# 4 things needed to destroy myth of creator deity



## billc (Jul 31, 2011)

From Dennis Prager comes Prager university where he takes 5 minutes to explore a topic.  This topic is belief and atheism and 4 things that need to be explained to end the myth of the creator deity.  Here is the 5 minute class...

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/The-Four-Big-Bangs.html

From the video: Who takes the greater leap of faith -- the atheist or the believer? Best selling 
author and award-winning radio talk show host, Frank Pastore, poses this 
question in this compelling Prager University video course


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 31, 2011)

Thanks_to_xkcd_I'll_never_give_a_normal_forum_response_ever_again.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 31, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Thanks_to_xkcd_I'll_never_give_a_normal_forum_response_ever_again.



Oh yes, we like that!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2011)

> Who takes the greater leap of faith -- the atheist or the believer?



Actually....that's a good question.

There is no proof either way of life after death, etc.
Heck, I'm unconvinced on the issue as both arguments make sense to me.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 31, 2011)

Bob's right. It is a good question.

Unfortunately, Mr. Pastore's arguments are weak.

He starts with an argument of appeal to authority: "Aristotle, Aquinas," etc.-but doesn't offer any of what they had to say on the subject, only that they made things difficult for him. At this point, as a scientist, it's worth pointing out that the "father of the scientific method," Aristotle, was guilty of many simple mistakes, like the observation that male humans have more teeth than females, or that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. While it's impossible to discount the importance and meaning of his work, he's hardly an "authority" worthy of appeal...

He then proceeds to delineate his "four big bangs." His lack of understanding of the first one is not surprising: people here on MT often have expressed their difficulty in grasping the idea of "nothing." That he makes this an either/or proposition in terms of a deity is a basic mistake-just as it is with the other three "big bangs," that demonstrate less and less understanding as he progresses.The idea that it all just "banged" isn't what the "big bang" theory really says at all, and we can see evidence of transitional stages in the universe's development through astrology-by looking at objects and events that are further away from us, we are literally looking further and further back in time toward the initiating events of the universe, and seeing evidence of the transitions that Mr. Pastore claims do not exist in his understanding of the theory.

I'll leave his muddled understanding of biology to a biologist like Empty Hands to really dissect-I'll just point oput that he's wrong:artificial life was created in the laboratory two years ago.  Of course, it's entirely possible that he filmed this segment before this took place.....in any case, he's wrong.

His "anthropological" big bang could simply be attributed to evolution, and usually is-he needs to take a look at some of the work being done in evolutionary anthropology.

His psychological big bang also could be attributed to evolution. Funnily enough, his argument that animals don't do art is, again, simply wrong: elephants do art.    Who is Mr. Pastore to make humankind the exclusive arbiters of beauty and truth on the planet? What does he know of whales and their-undeniably beautiful-song? What truths, given the chance, could they tell us?

HE closes by saying that we're confronted with a choice: "faith" in "four big bangs," or "faith in a Creator," when, in fact, there really doesn't have to be a choice at all. One can believe in a Creator *and* accept current scientific theory-the two are neither mutually exclusive nor set in stone-even the believer has doubt:



> ]Mark 9:24 Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I *do* believe; *help me overcome my unbelief*!"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2011)

Creationism is believing a God said "Let there be light" and it was so.
Evolutionism is believing that said God had to get up off the sofa and plug the light in after first taking the light out of the box and screwing it into a socket.

In an overly brief and highly condensed way.

I can see all the different variations as being, somewhat true.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 31, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Creationism is believing a God said "Let there be light" and it was so.
> Evolutionism is believing that said God had to get up off the sofa and plug the light in after first taking the light out of the box and screwing it into a socket.
> 
> In an overly brief and highly condensed way.
> ...



Hopefully he didn't buy his lamp at IKEA, or we'd still be waiting on him putting the bloody thing together, and life would never have happened at all!


----------



## elder999 (Jul 31, 2011)

Er.. I meant "astronomy. "  Done that all my life....:lol:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 31, 2011)

Only one thing required not to cling to a Creator-Deity-Mythology.

I'll just leave it at that.  Otherwise people will be reporting me for not giving their deliberately undisprovable beliefs equal footing with science and rational thought.


----------



## billc (Jul 31, 2011)

To settle this, let's just go where the big bang happened and start studying the site and see what we find.  Since that is where it all began it will probably answer a lot of questions for us.  What...we can't go there... well...what do you mean...if we can't go there, or leave this  rock we are on and so many other things that we can't do yet, and don't know yet, I can see where some might think they have the answer to those big questions.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jul 31, 2011)

We don't have to settle this and btw, we have left this rock we are on...
But your statement only demonstrates how little you understand, that doesn't mean we know everything or that I'm claiming to know everything about the universe as I clearly don't and I can honestly say this based on what I understand, and you clearly do not.

It just makes me laugh when people who have very little understanding about the facts and the theories surrounding the universe and it's creation comment on it like they know what they are talking about when they clearly do not.
Kind of like if I was talking about manicures and pedicures, something of which I have no clue but I started talking about it because of a story that was forced down my throat about someone who liked clipping peoples nails. 
I guess manicurists would look at me like I was an idiot...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 31, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Only one thing required not to cling to a Creator-Deity-Mythology.
> 
> I'll just leave it at that. Otherwise people will be reporting me for not giving their deliberately undisprovable beliefs equal footing with science and rational thought.



Oh, well *I'll* say it, Marc, 'cause you're right.

THe only thing to needed to kill the mythology of a creator deity is for people to not believe in them, by Zeus' beard and Odin's missing eye!

Or, if you prefer, the end of the human race......:lfao:


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 31, 2011)

Just because humans have had different conceptions of what "God" is over the years proves nothing. Perhaps _it's_ definition was at one time described through parable and metaphor and is maybe now being described through theoretical physics and "science" (which for all we know may look like 17th century science does to us a few hundred years from now). This doesn't necessarily disprove "Gods" existence. 

And pointing at "believers" and implying that they are shallow, unthinking, ignorant rubes who believe that God is some white bearded man in the sky a la Renaissance paintings, is at best simply being rude or at worst exhibiting self-serving arrogance utilized to elevate ones ego. There is a WIDE range of personal conception of what the Creator is.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2011)

I was talking to God the other day about this and She said that mankind hasn't matured enough yet to understand these things.

Wait, you say you have a holy book that says God is a guy?  Well, that's funny, mine says Gods a she.
Those guys over there says that God is a group of folks, and that fellow napping under the tree says God is just the positive energy of the universe or something.
Personally, I think he's been sipping some funny tea, but what do I know.

Guess we're gonna have to check back in 100 years and see who was right.
Well, except those fellows over there. They seem to be stuck in a repeat.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 1, 2011)

Why does it matter so much to some people what others believe or don't believe?


----------



## JohnEdward (Aug 1, 2011)

I don't know the 4 things that would destroy the myth but I know a few things keep it going.

1. Lite beer
2. Beer Drinking Rednecks (what else kid are there)
3. Ann Coulter and Homer Simpson
4. The missionary position 
5. more lite beer with the can that tells you the beer is at the perfect cold temp.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 1, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Why does it matter so much to some people what others believe or don't believe?



Because if your belief isn't the same as mine then you MUST be wrong and therefore an ignorant savage.  If you are an ignorant savage then your thoughts and feelings aren't as valid as mine, so it okay to treat you different than people who are like me.


Who cares if your god is the right god, someone else's god is the right one, they all are the right ones, or none of them are the right one?  If you treat each other like crap, it doesn't matter anyway and any god worth a damn would be embarrassed to have followers that treat others badly.  Of course that is just my opinion, since no god talks to me to tell me how they really feel.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 1, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Why does it matter so much to some people what others believe or don't believe?



Because people will ALWAYS feel a need to be vindicated and validated in what they choose to believe about their world.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 1, 2011)

Personally I am still waiting for the imminent discovery of those infinite mid-stage variants of inter-species evolutionary fossils before I make up my mind. Ah the genius of Darwin.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 1, 2011)

Ha!_Here's_the_one_I_was_looking_for!_Also,_I_need_to_get_to_sleep.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 1, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Bob's right. It is a good question.
> 
> Unfortunately, Mr. Pastore's arguments are weak.
> 
> ...



The "creating life" article states in it that scientists are a long way of from creating artificial life.  Even in the article it states that they started with a living bacteria and then implanted a different genetic structure to "reboot" it.  They did not create something from nothing.

As to the elephants and art.  Is it art if we train them to do it?  Do we have examples of animals doing art in their natural habitate?  Are their examples of animals "creating" things outside of rudimentary tools to get food?


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 1, 2011)

The Fourth Big Bang is easy....Our ancestors started tripping for fun and due to the complex abstract disturbances to the brains interpretations of memories and data from the sense organs the early humans brains out of necessity grew at an astonishing rate in an effort to "work out" what was going on(a brains principle function). Much the same as doing weights forces muscles to grow.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...vidence-for-magic-mushroom-use-in-europe.html

For the record though, I am a Ninja though so my theology starts and ends with a belief in the Ninja Master.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 1, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Why does it matter so much to some people what others believe or don't believe?



As long as it stays out of the schools, out of the government, is not forced down peoples throats, and my taxes dont have to pay for your beliefs, you can believe whatever you want to believe.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Personally I am still waiting for the imminent discovery of those infinite mid-stage variants of inter-species evolutionary fossils before I make up my mind. Ah the genius of Darwin.



It's already happened.  Dinosaurs with feathers.  Progressively hominid fossils.  Fish with lungs.  Still alive, a lizard species in the midst of transition from egg laying to live birth.

A few minutes on Google would have shown you innumerable transitional fossils.  Like this set:






Transitional fossils are not even slightly rare.  The fact that you think they don't exist demonstrates that you have already made up your mind instead of looking first.


----------



## JohnEdward (Aug 1, 2011)

Pastore is an entertainer, and writer. I don't give much credit to what entertainers say, and what they write. They have an underlining monetary motive to get people to buy their product, be it listening to their radio show, or buy their books or both. Because he is a media personality, his credibility is questionable. Second, the venue, Prager U....Dennis Prager, also a media personality has the same vested interest, needing fans...um followers... and a monetary and self interest gain. A red flag in the creditability dept., for me.  Maybe not for other people who use Dennis and his institution to persuade others to think and feel they way they do. That is fine, but that isn't me, I tend to be more open minded, read things myself and come to my own conclusions, rather dependent on self appointed others to do that for me. Because umm...they could be wrong. That right there is enough from me to weight very lightly what Pastore is saying.  

He also said he was an Atheist. To be an Atheist you have to believe in the Judaism God (reference the middle east for context), coming out of Egypt where it is said the Jews where impoverished slaves, and the hoopla over many gods vs. one God (reference Cecil B. DeMille's movie "The 10 Commandments" for background and effect). Sure Atheism has over time included all gods or higher powers. But Atheism really comes out of/counters the belief of a Jewish God's existence. To deny something you have to believe it first. So it isn't surprising Pastore's epiphany would be in the context of the Jewish God and all the Europeanized/Catholic morphing attached to it. Like that of Da Vinci's art work on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. His reference point for God came from a pre-existing model that he was cultured with as a child, and later at some point rejected it, would of course be the later accept religious model. He doesn't say that he believes that of which is greater than him exists are Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto, Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto and Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto, who created all things. No, he supports the Jewish view of one God. It is important to note where his choice creation myth comes from, and what creation myth he was trying to disprove. 

Pastor also over-looks and thereby giving no credit to how life is created. He says science still can't create life from nothing, from all the elements. He has failed to include us. Yes, believe it our not, WE create life and so does most all other living creatures. Yep out of nothing, from elements. WE create life. So many cultures credit something beyond them in their creation myths that explain our existence, yet it is simply the fact we do, and those creation myth are model on our reproduction methods, i.e.patterned off of sex and birth. But who made us, then begs the question? Well that is the really question isn't it, we did.  Be it the first man we came from the soil, and the women from his rib, or the first humans born from the sea, we create life. Yea, babies in our own likeness from nowhere and out of nothing, like so many other creatures do too. Pastore failed to see how life is created.  

He assumes that beauty/aesthetics (often used by some as a symbolical reference/ parallelism of the abstract idea of Faith; God's existence in the monotheistic religions) is something no other creature sees but us. No other creature, BUT US, comprehends the abstraction of God- yea we are the center of the Universe, everything revolves around us. What he doesn't realize is you are not born to appreciated beauty, and it is something that develops late in our childhood, or even in our adulthood. That is we are told, cultured, etc. what is and isn't beauty. We are taught to appreciate it, we are told it is a higher function of humans, and those who don't or appreciate other definitions are uncultured, less sophisticated, unintelligent. That in itself is darn right ignorant.
It is a propaganda and persuasion tool, to convince us to buy into what other people what us to think and believe. The perfect beer comes in a can that tells you when to drink it, at the perfect temperature. 

Pastor pulls out all the tricks try to persuade his views are the correct ones. I don't know, I can't get past all the tricks he is using to make a well informed decision about what he is saying to be true or not. And what God appointed him to spread the "truth," himself?  I have put this one on the shelf.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 1, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Yea, babies in our own likeness from nowhere and out of nothing, like so many other creatures do too. Pastore failed to see how life is created.



Nothing? Uhh I believe there is a well established body of evidence that eggs and sperm are involved. If you are talking about the process by which our bodies creates them..Chicken? Egg?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 1, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Why does it matter so much to some people what others believe or don't believe?



Because when there's two (or more than two) different beliefs on a subject, that leaves the possibility that one's belief might be the wrong one.  And when the subject is something that one finds to be fundamental , such as religion or the meaning of life or what have you, the possibility that one's belief is wrong threatens one's very ego.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Aug 1, 2011)

> Why does it matter so much to some people what others believe or don't believe?



For myself personally, I care when people start killing each other over it... which happens alot... Other than that, what's wrong with promoting critical thinking? There's nothing wrong with it, except to those that aren't thinking, right?

I don't for a second pretend to own the truth or that my views are the be all, end all of logic, because they aren't. Honestly it seems like the more we understand the more questions arise and the more there is to question and understand, but that's the beauty of it, I think.

Will we ever escape from nonsense? Probably in the near future we'll further merge with machines and this will take humanity to another level, one where we'll hopefully become more rational. Time will tell.


----------



## crushing (Aug 1, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I don't know the 4 things that would destroy the myth but I know a few things keep it going.
> 
> 1. Lite beer
> 2. Beer Drinking Rednecks (what else kid are there)
> ...



Only a creator deity could put a world together where one has to "man up" to drink a light yellow fizzy nearly tasteless diet beer.  Nothing keeps the myth spinning like an ice cold Miller vortex pour!


----------



## JohnEdward (Aug 1, 2011)

I am not trying to persuade anyone in case that is what is being thought. Just things I think about.


----------



## JohnEdward (Aug 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Nothing? Uhh I believe there is a well established body of evidence that eggs and sperm are involved. If you are talking about the process by which our bodies creates them..Chicken? Egg?



Yea, that is my point, sperm and an ovum, a god isn't up there making humans out of mud puddle. We come from nowhere when we are born-it is a matter of cells dividing which is not completely understood- more than it was thousands of years ago- that is what forms us. No different than what happened in theory as a result of the Big Bang. Our coming into being is a big bang of sorts isn't it. 

