BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: john f weldon
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:25 AM

Peace...
Is your interest in Tesla based on the fact that he called his proposed killing machine a "Peace Ray"? (Actually true, I didn't make this up!)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:58 AM

NO, not We all choose to believe what we all choose to believe. You may say that the course of the planets is controlled by gravity. OK. And science can and does demonstrate that. Others may choose to say that God created gravity, and no one can prove otherwise. That is missing the point. There is evidence for gravity - so "believing" in it is a conclusion, not a choice in what to believe. There is no evidence for god creating gravity, so there is no reason to believe that. Thus that would require faith, which belief in gravity does not.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Peace
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 09:52 AM

It eventually comes down to one person and that person's beliefs.

No one has yet asked what mine are. So, at this point it looks like a few people expressing an opinion about something (in this case, my beliefs) they believe. Take a good look at yourselves.

In fact, I am very much supportive of the scientific method. But people are confusing two worlds and failing to understand the world they do not support. Good scientists explore possibilities of the physical reality by/with which we are surrounded. People who believe in G-d explore the possibilities of the 'other' world by/with which we are surrounded. Personally, I don't really care who believes what.

"News
Tobacco company set up network of sympathetic scientists
Clare Dyer, legal correspondent, BMJ


The US tobacco giant Philip Morris set up a network of scientists throughout Europe who were paid to cast doubt on the risks of passive smoking and highlight other possible causes of respiratory problems, according to confidential documents from the company's law firm released on the internet.

The company's consultants included "an editor" of the Lancet, an adviser to a Commons select committee, and members of working groups of the International Agency for Research in Cancer, claims a memo from the US lawyers Covington and Burling.

Clues in the documents point to the Lancet contact as the late Petr Skrabanek, who was not an editor but a regular contributor who wrote editorials among other articles. Robin Fox, the Lancet's editor from 1990 to 1995, said it was "very likely" that Dr Skrabanek, who was an associate professor of community health at Trinity College, Dublin, was the scientist referred to in the memo.

Under the heading "Lancet" the memo says: "One of our consultants is an editor of this very influential British medical journal, and is continuing to publish numerous reviews, editorials, and comments on environmental tobacco smoke and other issues." Dr Fox said Dr Skrabanek did not write editorials on smoking."

The rest of the story may be found at

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7144/1553/d

The prevailing presumption is that anyone who thinks science/scientists are manipulated for other agendas has to be a believer in G-d and anyone who believes in G-d has to be anti science. That is not logical.

Some views about Tesla.


Y'all can keep this thread because it is going nowhere, imo. At least as far as my time is concerned. Keep well, all.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:20 AM

Well, with all due respect, I think it has been an interesting exchange of views, regardless of who initiated it.

The notion, touched on by Peace, that existence comprises multiple domains, one being the quantum-based particle-driven material space-time continuum, and one being the universe of attention, thought, elan vital, "soul" (whatever it is) and such phenomena, is an interesting one to me, and I consider it a good working hypothesis to account for a lot of ordinary data as well as much rigorous scientific data. I think, also, that there may be a third domain of "agreed upon thoughts and feelings" that builds social tides and pressures that are neither physical nor spiritual and have their own kind of inertia and momentum, which is the subject of the relatively new field of memetics. Popular perceptions and emotions based on "group think", for example, would come under this heading, as would those confusing "supposed to" beliefs of moral agreement which sometimes seem disconnected from real life outside a given tribe.

I could even suggest the possibility that acheiving balance in all three domains is the whole task of human sanity, and imbalance between them the origin of insanity.

It's an interesting model,anyway.


A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: haddocker
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:56 AM

I think that the post by PEACE regarding the various interpretations of the occurrences of life was at once profound and hilarious. Kudos to you brother! I took a course in World Religions and studied them all. This was an appropriate summarization which I might certainly use if writing a paper on Interfaith dialogue. Peace and Good Will to all who abide in this house, not only in this season, but in all seasons.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 11:29 AM

Can we all agree then that we ALL believe in gravity? Or is that open for discussion also?

Just so it's clear - I've always believed in gravity. It was my parents belief before me too - there was a point where I rejected it as brain washing. But I've come back around and consider myself a believer again.

Can I get an AMEN somebody????

