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

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 08:43 PM

My comment was actually intended to be a droll and slightly pointed reminder that Science and Technology have been used to wreck havoc of an almost unimaginable scale on our human race.

If they wanted to, the religious community could ask some fairly penetrating questions about the overall benefit of many scientific "achievements" to the welfare of humankind. Lucky for us, they don't do that very often.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 06:28 PM

Well, Mrrz, with all due respect I don't think you have answered my points, and I feel your remarks about "believe in" and reading old novels, and such is just persiflage with no bearing at all n anything I said. I am not going to repeat myself, but I am more than willing to agree to disagree or at least leave the differences where they stand.

A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,Barney
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:58 PM

"BArney:
Bring another stick back with you to stir the anthill.
You know damn well that none of Earth's religions are "right".
A"

My point exactly - it's not possible, whereas it's perfectly possible for them all to be wrong.

Or then again, maybe one of them is right, and the rest are wrong..

Whoops :-)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:17 PM

I meant look up Evidence.

And replicability is not a useful concept without focus - if you show people the same wavelength of light, yes, they will have different experiences of it. That isn't replicating. If you show one person a wavelength, and then show the same person the same wavelength, that is replicating. And you may yet get different experiences based upon context, or how they are feeling at the time. What does that tell you about "the difference between the nature of the systems under consideration" - ? Jack all - if you have different systems, studying one and then the other is not replicating the first study, it's studying something else. So your question doesn't make sense.

However, it is quite possible to study thought in science. You just have to focus in, so that what your study -note, not your results necessarily- IS replicable. That way, IF you get the same results, you HAVE evidence for something - whatever thing you were studying.
For instance, look at functional MRI studies, reaction-time studies, and other "hard" science in psychology, neuropsychology, psycholinguistics, etc. We are learning a whole lot about thought by studying it. We wouldn't if we just tried to believe in it, or pray about it, or look in ancient novels about it.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:12 PM

I know very little about the B'hai faith (I'm not even sure I'm spelling it correctly), but what I do know is that it teaches that ALL earthly religions are equally valid, with the corallary, of course, that they're all equally mistaken in so very many of the particulars that they preach.

What does that leave?

Well, one can still believe that a transcendant spiritual reality exists, and that it behooves all of us to transcend ego and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Do we really need to be sure of much more than that?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 05:00 PM

BArney:

Bring another stick back with you to stir the anthill.

You know damn well that none of Earth's religions are "right".


A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,Barney
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 04:46 PM

So which religion is right?

I'll leave you all to ponder that while I pop off and make a list of my non-beliefs...

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 03:52 PM

Tell ya what. Let's NOT have a scientific assessment of religion, since religion by at least one definition is a codification of beliefs and practices and moral codes and all kinds of other stuff science can't address heuristically, by its nature.

But what we _could_ have is a scientific address to fundamental questions about the spirit -- disdaining all doctrine, examining all reported experiences, and seeing if there was such a thing as a way to measure the beast, or detect its impact. IS the human beast a meat organism occasionaly generating an electromagnetic rush called a spiritual experience, or a spiritual entitiy occasionally getting trapped in a meat rush called a physical body? Does "meat" do aesthetics and insight? If there is a difference, what keeps the two bound together in individual natures?

It would not be easy, because, by its nature, it would streeetch the working framework of science as we have known it, but it would be interestin'.



A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 02:48 PM

When you advocate a "scientific" evaluation of religion, you are opening the door to demands for a religious evalation of science,

Not really; in a faith tradition that embraces rational thought, certainly a consideration of science's strengths and shortcomings happens..... it is possible, you know, to look squarely at BOTH science and faith and see things that do not necessarily have to be consdiered on opposition to one another. We have these big old minds that can handle the complexity needed for that kind of thoughtful regard of different, differing, or even diverging viewpoints.

I think chats around fire rings many centuries ago probably involved just that sort of wondering (and that broad a range of wondering), because it's a human tendency to wonder about it all-- the big picture, the things that seem obviously related, the things that appear not to be related, the detail level....

We can handle that, and more.

I don't understand why people-- religious or non-religious-- are afraid to open the doors to thinking or asking about things.... I CAN understand why folks sometimes assume that certain tradtions may inhibit the opening of the doors, but I would think that all doors that can be opened would inform the subject.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 02:45 PM

Actually, religion looks pretty stupid when viewed through the light of science, and you can't view science through the light of religion because religion is blind and mindless.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 02:31 PM

Frank Hamilton, you are a fine, perhaps even great musician. and a whole bunch of other wonderful things too, but you are way over your head here--

When you advocate a "scientific" evaluation of religion, you are opening the door to demands for a religious evalation of science, which is exactly the problem that "Squawkin' Dawkins" and company are worried about in the first place.

