been told that they have just found that the Holy Ghost was a marketing stunt for Ghostbusters 2? How can you explain that then??

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 10:52 AM
I suspect some folk will call their arguments arrogant, but at the end of the day, Intelligent Design is asking to be judged by standards other than scientific proof - therefore it has no place in a science classroom.
I agree - treating belief as "science" is just dumb. Oh, hold on, this is Bush we're talking about... OK, it's "about right for George W Bush" then.


You know I have recently been told that they have just found that the Holy Ghost was a marketing stunt for Ghostbusters 2? How can you explain that then??
To be fair, Donna's rumour had some vague basis in fact.
Whereas clearly the Holy Ghost would be a crap stunt for GB 2, no slime anywhere. So that's obviously rubbish.

Gus
1st-September-2005, 10:52 AM
There are many things on thsi planet that science cannot currently explain. A hoodie on the street with a MP3 plyers and latest mobile phone would have appeared as a god to peoples in the Dark ages ... so I find a tendancy to point to the unexpalined as proof of a diety as flawed (IMHO). HOWEVER, to say that everytging that exists is bound by perfectly logical rules of scienec is to make science itself a 'religion'. Miracles happen, things happen of defintie paranormal properties .... and we have no concrete evidence of what/who is responsible for such. I 'feel' that there is a greater power at work and I define that as 'God'. If that 'God' turns out to be a lifeform with inteligance and powers beyondf our comprehension ... then I still thimnk that counts as 'god'.

Donna
1st-September-2005, 11:06 AM
[QUOTE=Lynn](I did a History and Philosophy of Science module as a undergrad - really interesting!).

Wooo get you!! :nice: Something I'd be quite interested in after reading all this. Was always into Science at school but beginning to wish I'd have done it at college/uni now. :sad:


therefore the earth must be a certain age.

:yeah: Good point Lynn. I says in the bible in 2 Peter 3:8 — ‘one day is like a thousand years’. So if it was created in 7 days...wonder why it looks like it was created over a long period of time to us then?? :whistle: Think about it. Plus what scientists have just discovered I think proves it.

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 11:27 AM
There is a lot of 'faith' in science as well. Look back over history at the things people believed as science - presented as fully proved irrefutable scientific fact - now of course fully disproved by the next generation of scientists... (I did a History and Philosophy of Science module as a undergrad - really interesting!).
The point has already been made by ESG that a scientific theory is refutable. Science demands that its models and theories are continually challenged. Science is seen to succeed when an old idea is synthesised with another or made more general or modified in some way to account for new information. Refutation and correction is central to science. If a statement is not refutable it's not part of science.

Scientific models and theories can be partial and contradictory but still be useful. There were several models of the atom (can't remember them all) around the end C19 beginning C20 - I liked the name "Plum Pudding". These models explained some of the observed behaviour but contained some logical flaws. Until the discovery of the neutron and the ideas of the strong nuclear force, it was not understood at all how the protons in the nucelus were prevented from pushing themselves apart by electrostatic repulsion. However, science did not accept these contradictions - they were the spring-board to new investigations. So these flaws were examined theoretically and through experiments better models were proposed. The concept of atoms and nuclei was retained from the old theories but model of its structure changed. Science was done. Knowledge progressed. Ignorance was challenged (it's a long fight).

Revolutions in science occur when new principles draw together and harmonise previously disparate ideas and phenomena: Atomic Theory, Periodic table, Mass-Energy conservation, Radioactivity and nuclear fission, Newtonian Mechanics, Lagrange Mechanics, Hamiltonian Mechanics, Einstein "Mechanics/Relativity", Statistical Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism, Evolution, DNA structure replication and protein synthesis, PhotoElectric Effect, Spectra, Quantum Theories, Uncertainty Principle, Cosmology, ... (and the rest)

Not all scientific theories are "disproved" in a sweeping, radical revolution. They bend and flex to accomodate new information and discoveries. Old theories are subsumed into more general, more widely applicable ones or are discarded because they don't explain certain phenomena.

The creationists and rag-bag of New Agers exploit this by saying:

"Aha !! Look a new "fact" that does not accord with your nasty scientific theory > hence your theory must be wrong > Hence your theory must be completely wrong > hence there is a God / Divine Spirit / Primal Energy (insert favourite deist term)"


A lot of the 'age of the earth' theories go right back to 'the present is the key to the past', the idea that processes in the past occured at the same rate they do today (Charles Lyell - I think - its been a while!) - therefore the earth must be a certain age. Even using that you get lots of very different answers depending on what process you are using for your method of measuring. And of course we have no way of knowing whether those processes didn't go at a different rate.

Of course Usher's 4004 BC date isn't accepted either - he was also using a measurement 'method' that couldn't be verified. Though some scientific methods have put the age of the earth in thousands, not millions, of years.
Oooh ...I'd like to see references for scientific methods that put the age of the earth at thousands of years. Neanderthal has got his got his coming to him.
I think I'd go a bit further than saying Usher's date isn't accepted. He didn't measure anything, he based his calculation or the genealogy of biblical kings with good old Methusalah weighing in at 969 years. You buy into that method and data? It's barmy and I'd be very worried for my physical and mental well-being if I met someone who did believe it (Sorry I couldn't resist the ridicule).
Update:
This (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm) reference states
The above excerpt makes no mention of the time of day at which creation occurred. In popular references one often finds it given as 9 A.M., and this is wrongly attributed to Ussher. The following excerpt from Andrew D. White's book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (D. Appleton and Co., 1897, p. 9) identifies the culprit as Sir John Lightfoot:

Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."

John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University was a contemporary of Ussher. Lightfoot published his calculations in 1644, before Ussher's were completed.

(And there is always the problem that they still tend to use the rock to date the fossils, and the fossils to date the rock... also did some Geology as an undergrad...)
Don't agree with you at all on that one. Isn't the classic method to date rocks based on radioactive decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_dating)? Then the principle of superposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology) also kicks in that rocks higher in strata are younger than lower. Of course it's all mashed up by folding, subduction and igneous intrusion (Geology O-level so probably too simplistic) but the basic principle is there. And the other principle affecting the analysis is that fossils are found in rocks where the environment was just right to preserve a trace of the animal at the time of formation of the rock. Hence you date the rock, you date the fossil. There's also stuff about about why the radioactive content of the rock is not replinished when it is laid down - but I'll stop.

Science is the greatest product of human intellect - but it is not everything. It does not tell me why I fall in love with someone and why they don't fall in love with me :tears: It does not explain the effect of a string quartet.

CRL

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 11:36 AM
:yeah: Good point Lynn. I says in the bible in 2 Peter 3:8 — ‘one day is like a thousand years’. So if it was created in 7 days...wonder why it looks like it was created over a long period of time to us then?? :whistle: Think about it. Plus what scientists have just discovered I think proves it.
OK by your (or St.Peter's) reckoning the world (let's take that as an earth-centric lazy short-hand for the universe) was created in 7,000 years.

Please explain the measured radioactive dating of rocks.

Please explain the measured time it takes for light or other e.m. to reach the earth from the far distant parts of the galaxy or universe

Please explain the measured cosmological red-shift

Please explain the measured cosmic background radiation at 3Kelvin.

I've got time since I finished my latest course.

Clive

Lynn
1st-September-2005, 11:57 AM
Oooh ...I'd like to see references for scientific methods that put the age of the earth at thousands of years. I would have to check on that one. My point was that different 'dating' methods give very different 'ages' - but are often discounted because they don't allow enough time for geological and evolutionary processes to occur as expected.


I think I'd go a bit further than saying Usher's date isn't accepted. He didn't measure anything, he based his calculation or the genealogy of biblical kings with good old Methusalah weighing in at 969 years. You buy into that method and data? It's barmy and I'd be very worried for my physical and mental well-being if I met someone who did believe it (Sorry I couldn't resist the ridicule).
OK - he didn't measure - he calculated. My point was that he could never have had sufficient information to give an accurate date that way anyway.


Don't agree with you at all on that one. Isn't the classic method to date rocks based on radioactive decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_dating)? Then the principle of superposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology) also kicks in that rocks higher in strata are younger than lower. Of course it's all mashed up by folding, subduction and igneous intrusion (Geology O-level so probably too simplistic) but the basic principle is there. And the other principles is that fossils are found in rocks where the environment was just right to preserve a trace of the animal at the time of formation of the rock. Hence you date the rock, you date the fossil. There's also stuff about about why the radioactive content of the rock is not replinished when it is laid down - but I'll stop. I don't know that they use those methods to age every single fossil and rock sample ever found - there is the 'this fossil is from the X age' so that tells us when this rock was laid down etc. And the measurement methods all assume that the processes occur at the same rate as today.

I think its over simplistic to say that 'science is about facts'. In theory yes science is the pursuit of knowledge and facts. In practice however science is done by people, who make mistakes, who are sometimes driven as much by the desire to 'make their name' as 'seek the truth' and who these days are by necessity focused on areas that will get published in the right journals and attract sufficient funding for their departments.

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 12:22 PM
I would have to check on that one. My point was that different 'dating' methods give very different 'ages' - but are often discounted because they don't allow enough time for geological and evolutionary processes to occur as expected.

Nice point.
I'd agree that overarching scientific principles rather than method pretty much demand that theories need to be broadly consistent in their explanations and predictions. If one theory is wildly out of step with others then broadly you think the outlier is wrong - but it never, never gets consigned to the dustbin. Yes, there are prevailing fashions and prejudices in science. But the scientific method will sweep them away. Show me that in religions / New Age.

The important point is that no legitimate scientist plays the hand "Well it says in this here old book that fell out of the sky "X, y and z" so it must be true and don't go confusing me with facts."


OK - he didn't measure - he calculated. My point was that he could never have had sufficient information to give an accurate date that way anyway.

Well ..., yes...., perhaps...., but his method was cack because it asumes that humans were created at the same time as da world.

I don't know that they use those methods to age every single fossil and rock sample ever found - there is the 'this fossil is from the X age' so that tells us when this rock was laid down etc. And the measurement methods all assume that the processes occur at the same rate as today.

Good point again.
You can use fossils to date rocks because it is quick - if you find similar fossils widely separated but in similar geological environments the theory is that they were layed down in similar geological periods and hence the rocks must be of similar age - but it's not the only indicator and it's not the "base method".
But you can always check you can always measure. The point about theory is that you have about enough supporting evidence and a low level of contradictory evidence to accept the simple model otherwise you wouldn't get anywhere if everytime you had to check everything.
But again I say, you can always check.


I think its over simplistic to say that 'science is about facts'.
Agreed. Where did I say that? Science needs observation, data, intuition, imagination (see ESG for that), it builds models and theories, it tests, it flexes. If you have studied too much OU you are always disturbed by the phrase "it's a fact".


In theory yes science is the pursuit of knowledge and facts. In practice however science is done by people, who make mistakes, who are sometimes driven as much by the desire to 'make their name' as 'seek the truth' and who these days are by necessity focused on areas that will get published in the right journals and attract sufficient funding for their departments.
Exactly. Science is a human endeavour. It accepts the limits of our imagination and experience. It is vulnerable to pride, ego and the need to put bread on the table.

But the universe exists and science is the best method the human brain and mind has developed to explain its origins, structure, content and processes.

On everything else that motivates me to learn Argentinean Tango or stirs me when I dance with a woman, science is silent (Dawkins would disagree).

CRL

Lynn
1st-September-2005, 12:27 PM
Yes, there are prevailing fashions and prejudices in science. But the scientific method will sweep them away. Show me that in religions / New Age. What - prevailing fashions and prejudices? Where do you want me to start?! :rofl:

Donna
1st-September-2005, 12:48 PM
[QUOTE=Clive Long]The point has already been made by ESG that a scientific theory is refutable. Science demands that its models and theories are continually challenged. Science is seen to succeed when an old idea is synthesised with another or made more general or modified in some way to account for new information. Refutation and correction is central to science. If a statement is not refutable it's not part of science.


Most people assume that the more information you have about something, the better you understand it. Up to a point, that's usually true. When you look at a page from across the room, you can see it's in a magazine/paper, but you can't make out the words. Get closer, and you'll be able to read the article. If you put your nose right up against the page, though, your understanding of the article's contents will not improve. You may get more visual detail, but by being so close you'll sacrifice crucial information--whole words, entire sentences, complete paragraphs.



Until the discovery of the neutron and the ideas of the strong nuclear force, it was not understood at all how the protons in the nucelus were prevented from pushing themselves apart by electrostatic repulsion. However, science did not accept these contradictions - they were the spring-board to new investigations. So these flaws were examined theoretically and through experiments better models were proposed. The concept of atoms and nuclei was retained from the old theories but model of its structure changed. Science was done. Knowledge progressed. Ignorance was challenged (it's a long fight).

One of the challenges of scientific inquiry is knowing when to step back--and how far back to step--and when to move in close. In some contexts, approximation brings clarity; in others it leads to oversimplification. A raft of complications sometimes point to true complexity and sometimes just clutter up the picture. If you want to know the overall properties of an ensemble of molecules under various states of pressure and temperature, for instance, it's irrelevant and sometimes downright misleading to pay attention to what individual molecules are doing. A single particle cannot have a temperature, because the very concept of temperature addresses the average motion of all the molecules in the group. In biochemistry, by contrast, you understand next to nothing unless you pay attention to how one molecule interacts with another.

Scientists discovered an usual change in the way molecules were moving which proves there could be different dimensions. Now most people believe the big bang was caused by two or three dimensions clashing into each other. Ok, so going further back, where did these dimensions come from and whatever they came from, where did that come from and so on. I could go on forever, but if we go on thinking like this.....we would drive ourselves nuts!!! There is a reason behind everything and I believe it is too early for us to know anything, and could still be too early for us to know in the next 1000 years or so.

El Salsero Gringo
1st-September-2005, 12:57 PM
I don't really see the contribution of that last post. There are plenty of scientific theories that require a 'step-back': statistical mechanics and relativity to name just two of the most successful theories in modern physics. And when I say successful, I mean in providing useful, testable predictions as to how the universe behaves.
Now most people believe the big bang was caused by two or three dimensions clashing into each other.Most people - as you put it - wouldn't have the first concept of what 'dimensions clashing into each other' would mean, so there's not much scope for true belief there. In fact the whole phraseology that you're using sounds like something a theoretical physicist had to invent to tell a journalist who'd rather pull out their own teeth than look at an equation what he or she has been working on. I think it's pretty cheeky to claim this is generally believed even amongst physicists working in the area.
Ok, so going further back, where did these dimensions come from and whatever they came from, where did that come from and so on. I could go on forever, but if we go on thinking like this.....we would drive ourselves nuts!!!So the solution is ... to stop thinking? Not good!
There is a reason behind everything and I believe it is too early for us to know anything, and could still be too early for us to know in the next 1000 years or so.Thankfully, the panoply of science doesn't have to canvas anyone's opinion about what it's time to learn.

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 01:14 PM
The point has already been made by ESG that a scientific theory is refutable. Science demands that its models and theories are continually challenged. Science is seen to succeed when an old idea is synthesised with another or made more general or modified in some way to account for new information. Refutation and correction is central to science. If a statement is not refutable it's not part of science.

Most people assume that the more information you have about something, the better you understand it. Up to a point, that's usually true. When you look at a page from across the room, you can see it's in a magazine/paper, but you can't make out the words. Get closer, and you'll be able to read the article. If you put your nose right up against the page, though, your understanding of the article's contents will not improve. You may get more visual detail, but by being so close you'll sacrifice crucial information--whole words, entire sentences, complete paragraphs.

I agree with you. Completely. Bet you thought you would never see that. But what relevance does your point have the part of my posting you quoted?


One of the challenges of scientific inquiry is knowing when to step back--and how far back to step--and when to move in close. In some contexts, approximation brings clarity; in others it leads to oversimplification. A raft of complications sometimes point to true complexity and sometimes just clutter up the picture. If you want to know the overall properties of an ensemble of molecules under various states of pressure and temperature, for instance, it's irrelevant and sometimes downright misleading to pay attention to what individual molecules are doing. A single particle cannot have a temperature, because the very concept of temperature addresses the average motion of all the molecules in the group. In biochemistry, by contrast, you understand next to nothing unless you pay attention to how one molecule interacts with another.

Again we agree on essentially the same point. Where did I argue otherwise? How do your examples challenge anything I have written?


Scientists discovered an usual change in the way molecules were moving which proves there could be different dimensions. Now most people believe the big bang was caused by two or three dimensions clashing into each other. Ok, so going further back, where did these dimensions come from and whatever they came from, where did that come from and so on. I could go on forever, but if we go on thinking like this.....we would drive ourselves nuts!!! There is a reason behind everything and I believe it is too early for us to know anything, and could still be too early for us to know in the next 1000 years or so.
There you go again. I would really like to understand why, when you write like that, I despair. I will not persuade you of my position. I could never accept yours.
However, I would like you to take up my challenge (http://cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=147394) to show me how your collection of beliefs explains anything. I should be too busy to be engaged in this but I think its important not to let what I feel is sloppy and dangerous thinking and misrepresentation of science slip by unchallenged.

Donna
1st-September-2005, 01:17 PM
[QUOTE=El Salsero Gringo].In fact the whole phraseology that you're using sounds like something a theoretical physicist had to invent

They have carried out loads of tests which might prove the existence of many dimensions. I don't think they just decided to make this up at all.


So the solution is ... to stop thinking? Not good!

:yeah: Think I will!!!! My brain is scrambled now.....can you hear it??? ssssssssssssssss :rofl:

El Salsero Gringo
1st-September-2005, 01:24 PM
They have carried out loads of tests which might prove the existence of many dimensions. I don't think they just decided to make this up at all.OK, I get it now ... you're actually much smarter than you sound, and you're just acting dumb to wind me up. Very funny.

Donna
1st-September-2005, 02:20 PM
OK, I get it now ... you're actually much smarter than you sound, and you're just acting dumb to wind me up. Very funny.

:confused: er...uh??? :confused:

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 03:52 PM
:confused: er...uh??? :confused:
:rofl: Stop being so cruel, Donna... :rofl:

Donna
1st-September-2005, 04:48 PM
:rofl: Stop being so cruel, Donna... :rofl:

uh? :confused:

MartinHarper
1st-September-2005, 05:29 PM
Now most people believe the big bang was caused by two or three dimensions clashing into each other.

From Wikipedia -Dimension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension)


Dimension (from Latin "measured out") is, in essence, the number of degrees of freedom available for movement in a space.

I confess I'm struggling to understand how a degree of freedom can crash into another degree of freedom. Could you explain it to me?

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 05:44 PM
From Wikipedia -Dimension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension)

I confess I'm struggling to understand how a degree of freedom can crash into another degree of freedom. Could you explain it to me?
I will try to help out here.

From your wiki reference the sentence:

"Theories such as string theory predict that the space we live in has in fact many more dimensions (frequently 10, 11 or 26), but that the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size."

is probably the relevant one.

Other people use the phrase "dimensions folded in on themselves" and let's assume "dimensions crashed into others" (or whatever the phrase was) - actually means the same as this other dimensional folding.

No I don't understand any of it either.

Really

Anyone want to start a String Theory thread?

Clive

MartinHarper
1st-September-2005, 06:03 PM
let's assume "dimensions crashed into others" [...] actually means the same as this other dimensional folding.

I agree that Donna could have been referring to the hypothetical existence of subatomic dimensions. However, I don't understand how the existence of subatomic dimensions could have caused the big bang. Also, I don't really want to make assumptions about what Donna meant.

Donna - could you explain to me how a dimension can clash into another dimension?

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 06:50 PM
I agree that Donna could have been referring to the hypothetical existence of subatomic dimensions. However, I don't understand how the existence of subatomic dimensions could have caused the big bang. Also, I don't really want to make assumptions about what Donna meant.

Donna - could you explain to me how a dimension can clash into another dimension?
Good point Martin. I should not speak for someone else. I apologise Donna.

"Dimension folding in on themselves" is quite different from "dimensions crashing/clashing into each other"

I too would be interested in Donna's explanation of the phenomenon and her references.

Clive

David Bailey
1st-September-2005, 07:30 PM
uh? :confused:
No, please, stop it, I've run out of :rofl: smilies...

LMC
1st-September-2005, 08:58 PM
This thread has been completely fascinating - but I confess that I have found it very difficult to follow at times as the argument doesn't always follow logically.

Donna, your posts were so different from your normal style that I thought they might be quotes from somewhere, so I went googling. If you do quote from somewhere, please say where because people will want to follow it up - that church of the virus bulletin board looks fascinating!

In the meantime, I offer the following as "public service"...

(# = post number)

#232 - http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28755

#235 - www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/11398 (Googlewhack but 404)

#272 - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_7_113/ai_n6249008

JoC
1st-September-2005, 11:25 PM
Just thought I'd mention dinosaurs again...that one took my fancy. Had a look at a summary of the original 'Science' magazine article (I was too skinflinty to register for full access). Anybody know where this journal rates in the sane world? Had a look through in a few other journals, American Scientist, Nature, New Scientist and Palaeontology web sites and none of them seemed to have articles on the T.Rex soft tissue though there was an article in Palaeontology (Blackwell) about soft tissue relating to another dinosaur (to follow up).

Also saw an interesting title relating to a debate over the existence of biological tissue, as in, is it all actually mineral. Side track side track, please carry on! Just reminded me I really need to start reading again.

Respect to everyone for considered (I think?) posts!

(DS, caught up now, yes!)

jockey
2nd-September-2005, 12:28 AM
In philosophy we talk about ontology and epistemology: ontology is theory of being i.e., what exists and epistemology is what can be known i.e., how we can come by knowledge of what exists. This holds for all systems of belief.
All religions have an ontology: a list, if you will of concepts that refer to things that exist E.g., christianity has the following : the holy trinity, heaven hell etc. Now these entities are capable of description I take it and are held to exist and as such beliefs about them are amenable to rational discussion and investgation; it is but a short step to involve such entities in scientific investigation with all the concomitant requirements of demonstration and proof that are appropriate to the entities in question.
Either these things are there or not; either there is a God or Gods or there isnt. If a system of belief entails an ontology there should be an accompanying brochure on how these claims should be checked out by a would be member. This is the Modern World.

