NationStates Jolt Archive

whats there to argue about coe evolution is a fact of life. and i've never considered that as a form of evolution more as a form of adaptation (microevolution)
You did not point out any holes all you said was you do not concider it evolution

How about convergent?

(you told me to pick which one ... you said you were going to tell me what is wrong with it)

you not up to the callenge?

You did not point out any holes all you said was you do not concider it evolution

How about convergent?

(you told me to pick which one ... you said you were going to tell me what is wrong with it)

you not up to the callenge?

We've got to pick the right one, obviously. It's the usual religion route to avoid losing.

We've got to pick the right one, obviously. It's the usual religion route to avoid losing.
Damn … well I got all my sci journals out so … if he feels like putting up a real argument…

Anyway, what does this quibbling over evolution matter? Two of the piece of 'proof' you gave supporting a 15,000 year old earth are entirely discredited, and the third probably wouldn't hold up if we researched atom-thingies.

Meanwhile, we have vast swathes of proof supporting us, and your main answer to those was 'ah, but it doesn't conclusively prove me WRONG, does it?'

Seems unfair we need to do all the proving and you never need to do any. At least, any that's true.

Once again your example doesn't apply. The timeline doesn't crash like a plane. We can place a sample within a defined space on the timeline. It still is a long way from finding that dinosaurs and humans overlapped.

And if you have significant quantities of micro-evolution, you get macro-evolution. And over 2 billion years, complex life will emerge and explore many avenues of evolution.

no matter how much micro evolution you will never get a new creature but you will get veriations in the species

no matter how much micro evolution you will never get a new creature but you will get veriations in the species
But diverging species are created when variation reaches a point where the whole species can no longer breed …

So species creation is based on increased variation (which you say is caused by micro-evolution)

no matter how much micro evolution you will never get a new creature but you will get veriations in the species
Exactly what mechanism prevents microevolution from adding up to new species? No creationist has ever shown such a mechanism. Why can't two populations of the same species completely isolated from one another evolve into separate species?

Exactly what mechanism prevents microevolution from adding up to new species? No creationist has ever shown such a mechanism. Why can't two populations of the same species completely isolated from one another evolve into separate species?
Though that is more parallel rather then micro but yeah small changes when they add up to variations that can no longer breed … creates a new species

I'm on a search for God and the devine so any help you can give will be greatly apreaciated there are many from which you can choose. mormons have a good value system. They are one of the few that have a good family life. most people dont believe that this reliogen is true. then there is muslim religion that has the holy koran and is kinda peacefull. You could also look into buddism where the monks come from. there is cathlics which you pray more to the saints and worship mary. they think that are not worthy enough to talk to god directly. so they pray to mary. then there is the obvious.

I would like to know why this is turning into a creation vs. evolution debate. Isn't there another thread for that? I believe the original statement was that Black XIII was "on a search for God." That means that those who believe in God are being invited to share their opinions about God. I see nowhere in that statement that we are supposed to be debating creation vs. evolution.

Anyway, I believe there is a God. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and I have found no mistakes. All the supposed "mistakes" are actually misinterpretations of the Bible. The Bible does not tell us to be violent, and it does not tell us that we have to do something good in order to go to Heaven. These are all ideas and traditions that people have added on to the Bible. The Bible's main point is that God loves us, but he has given us a free choice to accept or reject him.

I agree with Temme, who stated that anyone who is truly searching for God should read some books by people such as Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis who went through the confusing maze of searching for God, and found him. Don't refuse to read these books just because you think you may not agree with them. Keep an open mind, and don't make your decision what to believe until you have seen the case for both sides (the side that does not believe in God, AND the side that believes in God).

there are many from which you can choose. mormons have a good value system. They are one of the few that have a good family life. most people dont believe that this reliogen is true. then there is muslim religion that has the holy koran and is kinda peacefull. You could also look into buddism where the monks come from. there is cathlics which you pray more to the saints and worship mary. they think that are not worthy enough to talk to god directly. so they pray to mary. then there is the obvious.
Hmmm and I thought Catholics more pray to um lets say Christ then marry (at least my roman catholic church did) but its been a few years maybe that has changed

God is there. many times in my life i have seen that. you just need to search and find out what feels comftorble to you.

I would like to know why this is turning into a creation vs. evolution debate. Isn't there another thread for that? I believe the original statement was that Black XIII was "on a search for God." That means that those who believe in God are being invited to share their opinions about God. I see nowhere in that statement that we are supposed to be debating creation vs. evolution.

Anyway, I believe there is a God. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and I have found no mistakes. All the supposed "mistakes" are actually misinterpretations of the Bible. The Bible does not tell us to be violent, and it does not tell us that we have to do something good in order to go to Heaven. These are all ideas and traditions that people have added on to the Bible. The Bible's main point is that God loves us, but he has given us a free choice to accept or reject him.

I agree with Temme, who stated that anyone who is truly searching for God should read some books by people such as Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis who went through the confusing maze of searching for God, and found him. Don't refuse to read these books just because you think you may not agree with them. Keep an open mind, and don't make your decision what to believe until you have seen the case for both sides (the side that does not believe in God, AND the side that believes in God).
Actually the guy who started the thread seems not to mind the course it's following, so it's not hijacking.
As for the bible not having mistakes, kindly check out this list of contradictions in it. www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

I am a christian and I sort of believe myself to be non-denominational. There are a few church's that arnt the best but you just have to find the right church for your self I dont believe in mormonism I and many other crhistians like myself believe it is not a true religon. I believe catholics are and methodists, and so on with other groups who believe in god but in revelations the last book of the bible god states you are not to add to or take from the bible because its finished. the mormons have done both and there for I know it is not true. I strongly suggest christianity it is a good religon if u find the right place to worship for u.

Actually the guy who started the thread seems not to mind the course it's following, so it's not hijacking.
As for the bible not having mistakes, kindly check out this list of contradictions in it. www.infidels.org/library/jim_meritt/biblical-contradictions.html
What do you mean contradictions there is none the bible is true. all the phrocies have come true.

I would like to know why this is turning into a creation vs. evolution debate. Isn't there another thread for that? I believe the original statement was that Black XIII was "on a search for God." That means that those who believe in God are being invited to share their opinions about God. I see nowhere in that statement that we are supposed to be debating creation vs. evolution.

Anyway, I believe there is a God. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and I have found no mistakes. All the supposed "mistakes" are actually misinterpretations of the Bible. The Bible does not tell us to be violent, and it does not tell us that we have to do something good in order to go to Heaven. These are all ideas and traditions that people have added on to the Bible. The Bible's main point is that God loves us, but he has given us a free choice to accept or reject him.

I agree with Temme, who stated that anyone who is truly searching for God should read some books by people such as Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis who went through the confusing maze of searching for God, and found him. Don't refuse to read these books just because you think you may not agree with them. Keep an open mind, and don't make your decision what to believe until you have seen the case for both sides (the side that does not believe in God, AND the side that believes in God).


I have done the same … in both accepted translations and direct translations (don’t have Hebrew down yet but if I have questions grave_n_idle is a bottomless resource)

I have found it RIDDLED with logic errors along with hypocrisy and individual errors. Reading the bible (along with church actions) is what turned me agnostic lol


You have faith … so you see the best in it (that’s what faith is good for … if you did not see what you see then it would not be faith)

That’s good for you … but don’t assume that just because it is logical to you that it is logical overall

What do you mean contradictions there is none the bible is true. all the phrocies have come true.
Lol silly goose come here and give me a :fluffle:

What do you mean contradictions there is none the bible is true. all the phrocies have come true.
I fixed the link, check it out. As for prophecies, find me one prophecy in the bible that is specific and that the author couldn't have figured out by non supernatural means that has come true. Note that I said specific. I need names, date and event. Not vague prophecies left so open ended that almost any event at almost any time could "fulfill" it.

God is there. many times in my life i have seen that. you just need to search and find out what feels comftorble to you.
Done so ... atheism / agnosticism

never i have a guy and you are a jerk

I fixed the link, check it out. As for prophecies, find me one prophecy in the bible that is specific and that the author couldn't have figured out by non supernatural means that has come true. Note that I said specific. I need names, date and event. Not vague prophecies left so open ended that almost any event at almost any time could "fulfill" it.
That takes all the fun out of it … sort of like fortune telling
Cause you know we all know miss cleo is always right

Actually the guy who started the thread seems not to mind the course it's following, so it's not hijacking.
As for the bible not having mistakes, kindly check out this list of contradictions in it. www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html


I just visited that site, and those supposed contradictions are apparently written by someone who does not understand the Bible. You have to study the entire Bible and read the verses in context in order to understand those verses.

never i have a guy and you are a jerk
I'll beat up your guy. Then you can beleive in me.

never i have a guy and you are a jerk
Me? why ... because I :fluffle: you?

do you not like fluffles?

What ever some web site may say I believe anything in the bible to be the truth and yes there are a few change abouts but things chcanged when jesus died many rule swere forgotten and new one were created.

A broken heart DOES interact with the outside world. And there is empirical evidence to support it, most people have had one.
How does it do that? You can't rip it out of your chest and show it to the world.

Well, if evolution doesn't happen, then what is God's obsession with beetles?

There's more different types of beetle than there are types of mammal, bird and reptile combined. I mean, why? From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes a lot of sense, since being a beetle is a great way to be an insect. But from a creationist view, it just makes God seem a bit weird. And don't give me that 'mysterious ways' crap.


And as for the bible:

Why were Adam and Eve, once out of the garden, forbidden to eat the flesh of animals, yet Noah, who only had two of each, was allowed?

I just visited that site, and those supposed contradictions are apparently written by someone who does not understand the Bible. You have to study the entire Bible and read the verses in context in order to understand those verses.
I have ... to a large extent in hebrew (it takes me a while Grave_n_ idle is way better at it pluss he know greek and I dont)

you are assholes. leave me alone i can kick both your guys ass bymyself :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

On the topic of prophecies, here's a link I found interesting.

http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htm

And would you like to hear the answers to any of those apparent contradictions? I can tell you why they do not contradict as they seem to.

How does it do that? You can't rip it out of your chest and show it to the world.
It's not in your chest, it's in your brain, and it effects your behavior and mood. Also it can be altered chemically.

you are assholes. leave me alone i can kick both your guys ass bymyself :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
Aww you promise? cause that would be super!

I just visited that site, and those supposed contradictions are apparently written by someone who does not understand the Bible. You have to study the entire Bible and read the verses in context in order to understand those verses.
Why does your inerrant bible say rabbits chew their cud? They don't you know.

ok the thing with noah is they cought fish
and no dont i am going to ignore you now :mp5:

little sister to big sister rescue!!!!!!! Leave my sister alone I know shes a weirdo but only I and My other sister are permitted to give her a hard time

Why were Adam and Eve, once out of the garden, forbidden to eat the flesh of animals, yet Noah, who only had two of each, was allowed?

Noah did not just have two of each. He took more of certain kinds of animals. And he would have been smart enough not to eat them every day before they had a chance to reproduce.

How does it do that? You can't rip it out of your chest and show it to the world.

You don't need to. Let's clarify.

If you mean a broken heart as in a cardiac organ that no longer functions, then it interacts by making you dead. It must be noted that afterward, we CAN rip it out of the chest.

If, on the other hand, you mean it in an emotoinal context, then it can be seen in the behaviour of the broken hearted person in question. Hence, interaction, as it effects other events with a visible cause-effect relationship.

On the topic of prophecies, here's a link I found interesting.

http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htm

And would you like to hear the answers to any of those apparent contradictions? I can tell you why they do not contradict as they seem to.
Awww almost got me with that one … but the stats for the randomness are off it is not permutation it is combination which WAY throws those stats off lol

ok the thing with noah is they cought fish
and no dont i am going to ignore you now :mp5:
Oh then what did the herbivores eat?

Why does your inerrant bible say rabbits chew their cud? They don't you know.

That's just one translation of the original, as the website itself admits.

noah knew a long time before the flood happenend so he could store grain and other stuff when the flood did happen :headbang:

Noah did not just have two of each. He took more of certain kinds of animals. And he would have been smart enough not to eat them every day before they had a chance to reproduce.


Did he have a choice? Everything had just been destroyed in a great flood. So unless he ate seaweed for about six years or so, he's going to have to eat the animals.

And I'd personally stick with the idea of 'two by two' for most livestock. They tend to be big, they eat huge quantities, and they aren't great for transporting on a ship for several months in large numbers. Two of each would be enough of a pain, especially with those cocking elephants. The crap huge amounts and eat even more.

noah knew a long time before the flood happenend so he could store grain and other stuff when the flood did happen :headbang:
How did he fit it on that tiny little boat of his?

And how did he get the animals that only existed in places like the america's or australia?

I fixed the link, check it out. As for prophecies, find me one prophecy in the bible that is specific and that the author couldn't have figured out by non supernatural means that has come true. Note that I said specific. I need names, date and event. Not vague prophecies left so open ended that almost any event at almost any time could "fulfill" it.
A prophecy that would specify dates, times, specific events and people would not be a prophecy, it would be fortune-telling. So your criteria for demanding proof is contradictory.

they where only on the boat for 40 days and 40 nights then the land dried up.

On the topic of prophecies, here's a link I found interesting.

http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htm

And would you like to hear the answers to any of those apparent contradictions? I can tell you why they do not contradict as they seem to.
Very unimpressive. The prophecies supposedly refering to Jesus for instance. As for his lineage, if you look into it there has been some fudging of the facts to make it so. The prophecy of Nebuchadnezer destroying Tyre, Well, it was made only three years before the war started. Wars don't erupt overnight. There were hostilities between them long before the war started.
Also the "prophecies" tend to be vague. They aren't for the most part understandable until an event that fits them occurs. Their wording requires interpretation. They don't come out and explicitly state who what where and when before the event.

A prophecy that would specify dates, times, specific events and people would not be a prophecy, it would be fortune-telling. So your criteria for demanding proof is contradictory.
No he wanted to know when each was FUFILLED not what was predicted

How did he fit it on that tiny little boat of his?

And how did he get the animals that only existed in places like the america's or australia? it wasnt tiny. and then animals existed every where. and god alsolet the animals know sothey couldbe safe idiot

A prophecy that would specify dates, times, specific events and people would not be a prophecy, it would be fortune-telling. So your criteria for demanding proof is contradictory.
fortune telling = prophecy. They are the same thing.

How did he fit it on that tiny little boat of his?

And how did he get the animals that only existed in places like the america's or australia?

It was not a tiny boat. And it is likely that before the flood, all continents were in one mass that began to split apart during the flood.

fortune telling = prophecy. They are the same thing.
no there are not :mad:

off the subject I was wondering where did you come up with the name UpwardThurst the sounds a bit naughty

it wasnt tiny. and then animals existed every where. and god alsolet the animals know sothey couldbe safe idiot
But how did an animal like a kangaroo make it across the ocean just to MAKE it to the boat?

noah knew a long time before the flood happenend so he could store grain and other stuff when the flood did happen :headbang:

Yes, and certin logistic aspects like the laws of floatation dictate he couldn't have carried that much stuff. The more animals he has, the more exponentially you increase his load. Livestock in particular will eat their own bodyweight at least every day. And after the forty days and nights of rain, you have the time it takes for the water to go down. So Each cow, for example, requires you to carry, oooh, let's say 100 cow's worth of food. And that's being generous to your side.

Now, how many traditional food animals did you say he was carrying?

It was not a tiny boat. And it is likely that before the flood, all continents were in one mass that began to split apart during the flood.
Remember the tsunami about a week ago? A huge landmass splitting up would have created tsunamis that would have dwarfed that one. An overloaded wooden ship would have no chance of surviving. Also we know for a fact that the continents divided long before the evolution of man.

That's just one translation of the original, as the website itself admits.
Yes, the accurate translation is bring up the cud. Rabbits don't do that.

It was not a tiny boat. And it is likely that before the flood, all continents were in one mass that began to split apart during the flood.
Likely ? so you subscribe to the Pangaea theory … if so why are unique animals such as Kangaroos or hundreds of others only found on one continent … not others … being it was all one landmass before the split.

And if so was the ending of the Noah story bogus?(besides the sodomy part) Because he would have had to drop off the animals at the correct locations

Yes, and certin logistic aspects like the laws of floatation dictate he couldn't have carried that much stuff. The more animals he has, the more exponentially you increase his load. Livestock in particular will eat their own bodyweight at least every day. And after the forty days and nights of rain, you have the time it takes for the water to go down. So Each cow, for example, requires you to carry, oooh, let's say 100 cow's worth of food. And that's being generous to your side.

Now, how many traditional food animals did you say he was carrying?

For one thing, many of the large animals could have gone into a state of hibernation so they didn't need to eat. And he did not bring 2 beagles, 2 cocker spaniels, 2 chihuahuas, etc. He just had 2 dogs, from which all the later varieties came. Ditto with some of the other kinds of animals. So there were not as many animals overloading the boat as one might originally think.