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 11:46 AM

Oh, yes, and evidence for the non-survival of the psyche lies in brain-dead people. By destroying the BRAIN, you can destroy the self and leave the body alive. There is no way to destroy the body and leave the self alive, though, and it takes faith, not reason, to believe that the self survives the death of the body/brain.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: john f weldon
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:43 PM

General relativity indicates the gravity is merely a curvature of space, which makes it a kind of illusion. If Newton's Theory had been accepted on "faith", Einstein's work would have been ignored.

Does it matter? If you use a GPS, yes. They won't work with Newton's formulae.

I still think Newton was a very clever fellow, though.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:55 PM

Peace

In fact, I am very much supportive of the scientific method.

I'm sorry, Peace, but some of your statements about science suggest that you have a rather poor understanding of the scientific method.

The US tobacco giant Philip Morris set up a network of scientists throughout Europe who were paid to cast doubt on the risks of passive smoking and highlight other possible causes of respiratory problems

As exposed by this article in the Lancet. In other words, by the scientific community.

Some views about Tesla.

Try these -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/
http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm

Tesla has an SI unit, a crater on the Moon, a minor planet and an international airport, amongst other things, named after him. If that is being marginalized, I could live with it.

I would suggest you extend you reading about science beyond the Colorado Springs Independant.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:59 PM

Oh, yes, and evidence for the non-survival of the psyche lies in brain-dead people. By destroying the BRAIN, you can destroy the self and leave the body alive. There is no way to destroy the body and leave the self alive, though, and it takes faith, not reason, to believe that the self survives the death of the body/brain.

I would counter your argument, Mrrz, by likening it to the assertion that by destroying a cell-phone, you put an end to all conversations. It removes the self from the netowrk, but leaves the body alive, no?

As to faith versus reason, I suggest you investigate past efforts to document cases of reincarnation, of which there are several extensive ones, with close attention to those cases where information made it across the boundary which could not otherwise have been explained, of which there are a few salient instances. In an earlier thread onthis subject, I forget the title, we discussed OBEs and NDEs, and there was one particular case of a patient walking away from her body during complete anaesthesia and observing things from the ceiling and nearby locations. You may recall the story. One of tyhe things she reported afterwards was the location of a sneaker that had been dropped onto a ledge a story or two above the floor where the operation was being held, something she could not possibly have known from any point of view her body had taken. But the perception was later corroborated by an independent observer, who went and found it exactly where and as she described it. Sorry I don't have the references to hand here at work. All I can say is, I recommend that this subject be one about which you maintain an open curiousity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Peace
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 01:42 PM

Go stalk someone else, Snail. I have nothing to say to you. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 02:47 PM

Hi Susan,

I appreciated your comments.

"Where I may be diverging from your view is that my actions based on these and more-recently-embraced values has been greatly changed, strengthened, and made more "courageous," less "self-consicious," in the actions, the motives, the desired outcomes, the need even to know the outcomes.... actions that are enlivened and entwined with the personal presence of God with me when I take those actions."

I think I know where you are coming from. I have an odd background in religion. I was raised fairly agnostic/atheist from a predominantly Jewish lineage on my mother's side, who was herself raised as a Roman Catholic. I was at one time baptised as a Congregationalist, became a Unitarian, explored Nicheran Shoshu, the mod-Buddhist off-shoot and spent a little time with the Bahais. I also explored Siddha Yoga and from all of these travels derive my understanding of how some folks feel about their "conversion" experiences or the presence of a deity. Through all of that, I hesitate to condemn people who have their personal beliefs. I have, however, found freedom from religion liberating and as a result have developed a social-consciousness that I never would have had if I had remained with any of these spiritual-seeking enterprises.

"And the values themselves have changed, grown, developed; partly as a matter of intention based on new imperatives with which I agree from my faith, and partly as a result of the learnings I have had while doing not what I might have wanted to do, but what I felt was obedient to God's imperatives whether discerned from Scripture, the teachings of preachers, or the personal presence of God and His guidance before the act and His affirmation after the act."

I respect The Sermon on the Mount as did Jefferson. However, I regard it as important
mythology (in the Joseph Campbell sense). It is a blueprint for sane behavior whether I believe in an actual Jesus or not.