David Bailey
2nd-September-2005, 08:14 AM
Anybody know where this journal rates in the sane world?
Science is very well-respected, as far as I know, it's a proper publication.

That doesn't mean it's always right of course (just look at some of the howlers the Lancet has made over the past few years), but it's certainly credible. At least to me. But I'm gullible... :blush:

JoC
2nd-September-2005, 09:32 AM
Science is very well-respected, as far as I know, it's a proper publication.
Tacky looking web site made me suspicious. Not that I'm influenced by packaging or anything (ooh that has a nice label, think I'll try that for tea!)

LMC
2nd-September-2005, 09:41 AM
(ooh that has a nice label, think I'll try that for tea!)
Seems like a reasonably scientific approach to me - decision based on evidence (although qualitative)... :whistle:

Lynn
2nd-September-2005, 09:50 AM
Science is the greatest product of human intellect - but it is not everything. It does not tell me why I fall in love with someone and why they don't fall in love with me :tears: It does not explain the effect of a string quartet.
But the universe exists and science is the best method the human brain and mind has developed to explain its origins, structure, content and processes.
I agree with both the above - for me science often tells me the 'how' but not the 'why'. Eg it can explain how tear ducts work when I cry, but it can't explain why I grieve.

I think there is still a lot to learn in science and the little I can understand of it I find fascinating. But while it can tell us a lot about the world around us, the universe, the human body and mind, it doesn't recognise the existence of the spirit.

A question - if someone doesn't believe there is a God or any other 'higher being' - do they believe that people have spirits?

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-September-2005, 10:08 AM
A question - if someone doesn't believe there is a God or any other 'higher being' - do they believe that people have spirits?First, define clearly what you mean by 'spirit'.

Lynn
2nd-September-2005, 10:22 AM
First, define clearly what you mean by 'spirit'.You can't 'clearly define' it - that is the point I was making. We are either body and mind - a highly developed animal - or body, mind and spirit/soul. If we are just body and mind then when the body and mind dies, that is the end of that person. If we are body, mind and spirit/soul, then the spirit can have an existence after the body dies. I was just wondering if people who have no belief in any higher being, have any belief that an individual has a spiritual existence?

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-September-2005, 10:38 AM
You can't 'clearly define' itWell if you can't define it, then how can you possibly ask if anyone believes in it? If you don't understand your own question, how can anyone else answer it?

"Do you believe in the existence of Etaoinshrdlus"?

"Definitely I believe in them. What are they, again?"

"I have no idea."

"No, me neither."

Clive Long
2nd-September-2005, 10:46 AM
You can't 'clearly define' it - that is the point I was making. We are either body and mind - a highly developed animal - or body, mind and spirit/soul.
... or just imaginations in the mind of God with no reality at all, or purely mind that imagines it has corporeal existence to communicate with other minds or ... or ....


If we are just body and mind then when the body and mind dies, that is the end of that person. If we are body, mind and spirit/soul, then the spirit can have an existence after the body dies.
...or the spirit, which is the source of all emotion and ESP and energy flows, comes into being with the mind and body and disappears with it

I was just wondering if people who have no belief in any higher being, have any belief that an individual has a spiritual existence?
Of course. They can believe in disconnected spirits or devas (day-vars) that connect on "higher energy planes" or "the synchronicity of the universe" that have nothing to do with a "higher being". These energy planes are accessible to humans but only through intense study and prolonged mediation - or a lot of sex with your guru.

Or any other form of words you want to string together that sounds vaguely plausible.

How's the response to Martin Harper's question coming along?

(I really wish I could do irony but all I can achieve is sarcasm)

David Bailey
2nd-September-2005, 10:53 AM
Well if you can't define it, then how can you possibly ask if anyone believes in it? If you don't understand your own question, how can anyone else answer it?
OK, I'll have a stab: the soul is the immaterial part of a person. The part which you can't see, but which we have faith exists.

By definition (:) ), this is going to be an inprovable-by-scientific-means concept, and also a very different concept to different peoples.

But I don't think "soul" is so unclear a term as to require a discussion of definitions, I certainly (think I) understood what Lynn was talking about.


"Do you believe in the existence of Etaoinshrdlus"?
Obviously, who doesn't? That's the Orthodox Etaoinshrdlus tradition, of course - the unorthodox Etaoinshrdlus-ians are eternally damned.

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-September-2005, 11:12 AM
The part which you can't see, but which we have faith exists.OK, well, I can't see the inside of my own skull - or even the back of my own head without a mirror - but I have faith that they both exist. Will that do?

David Bailey
2nd-September-2005, 11:25 AM
OK, well, I can't see the inside of my own skull - or even the back of my own head without a mirror - but I have faith that they both exist. Will that do?
Ah... This is the Donna method of debate, yes?

Lynn
2nd-September-2005, 11:31 AM
Of course. They can believe in disconnected spirits or devas (day-vars) that connect on "higher energy planes" or "the synchronicity of the universe" that have nothing to do with a "higher being". These energy planes are accessible to humans but only through intense study and prolonged mediation - or a lot of sex with your guru.So the only spirit beings on these higher energy planes are other humans? I was just wondering I suppose if people who don't believe in God, do believe in the possibility of an eternal soul, or some sort of existence past death.

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-September-2005, 11:32 AM
Ah... This is the Donna method of debate, yes? :confused: er...uh??? :confused:

LMC
2nd-September-2005, 11:34 AM
Can I play?


Ah... This is the Donna method of debate, yes?


:confused: er...uh??? :confused:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

you 2 are so funny!

Clive Long
2nd-September-2005, 11:39 AM
So the only spirit beings on these higher energy planes are other humans?
Well that is what Orthodox Etaoinshrdlusians believe. However the Reform Etaoinshrdlusian movement has admitted dolphins. :D

I was just wondering I suppose if people who don't believe in God, do believe in the possibility of an eternal soul, or some sort of existence past death.
Yep. The deva lobby believe that spirit reconnects with the higher energy plane having left the body at the point of death. This (http://www.afterlife101.com/BetweenDeath_Life.html) is an authoritative reference. Then the devas knock about in the spirit realm or higher energy plane until another human becomes available. It's very democratic - no higher beings involved.

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-September-2005, 11:44 AM
Well that is what Orthodox Etaoinshrdlusians believe. However the Reform Etaoinshrdlusian movement has admitted dolphins. Reformation of 1896, or Reformation of 1923?

LMC
2nd-September-2005, 11:49 AM
Reformation of 1896, or Reformation of 1923?
An important question, as we need to know whether to take into account the Etoanirsh Schism of 1904. (library-quest, sorry closed window can't post exact link)

*suddenly has overwhelming temptation to shout Mornington Crescent, but that would be unfair...*

David Bailey
2nd-September-2005, 12:01 PM
An important question, as we need to know whether to take into account the Etoanirsh Schism of 1904.
Of course, the great "Letter frequency: O before A" controversy still hasn't settled, over a century later people are fighting over it. And I firnly believe we should respect their right to wear the "I'm an O man" T-shirts in public, no matter how degrading this may seem to the "A"-ers.


*suddenly has overwhelming temptation to shout Mornington Crescent, but that would be unfair...*
We did that a while back - guess who started it? :whistle:

JoC
2nd-September-2005, 12:05 PM
This is an authoritative reference. Fantastic stuff Clive! I'm particularly relieved (typed relived by mistake there first, this must have meaning) to know that fairies, sprites and leprechauns exist and can manifest on earth for sure. It explains many an incident of magic that has taken place outdoors for me.

The walk-in spirits are worrying though, I don't want some random spirit negotiating their way into my body until I've finished with it (up for swopsies though if someone wants to offer me a better one.) I'm not good at haggling.

Anyone tried hypnosis to find out who they used to be? I've always fancied it. I'm sure I was a 17th century serving wench at some point, and a 19th century maid, and maybe a princess around the 9th century, or whenever floaty gowns of loveliness were de rigeur along with big chilly castles filled with gloom, flickering fire light and intrigue in dark corners.

LMC
2nd-September-2005, 12:09 PM
The walk-in spirits are worrying though, I don't want some random spirit negotiating their way into my body until I've finished with it (up for swopsies though if someone wants to offer me a better one.) I'm not good at haggling.
I'm perfectly happy with my spirit, but I wouldn't mind a body which allows me to wear a belly-dancing outfit if someone wants to swop that?

EDIT: just re-read what Jo actually said - DOH! - so :yeah:

David Bailey
2nd-September-2005, 12:09 PM
It explains many an incident of magic that has taken place outdoors for me.
Uh-huh.... :whistle:


maybe a princess around the 9th century, or whenever floaty gowns of loveliness were de rigeur
MJC, Camber, Southport...


along with big chilly castles filled with gloom, flickering fire light and intrigue in dark corners.
Oh, so you've been to Ashtons then?

JoC
2nd-September-2005, 01:11 PM
Oh, so you've been to Ashtons then?Damn, I missed the intrigue in dark corners!!! Did manage to leave looking ruffled but I suspect dancing right in front of that ginormous fan half the night was wot did that.

So anyway, religion.. yes all made up by people, quite barmy to what extent people believe what another 'people' wrote down. As a social club / support network / code for living if you can't or don't want to decide these things for yourself seems ok. With that bit of good comes so much harm though.

MartinHarper
2nd-September-2005, 04:01 PM
I was just wondering I suppose if people who don't believe in God, do believe in the possibility of an eternal soul, or some sort of existence past death.

Buddhists don't have gods, and believe in reincarnation.

Donna
2nd-September-2005, 04:08 PM
[QUOTE=LMC]Donna, your posts were so different from your normal style that I thought they might be quotes from somewhere, so I went googling.


What would you know about normal then if you'r going into google to search for quotes somewhere? And normal style??? now i am :confused:

I looked into this a long time ago...

Anyway back on the subject of religion...?? :rofl:

I'm also backing Lynn up on this too-


You can't 'clearly define' it - that is the point I was making. We are either body and mind - a highly developed animal - or body, mind and spirit/soul. If we are just body and mind then when the body and mind dies, that is the end of that person. If we are body, mind and spirit/soul, then the spirit can have an existence after the body dies. I was just wondering if people who have no belief in any higher being, have any belief that an individual has a spiritual existence?

Why do people believe in ghosts and not god then? If the universe was suppose to be made up from the big bang, therefore it's all natural, then how do ghosts come into it??? It tells me there is more to it than you think, and that's why I choose to believe - full stop.

LMC
2nd-September-2005, 04:14 PM
What would you know about normal then if you'r going into google to search for quotes somewhere? And normal style??? now i am :confused:

I looked into this a long time ago...
I'm not normal and wouldn't want to be (just as well, there's no hope...)

The point I was making was that if you are going to use someone else's words, please provide a link so people can check it out for themselves.

MartinHarper
2nd-September-2005, 05:05 PM
Why do people believe in ghosts and not god then? If the universe was suppose to be made up from the big bang, therefore it's all natural, then how do ghosts come into it???

Souls came from something other than God, or have always existed. It doesn't matter where they came from. They exist - that is sufficient.

Lynn
3rd-September-2005, 01:37 PM
Buddhists don't have gods, and believe in reincarnation.Sorry, I don't think I really phrased my question properly. I wasn't looking for examples of non-theistic systems of belief. I had been thinking of the whole science and religion thing. There are a lot of questions that both science and religion answer in their own ways. But today many people seem to be seeking answers to spiritual questions. And from what I can see science doesn't seem to have any answers about the spiritual side. Indeed you would have to say 'its all in the mind' and that the majority of the world are under some sort of delusion that there is something beyond what we can measure or think. (Its only in the 'west' that people are so secular, or even divide life into 'spiritual' and 'secular' - many other cultures have no such division.)

So I suppose what I was asking about was more from people's own beliefs - are there individuals who would in theory say they don't believe in any form of religion but who still feel they have a spiritual side. Where do they look for spiritual answers?

bigdjiver
3rd-September-2005, 03:39 PM
Well if you can't define it, then how can you possibly ask if anyone believes in it? If you don't understand your own question, how can anyone else answer it?

"Do you believe in the existence of Etaoinshrdlus"?

"Definitely I believe in them. What are they, again?"

"I have no idea."

"No, me neither."For the unitiated "Etaoinshrdlu" is allegedly a string of type that early linotype machines would spontaneously output at random, leading a scince fiction writer to postulate that the machine had a spirit trapped within it which was trying to get help by outputting its name.

bigdjiver
3rd-September-2005, 03:52 PM
:devil: We could postulate that once upon the time there was nothing, and somehow our universe appeared. There are all sorts of conceivable laws of a universe. We have to postulate that somehow one particular set of laws appeared that enabled something to appear from nothing. We could say that this set of laws "evolved". It would then appear that "evolve" is the fundamental law of our universe. We could say that most physicists worship those physical laws of the universe, they are their "God".

Or, expressing "the law" as "the word":
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was God ..." :devil:

El Salsero Gringo
3rd-September-2005, 04:07 PM
For the unitiated "Etaoinshrdlu" is allegedly a string of type that early linotype machines would spontaneously output at random, leading a scince fiction writer to postulate that the machine had a spirit trapped within it which was trying to get help by outputting its name.Not as far as I know.

ETAOINSHRDLU is actually the first 12 letters of the Roman alphabet in order of frequency in which they occur in regular English prose. E being the most frequent letter, then T and so on. Amateur code-breakers would know that in order to crack simple substitution cyphers.

I think Clive alluded to the fact that I had O and A transposed, which wouldn't surprise me. In any case the precise ordering depends on the prose you examine.

Northants Girly
3rd-September-2005, 04:56 PM
This thread has been completely fascinating - but I confess that I have found it very difficult to follow at times as the argument doesn't always follow logically.

Donna, your posts were so different from your normal style that I thought they might be quotes from somewhere, so I went googling. If you do quote from somewhere, please say where because people will want to follow it up - that church of the virus bulletin board looks fascinating!

In the meantime, I offer the following as "public service"...

(# = post number)

#232 - http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28755

#235 - www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/11398 (Googlewhack but 404)

#272 - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_7_113/ai_n6249008 :whistle:

:rofl: :rofl:

David Bailey
3rd-September-2005, 05:12 PM
Not as far as I know.
To be fair, the SF writer could have taken his story from a misconception...


ETAOINSHRDLU is actually the first 12 letters of the Roman alphabet in order of frequency in which they occur in regular English prose.
That's the way I remembered it...


I think Clive
Moi, even? (Clive's not anal enough)


alluded to the fact that I had O and A transposed, which wouldn't surprise me.
Exactly. Are we extremely sad, or just sad, to know this useless stuff?

bigdjiver
3rd-September-2005, 11:19 PM
To be fair, the SF writer could have taken his story from a misconception...


That's the way I remembered it...


Moi, even? (Clive's not anal enough)


Exactly. Are we extremely sad, or just sad, to know this useless stuff?Or the Linotype machine designer might have a very good reason for placing the letters in the order of usage, and some fault would spew them out in that order.

ducasi
4th-September-2005, 02:42 PM
Fantastic stuff Clive! I'm particularly relieved (typed relived by mistake there first, this must have meaning) ... Definitely a Freudian Slap™.

Dreadful Scathe
5th-September-2005, 01:36 PM
Why do people believe in ghosts and not god then? If the universe was suppose to be made up from the big bang, therefore it's all natural, then how do ghosts come into it??? It tells me there is more to it than you think, and that's why I choose to believe - full stop.

There is certainly a lot more to it than we think, and over the coming decades more will be explainable Im sure. I dont see how 'theres more to it' logically leads you to believe in a Christian God over all the other ones or Aliens or whatever. Do you think if you had grown up in the 4th centuary you'd be pagan?*

*Mind you all Christians were referred to as Pagan by the Romans initially as they were of course in denial of the true Roman Gods.

bigdjiver
5th-September-2005, 02:38 PM
... Are we extremely sad, or just sad, to know this useless stuff?A science fiction writer proofreads his latest work, and finds a very odd sequence of characters in it. Asks why. Gets an idea for another money earning story. not useless.
I tell about it, and get a deeper insight into what the characters are. One of the things on my todo list was to get a usage list of chacters, it turns out I had one in my head for decades. Not useless.
Anybody contemplating designing a keyboard layout might consider putting the most used letters under the right hand. Instead we have the "QWERTY" layout, designed to be inefficient. Decades of "Market forces" have failed to correct this. If anybody preaches "Market forces" at me I remember this, and think on. I consider that "useful".

ducasi
5th-September-2005, 03:03 PM
Anybody contemplating designing a keyboard layout might consider putting the most used letters under the right hand. Instead we have the "QWERTY" layout, designed to be inefficient. Decades of "Market forces" have failed to correct this. If anybody preaches "Market forces" at me I remember this, and think on. I consider that "useful". First, that would be a pretty bad design – ideally you want the most commonly used letters in the middle row, under the fingers of [b]both[/i] hands. (Unless you only type with one hand?) Good typists will type faster using alternate hands rather than one hand.

Second, the QWERTY layout was not designed to be inefficient, but to increase the chances that consecutive key strokes would not be close to one another. You will find, though that the letters ETAOINSHRDLU are almost all on the the home row or the upper row, and that the less common letters are mostly on the bottom row or way off to the left of the keyboard. This was not an accident.

Dreadful Scathe
5th-September-2005, 03:36 PM
The QWERTY keyboard exists because typewriters needed to have common letters far away from each other so the hammer bits* wouldnt jam.

The most efficient keybaord is supposed to be the dvorak keyboard (http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/layout.html) i believe.



*technical term

bigdjiver
6th-September-2005, 01:07 AM
... the QWERTY layout was not designed to be inefficient, but to increase the chances that consecutive key strokes would not be close to one another. You will find, though that the letters ETAOINSHRDLU are almost all on the the home row or the upper row, and that the less common letters are mostly on the bottom row or way off to the left of the keyboard. This was not an accident.There were two issues. There was the proximity of the keys, and the speed of typing. There will always be keys near to each other. The layout that worked did so because it was slower. Allegedly most of the typing records were achieved with the Dvorak layout. I have not been able to find a good source for this.

Whitebeard
6th-September-2005, 08:01 PM
..... so the hammer bits* wouldnt jam.
Think we used to call them slugs - 'type slugs', which used to be soldered to the type arms. The very devil to get aligned again if they came loose.

But what this has to do with religious belief escapes me.

Clive Long
6th-September-2005, 08:23 PM
Think we used to call them slugs - 'type slugs', which used to be soldered to the type arms. The very devil to get aligned again if they came loose.

But what this has to do with religious belief escapes me.
The "ghost in the machine" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine) maybe?

(The other, non-original) Clive

David Franklin
7th-September-2005, 06:04 PM
Thought it serendipitous, if maybe not supernaturally significant to unexpectedly come across the following quote while looking for something completely different (I was looking at blogs about Katrina):


Saint Augustine of Hippo, AD 401-415, translated by John Hammond Taylor

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Dreadful Scathe
15th-September-2005, 04:39 PM
Nice quote. Nowadays the more vocal Christians are taking advantage of the ease of communication - they do indeed talk nonsense on many topics. No more than others do on other topics of course ;) The internet is great for reading about other peoples stupid opinions ;)

David Bailey
26th-September-2005, 06:54 PM
Couple of bits of news on the Intelligent Design front:


There's a big court case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4282692.stm) coming up in Pennsylvania, the results of which could swing the education fight one way or the other. Parents are taking the Dover School Board to court over the DSB's decision to force teachers to announce that Intelligent Design is a valid alternative theory to evolution.
At the same time, the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/), mentioned earlier, has gone nuclear - up to 2 million hits / day on some days. And yes, there are already schisms in the cult :rofl:

Dreadful Scathe
26th-September-2005, 07:52 PM
:rofl: Im all for the teaching of the spaghetti monster and his noodly appendage :) The graph on statistically significant inverse relationships between pirates and global temperature.
is, i'll think you'll all agree, overwhelming scientific evidence! :)

Gadget
28th-September-2005, 02:06 AM
Why do people believe in ghosts and not god then? If the universe was suppose to be made up from the big bang, therefore it's all natural, then how do ghosts come into it??? It tells me there is more to it than you think, and that's why I choose to believe - full stop.Depends on what you believe "ghosts" are:
- Spirits/souls of the dead, somehow trapped on this plane and have not really 'died' yet?
- Echos of past events that somehow cross into this time frame from another one?
- Minds 'touched' by something (imagination, enviroment, sub-consious, entity...) to invoke visions?
- An alternate reality 'leaking' into this one?

There are arguments for every one of these and sub-arguments as to exactly how these things are manifest. And, of course, arguments disproving the existance of both ghosts and gods.

David Bailey
28th-September-2005, 08:19 AM
:rofl: Im all for the teaching of the spaghetti monster and his noodly appendage :)
The mugs look cool as well.


The graph on statistically significant inverse relationships between pirates and global temperature.
is, i'll think you'll all agree, overwhelming scientific evidence! :)
It's more than overwhelming, it even has a comprehensive theory to go with it.

Pirates bury treasure on beaches, beaches get swamped with global warming, so more warming = less pirates. Obvious, when you think about it, I'm surprised no-one's spotted the relationship before.

Dreadful Scathe
29th-September-2005, 01:55 PM
Intelligent Design clearly points at the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but are there any people out there who can argue against this?

Mostlysane
29th-September-2005, 01:59 PM
I'm all in favour of FSM. As as a fully paid up pastafarian :nice:

In fact, the tee shirt turned up in the post this morning. I cant wait till the weekend to show it off.

I wonder if we could start teh campaign now to get it registered as a recognised religion on the next census.

David Bailey
29th-September-2005, 02:12 PM
I wonder if we could start teh campaign now to get it registered as a recognised religion on the next census.
Religion? I thnk you've totally missed the point.

FSM is science, damnit - that's why it needs to be taught alongside such other respectable sciences such as Creati- err, Intelligent Design.
Oh, and evolution, I guess.

Tsk, some people...

El Salsero Gringo
29th-September-2005, 02:18 PM
Couldn't resist posting this, from Wikipedia:

Clive Long
29th-September-2005, 02:20 PM
Couldn't resist posting this, from Wikipedia:
Interesting that the FSM seems significantly better endowed than Adam :whistle:

I blow my post-quota again

CRL

Edit: Mostlysane: "Pastafarian" :rofl:

Rhythm King
29th-September-2005, 02:39 PM
:

I blow my post-quota again
It's ok, you can take it off your pasta-quota on a pro rata basis :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
29th-September-2005, 02:41 PM
Interesting that the FSM seems significantly better endowed than Adam :whistle: I suppose Michaelangelo didn't want to a)distract the women, b)intimidate the men or c)make the Pope jealous.