To answer the other question, 7 of each kind that they would eat. And don't forget they did not live exclusively on meat. And some animals (like rabbits) can reproduce rapidly.

Likely ? so you subscribe to the Pangaea theory … if so why are unique animals such as Kangaroos or hundreds of others only found on one continent … not others … being it was all one landmass before the split.

And if so was the ending of the Noah story bogus?(besides the sodomy part) Because he would have had to drop off the animals at the correct locations

He didn't drop them off. They migrated. And I'm not the only person who believes there could have been land bridges between some of the continents for a while, or that the continents have drifted farther apart than they used to be. Also, some animals could have died off on one continent but not on another.

For one thing, many of the large animals could have gone into a state of hibernation so they didn't need to eat. And he did not bring 2 beagles, 2 cocker spaniels, 2 chihuahuas, etc. He just had 2 dogs, from which all the later varieties came. Ditto with some of the other kinds of animals. So there were not as many animals overloading the boat as one might originally think.

To answer the other question, 7 of each kind that they would eat. And don't forget they did not live exclusively on meat. And some animals (like rabbits) can reproduce rapidly.
Um most large animals don’t hibernate … some of the biggest don’t

Such as the elephant (even when infantile they are massive eaters after weaning)

And a cows

Horses

Giraffes (that would have been interesting to see)

For one thing, many of the large animals could have gone into a state of hibernation so they didn't need to eat. And he did not bring 2 beagles, 2 cocker spaniels, 2 chihuahuas, etc. He just had 2 dogs, from which all the later varieties came. Ditto with some of the other kinds of animals. So there were not as many animals overloading the boat as one might originally think.

To answer the other question, 7 of each kind that they would eat. And don't forget they did not live exclusively on meat. And some animals (like rabbits) can reproduce rapidly.
To my knowledge elephants, hippos, rhinocerous, buffalo, wildebeast, and many other larg animals don't hibernate. Also he would need two species of elephant, what like 5 species of rhino, a bunch of different species of buffalo. That's a lot of food.

He didn't drop them off. They migrated. And I'm not the only person who believes there could have been land bridges between some of the continents for a while, or that the continents have drifted farther apart than they used to be. Also, some animals could have died off on one continent but not on another.
And left no fossil remains of course.

It's not in your chest, it's in your brain, and it effects your behavior and mood. Also it can be altered chemically.
Wherever you want to locate it, it still cannot be ripped out and held up for the world to see. And no matter how much you may mask it with drugs, it will not just go away. Eventually people have to sober up and face reality.

He didn't drop them off. They migrated. And I'm not the only person who believes there could have been land bridges between some of the continents for a while, or that the continents have drifted farther apart than they used to be. Also, some animals could have died off on one continent but not on another.
But if there were land bridges there would be migration between the continents
Again what is with all the uniqueness

(and proven tectonic movements are too slow to break up true land bridges in the time since written history … specially the amount we are talking)

Obviously they wouldn't all hibernate. Just some of them. It is also likely that not all the pairs of animals were fully grown at the time of the flood, and I believe young animals eat less than their fully grown counterparts.

To my knowledge elephants, hippos, rhinocerous, buffalo, wildebeast, and many other larg animals don't hibernate. Also he would need two species of elephant, what like 5 species of rhino, a bunch of different species of buffalo. That's a lot of food.
Lol same logic as mine (post above) lol

Wherever you want to locate it, it still cannot be ripped out and held up for the world to see. And no matter how much you may mask it with drugs, it will not just go away. Eventually people have to sober up and face reality.
It's not all about vision. I can't see x rays, but I can detect them with tools. I know they are there because they effect photographic film, and people who are exposed to too many of them.

Obviously they wouldn't all hibernate. Just some of them. It is also likely that not all the pairs of animals were fully grown at the time of the flood, and I believe young animals eat less than their fully grown counterparts.
Again my pointed infantile but weaned comment

Still a ridiculous amount of food even as children

If, on the other hand, you mean it in an emotoinal context, then it can be seen in the behaviour of the broken hearted person in question. Hence, interaction, as it effects other events with a visible cause-effect relationship.
Seen in behaviour... you mean like evidence of God can be seen in behaviours like prayer, meditation and faith? It is not the broken heart itself that is interacting, but the person who experiences it as a concept within them.

Lol same logic as mine (post above) lol
Just backing you up pal.

Seen in behaviour... you mean like evidence of God can be seen in behaviours like prayer, meditation and faith? It is not the broken heart itself that is interacting, but the person who experiences it as a concept within them.
It's the chemical imbalance that we call a broken heart. Like the mental illness we call religion. No offense meant. ;)

I also never said he brought every species as we know it today.

Well, I'd love to keep debating, but I gotta go to lunch now. It's been nice talking to all of you! Keep open minds!

It's not all about vision. I can't see x rays, but I can detect them with tools. I know they are there because they effect photographic film, and people who are exposed to too many of them.
But no machine of man can detect a broken heart. They may detect the chemical interactions, and eventually have enough data to say they can map "a broken heart" on the brain --but that does nothing to allow them to know what is subjectively being experienced by the individual who is the subject of the broken heart.

Same with an experience of god. It cannot be understood with probing machines and demands for physical evidence.

I also never said he brought every species as we know it today.

Well, I'd love to keep debating, but I gotta go to lunch now. It's been nice talking to all of you! Keep open minds!
So evolution happened, just after Noah.

But no machine of man can detect a broken heart. They may detect the chemical interactions, and eventually have enough data to say they can map "a broken heart" on the brain --but that does nothing to allow them to know what is subjectively being experienced by the individual who is the subject of the broken heart.

Same with an experience of god. It cannot be understood with probing machines and demands for physical evidence.
subjective experiences can't be shown to have any existance outside of the brain of the person experiencing them. That's all the reality they have.

It's the chemical imbalance that we call a broken heart. Like the mental illness we call religion. No offense meant. ;)
No, it is the subjective experience of the chemical imbalance that is emotions and accompanying throughts that is what we call a broken heart. And that subjective experience cannot be examined or known by an objective observer.

No, it is the subjective experience of the chemical imbalance that is emotions and accompanying throughts that is what we call a broken heart. And that subjective experience cannot be examined or known by an objective observer.
Where does this subjective experience reside other than in the biological computer called the brain? It's just a program running in the brain. A pattern of neuron activity.

subjective experiences can't be shown to have any existance outside of the brain of the person experiencing them. That's all the reality they have.
No, they cannot. By definition, it is impossible. Subjective means "seen from the point of view of the subject". To take something outside the subject, from another point of view, makes it objective.

Also just because I haven't heard of you someone else has. They could show me a picture.

BlackXIII,
If you really want to know God, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. I can suggest some specific reading for you if your interested.

To be honest, I can't irrefutably prove that God exists. I have experienced evidence in my own life and have seen Him work in the lives of others. I can explain my experiences to you if you like, but again, those here who disbelieve will probably tell me I'm deluded.

I'm not really interested in debating anyone on the subject, I've done enough of that already and quite frankly, unless you experience God for yourself all the debate in the world is relatively meaningless.

I quoted the above because it talks about evidence of existance. This individual said that he would accept a photograph as evidence. Photographs like just about everything else in life can be faked, but they are evidence, in much the same way that the Bible is evidence of human experience of and contact with God and Christ. Could it have been faked? Possibly. But, that doesn't change that it is potential evidence of God's existance as well.

If you are interested in studying this evidence I can give you some suggestions on where to begin, though I suspect you have done some looking already.

Let me know if you are interested, but please don't ask me to debate these folks. Some of them, on both sides, are my friends, but contention on the existance of God, the validity of scripture probably won't do any of us much good in the long run.

Even when done in the most congenial nature, it really comes down to one side telling the other they don't know what they are talking about, which in inherently insulting even when done as kindly as possible, and I'd prefer not to go there.

P.S.: The main thing that a belief structure/religion provides us with is meaning in life. In my opinion, if there is no Creator and everyone else's ideas are equal, there is no way to determine any objective meaning in life. If God exists and reveals Himself to us, which I believe He does and has done, we can have some grasp on objective meaning in life.

Where does this subjective experience reside other than in the biological computer called the brain? It's just a program running in the brain. A pattern of neuron activity.
The subjective is what YOU experience. When you think, do you actively move electrons from one brain cell to another? When you feel, do you actively stimulate chemicals that cause tears to flow and your heart to constrict? No. You just think things, and feel things. Whatever may be going on in the body, what you experience when they happen is what is subjectively real.

It's not chemcials that make you cry when you heart breaks --it's the thoughts you experience that cause those chemcials to work, that cause feelings.

The subjective is what YOU experience. When you think, do you actively move electrons from one brain cell to another? When you feel, do you actively stimulate chemicals that cause tears to flow and your heart to constrict? No. You just think things, and feel things. Whatever may be going on in the body, what you experience when they happen is what is subjectively real.

It's not chemcials that make you cry when you heart breaks --it's the thoughts you experience that cause those chemcials to work, that cause feelings.
The feelings and thoughts are a product of the electrical and chemical state of the brain. Like the images on the screen are the result of the electrical connections in the computer.

The feelings and thoughts are a product of the electrical and chemical state of the brain. Like the images on the screen are the result of the electrical connections in the computer.
What does the computer feel about that?

What does the computer feel about that?
It's not advanced enough to feel, I think.

It's not advanced enough to feel, I think.
I would have said it doesn't have the necessary chemically composed brain to feel anything.

Regardless of the mechanism of how thoughts and feelings are made and observable from without, how you (or the subject) experience them is the subjective view.

It's not advanced enough to feel, I think.
Slowly workin that way though

Seen in behaviour... you mean like evidence of God can be seen in behaviours like prayer, meditation and faith? It is not the broken heart itself that is interacting, but the person who experiences it as a concept within them.

No. that would at best be indirect, and could be entirely delusional. If God could be seen through his own behaviour, then your point would stand. As is, it doesn't exist.

But no machine of man can detect a broken heart. They may detect the chemical interactions, and eventually have enough data to say they can map "a broken heart" on the brain --but that does nothing to allow them to know what is subjectively being experienced by the individual who is the subject of the broken heart.

Same with an experience of god. It cannot be understood with probing machines and demands for physical evidence.

It doesn't matter about the subjective experience. All that matters is that detection is still possible using the machine.

There is NO means of detecting an experience of God, and it could just as easily be a delusion. The experience does not, therefore, give any evidence of God, but instead gives us evidence of a mental imbalance, just like the broken heart.

Are you trying to bring us to the conclusion that God is a chemical in the brain? If so, why worship it? I like Seratonin, but I don't pray to it. Also, given that this God is a chemical, surely that invalidates the entire bible?

It doesn't matter about the subjective experience. All that matters is that detection is still possible using the machine.

There is NO means of detecting an experience of God, and it could just as easily be a delusion. The experience does not, therefore, give any evidence of God, but instead gives us evidence of a mental imbalance, just like the broken heart.

Are you trying to bring us to the conclusion that God is a chemical in the brain? If so, why worship it? I like Seratonin, but I don't pray to it. Also, given that this God is a chemical, surely that invalidates the entire bible?
I agree exactly.

I would have said it doesn't have the necessary chemically composed brain to feel anything.

Regardless of the mechanism of how thoughts and feelings are made and observable from without, how you (or the subject) experience them is the subjective view.

Which brings up an interesting question about composite technologies - like the 'computer brain' made from rat neurons that is being trained to fly jet fighters...

Is it a machine, or a mind?

What does it think and feel?

Why should a human brain be any different to the rat-brain fighter pilot?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/rat_brain_flies_jet/

When you think, do you actively move electrons from one brain cell to another?

Yes, actually. I don't percieve it, but my body does indeed actively send an electon pulse along a synaptic chord.

When you feel, do you actively stimulate chemicals that cause tears to flow and your heart to constrict?

Again, yes. My subconcious does it. Merely because my concious mind does not percieve it doesn't mean I am not controling it. Or do you have no ability to control your emotion at all? I suggest you learn to.

No.

See above.

You just think things, and feel things. Whatever may be going on in the body, what you experience when they happen is what is subjectively real.

It's not chemcials that make you cry when you heart breaks --it's the thoughts you experience that cause those chemcials to work, that cause feelings.

Other way around entirely. The chemical IS the thought, not a reaction to it. If you're going to swing this around to an argument on the nature of perception, I'm game, but I can't see how it supports the existence of God, or the truth of the bible.

It was not a tiny boat. And it is likely that before the flood, all continents were in one mass that began to split apart during the flood.

This seems to rely on the continent's floating. You do know that they don't, right?

And the larger the boat, the harder it gets for it to float and maintain. You'd need extra wood for repairs as you bobbed around. Bigger boat = more spare wood + additional weight + 2 or more or EVERYTHING + truly absurd amount of food.....

Possibly you think that the Ark WAS a floating continent?

I'm on a search for God and the devine so any help you can give will be greatly apreaciated

The beauty of this statement is that you've began to find the divine without even knowing it. Now the second step is to take everyone of the replies that you've seen to your statement with a grain of salt, (yes including this one,) and find the divine on your own.

Nobody can find the divine for you. You can't find it through science, through religion or through the many spiritual books out there, (though these may help). It is a personal journey and a quiet journey and should remain so.

In the end, you might even find that the divine does not exist and therefor you will live out your life with that idea in mind as many have but the key is to remember that the journey is a *quiet* one.

For one thing, many of the large animals could have gone into a state of hibernation so they didn't need to eat.

Only the bears, since almost no other large animal does. Also, note that none of the large livestock would. They're the ones that eat so much, and also crap constantly. And what did the carnivores eat? He'd be bringing 2 lions, so he needs 1 wildbeest for them every three days. Going back to the 100 day theory, that's 35 wildebeest including the breeding pair. All of which need their own weight in food for as long as they survive. I can't be bothered doing the maths, but that's around 1751 times the weight of a wildebeest in food, just to provide enough for the lions to eat.

And he did not bring 2 beagles, 2 cocker spaniels, 2 chihuahuas, etc. He just had 2 dogs, from which all the later varieties came. Ditto with some of the other kinds of animals. So there were not as many animals overloading the boat as one might originally think.

I didn't think he had two of each breed. He had 2 of each species. That's still a truly absurd number of animals, and it's the food aspect I'm most worried about. Your Ark needs to be bigger than Japan.


To answer the other question, 7 of each kind that they would eat. And don't forget they did not live exclusively on meat. And some animals (like rabbits) can reproduce rapidly.

7? 7?!?!?!? So, that's five to eat. That might get 'em through the voyage, bearing in mind that the humans aboard were Noah, his wife and his three sons with THEIR wives. Also, remembering that the Wolves both needed to eat lambs, 1 every day between them. The cheeta needs a deer every couple of days, but won't eat all of it so I'll let the Hyena's finish the job and only have 1 deer of their own every couple of days. That's 100 deer, eating their own weight every day.......

I thought we cuold get started on the inbreeding side of the bible now.

We're all decended from Cane and his sister to begin with. That's a bad start. However, their children would have had to breed amoung themselves as well, which doesn't help. In fact, everyone's pretty closely related for the next 1000 years, especially since several male characters take multiple wives. That means they're dangerously closely related. We're talking Royal Families here.

Then, just as the population starts getting big enough to start spacing it out, the flood kills everyone apart from three brothers and their wives. The wives are not otherwise related, as far as we know, so that's some genetic diversity at least, but we're doing it again.

Given the large amout of sister and cousin shagging in the bible, I'm more inclined to worry about the writer's sexual preferences than believe his damned book.

No. that would at best be indirect, and could be entirely delusional. If God could be seen through his own behaviour, then your point would stand. As is, it doesn't exist.
And the evidence of a broken heart is indirect: mood, emotion, tears, and spoken words. All second-hand to the actual experience of the individual.

God has a presence within us. I don't believe in a god with a physical presence in the universe.

It doesn't matter about the subjective experience. All that matters is that detection is still possible using the machine.

There is NO means of detecting an experience of God, and it could just as easily be a delusion. The experience does not, therefore, give any evidence of God, but instead gives us evidence of a mental imbalance, just like the broken heart.

Are you trying to bring us to the conclusion that God is a chemical in the brain? If so, why worship it? I like Seratonin, but I don't pray to it. Also, given that this God is a chemical, surely that invalidates the entire bible?
In my opinion, the subjective view of the experience of god is the only thing that matters when you're talking about religion. Everything else is window dressing.

Detection of the effects (chemcials) of the subjective experience is possible with machines. Second-hand knowledge.

Yes, it is delusional in a strict sense of the word, in that it takes place entirely in the imagination, but then "delusional" is usually thrown around as an insult, and equated with insanity, which is a medical condition. Perfectly healthy people can have constructive and useful delusions, and do everyday. We call them "inspired".

I am not trying to pin God down to a chemical in the brain; that's not for me to decide. If scientists go that route (and I doubt they ever would) then power to them. I am suggesting that the way to *know* god is not through machines and chemical equations, but through opening your mind to experience it (the mind being the concept of self). Most staunch non-believers are too closed-minded to even consider it.