And the sad fact is that "religion" looks better when held up to the light of science, than science looks when held up to the light of religion--

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:48 PM

And if you have no replicable evidence, you have no EVIDENCE. Look it up.

Look what up, Mrrz?

I submit for reflection here that your statement doesn't answer my point about the difference between the nature of the systems under consideration.

Consider, for extrapolation, the difference between living systems and non-living chemical or particle systems. If you abrade a moouse's flesh, it starts regenerating, normally. If you shave a millimeter off an aluminum crystal, it does not, usually.

Clearly there is a fundamental difference between the system behaviors. Two mice, dropped into exactly the same pot of acid, will not behave in exactly the same way, although you could say they both squirm and call that a replication of behaviour if you wanted to. Arguments of complexity aside for the moment.

IF you take two minds and show them exactly the same image of colors, they will come up with wildly different responses ranging from highly aesthetic and pleasurable down to glumly apathetic indifference. And if you repeat the process, there may two more comp0letely unique responses.

Thought is not matter. That's the bottom line. Trying to measure thought with the tools of matter is like trying to measure the volume of the ocean's water with a schoolboy's ruler.

So where are you going to get a standard of replicability out of this? The social scietists settle for probabilities and per centage of opinions one way or another, for example, and there's some use to that system in measuring mass-agreement zones of thought, but it won't get you far in measuring the outer bounds of individual potential to see and know and create.

BTW, Barney, a belief in the not-ness of something certainly does exist, event hough it seems to be a two-step process of creating the belief in somethign and then painting it black! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,Barney
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 12:58 PM

In an ideal world we would all have a choice, but in this one many of us don't. Nor do we all get the chance for 'seeking the truth by personal study'; only the more fortunate of us get that privilege, and many of those waste it.

There is no such thing as an unbelief, although the word was used in some mediaeval Germanic dialects to describe particularly troublesome poultry.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 02:19 AM

Because one person or many people have never seen evidence of something...whatever it is...does not mean it does not exist. Hence the wide diversity of beliefs or unbeliefs. Seeking the truth by personal study is perhaps the best way forward...or for some perhaps doing nothing and believing in nothing. We all have a choice.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,Barney
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 01:38 AM

Why would anyone in their right mind believe in something for which there has never been the slightest shred of evidence? Religious belief is irrational and delusional. Filling impressionable young minds with this rubbish is child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 12:02 AM

Mrrzy - Well, lack of respect is one indication of intolerance. Part of being responsible for the choice to disrespect is acknowledging and owning the attendant intolerance.   We all have things we choose not to tolerate, for any number of reasons and rationales. Lack of respect is one of those reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 11:02 PM

Question for Little Hawk: When does an icon become a god, and did you create an icon so powerful that it functions as a god?

As a model for your consideration-- because Shatnerism is too scary to contemplate right off, and you know it-- I recommend you study the model presented by FSMism (Pastafarians).

I submit that there IS at least one God, the FSM who is worshipped by Pastafarians.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 10:05 PM

The "should" comes from all the people, here and elsewhere, who think that you *should* respect people's beliefs. I don't see why I should, when those beliefs contradict, or deny, reality. So often I don't... but then I'm called "intolerant" or worse. My responsibility, especially to my children, should be (in my mind) to teach them not to respect such, um, things.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:54 PM

Mrrzy,

What is with the "should?" It is your choice and your responsibility. It is "could."

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:25 PM

Especially when they want you to pay for it.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:14 PM

Nonetheless, if it can't be replicated, it's not evidence of anything.

And it is the enabling part that has me asking, which hasn't been answered yet, why should I "respect" (I've explained what I meant enough times...) people's deliberate ignorance/denial of reality?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: goatfell
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 07:31 PM

i forgot to add to my statement TROLL ALERT (GUEST ED) IS A TROLL.

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

And BTW/PS, the negativity some folks around here love to focus on makes it harder, not easier, to do the change work I do..... the change some of them say they want to see is impeded, not helped, by the trash talk.

I'd love to post sometime what I could use some help with, but I know what would happen..... it's too bad, because I can be a pretty helpful ally if anyone REALLY wants to change a fundie's mindset. Sad thing is, actually TRYING it would ruin the pity-party some folks prefer to have!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 06:52 PM

Frank,

One of the big problems that anti-religionists have is the notion of "enabling". The broad stroke is that all religionists are enabling fundamentalism.