"For me, this is one of the best aspects of my life in the faith as I look at it dynamically in present time and as I look back reflectively-- the constant challenge that takes me where I had not gone and where I would not have gone whie in the grip of my own interests. "

I understand this fully and feel the same way although in my experience I can share those views as a process in letting go of God.

"And these actions are conformed to my love of our Lord-- very much NOT a matter of rigid, rule-driven obedience by rote."

You are far too intelligent to be "rule-driven by obedience by rote". I understand Epsicopalians to be the more intellectual of the prominent religions and I am reminded
that there exists an atheist Episcopalian who loves the sense of community and ritual that is provided as well as the residual religious knowledge about the bible that he absorbs.
He nonetheless remains an atheist.

"I'm sure I'm not articulating this well, no matter how accurately I may try to write. But I think it is very, very different from the life in faith that most anti-religionists have witnessed, experienced, or been raised within or around. I think it is very different from what people rail against, and from the assumptions that drive their animus."

I think you have expressed your views very well. I am more sympathetic to them then I have communicated, even though this sense of liberation, internal strength, development of social consciousness and a kind of hopefulness emanates from my personal quest and arrival that a God is not the answer for me and I am relieved of that structural burden. That doesn't make me hostile or unsympathetic to your experience which I can respect without having to embrace it personally. I remember times in my life where I believed in a God and thought it transforming and life-changing. For me, it was something I went through and I don't regret it because it did make me more understanding of this feeling in others. Now I see it differently. I think one can be an un-believer and still have the awe and sense of wonder when you look at the sky, the course of evolution, the amazing accomplishments of science that are constructive, the tuning in to Einstein's capacity for the appreciation without his embracing a personal God. His was a God of Spinoza, more pantheonic than monothestic. Carl Sagan communicated this sense of "spirituality" without religious references and his life reflects a deep committment and respect for
the world and the universe.

As to whether there is any proof of God(s) or Jesus, it is a logical fallacy that you can prove a negative. The question is unanswerable in any sense because of its built in illogicality.
I prefer to see hard evidence before I will accept someone else's account. But in no way will I condemn good behavior however it is motivated.

A word about the Manichean use of "Good and Evil". I reject these as absolutes.
I prefer terms like "dysfunctional", "anti-social", "pathological", and other operative terms that define behavior.

Once again, I respect where you are coming from and in no way want to denigrate your personal experience.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 02:59 PM

Peace

Go stalk someone else, Snail. I have nothing to say to you. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever again.

Sorry it turned out this way, Peace. I'd always thought of you as one of the good guys. I'm dissappointed to find that you feel you can make preposterous statements about science without expecting anybody to disagree with you.

Why did you ask the question about Tesla if you didn't want an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 03:07 PM

Um - how in the world is my argument that you can have brain-dead bodies, but not brain-alive not-bodies, like the assertion that by destroying a cell-phone, you put an end to all conversations?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 03:19 PM

Frank, thank you for the thumbnail sketch of your spiritual experience and your nice comments. Some time if it is of interest I would find it equally interesting to learn what led you to the extremely negative comments you've made from time to time, which you took responsibility for so articulately upthread. This particular thread, I think, is running its course and will wind to an end soon, so I will not look for that here (if indeed you would want to go into it at all). But I will be on the lookout for your posts in a new way as a result of our exchanges on this thread, and I have enjoyed thinking with you.

Thanks also for the reference to E'palians and thinking-- yes, reason is what we think of as the third leg of the stool our faith rests upon. Also it is often said that to embrace the best Anglicanism has to offer, one must be willing to live with/in/around/through ambiguity. I like to extend that by adding that it's best to also have a deep curiosity, and the ability to keep one's eyes wide open at all times and not look away from the difficult and the complex.

But yeah, the E'palians I know are pretty into that thinking thing. :~) Yet some of my best friends, who I think of as temporarily confused, have been fundies whose usual mode of thinking is pretty rigid. They're amazingly vulnerable, one on one, to a playful, inquiring spirit. :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 03:27 PM

Snail, Peace has a habit of playing devil's advocate. Just because he asks the questions doesn't mean he's putting forth an answer. Gets people who aren't paying attention all the time.