Mostlysane
29th-September-2005, 03:13 PM
Religion? I thnk you've totally missed the point.

FSM is science, damnit - that's why it needs to be taught alongside such other respectable sciences such as Creati- err, Intelligent Design.
Oh, and evolution, I guess.

Tsk, some people...

Damn, I knew i was missing the plot somewhere along the line. :D :D :rofl:

jacksondonut
8th-December-2005, 04:13 PM
Would be interesting to have an insight into the heathen minds of forum users. Everyone will fall into one of the four catagories - make your choice and feel free to start a discussion :)

Of course this isnt really a religious question as you could for example be a buddhist who is very religious but doesnt believe in any gods :D. Religion is a seperate issue to theism.

I have in the last couple of years moved from category 1, through to category 4.. i am truly amazed that i could have come to believe in something i cannot see with my own eyes... a spiritual awakening maybe..

I believe that i am not religeous, but have a spiritual nature and all i need to believe, is to look around me and see the beauty that still is in the world... :flower: none of it is man-made either! Whether it is the oceans, forests, mountains, deserts and other amazing creatures that inhabit this planet. I guess for me that Mother Nature itself, is my God, or in other words, My Higher Power.

There have been occasions/happenings in my lifetime that i would put down to coincidence.. ie,. maybe that on the day I was on the motorway and i narrowly missed being killed, just maybe, i was being looked after... it was close!

All the awful stuff in this world, is a product of man and his greed.. (well some of them anyway..)

Everyone sees THEIR God in their own way.

Very interesting subject.:cheers:

Dreadful Scathe
9th-December-2005, 02:34 PM
Everyone sees THEIR God in their own way.

Assuming they believe in such a concept ;)

In Gadgets case he swears HE is God :)

doc martin
9th-December-2005, 03:31 PM
I have in the last couple of years moved from category 1, through to category 4. *snip lovey, dovey stuff*
Have you moved house to live under a power line or developed strange absence attacks?

I ask because I am amazed that in all these pages of discussion, nobody has mentioned the G-spot. No not that one, the God spot (http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html).

First there was research from 1997 showing that people with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), characterised by disordered activity in the temporal lobe of one cerebral hemisphere, frequently report religious experiences during attacks. They also tend to be preoccuppied with mystical thoughts between attacks. These attacks are not like grand mal seizures typically associated with epilepsy, but usually manifest as absence attacks, where the person seems to be preoccuppied for a few seconds. As the symptoms are quite subtle, it can often go undiagnosed.

Then a couple of years later experimenters tried stimulating this part of the brain to see if they could induce mystical experiences and found that they could. See this report (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger_pr.html) for instance.

Religious people would argue that God put this bit of the brain in to allow us to commune with Him, but I have a couple of problems with that.

First, if that is the case, why doesn't that part of the brain get stimulated in all of us? An omnipotent god would surely have time to go around and give everybody's brain a little poke every now and then to top up our belief.

Secondly, if disordered activity can cause these sorts of feelings, it is probable that the feelings can also be caused by ordered activity in the same area. Like other parts of the cortex this ordered activity would be a learned phenomenon. I hypothesise (and this is pure speculation) that it would be learned by arousing similar spiritual feelings and associating those feelings with certain contexts. Is this not what all religions/cults do?

They associate (preferably from a very young age) these mystical feelings with the trappings of their ceremonies and therefore train (literally brainwash) people into associating patterns in this part of their brain with the god of choice. So, like any other part of the cortex, the temporal lobe is flexible enough to learn any pattern of response depending on the training given it, and a person will therefore believe in whatever god they have been programmed to.

One last point. This part of the brain is also present in other mammals, especially primates. Does anyone think animals have gods? If so, are they the same gods that we have? If not, why not?

philsmove
9th-December-2005, 03:46 PM
On the BBC today program they announced the Catholics are abandoning Limbo

As a kid I was told a relative had gorn to Limbo

So were are they now :confused:

doc martin
9th-December-2005, 03:48 PM
On the BBC today program they announced the Catholics are abandoning Limbo
Another branch of dancing gone :tears:
Still, maybe they could include MJ in thier religion instead :D

Dreadful Scathe
9th-December-2005, 05:28 PM
On the BBC today program they announced the Catholics are abandoning Limbo



Fact: Catholics are just not as supple as they used to be.

LMC
9th-December-2005, 05:34 PM
They've lost their faith in Cod liver oil

jacksondonut
9th-December-2005, 07:23 PM
[QUOTE=doc martin]Have you moved house to live under a power line or developed strange absence attacks?



Whoa there... found your knowledge/views very interesting, but failed to understand the above, please explain..:what: (i am not blonde, by the way!!) Guess, it was just a liddle bit on the 'deep' side for me to comprehend... i enjoyed reading it though. Ta very much, as i learned something today.
:cheers:

Gadget
9th-December-2005, 09:27 PM
Assuming they believe in such a concept ;)

In Gadgets case he swears HE is God :)
A god.

Not quite sure how this ties in with the "Worship 'dance' as a god" (http://72.232.2.194/~fpauly/forum/showthread.php?t=7055) theory though... need to work on it.

David Bailey
10th-December-2005, 02:59 PM
A god.
This is like the Groundhog Day definition isn't it? Omniscience as a result of having been around for a really long time? :innocent:

doc martin
11th-December-2005, 01:14 PM
Have you moved house to live under a power line or developed strange absence attacks?
Whoa there... found your knowledge/views very interesting, but failed to understand the above, please explain..:what: (i am not blonde, by the way!!) Guess, it was just a liddle bit on the 'deep' side for me to comprehend... i enjoyed reading it though. Ta very much, as i learned something today.
:cheers:
Sorry, about that. It was a bit of an obtuse lead in to the rest of the post and I never got round to explaining where I was coming from with that opening.

One thing I had wondered about for a while after hearing these stories about stimulating bits of the brain to induce religious feelings was whether people living under big, high voltage power lines might become religious. I agree it is a strange thing to wonder, but something must have sparked me off; probably a story about other efffects of power lines coming out at the same time.

The absence bit was referring to the religious experiences documented by people suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy. On reflection, a rather tasteless remark, for which I apologise.

It does still intrigue me why people change their beliefs. I think it would be easy to say that you (not you specifically, but anyone changing beliefs about anything) were convinced by the arguments of a believer, but as belief is supposed to occur with no proof, I can't see how that would work, unless you were very young with malleable beliefs. Hence my feeling that something has to change in a person's environment to cause a change in this part of their brain, leading to a change in beliefs.

A power line is probably a very unlikely cause. But with the other documented effects that they cause, which would also have seemed unlikely to me, I think you could not say it was impossible. Has anyone looked at the Roman electricity supply running alongside the road to Damascus?

Piglet
11th-December-2005, 01:50 PM
Has anyone looked at the Roman electricity supply running alongside the road to Damascus?


I just found this on the internet:


Mercury tried in earnest to find out how the electricity supply alongside the road to Damascus worked. He wanted to prove that it was just a trick that Mars had conjured in order to get the Roman populas to believe in and worship him more. However, Mercury simply couldn't run fast enough.

Today as you walk along the road to Damascus you can occasionly feel a whoosh of power as the electricity runs by you.

:flower: :D

MartinHarper
12th-December-2005, 01:12 AM
As a kid I was told a relative had gorn to Limbo

So were are they now :confused:

The old theory was that babies who die unbaptised go to Limbo, where they suffer neither pleasure nor pain. The new theory will be that babies who die unbaptised go to heaven, if the change goes ahead as reported.

Dreadful Scathe
12th-December-2005, 01:21 AM
The old theory was that babies who die unbaptised go to Limbo, where they suffer neither pleasure nor pain. The new theory will be that babies who die unbaptised go to heaven, if the change goes ahead as reported.

But surely all babies are naturally Atheists until they are old enough to form beliefs ? Does that mean Atheists go to heaven ?

MartinHarper
12th-December-2005, 01:25 AM
I think it would be easy to say that you (not you specifically, but anyone changing beliefs about anything) were convinced by the arguments of a believer, but as belief is supposed to occur with no proof.

There are lots of ways to argue for a certain belief, and convince folks of it, without providing a formal logical proof.

I used to believe in unfettered market forces as the solution to most political problems. I don't believe in that now. My beliefs have changed because of the evidence I have seen, and the arguments I have heard, not because some economic theorist somewhere has written a paper purporting to disprove the free market, nor because of stray electricity leylines.
My religious beliefs have changed, and will change, for similar reasons.

MartinHarper
12th-December-2005, 01:30 AM
But surely all babies are naturally Atheists until they are old enough to form beliefs ? Does that mean Atheists go to heaven ?

As I understand their religion, Catholics believe that atheists who have lived good lives still go to hell, but suffer a milder pain than atheists who have lived bad lives. This is because all people are born with original sin. For some centuries now, Catholic theory is that unbaptised babies have a special exemption from this, backed with a quote from Jesus about little children.

"Original sin" is one of the best religious phrases around.

Dreadful Scathe
12th-December-2005, 01:44 AM
Technically (dictionary) a child is anyone under 12, but by 12 years old although you may not be baptised, you'll be old enough to have formed a belief of some kind. You would still be exempt ?

MartinHarper
12th-December-2005, 12:21 PM
Technically (dictionary) a child is anyone under 12

You need a better dictionary.
Besides, "technical" English definitions are irrelevant, given that this particular bit of Catholic theory is based on a quotation from Jesus.


but by 12 years old although you may not be baptised, you'll be old enough to have formed a belief of some kind. You would still be exempt ?

I think the exemption is on the order of days, not years.

doc martin
12th-December-2005, 03:08 PM
The old theory was that babies who die unbaptised go to Limbo, where they suffer neither pleasure nor pain. The new theory will be that babies who die unbaptised go to heaven, if the change goes ahead as reported.
So what are they changing? Are they installing baby changing facilities? Or are they trying to change their stance on original sin because they see that, in the modern world, such a concept is abhorrent to a large proportion of their intended audience?


There are lots of ways to argue for a certain belief, and convince folks of it, without providing a formal logical proof.

I used to believe in unfettered market forces as the solution to most political problems. I don't believe in that now. My beliefs have changed because of the evidence I have seen, and the arguments I have heard, not because some economic theorist somewhere has written a paper purporting to disprove the free market, nor because of stray electricity leylines.
My religious beliefs have changed, and will change, for similar reasons.
Note that the highlighting is mine.
I was using the word 'proof' in the same way you were using 'evidence'. I would agree that there is no way of presenting a formal mathematical proof of an economic theory. And the same applies to proof of a belief.

Introducing ley lines is clearly an attempt to argue by mockery as there is no suggestion of unprovable forces at work in my argument, only hitherto unrecognised effects of easily demonstrable forces.

So you seem to be saying that your beliefs will change if arguments backed up by evidence are presented to you. I think that we are talking about belief in two different ways here. Belief in things for which you have no direct personal experiental evidence: " I believe the world is round because I know someone who sailed all the way round". And belief in something based on faith: "I have no evidence for this, but I hold it to be true as a matter of faith". I was referring the second of these. It would seem, from the way you have expressed yourself, that you are referring to the first.

Could you see yourself changing your beliefs based on faith alone? I know I couldn't.

Dreadful Scathe
28th-December-2005, 02:26 PM
You need a better dictionary.
Besides, "technical" English definitions are irrelevant, given that this particular bit of Catholic theory is based on a quotation from Jesus.

Well most dictionaries say a child is "A person between birth and puberty" and puberty averages out around age 12 i think.

Also the quote is only "attributed to" Jesus, as much as it can be when the written record was written in another language many decades after the event took place. See this (http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm). And as even this site points out (http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/15.php) the translation from aramaic/greek and hebrew into English will give you different meanings : quote "...there is so much variation in the English translations. Ten trained translators looking at the same Greek text would likely come up with ten slightly different renditions".

It always struck me that statements like "Translators continue to study the ancient text to find just the right nuance and shade of meaning in today's English to express exactly what God intended to convey" is particularly arrogant of the translators ;). Strangely its not usually written that any of the translators have had the holy spirit working with them as it always is when discussing the original authors. The Lord, it is said, works in mysterious ways :)

Stuart M
28th-December-2005, 03:35 PM
Bear in mind that the recent religious festival has a significant aspect of its basis in a mistranslation of the original Hebrew.

Geza Vermes, the author of The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, explains (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/19/do1904.xml) the problems with Matthew's account of the Nativity. Basically St. Matthew's Gospel (in Greek) was written for an audience not schooled in Jewish folklore, which meant that the concept of 'virgin birth' is a somewhat inaccurate translation of the Hebrew for 'young woman'. Possibly, given the significance of virgin priestesses in Greco-Roman pagan worship, a deliberate mistranslation. After all Christianity has a long history of 'adopting' the concepts of existing faiths to aid local consumption/conversion. Not specifically criticising Christianity for this - it's hardly unique in doing so - but it has generally been more successful at it than most faiths.

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-January-2006, 12:39 PM
Which reminds me of Charles Dickens "Scrooge", a man considered mean spirited and anti-Christmas despite the fact that at that time it would be common to work on Christmas day - he does after all manage to buy a turkey for the Cratchit family on Christmas Day; now, even the local 24 hour tescos isnt open at Christmas :) So if we can misunderstand a fairly recent character like that so badly, what chance have we got with thousands of years ? :) There are people who firmly believe that Dec 25th is Jesus's birthday for some reason, even the Queen has 2 ;)

Barry Shnikov
5th-January-2006, 10:52 AM
On the BBC today program they announced the Catholics are abandoning Limbo

As a kid I was told a relative had gorn to Limbo

So were are they now :confused:

Erm...they must be in the other limbo (with a small 'l'), the one for people who aren't anywhere else...

Dancing under low-level horizontal sticks, anyone?

pjay
9th-January-2006, 08:38 AM
OK, I tried to hold back, honest I did.

Let's face it, religion is the final fairy story. For centuries the human race has struggled with the essential irrationality of existence: we live, we feel, emotional storms rage inside us, music makes our spines tingle, sunsets take our breath away, death of our loved ones makes us feel pain that seems to swell up until it's as big as the universe - and yet, one day we know it will be snuffed out when we die. It just seems impossible that all this raging sea of sensation can be, as the Bard put it, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Plus, of course, there were so many unexplained things. Put a piece of dust in the ground and it could grow into a hundred foot tree, sometimes the sun would shrivel the earth and sometimes the rain would drench it, sometimes the sky went black and thundered and sharp tongues of lightning flashed, sometimes a healthy shrub would produce fruit that was rotten and diseased, and there was no clue as to why these things happened.

And so people decided that there must be something more. It wasn't rational, it wasn't reasonable, but they couldn't accept the alternative. Over generations this approach to life grew into organised religion. Then we began to get other explanations for germination and weather and infection, but most people still can't accept life for what it is, an accident borne of organised complexity. They ask the question 'What is the meaning of life?' without ever asking the earlier question, 'Why should it be supposed that life has a meaning?'

Children are told about Santa Claus, and the Tooth fairy, and Rumpelstiltskin and Snow White and Cinderella, but parents are careful to let their children know, in good time, that these are fairy stories and won't help you live your life when you're an adult. The other great fairy story, the nativity, the passion, the virgin birth, the miracles, the ascension, transubstantiation, the doctrine of the trinity - this balloon is left unpunctured. These things are accepted without question, despite the fact that many of them were only adopted after years of doctrinal disputes and quarrels, often bloody, amongst the christians of the first few centuries.

So, to sum up: religion is like a comfort blanket, that the human race cannot let go of. For those of you who are offended, I would say this: it's one of our remaining taboos. Ask yourself whether an atheist should not be able robustly to put this point of view without offence amongst the faithful.

Ok, I admit that I've not read the entire thread, but I did read a fair bit before asking and I found myself wanting to ask Barry a question about this post, although it is from a fair while back, so if there are answers already, please just bear with me.... (and if you could point me at the post that'd be fantastic).



And so people decided that there must be something more. It wasn't rational, it wasn't reasonable, but they couldn't accept the alternative. Over generations this approach to life grew into organised religion.


I find this statement interesting and wonder the basis of it, as everything I've come across (and I'm no great studier of history) suggests signs of religion in the earliest history we can find - so I wonder what, if anything other than your own thought processes you're basing this statement on?

Dreadful Scathe
9th-January-2006, 10:42 AM
I find this statement interesting and wonder the basis of it, as everything I've come across (and I'm no great studier of history) suggests signs of religion in the earliest history we can find - so I wonder what, if anything other than your own thought processes you're basing this statement on?

Yes, there are signs of religion in the earliest history and it has changed and evolved with migration of people and culture, just as technology, farming and war have. The human race has an inbuilt curiosity and naturally wants to find answers to questions and assert authority over other 'lesser' groups, its other humans that usually find the answers to the big question 'why?' within the religions handed down through generations. These answers do not have to be true, any answer will do especially when you are a child. Its no different to watching news on TV and getting outraged at Iraq storing WMD's and then later finding out that they never existed, but for a time, we all believed they might be. I'm sure despite the overwhelming evidence some people still believe this, just as some people believe that NASA faked the moon landings.

So with knowledge of what it is to be human and all the evidence from the past. Barrys conclusion seems to be an entirely reasonable one and Ive yet to hear a good argument against it.

pjay
9th-January-2006, 10:58 AM
Yes, there are signs of religion in the earliest history and it has changed and evolved with migration of people and culture, just as technology, farming and war have. The human race has an inbuilt curiosity and naturally wants to find answers to questions and assert authority over other 'lesser' groups, its other humans that usually find the answers to the big question 'why?' within the religions handed down through generations. These answers do not have to be true, any answer will do especially when you are a child. Its no different to watching news on TV and getting outraged at Iraq storing WMD's and then later finding out that they never existed, but for a time, we all believed they might be. I'm sure despite the overwhelming evidence some people still believe this, just as some people believe that NASA faked the moon landings.

So with knowledge of what it is to be human and all the evidence from the past. Barrys conclusion seems to be an entirely reasonable one and Ive yet to hear a good argument against it.

It seems to me that if religion was completely made up, then I'd expect to see instances life that is pre-organised religion, and yet to my knowledge there isn't any evidence of that in any culture that has been unearthed.

Now of course it could be argued that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and certainly I'd expect that their is parts of history that we simply know nothing about, nor are likely to learn anything about.

I would also think that making up a religion would be a pretty difficult thing. What I mean by this is that you could make up a moon-landing, because really how much affect does this really have on your life or mine? I can accept it with little evidence, or I can reject it - it's not really going to alter the way I interact with my friends, or what job I choose to do, or what I'm going to do with the money that I earn. However with religion (and I suspect that this is one of the reasons why people get quite excited, either for or against it) it tends to attempt to tell us what to do, and how to live our lives - even to the point of what I should do with the money I earn, how I should interact with other people etc. and so forth. So it would seem to me that in order to invent a completely new religion would require multiple lifetimes of concerted effort.

Dreadful Scathe
9th-January-2006, 12:43 PM
It seems to me that if religion was completely made up, then I'd expect to see instances life that is pre-organised religion, and yet to my knowledge there isn't any evidence of that in any culture that has been unearthed.

I can imagine that at one point humans went around naked and thought nothing of it because its logical, we were in a warmer place and had more hair. I can easily imagine lack of religion as well because 54% of the religious people in the world are Christian or Muslim - religions that are a mere 2000 and 1400 years old respectively. There seems to be a natural shift from Gods being assigned to objects - 'tree gods', 'sea gods' etc.. to Gods being given a history and literary background..to the classic monotheistic faiths that dominate today.

Anyway, there is plenty evidence you are not aware of for atheistic cultures even today, never mind in the past, showing that a deity or lack of one is hardly important. A quote from a Primitive Skepticism article (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathp_primitive.htm)....


certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports


So it would seem to me that in order to invent a completely new religion would require multiple lifetimes of concerted effort.

Indeed. And if you look at the history of Chrisitianity to name but one, all the evidence does seem to support that.

pjay
9th-January-2006, 01:50 PM
I can imagine that at one point humans went around naked and thought nothing of it because its logical, we were in a warmer place and had more hair. I can easily imagine lack of religion as well because 54% of the religious people in the world are Christian or Muslim - religions that are a mere 2000 and 1400 years old respectively. There seems to be a natural shift from Gods being assigned to objects - 'tree gods', 'sea gods' etc.. to Gods being given a history and literary background..to the classic monotheistic faiths that dominate today.


If you're talking history of Christian/Muslim religion, both consider themselves to succeed Judaism, which has a history pretty much to the orgins of Israel, and would claim in the scripture of all three to trace to the origins of the earth & mankind.

As to creation/evolution - I'm not going to argue this, some people believe in one, some the other, and some in both - I cannot prove either, each to me seems to be a theory of origins with it's own pros & cons when we attempt to combine with science (I'm using a definition of science to be related to what we can actually observe here and now - science may be able to suggest what history was like, but I don't think it can tell us to a degree which it would consider to be conclusive).

You're right that there does seems to have been a significant shift away from worship of "assigned objects" to a model such as Christianity, i.e. where God is not observable in the same scientific way (see last paragraph). And yet interestingly I've heard it argued that in many ways the way we treat certain things today is very similar to the way in which past cultures had treated these "tree-gods" - who doesn't have a "shrine" to television in their house?




Anyway, there is plenty evidence you are not aware of for atheistic cultures even today, never mind in the past, showing that a deity or lack of one is hardly important. A quote from a Primitive Skepticism article (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathp_primitive.htm)....


Thanks for that, very imformative to find about cultures that don't seem to be "religeous."
However I'd like to highlight, from the same:


so these are the exceptions which tend to prove the rule.

So maybe it'd be safe to say that we're now about 99.9% confident that any given culture would have religeous tendancies - even most of those in the article acknowledged the concept of a god, even if they didn't worship one, which in my mind suggests some kind of religeous belief, even if not in the definition used by the author of that article (please note, I'm still trying to work out a definition of religion that I am happy with - "belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief" seems to be fairly reasonable to me).