Which brings up an interesting question about composite technologies - like the 'computer brain' made from rat neurons that is being trained to fly jet fighters...

Is it a machine, or a mind?

What does it think and feel?

Why should a human brain be any different to the rat-brain fighter pilot?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/rat_brain_flies_jet/
Call me human-biased, but I believe that only the human brain has evolved sufficiently to have a mind (being a concept composed of complex thoughts) capable of comprehending itself in relation to the brain. In other words, the brain/mind is not just chemically complex, but intellectually as well; the two going hand-in-hand. As one evolves, so does the other.

Yes, actually. I don't percieve it, but my body does indeed actively send an electon pulse along a synaptic chord.

Again, yes. My subconcious does it. Merely because my concious mind does not percieve it doesn't mean I am not controling it. Or do you have no ability to control your emotion at all? I suggest you learn to.

See above.

Other way around entirely. The chemical IS the thought, not a reaction to it. If you're going to swing this around to an argument on the nature of perception, I'm game, but I can't see how it supports the existence of God, or the truth of the bible.
Ah, but I was asking if YOU actively do it, not your body... Again, that's a difference in thinking: the "self" as body, or the "self" as a composite of body, mind, heart and soul. The latter way of thinking (attitude) informs religion; the former informs most scientific attitudes.

The latter recognizes parts of self that are apart from body, existing entirely subjectively yet inseperable from body (I don't believe in ghosts).

A thought stimulates the chemical reaction. Can it be proven otherwise, since there is zero lapse time between the chemical reaction and the experience of the thought?

It's all in how you choose to look at it.

And the evidence of a broken heart is indirect: mood, emotion, tears, and spoken words. All second-hand to the actual experience of the individual.

True, and yet as almost everyone has had one at some point it is easy to reconise the symptom. Also, you can measure the chemicals using brain scanning equipment. In the case of 'divine' experience, the individual is the second hand experience of God, since God has the first hand, and anyone else would be THIRD hand.

Also, it's true enough that the broken heart could just be delusional behaviour, and it can also lead to it. Same with religion, methinks.

God has a presence within us. I don't believe in a god with a physical presence in the universe.

He's certainly not got a presence in me. I heard about what he did to Mary.

Also, I wish people would stop thinking my atheist principals are based on not being able to find a physical presence for a God. It's the lack of any presence at all. I don't understand why you think talking to yourself and denying anything which disagrees with the bible (which obviously, as a book written by other people, can only DETRACT from the 'personal journey of discovery') somehow proves his existence.

I've no problem with the concept that you are a spiritual creature in your own right, or that you are more than the sum of your physical parts. I DO have problems with the idea that there has to be some form of outside force that conveniently leaves no evidence of it's existence.

The beauty of this statement is that you've began to find the divine without even knowing it. Now the second step is to take everyone of the replies that you've seen to your statement with a grain of salt, (yes including this one,) and find the divine on your own.

Nobody can find the divine for you. You can't find it through science, through religion or through the many spiritual books out there, (though these may help). It is a personal journey and a quiet journey and should remain so.

In the end, you might even find that the divine does not exist and therefor you will live out your life with that idea in mind as many have but the key is to remember that the journey is a *quiet* one.
So true.

And the evidence of a broken heart is indirect: mood, emotion, tears, and spoken words. All second-hand to the actual experience of the individual.

God has a presence within us. I don't believe in a god with a physical presence in the universe.
So god is an idea or an emotion? No more than that? Just a program running in the background of our computerized brain?

Call me human-biased, but I believe that only the human brain has evolved sufficiently to have a mind (being a concept composed of complex thoughts) capable of comprehending itself in relation to the brain. In other words, the brain/mind is not just chemically complex, but intellectually as well; the two going hand-in-hand. As one evolves, so does the other.

Why?

What is special about a human brain?

I don't buy it... what about if you took human neurons instead of rat neurons, and slipped them in the petri-dish? I'm thinking it would be able to fly the jet... but I doubt it would be writing poetry...

As far as I can tell, all brains have the CAPACITY for a different degree of sophistication, and it is our 'training' that determines where we progress.

Hence, Feral Children cannot 'relate' in the same ways as 'normal' people... they can never 'learn' to be 'normal' people if they are left beyond a key age (somewhere in the early teens)... and the longer they are left feral, the less identifiably 'human' their psychology.

So - if we had the 'language' to communicate with rats, and took time to 'educate' rats, the way we 'educate' humans... where would be the difference... why would the creature NOT have the same 'human' perspective?

I just realized why the debate about the existence of God could go back and forth forever, and no one on either side will ever convince everyone on the other side. The problem is, people are coming into the debate with different presuppositions, and probably different definitions of some of the key terms. Even if we defined all our terms, we can't erase everyone's presuppositions. Everyone has had different past experiences that shape the way we view things.

So I will not try to debate the issue any more. I could debate until I'm blue in the face, and I still won't be able to convince those who have different presuppositions from my own.

Before I leave this thread, though, I will state why I have come to the position that I hold. I asked myself two questions:

1. What if I decide to believe in God, and I'm wrong? If because of that belief, I happily live a moral life and help other people, then if I am wrong I will cease to exist when I die, but I will have had a good existence while it lasted.

2. What if I decide not to believe in God, and I'm wrong? Then I will not cease to exist when I die, and I will wish for all eternity that I had been willing to look at the other viewpoint.

I decided choice #1 was the better choice for me. At least be willing to look at the possibility that God exists. Search honestly and openly, and he will show himself to you. I did, and I found God. I have nothing against those who have not found God, but I hope they will honestly search before giving it up, and not try to keep others from searching.

And on that note, I will make my exit. Auf Widersehen, adios, do widzenia, and до свидания. :)

Why?

What is special about a human brain?

I don't buy it... what about if you took human neurons instead of rat neurons, and slipped them in the petri-dish? I'm thinking it would be able to fly the jet... but I doubt it would be writing poetry...

As far as I can tell, all brains have the CAPACITY for a different degree of sophistication, and it is our 'training' that determines where we progress.

Hence, Feral Children cannot 'relate' in the same ways as 'normal' people... they can never 'learn' to be 'normal' people if they are left beyond a key age (somewhere in the early teens)... and the longer they are left feral, the less identifiably 'human' their psychology.

So - if we had the 'language' to communicate with rats, and took time to 'educate' rats, the way we 'educate' humans... where would be the difference... why would the creature NOT have the same 'human' perspective?
Perhaps rats would have a human influenced perspective, but with differences in brain structure I don't think they would have a truly human perspective. You gave the example of feral children. Consider the fact that a child's brain is in transition. There are windows of opportunity where one part or another of the brain is open to being shaped by experience. After those windows close it's much more difficult to shape them. For example, language. Did you ever try to learn a language when you were little? It takes no effort at all. The language section of the brain is still plastic. Try to learn a new language at 30. Not nearly as easy.

Ah, but I was asking if YOU actively do it, not your body... Again, that's a difference in thinking: the "self" as body, or the "self" as a composite of body, mind, heart and soul. The latter way of thinking (attitude) informs religion; the former informs most scientific attitudes.
The latter recognizes parts of self that are apart from body, existing entirely subjectively yet inseperable from body (I don't believe in ghosts).
A thought stimulates the chemical reaction. Can it be proven otherwise, since there is zero lapse time between the chemical reaction and the experience of the thought?
It's all in how you choose to look at it.

Ah, so you want to get into mind-body dualism. Mind, heart and soul have generally been concluded to be all part of mind, by the way; the unexplainable feelings of conciousness.

Well, essentially the body in this instance can have NO non-physical presence, as that would belong to the realm of Mind, just as Mind has no physical presence. The in turn gives no common ground for attachment to occur, and the two would float freely and independant of each other. Hence, for any form of anchor beyond a constant use of ESP by Mind to control Body to exist, there must be a physical presence in Body that corresponds to Mind (the brain, for example), and therefor acts in a typical, although corporeal, fashion. End result: they are not seperate, there is no reson to presume the existence of this incorporeal 'ghost-like' mind at all, and we can rely on Body and Body alone.

OK?

Oh, and:
Perception triggers chemical reaction through the perception and processing of information. The reaction naturally has (or, more accurately, IS) a resultant thought. What exactly is the reaction for in YOUR model of the mind? Fun? It does nothing if not trigger the thought, and I doubt it's there for decoration.

I just realized why the debate about the existence of God could go back and forth forever, and no one on either side will ever convince everyone on the other side. The problem is, people are coming into the debate with different presuppositions, and probably different definitions of some of the key terms. Even if we defined all our terms, we can't erase everyone's presuppositions. Everyone has had different past experiences that shape the way we view things.

So I will not try to debate the issue any more. I could debate until I'm blue in the face, and I still won't be able to convince those who have different presuppositions from my own.

Before I leave this thread, though, I will state why I have come to the position that I hold. I asked myself two questions:

1. What if I decide to believe in God, and I'm wrong? If because of that belief, I happily live a moral life and help other people, then if I am wrong I will cease to exist when I die, but I will have had a good existence while it lasted.

2. What if I decide not to believe in God, and I'm wrong? Then I will not cease to exist when I die, and I will wish for all eternity that I had been willing to look at the other viewpoint.

I decided choice #1 was the better choice for me. At least be willing to look at the possibility that God exists. Search honestly and openly, and he will show himself to you. I did, and I found God. I have nothing against those who have not found God, but I hope they will honestly search before giving it up, and not try to keep others from searching.

And on that note, I will make my exit. Auf Widersehen, adios, do widzenia, and до свидания. :)
Pascal's wager? Fuck that. What if you decide to beleive in the wrong god, and the one true god, Google (PBUH) decides to have you eternally raped by demons? What if you lose out on opportunities to enjoy life more, learn more, achieve more, even live according to better morals by being an atheist?

True, and yet as almost everyone has had one at some point it is easy to reconise the symptom. Also, you can measure the chemicals using brain scanning equipment. In the case of 'divine' experience, the individual is the second hand experience of God, since God has the first hand, and anyone else would be THIRD hand.

Also, it's true enough that the broken heart could just be delusional behaviour, and it can also lead to it. Same with religion, methinks.
Agreed.

He's certainly not got a presence in me. I heard about what he did to Mary.

Also, I wish people would stop thinking my atheist principals are based on not being able to find a physical presence for a God. It's the lack of any presence at all. I don't understand why you think talking to yourself and denying anything which disagrees with the bible (which obviously, as a book written by other people, can only DETRACT from the 'personal journey of discovery') somehow proves his existence.
Actually, this part of the discussion began with a reply to Drunk Commies, not you. ;-) I'm sure you have fine reasons behind your atheist principles. As for the latter part, I've not been in any Bible discussions yet. I leave those to them who have fun with it, like Grave_n_Idle.

I've no problem with the concept that you are a spiritual creature in your own right, or that you are more than the sum of your physical parts. I DO have problems with the idea that there has to be some form of outside force that conveniently leaves no evidence of it's existence.
I do, too.

I just realized why the debate about the existence of God could go back and forth forever, and no one on either side will ever convince everyone on the other side. The problem is, people are coming into the debate with different presuppositions, and probably different definitions of some of the key terms. Even if we defined all our terms, we can't erase everyone's presuppositions. Everyone has had different past experiences that shape the way we view things.

So I will not try to debate the issue any more. I could debate until I'm blue in the face, and I still won't be able to convince those who have different presuppositions from my own.

Before I leave this thread, though, I will state why I have come to the position that I hold. I asked myself two questions:

1. What if I decide to believe in God, and I'm wrong? If because of that belief, I happily live a moral life and help other people, then if I am wrong I will cease to exist when I die, but I will have had a good existence while it lasted.

2. What if I decide not to believe in God, and I'm wrong? Then I will not cease to exist when I die, and I will wish for all eternity that I had been willing to look at the other viewpoint.

I decided choice #1 was the better choice for me. At least be willing to look at the possibility that God exists. Search honestly and openly, and he will show himself to you. I did, and I found God. I have nothing against those who have not found God, but I hope they will honestly search before giving it up, and not try to keep others from searching.

And on that note, I will make my exit. Auf Widersehen, adios, do widzenia, and до свидания. :)

Don't you just love it when people post a 'parting shot', that they are never going to come back and check?

By the way... if you 'decided' option 1... the you didn't "Search honestly and openly", and he didn't "show himself to you". You made a decision - you say it yourself - and you made that choice based on fear that you might die and stay dead.

Your choice, and you're welcome to it.

But, your own post makes your advice a lie.

Actually, this part of the discussion began with a reply to Drunk Commies, not you. ;-) I'm sure you have fine reasons behind your atheist principles. As for the latter part, I've not been in any Bible discussions yet. I leave those to them who have fun with it, like Grave_n_Idle.


At last, the fame I crave!

The problem is, because you express a spiritual side, people AUTOMATICALLY assume that you are a bible-biting christian...

I just realized why the debate about the existence of God could go back and forth forever, and no one on either side will ever convince everyone on the other side. The problem is, people are coming into the debate with different presuppositions, and probably different definitions of some of the key terms. Even if we defined all our terms, we can't erase everyone's presuppositions. Everyone has had different past experiences that shape the way we view things.

So I will not try to debate the issue any more. I could debate until I'm blue in the face, and I still won't be able to convince those who have different presuppositions from my own.

Before I leave this thread, though, I will state why I have come to the position that I hold. I asked myself two questions:

1. What if I decide to believe in God, and I'm wrong? If because of that belief, I happily live a moral life and help other people, then if I am wrong I will cease to exist when I die, but I will have had a good existence while it lasted.

2. What if I decide not to believe in God, and I'm wrong? Then I will not cease to exist when I die, and I will wish for all eternity that I had been willing to look at the other viewpoint.

I decided choice #1 was the better choice for me. At least be willing to look at the possibility that God exists. Search honestly and openly, and he will show himself to you. I did, and I found God. I have nothing against those who have not found God, but I hope they will honestly search before giving it up, and not try to keep others from searching.

And on that note, I will make my exit. Auf Widersehen, adios, do widzenia, and до свидания. :)

Any God that is happy with this kind of back-room legality and semantical silliness would not be worth worshiping. I can't honestly see him being delighted with people going 'Well, I'll believe because what have I got to loose?'. It's just tacky.

I can't suddenly decide to start believing in something just in case. I could start believing in werewolves just in case I'm attacked by one, but I don't because it's a cocking stupid thing to do.

Perhaps rats would have a human influenced perspective, but with differences in brain structure I don't think they would have a truly human perspective. You gave the example of feral children. Consider the fact that a child's brain is in transition. There are windows of opportunity where one part or another of the brain is open to being shaped by experience. After those windows close it's much more difficult to shape them. For example, language. Did you ever try to learn a language when you were little? It takes no effort at all. The language section of the brain is still plastic. Try to learn a new language at 30. Not nearly as easy.

You actually make my point for me... the human brain, the human mind... only perceptibly behaves as it does, BECAUSE of how we 'install the software'.

So - what is the ultimate difference between a rat neuron and a human neuron? I doubt they would even taste different.... :(

So god is an idea or an emotion? No more than that? Just a program running in the background of our computerized brain?
I have problems with the whole software analogy. I can't seem to wrap my mind around it.

God as an idea and an emotion is the closest I could offer, since that is how it is interpreted by us, by the body and its senses. God as a form of love.

Intellectually, though, the ideas and symbols created of god, some of which get projected into the real world as an abstractedly "real" personified being, and the complete diversity of concepts all pointing to the same thing, are very appealing. I could spend a life-time exploring that and die happy, if I wasn't trapped in a cubicle for 10 hours of a day.

Don't mind me. ;-)

Why?

What is special about a human brain?

I don't buy it... what about if you took human neurons instead of rat neurons, and slipped them in the petri-dish? I'm thinking it would be able to fly the jet... but I doubt it would be writing poetry...

As far as I can tell, all brains have the CAPACITY for a different degree of sophistication, and it is our 'training' that determines where we progress.

Hence, Feral Children cannot 'relate' in the same ways as 'normal' people... they can never 'learn' to be 'normal' people if they are left beyond a key age (somewhere in the early teens)... and the longer they are left feral, the less identifiably 'human' their psychology.

So - if we had the 'language' to communicate with rats, and took time to 'educate' rats, the way we 'educate' humans... where would be the difference... why would the creature NOT have the same 'human' perspective?
I don't know enough about this topic to discuss it intelligently, sorry. I can only say I'd have a hard time believing a rat could be trained to think as I know we do. I'm very admittedly human-biased.

The problem is, because you express a spiritual side, people AUTOMATICALLY assume that you are a bible-biting christian...

I was more just ranting at all those who keep saying to me "Just cause you can't see him doesn't mean he's not there", rather than aiming that at anyone. If you glance back through the thread you see I've had it about six times now, and hearing it again drove me a little up the wall. As for the Bible, I was using it in a loose sense of the word to include pretty much any form of semi-mythilogical scriptures, and the onus was more on me not believing than on anything else. Apologies for any offence called; I should be the last person accusing people of being Christians.