Try to find the 'preposterous statements' he made, and you'll find questions only. Your mind turned them into statements. If something doesn't make sense to you, it might just be because you got it wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:10 PM

Mrzzy:

The model that the brain has no owner, but is itelf the place where thought itself comes from out of its complexity of neurons, synapses and combinatorial multiples thereof, ignores the possibility that -- if the WERE a psyche it would apprently have to use the brain as a step-down transformer and switching device for command relay and pulling perceptics off the nerves.

Similarly, it is easy to imagine a superstitious or at least unsophisticated primitive person looking at a cell phone and wondering how all those conversations got into the little box of wires. "Every time you pick it up it starts telling some strange person's story! Amazing. WHat a machine!! SOmeday we will figure out the complex wiring int his thing, and see how those stories are generated by those little wires, capacitors, resistors and chokes. RIght now the complexity of the design is too great to see how it really works, but give us time."

I know the metaphor is stretched, but the fact that people can't operate bodies with damaged brains does not in any way prove that people ARE brains.

A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:15 PM

>>Oh, yes, and evidence for the non-survival of the psyche lies in brain-dead people. By destroying the BRAIN, you can destroy the self and leave the body alive. There is no way to destroy the body and leave the self alive, though, and it takes faith, not reason, to believe that the self survives the death of the body/brain.<<

Not at all. There is a reason to suppose that consciousness (I prefer not to use the term "self") survives the death of the body.

To be conscious at a bare minimum, I have to be able to recall experiences. If I was unconscious during an event then I cannot recall and so it cannot be an experience.

If I cannot recall an event at the moment then nothing can be known of the state of my consciousness when that event occurred. I may, for example, recall it later, in which case, it is an experience. If I can never recall it, then I was not conscious during that event and so it is not an experience.

But I was conscious at all the events I recall even if my recall is not perfect (and whose is?).

I must be able to remember events in order for them to have been experiences and I must be able to remember them as often as I want to. I must also be able to remember remembering them. Theoretically, I can remember experiences an infinite number of times.

NOW, suppose I am born at time T0, live a full life and then die at time T1. Further suppse that my consciousness is extinguished at time T1. How would I ever know I was conscious? The time interval from T0 to T1 has been reduced to zero. It becomes missing time.

BUT, I must be able to remember all my experiences in order to be conscious and must be able to remember them an infinite number of times if I choose to. Since I am conscious now (because I meet all the above requirements for consciousness), death cannot extinguish my consciousness. If it does, then I cannot be conscious now, which is a contradiction. So the conclusion is, death does not extinguish consciousness.

Now I'm not saying this is necessarily true but I am saying that to believe that consciousness survives the death of the body is not merely an act of faith opposed to reason.

However, this same argument also proves there is no eternal reward or punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:41 PM

Jeri

Snail, Peace has a habit of playing devil's advocate.

I don't have a problem with that, I would just like the right to reply.

Try to find the 'preposterous statements' he made, and you'll find questions only. Your mind turned them into statements. If something doesn't make sense to you, it might just be because you got it wrong.

Peace

some science is based on belief, too

No it isn't. I've already gone over this.

All triangles have 180 degrees (interior angles). That holds true until someone draws a triangle on a globe, and then it has 270 degrees. Then someone defines triangle as figure drawn on a flat surface, as if such a thing is at all possible in a universe that is curved. Even flat surfaces aren't flat.

Triangles and flat surfaces are theoretical concepts. Whether either of them can be constructed in the real universe is entirely irrelevant.

They have each lied to protect their respective 'positions of authority'. Remember the "Rule of 48".

Nobody lied. They got it wrong. It was put right. No 'positions of authority' or vested interests were at stake.

However, granted when you said that science tends to correct its mistakes once they find them. But I still don't trust either religions or science. Too many vested interests--in both.

I've already dealt with "tends". Peace is right not to trust the institutions of science or, at least, to hold them up to scrutiny. That is not the same thing as mistrusting science.

People who worship at the altar of science are not much different from people who worship at the altars of religions.

Oh, come ON! That is a declaration of personal prejudice not a rational statement.

why DO we develop/do bad stuff-whether in the name of science or the name of religion?

Individual scientists may 'develop/do bad stuff' because they are greedy, idealistic, patriotic or just plain nasty human beings. I don't think anybody does it 'in the name of science'.

In fact, I am very much supportive of the scientific method.