The common property with many creation myths, is no explanation of where the first beings come from. Was Adam ever a child? How was Adam made, what clay patch did he come from? Eve surely wasn't from the same dirt patch that Adam was from, she came from his rib. Cain and Able where born from Eve, not from a dirt patch. Do we not all suppose to come from Adam and Eve? We don't come out of a dirt patch into existence. And how are the other creatures made, where do they come from other planets and placed here? Where did God come from? "He" always existed? That puts God into the Big Bang theory described by Pastore which he disputes. Pastore disputes the idea of the Big Bang of something coming out of nothing. But it miss him, that God fails into the big bang theory idea too. Where does God come from, how did God came into existence? If he is the alpha and omega, he doesn't come from anywhere. That makes it even more complex the idea of something coming from nothing. Pastore can't have it both ways, he can't dispute something coming from nothing, yet, support the idea that something can never came into existence, it will and always be there. If you believe in God that is fine by me, I don't dispute that concept, you have to believe something comes from nothing, a simpler concept than that of something always being in existence, something that doesn't come from nowhere into somewhere, because it is already there. The theory of something from nothing then is more plausible.​


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2011)

I haven't read his book, has anyone here?  He seems to be saying he was challenged to disprove theism, and could not.

As to the question of faith, even the atheist has it.  His faith is that there is no God.  There is no way to scientifically prove either way.  Either you believe in a superior being(s), or you do not.  You may put an identification to that belief, or like the agnostic, not.

Myself, I am a Christian.  I believe in one God in three parts; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  I believe God the Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth in human form to shed His blood to pay for the sins of anyone who will believe that and ask for forgiveness from sin that Jesus' blood purchased, and ask Jesus into their heart, claiming the salvation that offers, by calling on the name of the Lord.  I believe that belief will ensure when I die I will go to heaven.  I also believe that God gives us free will to choose to believe Him and His Bible, or not.  The consequences for those not believing are to go to hell when they die, and no chance to leave there for all eternety.  I believe that based on reading the Bible, and by faith.

Since I believe in free will, everyone is entitled to make up their own mind.  I cannot, nor by my reading ot the Bible, should not try, to force anyone to accept my beliefs.  I can only explain them and hope people accept those beliefs, and by faith believe as I do.

So to all you you who do not believe in God, that is your choice.  I will not argue with you, but will be happy to explain what the Bible says.  Since Christianity is a faith based religion, it would be foolish of me to argue with you.  You may choose to belive the Bible, or not.  I don't hate you nor consider you stupid.  Only lost.  You are free to think of me as you wish as well.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 1, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Why does it matter so much to some people what others believe or don't believe?



"Witches" still get burnt.

Also, the athiest doesn't really need that much 'faith'. Many of us, I expect, file the concept of God as 'extremely unlikely, therefore, not worth bothering with'. The only faith I am asked to have is that the scientific fields report their data and interpretations thereof with reasonable honesty - and I always have, in theory, the option to _verify, _even though I may not have the means. We ask ourselves not to believe, one way or another, but to assess what information is available to us, and act on what is most likely to be. I don't have to cling to anything in the face of evidence. I don't have to 'test my faith'.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2011)

JohnEdward (and others) - I think his metaphorical use of the term big bang, and stating there are 4, is done in a mis-leading way.  The Big Bang is a theory that speaks of a specific cosmology.  It has its difficulties just as the cosmology of a Creator God who spoke the earth and heavens into existence.  On faith, I accept the later.  Others on faith, accept the Big Bang.  Others accept other cosmologies.  But no way can his other three occurences be considered to have the cataclysmic beginnings of a Big Bang.

I don't know, but considering his venue, I can only guess he says what he does to creat controversy and discussion.

As to sperm and egg, that is a way many species continue their species.  It isn't the only strategy.  A single celled organism divides, a virus seems to survive by stealing life processes from other cells, and some still question if it is even "life."  As to Adam and Eve, it is a matter of faith.  You believe or you don't.  Just as you believe whatever it is that you believe.


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2011)

And scientists, of all disciplines also have an underlying need for money.  That is why you catch some of them making things up, discrediting the work of other scientists and doing those things that "entertainers" also do.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2011)

cdunn said:


> ...
> 
> I don't have to 'test my faith'.



Isn't that almost a contradiction in terms?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 1, 2011)

I would argue that "We" dont "create" anything when we reproduce. Cell division is a bilogcically mechanical process. The mystery of the process of consciousness seems to be the metaphor of "Adam and Eve" IMO. Rather than a literal belief that man was created wholesale from clay.


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2011)

Look up archeology scandals and you can see that scientists are no more pure than any other of Gods creatures.


----------



## JohnEdward (Aug 1, 2011)

Bill agreed. It is entertainers and personalities on the whole I discredit as an authority. There is nut jobs out there from all sorts of walks of life with slants pushing something so people will bite. I am not completely sold on the Big Bang theory either, or support the theory of evolution as it is presently presented, there are still lots of holes in it. I don't throw out the idea of a God or gods, just the fanatics. It is all a matter of junk science and junk religion, and the fanatics in each camp I give no credibility to, as they are both obsessed with being right. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. Stories and myths exist in both science and religion because it is something as as default, we humans do when we don't know poop and we want to know it or our egos get in the way. We love a good mystery and either solve it or explain it. We are driven to know, and can't accept it is, as it is, and we have to persuade everyone else of what we believe or find, especially those who don't agree.  Frankly I find that strange, and more pressing than how the universe came into existence.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Look up archeology scandals and you can see that scientists are no more pure than any other of Gods creatures.



And what does that have to do with....well, anything?  Corrupt priests don't indicate a twisted faith, so why would corrupt scientists damn science?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 1, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> As to the elephants and art. Is it art if we train them to do it?



I suppose Michaelangelo was born able to do this:


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 1, 2011)

Training in mechanics/techniques is not "art". Much like in Martial Arts.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Training in mechanics/techniques is not "art". Much like in Martial Arts.



I believe that elder's point was that the existence of instruction doesn't preclude it being art.  One has to learn to play the notes before performing on stage (unless you're a pop star).


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 1, 2011)

True, but with Punishers example (Elephants trained to paint) I see his point. Unless there is some evidence of using those techniques to express something BEYOND the technique..is it "art"?


----------



## Jenna (Aug 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> It's already happened.  Dinosaurs with feathers.  Progressively hominid fossils.  Fish with lungs.  Still alive, a lizard species in the midst of transition from egg laying to live birth.
> 
> A few minutes on Google would have shown you innumerable transitional fossils.  Like this set:
> 
> ...



And that was exactly my point (which referenced the post before it) and I think you missed or ignored: why are you wasting time trying to prove your point of view to someone who has already made up their mind?  Why do you want to change the point of view of someone else to match your own????


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> And that was exactly my point (which referenced the post before it) and I think you missed or ignored: why are you wasting time trying to prove your point of view to someone who has already made up their mind?  Why do you want to change the point of view of someone else to match your own????



I read both posts, but did not gather your point from what you wrote.  My apologies.

To answer your question, the demonstration is mostly for those on the sidelines.  There are people out there who will be swayed by education and facts.  They can also be swayed by lies and misinformation.  If those with the facts refuse to speak up, then the liars and the ignorant carry the day.  When they do that, then there are consequences for the rest of us.  

Also, I feel that education of the public is a responsibility of my profession.  It is my duty to counter the liars and put forth the facts where I can.  Scientific denialism is increasing in power, as we even see on this forum again and again and again.  That will have social consequences, and I won't just ignore it.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> True, but with Punishers example (Elephants trained to paint) I see his point. Unless there is some evidence of using those techniques to express something BEYOND the technique..is it "art"?



From time to time,a new piece of art by one of the old masters is "discovered," only to be found, upon later study, to have been done by said master's student(s). The difference between "art," that which is innately felt and personal,and "craft,"that which can be taught, is often a thin line-just as in martial arts: how many of us are truly only martialcraftsmen and technicians,mimicking as best we can what our teachers _train_ us to do? Likewise, how can we look at the work of an elephant-even a trained one-and know the innate feeling of the elephant that fashioned it,and whether it is "art" or not? 

Pastore's statement to this effect smacks of the same sort of hubris and chauvinism that led to the thinking that "man was the only animal that made tools." Or has fun. OR has emotions. All of which,to one degree or another , have been proven by science to be untrue.



punisher73 said:


> As to the elephants and art. Is it art if we train them to do it? Do we have examples of animals doing art in their natural habitate? *Are their examples of animals "creating" things outside of rudimentary tools to get food*?



Here:
[yt]Nh9XL08Akwc[/yt]
Give this a try-I did, once, a long time ago. It may be "rudimentary," but it's hardly simple, and displays a great deal of creativity, and even critical thought, in my opinion.

and, here:

[yt]EBYPlcSD490[/yt]

My family's fortune was made hunting and killing these magnificent creatures (along with right whales and spermwhales),who sing a song we can't entirely decipher,and show as much curiosity about us as we do about them at times. In fact, my family was directly responsible for helping to discover the whale grounds in the very waters shown here,back in the early 19th century. Ascribe this whale's display to whatever you like-you can no more "know," than we can know that whales don't dance their own form of ballet in the ocean depths,and purely for the pleasure of artistic expression.....yet they were hunted almost to extinction,because of the notion that mankind sits at the pinnacle of God's creation.

Again-Mr. Pastore's argument's are weak, and, in my opinion, completely uneccessary-the "big bang" and "God"-even the _Christian_ "God,"-need not be mutually exclusive at all-especially to believers. Atheists are a different story,of course-*everything* and "God" are mutually exclusive to them, and why in the world would I want to even try changing their minds about it??


----------



## fangjian (Aug 1, 2011)

> To answer your question, the demonstration is mostly for those on the sidelines. There are people out there who will be swayed by education and facts. They can also be swayed by lies and misinformation. If those with the facts refuse to speak up, then the liars and the ignorant carry the day. When they do that, then there are consequences for the rest of us.
> 
> Also, I feel that education of the public is a responsibility of my profession. It is my duty to counter the liars and put forth the facts where I can. Scientific denialism is increasing in power, as we even see on this forum again and again and again. That will have social consequences, and I won't just ignore it.






Right on. If someone comes on to a forum and says something like "Capoeira comes from Taiwan or Intelligent Design is science", don't be all 'offended' and then call me a 'militant whatever' ,  if I come back with a counter argument and say your claim is baseless.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 1, 2011)

from Prager University:   





> We live in a morally inverted world where men and women, while biologically different, are in every other way the same; where the United States is an imperial power; where Israel is the cause of terror in the Middle East; where bigger government is better government; where God is a fiction.
> 
> How did we get turned so upside down? The short answer is education. How do we set things right? The short answer is education. The first kind of education is secular, values-free, anti-patriotic, and politically correct; the kind of education most kids get from kindergarten through college.
> 
> At Prager University we're proposing a new kind of education, an antidote to the venom you've been force fed. It's based on the premise that solid, common sense ideas can purge you of years of toxins. Five minutes is all it takes. Watch any of our video courses and find out what we mean.


   hahahaha

For your knowledge, if you really wanna receive an education but can not attend a school, go to link below instead. Set an hour or so of your time aside per day for watching a few 10 min lectures, and going through the practice examples. 

http://www.khanacademy.org/


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 1, 2011)

The video is such a crock of ****.

Essentially a guy with no background in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry or astronomy, or any of the sub categories of the afore mentioned subjects, has the audacity to lecture us on the faults or current limitations of science? 

His whole argument is essentially, _science is not perfect because it cant explain everything, and since it is not perfect and can't explain everything, god must be the only viable answer that is left to us._

When this quack gets a PHD in at least biology and physics and completes a few decades of post graduate work and study, his opinion will then have validity, until then.. :BSmeter:


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 1, 2011)

This has been an enjoyable thread to read. Mainly because it hasn't degenerated into a yelling screaming I'm right you're wrong argumentative one. There have been some disagreements yes but they're not rude (that I've perceived) or derrogratory <sic> and I must say on the topic of religion it's quite refreshing. So thanks to all (thus far) who have participated. 

I also loved Tez's question of why do people have to be that way because they don't believe as others do. Excellent question and probably worthy of it's own thread. 

I agree also with oftheherd's statement that the video poses a question and a challenge and that the line of thoughts from the posts in this thread are doing exactly what I suspect the video intended... created a topic for discussion. I didn't get any "this is right and everything else is wrong" attitude from the video. After all he only had 5 minutes to get his "challenge across". 



oftheherd1 said:


> I haven't read his book, has anyone here? He seems to be saying he was challenged to disprove theism, and could not.
> 
> Myself, I am a Christian. I believe in one God in three parts; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I believe God the Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth in human form to shed His blood to pay for the sins of anyone who will believe that and ask for forgiveness from sin that Jesus' blood purchased, and ask Jesus into their heart, claiming the salvation that offers, by calling on the name of the Lord. I believe that belief will ensure when I die I will go to heaven. I also believe that God gives us free will to choose to believe Him and His Bible, or not. The consequences for those not believing are to go to hell when they die, and no chance to leave there for all eternety. I believe that based on reading the Bible, and by faith.
> 
> ...



I appreciate your "testimony" and must say that my BASIC beliefs are very much aligned with yours. I don't think however that God is so absolute that if you don't believe you're going to hell. Jesus Christ gave his life to pay for whatever debts we lack to enter God's kingdom. Yet for the ones that don't believe I think there's also an "get out of hell" card for them. But again that is another thread/topic entirely. 
But I do have a question for you... WHY do you believe in what you believe? 
My own personal spiritual experiences have been ranged from mild to wild. Also my journey of learning about God in this life will only end with my death. After I die... well I guess I'll find out first hand exactly who's right and who's wrong... or not. 

I am so done with organized religion because "everybody is right and everybody is wrong". There are so many variations that's it's nigh impossible to disconcern the truth from any of them and yet so much truth from all of them... it's just not the WHOLE truth, or to simply say everybody is right and nobody is wrong just that they don't know it all. 

True that, no proof of life beyond death except by faith in one's belief's. Again, my own personal spiritual experiences have taught me that there is life beyond death and the experiences were so profound that there cannot be any doubt in my mind and most importantly... in my heart (where I know my soul resides).  

I'm one of those weirdos that believe in both creationism and evolutionism. God, created everything a long long time ago and everything that He hath wrought is still evolving ... including humans. The universe that He created is still expanding and growing and stars and planets are still being made, Darwin was correct that we are all still changing. A look at ANY life form on this planet compared to 100 to 10,000 years ago will show those changes however subtle. And I believe God is still creating... why else are we still finding "unknown or new" animals/plants/birds/et al today? Our own life cycles prove to us that not everything happens with a BANG or poof there ya are. A loaf of bread isn't just suddenly made; ingredients have to be gathered, mixed in the proper order at the proper time, given time to rise before putting it in the oven and given time to bake and then given time to cool... now take that concept, add forever, multiply it by infinity and maybe that is what creation is about. 

At least it is to me anyway. 