Indeed. And if you look at the history of Chrisitianity to name but one, all the evidence does seem to support that.

So, here's my question about this - why would an individual, or even a group of individuals put in such effort to create something, which really is not going to produce anything for their benefit? Mostly early Christians were marginalised, at the least, hunted down and slaughtered in the extreme.

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 05:39 PM
I find this statement interesting and wonder the basis of it, as everything I've come across (and I'm no great studier of history) suggests signs of religion in the earliest history we can find - so I wonder what, if anything other than your own thought processes you're basing this statement on?

Fair point; what I was trying to get at is that organised religion grew out of these urges. Naturally disorganised - er, unorganised - er, not organised - religion was a stage along the path.

Even I (yes, even I) have experience that 'please, please let...' feeling; you know, 'please, please let me get that job/pass my driving test/get to somewhere or other on time' time of prayer. I imagine that urge is 'hard wired' (though cannot be sure, since I had a 'christian' education) and would have been well known to early homo sapiens - if not homo habilis.

(Question: has homo sapiens now evolved into homo Habitat?:whistle: )

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 05:45 PM
As to creation/evolution - I'm not going to argue this, some people believe in one, some the other, and some in both - I cannot prove either, each to me seems to be a theory of origins with it's own pros & cons when we attempt to combine with science (I'm using a definition of science to be related to what we can actually observe here and now - science may be able to suggest what history was like, but I don't think it can tell us to a degree which it would consider to be conclusive).


Eh-urh!!!!

Plenty of what science tells us is based on inescapable inferences from observed facts. We cannot prove that nothing can exceed the speed of light (not in the same way that I can prove I have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs) but it is an inescapable inference drawn from other facts.

In the same way, evolution (by which I mean, natural selection, since there cannot be any argument about 'evolution' per se- if you disagree, then good luck with proving that all flu viruses are identical) is an inescapable inference from observed facts.

I don't mean to be awkward, but wouldn't a definition of science limited to what we can actually observe be hugely limiting?

Incidentally, I don't suppose anyone set out to invent a religion (with the dishonourable exception of L Ron Hubbard) it was just that from time to time certain persons found it advantageous to codify and regularise what everyone believed.

I was listening to an interesting discourse on the radio a short while ago. It was suggested that an important difference between Jews and other nations results from their very early adoption of the 'one god' hypothesis. The Babylonians, for example (or Romans or Egyptians), if they found that one or other of their gods wasn't coming up with the goods (bad harvest, military defeats) they could 'sack' him or her and appoint someone else. 'This god's no effing use, let's get another one.'

The poor Jews, however, if they were suffering bad harvests or military failure, were stuck with the same (omnipotent, ya da ya da) god they had to start with. Consequently, if things weren't going well, it must be due to their own failings. Thus began 3,000 years of self flagellation by jewish people (reaching its apotheosis, presumably, in Woody Allen...)

pjay
9th-January-2006, 10:13 PM
Eh-urh!!!!

Plenty of what science tells us is based on inescapable inferences from observed facts. We cannot prove that nothing can exceed the speed of light (not in the same way that I can prove I have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs) but it is an inescapable inference drawn from other facts.

In the same way, evolution (by which I mean, natural selection, since there cannot be any argument about 'evolution' per se- if you disagree, then good luck with proving that all flu viruses are identical) is an inescapable inference from observed facts.


Isn't this simply the difference between theory and theorem?
Hence we have a theory that it is not possible to travel faster than light - once upon a time people believed that it was not possible to run a mile in under 4 minutes... it was proved wrong, and the belief changed.

If someone actually manages to prove that travelling at a speed faster than light is possible, then that theory will change - perhaps we may use a model where suggests impossibility - because it is really useful to explain the behavior of many many things, however we'd recognise that it's not true. Hey, I'm an electrical/electronic engineer, and I know of a few models that are typically used for the way in which a diode works - none of them are true, but the model makes it really easy for the purposes of basic understanding.


Incidentally, I don't suppose anyone set out to invent a religion (with the dishonourable exception of L Ron Hubbard) it was just that from time to time certain persons found it advantageous to codify and regularise what everyone believed.

So the masses decided - oh there must be this or that god, so let's all believe that it is true, and put our lives on the line for something that is simply a theory, it hasn't been taught to me as a child, I just hypothosise that it may be the case - yes, that's right, throw me to the lions rather than me admit I might be wrong, just stone me instead - I'm that convinced of what I made up with my group of friends - this seems a little bizarre to me unless of course we're making the assumption that people in the past were not capable of recognising the difference between reality and possibility?



I was listening to an interesting discourse on the radio a short while ago. It was suggested that an important difference between Jews and other nations results from their very early adoption of the 'one god' hypothesis. The Babylonians, for example (or Romans or Egyptians), if they found that one or other of their gods wasn't coming up with the goods (bad harvest, military defeats) they could 'sack' him or her and appoint someone else. 'This god's no effing use, let's get another one.'

The poor Jews, however, if they were suffering bad harvests or military failure, were stuck with the same (omnipotent, ya da ya da) god they had to start with. Consequently, if things weren't going well, it must be due to their own failings. Thus began 3,000 years of self flagellation by jewish people (reaching its apotheosis, presumably, in Woody Allen...)

Does sound interesting.

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 11:15 PM
If someone actually manages to prove that travelling at a speed faster than light is possible, then that theory will change - perhaps we may use a model where suggests impossibility - because it is really useful to explain the behavior of many many things, however we'd recognise that it's not true. Hey, I'm an electrical/electronic engineer, and I know of a few models that are typically used for the way in which a diode works - none of them are true, but the model makes it really easy for the purposes of basic understanding.

Well, yes and no. If it turns out that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, then it's not just the theory that will have to be revised. About 90% of modern physics goes down the toilet. That doesn't make it theory like 'I reckon the warmer it is, the more interested girls are in casual sex.'


So the masses decided - oh there must be this or that god, so let's all believe that it is true, and put our lives on the line for something that is simply a theory, it hasn't been taught to me as a child, I just hypothosise that it may be the case - yes, that's right, throw me to the lions rather than me admit I might be wrong, just stone me instead - I'm that convinced of what I made up with my group of friends - this seems a little bizarre to me unless of course we're making the assumption that people in the past were not capable of recognising the difference between reality and possibility?

I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said.
"Well, Ug, how come you catch more prey than I do?"
"It's simple, Ig. I pray a lot to the spirit of hunting, and whenever I kill something I make an offering to him of the really tasty soft bits in the middle."
"The spirit of hunting, eh? Where's he live then?"
"Well, he doesn't live anywhere, really. But he knows when I'm praying to him and he knows when I make an offering."
"How do you know?"
"Well, when I go back the next day, it's always gone!"
"Whoo! Respect. So what do I do to get me some of this guy's help and assistance?"
"Just pray before you go out hunting, and give an offering like I do. Of course, he isn't able to help out every time."
"Well, why not?"
"I don't know, do I? Perhaps he has to be somewhere else, or perhaps sometimes I don't do it right. Just give it a try, and see."
"Perhaps you could - you know, intercede with him for me."
"What, ask him on your behalf?"
"Yeah, why not? I'll cut you in for a piece of anything I kill."
"Well, we could give it a try."
"Thanks Ug."
"No worries, Ig."
Ig runs off.
"Hey you guys!! Guess what I just found out from Ug..."

jiveknight
10th-January-2006, 12:00 AM
I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said.
"Well, Ug, how come you catch more prey than I do?"
"It's simple, Ig. I pray a lot to the spirit of hunting, and whenever I kill something I make an offering to him of the really tasty soft bits in the middle."
"The spirit of hunting, eh? Where's he live then?"
"Well, he doesn't live anywhere, really. But he knows when I'm praying to him and he knows when I make an offering."
"How do you know?"
"Well, when I go back the next day, it's always gone!"
"Whoo! Respect. So what do I do to get me some of this guy's help and assistance?"
"Just pray before you go out hunting, and give an offering like I do. Of course, he isn't able to help out every time."
"Well, why not?"
"I don't know, do I? Perhaps he has to be somewhere else, or perhaps sometimes I don't do it right. Just give it a try, and see."
"Perhaps you could - you know, intercede with him for me."
"What, ask him on your behalf?"
"Yeah, why not? I'll cut you in for a piece of anything I kill."
"Well, we could give it a try."
"Thanks Ug."
"No worries, Ig."
Ig runs off.
"Hey you guys!! Guess what I just found out from Ug..."

Its good. But do you think that Ug and Ig themselves are spiritual or have any force or energy other than purely material and so could influence anything whether or not the spirit of hunting heard (or existed)?

El Salsero Gringo
10th-January-2006, 12:56 AM
Its good. But do you think that Ug and Ig themselves are spiritual or have any force or energy other than purely material and so could influence anything whether or not the spirit of hunting heard (or existed)?You'll be asking whether they're Thetans (http://www.chaplaincare.navy.mil/Scientology.htm) or not, then?

Gadget
10th-January-2006, 01:47 AM
(Question: has homo sapiens now evolved into homo Habitat?:whistle: )Nope: we are now "homo ikeaians" :wink:

pjay
10th-January-2006, 03:06 AM
Well, yes and no. If it turns out that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, then it's not just the theory that will have to be revised. About 90% of modern physics goes down the toilet. That doesn't make it theory like 'I reckon the warmer it is, the more interested girls are in casual sex.'


I didn't say that it would be easy to change the theory, and I did comment that we may use a model in which we make that assumption, because it's really really useful to us most of the time (but then I am an engineer, and close enough is good enough).



I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said.
"Well, Ug, how come you catch more prey than I do?"
"It's simple, Ig. I pray a lot to the spirit of hunting, and whenever I kill something I make an offering to him of the really tasty soft bits in the middle."
"The spirit of hunting, eh? Where's he live then?"
"Well, he doesn't live anywhere, really. But he knows when I'm praying to him and he knows when I make an offering."
"How do you know?"
"Well, when I go back the next day, it's always gone!"
"Whoo! Respect. So what do I do to get me some of this guy's help and assistance?"
"Just pray before you go out hunting, and give an offering like I do. Of course, he isn't able to help out every time."
"Well, why not?"
"I don't know, do I? Perhaps he has to be somewhere else, or perhaps sometimes I don't do it right. Just give it a try, and see."
"Perhaps you could - you know, intercede with him for me."
"What, ask him on your behalf?"
"Yeah, why not? I'll cut you in for a piece of anything I kill."
"Well, we could give it a try."
"Thanks Ug."
"No worries, Ig."
Ig runs off.
"Hey you guys!! Guess what I just found out from Ug..."

So here's a question then.... if those who do the praying & sacrifice do actually catch more, couldn't this be accepted as evidence that this "spirit of hunting" could actually exist and isn't merely a fairy tale?

One thing that I find interesting is that people seems to want to use science to explain everything - even things that science does not seem able to explain - it seems to me that science is interested in what we can test with the 5 senses - it doesn't seem to me that science is interested in anything that may or may not exist outside of these 5, and yet we try to apply the same scientific tests to it - i.e. we assume that if we cannot test it with our 5 senses then it does not exist?

Now I know that many out there wont put any weight to it (and I am only bringing it up in order to show that this issue has been around for a long time albeit perhaps in a simpler phrasing), but the bible mentions this, it's not really a new issue... http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=29&version=31&context=verse

Barry Shnikov
10th-January-2006, 10:28 AM
So here's a question then.... if those who do the praying & sacrifice do actually catch more, couldn't this be accepted as evidence that this "spirit of hunting" could actually exist and isn't merely a fairy tale?

It would certainly be evidence, just a) not very good evidence and b) way short of conclusive. Otherwise homeopathy would be good medicine.


One thing that I find interesting is that people seems to want to use science to explain everything - even things that science does not seem able to explain - it seems to me that science is interested in what we can test with the 5 senses - it doesn't seem to me that science is interested in anything that may or may not exist outside of these 5, and yet we try to apply the same scientific tests to it - i.e. we assume that if we cannot test it with our 5 senses then it does not exist?

I don't consider science is only interested in things we can test with the 5 senses. If (which I do not consider true) telepathy existed, the fact that a telepath could (in appropriate controlled conditions) repeatedly demonstrate successful reception of information from other people's minds would be accepted by science even though there was no means of measuring 'thought waves'. Many scientists have indeed tried to carry out such tests, and some of them - being nice, honest people who normally test things that are not trying to pull a fast one on them - have been unpleasantly hoodwinked by self-aggrandising or greedy charlatans.

Also, one can turn your statement on its head and observe that the reason science is limited to making statements about what can be observed and measured is that that is all there is - 'spirituality' is a construct of human desire and anxiety rather than an independent quality of the universe. (Not to say that it hasn't produced great art - cf. Wuthering Heights or King Lear.)

It's also just occurred to me that Superstring, or M theory, is a prime example of a scientific theory that may never be able to be measured. As a string is to an atom so an atom is to the universe - no chance we will ever be able to observe, let alone measure, something that is infinitesimably shorter than the shortest wavelength electromagnetic radiation.

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2006, 10:48 AM
So the masses decided - oh there must be this or that god, so let's all believe that it is true, and put our lives on the line for something that is simply a theory, it hasn't been taught to me as a child, I just hypothosise that it may be the case - yes, that's right, throw me to the lions rather than me admit I might be wrong, just stone me instead - I'm that convinced of what I made up with my group of friends - this seems a little bizarre to me unless of course we're making the assumption that people in the past were not capable of recognising the difference between reality and possibility?


Many people today cant recognise the difference between fact and fiction or reality and possibility. You gather information and you choose to believe or disbelieve - example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial) - examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories)

Dont think your beliefs and your reasoning are matched by everyone else because they certainly are not. This may be bizarre to you but people have revelations all the time about they why, when, where of things - in the past that may well have become a new religion (and there are hundreds of those). Nowadays, people having a inspirational moment regarding their place in the universe will already find a religion that fits them and wont need to invent one.

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2006, 10:58 AM
One thing that I find interesting is that people seems to want to use science to explain everything - even things that science does not seem able to explain - it seems to me that science is interested in what we can test with the 5 senses - it doesn't seem to me that science is interested in anything that may or may not exist outside of these 5, and yet we try to apply the same scientific tests to it - i.e. we assume that if we cannot test it with our 5 senses then it does not exist?


Do we? I paid attention in science classes and I know in the last hundred years there have been great advances. Things that were impossible to measure have been measured, new theories to explain things come out all the time. I see science as simply as way to explain the world around us that relies on logical methods and not blind faith. I would like to meet a scientist who would, with a straight face, say "if we cannot test it with our 5 senses it does not exist" so I can laugh at them. Science is interested in knowledge. Sometimes theories remain untestable but should scientists avoid asking these questions.

jiveknight
10th-January-2006, 12:43 PM
You'll be asking whether they're Thetans (http://www.chaplaincare.navy.mil/Scientology.htm) or not, then?

Theta is the 8th letter of the Greek alphabet, meaning "thought".We use it to mean the life force which animates all living things (as there are so many other words that have so many connotations already). Whatever you believe that to be. Be it an individual or general. But basically you, yourself, the individual being as opposed to the body.

So, in a way, yes, my point was did Barry (or others discussing) think that the Ug chaps had any influence themselves over the hunt, other than luck or their attitude to it or whether the "spirit" or whatever, be it an energy, was involved.
Just curious.

I know what I think, I wondered what you thought. :D

ChrisA
10th-January-2006, 01:29 PM
I know what I think, I wondered what you thought. :D
Forgive my cynicism, but did you really? For any other reason, that is, than to shoehorn in some opportunities for a bit more airtime?

Do you think it's conceivable that you'd change what you think based on what you found out about what other people think and why?

Because, if not, I'd argue that any "exchange of views" is at best likely to be rather fruitless, and at worst, just veiled proselytising.

Gadget
10th-January-2006, 02:32 PM
:rofl: pot? kettle?

Bring on the proselytising I say :D

ChrisA
10th-January-2006, 04:44 PM
:rofl: pot? kettle?

Hey, Gadg, just a little word of friendly advice...

Don't confuse your inability to convince me that you talk sense, with my willingness or otherwise to change my point of view when sense is talked.

:flower: :flower:

But hey, any time you want to present a well thought-out, well-reasoned and well-expressed argument for something, I'll be here.

:whistle:

jiveknight
10th-January-2006, 04:58 PM
Forgive my cynicism, but did you really?

Yes.

I thought it was the idea of the thread and I find it interesting in general, from the vedic hymns to the holy blood and the holy grail.

I assume that the thread is still valid for people who have found some certainty for themselves in something as well as those that haven't. But I can see why you might think that.
(Although until the subject was brought up on another thread I have never mentioned it myself).

:cheers:

ChrisA
10th-January-2006, 05:15 PM
I assume that the thread is still valid for people who have found some certainty for themselves in something as well as those that haven't.
Of course. And one might ask, what's the point of having beliefs at all if you aren't prepared to proselytise, if those beliefs mandate it.

In other words, if you believe something strongly enough, why not be prepared to preach it?

It's just that I've had enough experience of some of those who rely on subtle and devious techniques to get their message across, to be extremely wary indeed.

As I said, forgive my cynicism - but I think it's well-founded.

El Salsero Gringo
10th-January-2006, 05:35 PM
Hey, Gadg, just a little word of friendly advice...

Don't confuse your inability to convince me that you talk sense, with my willingness or otherwise to change my point of view when sense is talked.It's all true. Chris *has* been known to change his mind. It last happened in 1963...

But hey, any time you want to present a well thought-out, well-reasoned and well-expressed argument for something, I'll be here.
...which by some strange coincidence was exactly the same year that Gadget last made a well thought-out, well-reasoned and well-expressed post.

jiveknight
10th-January-2006, 07:52 PM
As I said, forgive my cynicism - but I think it's well-founded.

I understand.
Though I never thought of myself as subtle so I'm sure it would be more obvious. :D

The main subject I definitley speakup loud on is the anti drugs thing,as mentioned elsewhere, but that's not really for this thread.

pjay
10th-January-2006, 10:21 PM
It would certainly be evidence, just a) not very good evidence and b) way short of conclusive. Otherwise homeopathy would be good medicine.

And of course one might argue that it is simply evidence that all those who happen to belive this, also happen to be better hunters - the fact is that we can interpret actions and facts in different ways - and usually do based on what belief system we currently employ.



I don't consider science is only interested in things we can test with the 5 senses. If (which I do not consider true) telepathy existed, the fact that a telepath could (in appropriate controlled conditions) repeatedly demonstrate successful reception of information from other people's minds would be accepted by science even though there was no means of measuring 'thought waves'. Many scientists have indeed tried to carry out such tests, and some of them - being nice, honest people who normally test things that are not trying to pull a fast one on them - have been unpleasantly hoodwinked by self-aggrandising or greedy charlatans.

Also, one can turn your statement on its head and observe that the reason science is limited to making statements about what can be observed and measured is that that is all there is - 'spirituality' is a construct of human desire and anxiety rather than an independent quality of the universe. (Not to say that it hasn't produced great art - cf. Wuthering Heights or King Lear.)

It's also just occurred to me that Superstring, or M theory, is a prime example of a scientific theory that may never be able to be measured. As a string is to an atom so an atom is to the universe - no chance we will ever be able to observe, let alone measure, something that is infinitesimably shorter than the shortest wavelength electromagnetic radiation.

Certainly science uses the 5 senses to "prove things" - talking telepathy... I'd suggest that at best you could provide a pile of evidence and many people might argue against that evidence as possibly being contrived such as in the case you've pointed out - science can never prove nor disprove claims of telepathy. Whatever it means to prove something - in sciences it seems to me that proof is considered the ability to reproduce (with 5 sense observability), whereas in a court room proof might be considered to be the ability to convince a jury.

In terms of Superstring and M theory - I'd suggest that this is why they remain as theories that sciencetists use because they can fit in with our concept of logic in explaining certain 5 sense observable outcomes.

pjay
10th-January-2006, 10:29 PM
Many people today cant recognise the difference between fact and fiction or reality and possibility. You gather information and you choose to believe or disbelieve - example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial) - examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories)

Dont think your beliefs and your reasoning are matched by everyone else because they certainly are not. This may be bizarre to you but people have revelations all the time about they why, when, where of things - in the past that may well have become a new religion (and there are hundreds of those). Nowadays, people having a inspirational moment regarding their place in the universe will already find a religion that fits them and wont need to invent one.


Yes, I am not surprised at all that my beliefs are different from those of others - I come across this every day, in all sorts of contexts - in fact I'd be surprised to come across anyone who actually held all the same beliefs that I do - and this case is simply another one.

pjay
10th-January-2006, 10:31 PM
Do we? I paid attention in science classes and I know in the last hundred years there have been great advances. Things that were impossible to measure have been measured, new theories to explain things come out all the time. I see science as simply as way to explain the world around us that relies on logical methods and not blind faith. I would like to meet a scientist who would, with a straight face, say "if we cannot test it with our 5 senses it does not exist" so I can laugh at them. Science is interested in knowledge. Sometimes theories remain untestable but should scientists avoid asking these questions.

No, not at all - scientists should look to ask questions and attempt to prove/disprove them - to do otherwise they would cease to be scientists, but see my earlier post about the ways in which, as I understand it, science "proves" something to be true or false - this is what I mean by "interested in".

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 12:25 AM
In terms of Superstring and M theory - I'd suggest that this is why they remain as theories that sciencetists use because they can fit in with our concept of logic in explaining certain 5 sense observable outcomes.

If you're a scientist, then forgive me for pointing out what you already know. Otherwise, you should note that 'theory' in science is not to be equated with 'crackpot theory'.

A man called Velikovsky, IIRC, wrote a book called When Worlds Collide in which he wrote that in the past Venus had collided with Earth (or Mars) and he set out all sorts of 'evidence' which 'could only be explained' if this was so.

To call Velikovsky's ramblings 'a theory' is to devalue the term; he just another twit with some loose wiring in his head.

In science, 'theory' means 'that explanation for the observed phenomena which best accounts for them'.

Of course, there is sometimes a dispute - for many years the Steady state 'theory' competed with the Big bank theory as to the origins of the Universe. That's only because at that time the observed phenomena did not inescapably point in one direction. They do now.

pjay
11th-January-2006, 09:02 AM
If you're a scientist, then forgive me for pointing out what you already know. Otherwise, you should note that 'theory' in science is not to be equated with 'crackpot theory'.