Mind-body dualism is a ligitimate question because it doesn't claim to be an answer. The whole introduction of an external influencing 'God' is unsupported and the idea that any holy book is more valid than, say, EVIDENCE is deeply insulting.

Atheism has no comment on anything other than the existance of god. hence Atheist Buddhists believe in a set of Buddhist values and reincarnation, rather than what any other atheist may believe.


Atheist Buddhists, belive in reincarnation, so therefore for them death is not final and they can be reborn again as a human or other life form. Also instead of God they believe in a Buddha which has God-like powers and they pray to the Buddha. Some Buddhists like my wife, believe that God is the Buddha and vice-versa. It was what moved her to join the Roman Catholic faith. Jesus, to some Buddhists is seen as a future Buddha, or the Buddha yet to come.

I don't know enough about this topic to discuss it intelligently, sorry. I can only say I'd have a hard time believing a rat could be trained to think as I know we do. I'm very admittedly human-biased.
(At least you can admit when you are over your head … a lot of people cant … ego’s) and really at the BASICS they are roughly the same on a different scale of complexity (there are some “sector” differences but they really do not have to be located positionaly the same

God as an idea and an emotion is the closest I could offer, since that is how it is interpreted by us, by the body and its senses. God as a form love.

Intellectually, though, the ideas and symbols created of god, some of which get projected into the real world as an abstractedly "real" personified being, and the complete diversity of concepts all pointing to the same thing, are very appealing. I could spend a life-time exploring that and die happy, if I wasn't trapped in a cubicle for 10 hours of a day.

Don't mind me. ;-)

So essentially, you are placing God as a non-entity in itself, nothing without the individual in question? But surely that makes it a sub-section of the soul as opposed to some form of over-arching superior. Possibly just an embodiment of your morality? Why can that not simply be a part of yourself?

Let's all go back to college and do Theology. That way we CAN do this 10 hours a day, and get £40,000 a year for our trouble.

Perhaps rats would have a human influenced perspective, but with differences in brain structure I don't think they would have a truly human perspective. You gave the example of feral children. Consider the fact that a child's brain is in transition. There are windows of opportunity where one part or another of the brain is open to being shaped by experience. After those windows close it's much more difficult to shape them. For example, language. Did you ever try to learn a language when you were little? It takes no effort at all. The language section of the brain is still plastic. Try to learn a new language at 30. Not nearly as easy.
I would think, though, that the difficulty for the 30-year-old is in how use of his native language(s) has become entirely habitual, having to apply a conscious effort to overcome the practice that had become subconscious.

But then I usually consider the subjective explanation, as it's me, rather than the objective explanation, as that's not-me. ;-)

You actually make my point for me... the human brain, the human mind... only perceptibly behaves as it does, BECAUSE of how we 'install the software'.

So - what is the ultimate difference between a rat neuron and a human neuron? I doubt they would even taste different.... :(
Structure. The rat's brain is smaller, and the size of each section (in this case separated by the function they serve) is not in proportion with a human brain. For instance they have a proportionally bigger olfactory section.

So essentially, you are placing God as a non-entity in itself, nothing without the individual in question? But surely that makes it a sub-section of the soul as opposed to some form of over-arching superior. Possibly just an embodiment of your morality? Why can that not simply be a part of yourself?

Let's all go back to college and do Theology. That way we CAN do this 10 hours a day, and get £40,000 a year for our trouble.
Get paid (rather well) for doing this? That's crazy.

I would think, though, that the difficulty for the 30-year-old is in how use of his native language(s) has become entirely habitual, having to apply a conscious effort to overcome the practice that had become subconscious.

But then I usually consider the subjective explanation, as it's me, rather than the objective explanation, as that's not-me. ;-)
I beleive I read that experiments have shown that new connections in the language part of the brain simply happen easier in childhood. The brain becomes resistant later in life.

I beleive I read that experiments have shown that new connections in the language part of the brain simply happen easier in childhood. The brain becomes resistant later in life.

It's a bit more complex than that, but essentially yes.

After the age of around eighteen months, for example, a child raised by Japanese parents will not be able to recognise the difference between the sounds 'l' and 'r'. Feral children cannot ever become fully 'civilised' after the age of about four, if they haven't learn language by seven they likely never will, and by the age of 12 they will be entirely retarded.

May I recommend reading Terry Pratchett's "science of discworld" books if you want ot learn more on this. I think this is covered in the second one.

Ah, so you want to get into mind-body dualism. Mind, heart and soul have generally been concluded to be all part of mind, by the way; the unexplainable feelings of conciousness.

Well, essentially the body in this instance can have NO non-physical presence, as that would belong to the realm of Mind, just as Mind has no physical presence. The in turn gives no common ground for attachment to occur, and the two would float freely and independant of each other. Hence, for any form of anchor beyond a constant use of ESP by Mind to control Body to exist, there must be a physical presence in Body that corresponds to Mind (the brain, for example), and therefor acts in a typical, although corporeal, fashion. End result: they are not seperate, there is no reson to presume the existence of this incorporeal 'ghost-like' mind at all, and we can rely on Body and Body alone.

OK?
Exactly! The mind/heart/soul is not a presence. This is the realisation I came to through finding god. It's all in the way you look at it, literally: it's not about presence, it's about perspective. Self is not a presence within the body, but a way of seeing from the subjective view of the body. Abstract that into a "thing" unto itself, and you can begin to understand any religion.

As I said, I don't believe in ghosts. :-)

Oh, and:
Perception triggers chemical reaction through the perception and processing of information. The reaction naturally has (or, more accurately, IS) a resultant thought. What exactly is the reaction for in YOUR model of the mind? Fun? It does nothing if not trigger the thought, and I doubt it's there for decoration.
But is there evidence that the chemical reaction triggers the thought? (*she asks, believing there is zero lag time and no way to test for such*)

At last, the fame I crave!

The problem is, because you express a spiritual side, people AUTOMATICALLY assume that you are a bible-biting christian...
Et tu. ;-) I know, and it makes participating and and contributing to these discussions more difficult.

Exactly! The mind/heart/soul is not a presence. This is the realisation I came to through finding god. It's all in the way you look at it, literally: it's not about presence, it's about perspective. Self is not a presence within the body, but a way of seeing from the subjective view of the body. Abstract that into a "thing" unto itself, and you can begin to understand any religion.

Ah, but why abstract it into a thing unto itself, and why attribute any power over the physical world to it? Do you mind if we abstract this a little and introduce a fifth dimension (an 'astaral plain', if you will) for the mind/presence to exist in? I believe it would help me illustrate further points, but if it'll only be confusing and weird I'll try and come up with a better way.

As I said, I don't believe in ghosts. :-)

Why not? Given this other-world presence, why could it not become detatched from the body? Would it not also be possible that there are creatures existing purely in this non-physical plain, possible even predators that exist there? And cuold the concept of God not be based on such a predator?

But is there evidence that the chemical reaction triggers the thought? (*she asks, believing there is zero lag time and no way to test for such*)

nothing conclusive, since you can't really interpret the data properly. There is a lag-time (miniscule as it is, electrons do not move faster than light), but we can't be certain if the chemicals are what we think conclusively.

However, It seems logical. There is no result in the reaction aside from (potentially) thought. Why does the reaction happen otherwise?

Mind-body dualism is a ligitimate question because it doesn't claim to be an answer. The whole introduction of an external influencing 'God' is unsupported and the idea that any holy book is more valid than, say, EVIDENCE is deeply insulting.
Understanding that religious texts, like the Bible, are written from an attitude of understanding the human self as a mind-body dualism, though, is essential to understanding why they wrote what they did. (That's a lot of understanding.)

The key is in myths, in the study of mythology: how and why the myths were created to embody the religious ideas they did; how and why myths are passed along from culture to culture and generation to generation; and what messages are being transmitted. I have actually heard people on these boards suggest that the Hebrews "stole" myths from the Babylonians as if a) this was a bad thing, somehow, a heinous crime, and b) it invalidates the myths somehow to have originated in sister cultures, rather than considering that cross-cultural sharing of the stories supports ideas that are held inherently true for both cultures.

If people read the Bible myths as myth rather than trying to forcing them to conform to the idea of a god with a physical presence, things begin to make a lot more sense. (Convincing others of it, though, would require study courses on the topic.)

So essentially, you are placing God as a non-entity in itself, nothing without the individual in question? But surely that makes it a sub-section of the soul as opposed to some form of over-arching superior. Possibly just an embodiment of your morality? Why can that not simply be a part of yourself?

Let's all go back to college and do Theology. That way we CAN do this 10 hours a day, and get £40,000 a year for our trouble.
Without humans, there is no god because whether he exists apart from us or not, there is no one to recognize "him". :-)

We (humans) alone have created an idea of god, or symbol of god as I refer to it, based on our understanding of "something more-than-us" (transcendence). We alone have reached an evolution of intelligence/brain necessary to allow this to happen.

There's my bias again. The attitude of this bias informs the Bible, too. Man is God's special being, apart from the animals.

God could be a part of my self; the jury is still out on that. Which is why I like to read the god threads on these boards.

They teach theology in college?

;-)

The key is in myths, in the study of mythology: how and why the myths were created to embody the religious ideas they did; how and why myths are passed along from culture to culture and generation to generation; and what messages are being transmitted. I have actually heard people on these boards suggest that the Hebrews "stole" myths from the Babylonians as if a) this was a bad thing, somehow, a heinous crime, and b) it invalidates the myths somehow to have originated in sister cultures, rather than considering that cross-cultural sharing of the stories supports ideas that are held inherently true for both cultures.

Actually, the Babylonian thing was ME. I wasn't claiming they invalidate them, or that it was a crime, I was proving that Judaism is not the oldest of religions, as someone was insisting.

I agree with pretty much all the rest. Did you get a chance to read my 'religion as a tool of state' post from last night? I think it's on page 11 of this thread, and it makes similar points to the ones you make here, but approached from the other direction completely. Since we draw similar conclsions from entirely different analysis, I'm quite pleased with that.

If people read the Bible myths as myth rather than trying to forcing them to conform to the idea of a god with a physical presence, things begin to make a lot more sense. (Convincing others of it, though, would require study courses on the topic.)

Agreed completely. However, your idea of God still facinates me. Is it entirely a sub-portion of the self, and as such, how would it be regarded as seperate from the individual (as religions mainly place it)? And where would the point lie in worshiping it?

It seems that your definition of God could be more considered your 'better nature', those positive sides of yourself you would prefer to enhance, and thus exist purely in the psyke. Please tell me if I've misunderstood you completely.

That's just one translation of the original, as the website itself admits.
And the only other translation says a hyrax, which don't ruminate either.

And the Bible says that locusts have four legs. And that bats are birds. And that the Earth is flat. And that the Sun orbits the Earth. And that pi is 3.

Without humans, there is no god because whether he exists apart from us or not, there is no one to recognize "him". :-)

We (humans) alone have created an idea of god, or symbol of god as I refer to it, based on our understanding of "something more-than-us" (transcendence). We alone have reached an evolution of intelligence/brain necessary to allow this to happen.

So He is essentially artificial, and we felt we had to invent him, while at the same time no concious decision was ever made. Intruging. I reckon culture was also a mitigating factory; Religion is, in my opinion, a vital ingredient for the initial creation of state.

There's my bias again. The attitude of this bias informs the Bible, too. Man is God's special being, apart from the animals.

No an unexplainable bias. Given your idea of God as, if you will, a collective of the human 'better nature', but without independent nature in himself, it would be impossible for him to exist in animals without a method of communication between them.

But surely, therefore, organised religion stands in the way of understanding of the bible?

They teach theology in college?

Only in the good ones. :p

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386562&page=11&pp=15

Scroll down to the big red letters. It's a apraisal of religion from a sociological point of view, and it concludes that religion is like a Father Christmas for civilisations; very handy for keeping them in line when they're little, but useless and indeed potentially harmful once they react maturity.

It's not about who it is that tells you what you want to hear. It's about hearing the things that you know you should be told. Think of it this way. A lot of us say that we dislike our parents because they're too strict. But, if they were too let us run wild and decide on our own rules and discipline, if any, then we would say that they don't care about us.*We only climb stairs that have never been built* ;)

It's not about who it is that tells you what you want to hear. It's about hearing the things that you know you should be told. Think of it this way. A lot of us say that we dislike our parents because they're too strict. But, if they were too let us run wild and decide on our own rules and discipline, if any, then we would say that they don't care about us. ;)
Sorry, what's the point of this post? I don't get it.

Sorry, what's the point of this post? I don't get it.
All I took out of it was I got the impression that he/s was trying to make a relative morals argument.

Sorry, what's the point of this post? I don't get it.

I think he was justifying religion as a replacement for self-discipline. Which is fair.

By why do Christians assume that, without God to keep them on the straight and narrow, Atheists cannot hold such self discipline? I say Christians because they are the once who generally treat Atheism as a disease.

Surely, since Atheists discipline themselves and don't need a master to tell them what Thou Shalt Not, they should recieve at least as much respect as the religions do? Which they don't get, usually. See the first few pages of this thread for examples ;-)

This thread got long since my PC fucked itself...

What I don't understand is why is God so insecure? Why does he need us 'worms' to kiss his ass? And why will he punish us eternally if we don't do it the right way? And if it's so important to do it the right way, why doesn't he make it more clear?

What I don't understand is why is God so insecure? Why does he need us 'worms' to kiss his ass? And why will he punish us eternally if we don't do it the right way? And if it's so important to do it the right way, why doesn't he make it more clear?
It feeds off of faith. If you don't beleive in it it starves and withers away. Just an idea.

I love how everyone that has somthing to do with drinking in their name I comenting on all the faults of god.

Ah, but why abstract it into a thing unto itself, and why attribute any power over the physical world to it? Do you mind if we abstract this a little and introduce a fifth dimension (an 'astaral plain', if you will) for the mind/presence to exist in? I believe it would help me illustrate further points, but if it'll only be confusing and weird I'll try and come up with a better way.
I mind not a bit, and I'd love to hear your ideas. I should warn you, though, that I have difficulty even in grasping the idea of time as a dimension without trying to "spacialize" it.

Why not? Given this other-world presence, why could it not become detatched from the body? Would it not also be possible that there are creatures existing purely in this non-physical plain, possible even predators that exist there? And cuold the concept of God not be based on such a predator?
I like science fiction, too. :-)

nothing conclusive, since you can't really interpret the data properly. There is a lag-time (miniscule as it is, electrons do not move faster than light), but we can't be certain if the chemicals are what we think conclusively.

However, It seems logical. There is no result in the reaction aside from (potentially) thought. Why does the reaction happen otherwise?
To me, it seems logical that the chemical reaction happens at the same time as the thought; hence, the only important distinction is between how this "thing" called a thought is perceived by the subject and by an objective observer. To an objective observer, who can only measure it with instrumentation, it is electrical in nature; "Oh, look! a spark on the brain." To the subject, the fellow thinking the thought, it has an entirely different nature; he experiences the thought. It has a life of its own, so to speak, experienced as images and ideas.

My approach: The mind is a product of the body, a composite of thoughts and emotions, and as such cannot be separate from it. In a similar way, the soul is a composite of our emotional nature. It is through things like compassion, hardship, grief and love that we become in touch with our soul.

The soul is not discovered by looking in a mirror, or hooking machines up with tendrils into the brain; the soul is uncovered by the subjective process of becoming it. God is understood through the soul, as something transcending it.

The body is our presence in the physical world, and so is subject to the laws of the universe. It can be manipulated with drugs and measured by machines. It is subject to time and its effects. This is true for all animals, but for human beings a body and its chemical emotions are also subject to our thoughts and our soul. The thought of a loved one can trigger a soulful emotional response and cause the body's muscles and chemicals to respond.

These material and immaterial parts make up a whole human. Without our mind/heart/soul the body collapses into inanimate flesh, having nothing to power it. Without a body to hold it grounded, the concept of a mind/heart/soul cannot be formulated. I would dearly love to meet a ghost someday and be proven wrong.

Mind, this is just a "way of looking at it", not intended to compete with science as an explanation of how things work. It's all about perspectives.

"Ah, but why abstract it into a thing unto itself, and why attribute any power over the physical world to it?"
I believe, through reading I have done, that the original intent of acknowleding god was not to attribute it power over the physical world, but to build a relationship with it in the spiritual world. I believe that holds true for religions today, and can be seen through the "window dressing" that masks todays religions.

Actually, the Babylonian thing was ME. I wasn't claiming they invalidate them, or that it was a crime, I was proving that Judaism is not the oldest of religions, as someone was insisting.

I agree with pretty much all the rest. Did you get a chance to read my 'religion as a tool of state' post from last night? I think it's on page 11 of this thread, and it makes similar points to the ones you make here, but approached from the other direction completely. Since we draw similar conclsions from entirely different analysis, I'm quite pleased with that.
Actually, the Babylonian thing was many other threads. Stick around a while and you'll hear it reoccuring often.