Few days ago I watched a program on the History (or was it Discovery) channel where they took man's intelligence and it's "unexplained" leaps and bounds thanks to intervention of aliens from other planets paying us occasional visits. Where the cave man living in caves suddenly now are building pyramids to suddenly creating ideas ala DaVinci to suddenly creating rockets to suddenly making atomic weapons to going to the moon to huge Cray computers to the portable laptops and deep space satelites <sic>... and pondering what technological leap is just waiting to be given to us on their next visit. 
Totally leaving the prospect of God granted intelligence out of the equation. I was offended I'm sad to say because I like to think of myself as an open minded intelligent person. Yet my heart was appalled at their proposals. Man's evolution attributed to Alien intelligence indeed.  Oh, and they blamed natural catastrophies on aliens too, saying that it was their way of cleaning house to make room for the next step in man's evolution. So we have no possible way of growing, changing without their help. Before I clicked the remote's off button I spoke to the commentator (who I know couldn't hear me anyway  ) "I'm sorry but you guys can just kiss my big hairy white butt!" 

But, they could be right and I could be wrong.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> WHY do you believe in what you believe?



I guess I would say, I believe what I believe because all of my beliefs/worldview are a product of the scientific method, which is so far, the best way to find out if something is true or not.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 2, 2011)

The false assumption that everyone have about the scientific method is that it must be a  something and it  must be objectively measureable for it to be true.  There is an inner science to know God. It is call Yoga, and it deals with no-thing. Yoga is not to be confuse with the westernize Hatha Yoga that are mainly compose of asanas (postures) which main benefits are only physical. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna (Aug 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I read both posts, but did not gather your point from what you wrote.  My apologies.
> 
> To answer your question, the demonstration is mostly for those on the sidelines.  There are people out there who will be swayed by education and facts.  They can also be swayed by lies and misinformation.  If those with the facts refuse to speak up, then the liars and the ignorant carry the day.  When they do that, then there are consequences for the rest of us.
> 
> Also, I feel that education of the public is a responsibility of my profession.  It is my duty to counter the liars and put forth the facts where I can.  Scientific denialism is increasing in power, as we even see on this forum again and again and again.  That will have social consequences, and I won't just ignore it.


I accept your world view and that of many others.  Whilst I may not agree with your view, personally I am not someone to preach to the converted as I regard your view as holding as much personal importance to you as mine does to me.  I respect your right to hold your view and would only ask that you respect mine.

As with all followers of science, you have based the "correctness" of your view on an assumption (as have I as a believer, incidentally).  That assumption is that our scale of measurement of accuracy is the right one.  You, as a religious non-faithful, have applied a metric of *scientific proof* and set about assuring your view is at the upper echelons of that scale (ie. it is, in your mind well proven).  I, as a believer, would not accept your scientific scale as the basis on which to found my view, as my view is based upon a scale of emotion and very hard-won life experience. I cannot give you my "proof" for my worldview any more than you can give me yours. And that is ok!  

I hope you follow.

Regarding how those with an opposing view to yours dictate or colour your choices and freedoms, well, naturally I could argue the same.  Personally I believe the Dawkins and Hitchens vehicle is intentionally a viewpoint steamroller that homogenises every opposing viewpoint to theirs and tempers much of the media (as I see it).  Nevertheless, fortunately for us both, we live in an apparent democracy where we do at least have the impression of freedom at election polls and we are certainly free to switch off a channel or not read material that we feel is incongruous with our own viewpoints. 

I do not want to appear argumentative (personally I am tired of the berating attitude of many scientific proponents, as I would guess you are tired of the sanctimoniousness and apparent naivety of many religious devotees - coincidentally so am I).  Instead of being argumentative, I am simply seeking to state that while both world views are refutations of each other, at the same time we need not be angry or hostile towards followers of the opposing view.

I hope this is clearer and apologies for any confusion earlier.  I see dead-horse flogging threads like this and occasionally feel compelled to be supercilious or disruptive.  The day there is a genuinely open discussion on this argument I would gladly partake   I hope you are well, Jenna.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I guess I would say, I believe what I believe because all of my beliefs/worldview are a product of the scientific method, which is so far, the best way to find out if something is true or not.


Who says this is the best way to know what is true and what is not?  What is your proof for this?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Who says this is the best way to know what is true and what is not?  What is your proof for this?



Whether the subject is Biology, Economics, Self Defense from Edged Weapon etc., the method below ( or the other variations of it ) is demonstrably the best. It gets results and you can make accurate predictions. 

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


----------



## elder999 (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Whether the subject is Biology, Economics, Self Defense from Edged Weapon etc., the method below ( or the other variations of it ) is demonstrably the best. It gets results and you can make accurate predictions.
> Define a question
> Gather information and resources (observe)
> Form an explanatory hypothesis
> ...




The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.



Succinct as ever


----------



## Jenna (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Whether the subject is Biology, Economics, Self Defense from Edged Weapon etc., the method below ( or the other variations of it ) is demonstrably the best. It gets results and you can make accurate predictions.
> 
> Define a question
> Gather information and resources (observe)
> ...


... Sorry, let me restate.  

How do you define science as the best methodology for proving a concept?  Naturally I mean proving and not disproving via some notional reductio ad absurdum.  

You cannot disprove the existence of a deity to me (a believer) using your own scientific methodology.  You can certainly not do it using my metric of belief.

So I mean how do you define science as the best methodology for proving a concept?  Especially when the concept is the existence of something (a belief) you cannot disprove using that methodology.

BTW, I am not looking to argue the point over the existence or non-existence of a deity.  That would be an utterly pointless exercise.  I am simply challenging your self-righteous belief in science as the be all and end all (pardon the pun).

Thank you, Jenna


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.



You will have to define the word god and the claim, I guess. That can mean many things.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

Jenna said:


> ... Sorry, let me restate.
> 
> How do you define science as the best methodology for proving a concept? Naturally I mean proving and not disproving via some notional reductio ad absurdum.
> 
> ...


The value of this method can be measured by what it produces. Also, claims can be verified by others. 
You can not 'disprove' a lot of things. The claims of gods and goddesses is usually a claim in Cosmogony ( amongst some others of course depending on the claim). Cosmogony *is* science, so how is it 'out of the realm of science' ?


> The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.



Like what has been said earlier. The subject can also be 'dragons that breath fire' or 'no touch knockouts'. It can not be 'disproven', but it doesn't mean that the claim is valid or 'out of the realm of science'


----------



## Jenna (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> The value of this method can be measured by what it produces. Also, claims can be verified by others.
> You can not 'disprove' a lot of things. The claims of gods and goddesses is usually a claim in Cosmogony ( amongst some others of course depending on the claim). Cosmogony *is* science, so how is it 'out of the realm of science' ?
> 
> 
> Like what has been said earlier. The subject can also be 'dragons that breath fire' or 'no touch knockouts'. It can not be 'disproven', but it doesn't mean that the claim is valid or 'out of the realm of science'


Again, I am certainly not disputing the value of science as *a* method for proving concepts.  I am simply trying to establish your grounds for the statement you made earlier that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not.

How do you know belief (for example) is not the best way to find out if something is true or not?  What is your proof that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not especially *without being self-referential *towards science, I mean, you cannot say science is the best way to find out if something is true because it is scientifically proven to be the case.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Again, I am certainly not disputing the value of science as *a* method for proving concepts.  I am simply trying to establish your grounds for the statement you made earlier that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not.
> 
> How do you know belief (for example) is not the best way to find out if something is true or not?  What is your proof that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not especially *without being self-referential *towards science, I mean, you cannot say science is the best way to find out if something is true because it is scientifically proven to be the case.


It is the best imo, because in using the scientific method, you are able to make 'predictions'. I do not know of another method that can do this. You seem to imply that you know of other methods that can do this. If there is a method that can do this better than the generally known 'scientific method', I most certainly want to know it. Sorry if I am still not understanding your question.  My answer is:   'the ability to make accurate predictions'


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2011)

Had a professor in college once that on the topic of evolution and creationism would not tell us what he believed but he got into the whole thing about a creator and lack of scientific proof and yadda yadda yadda&#8230;it has been discussed Ad nauseam so I will not go into that part further. 

But he then said that if you look at science and evolution and starting with chemical compounds combining to get all the way to Humans that makes about as much since as a tornado going through a junkyard and when it left you find it had built a 747


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

Your professor's analogy is very flawed. The tornado analogy is operating completely on random chance. The junk in the yard doesn't reproduce.  It's a HUGE jump to a finished product that is already specified ahead of time. Evolution by NS is completely different.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2011)

Relax.. don't take any of this stuff to seriously...life's to short.... I doubt he was completely serious.. it was a rather heavy subject and he was likely trying to lighten thngs up a bit... and I forgot the tornado stayed in the junk yard for thousands of years bit which was also part of his statement....and it was many many years ago

But how is evolution, starting from basic chemicals to humans at least at the beginning, prior to life...more than reandom chance? Adn for that matter how is early evolution more than random chance?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> But how is evolution, starting from basic chemicals to humans at least at the beginning, prior to life...more than reandom chance? Adn for that matter how is early evolution more than random chance?



Very good question. I have no friggin idea. 
However after life got started, evolution is driven by the environment and selecting for random mutations. The mutations are 'random', but the selection is not. Regarding abiogenesis, which I have read most of the hypotheses regarding it, I will not pretend to know the answer. But if you understand 'Natural Selection', you can definitely get a sense for how organic molecules could have formed into some Prokaryotic cells, I guess.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I accept your world view and that of many others.  Whilst I may not agree with your view, personally I am not someone to preach to the converted as I regard your view as holding as much personal importance to you as mine does to me.  I respect your right to hold your view and would only ask that you respect mine.



I appreciate what you are trying to say.

However, I think two different categories of claims are being talked about, or at least I can't distinguish your views on them.  One category seems to be what you are talking about, a sort of "I believe this unprovable thing, you believe that unprovable thing, let's be respectful of each other."  However, the type of claim I thought I was responding to is more concrete - "evolution is untrue", "the world was created 6000 years ago", that sort of thing.

If someone says "evolution is untrue", there can be no mutual understanding, no unprovable opinions of equal weight, no "respecting of views."  Saying "evolution is wrong" is a factual claim, and a wrong claim.  There is no other way of understanding it.  No more than I must "respect your opinion" if you claim that the moon is made of green cheese or that 2+2=7.  I have no duty to "respect the views" of someone making wrong factual claims.  They should be educated if ignorant or countered if liars.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 2, 2011)

What tends to get trampled underfoot when discourse swerves away from science to mythology, is that what we have now in terms of life is what is *left* after all the other things failed.  It is not a case of life being too complicated to occur by chance because of some 'wonderment factor' which means therefore there must be a Divine Potter.  It is a case of the living forms left being the ones, based upon the chemical reactions that happened to be self-replicating, that survived the process of natural selection.  Nothing mystical, just trillions of failures with a few successes.

Mechanical analogies are not really satisfactory as explanations to disprove evolution as a functioning theory.  Smash a watch with a hammer and is stays smashed (altho' I won't be the one to bet against it never fixing itself in one of the infinite time-lines).  Hit a life-form with a hammer and, assuming you don't kill it, it will work on repairing itself - that's a significant part of what separates living things from inanimate ones i.e. self-replication and self-repair.  Just wait for the nano-plague to scotch that particular distinction :lol: ...


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

Jenna said:


> How do you know belief (for example) is not the best way to find out if something is true or not?  What is your proof that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not especially *without being self-referential *towards science, I mean, you cannot say science is the best way to find out if something is true because it is scientifically proven to be the case.



Falsifiability.  If you can't determine if something is false, then you have no way of determining whether or not it is true.  Scientific ideas are falsifiable.  Belief, at least in the sense that theists intend, is non-falsifiable.  Therefore the scientific method is superior to belief.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Relax.. don't take any of this stuff to seriously...life's to short.... I doubt he was completely serious.. it was a rather heavy subject and he was likely trying to lighten thngs up a bit... and I forgot the tornado stayed in the junk yard for thousands of years bit which was also part of his statement....and it was many many years ago



I'm pretty sure he was serious, because that "argument" is an extremely common one made by creationists, based on the work of Fred Hoyle.  Here is a description of the work and what is wrong with it.



Xue Sheng said:


> But how is evolution, starting from basic chemicals to humans at least at the beginning, prior to life...more than reandom chance? Adn for that matter how is early evolution more than random chance?



Because surviving and replicating forms are selected for.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 2, 2011)

Am I the only person who sees the "tornado in the junkyard" as a metaphor??? IMO people who argue about the invalidity of a metaphor based on its face are trying to bypass the deeper meaning. Is it really possible to mix a bunch of chemical compounds and expect life to spring out?

Perhaps a "blender in a pond" would make people happy?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.



Why?  The believer makes the claim, not the atheist.  The atheist simply does not believe in that for which there is no evidence.  The onus is always on the one making the claim.  It is not the duty of the atheist to "disprove" God, but rather the duty of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence and demonstration of their claim.

Martial arts is a good comparison.  If I claim that my new art is based on ancient ninja secrets and will allow the user to throw fire balls and cure cancer, is everyone obligated to believe me until someone can disprove it?  Or should I provide some evidence for my extraordinary claims before I am believed?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Why? The believer makes the claim, not the atheist. The atheist simply does not believe in that for which there is no evidence. The onus is always on the one making the claim. It is not the duty of the atheist to "disprove" God, but rather the duty of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence and demonstration of their claim.
> 
> Martial arts is a good comparison. If I claim that my new art is based on ancient ninja secrets and will allow the user to throw fire balls and cure cancer, is everyone obligated to believe me until someone can disprove it? Or should I provide some evidence for my extraordinary claims before I am believed?



True, but this is only if the person making the claim cares what they other person thinks or doubts their own belief/feeling/thoughts.

I am not arguing or disagreeing here but I have used this statement many times with people in the real world and occasionally in WWWland

Your request for proof/explanation/justification (choose based in the situation) does not produce in me a desire to provide it...have a nice day.

And for the record I am making no claims on this from either side of the argument/discussion


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 2, 2011)

The atheist is the same as the theist.  To not believe is the same as believing since both implys that one does not know. Beliefs and disbeliefs doesn't alter the truth, except for ones individual preception.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> The atheist is the same as the theist.  To not believe is the same as believing since both implys that one does not know. Beliefs and disbeliefs doesn't alter the truth, except for ones individual preception.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk



We do not _know_ with *100% certainty* if the Earth is a spheroid, so the claims that it is flat, or pyramid shaped are equally valid? Or how about a claim like 'There are 100 planets between Mercury and the Sun.'  We don't _know for sure,_ so it's valid?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> We do not _know_ with *100% certainty* if the Earth is a spheroid, so the claims that it is flat, or pyramid shaped are equally valid? Or how about a claim like 'There are 100 planets between Mercury and the Sun.' We don't _know for sure,_ so it's valid?



What do you MEAN we are ot certain...of course we are...its a cube


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

Hhahahahahahaahaha. I almost fell out of my chair!!


----------



## elder999 (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> You will have to define the word god and the claim, I guess. That can mean many things.



The "being" outside of this "space/time" that brought it into being: the Creator.



Empty Hands said:


> Why? The believer makes the claim, not the atheist. The atheist simply does not believe in that for which there is no evidence. The onus is always on the one making the claim. It is not the duty of the atheist to "disprove" God, but rather the duty of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence and demonstration of their claim.
> ?