A man called Velikovsky, IIRC, wrote a book called When Worlds Collide in which he wrote that in the past Venus had collided with Earth (or Mars) and he set out all sorts of 'evidence' which 'could only be explained' if this was so.

To call Velikovsky's ramblings 'a theory' is to devalue the term; he just another twit with some loose wiring in his head.

In science, 'theory' means 'that explanation for the observed phenomena which best accounts for them'.

Of course, there is sometimes a dispute - for many years the Steady state 'theory' competed with the Big bank theory as to the origins of the Universe. That's only because at that time the observed phenomena did not inescapably point in one direction. They do now.

Whether or not someone might consider me a scientist I don't know - I studied Electrical & Electronic Engineering - which significantly matches up with what is typically included in Science studies (but then a friend of mine did a BA majoring in maths).

Yes, I do agree with you that 'theory' shouldn't include 'crackpot theory'... but then the difference between something being considered "crockpot" or not is often simply what "we" the norm, consider to be the norm.

As to whether a theory is 'that explanation for the observed phenomena which best accounts for them' I don't know. I don't claim to know what is best, but I think that a theory is probably 'that explanation for the observed phenomena which accounts for them in a fashion that is good enough to be accepted by the majority of people' (maybe even, by a significant majority).

I think that there is a difference between something being "good enough" and something being "best" and I think that usually people settle for something that is "good enough" - for example usually it is considered good enough for me to say that a particular type of diode turns on at >0.2v and off when less than that. I know that there are much much better models for how a diode works, but for the purposes that I'm usually working with this is a good enough theory that allows for explanation of the behaviour in which I'm interested.

:) Personally I want to know where this big bank is and how it got involved - I'm sure the accountants are interested now :)

David Bailey
11th-January-2006, 09:30 AM
:) Personally I want to know where this big bank is and how it got involved - I'm sure the accountants are interested now :)
That'll be the Barclayian Monks you're talking about, they live in a monastery shaped like an ATM, and their holy scriptures include "Beware of strange or unfamiliar devices" and "Out of Order".

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 02:05 PM
:) Personally I want to know where this big bank is and how it got involved - I'm sure the accountants are interested now :)

Arrrh!!!:what:

The biter bit...:blush:

pjay
11th-January-2006, 02:17 PM
Arrrh!!!:what:

The biter bit...:blush:

:) It happens, and really it doesn't bother me. I was more entertained at the thought of a big bank being the beginning of the universe. Imagine walking up to an ATM, I'd like to withdraw 1 universe please (ok so we don't have the voice activated ATM's but you know what I mean).

But I do also realise how it might be something that you don't like. But hey, I don't, and I don't think anyone else expects you to be perfect. So I think it's a bit of an odd belief system in which you expect yourself to be :).

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 02:26 PM
Yes, I do agree with you that 'theory' shouldn't include 'crackpot theory'... but then the difference between something being considered "crockpot" or not is often simply what "we" the norm, consider to be the norm.


I think that I am well able to distinguish between something that I consider unworkable - fruitarian therapies to cure stomach cancer - and things that are crackpot - Breatharianism.

I think that we as a society should stop being so afraid of making all judgments just because some judgments have been shown faulty in the past.

It is said, for example, that you cannot discuss the possibility that there are genetic differences that explain why black people are apparently better at sport. It seems to me that this is because in the past, the obvious differences between the races (which must be reflected in gene make-up) were used to justify prejudice and discrimination. Furthermore, the idea that blacks are better at sport seems to carry some sort of extra baggage in the form of an inference drawn that this suggests they are 'more primitive', or something.

It seems to me to be a) beyond question that there are genetic differences between people of the different races (if this were not so how to explain that said differences are heritable) and b) perfectly possible that amongst those genetic differences are ones that explain why the entrants in the 100 metres at the Olympics are ovewhelmingly black.

PLEASE NOTE: there may be dozens of other explanations, possibly much more important explanations, for the phenomenon.

However, it isn't frowned on to say that people with black skin have a genetic advantage in hot, sunnny countries over people with white skin. Why is it frowned on to say there may be other, different advantages?

So my thesis is that we need to stop being wishy washy about expressing opinions and pussyfooting around saying "Well, I certainly respect your views..." when you are privately thinking "what a wally!". I don't approve of needlessly offending people, but if it is part of an attempt to persuade them to abandon unhealthy (or crackpot) beliefs, maybe it is justified.

David Bailey
11th-January-2006, 02:39 PM
{ snip good example }

However, it isn't frowned on to say that people with black skin have a genetic advantage in hot, sunnny countries over people with white skin. Why is it frowned on to say there may be other, different advantages?
Another example is positing, as a mere academic possibility, one of many, a hypothesis that women may be genetically less inclined to excel at science and engineering - just ask Lawrence Summers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_males_and_fem ales).

It seems that some subjects are just too sensitive, or tainted by extremists, to raise academically without generating a storm.

jiveknight
11th-January-2006, 08:11 PM
And of course one might argue that it is simply evidence that all those who happen to belive this, also happen to be better hunters - the fact is that we can interpret actions and facts in different ways - and usually do based on what belief system we currently employ.



But was Ig (I think it was Ig not Ug) looking for something workable or some sort of belief system or faith?
It seemed his concerns were immediatly involved in getting food to survive and so would seem to be interested firstly in the workable. If after a while praying to the spirit of the hunter (through Ug in fact) didn't make his hunting more successful he would probably get fed up and it being his priority would look for something else. Maybe the other guy, Ug, is also a better hunter and could give him some tips. Or were they equally adept with hunting techniques? Which I guess for scientific purposes would be necessary.

Clive Long
11th-January-2006, 09:17 PM
<< snip >>
The main subject I definitley speakup loud on is the anti drugs thing,as mentioned elsewhere, but that's not really for this thread.
JK

Will you start a thread with your views on drugs? EDIT: or add to an existing thread (there must be one).

I'm interested in people's opinions, and more importantly knowledge and experience, of this subject.


Clive

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 09:51 PM
But was Ig (I think it was Ig not Ug) looking for something workable or some sort of belief system or faith?
It seemed his concerns were immediatly involved in getting food to survive and so would seem to be interested firstly in the workable. If after a while praying to the spirit of the hunter (through Ug in fact) didn't make his hunting more successful he would probably get fed up and it being his priority would look for something else. Maybe the other guy, Ug, is also a better hunter and could give him some tips. Or were they equally adept with hunting techniques? Which I guess for scientific purposes would be necessary.

The trouble is that, without carefully controlled investigations, humans are incredibly bad at assessing probabilities. (This was the intention behind the thread I started on Probability, only it backfired on me because the forumites far outperformed even professional American mathemeticians in getting the answer right. Curse you, Red Baron!!)

Consequently, it is very likely that Ig, like Ug, would erroneously conclude that prayers to the God of Hunters would have a positive influence on his hunting success. This is because of 'confirmation bias'. http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Ig's pals would likewise be swayed by Ug and Ig, who by then would have acquired a strong interest in having their own beliefs confirmed by other people - it would be disastrous to have to go back to square one and find another way of getting favourable influence for the hunting trips.

Here's a demonstration. You have four cards, and you are told that each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other. You are told that any card with a vowel on one side will have an even number on the other side.
You can see four cards, bearing respectively: 'A', 'B', '4' and '7'.
Which cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told?

(All those who know the answer, please refrain from posting an answer for, say, 24 hours.)

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 09:52 PM
But was Ig (I think it was Ig not Ug) looking for something workable or some sort of belief system or faith?
It seemed his concerns were immediatly involved in getting food to survive and so would seem to be interested firstly in the workable. If after a while praying to the spirit of the hunter (through Ug in fact) didn't make his hunting more successful he would probably get fed up and it being his priority would look for something else. Maybe the other guy, Ug, is also a better hunter and could give him some tips. Or were they equally adept with hunting techniques? Which I guess for scientific purposes would be necessary.


The trouble is that, without carefully controlled investigations, humans are incredibly bad at assessing probabilities. (This was the intention behind the thread I started on Probability, only it backfired on me because the forumites far outperformed even professional American mathemeticians in getting the answer right. Curse you, Red Baron!!)

Consequently, it is very likely that Ig, like Ug, would erroneously conclude that prayers to the God of Hunters would have a positive influence on his hunting success. This is because of 'confirmation bias'. http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Ig's pals would likewise be swayed by Ug and Ig, who by then would have acquired a strong interest in having their own beliefs confirmed by other people - it would be disastrous to have to go back to square one and find another way of getting favourable influence for the hunting trips.

Here's a demonstration. You have four cards, and you are told that each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other. You are told that any card with a vowel on one side will have an even number on the other side.
You can see four cards, bearing respectively: 'A', 'B', '4' and '7'.
Which cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told?

(All those who know the answer, please refrain from posting it for, say, 24 hours.)

jiveknight
11th-January-2006, 10:27 PM
Here's a demonstration. You have four cards, and you are told that each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other. You are told that any card with a vowel on one side will have an even number on the other side.
You can see four cards, bearing respectively: 'A', 'B', '4' and '7'.
Which cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told?

(All those who know the answer, please refrain from posting an answer for, say, 24 hours.)

Ill turn them all over:D

jiveknight
11th-January-2006, 10:29 PM
JK

Will you start a thread with your views on drugs? EDIT: or add to an existing thread (there must be one).

I'm interested in people's opinions, and more importantly knowledge and experience, of this subject.


Clive

Good Idea. I'll see if there is a relevant one or start one:cheers:

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 10:55 PM
The trouble is that, without carefully controlled investigations, humans are incredibly bad at assessing probabilities. (This was the intention behind the thread I started on Probability, only it backfired on me because the forumites far outperformed even professional American mathemeticians in getting the answer right. Curse you, Red Baron!!)

Consequently, it is very likely that Ig, like Ug, would erroneously conclude that prayers to the God of Hunters would have a positive influence on his hunting success. This is because of 'confirmation bias'. http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Ig's pals would likewise be swayed by Ug and Ig, who by then would have acquired a strong interest in having their own beliefs confirmed by other people - it would be disastrous to have to go back to square one and find another way of getting favourable influence for the hunting trips.

Here's a demonstration. You have four cards, and you are told that each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other. You are told that any card with a vowel on one side will have an even number on the other side.
You can see four cards, bearing respectively: 'A', 'B', '4' and '7'.
Which cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told?

(All those who know the answer, please refrain from posting it for, say, 24 hours.)


Bu**er. Please read "Which 2 cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told."

(Seriously in need of sleep...)

David Franklin
11th-January-2006, 11:41 PM
Here's a demonstration. You have four cards, and you are told that each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other. You are told that any card with a vowel on one side will have an even number on the other side.
You can see four cards, bearing respectively: 'A', 'B', '4' and '7'.
Which cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told?:confused: What on earth is this supposed to be demonstrating? It seems to me something like the birthday paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox) is a better demonstration of how people can wildly underestimate the likelyhood of "coincidence" being nothing more than random chance.

P.S. I think the pedantic answer to your question is "all four" - you have been told two things about the cards after all...

pjay
12th-January-2006, 01:37 PM
Bu**er. Please read "Which 2 cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told."

(Seriously in need of sleep...)

Come on, you could have made it a little harder and ask - what is the minimum number of cards you must turn over in order to confirm what you've been told...

personally though if we're being pedantic...

1) are we assuming English vowels - or could 'B' be a vowel in the language in question :)

2) are there only these four cards, or is there a pile somewhere, we might need to look at heaps of cards :)

bigdjiver
12th-January-2006, 02:11 PM
Bu**er. Please read "Which 2 cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told."

(Seriously in need of sleep...)
A and 7

B might have an even number, 4 might have a non-vowel, but these conditions are not part of the specification.

pjay
12th-January-2006, 02:13 PM
I think that I am well able to distinguish between something that I consider unworkable - fruitarian therapies to cure stomach cancer - and things that are crackpot - Breatharianism.

I don't believe I have ever come across someone who believes that they are unable to distinguish this difference - even if they may or may not happen to agree with you on the categorisation of crackpot (I even spelt it right this time!)

I would be willing to say that it's pretty safe to assume that any random person you come across would consider the way they live their life to be "right" - I think this would probably be the reason for confirmation bias (of course now I'm waiting for a barage of people who are going to say things like, "I don't believe in right and wrong" or "I don't care if how I live is right or not, it's how I live" - I think that this would be arguing semantics).



I think that we as a society should stop being so afraid of making all judgments just because some judgments have been shown faulty in the past.


I agree with this, in principle. I think that the reality is that we as a society have gone almost to the point of standstill because people are too scared to stick up for what they believe is absolute truth. Hey, I'm even going to go out on limb and claim that we all believe in absolute truth, and we all make judgments every day about it, we just aren't willing to say it, because we're s cared of offending others....

However, I also think that it is good to keep in mind that we live in a society and share this society with people, and I believe that we should try to live peacably with everyone, I should try to word my thoughts, opinions, dare I say, judgments in such a way that I believe is less likely to offend the people around me.

For example (taken from work yesterday)... I was sending a response to someone much more senior in the organisation than myself who was asking if there were any problems with an idea he had related to my area of expertise. Now in principle no there isn't, his idea could be done, however I believe that in the time frame and environment in which we're working it would pretty much be a stupid idea to try and make the change. So I said something along the lines of: Yes it can be done, however I have seen us do 'a' and 'b' before when working in this way, both of which are bad and hard/expensive/time consuming to protect against. Additional to this I think that there are significant issues from this other person area of expertise, such as 'c', 'd', and 'e'. I think that we should probably make sure to include them and consider carefully the advantages/disadvantages of this option for us. Also (not included in the response but as a footnote here) I'd already talked to the other person about 'c', 'd' and 'e' and know that he believes that these problems would outweight the advantages being suggested.

So basically I said that we could do that, but I think it would be bad, and I think you should ask this other person for their opinion too - they will also say that they think it would be bad, and at the end of the day we can have a number of people tell him that his idea is a bad one, in THIS circumstance.

I made my judgement, I argued for it, and don't believe I pussy-footed around the issue, but I also didn't say "only an idiot would suggest that."


So my thesis is that we need to stop being wishy washy about expressing opinions and pussyfooting around saying "Well, I certainly respect your views..." when you are privately thinking "what a wally!". I don't approve of needlessly offending people, but if it is part of an attempt to persuade them to abandon unhealthy (or crackpot) beliefs, maybe it is justified.

I don't think that in our society and time in history that we are likely to pursuade, or even assist in persuading, someone to abandon a belief by saying "only a wally would believe that." Maybe if you were a long way down the path in guiding them away from the concept and there was only a really small last step to go it might work, but really it also might completely undo all the work you've already done convincing them - most people don't particularly like to say, "yes, you're right, I am a wally" until they come to that conclusion all by themselves.

Of course the question going through your mind right now, is what is he thinking behind those words? :P

David Franklin
12th-January-2006, 02:17 PM
A and 7

B might have an even number, 4 might have a non-vowel, but these conditions are not part of the specification.But B might not have a number on the other side, and that was part of the specification... (I can't decide if I like this aspect of Barry's phrasing of the problem or not!).

jiveknight
12th-January-2006, 03:27 PM
Bu**er. Please read "Which 2 cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told."

(Seriously in need of sleep...)

Well if I CAN'T turn them all over :sad: , just for the game I would turn A and 4 over as at least that would show what is on the other side of those two cards. ie it would prove the second statement, as far as those two are concerned.

But, as pedancy seems to be the order of the day, one would still be assuming that the other cards have anything at all on the back or that the two statements are true regardless (like an Aristotlian syllogism) - its in the wording -
or the two cards being correct are just to elicit faith; "if those are right, I'll trust you on the others" (which is something we do in relationships all the itme I guess). Otherwise I would go for the Gordian knot and find out for myself - probably look for all the other cards too, knowing me. :whistle:

David Franklin
12th-January-2006, 03:38 PM
Well if I CAN'T turn them all over :sad: , just for the game I would turn A and 4 over as at least that would show what is on the other side of those two cards. ie it would prove the second statement, as far as those two are concerned. As Barry seems to have stopped replying to this thread, I'll take his part and say that bigdjiver is right and the "correct" two cards are A and 7. The "point" of the riddle is that if you wish to test "if A is true, then B is true", then it is not the cases where B is true that you need to worry about, it's the cases where B is false. (Putting it another way, whatever you see when you turn over the 4 card will tell you nothing about the truth of the statement "any card with a vowel on one side will have an even number on the other side").

jiveknight
12th-January-2006, 04:46 PM
As Barry seems to have stopped replying to this thread, I'll take his part and say that bigdjiver is right and the "correct" two cards are A and 7. The "point" of the riddle is that if you wish to test "if A is true, then B is true", then it is not the cases where B is true that you need to worry about, it's the cases where B is false. (Putting it another way, whatever you see when you turn over the 4 card will tell you nothing about the truth of the statement "any card with a vowel on one side will have an even number on the other side").

Your right.
But only if it is worded as a syllogism, "if A is true" etc, otherwise it is still asking to assume something for arguements sake (the others may be blank on the other side...) - but that's fair enough. Its definitely getting a bit pedantic now. :what:

What's big, red, lives underground and eats rocks? :D

Barry Shnikov
12th-January-2006, 10:01 PM
As Barry seems to have stopped replying to this thread,


Sorry chaps. Today I had work to do.

This is the Wason card test.

I may have phrased it badly. I thought I said, all cards have a number one side, and a letter on the other. The propostion to be tested is all cards with a vowel on have an even number on the other side. To confirm that all four cards you can see conform to that proposition you have to turn over the A and the 7. This is because if the 7 has a vowel on the other side the proposition is false. On the other hand, whatever is on the other side of the 4 does not confirm the proposition or otherwise.

It's not a probability thing (DavidFranklin) it's an illustration of confirmation bias, that is, the human tendency to more easily see and more often look for things which confirm a theory rather than for things that would falsify it. Apparently on average 87% of people give the wrong answer.

For a mundane example, see mediums. Tests have been carried out (sorry, no link; will try to find) where people have been 'read' by a medium, and have then reported how accurate the medium was, how impressed they were, etc. Then they have been shown a video of the reading, and asked to take notes. At the end they realise that the medium has been overwhelmingly wrong - but the innate tendency to focus on the 'hits' and brush the 'misses' aside has bamboozled them.

Likewise, it's unlikely that Ig and Ug and their chums would have been able to form an accurate view of whether the events of the ensuing months actually confirmed Ug's hunting deity theory or not.

Once again, apologies for the untidy original presentation.

Gadget
12th-January-2006, 10:31 PM
For a mundane example, see mediums. Tests have been carried out (sorry, no link; will try to find) where people have been 'read' by a medium, and have then reported how accurate the medium was, how impressed they were, etc. Then they have been shown a video of the reading, and asked to take notes. At the end they realise that the medium has been overwhelmingly wrong - but the innate tendency to focus on the 'hits' and brush the 'misses' aside has bamboozled them.
An interesting example: a good medium is just a very keen observer and reader of body language. But that's like saying a good magician is just very dexterous and nimble fingerd.
Both can make the target believe what they want them to and produce effects that are impossible without their skills.

Where do you stand on the subject of hypnosis? What about "mass" hypnosis? Is there any correlation between this and charismatic speaking? How about between hypnosis and 'brain-washing'? How do these practices work when laid ontop of your "Ug and Og" scenarios?

pjay
12th-January-2006, 10:42 PM
But B might not have a number on the other side, and that was part of the specification... (I can't decide if I like this aspect of Barry's phrasing of the problem or not!).

Oh, I didn't see this.... I'm impressed!

David Franklin
15th-January-2006, 09:28 PM
It's not a probability thing (DavidFranklin) it's an illustration of confirmation bias, that is, the human tendency to more easily see and more often look for things which confirm a theory rather than for things that would falsify it. Apparently on average 87% of people give the wrong answer.Assuming you're arguing from the skeptics site, I found the arguments for that fairly unconvincing; it was ironical to see the response from a mathematician suggesting various randomized trials being largely discarded by such a site.

Without wanting to be too smug (and which of us is without sin?), it is also faintly amusing to see you post such puzzles with sufficient inaccuracy in the way you state them that your answer is incorrect. In a discussion about religious belief, it says rather a lot about the inability of people to state their assumptions without ambiguity.

Barry Shnikov
16th-January-2006, 05:29 PM
Baffled.

Assuming you're arguing from the skeptics site, I found the arguments for that fairly unconvincing;
Arguments for what? Can't work out what you mean.

Without wanting to be too smug (and which of us is without sin?), it is also faintly amusing to see you post such puzzles with sufficient inaccuracy in the way you state them that your answer is incorrect. In a discussion about religious belief, it says rather a lot about the inability of people to state their assumptions without ambiguity.
What are the correct cards then if 'A and 7' is incorrect?

ChrisA
16th-January-2006, 06:17 PM
Without wanting to be too smug (and which of us is without sin?), it is also faintly amusing to see you post such puzzles with sufficient inaccuracy in the way you state them that your answer is incorrect. In a discussion about religious belief, it says rather a lot about the inability of people to state their assumptions without ambiguity.
.....:yeah:

Baffled.

Arguments for what? Can't work out what you mean.

What are the correct cards then if 'A and 7' is incorrect?
Have a look at the way you phrased the question, and see if you're still baffled.

You can't aspire to a reputation for rigorous intellectualism on here if you can't work that out... :devil:

Here's a demonstration. You have four cards, and you are told that each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other. You are told that any card with a vowel on one side will have an even number on the other side.
You can see four cards, bearing respectively: 'A', 'B', '4' and '7'.
Which cards must you turn over to confirm what you were told?

David Franklin
16th-January-2006, 06:39 PM
Arguments for what? Can't work out what you mean.Sorry, I jumped the gun and assumed you were cribbing off http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson3.html - my comment about the mathematican didn't make sense unless you'd read that. Speaking as a mathematician, the common error seems to be in thinking A=>B is logically equivalent to B=>A, as opposed to the contrapositive (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/relcond/Lcontrap.htm) ~B=>~A. Looking at it in those terms, calling it "confirmation bias" seems to read more into it than it deserves IMHO.