I did read the thread about 'Religion as a Tool of State'. It's a perspective I had not considered before, and not consistent with my readings of the history and mythology of Mesopotamian Palaeolithic and Neolithic cultures, but then I'm always open to hearing and learning more.

Originally Posted by Willamena
If people read the Bible myths as myth rather than trying to forcing them to conform to the idea of a god with a physical presence, things begin to make a lot more sense. (Convincing others of it, though, would require study courses on the topic.)
Agreed completely. However, your idea of God still facinates me. Is it entirely a sub-portion of the self, and as such, how would it be regarded as seperate from the individual (as religions mainly place it)? And where would the point lie in worshiping it?
I suspect it is not placed separate from the individual in anything but language discrepancies, which has led to misunderstandings in the last 2,000 years. English is the worst of the lot.

I believe that worshipping is something that an individual does for themselves, of an object they love and recognize has a power over them. Like the way Elton John describes worshipping Marilyn Monroe in the song Candle in the Wind. He elevates her to a pedestal; she doesn't know he exists. Worship isn't done for the object of the worship, it is done by and for the person worshipping.

It seems that your definition of God could be more considered your 'better nature', those positive sides of yourself you would prefer to enhance, and thus exist purely in the psyke. Please tell me if I've misunderstood you completely.
This one had me running for my dictionary. I'm not well read on Jung or psychology, but as I understand it the psyche is a term coined for the mind as soul. I can work with that idea, but even as I do, my mind would translate it into terms that I recognize, breaking the ideas down into mind and soul and viewing in light of both.

'Better nature' is self inspired by soul, consciously or unconsciously. I believe everyone has such a soul.

So He is essentially artificial, and we felt we had to invent him, while at the same time no concious decision was ever made. Intruging. I reckon culture was also a mitigating factory; Religion is, in my opinion, a vital ingredient for the initial creation of state.
Depends on what you deem "artificial". If god is an artifact of our consciousness, and our consciousness developed naturally, then there is nothing false or fake about "him".

Mind, I didn't intend to make a comment on whether or not god can exist without us, but rather that without us, there is no one left to know he exists.

No an unexplainable bias. Given your idea of God as, if you will, a collective of the human 'better nature', but without independent nature in himself, it would be impossible for him to exist in animals without a method of communication between them.
God is a part of us (humans). There is a part where he is held intellectually, that recognizes his touch in events and matters of the physical world (his works abstracted by mind); a part that feels for him (heart); and a part that feels him (soul). He touches us and it is interpreted by our body and consciousness; for me it was interpreted as a very special form of loving. I have felt this. It was an entirely subjective experience. The mind/heart/soul kicks in and inteprets what was experienced; it provides an image or symbol, unique for each person, that can be used to understand what was experienced.

The "broken heart" analogy is the best I've come up so far, because a broken heart is understood as a physical thing and as a symbol. It symbolises the emotional and mental anguish that a person goes through who has lost out on love. A broken heart is subjectively real. The symbol becomes the things it represents through a process called "symbolic identification"; the process is something we (humans) do. We take symbols and make them real ("real"-ize them).

But surely, therefore, organised religion stands in the way of understanding of the bible?
That's a fair statement. But there's hope that they can change their ways.

"The more I explain, the less I am understood." ~me.

Originally Posted by Grumpy Drunks
What I don't understand is why is God so insecure? Why does he need us 'worms' to kiss his ass? And why will he punish us eternally if we don't do it the right way? And if it's so important to do it the right way, why doesn't he make it more clear?
It feeds off of faith. If you don't beleive in it it starves and withers away. Just an idea.
His ass?

:cool:

*Potential Blasphemy Warning*
I find that many people lack a sense of humour when talking about religion. Those without a sense of humour, skip the next sentence and spare me the hate-mail.
If I were God, I wouldn't need anyone to kiss my arse.
I'd probably look in the mirror and think:
"I'm God. I rule."
Oh, and that planet's entirely the wrong shade of pink.
*pop!*

Sometimes I think that if there is a God, s/he (oh, and throw in they as well, I'm open-minded) laughs at all of us struggling to justify religion. After all, s/he knows the 'right' path ... I see two worlds, one of laboratory mice lost in a maze and searching for the cheese of enlightenment, and the other with us lost in a maze of our own imagining.

*Potential Blasphemy Warning*
I find that many people lack a sense of humour when talking about religion. Those without a sense of humour, skip the next sentence and spare me the hate-mail.
If I were God, I wouldn't need anyone to kiss my arse.
I'd probably look in the mirror and think:
"I'm God. I rule."
Oh, and that planet's entirely the wrong shade of pink.
*pop!*

Sometimes I think that if there is a God, s/he (oh, and throw in they as well, I'm open-minded) laughs at all of us struggling to justify religion. After all, s/he knows the 'right' path ... I see two worlds, one of laboratory mice lost in a maze and searching for the cheese of enlightenment, and the other with us lost in a maze of our own imagining.

i like it, by the way i beleive in god, generally after extra time in pretty much any of the major football tournaments england are involved in. my beleif then wanes when chris waddle, gareth southgate et al step up to the mark!!

only a humorous (to me at least) comment and in no way meant to be a serious theological argument

by the way can we get back to the discussion on the ark, not because it was getting anywhere but is was at least getting amusing

it wasnt tiny. and then animals existed every where. and god alsolet the animals know sothey couldbe safe idiot


was the earth completely covered in this flood?

if not and there was some dry land left then, as all animals were everywhere why didn't they all crowd on the remaining dry land?

that would have been a miraculous sight to behold!!

again, not a serious argument, just trying to inject a little humour into the debate

Instead of getting caught in the hoopla of these forums and their religious banter, I offer you some advice. Honestly just look into as many religions as possible, pick one if you like one, take bits from each if that suits your fancy. Or if you see nothing that catches you, but you feel that there is something out there then just stick with that belief. This may not help you much, but somebody forcing a religion on you isn't going to help you, this is something you need to find on your own. Honestly though if you do search many religions the majorly known ones will give you the best branching opportunities if you look. Christianity, Buddhism, any form of shamanistic religion, and for paganism your best bet is to start in Greece. This is just some advice though. If you want to go further into this then just telegram me or something because I've been trying to track down about seven threads and this isn't going to make that any easier. So good luck on your search ;)

was the earth completely covered in this flood?

if not and there was some dry land left then, as all animals were everywhere why didn't they all crowd on the remaining dry land?

that would have been a miraculous sight to behold!!

again, not a serious argument, just trying to inject a little humour into the debate
Sorry for the double post but I find that this site tickles my tummy

http://www.truechristian.com/kidznoah.html

Bright, colourful, scandalous (Noah was an alcoholic, kids!) - particularly liked the quote "I'll kill them all".

I mind not a bit, and I'd love to hear your ideas. I should warn you, though, that I have difficulty even in grasping the idea of time as a dimension without trying to "spacialize" it.

I will use spacial terms as soon as I can remember what I mean. I'd been awake for about thirty hours, but I'm pretty sure I was onto something.

To me, it seems logical that the chemical reaction happens at the same time as the thought; hence, the only important distinction is between how this "thing" called a thought is perceived by the subject and by an objective observer. To an objective observer, who can only measure it with instrumentation, it is electrical in nature; "Oh, look! a spark on the brain." To the subject, the fellow thinking the thought, it has an entirely different nature; he experiences the thought. It has a life of its own, so to speak, experienced as images and ideas.

Surely, then, the chemical reaction and the thought are one and the same activity? This not only leads to them being simultanious (effectively, even though there is no second item to be happening simultaniously WITH), but also leadds to the mind having a physical presence, even if it is only for the duration of the reaction?

This in turn would leave the 'non-physical' aspect being an unnecissary step; it exists only in potentia and therefore not in reality at all until the spark happens.

My approach: The mind is a product of the body, a composite of thoughts and emotions, and as such cannot be separate from it. In a similar way, the soul is a composite of our emotional nature. It is through things like compassion, hardship, grief and love that we become in touch with our soul.

So essentially, the soul could be thought of as a sum of ALL the various chemical reactions in the mind that have been experienced and ARE BEING experienced at the time?

The soul is not discovered by looking in a mirror, or hooking machines up with tendrils into the brain; the soul is uncovered by the subjective process of becoming it. God is understood through the soul, as something transcending it.

I put it to you that, given the previous logical deductions, God exists only in potentia but NEVER in reality, givin his existence purely on the level of the soul but lacking the physical presence of even the brief sparks, and never maintaining the record of previous reactions? This in turn would mean he never REALLY exists, despite his potential, and so is little more than a shared delusion as an outside force? I know this is based more on the definition of God used by the major religions than your own, but I believe it can still be attributed to yours.

The body is our presence in the physical world, and so is subject to the laws of the universe. It can be manipulated with drugs and measured by machines. It is subject to time and its effects. This is true for all animals, but for human beings a body and its chemical emotions are also subject to our thoughts and our soul. The thought of a loved one can trigger a soulful emotional response and cause the body's muscles and chemicals to respond.

Ah, but drugs can also be used to alter thought. LSD can lead to not only an alteration of perception, but also a complete change of thought pattern for the duration. Thus, through the introduction of Physical chemical interference, the mind is altered, leading to the conclusion Mind has some presence in the reaction and is effected by it. This, therefore, leads to the deduction that Mind IS physical, and can resultingly be found in the brain. I feel it supports the previous theory of mind existing as a record of all reactions that have come to pass, and also all reactions that have been percieved in others. This would equally explain the wide-ranging cultural differences in morality.

Hence, is it not possible that the chemical reaction brought on by the thought of the loved one is not merely the reproduction of reactions their presence triggers?

These material and immaterial parts make up a whole human. Without our mind/heart/soul the body collapses into inanimate flesh, having nothing to power it. Without a body to hold it grounded, the concept of a mind/heart/soul cannot be formulated. I would dearly love to meet a ghost someday and be proven wrong.

I no longer accept the immaterial part as entirely existent. However, I do understand what you mean by immaterial is covered in my definition of the material, and the difference is purely cosmetic.

Mind, this is just a "way of looking at it", not intended to compete with science as an explanation of how things work. It's all about perspectives.

I know, and it's better. It's a much more fruitful debate than listening to someone banging on about how I can't prove God doesn't exist, so he must. This is thought-povoking, and is the very essence of enlightened debate.

"Ah, but why abstract it into a thing unto itself, and why attribute any power over the physical world to it?"
I believe, through reading I have done, that the original intent of acknowleding god was not to attribute it power over the physical world, but to build a relationship with it in the spiritual world. I believe that holds true for religions today, and can be seen through the "window dressing" that masks todays religions.

This is fine by me. The physical world part fits in nicely with my view on religion and state, and the spiritual part would naturally have taken a back seat in order to strengthen the hold over material-world concerns.

Actually, the Babylonian thing was many other threads. Stick around a while and you'll hear it reoccuring often.

Only cos it's true, and it's a damned fine argument against the 6000 year old earth idea and 'Christianity must be right' fanaticism.

I did read the thread about 'Religion as a Tool of State'. It's a perspective I had not considered before, and not consistent with my readings of the history and mythology of Mesopotamian Palaeolithic and Neolithic cultures, but then I'm always open to hearing and learning more.

It's from a sociologist point of view, and it's a good excuse for why religion seems so messed up. I've no great problem with God in itself, but religion really pisses me off.

What have you read on the Mesopotamian cultures? I take an avid interest in ancient religious and cultural concerns, mainly because I'm facinated by how and why religion developed, and, somewhat pettily, because it makes it very hard for people to say 'you don't know anything about my religion, you can't talk about it'. ;-)

I suspect it is not placed separate from the individual in anything but language discrepancies, which has led to misunderstandings in the last 2,000 years. English is the worst of the lot.

A point I've often made to christians. They're reading an edited translation of a translation of a book that was essentially a cheap rip-off of a translation of another rip-off. And then they're trying to say it's every word is total truth

I believe that worshipping is something that an individual does for themselves, of an object they love and recognize has a power over them. Like the way Elton John describes worshipping Marilyn Monroe in the song Candle in the Wind. He elevates her to a pedestal; she doesn't know he exists. Worship isn't done for the object of the worship, it is done by and for the person worshipping.

Interesting perspective; I'll consider it and get back to you.

This one had me running for my dictionary. I'm not well read on Jung or psychology, but as I understand it the psyche is a term coined for the mind as soul. I can work with that idea, but even as I do, my mind would translate it into terms that I recognize, breaking the ideas down into mind and soul and viewing in light of both.



'Better nature' is self inspired by soul, consciously or unconsciously. I believe everyone has such a soul.

I'd say it's the result of what has been witnessed and learned from through previous reactions, and thus is considered to be the overall superior thing to do. Sadly, this does mean my version places nobility of action down as something to be done to associate oneself with those one feels are more noble.

Depends on what you deem "artificial". If god is an artifact of our consciousness, and our consciousness developed naturally, then there is nothing false or fake about "him".

But the God currently used by religion is entirely so, as they've placed Him as an external force, and any characterisation (and, indeed, Capitalisation) of God must be entirely fake.

Mind, I didn't intend to make a comment on whether or not god can exist without us, but rather that without us, there is no one left to know he exists.

But through your logic and my deductions he no longer exists outside of the human mind in itself, and there exists only as an ideal of what you COULD be, so without the human mind he is nothing, and even with it exists only as a potential and not as a reality.

God is a part of us (humans). There is a part where he is held intellectually, that recognizes his touch in events and matters of the physical world (his works abstracted by mind); a part that feels for him (heart); and a part that feels him (soul). He touches us and it is interpreted by our body and consciousness; for me it was interpreted as a very special form of loving. I have felt this. It was an entirely subjective experience. The mind/heart/soul kicks in and inteprets what was experienced; it provides an image or symbol, unique for each person, that can be used to understand what was experienced.

The "broken heart" analogy is the best I've come up so far, because a broken heart is understood as a physical thing and as a symbol. It symbolises the emotional and mental anguish that a person goes through who has lost out on love. A broken heart is subjectively real. The symbol becomes the things it represents through a process called "symbolic identification"; the process is something we (humans) do. We take symbols and make them real ("real"-ize them).

May I recommend you read Carl Jung et al's 'Man and his Symbols'? I didn't agree with much of it myself, but I think it might fit your view very nicely. I think it was he who thought of the term 'symbolic identification'.
As with regard to the symbology aspect, surely the work of more modern artists such as Rothko, or Pollock detracts from this somewhat? their art involves no such symbology, and yet still indetifies strongly with emotion and thought. And the need for the spiritual side is still unnecissary; different culture produces wildly varying art, even with regards to the same basis.

Ive got one thing to say. HOLY SHIT

Sorry for the double post but I find that this site tickles my tummy

http://www.truechristian.com/kidznoah.html
I like this one
http://www.truechristian.com/kidzbabel.html

:p

Ive got one thing to say. HOLY SHIT

You should have known better than starting a thread with the word 'religion' in the title. Some of this stuff's very deep; much better than loads of people just saying 'join my religion cos it's the best one'.

wow that was crazy.

Ive got one thing to say. HOLY SHIT
That's a funny religion

is this what you expected when you started this forum?

That's a funny religion

Much the same desciption as most of the others, though.

Ive got one thing to say. HOLY SHIT
*in Monty Python voice* BLASHPHEMER

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.
Kurt Cobain
American musician and singer of the grunge rock band Nirvana. 1967-1994

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.
Kurt Cobain
American musician and singer of the grunge rock band Nirvana. 1967-1994


Indeed.

What are you going on about? :p

i dont know just to see what other people thought of it.

i dont know just to see what other people thought of it.

Very deep, but not very relevent.

i know. i am trying to find out where he said this and what went along with it. also in a way it ties to reliogen. i would rather be hated for believing in jesus than to be loved for not.

i know. i am trying to find out where he said this and what went along with it. also in a way it ties to reliogen. i would rather be hated for believing in jesus than to be loved for not.
Whatever floats your ark.

i dont know just to see what other people thought of it.

About it I think, I'd rather love and be loved by my Creator than be praised, respected and loved by those whose affections are based on whim, public popularity and whatever science's latest pet theory happens to be.

Either that or I might as well be a socio-pathic hedonist like Kurt or at the very least a social darwinist like Hitler.

About it I think, I'd rather love and be loved by my Creator than be praised, respected and loved by those whose affections are based on whim, public popularity and whatever science's latest pet theory happens to be.

Either that or I might as well be a socio-pathic hedonist or at the very least a social darwinist.
Now before I jump to conclusions are you actually implying that atheists base their beliefs on “popular” belief rather then it being derived from study or an “inward gaze?”

About it I think, I'd rather love and be loved by my Creator than be praised, respected and loved by those whose affections are based on whim, public popularity and whatever science's latest pet theory happens to be.

Either that or I might as well be a socio-pathic hedonist like Kurt or at the very least a social darwinist like Hitler.


It's quotes like this that have made Atheists HATE Christians.

As I don't believe in your invisible friend, you're trying to say I've got mental health issues? Did you actually think about that post before you wrote it?

Dammit, where's Willamena when you need her? I want some answers!!!