My goal is not "prove" or "disprove" "God," nor to impose any sort of onus upon atheists, but to demonstrate the inefficacy of the scientific method in certain realms, _for the time being and forseeable future_, at any rate.



fangjian said:


> Like what has been said earlier. The subject can also be 'dragons that breath fire' or 'no touch knockouts'. It can not be 'disproven', but it doesn't mean that the claim is valid or 'out of the realm of science'



Many things are out of the realm of science, for the time being and forseeable future.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The "being" outside of this "spce/time" that brought it into being: the Creator.



How come you think there is a 'being' that is outside of space-time?


> My goal is not "prove" or "disprove" "God," nor to impose any sort of onus upon atheists, but to demonstrate the inefficacy of the scientific method in certain realms,_for the time being and forseeable future_, at any rate.



Sorry. I think you added this part after.

Are the existence of unicorns or souls, also outside the realm of science?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> How come you think there is a 'being' that is outside of space-time?



Such a "being" by definition, would have to be outside space-time in order to have created it, as well as in order to precede the "bigbang."


----------



## fangjian (Aug 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Such a "being" by definition, would have to be outside space-time in order to have created it, as well as in order to precede the "bigbang."


And how do you know this?  Perhaps these gods are within spacetime. Perhaps they _are_ spacetime. Perhaps there is no '_before_ spacetime', so _before_ the big bang is meaningless, because it is eternal and always was.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2011)

God Entity to Bender - Futurama Godfellas



> *
> God Entity:* Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
> *Bender*: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
> *God Entity*: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> My goal is not "prove" or "disprove" "God," nor to impose any sort of onus upon atheists, but to demonstrate the inefficacy of the scientific method in certain realms, _for the time being and forseeable future_, at any rate.



Well that's definitely true, although I don't rule it out in principle.  I accept that the proposition is non-falsifiable, by the scientific method or any other method we have available.

That's not how most believers act in this debate, however.  I have several general problems with how these debates usually go.  The first is that the believer will often say that God cannot be disproved and that there is no evidence for or against it, which is true.  However, the believer doesn't _act _as if that were true.  The believer is convinced, knows that God exists.  Enough in many cases to claim that lack of belief makes the atheist less somehow, and enough to get hostile in many cases.  And yet, the believer still shifts the burden onto the atheist.  "Disprove it!" they say, in many cases knowing this cannot be done.  If the believer knows so well that God exists, they ought to be able to provide a reason for it.  This is how the world works, how epistemology and common sense works.  If you cannot provide good reasons for your belief, then that should tell you something about what you believe.

You and I both know what are usually done with non-falsifiable hypotheses.

The second is that every believer I know of commits every sin they accuse the atheist of.  Without fail.  I've never known a theist that wasn't perfectly comfortable claiming that Odin and Thor or ghouls and goblins or _all the other Gods out there _don't exist.  And yet their very own arguments impeach them.  By their own words, they should not disbelieve in _anything _which cannot be disproven.  If they do, that makes them just as arrogant, close-minded, evil, or whatever else they claim atheists are.  Many atheists are fond of saying "we are all atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do."

So why the special pleading for the believer's God-of-choice?  Where is the justification there?

Forget science, forget proof.  How can _feelings _which are undeniably shaped by cultural context and upbringing, feelings which are provided special pleading compared to everyone else's feelings, provide any information about the truth of the universe?  We all know how fallible feelings are.  We know how conceptions of God and the Universe have changed with time and place.  How can any of that be trusted?

Yet somehow, it's the atheists who are close-minded and irrational and just don't get it.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> We do not _know_ with *100% certainty* if the Earth is a spheroid, so the claims that it is flat, or pyramid shaped are equally valid? Or how about a claim like 'There are 100 planets between Mercury and the Sun.'  We don't _know for sure,_ so it's valid?


 
Well if i was on the earth. I would say it is flat and it is so. relative to me. If i was in space i would say it is round and that is true also relative to where im at. A greater truth does not make a lesser truth false. But with God we are dealing with absolute truth. If we dont know something for sure does not make it valid but also it doesnt make it non valid.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna (Aug 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I appreciate what you are trying to say.
> 
> However, I think two different categories of claims are being talked about, or at least I can't distinguish your views on them. One category seems to be what you are talking about, a sort of "I believe this unprovable thing, you believe that unprovable thing, let's be respectful of each other." However, the type of claim I thought I was responding to is more concrete - "evolution is untrue", "the world was created 6000 years ago", that sort of thing.
> 
> If someone says "evolution is untrue", there can be no mutual understanding, no unprovable opinions of equal weight, no "respecting of views." Saying "evolution is wrong" is a factual claim, and a wrong claim. There is no other way of understanding it. No more than I must "respect your opinion" if you claim that the moon is made of green cheese or that 2+2=7. I have no duty to "respect the views" of someone making wrong factual claims. They should be educated if ignorant or countered if liars.


 For the record, I do not appreciate those who take what they have read in their holy texts with such a closed minded attitude that they can conceive of the earth being 6000 years old.  I am however not sold on the theories contained in Origin of the Species (however plausible).  My view as a believer is more open than some perhaps.  What I despise most is the lack of understanding and the downright scientific dogma and pious intransigence in the debate which turn it into a curt and puerile "whose stick is bigger" discourse.  Open discourse is good.  Giving me a large stick notched with various "proofs" and telling me to beat myself with it because it is for my own benefit is no better a method than me giving you a fantasy novel and whipping you with it until you can recite it and take it as truth.  It is impossible for proponents of either view to convince the other without understanding   That is that point I would try to make here, Jenna


----------



## Jenna (Aug 2, 2011)

Curing cancer is an excellent example as given.  I am diagnosed with a strange mutation cervical cancer.  Embarrassment caused me to ignore symptoms.  Now the disease is at a too advanced stage to allow for invasive procedure or radiotherapies to function.  My consultant is, for me, the public face of science.  He is published in The Lancet. Regarding oncology, he knows inherently what is fact and what is wishful fantasy.  His statements are backed by endless research, I trust him even in his assurances that I will die.  It takes me a while to assimilate what he says.  Two weeks later, and so certain is he of his evidence that he must abide by his financial duty of care to our National Health Service and withdraws funding for my horrendously expensive medications.  I am on my own.  Yet I do not abide by his metric of science on which I have incontrovertable evidence of my imminent death.  I abide by one of blind faith and belief that tells me that he is (in this case) wrong because he has measured my rate of deterioration on a scale of science that is itself based upon assumption, which unfortunately is backed by *apparently* repeated proof.  I choose to disavow his scale and trust my own.  It is blind trust based on nothing except something that I believe.  That I am not supposed to die yet.  Tell me I am wrong.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Well that's definitely true, although I don't rule it out in principle. I accept that the proposition is non-falsifiable, by the scientific method or any other method we have available.
> 
> That's not how most believers act in this debate, however. I have several general problems with how these debates usually go. The first is that the believer will often say that God cannot be disproved and that there is no evidence for or against it, which is true. However, the believer doesn't _act _as if that were true. The believer is convinced, knows that God exists. Enough in many cases to claim that lack of belief makes the atheist less somehow, and enough to get hostile in many cases. And yet, the believer still shifts the burden onto the atheist. "Disprove it!" they say, in many cases knowing this cannot be done. If the believer knows so well that God exists, they ought to be able to provide a reason for it. This is how the world works, how epistemology and common sense works. If you cannot provide good reasons for your belief, then that should tell you something about what you believe.
> 
> ...




I'm what you would call a believer and I don't think atheists are close minded, irrational etc, I see no reason to think that at all, why shouldn't you be an atheist if that's what you think? I also see no reason why Thor, Odin etc can't exist, I have an open mind on it. Why shouldn't they, why should they, who knows, who cares? I like my beliefs, they and me fit, we don't seek to have any one believe what we do, we actively discourage non Jews from converting. I don't plead my deity is everyones special one, pick your own or pick none up to you, why wouldn't it be? I don't like pleaders, they tend to be miserable little pleaders. However I spend very little time worrying about what other people believe as far as religions or not having religions are concerned, I've never seen a reason why I should. To each their own or as they used to say in the sixties ( yeah I was there lol) ...whatever turns you on man. 

The conversations should be

Person 1.. I believe in X deity.

Person 2  I don't believe in any deity

Person 1  Let's have a beer

Person 2 Yeah!

Persons 1 and 2  Bottoms up!


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 2, 2011)

This debate is overly complex. It would be much easier on everyone if you would all just agree with me, even when what I say is obvious garbage.

Free will and free thinking are over rated just try to be happy doing things my way.:ultracool


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Free will



Freewill - Rush



> There are those who think that life is nothing left to chance,
> A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.
> 
> A planet of playthings,
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> This debate is overly complex. It would be much easier on everyone if you would all just agree with me, even when what I say is obvious garbage.
> 
> Free will and free thinking are over rated just try to be happy *doing things my way*.:ultracool



Frank, is that you? Is the Rat Pack with you?


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> What do you MEAN we are ot certain...of course we are...its a cube



Nice everything you got there....
Would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.....


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> > Originally Posted by *MA-Caver*
> >
> >
> > WHY do you believe in what you believe?
> ...


On physical things, things of this world yes I believe that science can answer many questions, but on the meta-physical or spiritual plane, science has no part IMO. To me science helps me better understand the workings of my creator. It helps me understand the depths of His knowledge which makes mine (and everyone else's) appear infinitestimal by comparison. But seeing atoms via electron microscopes and understanding (at the basic level) how billions of them combined together in a specific way make up everything that we are and understanding brain functions, bodily functions, then expanding outward to understanding how things grow and how the planet we're on is made and all of that... those I grant thanks to science to help us understand. 
But truth... the answer remains always and forever with how we see things with our hearts. 
When my g/f says "I love you" to me I hear it with my heart, my feelings tell me that she speaks truthfully. When I've read the various bibles and theological discourses over the years, I'm also in silent prayer and leaving my heart/feelings open and allow the truth to tell me, to tell my spirit that it is what it is.
My own personal experiences with evil helps me define the differences. I don't need science to provide assistance with that.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 2, 2011)

Are you sure the earth isn't flat?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Are you sure the earth isn't flat?
> 
> http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/



Yes, Yes I am


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 2, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Are you sure the earth isn't flat?
> 
> http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/




It was till the Númenórean's attempted to invade the Undying Lands causing the Valar to lay down their stewardship and call upon Eru. The Undying Lands were then removed from the world forever, and the formerly flat Earth was made into a globe. Númenor was overwhelmed in the cataclysm and sank beneath the sea.


For you Tolkien nerds like me.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 2, 2011)

I was thinking more Terry Pratchett...


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I was thinking more Terry Pratchett...



that came to mind with me too!


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

I hope you beat your cancer. 



Jenna said:


> Yet I do not abide by his metric of science on which I have incontrovertible evidence of my imminent death.



There is no incontrovertible scientific evidence of your imminent death.  Science does not say that "Jenna" will die from cancer.  Science says that a certain percentage of people in your situation will die.  Even if that percentage was 100%, that does not rule out in principle that someone could survive.  These are probabilities, not certainties.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 2, 2011)

Jenna said:


> It is blind trust based on nothing except something that I believe.  That I am not supposed to die yet.  Tell me I am wrong.



That is your strength of will, my friend.  The power of the mind to overcome adversity by refusing to accept it and using it's imaginative prowess to conjure ways around that which logic says cannot be defeated.  It works - it's worked before and it will work again.

I wish that I believed that there was a loving creator to which I could pray for you but I do not.  So I hope that my love, as one human to another who is in distress and danger, will be just as welcome.

Do NOT give in, Jenna.  The world will be a lesser place without you in it.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I hope you beat your cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no incontrovertible scientific evidence of your imminent death.  Science does not say that "Jenna" will die from cancer.  Science says that a certain percentage of people in your situation will die.  Even if that percentage was 100%, that does not rule out in principle that someone could survive.  These are probabilities, not certainties.



Oh I am sorry my friend, to you and Sukerkin, I apologise, I am being illustrative only here, there is nothing  too much wrong with my health, I apologise.  I am sorry that I am as usual not particularly clear in my analogy or my language and but it  is purely to illustrate I promise, Jenna  

... As to your point, yes, you can of course reduce scientific uncertainty to mathematical concepts such as probability, especially since the human machine is such a complex agglomeration of interconnected and complex systems, however my point here is simply to counter the argument that was made that the religious faithful (read fundamentalist) sections of society can extend and impose their worldviews onto the lives of non believers.  Science holds a great sway over our existences, in many cases rightly so, and but in other cases it is to the detriment of life itself.  If, as a layperson, I have it shown to me that the weight of scientific evidence is against me in the case of my own health, then more often than not, I will take that as fact, whether I want to believe it or not.  The trust I put in my consultant and the faith I have in his medical science naturally tempers my view even, as is often the case, where he tells me I will die and I take him at his word, and by some destructive placebo effect, bring about a quickening of my own death.  What I would hope is that there would be place for both systems of measurement: science and belief.  However, I appreciate that for many on both sides of the fence, it is unfortunately a black and white issue with no shades of grey.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 3, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> That is your strength of will, my friend.  The power of the mind to overcome adversity by refusing to accept it and using it's imaginative prowess to conjure ways around that which logic says cannot be defeated.  It works - it's worked before and it will work again.
> 
> I wish that I believed that there was a loving creator to which I could pray for you but I do not.  So I hope that my love, as one human to another who is in distress and danger, will be just as welcome.
> 
> Do NOT give in, Jenna.  The world will be a lesser place without you in it.


I am sorry for any confusion in my language Suke, I am as usual not so competent in putting a thought together! As much as there is a truth of experience in what I wrote, I promise I am using this analogy only as illustration   And but Mark I wish too that you could extend your scientific logic to encompass the notion of, as you put it, a loving creator, or at very least, some aspect of existence beyond our own scientific corporeality.  I think if you believe in nothing more than what is contextually provable then there is little point in hoping for anything, whether that be for a nice sunny day for your picnic or that your loved ones recover from illness.  If there is nothing more than a science which excludes the notion of a deity then there is no place either for hope, for (without wanting to sound twee) where would your hopes go to perform an action?  Are your hopes not hopeless?  Are you not deluding yourself to think that your hopes for a sick loved one have some effect? And but I do apologise for my post that you responded to, I am just using that as an illustration


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 3, 2011)

That's one almighty "PHEW!" from me, so fear not my dear friend that I mistook what you wrote as actuality rather than illustration.  I knew that you had been seriously ill not so long ago and so was aghast that a new, devestating blow, had fallen upon you.