You can't aspire to a reputation for rigorous intellectualism on here if you can't work that out... :yeah: Especially as I've explicitly explained why the correct answer is "all 4 cards need to be turned over" earlier in this thread...

jivecat
17th-January-2006, 10:32 AM
An interesting example: a good medium is just a very keen observer and reader of body language. But that's like saying a good magician is just very dexterous and nimble fingerd.
Both can make the target believe what they want them to and produce effects that are impossible without their skills.



I agree that mediums are likely to pick up on responses from the client to guide them in what to say next - and that most clients are going to give them plenty of clues to go on. I think they are also astute in giving replies that have a very general application though the client immediately personalises them.

For example, I had a friend some years ago who was wacky enough to think that a visit to a medium would sort out her life. She was told that a man called Pete would be important in her life, she would have some connections with London and that the medium "could see a baby, either born or unborn". These remarks could probably be applied to 100% of the women in Britain. However, this friend was delighted with the accuracy and wisdom of the predictions, especially the bit about the baby, and immediately began to run hopefully through the list of her acquaintances called Pete.

Is this an example of confirmation bias? I'm not sure if I'm intellectually rigorous to be able to tell.

David Bailey
17th-January-2006, 10:42 AM
Is this an example of confirmation bias? I'm not sure if I'm intellectually rigorous to be able to tell.
It's an example of nutty behaviour, does that count? :innocent:

Probably this belongs on the "Star Signs Vs. Dancers" thread, but I've got a good anecdote to tell from Christmas. A group of us were together and one woman was reading her "Signs for 2006" prediction malarky.

I then took this page, and asked another friend what her sign was, I'd read out her predictions. She told me Libra, and I picked out the predictions, reading them out loud in that credulous "Ooh, that sounds believable" tone of voice. She nodded along, saying "Yep", "that's so true", "that's me allright" etc., as you do.

After I'd finished, I then waited 3 seconds, then said in mock-astonishment "Oh, hold on! I was reading out the Scorpio predictions by mistake!" :innocent:

It made the point quite nicely... :smug git icon:

It's a great test of credulity though - I'd recommend it.

Stuart M
17th-January-2006, 02:40 PM
Did anyone watch the Richard Dawkins programme on C4 last night? 'Root of all Evil?' Unfortunately last night was the second and last one - I missed the first but wish I'd managed to see it.

It was interesting how Dawkins went round interviewing the usual atheist boeymen - the 'Hellhouse' phenomenom in the US evangelistic movement, the Reverend who was a close friend of the guy who shot an abortion clinic doctor, faith-based schools in the UK, and so on. But he also sat down with the Reverend Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford and probably one of the most progressive voices in the Church of England, and took his position to task as well (based on the 'Well you know most of it's b****cks, why not just admit it's all b****cks?' argument).

Anyway, the program started me surfing, and came up with this Gruaniad article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) by Mr Dawkins which links his atheism to the concept of memes - anyone want to come out as a bright? You can sign up here (http://www.the-brights.net/) if you want, though it looks a bit culty to me...

jivecat
17th-January-2006, 03:05 PM
Anyway, the program started me surfing, and came up with this Gruaniad article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) by Mr Dawkins which links his atheism to the concept of memes - anyone want to come out as a bright? You can sign up here (http://www.the-brights.net/) if you want, though it looks a bit culty to me...

Hope I never end up sitting next to Mr Dawkins at a dinner party! A somewhat remote chance, admittedly.

I watched a few bits of the Monday night programmes, and despite broadly agreeing with a lot that I heard, didn't really care for Richard Dawkins' arrogant, hectoring tone. It always makes me want to concentrate on the arguments for the other point of view.

If religious thinking and practice were abolished tomorrow, what would take its place?

How would cultural & moral values be transmitted if children were not seen to take on their parents' identity?

Is the impulse towards spirituality (in a broad sense to include religious worship) innate or is it a learned response?

Sorry if these issues have already been touched on on this thread, unaccountably I have omitted to read every single word.:whistle:

Stuart M
17th-January-2006, 05:40 PM
Hope I never end up sitting next to Mr Dawkins at a dinner party! A somewhat remote chance, admittedly.

I watched a few bits of the Monday night programmes, and despite broadly agreeing with a lot that I heard, didn't really care for Richard Dawkins' arrogant, hectoring tone. It always makes me want to concentrate on the arguments for the other point of view.

Perhaps - but it is good that there's someone out there 'preaching' an atheist POV, and it's interesting that most of the religious types on the documentary were happy to engage in debate with him.
Personally I'd rather end up sitting next to him, than any evangelistic religious leader, to make a like-for-like comparison.

There's still a perception of being openly atheist as awkward, no? Or is it just that any strongly-held views are a problem for people nowadays?

jivecat
17th-January-2006, 06:05 PM
Personally I'd rather end up sitting next to him, than any evangelistic religious leader, to make a like-for-like comparison.It'd be bad enough having to attend a dinner party at all without having self-righteous and confrontational people of any stripe giving me indigestion!


There's still a perception of being openly atheist as awkward, no? Or is it just that any strongly-held views are a problem for people nowadays?

Most people I know are atheists - or very sceptical agnostics. It would be more unacceptable to express strongly held religious views. I have one friend who is an evangelical Christian and I daren't go any where near her views in conversation! Such views have caused some problems at work as well. My own feeling is that religious views, especially unusual ones combined with strict or bizarre (but aren't they all?) religious practices cause far more awkwardness these days.

Barry Shnikov
17th-January-2006, 09:35 PM
You can't aspire to a reputation for rigorous intellectualism on here if you can't work that out...


:yeah: Especially as I've explicitly explained why the correct answer is "all 4 cards need to be turned over" earlier in this thread...

Jeez, guys, gimme a break already. I apologised and explained that I was tired. Look at the time of my original Wason card post!:o

Barry Shnikov
17th-January-2006, 09:43 PM
I guess I do have a problem with religion and with those seemingly otherwise-intelligent people who believe in it.

But what has got me going recently in the forum is this idea that religious (or quasi-religious) beliefs should have some sort of special protection from enquiry and mocking.

If I want to, I should be able to mock anyone's religious beliefs. After all, unlike their skin colour, this is a choice they are making. They don't have to defend themselves, it's perfectly acceptable for them to stroll off muttering about what a tosser I am. If they choose to debate it with me, all well and good. It would be difficult to mock someone's belief that it is better to give than to receive or that thou shalt not kill. But I don't see why I have to take seriously the idea that Jesus fed 5000 people with two fishes and five loaves of bread, nor that the world was once covered with more than 27,008 feet of water so that Noah never saw land for 40 days and 40 nights. Nor that 60 odd cells in a clump qualifies as a 'human being' with 'a soul' nor that God wants me to send money to Pat Robertson.

But to suggest that somehow I am trampling on the sensibilities of the religious is begging the question. That could only be the case if their religious (or quasi-religious) beliefs are true.

pjay
17th-January-2006, 10:13 PM
I guess I do have a problem with religion and with those seemingly otherwise-intelligent people who believe in it.

But what has got me going recently in the forum is this idea that religious (or quasi-religious) beliefs should have some sort of special protection from enquiry and mocking.

If I want to, I should be able to mock anyone's religious beliefs. After all, unlike their skin colour, this is a choice they are making. They don't have to defend themselves, it's perfectly acceptable for them to stroll off muttering about what a tosser I am. If they choose to debate it with me, all well and good. It would be difficult to mock someone's belief that it is better to give than to receive or that thou shalt not kill. But I don't see why I have to take seriously the idea that Jesus fed 5000 people with two fishes and five loaves of bread, nor that the world was once covered with more than 27,008 feet of water so that Noah never saw land for 40 days and 40 nights. Nor that 60 odd cells in a clump qualifies as a 'human being' with 'a soul' nor that God wants me to send money to Pat Robertson.

But to suggest that somehow I am trampling on the sensibilities of the religious is begging the question. That could only be the case if their religious (or quasi-religious) beliefs are true.

I think that perhaps it's a sensible idea to consider the forum in which you choose to mock someone's beliefs.

If you sit down in a forum that is predominately filled by school teachers and say something like "man school teachers are lazy sods, look at all the holidays they take, not to mention being overpaid for the hours that they work" then I'd be willing to bet that you'd expect to have an arguement on your hands.

I think that the same goes for mocking of religious beliefs...

Should you really be surprised that that many people disagree with you - given the majority who (regardless of what they actually believe) will tick some kind of religion on a census form?

Now if you choose only to mock a certain religious group, you'd probably be much more likely to get away without conflict - "gee those xyz people are nutty, can you believe that they think 'abc' is true."

But I suspect that you do in fact enjoy the arguement, and would be incredible disapointed if no-one disagreed with your statements.

Barry Shnikov
17th-January-2006, 10:35 PM
If you sit down in a forum that is predominately filled by school teachers and say something like "man school teachers are lazy sods, look at all the holidays they take, not to mention being overpaid for the hours that they work" then I'd be willing to bet that you'd expect to have an arguement on your hands.

I think that the same goes for mocking of religious beliefs...

I'm surprised that you see a parallel between mocking somebody on a 'guilt by association' basis ("I don't like teachers and/or I know one or two workshy/inadequate teachers so let's slag'em all off") and mocking somebody's beliefs.

In the first instance, not all teachers will fit any description you care to use. Some are the inspiration of their pupils, and some work like dogs.

In the second instance, all believers choose to believe their 'beliefs'. [Wow. Tautology rules, reigns, lords it over everyone, OK? Got it?]

As a result, an insulted teacher can say "Eff off! I work hard and I'm a bloody good teacher." If an 'insulted' 'believer' says "I don't believe in X" then they can't be offended if I've mocked it. And if they do believe X, then by definition I'm not tarring them with a brush that belongs to somebody else. (Today's Metaphor destroyed by Mangling Award goes to...)

PS I'd be delighted if everyone agreed with me and stopped arguing. Sadly, I'm destined to wither on the vine amongst the uneducated, to labour without recognition, to be a prophet unrecognised in my own land...

ShinyWeeStar
17th-January-2006, 10:38 PM
But what has got me going recently in the forum is this idea that religious (or quasi-religious) beliefs should have some sort of special protection from enquiry and mocking.

If I want to, I should be able to mock anyone's religious beliefs. After all, unlike their skin colour, this is a choice they are making.
Why does the fact that it's a choice make it okay to mock? Everyone's entitled to their opinion and everyone should be treated with respect. You make the choice not to have religious beliefs, would you like to be mocked for that? (I mean, fancy not believing in Jesus, tut! What kind of idiot turns down the opportunity for eternal life?! :rolleyes: ).

By all means enquire about or challenge someone's religious beliefs (in my experience this is rarely a problem and in many cases is actually encouraged), but don't mock people. That's just not nice. :really:

David Franklin
17th-January-2006, 10:43 PM
Jeez, guys, gimme a break already. I apologised and explained that I was tired. Look at the time of my original Wason card post!:oHmm - and what was the time of the post where you insisted 'A' and '7' were the correct answer?

Yes, on one level I acknowledge I'm being a bit of a stroppy git here. And generally I wouldn't make a big deal of it. But it seems to me you posted the puzzle with a "let me show how you gullible people make logical errors" attitude, so I'm not feeling particularly generous.

Let me make it clear, however - I'm not giving you a hard time because you made a mistake. It's the fact that you didn't understand your mistake after I'd explained it. It implies that either you don't really understand the puzzles you post, or that you don't bother to read replies to what you post. Neither shows you in a particularly good light.

As many have said about Richard Dawkins: going around saying "You're all stupid believing in religion. I don't because I'm so much smarter than you" doesn't actually change people's minds. And when you start proving you're not quite as smart as you think you are, it leaves you hoist by your own petard.

[Probably the three brightest people I've ever met were Christians, so the "religion == stupid" meme has never really convinced me.]

LMC
17th-January-2006, 11:37 PM
I think that perhaps it's a sensible idea to consider the forum in which you choose to mock someone's beliefs.
Oh, I dunno, DavidJames gets away with mocking Jango all the time :devil: (hmmm, wonder what he'd do if I put Tango in Room 101 :innocent: )

I'm with SWS... enquiry is good, but there's no need to mock. There has been a fair amount of mockery on this thread, but it's been mainly related either to arguments/ideas or to someone without reference to their religious beliefs. Comments like this:


So my thesis is that we need to stop being wishy washy about expressing opinions and pussyfooting around saying "Well, I certainly respect your views..." when you are privately thinking "what a wally!". I don't approve of needlessly offending people, but if it is part of an attempt to persuade them to abandon unhealthy (or crackpot) beliefs, maybe it is justified.
You can separate out someone's thinking/reasoning from the type of person they are - "religious=stupid" is a sweeping and rather insulting statement.

El Salsero Gringo
17th-January-2006, 11:50 PM
[Probably the three brightest people I've ever met were Christians, so the "religion == stupid" meme has never really convinced me.]I don't really want to intrude in this "I'm waaay smarter than you" mini-thread (I know my place), but I know of no bar on smart people believing in stupid ideas. Without making any comment on religion myself, I don't think even Bazza would call the Archbishop of Canterbury an idiot, for example.

Dreadful Scathe
18th-January-2006, 12:34 AM
I think that perhaps it's a sensible idea to consider the forum in which you choose to mock someone's beliefs.

I think that the same goes for mocking of religious beliefs...

Should you really be surprised that that many people disagree with you - given the majority who (regardless of what they actually believe) will tick some kind of religion on a census form?

The majority of this forum (who voted in our own "Census") do not believe in God(s) so we could say Barry made a sensible choice in posting here by your example.


If you sit down in a forum that is predominately filled by school teachers and say something like "man school teachers are lazy sods, look at all the holidays they take, not to mention being overpaid for the hours that they work" then I'd be willing to bet that you'd expect to have an arguement on your hands.

The only problem with that analogy is it is a criticism of peoples actions not beliefs. A better one would be "look at what those school teachers teach its rubbish" which sounds ok as long as you have an argument as to WHY what they teach is rubbish.



Now if you choose only to mock a certain religious group, you'd probably be much more likely to get away without conflict - "gee those xyz people are nutty, can you believe that they think 'abc' is true."

i got the impression it was mainly Christianity that was being criticised (despite Barry saying he would mock Ive not noticed that he actually has..yet :)) isnt that a "certain religious group" ?



But I suspect that you do in fact enjoy the arguement, and would be incredible disapointed if no-one disagreed with your statements.

I dont get that impression from Barry at all, he states what he thinks. To suggest that he is deliberately contrary seems a stretch - unless you've met him ;).


Why does the fact that it's a choice make it okay to mock? Everyone's entitled to their opinion and everyone should be treated with respect.

Should they really? Im not sure I'd want to treat - neo-nazis, holocaust deniers, anti-abortion campaigners who shoot doctors, terrorists who blow up people because god wills it and others with extreme views etc.. - with respect. Or to approach it from the other side, should I have respect for politicians who will vote on laws according to where their donations are coming from or people who think spiking someones drink is "funny" or joy riders and burglers who believe "whats yours is mine".

Someones simple belief in God is hardly harming others but I have issues with, for one example, the catholic church refusing to back down on use of condoms despite thousands dying from AIDS - all in Gods name. Religious beliefs can also be contradictory and whilst we would normally laugh at contradictory statements religion often gets away with it!

Dont get me wrong - Mocking in and of itself is not constructive unless the reason is (or has been) pointed out.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 12:50 AM
Why does the fact that it's a choice make it okay to mock? Everyone's entitled to their opinion
Of course. But not necessarily to hold that opinion without having to defend it. Otherwise David Thingy [late again] wouldn't have to defend his belief that there was no holocaust.

and everyone should be treated with respect.
What? Even, e.g., Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Radavan Karadic, Jodie Marsh?

You make the choice not to have religious beliefs, would you like to be mocked for that? (I mean, fancy not believing in Jesus, tut! What kind of idiot turns down the opportunity for eternal life?!On the contrary, bring it on. I can hardly post the way I do on the forum and then run for shelter if some folks choose to give me a dose of my own medicine? We call that hypocrisy, I believe...

By all means enquire about or challenge someone's religious beliefs (in my experience this is rarely a problem and in many cases is actually encouraged), but don't mock people. That's just not nice. :really:
I don't think I've mocked people here (not seriously; I make the occasional intended-humorous remark which is hopefully well telegraphed) but I plead Guilty As Charged to an indictment of mocking stupid things people believe.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 01:04 AM
Hmm - and what was the time of the post where you insisted 'A' and '7' were the correct answer?In the terms I intended to post, as later corrected (the following day??) "A and 7" is the correct answer.

Yes, on one level I acknowledge I'm being a bit of a stroppy git here. And generally I wouldn't make a big deal of it. But it seems to me you posted the puzzle with a "let me show how you gullible people make logical errors" attitude, so I'm not feeling particularly generous.That's not what I thought I was doing. Reading the posts I think it's reasonably clear that it's not a question of what gullible people do or don't do; it's a question of the universal human capacity for detecting patterns being contrasted with a universal propensity for seeing a pattern where there is none. I suspect everyone is prone to it; the important thing is to be on our guard.

Let me make it clear, however - I'm not giving you a hard time because you made a mistake. It's the fact that you didn't understand your mistake after I'd explained it. It implies that either you don't really understand the puzzles you post, or that you don't bother to read replies to what you post. Neither shows you in a particularly good light.My corrected statement of the problem is dated 12 January; the answer to that is A and 7. Not to put too fine a point on it, I couldn't give a fig what the answer is to the mis-statement in my sleepy post of the day before.

As many have said about Richard Dawkins: going around saying "You're all stupid believing in religion. I don't because I'm so much smarter than you" doesn't actually change people's minds. And when you start proving you're not quite as smart as you think you are, it leaves you hoist by your own petard.I haven't seen the recent programs by RD, but I'd be surprised if that was an accurate paraphrasing of his position. He may very well tell people that believing in religion is stupid, but I've never read or heard him argue that second part.
Personally, I'm exactly as smart as I say I am. [Please note that not everything I say is intended to be taken entirely seriously, but I trust I signpost the difference adequately.] You'll note that I freely admitted I didn't understand your point about the Monty Hall problem until you explained it differently.
[Probably the three brightest people I've ever met were Christians, so the "religion == stupid" meme has never really convinced me.]What can I say? I've no idea how smart those people are; or what criteria you or an independent observer can use to make such judgments. I find it difficult, personally, to assess somebody's intelligence without putting a pretty hefty 'minus' mark next to the question 'Do you believe in an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, omnipresent and infinitely merciful God?' if the answer is 'Yes'.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 01:05 AM
I don't really want to intrude in this "I'm waaay smarter than you" mini-thread (I know my place), but I know of no bar on smart people believing in stupid ideas. Without making any comment on religion myself, I don't think even Bazza would call the Archbishop of Canterbury an idiot, for example.
No; but I might shout "what a poser!" from the back of a crowd during a procession...

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 01:11 AM
You can separate out someone's thinking/reasoning from the type of person they are - "religious=stupid" is a sweeping and rather insulting statement.

I'm sure that there have been people of genius IQ who have nevertheless believed that black people are not as 'human' as white people and that we should be carefully ensuring that they do not interbreed with white women and preferably neuter them at birth.

Can I not just call such a person a f*ckwit? Even if they have a MSc PhD and are able to do the Times crossword in 3 minutes and simultaneously calculate the escape velocity of randomly sized asteroids?

Now I know that most people don't see the parallel between somebody who believes in apartheid and someone who believes in God, because they think the former is disgraceful and the latter is honourable. I agree; up to a point. There are no honourable reasons for believing in apartheid and plenty of honourable reasons for believing in God. It's just not the smart move.

I suppose I might venture as follows: other things being equal, the atheist is a smarter person than the believer.

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 01:17 AM
But what has got me going recently in the forum is this idea that religious (or quasi-religious) beliefs should have some sort of special protection from enquiry and mocking.
I think everyone's beliefs, religious or otherwise, are fair game for debate, discussion and enquiry. Mockery is a different kettle of fish though.

I'm a Christian, which means I don't agree with many of the beliefs that Muslims, Hindus, tree worshippers, atheists or whoever else might hold dear. While I'm quite open about that, I wouldn't dream of mocking someone belonging to one of those groups. I would, however, be quite happy to debate with them (but in person, not here, as I come here to discuss dance, not religion, which is why I haven't posted on this thread before). Mocking someone for believing something different to one's own beliefs is something that belongs in a primary school playground, not among intelligent adults.

On a slightly different subject, I do find it slightly worrying that you seem to assume that you are so much more intelligent than those of us who hold religious beliefs. There are plenty of intelligent religious believers as well as the stupid ones, just as there are both intelligent and stupid atheists. Religious belief or the lack thereof is unrelated to intelligence, in my experience.

I have no intention of posting regularly on this thread, but I wanted to make my views known. I regard myself as an intelligent, educated Christian, and I find the insinuation that I must be stupid because I'm a Christian to be somewhat arrogant.

The existence of God cannot be conclusively proved or disproved, otherwise the debate would have been over long ago. That's the whole point, and therefore as far as I can see both religious belief and atheism are positions of faith. I think your beliefs are wrong, but I don't mock you for it. Why not extend the same courtesy to those of us who do adhere to religion, however strongly or tenuously?

ducasi
18th-January-2006, 01:49 AM
Of course. But not necessarily to hold that opinion without having to defend it. Otherwise David Thingy [late again] wouldn't have to defend his belief that there was no holocaust.

What? Even, e.g., Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Radavan Karadic, Jodie Marsh? ... As I've said before, it's not their opinions that are the problem, it's their behaviour, and how it affects others.

Every human being without exception on this earth deserves respect. Freedom of thought is a fundamental human right. Would you take it away from anyone?

Gadget
18th-January-2006, 02:49 AM
I find it difficult, personally, to assess somebody's intelligence without putting a pretty hefty 'minus' mark next to the question 'Do you believe in an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, omnipresent and infinitely merciful God?' if the answer is 'Yes'.
Hmmm... "Yes" - me. I believe in myself:

I have not found all the boundaries to any 'power' I may have over my life & all things within it. Their range of influence is infinite, therefore the power must be infinite.

My knowledge grows with every day; What I know and what I don't know are both infinite to quantify.

Omnipresent - Funny that; wherever I look, I'm always there - I therefore must be everywhere I look.

infintely merciful... Well, it's my world, constructed from my senses; of course I am compassionate and sympathetic towards my view of it.