Time for a BUMP

I will use spacial terms as soon as I can remember what I mean. I'd been awake for about thirty hours, but I'm pretty sure I was onto something.

Surely, then, the chemical reaction and the thought are one and the same activity? This not only leads to them being simultanious (effectively, even though there is no second item to be happening simultaniously WITH), but also leadds to the mind having a physical presence, even if it is only for the duration of the reaction?

This in turn would leave the 'non-physical' aspect being an unnecissary step; it exists only in potentia and therefore not in reality at all until the spark happens.
Yes, the chemical reaction and the thought are the same activity. The brain is the physical presence of the mind; thoughts occur simulaneously with the chemical reaction. The only important distinction is how the thought is viewed. It's all about perspective. I apologize in advance but I'm going to berate the idea in my reply, here. It's that important. ;-)

The "non-physical" aspect is not unnecessary, it is essential. The human being does not think of the sparks going off in the brain when it thinks, and to describe a thought in this manner and claim that that is all there is ignores the human factor. It looks at only half a view. There are two perspectives at work in any human activity; the objective and the subjective. The objective view is the one that requires mental work to view self, to abstract a position apart from self in order to see self; and to see self as same as others. But the subjective view is what is experienced when a thought happens. It is a natural, unconscious and effortless manipulation of symbolism.

Scientism has created a objective world-view obsessed with looking at the *other* person to define ourselves. If it happens to others, it's real --if it happens only to me, it is questionable. And not just questionable, but *must* be questioned before it can be believed as real. But that's not how the thinking that led to such things as religion and divination, and even magic, worked; and it is largely responsible for why we can no longer comprehend or practice the above with any credibility. Scientism has made a mockery of them by objectifying them; by refusing to look at them in any other light but the objectively "real". Hence we have a culture of people thinking they *must* practice their religion with a God that is physically real, with miracles and magic that affect the real world rather than the wholely spiritual one.

So essentially, the soul could be thought of as a sum of ALL the various chemical reactions in the mind that have been experienced and ARE BEING experienced at the time?
If you want to be objective about it. But the objective view isn't very useful in the case of talking about souls. The useful data here is what the individual, in each of those individual chemical reactions, experienced: what the individual thought, and felt, and did about it.

I put it to you that, given the previous logical deductions, God exists only in potentia but NEVER in reality, givin his existence purely on the level of the soul but lacking the physical presence of even the brief sparks, and never maintaining the record of previous reactions? This in turn would mean he never REALLY exists, despite his potential, and so is little more than a shared delusion as an outside force? I know this is based more on the definition of God used by the major religions than your own, but I believe it can still be attributed to yours.

Ah, but drugs can also be used to alter thought. LSD can lead to not only an alteration of perception, but also a complete change of thought pattern for the duration. Thus, through the introduction of Physical chemical interference, the mind is altered, leading to the conclusion Mind has some presence in the reaction and is effected by it. This, therefore, leads to the deduction that Mind IS physical, and can resultingly be found in the brain. I feel it supports the previous theory of mind existing as a record of all reactions that have come to pass, and also all reactions that have been percieved in others. This would equally explain the wide-ranging cultural differences in morality.
I don't conclude from that that the mind has a presence in the brain, but rather that it supports the idea of the mind as a property of the chemical brain: mind is the chemical reactions viewed subjectively. It stands to reason that altering the chemicals can alter thought patterns. And consciously altering thought patterns can also alter physical chemistry, as can be seen in psychosomatic responses. "Mind over matter" requires not just a conscious or sub-conscious effort but, within a framework of a religious or faith-healing setting, it requires a context of mythology to psychologically prepare the mind to be open to accomplishing such things. Such an effort suggests that ideas produced by the subjective mind are things; yet viewed subjectively, the things thought about are not material: they are images and symbols. Their objective, chemical nature prompts physical changes, and their subjective, symbolic nature is the tool we use to manipulate the chemical changes; a tool of mind.

I don't follow about how this might explain differences in morality.

Hence, is it not possible that the chemical reaction brought on by the thought of the loved one is not merely the reproduction of reactions their presence triggers?
As a side note, each subjective experience is unique-case by definition. The experience of a memory by an individual is not comparable to the first-hand experience of the other, and both experiences are unique for each time they happen.

There's that "merely" again, sublimating the subjective experience as less important. That is scientism at work. :)
EDIT: Sorry, this is a continuation from another thread not involving you.

I no longer accept the immaterial part as entirely existent. However, I do understand what you mean by immaterial is covered in my definition of the material, and the difference is purely cosmetic.
Not cosmetic; a matter of perspective. And it's an important difference. From the perspective of the subject, the idea experienced is a thing, a thing that is immaterial. The objective observer is not privy to it, except by comparison to his own thought-things. He cannot open up another man's head and read his mind. If a man has a brilliant idea, never before thought of, that will solve all the problems of the world --but suddenly dies before he can manifest it, making it real, speak or write about it, then ...did it ever exist? Is its chemical existence even significant at all in this scenario?

I know, and it's better. It's a much more fruitful debate than listening to someone banging on about how I can't prove God doesn't exist, so he must. This is thought-povoking, and is the very essence of enlightened debate.

This is fine by me. The physical world part fits in nicely with my view on religion and state, and the spiritual part would naturally have taken a back seat in order to strengthen the hold over material-world concerns.

Only cos it's true, and it's a damned fine argument against the 6000 year old earth idea and 'Christianity must be right' fanaticism.

It's from a sociologist point of view, and it's a good excuse for why religion seems so messed up. I've no great problem with God in itself, but religion really pisses me off.

What have you read on the Mesopotamian cultures? I take an avid interest in ancient religious and cultural concerns, mainly because I'm facinated by how and why religion developed, and, somewhat pettily, because it makes it very hard for people to say 'you don't know anything about my religion, you can't talk about it'. ;-)
I have done some home studying in mythology, focusing on Western religion's origins in Palaeolithic and Neolithic symbolism. As with your own studies, it necessarily touches on history. Unfortunately, I broke off my studies before it got around to Christianity; I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage in some of the threads on these boards. I can see the origins of much of their symbolism, but am often corrected in how it is (or should correctly be) interpreted.

A point I've often made to christians. They're reading an edited translation of a translation of a book that was essentially a cheap rip-off of a translation of another rip-off. And then they're trying to say it's every word is total truth
I was just referring to how the use of some words has changed, and the new use is accepted as encompassing all meanings of the word. Like "myth". :-)

Interesting perspective; I'll consider it and get back to you.

I'd say it's the result of what has been witnessed and learned from through previous reactions, and thus is considered to be the overall superior thing to do. Sadly, this does mean my version places nobility of action down as something to be done to associate oneself with those one feels are more noble.

But the God currently used by religion is entirely so, as they've placed Him as an external force, and any characterisation (and, indeed, Capitalisation) of God must be entirely fake.
It's all in how a person chooses to look at it. To me, it is not fakery but symbolism. But yes, by objectifying God, modern religions have opened themselves up to inquiry by, and mockery of, science.

But through your logic and my deductions he no longer exists outside of the human mind in itself, and there exists only as an ideal of what you COULD be, so without the human mind he is nothing, and even with it exists only as a potential and not as a reality.
I am not prepared to go so far as to say that what I experienced stemmed entirely from me, or to claim it had a source apart from me. I, too, am mired in the world of scientism and have to overcome certain prejudices about the credibility of "mere" subjectively experienced things. :-) But my theory so far is a working one. Works for me.

May I recommend you read Carl Jung et al's 'Man and his Symbols'? I didn't agree with much of it myself, but I think it might fit your view very nicely. I think it was he who thought of the term 'symbolic identification'.
As with regard to the symbology aspect, surely the work of more modern artists such as Rothko, or Pollock detracts from this somewhat? their art involves no such symbology, and yet still indetifies strongly with emotion and thought. And the need for the spiritual side is still unnecissary; different culture produces wildly varying art, even with regards to the same basis.
I have intended to read Jung someday, but there never seems to be time to pick up a book and sit down with it, of late. I also have a few other references on my list of things to read. Thanks. I don't know Rothko or Pollock, so I can't comment on their work, but I'm intrigued. What art could possibly have no symbolism? What act of man could possibly have no associated symbolism?

It's quotes like this that have made Atheists HATE Christians.

As I don't believe in your invisible friend, you're trying to say I've got mental health issues? Did you actually think about that post before you wrote it?

Please read carefully, I did not say that anyone who does not believe in God is a sociopathic hedonist or social darwinist, I just said I can't see any reason without a moral directive beyond ones self or ones peers that there is any valid logical reason not to be one of those things.

By no means are all athiest evil, I just can't see any reason why someone who does not believe in something that has a moral authority above and beyond an individual human or even a collective of humans not to be one of those things. It is just as reasonable to be one of those things as to be a kind, benevolent individual. There is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" or at least not with any authority other than a "evolved" awareness that could have just as easily/randomly "evolved" in another direction.

What's a BUMP?

And it's nice to be needed. ;-)

Now before I jump to conclusions are you actually implying that atheists base their beliefs on “popular” belief rather then it being derived from study or an “inward gaze?”

I'm not saying that all athiests do this. Some do, some don't. It would be more accurate to say the majority of Americans (Christian, Athiest and otherwise) do this and, yes, I implied that it is a less than desireable trait.

I'm not saying that all athiests do this. Some do, some don't. It would be more accurate to say the majority of Americans (Christian, Athiest and otherwise) do this and, yes, I implied that it is a less than desireable trait.
Interesting viewpoint I mean I understand it, but mostly what I see (and went this path myself) is the fact that most atheists STARTED religious (such a high percentage of parents religious most start getting taught that way)
And through reveled data or opinion tend to bend the other way … to different degree’s

I guess I don’t see it as a popular thing to do … rather a tough thing to do

(not saying it is not hard to stand by your beliefs any way they are but it is more choosing a path of lonlyness because of logic rather then doing what feels good)

Please read carefully, I did not say that anyone who does not believe in God is a sociopathic hedonist or social darwinist, I just said I can't see any reason without a moral directive beyond ones self or ones peers that there is any valid logical reason not to be one of those things.

By no means are all athiest evil, I just can't see any reason why someone who does not believe in something that has a moral authority above and beyond an individual human or even a collective of humans not to be one of those things. It is just as reasonable to be one of those things as to be a kind, benevolent individual. There is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" or at least not with any authority other than a "evolved" awareness that could have just as easily/randomly "evolved" in another direction.
I see what you're saying. If I may reword it to suit my own philosophy, without an innate "sense" of right and wrong, which I attribute to a conscience, which is a conscious recognition of my soul (complex feeling and emotional constructs), I would have no way to distinguish between moral and immoral behaviour on my part. I was confused by your suggestion that logic has anything to do with it, but I see: if I had no conscience then logic could run wild and provide justification for being something I would otherwise find repulsive.

I see what you're saying. If I may reword it to suit my own philosophy, without an innate "sense" of right and wrong, which I attribute to a conscience, which is a conscious recognition of my soul (complex feeling and emotional constructs), I would have no way to distinguish between moral and immoral behaviour on my part. I was confused by your suggestion that logic has anything to do with it, but I see: if I had no conscience then logic could run wild and provide justification for being something I would otherwise find repulsive.
Or simple logic can help create a moral code … such as don’t do to other people what you don’t want done to yourself (taken the form of many codes and laws … incorporated in almost every society or belief system) it really goes beyond a specific religion or credo

So why would you need religion to define that? (some specifics yes but in general the big ones are all prevalent in almost every society … always exceptions but by and large)

Or simple logic can help create a moral code … such as don’t do to other people what you don’t want done to yourself (taken the form of many codes and laws … incorporated in almost every society or belief system) it really goes beyond a specific religion or credo

So why would you need religion to define that? (some specifics yes but in general the big ones are all prevalent in almost every society … always exceptions but by and large)
You don't need a religion to define it. But then, there's the idea that defining it is the start of a personal spiritualism. How do you know, using only conscience, what is "right" and what is "wrong"? What is the "feeling of what is right" compared to, to know that it is right?

You don't need a religion to define it. But then, there's the idea that defining it is the start of a personal spiritualism. How do you know, using only conscience, what is "right" and what is "wrong"? What is the "feeling of what is right" compared to, to know that it is right?
You don’t … but I was responding to a way to make a moral code from logic.

You find something personally unpleasant … don’t do it to someone else (there personal moral code)

Now applying it large scale gets into moral relativism.

The "non-physical" aspect is not unnecessary, it is essential. The human being does not think of the sparks going off in the brain when it thinks, and to describe a thought in this manner and claim that that is all there is ignores the human factor. It looks at only half a view. There are two perspectives at work in any human activity; the objective and the subjective. The objective view is the one that requires mental work to view self, to abstract a position apart from self in order to see self; and to see self as same as others. But the subjective view is what is experienced when a thought happens. It is a natural, unconscious and effortless manipulation of symbolism.

Scientism has created a objective world-view obsessed with looking at the *other* person to define ourselves. If it happens to others, it's real --if it happens only to me, it is questionable. And not just questionable, but *must* be questioned before it can be believed as real. But that's not how the thinking that led to such things as religion and divination, and even magic, worked; and it is largely responsible for why we can no longer comprehend or practice the above with any credibility. Scientism has made a mockery of them by objectifying them; by refusing to look at them in any other light but the objectively "real". Hence we have a culture of people thinking they *must* practice their religion with a God that is physically real, with miracles and magic that affect the real world rather than the wholely spiritual one.

But the experience may still simply be the reaction, even though the subjective viewpoint is apparently far more. We can't read the spark from outside, but that is not to say the spark is unreadable. Perhaps with succiecient technological advance, the spark might yet prove decipherable.


If you want to be objective about it. But the objective view isn't very useful in the case of talking about souls. The useful data here is what the individual, in each of those individual chemical reactions, experienced: what the individual thought, and felt, and did about it.

Ah, but my view seeks to link the objective and subjective, rather than maintaining a duality. If the reaction is the thought, and visa-versa, then the different views are very definitely linked by that, with the brain acting as the cipher which allows the subject to translate. It is not necissary for it to do so for an immaterial 'other', the Mind, if the brain itself IS the Mind. Possibly the only technological way to read such things would be a positronic brain.

I don't conclude from that that the mind has a presence in the brain, but rather that it supports the idea of the mind as a property of the chemical brain: mind is the chemical reactions viewed subjectively. It stands to reason that altering the chemicals can alter thought patterns. And consciously altering thought patterns can also alter physical chemistry, as can be seen in psychosomatic responses. "Mind over matter" requires not just a conscious or sub-conscious effort but, within a framework of a religious or faith-healing setting, it requires a context of mythology to psychologically prepare the mind to be open to accomplishing such things. Such an effort suggests that ideas produced by the subjective mind are things; yet viewed subjectively, the things thought about are not material: they are images and symbols. Their objective, chemical nature prompts physical changes, and their subjective, symbolic nature is the tool we use to manipulate the chemical changes; a tool of mind.

I don't follow about how this might explain differences in morality.

Even as a tool of mind, mind remains within the brain, but can only be viewed subjectively (for now). Intriguing.

As a side note, each subjective experience is unique-case by definition. The experience of a memory by an individual is not comparable to the first-hand experience of the other, and both experiences are unique for each time they happen.

But this could be due to cumulative effect; each number is unique, but is achieved by the same formula. If you get my meaning.

There's that "merely" again, sublimating the subjective experience as less important. That is scientism at work. :)

Sorry. But I use it in the Rationalist-deductionist style; not belittling, but as a means of stating subtration to reach result.

Not cosmetic; a matter of perspective. And it's an important difference. From the perspective of the subject, the idea experienced is a thing, a thing that is immaterial. The objective observer is not privy to it, except by comparison to his own thought-things. He cannot open up another man's head and read his mind. If a man has a brilliant idea, never before thought of, that will solve all the problems of the world --but suddenly dies before he can manifest it, making it real, speak or write about it, then ...did it ever exist? Is its chemical existence even significant at all in this scenario?

Once again, I point to the fact that it may well be accessable to the objective. Mind-reading. I'm not going to start raving about how the Ruskies are all reading our minds or anything, but I do acept the possiblity of each reaction leaving a signature that could be deciphered, if only we understood how. That way it may be possible to salvage the idea in the above scenario.


I have done some home studying in mythology, focusing on Western religion's origins in Palaeolithic and Neolithic symbolism. As with your own studies, it necessarily touches on history. Unfortunately, I broke off my studies before it got around to Christianity; I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage in some of the threads on these boards. I can see the origins of much of their symbolism, but am often corrected in how it is (or should correctly be) interpreted.

Seems to me your method of interpretation's a tad better than the religious ones; more thought put into it and less (or, it seems, no) blind parroting.

It's all in how a person chooses to look at it. To me, it is not fakery but symbolism. But yes, by objectifying God, modern religions have opened themselves up to inquiry by, and mockery of, science.

I'd put objectification in this case as outright folly, unless viewed through the sociological perspective as a means to inpisre order.