I am SO deeply glad that this is not the case :double thumbs-up:


----------



## cdunn (Aug 3, 2011)

Jenna said:


> And but Mark I wish too that you could extend your scientific logic to encompass the notion of, as you put it, a loving creator, or at very least, some aspect of existence beyond our own scientific corporeality. I think if you believe in nothing more than what is contextually provable then there is little point in hoping for anything, whether that be for a nice sunny day for your picnic or that your loved ones recover from illness. If there is nothing more than a science which excludes the notion of a deity then there is no place either for hope, for (without wanting to sound twee) where would your hopes go to perform an action? Are your hopes not hopeless? Are you not deluding yourself to think that your hopes for a sick loved one have some effect? And but I do apologise for my post that you responded to, I am just using that as an illustration



As soon as a God interceeds in our reality on our behalf, he is a testable hypothesis. And he has not fared particularly well. That does not mean that there is no use for hope. Hope alone strengthens the resolve of the mind - as a function of the body, the mind has feedback loops with the body, and hope makes them positive. Hope inspires us to try for ourselves. Hope in family and medical caregivers inspires them to work more diligently on your behalf. And frankly, we're still very bad at biology as a society, and things can happen we don't always expect. The world is not perfectly deterministic, so far as we can tell. We have agency in our own lives, therefore, hope. But I will not beg and plead with the universe, nor will I make a loved one suffer unneccesarily. Neither is beneficial.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 3, 2011)

cdunn said:


> As soon as a God interceeds in our reality on our behalf, he is a testable hypothesis. And he has not fared particularly well. That does not mean that there is no use for hope. Hope alone strengthens the resolve of the mind - as a function of the body, the mind has feedback loops with the body, and hope makes them positive. Hope inspires us to try for ourselves. Hope in family and medical caregivers inspires them to work more diligently on your behalf. And frankly, we're still very bad at biology as a society, and things can happen we don't always expect. The world is not perfectly deterministic, so far as we can tell. We have agency in our own lives, therefore, hope. But I will not beg and plead with the universe, nor will I make a loved one suffer unneccesarily. Neither is beneficial.


 
Without god there is no religion.  To test god. use ones own spirit as an instrument.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 3, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> Without god there is no religion. To test god. use ones own spirit as an instrument.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk



And how does one calibrate &#8220;spirit&#8221;?


----------



## Jenna (Aug 3, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> And how does one calibrate &#8220;sprit&#8221;?


With a spirit level of course!


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 3, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> And how does one calibrate &#8220;spirit&#8221;?



I think it's measured in Proof.  I like my spirit at a good 80 proof or so.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 4, 2011)

Meditation. Well firstly we must see the commonalities of the world religions, in order to find universal religion. 
The misconception is faith and beliefs are the same.  with belief it differs among religions but also within individuals of the same religion and sect, And also among people who disbelieve in general. Ones catholic belief of jesus may be different from another and so forth. Faith on the other hand is to trust the prophets that god is a reality and follow in the steps they taught in order to reach Him. So it is a continue process of inner growth until one finally reached enlightenment,heaven,realization etc. Depending on which world religion you are raise with. So the product ( saints. Mystics. Prophets etc.) are real. But its on ones part to do the experiment to see for oneself. Very much in a sense like a science teacher who already know the result but gives the students the tools in order to find out for him or herself.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 4, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> Meditation. Well firstly we must see the commonalities of the world religions, in order to find universal religion.
> The misconception is faith and beliefs are the same. with belief it differs among religions but also within individuals of the same religion and sect, And also among people who disbelieve in general. Ones catholic belief of jesus may be different from another and so forth. Faith on the other hand is to trust the prophets that god is a reality and follow in the steps they taught in order to reach Him. So it is a continue process of inner growth until one finally reached enlightenment,heaven,realization etc. Depending on which world religion you are raise with. So the product ( saints. Mystics. Prophets etc.) are real. But its on ones part to do the experiment to see for oneself. Very much in a sense like a science teacher who already know the result but gives the students the tools in order to find out for him or herself.



When I first read your post I thought it said Medication&#8230;..it made for a funny few sentences&#8230;..

So you&#8217;re saying meditation can bring one closer to a god? How do you know? There is a biological and chemical change to performing meditation over a long period of time, it rewires the neuron receptors in the brain, it restructures them. If that is the case is getting closer to a god simply a matter of biology?

Using words like spirit, which is a wishy washy word to begin with, what does it mean? &#8220;I&#8217;m not religious, but I&#8217;m spiritual&#8221; what does that mean?? Spirit is one of those feel good words people use to make themselves feel better, it implies a closer understanding with the wider world, yet it can&#8217;t be measured. How do I know after a great dinner, some wine, sex and sleep, the melancholy/relaxed mood one can be in isn&#8217;t the same thing produced by meditation?

It has to be measureable.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 4, 2011)

As i said the method is not the same as if you were to measure something. God is not something since he is beyond everything. Otherwise if he can be proven in such a way. By definition of someone who is both the alpha and the omega. He is no longer god. If you want to measure something you can sure try. But you can't measure something if you don't know where to begin. But the irony is some-thing always can be measured in time. But. With god we are dealing with nothingness.  You may be suprise that there are things that people unlock through meditation that may include healing power. Levitation. Mind read. Astral travel etc. And ultimately the secrets of the universe and fusion with god through meditation alone. Christian saints for example sometimes have stigmata. Although the product is very real and documented. People fail to prove it. Saint Theresa of Neumann was known not to eat anything besides the consecreate bread of Chirst. And many more just from this world religion alone. Other religions also have their own saints who are able to perform miracles similar and unique to their own tradition. Although a man may be highly psychical. He may still not yet know God (ultimate reality). But he knows there are subtler realities.
 Can we say gravity does not exist if we cannot prove it? It still exist before and after we know about it unaffected by human amazment.  But if someone is able to levitate... Then now what? Its not the whole truth since there are always exceptions in nature when it comes to dealing with saints and mystics. If you want to test the product. There are few of them still physically around.  Especially in India. Then now the problem is how to know who is real and who is not?  This also depends on how spiritual (calibrated) And open the individual is. Another way is if ones psychic faculties are open enough. You can see their golden aura. Often depicted as a halo above Jesus or Budhha in paintings.

Now what is the difference between being religious and being spiritual?  If the man can pray in a church but not a temple. He is religious (dogmatic). If he can pray in both he is considered to be spiritual. The dogmatic religious man who believes that god is everywhere but yet fail to see and give praise to him at other holy temples is hypocritical.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 4, 2011)

*You may be suprise that there are things that people unlock through meditation that may include healing power. Levitation. Mind read. Astral travel etc. And ultimately the secrets of the universe and fusion with god through meditation alone. Christian saints for example sometimes have stigmata. Although the product is very real and documented. People fail to prove it. Saint Theresa of Neumann was known not to eat anything besides the consecreate bread of Chirst. And many more just from this world religion alone. Other religions also have their own saints who are able to perform miracles similar and unique to their own tradition*
*if ones psychic faculties are open enough. You can see their golden aura. Often depicted as a halo above Jesus or Budhha in paintings.*

*healing power. Levitation. Mind read. Astral travel*

Until all of the above can be proven scientifically, under controlled conditions, duplicated and verified somewhere else by peer review, its snake oil salesmen all over again. 

I believe Randi is still offering $1million to anyone who can prove any of the above, and in all these years no one has done so.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 4, 2011)

Astral Travel, gods and goddesses, telepathy, levitation........   Woo woo


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Astral Travel, gods and goddesses, telepathy, levitation........ Woo woo



I think I've played a fey warlock in D&D capable of astral travel.  Gods, but I love 4th edition. :lol:


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 4, 2011)

If you are truthful in your inquiry. Then first have some self effort. Scriptures,self effort in the path of yoga and having a Sat-Guru is part of the equation.  If not dont so readily disbelief when there are people that knows.

Yoga is the inner science.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 4, 2011)

Qigong masters can heal. Go find and see, they are not many.  Saints are even fewer and they don't need to prove themselves. That is unbecoming of them. Can you imagine Jesus or a Buddha who do such a thing? Of people of religion here. What is the number one message? Self sacrifice. Humilty. Altruistic love. These  beings being absolutely humbled need not prove themself in such a manner.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 4, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> Qigong masters can heal. Go find and see, they are not many. Saints are even fewer and they don't need to prove themselves. That is unbecoming of them. Can you imagine Jesus or a Buddha who do such a thing? Of people of religion here. What is the number one message? Self sacrifice. Humilty. Altruistic love. These beings being absolutely humbled need not prove themself in such a manner.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk



There is only one 'message' in life and that is to treat everyone as you would like to be treated. You can't go far wrong with that.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 4, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> If you are truthful in your inquiry. Then first have some self effort. Scriptures,self effort in the path of yoga and having a Sat-Guru is part of the equation.  If not dont so readily disbelief when there are people that knows.
> 
> Yoga is the inner science.



A 'lack of belief' is simply a default position regarding the claims. I can not believe them, since evidence has never been provided to me. I am not cynical or anything like many on MT like to believe. However, I most definitely will dismiss claims along the lines of 'levitation', due to my understanding of Newtonian Mechanics.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The "creating life" article states in it that scientists are a long way of from creating artificial life. Even in the article it states that they started with a living bacteria and then implanted a different genetic structure to "reboot" it. They did not create something from nothing.



And if you review Mr. Pastore's statements, he says that "_we are *no closer*" _ to creating life, when,in fact,we are.....


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 4, 2011)

I wouldn't say they would be creating life as much as they would be building it from a model.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Sort of like using a cake mix and calling yourself a pastry chef?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I wouldn't say they would be creating life as much as they would be building it from* a model*.



Do you have one in mind lol? Elle McPherson?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I wouldn't say they would be creating life as much as they would be building it from a model.



From the article:



> we have started with information *in a computer, used four bottles of chemicals to write up a million letters of DNA softwa*re, and actually got it to boot up in a living organism.



as I said, a step closer, if one can understand what was done, and Mr. Pastore says, at 2:43, states _We're still no closer_.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Was that the Bettty Crocker mix or a generic brand?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> as I said, a step closer, if one can understand what was done, and Mr. Pastore says, at 2:43, states _We're still no closer_.



I've been around the fringes of this debate for some time.  The usual outcome is rampant goalpost moving, which is what we see here.  The experiment demonstrates convincingly that life is just chemistry, albeit massively complex chemistry, that can be replicated.  There is no living spark, no special living essence, which is actually a very old debate in biology convincingly settled here.

Someday we won't need the shell, and an entire cell will be synthesized from purified chemical components.  When that day comes, there will be some other reason that it won't count.

My Organic Chemistry Professor said something very wise to us once.  "Don't base your faith on the inability of man to create life, because someday it will happen, and your faith will fail."


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Who made the chemical components?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Who made the chemical components?



In my experience, Sigma-Aldrich.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Was that the Bettty Crocker mix or a generic brand?



A *genetic* brand,dontcha think? :lfao:

In any case my argument isn't with his position as much as it is the arguments he uses to support that position. Science neither proves nor disproves a single thing about a creator, the sould, or spirit. This may be because of deficiencies in the current state of science: there was a military demolition expert, some general whose name I can't recall, who insisted that the atomic bomb could not work. There are any number of scientific positions that do a complete 180 over time, as the means to investigate further becomes available from earlier investigations.Likewise, it is not the place of religion,or _faith_ to _justify_ itself with scientific positions-or to argue that they're incorrect simply because they fit in with their cosmology. In Mr. Pastore's case, he's also making the all too common religious _error_ of viewing the creation myth of Genesis as a factual, historical and scientific account,rather than as the allegory it (and,for the most part, *all* creation myths) was intended to be: comprehension of the deity in its entirety-whether one believes or not-is supposed to be beyond the comprehension of most human brains,most of the time. It's like non-physicists dealing with the idea that before the "bigbang" there was _*no*thing_ and *no* "time." Consequently, fangjian is partially right-there was no "before the bigbang"-hence my use of the word _preceding_-and whatever preceded the big bang would have to be outside this dimension,universe and space/time to have preceded them, and, consequently, brought them into being. Such a being, along with wherever and whenever it was when it brought a bout the first moment in our time, the first space in our space, is beyond the means of science as it stands now to detect-just as the extradimensional, extratemporal,and extrauniversal are to our dimension, space/time and universe.

In any case: religion/science, for the time being, ne'er the twain shall meet-nor should they. His "four big bangs" are really more like _four frail f*latulences*_, yet another _billibanality_ (ooh! I *did* use it as a noun,.....)


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Hmmm...and before them?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Who made the chemical components?



I can see the eventual _reductio _now: you didn't weld the individual atoms together using your own hands, so it doesn't count!


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Just saying.  Wouldn't you have to get down to that level to claim true life making?  Isn't anything else just borrowing what is already here?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...and before them?



Chemists synthesize organic molecules from simple precursors like short chain alkanes, benzenes and the like using simple reactants and solutions.  Living creatures are not necessary.

Like this:






You are proving my _reductio _right in front of me in minutes.

Really, you are completely outmatched on this front, this is my life's work.  It would be like me trying to teach you something about frequent political posting.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Can you also use it as a verb?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I've been around the fringes of this debate for some time. The usual outcome is rampant goalpost moving, which is what we see here. The experiment demonstrates convincingly that life is just chemistry, albeit massively complex chemistry, that can be replicated. There is no living spark, no special living essence, which is actually a very old debate in biology convincingly settled here.
> 
> Someday we won't need the shell, and an entire cell will be synthesized from purified chemical components. When that day comes, there will be some other reason that it won't count.
> 
> My Organic Chemistry Professor said something very wise to us once. "Don't base your faith on the inability of man to create life, because someday it will happen, and your faith will fail."



Bob, where did the "thank" button go?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Just saying.  Wouldn't you have to get down to that level to claim true life making?  Isn't anything else just borrowing what is already here?



Then you didn't create this post because you didn't create the electrons that were used to transmit and display it.

Rampant goalpost moving, just like I said.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

God made fire, and it seems we can as well, how would making life  challenge a persons faith?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> God made fire, and it seems we can as well, *how would making life challenge a persons faith*?



And *that* is absolutely correct. Give the baldish youngster from Peoria a cigar! 



billcihak said:


> Can you also use it as a verb?



If you want to completely _billibanal*ize*_ this thread, I suppose I could......:lfao:


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Sorry, I don't smoke, thanks for the offer.  Good job on the verb,  what else can you do with it?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> God made fire, and it seems we can as well, how would making life  challenge a persons faith?



Because a very large number of people believe in a God of the Gaps.  Wherever there is something we don't understand, can't perceive, or can't do?  Well, that's God.  In the old days when we didn't understand lightning, the God of the Gaps was Jupiter or when we didn't understand the wind there were Spirits of the Air.  The Gaps are getting smaller though.  Now that we know what causes those, the God of the Gaps has been relegated to pre-Big Bang cosmology or the creation of life.  Someday we will create life, and another Gap will close.  Such are people.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Because a very large number of people believe in a God of the Gaps.  Wherever there is something we don't understand, can't perceive, or can't do?  Well, that's God.  In the old days when we didn't understand lightning, the God of the Gaps was Jupiter or when we didn't understand the wind there were Spirits of the Air.  The Gaps are getting smaller though.  Now that we know what causes those, the God of the Gaps has been relegated to pre-Big Bang cosmology or the creation of life.  Someday we will create life, and another Gap will close.  Such are people.


No gaps: if the big bang theory is true, then an entity such as a Creator simly must have preceded it. Likewise any other act or moment of creation.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Sorry, I don't smoke, thanks for the offer.  Good job on the verb,  what else can you do with it?


 Something lewd, perhaps. You could ask Bill Clinton just how he billibanaliphated his cigars...:lfao:


----------



## fangjian (Aug 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No gaps: if the big bang theory is true, then an entity such as a Creator simly must have preceded it. Likewise any other act or moment of creation.


No. 

What you're asking is 'Well, _who_ created the universe?    A more appropriate question is, "How was the universe created?"