I'm sorry but the statements above show that Peace doesn't really understand the scientific method.

Good scientists explore possibilities of the physical reality by/with which we are surrounded.

At last, something we can agree on but they cannot choose what they are going to find before they find it. Physical reality is what it is.

Why has Tesla been marginalized by main-stream science?

Surely Peace was throwing down a challenge here. He quoted the Colorado Springs Independant. I quoted Wikipedia, the Public Broadcasting Service and the Tesla Memorial Society of New York.
In response I got -

Go stalk someone else, Snail. I have nothing to say to you. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever again.

I think science matters. Am I not allowed to say so?

(Oh bugger! I've descended into a cut-N-paste war.)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:51 PM

Ron's observation seems to have encouraged the "usual" suspects, rather than having brought them to their senses. For myself, two things are apparent:

1) Gravity must exist, otherwise, how could people go around in circles?

2)God must exist, since he is the prime cause of people going around in these circles.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM

Therefore, God is a circle. Makes perfect sense.



A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:30 PM

"... There is a reason to suppose that consciousness (I prefer not to use the term "self") survives the death of the body."

What is required to make this supposition? I don't suppose any such thing. Statements such as that comprise some of the real conceptual difficulties that we face in the whole discussion.

(as one who usually gets deeply into these discussions, I find this one very hard to get a handle on, and I have been too busy to sort out my many reactions and opinions well enough to do justice to the detailed claims & counter-claims)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:48 PM

Snail, it's starting to look to me like 'stalking' isn't as over-the-top a word as it did at first. He's left the discussion. You'd look less lost if you stopped trolling for him.

Regarding Tesla, I could ask 10 random people to name famous people involved with electrical discovery. Edison would be among them because of the light bulb. Would Tesla? I doubt it. If you think having... shifting mod here... if you think getting stuff named after you after you're dead is important, fine. I don't think it was what floated Tesla's boat.

No belief involved in science? Of course there is! Hypotheses are beliefs. Conclusions may be beliefs. The data isn't, but the reason why there are disagreements is because of the different interpretations of what the data proves. The things about science that doesn't involve belief is the data, and the fact that if an experiment is valid, it can be repeated again and again.

You don't have science without hypotheses and interpretations. We need that spark of imagination to learn anything. That's why I think the true evil isn't in belief or non-belief in a thing but in telling other people not to imagine, to dream, and to find their own beliefs. True, some folks will try to prove them and others will be satisfied with what they have, but EVERYBODY gets to decide for themselves... which is probably what pisses a few folks off so much.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 07:12 PM

"That's why I think the true evil isn't in belief or non-belief in a thing but in telling other people not to imagine..."

                Which is exactly why religion is true evil.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:22 PM

Jeri

Snail, it's starting to look to me like 'stalking' isn't as over-the-top a word as it did at first. He's left the discussion. You'd look less lost if you stopped trolling for him.

So because he has chosen to leave the discussion I have no right of reply? I have no personal quarrel with Peace but he has said things about science that I wish to challenge. Has he won the field by leaving it?

No belief involved in science? Of course there is! Hypotheses are beliefs. Conclusions may be beliefs.

No they are not! I'm quite happy to discuss that if you like.

Peace didn't say "10 random people" wouldn't know who Tesla was. He said "Why has Tesla been marginalized by main-stream science?". As evidence he quoted an article from the Colorada Springs Independant; not known as a main-stream science journal.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: MaineDog
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:30 PM

:(

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Peace
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:46 PM

Oh, fer krissake. This main-stream enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 09:06 PM

Do people that believe in GOSH go to HECK?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 09:11 PM

DANGED if I know.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 09:15 PM

Wait - I think something's backwards. First, I am not ignoring the possibility you mention - what I say is that there is no evidence for it, so there is no reason to believe in that possibility.

And aren't you saying that actually it's the primitive superstition people, rather than the reasonable, who would think that removing a cell phone removes conversations? Who would say that since we can't understand it, it must be supernatural? The thinking would not.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 09:31 PM

No evidence?

I have seen much evidence. But it by its nature is not replicable laboratory evidence. How could it be?