I am not prepared to go so far as to say that what I experienced stemmed entirely from me, or to claim it had a source apart from me. I, too, am mired in the world of scientism and have to overcome certain prejudices about the credibility of "mere" subjectively experienced things. :-) But my theory so far is a working one. Works for me.

can't really ask for more than that, and I can respect it.

I have intended to read Jung someday, but there never seems to be time to pick up a book and sit down with it, of late. I also have a few other references on my list of things to read. Thanks. I don't know Rothko or Pollock, so I can't comment on their work, but I'm intrigued. What art could possibly have no symbolism? What act of man could possibly have no associated symbolism?

I suppose that it does have a vague relationship to symbolism, but has been thoroughly abstracted and involves considerable random elements. All art is essentially useless save for it's intention to provoke emotional response, and since your basis assumes a symbolism inherent in the emotive, my point becomes invalid.

You don’t … but I was responding to a way to make a moral code from logic.

You find something personally unpleasant … don’t do it to someone else (there personal moral code)

Now applying it large scale gets into moral relativism.
Okay, then.. what makes it "unpleasant"? or replusive? or "wrong"? To make determinations, we unconsciously make comparisons. We could say that killing other humans is replusive because we unconsciously compare it to ourselves, in a process of empathy that uses the tool of imagination to "know" what it would be like to be killed. Fright and instinct kick in and we want to run away. But what about "good" things, "right" things? What are they compared to? What makes the fellow who sees someone getting killed want to jump in and help the victim? I don't think it comes from anything pleasant --do you?

Yes, I'm in an over-analyzing mood today. Blame Nasopotomia. ;-)

Or simple logic can help create a moral code … such as don’t do to other people what you don’t want done to yourself (taken the form of many codes and laws … incorporated in almost every society or belief system) it really goes beyond a specific religion or credo

So why would you need religion to define that? (some specifics yes but in general the big ones are all prevalent in almost every society … always exceptions but by and large)

It must be said, Upward, that the very simplist logic is entirely selfish, and doesn't deny the right to become a dangerous or violent sociopath.

And the role of religion to define it adds to the idea of religion as a tool for provoking order; it's ok that some people don't need it, but others may need to be held in line. Religion, in this case, is like a prison. Atheism should be reserved for those with no need to imprison their will.

Yes, I'm in an over-analyzing mood today. Blame Nasopotomia. ;-)


Yeah, my fault. Sorry, everyone.

About it I think, I'd rather love and be loved by my Creator than be praised, respected and loved by those whose affections are based on whim, public popularity and whatever science's latest pet theory happens to be.

Either that or I might as well be a socio-pathic hedonist like Kurt or at the very least a social darwinist like Hitler.
no i dont think that you are.

im i mistaken or was hitler a jew too?
also just think what would have happend if he was able to become an artist instead of a dictator.

im i mistaken or was hitler a jew too?
also just think what would have happend if he was able to become an artist instead of a dictator.

He was an artist, briefly. He was terrible at it.

And his father may or may not have been Jewish. Hitler wasn't, but his dad left his mother when he was about seven or something, and one theory states that that's why Hitler hated the Jews so much.

Personally, I just think he was a delusional nutbag with one testicle.

true very true. did he marry his step daughter or something like that.

true very true. did he marry his step daughter or something like that.


Don't think so, but he had a very odd sex life.

Just.. out of curiosity:

If we agree that the mind is a part of the functioning human brain, then the mind dies when the brain stops? So, when we die, do we just.. not continue life at all?

I'm curious if that rules out the idea that a person has a soul, or rather, what /is/ a soul?

But the experience may still simply be the reaction, even though the subjective viewpoint is apparently far more. We can't read the spark from outside, but that is not to say the spark is unreadable. Perhaps with succiecient technological advance, the spark might yet prove decipherable.
See, it's that "far more", however apparent (immaterial), that is a "thing" that exists. :-)

Ah, but my view seeks to link the objective and subjective, rather than maintaining a duality. If the reaction is the thought, and visa-versa, then the different views are very definitely linked by that, with the brain acting as the cipher which allows the subject to translate. It is not necissary for it to do so for an immaterial 'other', the Mind, if the brain itself IS the Mind. Possibly the only technological way to read such things would be a positronic brain.
Booya! I think we are mostly in agreeance, at least about a balance of objective and subjective. But for a culture that holds objectivity aloft and tends to sweep the subjective view under the rug, raising awareness of the duality by emphasizing the subjective is necessary, to restore balance. If the expectation of God is that he be objective, and only objective, and proof of such demanded, that creates an imbalance.

I see the translation not as a process, but as a perspective.

But this could be due to cumulative effect; each number is unique, but is achieved by the same formula. If you get my meaning.
Each experience is different even just by the simple variable of occuring in a unique time. More so, each subjective experience is different because that particular instance of it has never been experienced before.

Once again, I point to the fact that it may well be accessable to the objective. Mind-reading. I'm not going to start raving about how the Ruskies are all reading our minds or anything, but I do acept the possiblity of each reaction leaving a signature that could be deciphered, if only we understood how. That way it may be possible to salvage the idea in the above scenario.
Even if humans do find a way to read someone else's mind "psychically", the experiences of the readee and the reader are still subjective ones and unique to each individual. In other words, I don't believe it's possible to bridge the subjective view. Even a science fiction scenario such as a person actually becoming someone else (a consciousness moved into another body) would be creating a new, unique subjective view, not accessing the prior one.

I'd put objectification in this case as outright folly, unless viewed through the sociological perspective as a means to inpisre order.
Agreed.

I suppose that it does have a vague relationship to symbolism, but has been thoroughly abstracted and involves considerable random elements. All art is essentially useless save for it's intention to provoke emotional response, and since your basis assumes a symbolism inherent in the emotive, my point becomes invalid.
In other words, "But can we really call it 'art', then?" :p

well i believe that my soul will live on after i die even if my body has no function.

you have very long posts

you have very long posts
Sorry.

It may be of interest to you, but when I took my philosophy masters we had only 2 people who would admit to being atheist. After 4 years of heavily researching religion, 90% of the group were atheist...However hard you try, there is no evidence, which is why it's called faith.

Just.. out of curiosity:

If we agree that the mind is a part of the functioning human brain, then the mind dies when the brain stops? So, when we die, do we just.. not continue life at all?

I'm curious if that rules out the idea that a person has a soul, or rather, what /is/ a soul?

Well, our modern understanding of the 'soul' is informed by Hebrew tradition passed on to Christianity (for the most part).

The root of the Hebrew belief was that a body was essentially dead matter (the clay) until life was breathed into it (the soul).

So - at it's root... the soul is just the animation - the difference between a moving body, and the one on the slab.

Okay, here's the menu:

How many gods?
monotheism - just one
polytheism - many
henotheism - many, but they're all manifestations/aspects of one

Where is god?
theism - he's around and he is active in the world
deism - he's not around, he just set things up exactly the way he wanted them and left
pantheism - everything is god
panentheism - god is part of everything, but he is also greater than everything

How do you know that?
revelationist - there is a holy book that says so (probably dictated by god)
experiential - you meditate/take drugs/on on a dream quest/etc and you experience it firsthand
rational - you reason it out from available evidence
paradoxical - what is the sound of one hand clapping?

How is the religion organized?
centralized - one authority figure (pope/council of elders/etc)
communal - each worship group organizes itself
private - no organized worship

What about different interpretations?
catechism - there is *one true interpretation* of everything
freedom of conscience - you can make it us as you go along

How serious is it about dogma?
dogmatic - yeah, we literally believe every word in the book (even in Leviticus)
flexible - the times are different now so you have to adapt the details to fit, while keeping the principles constant

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

Based on that, most protestants in the USA are henotheist, theist, revelationist, communal, freedom-of-conscience, and somewhere between flexible and dogmatic depending on the exact congregation. The founders of the US were mostly the same except they were deist and rational. Catholics are mostly the same except they are centralized and follow a catechism.

My personal preference is for a henotheist, panentheist, experiential, communal/private, freedom-of-conscience, flexible religion.

Okay, here's the menu:

How many gods?
monotheism - just one
polytheism - many
henotheism - many, but they're all manifestations/aspects of one

Where is god?
theism - he's around and he is active in the world
deism - he's not around, he just set things up exactly the way he wanted them and left
pantheism - everything is god
panentheism - god is part of everything, but he is also greater than everything

How do you know that?
revelationist - there is a holy book that says so (probably dictated by god)
experiential - you meditate/take drugs/on on a dream quest/etc and you experience it firsthand
rational - you reason it out from available evidence
paradoxical - what is the sound of one hand clapping?

How is the religion organized?
centralized - one authority figure (pope/council of elders/etc)
communal - each worship group organizes itself
private - no organized worship

What about different interpretations?
catechism - there is *one true interpretation* of everything
freedom of conscience - you can make it us as you go along

How serious is it about dogma?
dogmatic - yeah, we literally believe every word in the book (even in Leviticus)
flexible - the times are different now so you have to adapt the details to fit, while keeping the principles constant

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

Based on that, most protestants in the USA are henotheist, theist, revelationist, communal, freedom-of-conscience, and somewhere between flexible and dogmatic depending on the exact congregation. The founders of the US were mostly the same except they were deist and rational. Catholics are mostly the same except they are centralized and follow a catechism.

My personal preference is for a henotheist, panentheist, experiential, communal/private, freedom-of-conscience, flexible religion.
Monotheistic and henotheistic panentheist and (whatever would be "god is active in every human"), experiental and rational, private, subjective catechism, n/a.

Well, our modern understanding of the 'soul' is informed by Hebrew tradition passed on to Christianity (for the most part).

The root of the Hebrew belief was that a body was essentially dead matter (the clay) until life was breathed into it (the soul).

So - at it's root... the soul is just the animation - the difference between a moving body, and the one on the slab.
Even more up too date information states that the soul is an invisible bio-electrical feild around all living things, and that with in this feild we store the elecrtical memory pulses, given memory is stored two ways chemicaly and electricaly, and that when we die the bio-electrical feild remains with the body some time after death, about a year or so. And that when the feild deteroates it joins the earths electrial feild, ie the soul returns to Gaia, the basis of the Gaian theroy, which personally makes more sence to me. SO that is the more up too date beleif of what the soul is, it does explain EVP electrical voive phenominom.

I will just reiterate what some people in this thread have said. You should read about many different religions and philosophies and find the one that speaks to you, the one that imparts meaning into your life. If no one does, that's okay too. You can only find your spirituality within yourself. Personally, i am an agnostic, with Buddhist tendencies. I don't know if i believe in a higher power, but that doesn't mean that i have no faith or that i don't believe in anything. I believe in karma, fate, destiny, peace, freedom, faith, hope, and love, above all. Many of those things are things of which we have no emperical evidence. I don't need some entity to give me morals, i have my own personal morality developed from the person i am. I believe in the golden rule, in compassion, love, tolerance, forgiveness, and selflessness, not because some God tells me i should, but because, as has been mentioned, i want to live in a just world, a fair world. I feel in my heart that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. As for my life having meaning, i rather resent the fact that certain people will assume my life must be meaningless and empty because i am not sure of the existence of a higher power. My life has meaning because i donate to charity and do volunteer work, because i love my family and my friends, because i get to work doing something i love. I love my life the way it is. I meditate, i rub the belly of my Buddha statue because it is said to bring luck. I don't know if it does, but i figure it can't hurt. Search within yourself, all the answers you need are there.

In response to the soul thing: Einstein once stated that if we as humans were able to use 100% of our brain, we would become energy. Perhaps the soul is that energy that is left of our conscience thought. Perhaps science and religion are explaining the same thing from two perspectives.

In response to the soul thing: Einstein once stated that if we as humans were able to use 100% of our brain, we would become energy. Perhaps the soul is that energy that is left of our conscience thought. Perhaps science and religion are explaining the same thing from two perspectives.

Yeah. Einstien spoke a load of old bollocks sometimes, didn't he?

In response to the soul thing: Einstein once stated that if we as humans were able to use 100% of our brain, we would become energy. Perhaps the soul is that energy that is left of our conscience thought. Perhaps science and religion are explaining the same thing from two perspectives.Like Nasopotamia said, that's unadultered bullshit (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm) -- we do use 100% of our brain, and we still do not become "energy".

Like Nasopotamia said, that's unadultered bullshit (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm) -- we do use 100% of our brain, and we still do not become "energy".

I don't agree with the article when it says we use 100% of it, actually. There's too many people who've suffered severe brain damage and HAVE gotten away with it pretty much unscathed. But the 10% figure was almost certainly made up at random by some overzealous psycologist, and we're still not going to turn into pure energy if we use the lot. That's just dumb, and doesn't even fit into Einstien's own theories on physics.

Like Nasopotamia said, that's unadultered bullshit (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm) -- we do use 100% of our brain, and we still do not become "energy".

It depends what you mean by 'using' our brains.

If you mean - as a mass that holds our ears apart, then yes, we use 100%.

If you mean - there is SOME synaptic activity throughout, yes, we use 100%.

But, if you mean that it is being used for some cognitive function, for memory, for some process... then no... only about 30%, I seem to recall, is ever really 'used'.

It depends what you mean by 'using' our brains.

If you mean - as a mass that holds our ears apart, then yes, we use 100%.

If you mean - there is SOME synaptic activity throughout, yes, we use 100%.

But, if you mean that it is being used for some cognitive function, for memory, for some process... then no... only about 30%, I seem to recall, is ever really 'used'.
would :headbang: count as using your brain

if so I have reached 100%

would :headbang: count as using your brain

if so I have reached 100%

I guess in the case of :headbang: the brain is performing the vital function of cushioning the eyes from whiplash... :)

I guess in the case of :headbang: the brain is performing the vital function of cushioning the eyes from whiplash... :)


Well, it's also killing brain cells, and so raises the overall percentage being used. So if you do it enough, then you probably wil get to 100% usage. But I don't recommend it.

Well, it's also killing brain cells, and so raises the overall percentage being used. So if you do it enough, then you probably wil get to 100% usage. But I don't recommend it.

But wait... if using 100% of the brain makes you turn into a godlike being of light and energy...

AND

If whacking your head against a wall kills the braincells, and thus brings the number of surviving functioning braincells closer to 100%...

then: Brain Trauma = Experience of God...?

But wait... if using 100% of the brain makes you turn into a godlike being of light and energy...

AND

If whacking your head against a wall kills the braincells, and thus brings the number of surviving functioning braincells closer to 100%...

then: Brain Trauma = Experience of God...?
Though to be fair you could be killing active brain cells too which would reduce that percentage ... hmmm

But wait... if using 100% of the brain makes you turn into a godlike being of light and energy...

AND

If whacking your head against a wall kills the braincells, and thus brings the number of surviving functioning braincells closer to 100%...

then: Brain Trauma = Experience of God...?

Good grief, I think we've cracked it!! Moses got hit on the head by those damned tablets, and lost so many braincells he decided he knew God!

Good grief, I think we've cracked it!! Moses got hit on the head by those damned tablets, and lost so many braincells he decided he knew God!
but he HAD the tablets ... maybe he was a drunkard ... (that kills brain cells too)

Though to be fair you could be killing active brain cells too which would reduce that percentage ... hmmm

But, if you could continue to operate, even to :headbang:, you MUST still have functioning braincells....

So - you either die of a broken brain, with your scalp leaking into your eyes...

OR: you become like a god...

I wonder if this is how religion starts?

But, if you could continue to operate, even to :headbang:, you MUST still have functioning braincells....

So - you either die of a broken brain, with your scalp leaking into your eyes...

OR: you become like a god...

I wonder if this is how religion starts?
MAYBE!

Good grief, I think we've cracked it!! Moses got hit on the head by those damned tablets, and lost so many braincells he decided he knew God!

Alternative bible chronology:

Escape from Egypt.

Moses says "let's go somewhere nice"... the peasantry say "no"

Moses says :headbang:

Moses says "let's stop at this next town for some supplies"... the peasantry say "no"

Moses says :headbang:

Moses says "hey guys, let's turn a bit here, or we are going to end up in the water", the peasantry says "no"

Moses says :headbang:

"Ow"... says Moses... "oooh pretty flashy lights - wait, I think I can see god"...

Hey, it could have happened... :)

Alternative bible chronology:

Escape from Egypt.

Moses says "let's go somewhere nice"... the peasantry say "no"

Moses says :headbang:

Moses says "let's stop at this next town for some supplies"... the peasantry say "no"

Moses says :headbang:

Moses says "hey guys, let's turn a bit here, or we are going to end up in the water", the peasantry says "no"

Moses says :headbang:

"Ow"... says Moses... "oooh pretty flashy lights - wait, I think I can see god"...

Hey, it could have happened... :)

Seems a darn sight more likely he'd have a chat with a bush to get a code of laws if it had.

Seems a darn sight more likely he'd have a chat with a bush to get a code of laws if it had.

I guess that's the difference between biblical times and the present day... we take people who hear voices telling them to do things, and we medicate them, and we hope they get well, and we contain them if we must.