Well, yes...... I can see how people could think in that way.

But for me, my care and concern in that area boils down to whether to change a thing by tearing it all down to the ground, or by building upon and strengthening what is good to create the kind of sustainable strength that real change entails-- this from a not-so-long-ago, effective-in-my-small-milieu social-change person. In the varied roles I played, I learned how to work from the inside and how that can have a powerful level of effectiveness built on alliance rather than an adversarial dynamic-- to put relationship-building at the center of any real goals, no matter the effort or setting.

I that think the cry for change from the outside-- agitating and protesting-- also is necessary for such an effort to succeed--- I had lunch today working on that very thing-- but my own effectiveness is far more efficient from the inside, from close inside-- from a position of real love for the person and for the good they adhere to. That just happens to be where I can do something, where maybe others can't. (It takes a village to impeach an idiot.)

Not to mention that such an approach is Bibbical (my word to maintain a lighter tone).... The short course there is that to make changes, in the broken parts of the system to which I belong, requires my highest use OF that system FOR that system, which sometimes means traveling slowly enough to maintain a clue what I am doing, how, and why. It's not a recipe.... it's thought and improvisation at every turn, using the tools inherent in the system.

I think all professional fields have this in common, if you are inside the field.

I think the education system is a parallel people sometimes think more clearly about (and sometimes more painfully about)-- but when I was working to change THAT system, I was working from the inside, and I do not mean the PTA.... I had a unique job where that WAS my job description, basically, as well as the development of leadership to support the process of change. My lunch partner today asked me how I could have left "all that" to enter the arena of ministry; he'd had a pretty cool social-change job as well, during a lull in his priestly career.... We both felt that IN the ministry there were many more opportunitites to participate in far-reacing change efforts; but then as you have acknowledged, the Episicopals can be pretty cool folks. :~)


I took a quick look or two at the "Secularist" thread BTW-- scary, scary, scary. I see more clearly now (no pretense of politeness in THAT thread) why there are some folks I just will not talk about this stuff with anymore, here, and I very much apprecuiate your post awhile back that answering to demands for my "responsibility to change the fundie world" is up to me.... it has to do, partly, with a smart sensse I am trying to develp of how to prioritize my time. Wrestling with people in the area of their greatest rigidities holds no attraction for me when it comes to time to spend. Fortunately the Ridid Right is wide open in OTHER areas of their personalities-- much more open than some of the rabid anti-religionists around here. I wish those folk would read you posts sometime, and try to take them in... Very ironic, but you speak for my "view" far more articulately than I have managed to do just yet.

I learn a lot from our little dialog-inside-a-dialog, Frank, and I thank you for your time and care in it. From trying to understand your posts from your view, to thinking how to cast my responses, there is a lot to learn.

~Susan

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

Mrrzy:

Replicability as a criterion has to be adjusted to the nature of the field. While molecules are pretty apathetic and will blindly perform the same way every time they are subjected to the same conditions this is not the case for sentient consciousness capable of originating decisions instead of just reacting. Given that deep and important difference, the onyl way you can acheive replicability is in the most general of terms. Furthermore although every complex compound molecule of the same parameters will behave exactly the same way and will be found to have exacvtly the same components, two beings will be found to have an entirely different set of decisions across their long history, and with each different decision a different set of consequences up to which they either did or did not step. Thgis does not mean you cannot isolate variables and predict large-scale phenomena, but it sure means that a blind quest for absolute replicability in human thought is a loser's game from the get-go.

Because of this the goals and rules of evolving a body of scientific knowledge about this arena has to be thought through carefully in advance, or it will fail the way Freud's projections failed to make a uniform model of thought,.

A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:09 PM

I am in favor of the scientific investigation of religion through psychology, history, the use of
carbon dating, DNA, etc. and attempting to understand the claims made by religious institutions. I don't see that this is harmful in any way and might shed more positive light on how religion functions in society.

Joe Campbell has stated that we need our myths. They are symbols and reflect what values society holds. They can be educative in that they prescribe productive ways to live. Myths need to be examined.

In this way, religion and science can find a rapprochement. Building an artificial barrier between the two doesn't help.

if the leading scientists of the world explored religion through their inductive methods,
we might learn ways to govern ourselves and outlaw war.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 04:38 PM

Yikes. I was yelling. Sorry - bad day at work with the mice.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 04:33 PM

Sure - INVESTIGATE the possibility, yes, but believe in it before the evidence is in, isn't thinking.

And if you have no replicable evidence, you have no EVIDENCE. Look it up.

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

500

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 09:11 PM

DANGED if I know.