IF we were primitive superstitious people about the primacy of matter, and based on that concluded that harming the brain would snuff out the psyche, why would that be any different? I think th eparallel is actually quite apt. It is true that thinking people, generally, do not cut themselves off from enquiry, but in both these examples they appear to be doing so.

It is one thing to adhere to a well-reasoned viewpoint and defend it against unreason.

But it is another thing to understand where and how viewpoints are produced, made, bought and sold, and enquire as to the nature of that process. Any paradigm is all-embracing in its bloom, when tons of new data flood in to support it; but any paradigm also eliminates the anomalous. Measuring with the units of space-time, all existence is spatial and temporal.
IF we could learn to measure with the units of thought itself -- rather than using thought to bound itself into space-time -- I am sure it would paint a different picture altogether.

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 09:50 PM

No, Amos, the inferral is that God created the circle. And if he created the circle, the circle implies the square, which means a lot of the people here. Very, very, square.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 11:08 PM

....what I say is that there is no evidence for it, so there is no reason to believe in that possibility....

But if there is no definitive evidence against it, then in order to investigate a matter one must believe in the possibility; otherwise, there would be no scientific experiments done on anything. One can hypothesize without evidence in order to seek evidence-- for or against.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:54 AM

God may not be a circle but I reckon He is around!

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 06:33 AM

WYSIWYG

One can hypothesize without evidence in order to seek evidence

At the risk of being accused of stalking, hypotheses do not spring out of nowhere looking for evidence. They are generally formulated to suggest an explanation for an observed phenomenon (Why do apples fall out of trees and why do planets follow the orbits that they do?) or to fill in the gaps not covered by exisiting theories. (Newton's theories of motion and gravity do not cover the behaviour of light. Newton new this.)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:06 AM

The idea I have has been treated in great novels from time imemorial yet when one thinks of the story of the last supper where Jesus speaks of the human condition of conformity and tells everyone that they too will "deny" him. In his case the ice shattered too late to save his life. Of course his case was complicated by imperial political opression by Rome and temple conformists who sought to curry favor and power by pushing for cruxifiction.

The twist that was put on this story was to forgive everyone for their conformist nature that resulted in murder by saying Christ now forgives everyone... however it applies only to those who pay and obey the new church.

Thise early apostles missed a great opportunity to see the weakness in humanity when it comes to group "herd" behavior for what it is and teach a gospel to overcome this weakness instead of just saying its OK god will forgive you later.

The otherwise sweet evangelist neighbors across the street became active hateful bigots who seek to destroy FAGS and abortionists sooo easily and naturally by group dynamic conformity they too expect others to do so in as little as a week of indoctrination.

I too saw my self falling prey to hate mongering for several days following 9-11.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:13 AM

At the risk of being accused of stalking, hypotheses do not spring out of nowhere looking for evidence. They are generally formulated to suggest an explanation for an observed phenomenon (Why do apples fall out of trees and why do planets follow the orbits that they do?) or to fill in the gaps not covered by exisiting theories. (Newton's theories of motion and gravity do not cover the behaviour of light. Newton new this.)

[gasp] NO!!!!!!!!! Why, I never knew THAT! [shock]

All kidding aside, yes I know that, DUH, and that's why I posted exactly what I did. If someone observes something through any means [what a shock] they may want to TEST the suspected cause.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 10:12 AM

AN excerpt from a recent piece in the Times:
"e brain, like every other part of the body, changes with age, and those changes can impede clear thinking and memory. Yet many older people seem to remain sharp as a tack well into their 80s and beyond. Although their pace may have slowed, they continue to work, travel, attend plays and concerts, play cards and board games, study foreign languages, design buildings, work with computers, write books, do puzzles, knit or perform other mentally challenging tasks that can befuddle people much younger.

But when these sharp old folks die, autopsy studies often reveal extensive brain abnormalities like those in patients with Alzheimer's. Dr. Nikolaos Scarmeas and Yaakov Stern at Columbia University Medical Center recall that in 1988, a study of "cognitively normal elderly women" showed that they had "advanced Alzheimer's disease pathology in their brains at death." Later studies indicated that up to two-thirds of people with autopsy findings of Alzheimer's disease were cognitively intact when they died.

"Something must account for the disjunction between the degree of brain damage and its outcome," the Columbia scientists deduced. And that something, they and others suggest, is "cognitive reserve."