Whereas, the biblical model seems to be... if you hear voices and see crazy visions, that must just be some mega-spirit hooking his modem straight into your brain... and they follow you in hordes...

Moses and his talking bushes...

Saul and his epilepsy episode so traumatic it changed his personality...

Joshua and his belief that "I only killed all those people, because God Told Me To Do It"...

I guess that's the difference between biblical times and the present day... we take people who hear voices telling them to do things, and we medicate them, and we hope they get well, and we contain them if we must.

Whereas, the biblical model seems to be... if you hear voices and see crazy visions, that must just be some mega-spirit hooking his modem straight into your brain... and they follow you in hordes...

Moses and his talking bushes...

Saul and his epilepsy episode so traumatic it changed his personality...

Joshua and his belief that "I only killed all those people, because God Told Me To Do It"...

Charlie Manson, thinking he was God's son and getting nailed to that tree... um, I think I may have got a bit confused...

It depends what you mean by 'using' our brains.

If you mean - as a mass that holds our ears apart, then yes, we use 100%.

If you mean - there is SOME synaptic activity throughout, yes, we use 100%.

But, if you mean that it is being used for some cognitive function, for memory, for some process... then no... only about 30%, I seem to recall, is ever really 'used'.
That's probably a good thing as it leaves some spare grey matter that can be used after a stroke or head injury destroys some of the stuff already in use.

Charlie Manson, thinking he was God's son and getting nailed to that tree... um, I think I may have got a bit confused...

No - that DOES sound strangley familiar... can't quite put my finger on it...

GI, UT and Nas,

You guys have me roling LOL with that whole :headbang: series. That was just plain hilarious.

GI, UT and Nas,

You guys have me roling LOL with that whole :headbang: series. That was just plain hilarious.

Now, is that a serious response? Or a subtly veiled bit of sarcasm?

I'm going to go with the honest response... since I think you, of all the posters on NS, would have come out and said something if you were disturbed.

So... :)

Hey Nasopotomia why are you always here?

Now, is that a serious response? Or a subtly veiled bit of sarcasm?

I'm going to go with the honest response... since I think you, of all the posters on NS, would have come out and said something if you were disturbed.

So... :)

Definitely a serious response. My office mates were looking at me wondering what I was laughing so hard at...

Definitely a serious response. My office mates were looking at me wondering what I was laughing so hard at...

Then my mission is accomplished, and my work here is done!

It is nice to take a slightly-less-serious look at some of these issues, occasionally - especially in the ones that have somewhat murky origins, or that wander off into the vast divergent wastelands.

Of course - we weren't intending to get anyone into trouble... :)

Does the existance of god realy matter? Is it not the teachings of the given religions the inportant thing. You know the hole beeing nice to each other and not killing people and stuff. If you look at most of the major world religions they are the same so if the teachings of the given religions where taken but the hole bellonging to one faith or another (which has been the couse of countless millions of deaths over the history of organised religion) then i belive the world would be a much nicer place (in my opinion).

Then my mission is accomplished, and my work here is done!

It is nice to take a slightly-less-serious look at some of these issues, occasionally - especially in the ones that have somewhat murky origins, or that wander off into the vast divergent wastelands.

Of course - we weren't intending to get anyone into trouble... :)

Not in trouble, but I have to be careful about how frequently something of that nature happens... We're only allowed to have a certain quota of fun while at work :headbang: :D

Does the existance of god realy matter? Is it not the teachings of the given religions the inportant thing. You know the hole beeing nice to each other and not killing people and stuff. If you look at most of the major world religions they are the same so if the teachings of the given religions where taken but the hole bellonging to one faith or another (which has been the couse of countless millions of deaths over the history of organised religion) then i belive the world would be a much nicer place (in my opinion).

The problem is that the existance of God and His revealed will is the only thing that gives more than a subjective human authority to any given set of beliefs. Those who choose to be murdering, selfish, evil people are just as justified and have just as much validation for their behavior as those who choose to be kind and benevolent.

Hey Nasopotomia why are you always here?

Because I should be writing. That means I never do. I write when I should be sleeping, I sleep when I should be unwinding and I unwind when I should be writing. God, my life is so messed up. Sigh.

Have you ever read 1984? Well religion is a double think. You believe a religion despite the physical evidence that when you die you just rot in a box in the ground. I'm not saying religion is bad (actually, it is the most efficient way I've seen to train people to be good) but that it is contrary to logical thought and scientific evidence. Religion is just a belief, like believing that smoking is bad. Once you have crossed the barrier into a religion you can begin to think logically, basing your arguements on the now given assumption that your religion is right. The decision that one religion is true and every other one is wrong is not a scientific one, but a personal choice.

Not in trouble, but I have to be careful about how frequently something of that nature happens... We're only allowed to have a certain quota of fun while at work :headbang: :D

Indeed, our quota of work time fun expires about the same time it is granted... bah.

:(

The problem is that the existance of God and His revealed will is the only thing that gives more than a subjective human authority to any given set of beliefs. Those who choose to be murdering, selfish, evil people are just as justified and have just as much validation for their behavior as those who choose to be kind and benevolent.


EXCELLENT POST.

Quite possible the best post I have seen for quite some time.

If God doesn't exist, then what is there out there? I understand that if one cannot be a Christian, Jew, Muslem or any other monotheistic religion because they cannot find themselves to believe; even if one has experienced a harsh tme in their life that they cannot turn to any religion to console them. One reason why people find religion is to have a plan. One belief put four situations for death and the afterlife:

1.) I believe in God, He is real and I go to Heaven
2.) I believe in God, He isn't real and nothing happens
3.) I don't believe in God, He isn't real and nothing happens
4.) I don't believe in God, He is real and I'm screwed...

Belief in God puts one into a win-nothing situation while Non-belief puts one into a nothing-lose situation. Feel free to make your own path on this but I find that a chance of winning is better than a chance at losing.

Oh and for the record: Not all Catholics hate Protestants and Rape Boys... (except for the socialist ones in New England)
Take it from me, I am one.

Indeed, our quota of work time fun expires about the same time it is granted... bah.

:(


Can't have everything I suppose. :rolleyes:

If God doesn't exist, then what is there out there? I understand that if one cannot be a Christian, Jew, Muslem or any other monotheistic religion because they cannot find themselves to believe; even if one has experienced a harsh tme in their life that they cannot turn to any religion to console them. One reason why people find religion is to have a plan. One belief put four situations for death and the afterlife:

1.) I believe in God, He is real and I go to Heaven
2.) I believe in God, He isn't real and nothing happens
3.) I don't believe in God, He isn't real and nothing happens
4.) I don't believe in God, He is real and I'm screwed...

Belief in God puts one into a win-nothing situation while Non-belief puts one into a nothing-lose situation. Feel free to make your own path on this but I find that a chance of winning is better than a chance at losing.

Oh and for the record: Not all Catholics hate Protestants and Rape Boys... (except for the socialist ones in New England)
Take it from me, I am one.
5) I beleive in god and it pisses off the other gods who smite the hell out of me
6) I beleive in god and waste time, effort, and money in worshipping him and he isn't real
7) I beleive in god and waste time, effort, and money worshipping him and he is real but doesn't like ass kissers.
8) I beleive in a nonexistant god and the true god smites the shit out of me.

Pascal's wager is bullshit and I wish people would stop posting variations of it. It's been debunked countless times.

EXCELLENT POST.

Quite possible the best post I have seen for quite some time.


Interesting that you should say that. I hope you weren't being facitious. I've been trying to say that, though in other words, since I started posting here and both you and UT have jumped on me every time I did. Maybe it was the way it was stated I suppose... :confused:

5) I beleive in god and it pisses off the other gods who smite the hell out of me
6) I beleive in god and waste time, effort, and money in worshipping him and he isn't real
7) I beleive in god and waste time, effort, and money worshipping him and he is real but doesn't like ass kissers.
8) I beleive in a nonexistant god and the true god smites the shit out of me.

Pascal's wager is bullshit and I wish people would stop posting variations of it. It's been debunked countless times.

Yeah. If anyone sees a thread with 'religion' in the title and wants to put up YET ANOTHER SODDING PASCAL POST, then at least make sure it's only into the first page or two. Otherwise, it'll have been in the thread before, we'll all know about it anyway, and yuo'll just piss off the Atheists even more. This also goes for the 'disprove God's existence' post, as well. I'm sick of explaining that that isn't how proof works.

Interesting that you should say that. I hope you weren't being facitious. I've been trying to say that, though in other words, since I started posting here and both you and UT have jumped on me every time I did. Maybe it was the way it was stated I suppose... :confused:

Not being facetious, at all.

In fact, I liked it so much, I am going to repost it in my reply:

"The problem is that the existance of God and His revealed will is the only thing that gives more than a subjective human authority to any given set of beliefs. Those who choose to be murdering, selfish, evil people are just as justified and have just as much validation for their behavior as those who choose to be kind and benevolent.

It must have been the way you stated it before... because this is golden.

The problem with religion has NEVER been religion, it has ALWAYS been what people have done with it, or claimed in it's name.

I stand by my words. Excellent post.

Not being facetious, at all.

In fact, I liked it so much, I am going to repost it in my reply:



It must have been the way you stated it before... because this is golden.

The problem with religion has NEVER been religion, it has ALWAYS been what people have done with it, or claimed in it's name.

I stand by my words. Excellent post.

Hear this with an Asia Indian accent, "I'm am standing here beside myself not knowing what I am doing." Okay, I know I'm blushing. I do believe that is the highest praise I have received on this site.

The problem with religion has NEVER been religion, it has ALWAYS been what people have done with it, or claimed in it's name.

I stand by my words. Excellent post.

It was a damned fine post. But anyway.

Religion has always been religion, dude. But anyone outside of a specific religion is dehumanised by most of them, so it becomes OK to kill them, or do as you see fit with them. It's only when it became unacceptable to do stuff to ANYONE, regardless of religion, that priests started buggering kids and suchlike. The code of laws is no longer special to your religion, so it becomes pretty much valueless; there's no need for one, and it becomes superflous. In most cases, religion's will be abandoned, as the religion is the one where you don't get punished until you're dead, and so it's meaningless. But then again, it's the laws of State you're less likely to get caught for over all, and since you're only bothering with half the religion ones why bother following all the state's? Hell, there's so many in most countries that people only have the vaguest idea what they are. So you break both, since people no longer live in fear of the Big Brother God.

It was a damned fine post. But anyway.

Religion has always been religion, dude. But anyone outside of a specific religion is dehumanised by most of them, so it becomes OK to kill them, or do as you see fit with them. It's only when it became unacceptable to do stuff to ANYONE, regardless of religion, that priests started buggering kids and suchlike. The code of laws is no longer special to your religion, so it becomes pretty much valueless; there's no need for one, and it becomes superflous. In most cases, religion's will be abandoned, as the religion is the one where you don't get punished until you're dead, and so it's meaningless. But then again, it's the laws of State you're less likely to get caught for over all, and since you're only bothering with half the religion ones why bother following all the state's? Hell, there's so many in most countries that people only have the vaguest idea what they are. So you break both, since people no longer live in fear of the Big Brother God.

If it was such a great post why did you just deny what it said and return us to this, "Those who choose to be murdering, selfish, evil people are just as justified and have just as much validation for their behavior as those who choose to be kind and benevolent. " part of the discussion.

To be honest, I can't irrefutably prove that God exists. I have experienced evidence in my own life and have seen Him work in the lives of others. I can explain my experiences to you if you like, but again, those here who disbelieve will probably tell me I'm deluded.

I'm not really interested in debating anyone on the subject, I've done enough of that already and quite frankly, unless you experience God for yourself all the debate in the world is relatively meaningless.

Interesting that. I'm wondering how you would reply to me. Instead of the god of a displaced Middle Eastern religion, I have experienced the gods of my Germanic ancestors. I equally can't prove my experiences objectively, but I know I have those gods (and goddesses) as valuable "resources," for lack of a better word.

And as for going to a church, why not try a Mosque instead? Or a University, and learn some science, hanging out with Atheists?

Why stop there? Black XIII could go to a Wiccan coven, or an Asatru hearth, or a Celtic hearth (they'd have to be Celtic purists, not "Celtic Wiccans"), or a Kemetic group, or a Buddhist monastery, the list goes on and I can't be bothered to print every last belief system that exists out there.

you are the one that is miss informed i have had extensive studies of Judaism the so called pollythesim aspect is completly false. In Judaism there are many names for the one same god. And Yahweh is not a female name it is one of athority

On the contrary. What I'm saying is quite true. I too have studied Judaism, although not formally. Had you actually done an intensive study of Judaism, OUTSIDE of proper Judaic texts, you too would know about the Cult of Yahweh, which took Israel over around 1200 BCE and in some ways was influenced by the Egyptian Aton Cult of a century before.

As for Judaism originally being polytheistic and Yahweh originally being female, the scholarly evidence is there for you to look at any time you want.

By the way, you said "And Yahweh is not a female name it is one of authority." Curious implication for your statement. Are you then implying that female divine authority doesn't exist, or cannot exist? Worse yet, are you implying that females in general shouldn't be in places of authority?

I think that the statement may just have been badly phrased.
I certainly hope it was just badly phrased ...
I wouldn't like to get into a spat with anyone over the ability of females to hold authority. In fact, some of you may be able to answer a question for me: Weren't matriarchal societies prevalent in ancient times?

If it was such a great post why did you just deny what it said and return us to this, "Those who choose to be murdering, selfish, evil people are just as justified and have just as much validation for their behavior as those who choose to be kind and benevolent. " part of the discussion.

Just because I thought your post was beautiful and elegant in it's sweet poetry doesn't mean I necissarily agreed with it. But I did.


And my post was refering to the same "Those who choose to be murdering, selfish, evil people are just as justified and have just as much validation for their behavior as those who choose to be kind and benevolent. ", not Grave's reply, which I disagreed with.

Why stop there? Black XIII could go to a Wiccan coven, or an Asatru hearth, or a Celtic hearth (they'd have to be Celtic purists, not "Celtic Wiccans"), or a Kemetic group, or a Buddhist monastery, the list goes on and I can't be bothered to print every last belief system that exists out there.


Pretty much why I stopped there, dude.

I think that the statement may just have been badly phrased.
I certainly hope it was just badly phrased ...
I wouldn't like to get into a spat with anyone over the ability of females to hold authority. In fact, some of you may be able to answer a question for me: Weren't matriarchal societies prevalent in ancient times?


Not really, no. Initially (or at least evidence suggests), societies were more or less based on equality, with neither men nor women taking the fore. Women began to take a back seat when cities and towns started to form; there was a really good reason for this but it temporarily escapes me. Probably something about male violence and oppression or something.

If I remember rightly, there were a few matriarchal societies, but they were always very firmly a minority, and men were never 'second-class' citizens in the way women were forced to become. Women were allowed to rule in some societies (Egypt, Sheeba), but not all of them, and I don't remember any where women were ALWAYS in control. Not that I'm really that old anyway. And I've not travelled around that much, and at the time it would have been terrible. It's hell catching a plane in Cairo already, but if you've got to wait 7000 years for an airport to get built...

Does anyone else posting on this thread ever get the feeling everyone else has packed up and gone home, leaving us to ramble crap at each other from here to eternity? More importantly, do you BELIEVE in everyone else leaving us here? :)

Interesting that. I'm wondering how you would reply to me. Instead of the god of a displaced Middle Eastern religion, I have experienced the gods of my Germanic ancestors. I equally can't prove my experiences objectively, but I know I have those gods (and goddesses) as valuable "resources," for lack of a better word.

I am certain you wouldn't like my answer at the very least, but I'll tell you if you really want to hear/read it. I should warn you that you might well find it offensive, which would not be my intent in anyway, but it would be an explanation for your experiences that I doubt you'd be interested in entertaining as a possible alternative for what you believe.

Just because I thought your post was beautiful and elegant in it's sweet poetry doesn't mean I necissarily agreed with it. But I did.


And my post was refering to the same "Those who choose to be murdering, selfish, evil people are just as justified and have just as much validation for their behavior as those who choose to be kind and benevolent. ", not Grave's reply, which I disagreed with.

Okay, that makes a touch more sense. I take it then, that rather than ancient texts that are supposed by many to be revelations of the Deity, you look for other sources of Divine revelation upon which to base your personal morality?

Okay, that makes a touch more sense. I take it then, that rather than ancient texts that are supposed by many to be revelations of the Deity, you look for other sources of Divine revelation upon which to base your personal morality?

Not really. I follow an ethical calculus. It's a bit of a cold way to do it, I suppose, by it just seems right to weigh things up in maths-terms, using my own subjective opinions to provide certain values.

Not really. I follow an ethical calculus. It's a bit of a cold way to do it, I suppose, by it just seems right to weigh things up in maths-terms, using my own subjective opinions to provide certain values.


Doesn't it create a significant amount of cognative dissonance to believe in a set of values/morals that by definition has no relative value compared to any other set of values/morals?