I am my own god. :waycool:
Of course, this philosophy also says that you are your own god :rolleyes:

David Bailey
18th-January-2006, 08:29 AM
Oh, I dunno, DavidJames gets away with mocking Jango all the time :devil:
Hey, it's Monday Lush I mock - I'm a big fan of Jango, believe it or not.

In fact, technically, it's even less than that - it's the attitude of some Mushers I mock. So yes, I'm mocking their belief - good grief, that's actually on-topic, how did that happen? :eek:

Hmmm.... "Mush-mocker" does have a certain sig-like ring to it, though... :innocent:


(hmmm, wonder what he'd do if I put Tango in Room 101 :innocent: )
"Look at LMC. LMC has rep. See rep go. Bye, rep." :whistle:

But bonus points for the "Tango-isation of thread" attempt :clap:


I suppose I might venture as follows: other things being equal, the atheist is a smarter person than the believer.
I very much think you'll need to find some evidence to support that point of view...

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 09:41 AM
Every human being without exception on this earth deserves respect.

Why on earth would you believe that?

Or, to put it a better way, what exactly do you mean by 'deserves' and 'respect'?

Everybody is entitled to consideration for their humanity, I would agree with a proposition such as that.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 09:46 AM
The existence of God cannot be conclusively proved or disproved, otherwise the debate would have been over long ago. That's the whole point, and therefore as far as I can see both religious belief and atheism are positions of faith.

I look around me and I see many things, interesting, amazing, commonplace, and dull. I inhabit an astonishing universe about which I almost daily discover new and entrancing things.

I occasionally bump into people who think there is something hidden, invisible, unknowable behind and interwoven into this same universe. "I Believe", they say. "And because you do not Believe, lo! you are of a different faith which has chosen to believe that what I Believe is exists not. Therefore ye and I are both believers."

"Cobblers", say I.

ducasi
18th-January-2006, 09:54 AM
Or, to put it a better way, what exactly do you mean by 'deserves' and 'respect'? Anyone got a dictionary for Barry? :rolleyes:

David Franklin
18th-January-2006, 09:57 AM
In the terms I intended to post, as later corrected (the following day??) "A and 7" is the correct answer.Ooh! Is this a skeptic who believes in telepathy? I guess you must do, if you think what you meant to say somehow affects the answer to what you actually did say.

That's not what I thought I was doing. Reading the posts I think it's reasonably clear that it's not a question of what gullible people do or don't do; it's a question of the universal human capacity for detecting patterns being contrasted with a universal propensity for seeing a pattern where there is none. I suspect everyone is prone to it; the important thing is to be on our guard.As I posted previously, it is at least arguable that the real reason is that it is not obvious that to "argue backwards" from A=>B, you need to consider ~B=>~A, rather than B=>A. There are far better demonstrations of finding patterns (just get financial analysts to decode random walks...)

My corrected statement of the problem is dated 12 January; the answer to that is A and 7. Not to put too fine a point on it, I couldn't give a fig what the answer is to the mis-statement in my sleepy post of the day before. The only post I see from you on that date is this (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=190964&postcount=415) one. If you wish to consider that a corrected statement, fine, but I think most would agree you're wriggling. You don't actually restate the problem, you say you "thought you said X". That observation tells me nothing about whether you are now saying X.

He may very well tell people that believing in religion is stupid, but I've never read or heard him argue that second part. So you don't think the article he wrote about "brights", where he writes a hypothetical discussion explaing the idea to someone:

"Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?"

"What would you suggest?"
You really think he's not trying to imply "well, religious people are dim, aren't they"? If so, there's this bridge in Brooklyn...


What can I say? I've no idea how smart those people are; or what criteria you or an independent observer can use to make such judgments. I grant you on many levels it's subjective. Concretely, two of them came 2nd and 5th in Cambridge (Maths) in their finals (yes, obviously there are people who did better - I'm talking about people I know well enough to judge their intelligence and beliefs); one of them is a professor in her mid-30s who is invited to lecture all over the world.

To be fair, I've chatted with Karl Sims a couple of times, he's a MacArthur Fellow, and probably belongs in the top spot. I have no idea of his religious beliefs. And I used to know Alex Selby pretty well - he has minor fame as the solver of the Eternity £1000000 puzzle, and is another very bright guy. From what I knew of him 20 years ago, I'd be surprised if he's particularly relgious.

Dreadful Scathe
18th-January-2006, 11:00 AM
You really think he's not trying to imply "well, religious people are dim, aren't they"? If so, there's this bridge in Brooklyn...

I must admit that never occured to me. I thought the whole idea was to introduce a positive label for skeptics, humanists, atheists etc.. I would never consider religious people to be the opposite of that. Anyway, if anyone asked me what the opposite of Bright was, I'd say "dark". Saying its "dim" sounds like someone is looking for negative connotations. Not that I think "brights" is a good idea - sounds silly to me :)



The existence of God cannot be conclusively proved or disproved, otherwise the debate would have been over long ago. That's the whole point, and therefore as far as I can see both religious belief and atheism are positions of faith.

Not at all. Atheism is just a term for a non-believer. YOU are an atheist as regards every other God bar the Christian one. If you look at the poll here, most people simply disbelieve in Gods rather than actively deny. In your case as a Christian, you probably flat out deny the existence of all the other gods. Correct me if Im wrong, but do you admit the possibility that Zeus, Ganesh and the thousands of other Gods exist? If not, then in effect you are a strong atheist because you deny Gods, most on here are weak atheists as they don't deny any possibility of Gods.

El Salsero Gringo
18th-January-2006, 11:05 AM
No; but I might shout "what a poser!" from the back of a crowd during a procession...You're just jealous of the hats.

ChrisA
18th-January-2006, 11:11 AM
but I think most would agree you're wriggling.
..... :yeah:

It's a trait in those that are bright, but not that bright... :devil:

David Franklin
18th-January-2006, 11:12 AM
I must admit that never occured to me. I thought the whole idea was to introduce a positive label for skeptics, humanists, atheists etc.. I would never consider religious people to be the opposite of that. Anyway, if anyone asked me what the opposite of Bright was, I'd say "dark". Saying its "dim" sounds like someone is looking for negative connotations. If it never occurred to you, then you may be right - I might well be jumping to conclusions. On the other hand, I've heard Dawkins lecture, and I honestly can't see him writing what he did without seeing and intending the dig at religious believers.

David Franklin
18th-January-2006, 11:31 AM
On "Brights"...

There's a well known SF story "Star, Bright" by Mark Clifton, about a genius with a super intelligent daughter. She calls her and her kind 'brights', her genius father a 'tween', and normal people 'stupids'.

I don't know if Dawkins knows the story, but a heck of a lot of people do, and it's certainly one reason I find his term smacks of hubris.

pjay
18th-January-2006, 12:14 PM
I suppose I might venture as follows: other things being equal, the atheist is a smarter person than the believer.

I'm sure that this might depend on how one goes about measuring "smartness" it seems to me that you're considering that.

Generally I'd say we seem to use IQ tests to measure smartness, however I'm yet to see one that asks the question:

Does God exist?

And defines the "correct" answer as "no", or "I don't think so."

Hence it would seem to me that in our society we'd tend to say that: other things being equal, the atheist and the believer are as smart as each other.

If you want to redefine the word "smart" to include "not believing in God", then feel free to do that, however I suspect redefining words and you see fit may make communication with other more difficult, and much more likely to run into problems with it.

A friend of mine can be quoted as say "I need to figure out what word to use, so that you understand what I mean." I quite like this, and it means that I probably need to try and work out how you would understand my words in order to assist in good communication.

pjay
18th-January-2006, 12:36 PM
If you sit down in a forum that is predominately filled by school teachers and say something like "man school teachers are lazy sods, look at all the holidays they take, not to mention being overpaid for the hours that they work" then I'd be willing to bet that you'd expect to have an arguement on your hands.



I'm surprised that you see a parallel between mocking somebody on a 'guilt by association' basis ("I don't like teachers and/or I know one or two workshy/inadequate teachers so let's slag'em all off") and mocking somebody's beliefs.

In the first instance, not all teachers will fit any description you care to use. Some are the inspiration of their pupils, and some work like dogs.

In the second instance, all believers choose to believe their 'beliefs'. [Wow. Tautology rules, reigns, lords it over everyone, OK? Got it?]

As a result, an insulted teacher can say "Eff off! I work hard and I'm a bloody good teacher." If an 'insulted' 'believer' says "I don't believe in X" then they can't be offended if I've mocked it. And if they do believe X, then by definition I'm not tarring them with a brush that belongs to somebody else. (Today's Metaphor destroyed by Mangling Award goes to...)


You'll note that I qualified what I meant by lazy as being "taking lots of holidays" and additionally commenting (on top of laziness) that they're overpaid. Given that we tend to define teachers as being "on holiday" when they're not teaching on that day, I don't think you could argue that this statement is untrue.

Anyway - I did not intend to give an identical parallel, I intended to say that the reactions of people tend to be fairly predictable, and if you're really wanting to get into a discussion, then you probably want to choose words differently.

However if all you really want to do is state your beliefs, then you've achieved that...



PS I'd be delighted if everyone agreed with me and stopped arguing. Sadly, I'm destined to wither on the vine amongst the uneducated, to labour without recognition, to be a prophet unrecognised in my own land...



Prophet

1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.
5.
1. Prophets (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The second of the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, comprising the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve. Used with the. See table at Bible.
2. Prophet One of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, especially one believed to be the author of one of these books. Used with the.
6. Prophet Islam. Muhammad. Used with the.


Well, I'm pretty sure that you don't me options 1, 5 or 6 - which of the other 3 exactly do you mean (the most common usage I know are 1, 5 and 6 - so am left wondering - actually I suspect you used the word for effect because of the discussion)

jiveknight
18th-January-2006, 12:42 PM
But I don't see why I have to take seriously the idea that Jesus fed 5000 people with two fishes and five loaves of bread, nor that the world was once covered with more than 27,008 feet of water so that Noah never saw land for 40 days and 40 nights.


As an aside and completely just as a matter of interest, in the "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" the author puts forward that the 5000 were in fact "The 5000", the name of a group of people of significance at the time, not actually 5000 people (just as the "crazy 88" in Kill Bill weren't actually 88 people). Plus that the importance of the fishes and bread was they he would feed them these as it was against a religious principle at the time and so quite contraversial.
So, it could be the missundstood words, translation etc hindering the communication.

Although, interestingly enough, apparently almost every culture on earth has a legend about a great flood...

Dreadful Scathe
18th-January-2006, 01:06 PM
Well, I'm pretty sure that you don't me options 1, 5 or 6 - which of the other 3 exactly do you mean (the most common usage I know are 1, 5 and 6 - so am left wondering - actually I suspect you used the word for effect because of the discussion)

I think its pretty clear he meant option 2, which at least in my vocabulary, is the most common usage. I must just be odd :)


Although, interestingly enough, apparently almost every culture on earth has a legend about a great flood...

Every fiction is based on some truths ;)

pjay
18th-January-2006, 01:10 PM
I think its pretty clear he meant option 2, which at least in my vocabulary, is the most common usage. I must just be odd :)

That could just be different circles we socialise in :)

Stuart M
18th-January-2006, 02:05 PM
Although, interestingly enough, apparently almost every culture on earth has a legend about a great flood...
One interesting theory to explain this is ancient cultures' inability to understand fossils (http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/jeck/). Or it could be the Black Sea Deluge theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory). Or it could simply be that people tended to live near bodies of fresh water, and bodies of freshwater tend to flood now and again with catastrophic results. Or a combination of these things and others.
Anyway, apparently almost every culture on Earth had a prejudice against left-handers. We all know that one's superstitious nonsense now. Just because something was conventional wisdom in ancient times, based on the limited understanding those people had of their environment, doesn't provide strong evidence.

By the way, I just demonstrated to myself this lunchtime the blessing that is the rational mind. Instead of simply looking at your contention about the Great Flood and going "woo, yeah, fascinating", I questioned it and found loads of theories.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 02:47 PM
The only post I see from you on that date is this (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=190964&postcount=415) one. If you wish to consider that a corrected statement, fine, but I think most would agree you're wriggling. You don't actually restate the problem, you say you "thought you said X". That observation tells me nothing about whether you are now saying X.

Wow! Sophistry. Way to go!!

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 02:50 PM
So you don't think the article he wrote about "brights", where he writes a hypothetical discussion explaing the idea to someone:
You really think he's not trying to imply "well, religious people are dim, aren't they"? If so, there's this bridge in Brooklyn...
First, I don't think the label 'bright' is Dawkins'. Second, although it's a while since I read the Bright manifesto I think it's supposed to be bright as in 'better to light a candle than curse the darkness'. Or as Blake might have put it, the dark satanic mills could do with a bit of brightening. It's not 'bright' as in "E's a bright young lad, tha knows..." is it?

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 02:51 PM
You're just jealous of the hats.
And the swish of the robes...

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 02:56 PM
Take a deep breath y'all.
I see a difference between stating ‘You are stupid because you Believe’ and stating ‘Belief is stupid’. Maybe other people don’t see that difference.
Why do I think Belief is stupid? Because it seems to me that it abdicates the most important thing a human being can do, which is to apply his critical faculties to the situations in which he finds himself. “I need to ensure that this machine is designed so that it does the job it is supposed to do with an acceptable margin of safety. How am I going to manage that?” “I have to ensure that the company makes the best of the current commercial environment so that the employees keep their jobs and the shareholders get a return.” “I have to decide what to do about people who threaten the life and health of the citizens I have been elected to look after.” “I have to make sure the tiny amount of money I get each week will feed me and the two children and leave a little bit to save for Christmas presents.”
Each of these things is a challenge, and every one of us faces similar challenges every day. We trust in our brain to see us through these challenges, and if we do not feel adequate to take a particular challenge, we rely – directly or indirectly – on someone else’s brain to help us out.
We don’t consider it acceptable for any of the persons above to simply abdicate their responsibility. Yes, each of them can ask for help or rely on a network of other people to cope with the tasks, but the task must be tackled.
When considering more ethereal matters – is there a reason why we exist? Is there a purpose to life? Is there anything on the ‘other side’ of death? – religious people switch that critical faculty off and simply proceed on the basis of what they wish to be the case.
This is not surprising, perhaps. We grow up (most of us) in the loving care of parents who shield us from the worst the universe has to offer. All too soon we find ourselves out in the world of dark energy, dark matter and dark things; and the yearning to find (or to continue to find) comfort in the belief in a caring, supernatural parent who will shield (or deliver) us from evil is powerful indeed. Facing up to honest answers to the questions in the previous paragraph is scary. Many people cannot bear the thought that, not only is the universe indifferent to each man and woman in it but that there is nothing beyond the universe that cares. They seek refuge in pleasant platitudes, mumbo jumbo and pomp and circumstance, reassuring themselves that the struggle for existence is meaningful.
An honest intellect stands in front of the abyss, looks at famine, disaster, viciousness and dishonesty, disease, pain and suffering and says: “this will not do. If it is to be a struggle between humanity and oblivion, then I will side with humanity and back ourselves against oblivion”.
The ‘faithful’ intellect observes the same chaos and mayhem and says: “Oh well, God moves in mysterious ways”.
This allows them to hand their critical processes over to third parties – a priest, or a mullah, or an ayatollah. “What do we think about US imperialism? I’ll tell you what we think – we think any violence against any non-Moslem persons is justified if it drives the Americans from the middle east. O, and by the way, that includes violence against Moslems if they don’t belong to our particular faction.” “What do we think about the godless commies in central America? I’ll tell you what we think – we think that any crime perpetrated against any people – even against the constitution of the United States and even inside the hallowed halls of US government – is justified if we can preserve those countries from the mistakes they were making as a result of free and fair elections.”
It’s possible that the dickheads who died on July 7th with bombs strapped to their backs and that Oliver North and his ilk would have reached their decisions on purely social rather than religious grounds – by the exercise of their intellect. But for sure their ability to think clearly was inhibited by years of indoctrination, deliberate, incidental, subtle and manifest.
Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel; if he were alive today he might say that fundamentalism is the last refuge of the intellectually lazy.

David Bailey
18th-January-2006, 03:12 PM
First, I don't think the label 'bright' is Dawkins'.
Correct - apparently it's an invention of Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, who created the "Bright's net (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brights_Net)".

The Guardian article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) by Dawkins simply mentions this concept.


Second, although it's a while since I read the Bright manifesto I think it's supposed to be bright as in 'better to light a candle than curse the darkness'. Or as Blake might have put it, the dark satanic mills could do with a bit of brightening. It's not 'bright' as in "E's a bright young lad, tha knows..." is it?
Hmmm, so if I labelled the "DavidJames' worldview" as "Good", you wouldn't think that's a subtle attempt to take the high ground? How would you label opposing views based on that nomenclature? :whistle:

On the wider issue of religion and intelligence, yes, there is some research - Wikipedia comes up trumps again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiousness_and_intelligence).

I make no comment, I have no strong opinion on the matter...

David Franklin
18th-January-2006, 03:30 PM
Wow! Sophistry. Way to go!!If you think so; it seems to be your area of expertise. But I still, genuinely, have no idea what you think the correct statement of the problem is, or if you realise your misstatement materially affected the answer. I suggest you cut and paste from a website more carefully next time. (Kind of nice to give the attribution as well, if you ask me).

Take a deep breath y'all. ~long rant snipped~I took a deep breath, but I'm afraid I still couldn't read it. The mass of quotes with no formatting and lack of white space defeated me. Sorry. :flower:

Dreadful Scathe
18th-January-2006, 03:48 PM
Speaking of "mocking religion is bad" I come across this article (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/063193.htm#more) that puts it into perspective.


While a person might not like it when their religion is mocked, the fact of the matter is their religion does not automatically deserve any better. People also get upset when their favorite movies, favorite actors, favorite sports teams, and so forth are mocked - and yes, there are people who take such things as seriously as others take their religion.

Because a person's sense of self and personal identity can become so tied up with a religion or a sports team, they will take it very personally when that religion or sports team is not treated with the same respect that they believe they as a person should be treated. Thus, their reaction to the ill treatment of their beliefs is entirely understandable; nevertheless, it remains the case that those beliefs don't deserve the same automatic respect as they do as a person. Even when a person goes so far as to mock them, that isn't the same as being prejudiced or bigoted against an individual person.

David Franklin
18th-January-2006, 04:06 PM
Speaking of "mocking religion is bad" I come across this article (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/063193.htm#more) that puts it into perspective.FWIW, I have no problem in mocking religion. But when someone's attitude seems to be "X is bunk, so I can be rude as I like about X and those who believe in it", I have to wonder at their motives. It reminds me of a saying:


Never try to teach a pig to whistle. It tires you out, and all it does is annoy the pig

LMC
18th-January-2006, 04:23 PM
I see a difference between stating ‘You are stupid because you Believe’ and stating ‘Belief is stupid’.

Really? Using words like "wally", "tosser" and "dickhead" in various places to refer to believers makes me think that even if you do see the difference, you still prefer the "you are stupid" rather than the "it is stupid" approach.

ducasi
18th-January-2006, 05:33 PM
I took a deep breath, but I'm afraid I still couldn't read it. The mass of quotes with no formatting and lack of white space defeated me. Sorry. :flower:
:yeah:

I used to read pretty much everything on this forum. Not so much now, and especially not poorly-formatted rants...

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 07:15 PM
I occasionally bump into people who think there is something hidden, invisible, unknowable behind and interwoven into this same universe. "I Believe", they say. "And because you do not Believe, lo! you are of a different faith which has chosen to believe that what I Believe is exists not. Therefore ye and I are both believers."

"Cobblers", say I.
If you could disprove the existence of God, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately, you can't, so you don't. You can give your reasons for not believing that God exists, but that is not the same as proof.

You can no more disprove God's existence than I can prove it, therefore your stance is as much based on faith as is mine.

I wouldn't describe you as a believer, though. That, it is clear, is something you certainly are not. Nor do I believe you belong to a faith. I simply see that your strong belief that there is no God is not based on solid proof, and is therefore a statement of faith.

Whoops, there goes another straw man.

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 07:21 PM
Not at all. Atheism is just a term for a non-believer. YOU are an atheist as regards every other God bar the Christian one. If you look at the poll here, most people simply disbelieve in Gods rather than actively deny. In your case as a Christian, you probably flat out deny the existence of all the other gods. Correct me if Im wrong, but do you admit the possibility that Zeus, Ganesh and the thousands of other Gods exist? If not, then in effect you are a strong atheist because you deny Gods, most on here are weak atheists as they don't deny any possibility of Gods.
Actually, "atheist" is a term used to describe someone who believes that there is no God. If you take the stance that there might well be no God but don't deny the possibility that there might, you are agnostic, not atheist. I would imagine that most of those in the "I don't believe in a god" category are likely to be agnostic rather than atheists. I believe in God, therefore I am a theist. So are Hindus, Muslims and anyone else who believes in any god.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 07:23 PM
Hmmm, so if I labelled the "DavidJames' worldview" as "Good", you wouldn't think that's a subtle attempt to take the high ground? How would you label opposing views based on that nomenclature?

I don't see it myself. Having said that, the daft name is one of the main reasons I couldn't bring myself to sign up.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 07:25 PM
If you think so; it seems to be your area of expertise. But I still, genuinely, have no idea what you think the correct statement of the problem is, or if you realise your misstatement materially affected the answer. I suggest you cut and paste from a website more carefully next time. (Kind of nice to give the attribution as well, if you ask me).
I agree; you can take it that when I do cut and paste I will acknowledge.

I took a deep breath, but I'm afraid I still couldn't read it. The mass of quotes with no formatting and lack of white space defeated me. Sorry. :flower:
Fair comment. I tried adding white space but it just seemed to swamp my entire screen...

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 07:27 PM
Really? Using words like "wally", "tosser" and "dickhead" in various places to refer to believers makes me think that even if you do see the difference, you still prefer the "you are stupid" rather than the "it is stupid" approach.

Read again. I only use words like that with great care: do you think that the perpetrators of the Underground bombings don't deserve the label 'dickheads'?

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 07:28 PM
:yeah:

I used to read pretty much everything on this forum. Not so much now, and especially not poorly-formatted rants...

Read it/don't read it, that's fine.