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Definitely not your best effort.  I always appreciate the comedians who don't have to go "blue" to try to get a laugh.  It always seemed to me that the less talented comedians would use the lewd and vulgar because they didn't have the talent to be funny without it.  Take the kings of comedy,  Bill Cosby and Jerry Seinfeld, you never really saw them using lewd and vulgar humor but they were always at the top.  Bill Cosby in particular was really funny and I think the only swear I ever heard him use was A**hole.  I never much liked Seinfeld, but he did make it big without going to the easy lewd and vulgar stuff.  You might want to go back to the drawing board.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Someday we will create life, and another Gap will close.  Such are people.



Bingo. You got that right. The gaps will continuously close. They've been closing ever since Thales predicted the first solar eclipse and showed everyone that 'we don't have to be afraid of the gods anymore'. 
Someday, Physicists may find out that matter/energy is eternal, always was and always will be. Therefore no need for a creator, since it 'always has been'. Yet people will still say 'Well who created it". Not understanding that the question is meaningless.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> No. What you're asking is 'Well, _who_ created the universe?    A more appropriate question is, "How was the universe created?"


Pretty sure I'm not "asking" a thing. That would be indicated by the lack of question marks in my posts. :lfao:


----------



## fangjian (Aug 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Pretty sure I'm not "asking" a thing. That would be indicated by the lack of question marks in my posts. :lfao:



You're right. There was no question. Just an assertion.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> You're right. There was no question. Just an assertion.


Yes. And, as I've asserted elsewhere, evidence supporting such assertions is purely personal, subjective, rarely duplicable and never disprovable. That is to say, outside the realm of science.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Definitely not your best effort.  I always appreciate the comedians who don't have to go "blue" to try to get a laugh.  It always seemed to me that the less talented comedians would use the lewd and vulgar because they didn't have the talent to be funny without it.  Take the kings of comedy,  Bill Cosby and Jerry Seinfeld, you never really saw them using lewd and vulgar humor but they were always at the top.  Bill Cosby in particular was really funny and I think the only swear I ever heard him use was A**hole.  I never much liked Seinfeld, but he did make it big without going to the easy lewd and vulgar stuff.  You might want to go back to the drawing board.


Meh. See also: Richard Pryor, Moms Mabley, Redd Foxx, George Carlin, Sam Kinison, etc., etc., etc.Besides, the object isn't to make you laugh. It"s to make *me* laugh.See? :lfao:


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

I agree that the object isn't to make me laugh, but my point is still valid, it wasn't your best effort.  The only comedian who I actually thing made the "blue" thing funny was Eddie Murphy in his Raw, concert.  That was funny.  Sam Kinisons funniest stuff was probably his material on religion, his material on  starving people, his song about his ex-girlfriend, and a few other things. Carlin was good up to the point where he just seemed mean and unhappy.   I wasn't much of a Richard Pryor fan, some of his movies with the guy from the mel brooks movies were good.  Red Fox, sanford and sun was funny but I never saw his stand up.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I agree that the object isn't to make me laugh, but my point is still valid, it wasn't your best effort.  The only comedian who I actually thing made the "blue" thing funny was Eddie Murphy in his Raw, concert.  That was funny.  Sam Kinisons funniest stuff was probably his material on religion, his material on  starving people, his song about his ex-girlfriend, and a few other things. Carlin was good up to the point where he just seemed mean and unhappy.   I wasn't much of a Richard Pryor fan, some of his movies with the guy from the mel brooks movies were good.  Red Fox, sanford and sun was funny but I never saw his stand up.


Fair enough, but you should look for Redd Foxx. He put the "blue" in blue comedy,  before either of us was born, and Eddie Murphy (good catch!)  owes a great deal to him-as does Ron White, whether he knows it (he does!) or not.


Edit: Reed Foxx is on YouTube, but nothing from before Sanford and Son.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

I don't imagine Red Foxx's blue comedy would be on Youtube.  I'll check just in case.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Aug 4, 2011)

> No gaps: if the big bang theory is true, then an entity such as a Creator simly must have preceded it. Likewise any other act or moment of creation.



Must have preceded it? No that's not true, might have, maybe, but not must have.



> You're right. There was no question. Just an assertion.


More like a false assumption.

At least you admit to the facts that your beliefs are disprovable. That is honest.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Must have preceded it? No that's not true, might have, maybe, but not must have.


Read it again. If such a being exists, etc.





> IMore like a false assumption.At least you admit to the facts that your beliefs are disprovable. That is honest.


No. Nothing assumed, nothing false, and certainly nothing disprovable. In fact, if you look again, I've said nothing about my beliefs, except that all evidence to support any such beliefs is subjective, personal, and not disprovable or usually duplicable.....U


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 5, 2011)

fangjian said:


> A 'lack of belief' is simply a default position regarding the claims. I can not believe them, since evidence has never been provided to me. I am not cynical or anything like many on MT like to believe. However, I most definitely will dismiss claims along the lines of 'levitation', due to my understanding of Newtonian Mechanics.


 
That is why the common people call these miracles because they don't understand it also. Lets just say its something you have to see firsthand. ; )

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 5, 2011)

Yes that is getting closer in as far as intellectual knowledge goes. God did not create the universe. He is everything known and unknown. So the universe is but a part of him. Didn't Jesus say he was god? He knows there is but god. Does your left hand test the right hand? to test something you must find something other than what you are testing. For example a cup to hold water. In order to test things the things you are using must be different from the things you test. There simply an is-ness.  On the physical material level. We see things of all shape,size,colors imaginable if wd go deeper we see every is made of atoms. Going deeper we see that much is really just space. And yet deeper and subtlest is cosmic cousciouness which in otherwords is god.  Right now the majority of people believe only humans have cousciousness. "animals have no soul" but now we know not only animals but plants and living things can express emotions. More subtler than space and time is this cousciousness that encompass both the known and unknown. Once you experience this you will know that you are connected to every single thing. Enlightenment, reflected in the smile of the budhha. Faith and Science is more connected than you think. My post on this subject matter is hopefully to spur the truth seekers in here. One extreme is always contain within another extreme. There is a bit of yin in yang and yang in yin. Subjective and objectivity is part of a whole. Dr. Masaru Emoto have proven that our emotions  effects water molecules. With positive words water change its shape to nice geometrical shapes and vice versa. The body a grosser form of the mind. Placebo pills works sometimes even better than the actual medication. Etc. Etc. Etc.. This debate can continue ad infinitum if you function from the limited mind. It may even get you further from the truth.  In meditation its the mind you learn how to control. Extreme Emotions, passions etc senses, the body the ego.Can be seen from a 3rd person perspective. If that is possible then who you think you are may not be what you really are. Once you know the Self that is unchanging in you, you reach god. Similar to how you see yourself physically. You must look at your reflection but how do you do that when the object that is trying to reflect you is never still? The mind. Try to meditate. See how many verbal thoughts run through your mind. See how many impressional thoughts there are concerning who you think you are.? See how many emotions (thoughts) you run through during the day. All of this must be still. In order to see yourself.

In Christianity. It is said God Son and Holy Spirit is one. In Hinduism. God Guru and one's self is one.. Another commonality in religion that is as true as it gets.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 5, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> That is why the *common people* call these miracles because they don't understand it also. Lets just say its something you have to see firsthand. ; )
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk



Common folk? Mmm that's calling out talk where I come from, calling someone common is an insult!

People's beliefs are interesting but the person expounding those beliefs should remember that what for them is a fact to someone else isn't. It's all just opinion. I can see peoples points of view, I can understand their beliefs but because I don't share them doesn't mean I'm closed minded, I just have my beliefs which I don't chose to share in any depth other than it involves good food.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Common folk? Mmm that's calling out talk where I come from, calling someone common is an insult!
> 
> People's beliefs are interesting but the person expounding those beliefs should remember that what for them is a fact to someone else isn't. It's all just opinion. I can see peoples points of view, I can understand their beliefs but because I don't share them doesn't mean I'm closed minded, I just have my beliefs which I don't chose to share in any depth other than it involves good food.


 
That's it!! To be common. Because everyone wants to be special. Saints are extraordinary.... Very very ordinary people. Moving from special to ordinary. We move from partiality to being wholee.... Holy.  Since this may or may not be true. Might be an fact or just an opinion. Pleaze be open to it. : ). both the atheist and theist pleaze do so. Because the state of openess is when we start to really learn and really know. In any topic. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 5, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> That's it!! To be common. Because everyone wants to be special. Saints are extraordinary.... Very very ordinary people. Moving from special to ordinary. We move from partiality to being wholee.... Holy. Since this may or may not be true. Might be an fact or just an opinion. Pleaze be open to it. : ). both the atheist and theist pleaze do so. Because the state of openess is when we start to really learn and really know. In any topic.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk




No, that's not it, call someone common here and it's the same as calling them chavs, not good.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No gaps: if the big bang theory is true, then an entity such as a Creator simly must have preceded it. Likewise any other act or moment of creation.



And the creation of the creator? Where does the Matroyshka end? Inside of this universe, we only see that there is no indication of an intercessionary deity. While this is compatible with both the atheistic position, and the deistic, hands-off creator vision, we have, in total honesty, absolutely no idea of what natural laws might exist outside of the universe. _Including causation_. It is entirely possible that the universe was caused only by its own potential to be. And why not? At some point, something had to be. Why not cut the chain as short as possible?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 5, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> Yes that is getting closer in as far as intellectual knowledge goes. God did not create the universe. He is everything known and unknown. So the universe is but a part of him. Didn't Jesus say he was god? He knows there is but god. Does your left hand test the right hand? to test something you must find something other than what you are testing. For example a cup to hold water. In order to test things the things you are using must be different from the things you test. There simply an is-ness.  On the physical material level. We see things of all shape,size,colors imaginable if wd go deeper we see every is made of atoms. Going deeper we see that much is really just space. And yet deeper and subtlest is cosmic cousciouness which in otherwords is god.  Right now the majority of people believe only humans have cousciousness. "animals have no soul" but now we know not only animals but plants and living things can express emotions. More subtler than space and time is this cousciousness that encompass both the known and unknown. Once you experience this you will know that you are connected to every single thing. Enlightenment, reflected in the smile of the budhha. Faith and Science is more connected than you think. My post on this subject matter is hopefully to spur the truth seekers in here. One extreme is always contain within another extreme. There is a bit of yin in yang and yang in yin. Subjective and objectivity is part of a whole. Dr. Masaru Emoto have proven that our emotions  effects water molecules. With positive words water change its shape to nice geometrical shapes and vice versa. The body a grosser form of the mind. Placebo pills works sometimes even better than the actual medication. Etc. Etc. Etc.. This debate can continue ad infinitum if you function from the limited mind. It may even get you further from the truth.  In meditation its the mind you learn how to control. Extreme Emotions, passions etc senses, the body the ego.Can be seen from a 3rd person perspective. If that is possible then who you think you are may not be what you really are. Once you know the Self that is unchanging in you, you reach god. Similar to how you see yourself physically. You must look at your reflection but how do you do that when the object that is trying to reflect you is never still? The mind. Try to meditate. See how many verbal thoughts run through your mind. See how many impressional thoughts there are concerning who you think you are.? See how many emotions (thoughts) you run through during the day. All of this must be still. In order to see yourself.
> 
> In Christianity. It is said God Son and Holy Spirit is one. In Hinduism. God Guru and one's self is one.. Another commonality in religion that is as true as it gets.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk



There are so many things that are questionable with this post. But let's tackle one thing shall we? You claim that " Plants express emotion ". 

Why do you believe that?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 5, 2011)

fangjian said:


> There are so many things that are questionable with this post. But let's tackle one thing shall we? You claim that " Plants express emotion ".
> 
> Why do you believe that?



Can you doubt it?


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> There are so many things that are questionable with this post. But let's tackle one thing shall we? You claim that " Plants express emotion ".
> 
> Why do you believe that?


 
It have been tested not what i believe.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> No, that's not it, call someone common here and it's the same as calling them chavs, not good.


 
Who is reacting to this? The ego. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 6, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> It have been tested not what i believe.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk



Link to the source please.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

J.C Bose

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Carol (Aug 6, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> J.C Bose
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk



An actual link to the actual source, please.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

Carol said:


> An actual link to the actual source, please.


 
Why do you assume i got it from a link?. What would you assume if i say i don't have the specific source? J.c Bose do some research. And if its not god. You were not my intended audience.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> Who is reacting to this? The ego.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk




Ego? No mate, it's the English language as spoken in the UK, makes calling someone common a bit insulting, it's not a 'reaction' on my part other than making me smile. The lectures however make me yawn.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 6, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> Why do you assume i got it from a link?. What would you assume if i say i don't have the specific source? J.c Bose do some research. And if its not god. You were not my intended audience.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk



Your argument, hence you need to provide the evidence to your claim. You are claiming magic energy and supernatural phenomena. You also claim such things have been proven, therefore it is up to you, as the one making the claim to defend your argument with at least one a unbiased source that backs up your argument. If you cannot provide such, you and your argument have no validity.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 6, 2011)

> Why do you assume i got it from a link?. What would you assume if i say i don't have the specific source? J.c Bose do some research. And if its not god. You were not my intended audience.


Let me help. 

You do not go on this forum, make a claim and expect everyone else to go around searching and searching. That's not how it works around here. This happened to me a few times. I opened my mouth and was expected to argue my point and back up what I was saying. It was not pleasant because I don't have all the time in the world. Last time I opened my mouth I was in the middle of crunch time in a Biology course. Not fun, as I had to spend time here instead of studying. So now I am careful with what I say. I looked up your claim cause it sounded interesting. I will not speak as if I 'know' something. However I do not think that 'emotion' is an appropriate word for what plants are 'feeling'.

Provide some links. And not just a link to some vague wiki entry or anything


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Ego? No mate, it's the English language as spoken in the UK, makes calling someone common a bit insulting, it's not a 'reaction' on my part other than making me smile. The lectures however make me yawn.


 
If you would like you may switch the word common with the word  majority. And opinions arr opinions and  facts are well. .facts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> If you would like you may switch the word common with the word  majority. And opinions are opinions and  facts are well. .facts. If you have a deep opinion about something it does not make it a fact. But its just means one is a tad more disillusional.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


 


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Your argument, hence you need to provide the evidence to your claim. You are claiming magic energy and supernatural phenomena. You also claim such things have been proven, therefore it is up to you, as the one making the claim to defend your argument with at least one a unbiased source that backs up your argument. If you cannot provide such, you and your argument have no validity.


 
A littls vague... But Hmm magic energy i assuming you mean prana or chi.  please be more specific which claims i made. I know i made a "claim" that god cannot be proven objectively. And the last bit was a big assumption on your part.  I was never arguing. Its something everyone will know eventually. That is. . If you can ever forsaken the mind. The very mind believes that  claims and proofs are the only.thing that are true. My. Immediate claim is if u abandon the mind there will be god. But you ask me for proof? Surely that is the mind functioning.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## fangjian (Aug 6, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> A littls vague... But Hmm magic energy i assuming you mean prana or chi.  please be more specific which claims i made. I know i made a "claim" that god cannot be proven objectively. And the last bit was a big assumption on your part.  I was never arguing. Its something everyone will know eventually. That is. . If you can ever forsaken the mind. The very mind believes that  claims and proofs are the only.thing that are true. My. Immediate claim is if u abandon the mind there will be god. But you ask me for proof? Surely that is the mind functioning.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


Any claims of gods and goddesses being a reality are silly, so I will not press you for evidence of those, as currently no evidence exists. 
You said 'plants have emotions'. My father was an amateur Botanist and taught me quite a bit, so I find your statement interesting. Support your claim.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

There are levels of samadhi that one reached in meditation. Truths of a subjective nature must be proven with in.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Any claims of gods and goddesses being a reality are silly, so I will not press you for evidence of those, as currently no evidence exists.
> You said 'plants have emotions'. My father was an amateur Botanist and taught me quite a bit, so I find your statement interesting. Support your claim.