Cognitive reserve, in this theory, refers to the brain's ability to develop and maintain extra neurons and connections between them via axons and dendrites. Later in life, these connections may help compensate for the rise in dementia-related brain pathology that accompanies normal aging."

Dig it lads and lasses--a brain riddled with Alzheimers, and a being who ignores it and keeps on trucking into his or her late 80's.
The explanation must be "more brain", right? Nothing else woudl account for it...


A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:57 PM

WYSIWYG

[gasp] NO!!!!!!!!! Why, I never knew THAT! [shock]

Since you had just said precisely the opposite, I rather jumped to the conclusion that you didn't know that.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 01:35 PM

Amos, a well tested genius showed in scans that his brain was in fact 18% smaller than the average brain.

ergo I believe: While we all are a product of what we learn and the people we know...
The secret is in the quality of experience and the wiring of these experiences in the brain and has little to do with the quantity of neurons.

If a neoron were a city a superior brain will have more bridges for its cities. Merely having more cities with fewer roads in and out is not an advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 01:38 PM

Many of these discussions turn into vitriol because of the use of labels. I think Sam Harris and Jonathan Miller may be right in stating that in attempting to define one's beliefs or ideas through the use of labels is useless. If I don't eat potatoes, can I logically label myself as a "non-potato eater"? Each label has to be defined by not only the person who uses it on others as a weapon but by the person upon whom it is used.

A lot of confusion is brought about by the assumptions that the label engenders by the one using it. Some of these terms such as "atheist" or "communist" or "terrorist" are loaded terms that are used to beat others over the head. Then the dialogue collapses.

Owning a label requires the responsibility of those who use it to carefully articulate their position so that they can be understood. Often, though, the label just gets in the way.

As to the issue of smoking and its moral implications, tobacco is a legalized drug which creates addicts. (Some attitudes about religion can do this as well.) I see smoking as a sickness which unfortunately affects others badly rather than just the smoker. I see it essentially as an anti-social behavior but would not want to characterize it as being a moral problem.

Susan, my anger, which I've come to understand is based on my environment. I live in the Southern US and there are a lot of evangelicals, here, who are stifling the Separation in the US Constitution. I now see that their approach is a form of addiction. It has nothing to do with a search for meaning or truth. I have found that generally people in the Northern US or in Europe have a much more wholesome view about the nature of religion. Some accept it as a personal belief that informs their behavior and others like me don't. If I see this fundamentalist view of religion as an addiction, I can understand it better and not paint everyone with a religious belief system as an addict. The key to understanding the reactionary nature of some who are anti-theist is that they are fighting their own addiction to anger and self-righteousness.   It boils down to "the Crips and the Bloods".
It is a dangerous tribal mentality that puts humankind into wars.

I see that the solution is always dialogue and understanding. I am open to many different ideas that people have and I can even understand them without having to go along.
One of the big problems that anti-religionists have is the notion of "enabling". The broad stroke is that all religionists are enabling fundamentalism. I don't think this is true whereas I once did. I think that in the final analysis, it's what people do with their lives that is more important than what they profess to believe on any soapbox.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:07 PM

"But if there is no definitive evidence against it, then in order to investigate a matter one must believe in the possibility; otherwise, there would be no scientific experiments done on anything. One can hypothesize without evidence in order to seek evidence-- for or against."

This is a difficult claim to examine. It IS true and logical...as it stands, but I think there is an unstated premise..perhaps even what is called "undistributed middle" embedded in it.
   Since we are dealing with religious and (obliquely) paranormal beliefs in this thread, it must be assumed that the assertion is being made that "hypothesizing without evidence" can be applied to them, just as we do in science at times. (There are all sorts of hypotheses about "missing matter" in the universe, and where it may 'be'. We have VERY little 'evidence' for some of the ideas being explored.)
   But with religious & paranormal claims & beliefs, the very concept of what might constitute evidence alters. Here we allow hearsay (reports of , historical & cultural 'data', psychological & emotional content (some of which includes supposed historical data), and equivocation on the definition OF evidence to count towards confidence in beliefs.

   I think it is a mistake to confuse the scientific method with what we do when exploring religious tenets. In other discussions, some of those who do hold strong religious beliefs have stated that they 'feel' the value and truth of their positions despite the seeming conflicts with the narrow restriction of the scientific method....and I would suggest that this is the way it must remain.