But if you haven't read it, don't call it a rant. Sometimes I rant, I grant you, but that was triple-distilled reasonable discourse.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 07:31 PM
If you could disprove the existence of God, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately, you can't, so you don't. You can give your reasons for not believing that God exists, but that is not the same as proof.

You can no more disprove God's existence than I can prove it, therefore your stance is as much based on faith as is mine.

I wouldn't describe you as a believer, though. That, it is clear, is something you certainly are not. Nor do I believe you belong to a faith. I simply see that your strong belief that there is no God is not based on solid proof, and is therefore a statement of faith.

Whoops, there goes another straw man.

I rest on my previous post to which this was a response. A conclusion that there is no god and living one's life on that principle are not 'based on faith'. They're based on REASON.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 07:34 PM
Actually, "atheist" is a term used to describe someone who believes that there is no God. If you take the stance that there might well be no God but don't deny the possibility that there might, you are agnostic, not atheist. I would imagine that most of those in the "I don't believe in a god" category are likely to be agnostic rather than atheists. I believe in God, therefore I am a theist. So are Hindus, Muslims and anyone else who believes in any god.

Going back to David Icke (perhaps I ought to donate to his cause, he's such a bee-oootiful example). I can't prove that the world isn't run by shapeshifting 12' tall alien lizards, because by definition they cover their tracks in a way which makes it impossible to prove they do exist, and therefore that they don't.

I do not have the faintest difficulty deciding that his thesis is nuts, however, and living my life based on that conclusion is not an act of faith it's just common bloody sense.

You won't like me saying it, I know; but many of the tenets of established religions are equally difficult to swallow.

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 07:40 PM
Take a deep breath y'all.
I see a difference between stating ‘You are stupid because you Believe’ and stating ‘Belief is stupid’. Maybe other people don’t see that difference.
Probably because, despite the above, you seem to lean towards the "YOU are stupid" side a bit too much. Try re-reading some of your previous posts from the point of view of a religious believer and you'll see what I mean. Some of the things you say can be quite insulting (and I mean to the people concerned, not to their religion, which is, as I said before, fair game for debate).

Why do I think Belief is stupid? Because it seems to me that it abdicates the most important thing a human being can do, which is to apply his critical faculties to the situations in which he finds himself.
Again, this is a straw man. Yes, there are some religious believers who abdicate their own responsibility to a deity, just as there are people (religious and non-religious) who abdicate their responsibilities to their spouse, the government, their boss.... it's a human trait, not religious.

Personally, I take my own responsibility for my own actions seriously, and use my own critical faculties, as you put it. Belief in God does not automatically mean you leave your brain at the church/synagogue/mosque door, although as in any walk of life there are bound to be some who take this approach.

When considering more ethereal matters – is there a reason why we exist? Is there a purpose to life? Is there anything on the ‘other side’ of death? – religious people switch that critical faculty off and simply proceed on the basis of what they wish to be the case.
Not at all. If there is a God, and he speaks to us through the scriptures (which makes sense if there is a God) then it makes sense to believe what those scriptures say about life after death. We don't switch our critical faculties off, we just have different points of reference to non-believers.

Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel; if he were alive today he might say that fundamentalism is the last refuge of the intellectually lazy.
Now you're not comparing like with like. I'm a Christian, and I have a strong faith, but I am certainly not a fundamentalist. I have had heated discussions with fundamentalists many times.

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 07:43 PM
I rest on my previous post to which this was a response. A conclusion that there is no god and living one's life on that principle are not 'based on faith'. They're based on REASON.
And if you could PROVE the non-existence of God, I would agree with you. As you can't, the possibility exists that there may be a god, which allowa reason to be used to argue the opposite point of view, i.e. that there is a God, as well.

"Faith" is belief in something that cannot be proven. Which you evidently have, as you believe that there is no God.

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 07:46 PM
You won't like me saying it, I know; but many of the tenets of established religions are equally difficult to swallow.
Actually, I have no problem with you saying that. It's your opinion and you're entitled to state it. What I have a problem with is the way you frequently imply that everybody who disagrees with you is intellectually lacking.

Pesonally, I find the whole idea of atheism hard to swallow, so it works both ways.

David Franklin
18th-January-2006, 08:05 PM
But if you haven't read it, don't call it a rant. Sometimes I rant, I grant you, but that was triple-distilled reasonable discourse.But it's the untramelled "I have all these words I have to get out without stopping for breath" that makes it a rant. (Ha, ha, only serious). Anyhow, I've skimmed to find a short enough bit to comment on:

An honest intellect stands in front of the abyss, looks at famine, disaster, viciousness and dishonesty, disease, pain and suffering and says: “this will not do. If it is to be a struggle between humanity and oblivion, then I will side with humanity and back ourselves against oblivion”.Are you sure he doesn't say "Oh well, survival of the fittest - think of it as evolution in action"?

The ‘faithful’ intellect observes the same chaos and mayhem and says: “Oh well, God moves in mysterious ways”.And are you sure he doesn't say "Blessed is he who considers the poor; the Lord delivers him in the day of trouble.", and does what he can to help?

I have to say, from what I've seen of real people, my quotes ring truer than yours, although yours certainly have validity as well. But you use your examples to imply anyone religious must be a fool. To quote Larry Niven "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it".

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 08:38 PM
To quote Larry Niven "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it".

Ulp. Suddenly seized with urge to dig out The Mote in God's Eye or Footfall and read for the umpteenth time.

Of course, I wasn't quoting. I was illustrating.

However...

I did see a moslem woman - no recollection who, but not just a vox pop - commenting on the recent earthquake in Pakistan. She said something like this:

"Allah caused the earthquake to test the faith of the rest of us."

Is it me, or is that just bonkers?

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 08:51 PM
And if you could PROVE the non-existence of God, I would agree with you. As you can't, the possibility exists that there may be a god, which allowa reason to be used to argue the opposite point of view, i.e. that there is a God, as well.

"Faith" is belief in something that cannot be proven. Which you evidently have, as you believe that there is no God.

The difficulty is that I don't have to prove the non-existence of God. I simply have to assert it. You are the one who is arguing that there is something that cannot be known, is beyond all understanding, dum de dum de dum. My response is, where? How come?

The difficulty that your argument has is that there is no functional equivalence between saying 'There is a God' and saying 'There are no gods'. They may seem similar, linguistically, but logically they are vastly different. Asserting that there is no god is not an act of faith because no faith is required to maintain such a position. Every day there are things that happen which do not make any sense if there is a loving, omnipotent god and you have to have seminars about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in order to cope with what is so obviously counter-intuitive. Hence the doctrine of original sin. It gets to the stage where christian thinkers have argued that it is necessary to believe in the impossible because this is just one more test of faith. Good grief.

William of Occam observed that propositions should not be complicated beyond necessity. Once we couldn't explain the universe without myths and religion; now we can.

My position, if you like, is the default position. It's the null hypothesis.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 08:54 PM
Actually, I have no problem with you saying that. It's your opinion and you're entitled to state it. What I have a problem with is the way you frequently imply that everybody who disagrees with you is intellectually lacking.

Pesonally, I find the whole idea of atheism hard to swallow, so it works both ways.

I do NOT imply that people who disagree with me are intellectually lacking. That's incredibly loose phraseology and quite insulting.

I plead guilty as charged to an indictment of implying that everybody who believes in gods is intellectually lacking. Ultimately I may not be able to defend that position, but I certainly couldn't defend the position you impute to me.

David Franklin
18th-January-2006, 09:10 PM
I did see a moslem woman - no recollection who, but not just a vox pop - commenting on the recent earthquake in Pakistan. She said something like this:

"Allah caused the earthquake to test the faith of the rest of us."

Is it me, or is that just bonkers?To repeat myself - "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it".

But, no, I've never been that keen on such arguments of "faith testing". However, even ignoring the fact that TV clips are by their very nature unrepresentative, does it really matter if she thinks that? If she stood around saying "well, I'm not going to try and rescue people - Allah will decide who lives", you would have a much better point. Of course, events such as Katrina show the devout have no monopoly on such laissez-faire behaviour. (Well, I don't know, maybe God did tell Bush not to bother helping poor people...)

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 09:31 PM
I do NOT imply that people who disagree with me are intellectually lacking. That's incredibly loose phraseology and quite insulting.

I plead guilty as charged to an indictment of implying that everybody who believes in gods is intellectually lacking. Ultimately I may not be able to defend that position, but I certainly couldn't defend the position you impute to me.
So in other words, you imply that people who disagree with you on this point are intellectually lacking, which I find both insulting and arrogant. However, if those words "on this point" make a difference, they are now inserted.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 09:35 PM
So in other words, you imply that people who disagree with you on this point are intellectually lacking, which I find both insulting and arrogant. However, if those words "on this point" make a difference, they are now inserted.

Have it your way.

I don't suggest anyone is intellectually because they disagree with me, on this or any other issue, which appears to be the criticism you are making.

Barry Shnikov
18th-January-2006, 09:38 PM
To repeat myself - "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it".

Well, yes; but the point is that she didn't think that up by herself on the spot. It's one of the common responses that Believers make to situations that make a mockery of their cosy view of the Universe.

As for George Bush - don't get me started. If I could travel back in time I'd get to the White House just before he ate that pretzel and make sure it worked this time.

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 09:38 PM
Every day there are things that happen which do not make any sense if there is a loving, omnipotent god
My response is that every day things happen which don't make sense if there is NOT a God. Besides, who is to say that God (if he exists) should order the world in a way that makes sense to us?


and you have to have seminars about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in order to cope with what is so obviously counter-intuitive.
Here's that straw man again. I don't believe anyone has mentioned angels dancing on a pin in this thread, as it would be totally irrelevant to anything. Nor have I ever come across such pointless seminars, and I dare say I have more theological education than most Christians.


Hence the doctrine of original sin. It gets to the stage where christian thinkers have argued that it is necessary to believe in the impossible because this is just one more test of faith. Good grief.
What does the doctrine of original sin (which, by the way, is NOT universally believed by all Christians) have to do with anything?


My position, if you like, is the default position. It's the null hypothesis.
No, your position is not the default position. Agnosticism is. You and I occupy the extreme positions, if you like. Agnosticism is the centre ground.

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 09:46 PM
I don't suggest anyone is intellectually because they disagree with me, on this or any other issue, which appears to be the criticism you are making.
No, that's not what I mean. My criticism is that you make such a sweeping generalisation that everyone who believes in any kind of deity is intellectually lacking because they are religious, which to my mind is pure arrogance. I have no problem with you disagreeing with religious belief, but I do have a problem with your apparent stance that those who believe in a deity are your intellectual inferiors.

David Franklin
18th-January-2006, 09:58 PM
Well, yes; but the point is that she didn't think that up by herself on the spot. It's one of the common responses that Believers make to situations that make a mockery of their cosy view of the Universe.I'm having a logical disconnect here - I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Even geniuses very rarely make anything up on the spot.

More generally: while I accept you can pick and choose which parts of my posts to respond to, your tendancy to completely ignore the majority of my arguments is making this conversation very tiresome. To be honest, it's the kind of behaviour I associate with religious fundamentalists...

pjay
18th-January-2006, 10:10 PM
Take a deep breath y'all.
I see a difference between stating ‘You are stupid because you Believe’ and stating ‘Belief is stupid’. Maybe other people don’t see that difference.
Why do I think Belief is stupid? Because it seems to me that it abdicates the most important thing a human being can do, which is to apply his critical faculties to the situations in which he finds himself. “I need to ensure that this machine is designed so that it does the job it is supposed to do with an acceptable margin of safety. How am I going to manage that?” “I have to ensure that the company makes the best of the current commercial environment so that the employees keep their jobs and the shareholders get a return.” “I have to decide what to do about people who threaten the life and health of the citizens I have been elected to look after.” “I have to make sure the tiny amount of money I get each week will feed me and the two children and leave a little bit to save for Christmas presents.”
Each of these things is a challenge, and every one of us faces similar challenges every day. We trust in our brain to see us through these challenges, and if we do not feel adequate to take a particular challenge, we rely – directly or indirectly – on someone else’s brain to help us out.
We don’t consider it acceptable for any of the persons above to simply abdicate their responsibility. Yes, each of them can ask for help or rely on a network of other people to cope with the tasks, but the task must be tackled.
When considering more ethereal matters – is there a reason why we exist? Is there a purpose to life? Is there anything on the ‘other side’ of death? – religious people switch that critical faculty off and simply proceed on the basis of what they wish to be the case.
This is not surprising, perhaps. We grow up (most of us) in the loving care of parents who shield us from the worst the universe has to offer. All too soon we find ourselves out in the world of dark energy, dark matter and dark things; and the yearning to find (or to continue to find) comfort in the belief in a caring, supernatural parent who will shield (or deliver) us from evil is powerful indeed. Facing up to honest answers to the questions in the previous paragraph is scary. Many people cannot bear the thought that, not only is the universe indifferent to each man and woman in it but that there is nothing beyond the universe that cares. They seek refuge in pleasant platitudes, mumbo jumbo and pomp and circumstance, reassuring themselves that the struggle for existence is meaningful.
An honest intellect stands in front of the abyss, looks at famine, disaster, viciousness and dishonesty, disease, pain and suffering and says: “this will not do. If it is to be a struggle between humanity and oblivion, then I will side with humanity and back ourselves against oblivion”.
The ‘faithful’ intellect observes the same chaos and mayhem and says: “Oh well, God moves in mysterious ways”.
This allows them to hand their critical processes over to third parties – a priest, or a mullah, or an ayatollah. “What do we think about US imperialism? I’ll tell you what we think – we think any violence against any non-Moslem persons is justified if it drives the Americans from the middle east. O, and by the way, that includes violence against Moslems if they don’t belong to our particular faction.” “What do we think about the godless commies in central America? I’ll tell you what we think – we think that any crime perpetrated against any people – even against the constitution of the United States and even inside the hallowed halls of US government – is justified if we can preserve those countries from the mistakes they were making as a result of free and fair elections.”
It’s possible that the dickheads who died on July 7th with bombs strapped to their backs and that Oliver North and his ilk would have reached their decisions on purely social rather than religious grounds – by the exercise of their intellect. But for sure their ability to think clearly was inhibited by years of indoctrination, deliberate, incidental, subtle and manifest.
Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel; if he were alive today he might say that fundamentalism is the last refuge of the intellectually lazy.

We obviously believe some different things about "religion." So after reading thing I thought I might share a little of what I believe in response to some of these very valid points that you make.

First off, I agree that there is a difference between stating "belief is stupid" and "you're stupid because you believe" - personally I don't agree with either of these statements. I know that there is a whole area of thought questioning our abilty to "prove our existence." I don't know too much about it, but it seems to me that it is quite difficult to do, how can I objectively prove anything when I am limited by my inability to remove myself from the measurement process - there have been plenty of people who believe outside of the scope of what the rest of society believes to a point where we institutionalise them, because we don't agree with what they believe (usually we do this to "help" them), yet how can I know that everyone out there, including myself isn't simply in the same boat - we just happen to be the majority. Well the way I see it I cannot prove this, I choose to believe it, in the same way that I choose to believe in God, while not being able to objectively prove his existence in the way that you seem to be looking for. If that is stupid, so be it, if that makes me stupid, so be it.

You seem to suggest that believing is a crutch for those who cannot cope with the reality of meaninglessness... I find that interesting, my experience is that it is not easy to be a Christian. There have been plenty of time when I have looked at life and said, gee I wish I wasn't - then I could simply drop these morals that I'm choosing to live by, and select another way to try to achieve what it is that I'm trying to achieve - I mean, why not lie, why not use the full intellect I have at my disposal to achieve what I want as quickly as I can, why should I "try not to hurt others," why should I believe in the scantity of human life, just because some majority of people says "you should?" Who cares what the majority says, really who gives a !@#$%^ what they think. I choose my position on these things because it's what I believe my God is interested in.


“I have to make sure the tiny amount of money I get each week will feed me and the two children and leave a little bit to save for Christmas presents.”

Similar I find myself asking "why" do you "have" to do these things - isn't it simply that you believe you have to do this?


An honest intellect stands in front of the abyss, looks at famine, disaster, viciousness and dishonesty, disease, pain and suffering and says: “this will not do. If it is to be a struggle between humanity and oblivion, then I will side with humanity and back ourselves against oblivion”.
The ‘faithful’ intellect observes the same chaos and mayhem and says: “Oh well, God moves in mysterious ways”.

I agree yes, that the faithful does say things like "God moves in mysterious ways." However you seem to be suggesting that the "faithful" stop at this, and never do anything about "famine, disaster, viciousness and dishonesty, disease, pain and suffering."
I say, well there seems to be a number of "aid" organisations that are focused on trying to work with these things - in my experience the majority of these seem to have significant ties to "the faithful."

The faithful may tie reasons for things to God, or they may not - I say that viciousness, dishonesty, pain, famine and suffering are mostly a result of a world society that tends to say "look after number 1." I don't blame God for this. I do not believe that God supports this world view, and find that the Bible goes to great lenghts to teach us to look after others, take care of the underdog - if someone is in need then we should help them. I think that "look after number 1" is the easy way, the "wide road" perhaps.

I certainly do not agree with everything that everyone has done in the name of religion, or of the God in whom they believe - but then I also don't agree with everything that is done for other reasons either.

I think that I choose to believe that God exists, you seem to choose to believe that only what is testable by scientific method exists. These to me are two statements of faith (even though I know that you may argue differently), I choose to put my faith in God, and you choose to put your faith in science.

Dreadful Scathe
18th-January-2006, 10:36 PM
If you could disprove the existence of God, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately, you can't, so you don't. You can give your reasons for not believing that God exists, but that is not the same as proof.

Its perfectly possible to prove God does not exist. If the definition of a particular God includes contradictory statements then it can be argued that, by those statements, that particular God is clearly impossible and does not exist. You are assuming Barry does not have that proof, perhaps he does!


Actually, "atheist" is a term used to describe someone who believes that there is no God.

You are mistaken. Most dictionaries offer the definition "disbelief OR denial of god or gods" and this certainly seems to be the most common use. Certainly nearly all atheists use this definition and there is no one better to define a label than the people who it applies to dont you think? Look at the POLL for this thread - 42% claim to be weak atheists - they do not deny but they do not believe either.



If you take the stance that there might well be no God but don't deny the possibility that there might, you are agnostic, not atheist.

Im afraid you are mistaken about this as well. Agnosticism is not a middle ground, it has to do with knowledge not belief. Agnostics claim to either not know God exists or claim he is unknowable. Refer to the POLL for the thread again, you can quite possibly be an Agnostic and a theist at the same time.


I believe in God, therefore I am a theist. So are Hindus, Muslims and anyone else who believes in any god.

Yes you are but not from a hindus point of view. I think I mentioned elsewhere, early uses of the word Atheist in roman times included Christians calling pagan worshippers atheists and vice versa.

Still, theres no point dwelling on labels. Its best to take the common definition and if in doubt ask someone who that label applies to. e.g. If I wanted a definition of a muslim, I'd probably ask one.


"Faith" is belief in something that cannot be proven

Not quite. I have faith that there is milk in the fridge and I could prove it by going to look. I havent seen it yet because my wife went to the shops, but my faith that she bought it is strong.



Agnosticism is the centre ground.

See above, this is certainly NOT true.

Gadget
18th-January-2006, 10:56 PM
What is the difference between "Trust" and "Belief"? {or 'faith'}

Baruch
18th-January-2006, 11:29 PM
Well, yes; but the point is that she didn't think that up by herself on the spot. It's one of the common responses that Believers make to situations that make a mockery of their cosy view of the Universe.
Another sweeping generalisation. Some believers are like that, undoubtedly, but not all.

You seem to be judging all believers by the actions, words and dogmas of fundamentalists. Most of us are perfectly rational and level-headed, and not fundamentalists. You can't make sweeping generalisations like that based just on what some fundamentalists believe. It's easy to set up a straw man then knock it down, but it convinces nobody. As someone else said earlier, you're behaving exactly like a fundamentalist, except that rather than being a religious fundamentalist, you are an atheist fundamentalist. How ironic.

If you want to argue that there is no God, fine - there are others here arguing the same thing. Most of them, however, are not arrogant in their attitude to those who believe there is a God or gods in the way you seem to be. I do wonder if you're not out to get people's backs up for the sake of it, rather than looking for serious discussion.

Anyway, I said before that I have no intention of posting regularly on this thread. You've said your bit, I've said mine. We strongly disagree, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of anything (pearls before swine (http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/donotcastyou.html) and so on) so, apart from maybe the occasional post, that about wraps up my contribution to this thread.

Dreadful Scathe
18th-January-2006, 11:31 PM
I assume you mean in the context "i trust something is true" in which case it would be the same as "I believe something is true". The faith would be the fact that you "trust" or "believe" something is true regardless of any evidence you may or may not have seen.

Dreadful Scathe
18th-January-2006, 11:55 PM
that about wraps up my contribution to this thread.

What - and ignore my post ? ;)

Baruch
19th-January-2006, 12:05 AM
What - and ignore my post ? ;)
Sorry, but yes. As I said, I like to use this forum for dance discussion, or for light-hearted stuff like the limerick thread, not for in-depth discussions about the merits or otherwise of religion. That has its time and place, of course, but for me that's not here. I don't want to get into a long-drawn out debate right now. Although I disagree strongly with atheism, it wasn't BS's atheism but his attitude towards theists that I objected to strongly enough to post.

I suppose I have not so much ignored your post, as declined the challenge. :cheers:

LMC
19th-January-2006, 01:34 AM
Read again. I only use words like that with great care: do you think that the perpetrators of the Underground bombings don't deserve the label 'dickheads'?
No they don't deserve that label.

I deliberately separated the insults from the situation, which is an emotive one (I was caught up in 7/7 along with hundreds of thousands of others, so I have a fair idea of what it was like, although was fortunately not bereaved or injured like so many). Calling the bombers "dickheads" reduces the force of your argument and quite frankly, just seems lazy and thoughtless.

Unbalanced fanatics with an unforgiveable disregard for others would be an accurate and acceptable description.

El Salsero Gringo
19th-January-2006, 02:16 AM
My response is that every day things happen which don't make sense if there is NOT a God. Besides, who is to say that God (if he exists) should order the world in a way that makes sense to us?Don't those two sentences contradict each other?