 
Claims of gods are indeed silly. Claims are objective. And as i have said they are to be proven within ones self if one ever cares to travel deeper than their eyes. I have gave you a name. I do not know the ins and outs of the test that was conducted. But since the main topic is still god ( i hope) even if i cant personally back something up does not mean there are no one that can.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 6, 2011)

Since god is to be proven within ones self. Everyone must conduct this test independent of one another. I am only able to prove to myself. You are only able to prove to yourself etc. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 6, 2011)

Let's make this easy ... there really is no God, never was, no matter which culture you draw your mythos from.  

The 'divine' is nothing more than a mechanism for dealing with what cannot be explained at a given level of knowledge.  Not a bad thing for letting people get on with their lives despite scary things they cannot explain ... until it attains a hierarchy that controls 'access' to the divine, at which point it starts to become a problem.  From that point on it becomes a mechanism of social control. The purpose changes from blaming the 'spirits' for disease, misfortune and death (and defining placebo appeasements to said spirits) to controlling the population and extracting wealth and obedience from them.

It's very simple and it's been with us for so long that people otherwise smart enough to smell a con at a light-year fall for it because they have been acculturated to do so.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 6, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> Since god is to be proven within ones self. Everyone must conduct this test independent of one another. I am only able to prove to myself. You are only able to prove to yourself etc.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


God is just one of the claims you have made on this thread, weve argued about the existence of god here on MT so many times Ive lost count, that is not what I talk about.


Youve made comments about personal energies, plants with emotions, healing generated by the mind, and auras, for example, yet you offer no unbiased links of proof to defend your claims. Again it is up to you, the person who put forward the claim, to defend the said claim. If you are unable to, then say so, but saying it is something you have to experience to understand it, is not in any way persuasive evidence.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 6, 2011)

****......I just realized that the Easter Bunny is on that list.....I support and believe in the Great Bunny....!!! I sacrifice a carrot to his wrinkly nose and his furry ears every day.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 6, 2011)

Ok. Fine. Disregard your 'plant claim'. But this thread will start going downhill quickly. How bout this. The gods and goddesses claim is usually a claim in the realm of Cosmology (at least nowadays, since that's what's left). I study Astronomy/Cosmology regularly, and I find it very annoying when these claims are thrown around. Stuff like 'Noah's Ark'? This is Geology. Geologists are not amused by claims of 'world wide floods'. People continuously say things like 'The gods are outside the realm of science' etc.  No it's not. 

What's everybody else think about this?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 6, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> ****......I just realized that the Easter Bunny is on that list.....I support and believe in the Great Bunny....!!! I sacrifice a carrot to his wrinkly nose and his furry ears every day.



The Easter Bunny can not be disproven therefore your belief is justified. 

The Easter Bunny died for your sins!! REPENT!


----------



## fangjian (Aug 6, 2011)

[yt]LFQwsP0xdz8[/yt]


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> People continuously say things like 'The gods are outside the realm of science' etc.  No it's not.
> 
> What's everybody else think about this?



I agree that historically the 'gods' were used to explain all that was not readily understood or comprehended.  

I don't necessarily think that everything is explicable via logic, mathematics and experiment because we are always going to be running into problems of collection of evidence when we attempt to delve into multiple-dimensions and theorise on the implications of multiple-universes (interestingly, there has been talk of some clues at the existence of other universes and their interaction with ours in the cosmic background radiation).  But not being able to explain something fully in the here-and-now is no excuse for handing responsibility off onto a mythical construct of the human imagination.


----------



## billc (Aug 6, 2011)

Although I don't think he would mind very much.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 7, 2011)

See I think we can and will explain everything via logic, mathematics and experiment, we may not be there quite yet, but man have we come ever so far in the last 100 years or so. Our Great Grandparents would be shocked by the leaps we have made in our understanding of everything, as we will be if we could teleport into the future of our great grandchildren. 

God or gods has never been the issue with mankind, the issue has always been those people that believe they know the mind of god(s) and what god(s) want here on earth, via some ancient book or divine communication. 

There have been almost 3000 documented deities in recorded human history, so maybe 5000 years. Homo sapiens have been on the earth for 150000  200000 years. There have existed ~100 billion human beings, ~95 billion of which are now dead. All that being said, how can some people today be so omnipotent to believe that we have the correct god(s) and everyone else in human history has been mistaken? Better yet, why is it worth fighting over?


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 7, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


>



I can't believe Ninja never made it on the list. We should be on the list. Someone petition cfi to get Ninja on the list please.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 7, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> If you would like you may switch the word common with the word majority. And *opinions arr opinions and facts are well. .facts*.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk




Oh undoubtably but it would be better if anyone actually knew what you are talking about.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 8, 2011)

fangjian said:


> The Easter Bunny can not be disproven therefore your belief is justified.
> 
> The Easter Bunny died for your sins!! REPENT!


 
The only thing flawed with this is the easter bunny can be conceptualize as a form it is still pretty concrete while God cannot br. It takes us to our mind limits to even try. Since god is said to be everything known and unknown who is the infinite. Then. The very word god limits him once conceptualize rendering a different image to every person. Which makes sense since there are a million different forms of god that people came up with throughout history and millions more to come no matter how much science advance there will always be the unknown.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Oh undoubtably but it would be better if anyone actually knew what you are talking about.


 
I tried. Im sure there are people that may convey this better in words. But it would have to be with no words for everyone to understand. The closest thing i can say is experience. But even experience does it no justice.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 8, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> God is just one of the claims you have made on this thread, weve argued about the existence of god here on MT so many times Ive lost count, that is not what I talk about.
> 
> 
> Youve made comments about personal energies, plants with emotions, healing generated by the mind, and auras, for example, yet you offer no unbiased links of proof to defend your claims. Again it is up to you, the person who put forward the claim, to defend the said claim. If you are unable to, then say so, but saying it is something you have to experience to understand it, is not in any way persuasive evidence.


 
What if i told you that i and a hundred other people have witness things that were verifiable to one another but consider to be impossible to the non participant? Objective Science will have to continually play catch up. 

(And no we were not under hypnosis or was watching a magic show.)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 8, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> See I think we can and will explain everything via logic, mathematics and experiment, we may not be there quite yet, but man have we come ever so far in the last 100 years or so. Our Great Grandparents would be shocked by the leaps we have made in our understanding of everything, as we will be if we could teleport into the future of our great grandchildren.
> 
> God or gods has never been the issue with mankind, the issue has always been those people that believe they know the mind of god(s) and what god(s) want here on earth, via some ancient book or divine communication.
> 
> There have been almost 3000 documented deities in recorded human history, so maybe 5000 years. Homo sapiens have been on the earth for 150000  200000 years. There have existed ~100 billion human beings, ~95 billion of which are now dead. All that being said, how can some people today be so omnipotent to believe that we have the correct god(s) and everyone else in human history has been mistaken? Better yet, why is it worth fighting over?


 
Holy people are real but few are living physically. I can name many deceased ones if you like to research upon them. First you must understand that they taught catering to the people of their time. Jesus taught correctly in his time as Budhha did in his. When we drag out the teachings beyond that there seems to be a conflict between faith. But actuality its a conflict between different beliefs.

Think this way. Metaphorically Moses was alone in the mountains. Jesus was alone in the desert and buddha sat alone under a tree. This aloneness is withdrawal from the daily things. Something subjective like prayer or meditaton. Something for you to speculate if you chose to go no further.

It is definitely good to know if there is an underly unity and truth between religions. It is good to know how connected we are as a species.  There are wars being fought in the name of god which could have been avoided if they know. Heck, all wars wouldnt occur. Political or religious.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree that historically the 'gods' were used to explain all that was not readily understood or comprehended.
> 
> I don't necessarily think that everything is explicable via logic, mathematics and experiment because we are always going to be running into problems of collection of evidence when we attempt to delve into multiple-dimensions and theorise on the implications of multiple-universes (interestingly, there has been talk of some clues at the existence of other universes and their interaction with ours in the cosmic background radiation).  But not being able to explain something fully in the here-and-now is no excuse for handing responsibility off onto a mythical construct of the human imagination.


 
*Applaud* perfect logic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Although I don't think he would mind very much.


 
That is definitely the goal. The state of no-mind. For a meditator to not mind is non attachment.  ;   ).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> Holy people are real but few are living physically. I can name many deceased ones if you like to research upon them.First you must understand that <STRONG>they taught catering to the people </STRONG>of their time. Jesus taught correctly in his time as Budhha did in his. When we drag out the teachings beyond that there seems to be a conflict between faith. But actuality its a conflict between different beliefs.<BR><BR>Think this way. Metaphorically Moses was alone in the mountains. Jesus was alone in the desert and buddha sat alone under a tree. This aloneness is withdrawal from the daily things. Something subjective like prayer or meditaton. Something for you to speculate if you chose to go no further.<BR><BR>It is definitely good to know if there is an underly unity and truth between religions. It is good to know how connected we are as a species. There are wars being fought in the name of god which could have been avoided if they know. Heck, all wars wouldnt occur. Political or religious.<BR><BR>Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


<BR><BR>Did they get Michelin stars when they finished?<BR><BR>Wars will always occur because it's human nature to want more than you should, more land, more power, more wealth. Nothing really to do with religion, that's just an excuse, humans will always find an excuse for their behaviour whether it's a deity, or 'the good of the people' or 'for homeland security'. <BR><BR>BTW Thor is very real, I've spent three weeks watching him in the Tour de France, he rocks!<BR><BR><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Hushovd" target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Hushovd</A>


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

Ok what did the site just do to my post? i didn't put that weird stuff in!


----------



## fangjian (Aug 8, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> The only thing flawed with this is the easter bunny can be conceptualize as a form it is still pretty concrete while God cannot br. It takes us to our mind limits to even try. Since god is said to be everything known and unknown who is the infinite. Then. The very word god limits him once conceptualize rendering a different image to every person. Which makes sense since there are a million different forms of god that people came up with throughout history and millions more to come no matter how much science advance there will always be the unknown.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


So if an idea can not be 'conceptualized' then it is true. Ok



DragonWC said:


> What if i told you that i and a hundred other people have witness things that were verifiable to one another but consider to be impossible to the non participant? Objective Science will have to continually play catch up.
> 
> (And no we were not under hypnosis or was watching a magic show.)
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


You do not understand what 'evidence' is, I'm afraid. What was supposedly verified that is impossible?



DragonWC said:


> Holy people are real but few are living physically.


 and how do you know this?  





> It is definitely good to know if there is an underly unity and truth between religions. It is good to know how connected we are as a species.  There are wars being fought in the name of god which could have been avoided if they know. Heck, all wars wouldnt occur. Political or religious.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


We are all connected Biologically to each other, Chemically to the Earth, and Atomically to the Universe. What more do you want?!


----------



## cdunn (Aug 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree that historically the 'gods' were used to explain all that was not readily understood or comprehended.
> 
> I don't necessarily think that everything is explicable via logic, mathematics and experiment because we are always going to be running into problems of collection of evidence when we attempt to delve into multiple-dimensions and theorise on the implications of multiple-universes (interestingly, there has been talk of some clues at the existence of other universes and their interaction with ours in the cosmic background radiation). But not being able to explain something fully in the here-and-now is no excuse for handing responsibility off onto a mythical construct of the human imagination.



Faraday, Galvani, Volta, and Ohm made observations that cumulated in Maxwell's formulation of the laws of electromagnetics - Observations that Newton and Galileo had no practical way to make. Give it its time...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 8, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Faraday, Galvani, Volta, and Ohm made observations that cumulated in Maxwell's formulation of the laws of electromagnetics - Observations that Newton and Galileo had no practical way to make. Give it its time...



I'm saying the same thing about "God," when I say that it's "currently outside the realm of science." Computer crashed, and I'm kinda busy, but more later.....


----------



## fangjian (Aug 8, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I'm saying the same thing about "God," when I say that it's "currently outside the realm of science." Computer crashed, and I'm kinda busy, but more later.....



'Outside the realm' 

What exactly does this mean?  Let's take:

1   the claim that unicorns exist. Is that outside the realm too? Really I have no problem imagining a horselike creature evolving a single horn. It is very plausible, from my understanding of the ToE by NS.  

2   the claim that pegasus exist. Is that outside the realm too? I *do* have a problem with this creatures existence as it violates known evolutionary models. 

-So though there is no evidence that either exists, one is most certainly, more probable and both are not outside the realm of science. 

I'm only trying to get a feel of this 'outside the realm of science'. Is String Theory also outside the realm as we can really run experiments yet to verify?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 8, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I'm only trying to get a feel of this 'outside the realm of science'. Is String Theory also outside the realm as we can really run experiments yet to verify?



String Theory was precisely the analogy I was goign to use. While it's given us some interesting maths, it isn't really subject to experimentation-_for the time being,_ though, and this is another discussion, String Theory is subject to more than a little bit of doubt and reworking in the community at present. Likewise, though, if one theorizes an entity that brought all of existence, space/time _into_ existence, a good place to start is that such a being is by definition _outside_ of those things. As such, experimentation to determine said entity's existence is beyond the realm of science, _for the time being.

_I mean, I'm fairly certain that I could come up with math that "proves the existence of 'God'," and that I could come up with math that "disproves the existence of 'God'," if I were so inclined. 

I also can come up with math that proves conclusively that when no one is looking at it, the moon does not exist....:lfao:


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 8, 2011)

I really don't have an issue with someone believing in unicorns.  As long as non-belief in unicorns isn't a basis for ill treatment.  A person's belief or non-belief does not effect my life at all.  However, if a person takes action against others based upon that belief, then there is a problem.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 12, 2011)

fangjian said:


> So if an idea can not be 'conceptualized' then it is true. Ok
> 
> You do not understand what 'evidence' is, I'm afraid. What was supposedly verified that is impossible?
> 
> ...



(each paragraph address each question)

Ideas can be conceptualize hence they are ideas. I'm not talking about ideas.

Verified by each and everyone subjectively but impossible in terms of tangible proof. These people range from all occupations. Authors. Psychologists. Computer engineers etc. and fron all different cultural backgrounds.

State of sadmadhi where it is possible to feel this connection in oppose to knowing it from an external point of view. It was a shared consicousness experience.

And to answer the question about war. Its not human nature that there are wars but human ignorance.

I already know what im trying to convey. So if you want to know don't assume. They are not beliefs.

I dont think i will share further. If anyone sees. Good.

And to correct your mistake. if i know something and trying to share. Its not a lack of belief that you have but a rather resistant disbelief.