   *IF* there is truth to religious claims and beliefs, it, by definition, is not subject to 'testing' in the same way a theory of 'dark matter' is. (They are building a new telescope that they think will reveal some traces of part of the missing matter.) No one seems to be able to even suggest what a 'test' for God might be, except waiting till after death, and seeing what happens.

   It is true that NO ONE can DISprove God..etc..(or Vishnu, or Ahura Mazda, or...etc..)...but we simply have different notions of how to interpret either the freedom, or the obligations that this gives us.

Whether we accept some religious doctrine or not, all we can do is explain OUR subjective rationale for our decision.
The crucial thing for BOTH sides is how we deal with the everyday, pragmatic decision of how to interact with each other and make integrating our differences as smooth and comfortable as possible. We are not about to legislate that people should not have religious faith....we should not, and could not if some of us we wanted to. But we do need to guard against that vocal minority who would legislate the other way. As long as there ARE 2 sides to this issue, we MUST coexist as peacefully as possible.

(27 sub paragraphs about specific details omitted to spare my fingers and to give this any chance of being read)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:15 PM

(and Frank Hamilton kindly managed to expound on one of my possible sub-paragraphs while *I* was typing)

Thanks, Frank...it, sadly, IS little more than an addiction or tribal mentality with some....but that doesn't mean it is less relevant. It may even be more so because some are so unthinking in the detail and practice of their particular belief system. I would imagine there'd be far fewer suicide bombers without a belief in immediate entrance to "paradise".

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,Jim Dusty
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:53 PM

All religion is bollocks, but weak-minded people and those of low intelligence seem to need it as some sort of psychological crutch, or a convenient way to deny their own responsibilities. As a species we obviously invented it because we needed it, but I think in this day and age it's high time we grew out of it. Historically it's caused nothing but trouble, let's face it. It is basically childish.

I have spoke, and you should all believe me :-)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:56 PM

Wow - A trolling post from a guest. What a shock and suprise.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:20 PM

GUEST,Jim Dusty, I'm gonna fry your ass with one of my most powerful lightning bolts. Not right away, though. I'm gonna get you when you least expect it!

God

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:47 PM

I live in the Southern US and there are a lot of evangelicals, here, who are stifling the Separation in the US Constitution. I now see that their approach is a form of addiction. It has nothing to do with a search for meaning or truth.

THis is the most interesting observation I have seen in these parts in some time. It shows me something quite interesting about the error in approach that liberals make when trying to "make sense" of the adversarial, antagonistic, even destructively angry views thrown out by some deep-dyed believers -- an example was the man who was yelling at a Presidential candidate the other day, "All we need to know about you is whether you believe thew Book I have in my hand, literally, every word...". Which, to a reasonable outside, is an absurd proposition. But to an addict, of course, it is the sound of gospel going down, the candy man knocking at the door, sugar-plums dancing in his head, and Santa arriving with a fat envelope with his name on it.

I would also observe that this is exactly the same error that the Bush administration made in considering the ramifications of destabilizing Iraq while having NO concept of the depth and duration of the grudges, religious battles, and sectarian bitterness that manifests from the very similar addictions (including the obsessive identification with protoplasm) that informs the people they were planning to invade.

A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,Jim Dusty
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 04:01 PM

"From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:20 PM

GUEST,Jim Dusty, I'm gonna fry your ass with one of my most powerful lightning bolts. Not right away, though. I'm gonna get you when you least expect it!

God"



Too late mate.
Mind you, it might fix the haemorrhoids I suppose..

Hitler and Torquemada were both Catholics - oh, and Stalin was Russian Orthodox - how's that for trolling?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 04:25 PM

Yes, Amos! We're on the same page.

I think in the case of Bush that he knows full well the extent of the damage that he intends.
I say this because I believe that he is pushing for regime change and to privatize the military,
the Iraqi government so that it will be more receptive to PNAC and continue to reap the profits of the oil industry....Naomi Klein has spelled it out in "The Schock Doctrine".

The rabid evangelicals are being lead by the nose. Rove has used them. Some, however, such as Robertson have rationalized their acquisitive greed by such views as "god intended it".

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 04:30 PM

500