The state of openess is a nice quality to have.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## fangjian (Aug 12, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> And to correct your mistake. if i know something and trying to share. Its not a lack of belief that you have but a rather resistant disbelief.
> The state of openess is a nice quality to have.


I believe things when there is sufficient evidence to suggest their existence. I am very open to new ideas, really. NONE of my beliefs are set in stone. When you are exposed to a claim, you either believe it or you lack belief. A lack of belief is a default position in lieu of evidence. I just don't believe something because 'someone typed it on MartialTalk'.  Just like if I told you, _I was abducted by aliens from Andromeda Galaxy_, you would have a lack of belief as well. Unless I presented evidence that suggested my story was true.


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 12, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I believe things when there is sufficient evidence to suggest their existence. I am very open to new ideas, really. NONE of my beliefs are set in stone. When you are exposed to a claim, you either believe it or you lack belief. A lack of belief is a default position in lieu of evidence. I just don't believe something because 'someone typed it on MartialTalk'.  Just like if I told you, _I was abducted by aliens from Andromeda Galaxy_, you would have a lack of belief as well. Unless I presented evidence that suggested my story was true.


 
I never ask u to believe nor was it my intention to make someone believe or disbelief. Im saying its possible to know and that is within one self. Jesus have said the kingdom of heaven is within. Budhha have said everyone is a budhha. God is not apart from you.

Do you need to proof yourself?

Even if i have a lack of belief if you were to say that. my lack of belief would prompt me to say how? Where? When? Before i start to adamently reject everything.

When you said your beliefs are not set in stone and that it may change thats good. That is the subjective inward journey. Knowing what is not essentially you. Then you know god. Which is knowing what of you is enternal. U can substitute the god for absolute truth. If you are not of a religious back ground.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 12, 2011)

DragonWC said:


> I never ask u to believe nor was it my intention to make someone believe or disbelief. Im saying its possible to know and that is within one self. Jesus have said the kingdom of heaven is within. Budhha have said everyone is a budhha. God is not apart from you.
> 
> Do you need to proof yourself?
> 
> ...


 


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonWC (Aug 13, 2011)

Know that Faith is simply just that. Moving within you to verified for yourself what is true and if its tested would stay the same no matter what. If you are able to know that beliefs can be change then know that no matter how deeply a belief may be rooted it can be change albeit sometimes very slowly.  Now whats next moving subjective we bump into our emotions our desires. Negativity. Ego. Find the truth about that also.

In that way faith is very much an inner science and science an outer faith. Both is looking for what is true.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Am I the only one not have the foggiest idea what DragonWC is talking about?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Am I the only one not have the foggiest idea what DragonWC is talking about?



Whilst I am familiar with the mode of his speech from too much contact people a bit too deeply 'into' the New Age (and their being a bit too deeply into various herbs too), I am afraid that the circular logic presented spins my head and I now generally move on as I know I'm not going to make sense of it.

I mean no offence to the deeply religious here on the MT board but it is often the way when 'faith' in the unprovable replaces critical scepticism - the phrasing sounds grand but there is no weight to the message.  The same thing sometimes happens with high-end theoretical physics, for me at least, when my linguistically wired brain can't handle the mathematics presented :lol:.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 13, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I believe things when there is sufficient evidence to suggest their existence. I am very open to new ideas, really. NONE of my beliefs are set in stone. When you are exposed to a claim, you either believe it or you lack belief. A lack of belief is a default position in lieu of evidence. I just don't believe something because 'someone typed it on MartialTalk'. Just like if I told you, _I was abducted by aliens from Andromeda Galaxy_, you would have a lack of belief as well. Unless I presented evidence that suggested my story was true.



Are you saying, then, that you don't _believe_ the story of my vision quest?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Are you saying, then, that you don't _believe_ the story of my vision quest?



I believe you. I don't know with certainty of course. Someone on martialtalk told me a story that 'He was in the wild with a friend and during their excursion, he 'talked to the bear', and it left them alone. He and his friend saw the evidence of the bears existence ( bear track etc ). This is plausible. If the bear spoke English back to you and was actually possessed by a god, I wouldn't believe you. But all that happened really was 'you and a friend were in the wild and you saw a bear and talked to it'. Right?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 13, 2011)

fangjian said:


> If the bear spoke English back to you and was actually possessed by a god, I wouldn't believe you. But all that happened really was 'you and a friend were in the wild and you saw a bear and talked to it'. Right?



Well, no, te bear and I had a conversation. I was in the wild by myself;Danny was only checking on me from the bottom of the hill, and saw the bear-I didn't know he was there for that event until it was time to come down, and he showed me the tracks and scat, and that he had seen the bear and called his wife on his cellphone to bring the rifle (the place was very near his home, in Cuba, NM).

As for what choose to believe and choose not to believe......well, that's your choice....:lfao:


----------



## fangjian (Aug 14, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, no, te bear and I had a conversation. I was in the wild by myself;Danny was only checking on me from the bottom of the hill, and saw the bear-I didn't know he was there for that event until it was time to come down, and he showed me the tracks and scat, and that he had seen the bear and called his wife on his cellphone to bring the rifle (the place was very near his home, in Cuba, NM).
> 
> As for what choose to believe and choose not to believe......well, that's your choice....:lfao:


A 'conversation'? How did the bear communicate with you?


Also, I was gonna post a the link below and make a new thread, but reconsidered. The following link is about news regarding the 'evolution of the bible'. Check it out, if interested. 
http://news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> A 'conversation'? How did the bear communicate with you?
> 
> 
> Also, I was gonna post a the link below and make a new thread, but reconsidered. The following link is about news regarding the 'evolution of the bible'. Check it out, if interested.
> http://news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html



On a purely prosaic level, animals have quite telling body language and can read ours quite well so it's quite possible to have communications with a lot of animals. On a spiritual level, why not? As Shakespeare said ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


----------



## fangjian (Aug 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> On a purely prosaic level, animals have quite telling body language and can read ours quite well so it's quite possible to have communications with a lot of animals. On a spiritual level, why not? As Shakespeare said ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


If I define 'conversation' as ANY communication then yeah. 'I pet my cat, and it rubbed its head up against my arm.' We just had a _conversation_. 

Define spiritual level?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> If I define 'conversation' as ANY communication then yeah. 'I pet my cat, and it rubbed its head up against my arm.' We just had a _conversation_.
> 
> Define spiritual level?




I see you know little about cats if you think you weren't conversing and the cat doesn't have you right where it wants you.
 Does conversation have to be speech, if so then deaf people never converse. 

Spiritual...anything that comes out of a bottle labelled distilled in Scotland.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I see you know little about cats if you think you weren't conversing and the cat doesn't have you right where it wants you.
> Does conversation have to be speech, if so then deaf people never converse.


No, we *did* communicate with eachother. It's obvious. I'm just asking Elder999 to define _conversation_, 'cause it can mean a lot of things. Him yelling at the bear, and the bear coming over and mauling his arm off could be a _conversation_. We use words and they have tons of meanings. 


> Spiritual...anything that comes out of a bottle labelled distilled in Scotland.


I can't say I've ever gotten drunk with my cats. Oh wait a minute. When I got home from the war ages ago, my wife and I smoked some weed and gave our cats catnip. Very amusing


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2011)

fangjian said:


> A 'conversation'? How did the bear communicate with you?



You'd have to ask the bear that. :lfao:

Seriously. The bear comes up. I say "thank you," and the bear _answers_ something to the effect that it was bored.

I asked a question. The bear _answered_.

I asked another question. The bear _answered_.

I made a statement. THe bear _agreed_.

The bear also _let me know_ that I should pledge to Sundance, something I don't think I'd considered at all before that point. Itwas at this point that the bear sat down-Danny confirms that the bear sat down, just after he called his wife for his rifle, and just before he tried calling her to tell her to forget it. :lfao:

The bear _told me_ a few other things, and the bear _gave me _some sound financial advice. :lfao:



fangjian said:


> A 'conversation'? How did the bear communicate with you?




Like I said, you'd have to ask the bear that. I honestly don't know. Sounds like the kind of question I'd ask as a scientist, but I wasn't exactly acting as a scientist, standing there naked, shivering and starving, was I? :lfao:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 16, 2011)

Sorry elder....I have too....


----------



## elder999 (Aug 16, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Sorry elder....I have too....



Now that right there is just plain ignorant. Or didn't you notice how I've avoided the word "talk?" :lfao:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 17, 2011)

It's a creepy little thing isn't it?!!

As a skeptic, I question what you experienced, however having gotten to know you on the forums over the years, I know for certain you experienced something. It's interesting.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Curing cancer is an excellent example as given. I am diagnosed with a strange mutation cervical cancer. Embarrassment caused me to ignore symptoms. Now the disease is at a too advanced stage to allow for invasive procedure or radiotherapies to function. My consultant is, for me, the public face of science. He is published in The Lancet. Regarding oncology, he knows inherently what is fact and what is wishful fantasy. His statements are backed by endless research, I trust him even in his assurances that I will die. It takes me a while to assimilate what he says. Two weeks later, and so certain is he of his evidence that he must abide by his financial duty of care to our National Health Service and withdraws funding for my horrendously expensive medications. I am on my own. Yet I do not abide by his metric of science on which I have incontrovertable evidence of my imminent death. I abide by one of blind faith and belief that tells me that he is (in this case) wrong because he has measured my rate of deterioration on a scale of science that is itself based upon assumption, which unfortunately is backed by *apparently* repeated proof. I choose to disavow his scale and trust my own. It is blind trust based on nothing except something that I believe. That I am not supposed to die yet. Tell me I am wrong.



1[SUP]st[/SUP] off, Jenna, let me belatedly add how glad I am that there&#8217;s no pressing ailment. I&#8217;ve thought about it a bit since you posted, though, and I think I&#8217;ll run with your metaphor t-at least my reply won&#8217;t seem nearly as heartless as it might have had the circumstances you outlined been true, &#8216;cause Jenna:

*You&#8217;re going to die.
*
&#8220;Someday,&#8221; of course, and that&#8217;s really the point. Most of us live under the illusion that there&#8217;ll always be plenty of time, that &#8220;tomorrow is another day,&#8221; that we&#8217;re going to live&#8230;.well, _forever_. And we&#8217;re not. And we know it, but somehow we maintain this illusion in our day to day life. The best we can really say is &#8220;not yet,&#8221; or _&#8221;not today,&#8221;_ but we really have no choice in the matter: the day will come, one way or another, that &#8220;not today&#8221; is proven for the lie that it is, and that &#8220;not yet&#8221; is, in fact, *right now.
*
We&#8217;ll get hit by buses, wreck cars and motorcycles, slip in the bathroom, fall from great heights, drown surfing, get struck by lightning, mugged in dark alleys, shot from great distances, laid low by cancer, tuberculosis, leukemia, the flu, the common cold, suffer anaphylactic shock from allergic reactions to peanut butter, or shellfish, or strawberries, or bee stings, get stung by scorpions, bitten by poisonous snakes, eaten by grizzly bears, eaten by mountain lions, eaten by wolves, eaten by staph, mauled by dogs, contract rabies, contract measles, contract chicken pox, contract mumps, contract dengue fever, contract ebola, contract HIV, our ships will sink, our trains will wreck, our space shuttle will go out in a blaze of glory. Hurricanes, tsunami, earthquakes, tornados, mudslides and avalanches will sweep us off our feet. We&#8217;ll fall through the ice when skating or fishing, or,perhaps, simply go to sleep and not wake up. Some of us will live to be aged, and others will not even live long enough to be aware of it. 

For those in between, it&#8217;s almost always &#8220;not yet,&#8221; for the most part. Even for those of us struck by toilets from space: [yt]ugWpj88EWt4[/yt]

Liked that show. _Loved that!_ :lfao:

And, without the sci-fi speculation about the nature of the afterlife, that&#8217;s pretty accurate-really. Unless you&#8217;re terminally ill, one moment you&#8217;re picking daisies&#8230;..and the next you&#8217;re pushing them up.

For those of us who are aware on a daily basis of the imminence and certainty of death (_always at my shoulder, ready at a moment&#8217;s notice_) that knowledge comes at a cost-whether through daily exposure to death in combat, or facing it down through disease, or dire circumstance, or through ritual and meditation-a cost has to be paid. And it&#8217;s *not *knowledge that is available on an intellectual level, except in the most abstract way-sure, you can say,&#8221; _Someday _I&#8217;m going to die,&#8221; but unless you&#8217;ve been in a foxhole or been buried alive or been sick or been in a monastery for years, you&#8217;re not going to convince me, never mind yourself: *you are lying.* And that&#8217;s okay. I think it&#8217;s a lie that a lot of us-men especially-need to get through day to day life. It&#8217;s a lie, though, nonetheless, &#8216;cause *I&#8217;m going to die, someday&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;...And so are you.
*
What to do with this knowledge, that we&#8217;ll pass from, well, a life as *good* as this one? What do you do about it? How do you live with it? 

Well, like I said, you could live under the illusion that you&#8217;re not going to. Most people do, and power to them&#8230;..

You could go to war. See friends blown up and shot around you, face death every day until it becomes a reality that you&#8217;re inured to. That way, for many, leads to PTSD, anti-social behavior, and, at the very least, ennui if not genuine nihilism. For some, it&#8217;s right where they&#8217;re supposed to be, and they&#8217;re okay, but they&#8217;re also few and far between. Or be a cop, or a firefighter. Both jobs offer the same sort of enlightenment, and the same sorts of pitfalls, just over a longer term.

You could join a monastery or religious order-this is as much a retreat from life as it is facing death, I think, and I have to wonder about its efficacy. Having known more than a few monastics, I can say that many of them seem to have that equanimity about their knowledge of death, but some also seem&#8230;.confused.

I did mention rituals. All religions have their roots in shamanism. When we all lived in the forest, so to speak, and religion was a newly created technology, each person got to face death by metaphorically experiencing it, and journeying to the underworld. This is the essence of the shamanic experience-one would be buried alive, or go into a cave, or be led through some other experience that simulated a metaphorical journey into death. After that, of course, living with the fact of death is supposed to be easy. This type of ritual still exists in tribal societies, college courses in comparative religions, and expensive New Age encounter groups. :lol: Certainly, from my experience, it&#8217;s an effective way of being free of the fear of death, and being free of that fear is the first step towards acceptance and acknowledgement, of not living under the illusion of &#8220;not yet&#8221;





Of course, as we &#8220;progressed&#8221; and became &#8220;civilized,&#8221; religion became hierarchical, and such experiences were reserved for priests or deities, or the elite. All too often, it was the deity that made the metaphorical journey to the underworld-the deity that died and was reborn. Thus it is that Mithras, Jesus, and Osiris suffer, die and are resurrected, in place of the individuals in the populace., which is, as others have pointed out, now under control.

You could get sick-as in gravely ill, as in having the doctors tell you and your parents how little time you have left, year after year. Having started life that way, and really lived a little less, now, than the first third of my life expecting to die of my ailments, I can say that as much as I wouldn&#8217;t change that part of my life, I wouldn&#8217;t wish it on anyone, for a bunch of reasons. I was an odd kid, anyway-having been around profoundly ill children, there&#8217;s a terrible sadness and knowing to them, like an 11 year old girl who just knows she&#8217;s *never* going to be kissed. I, on the other hand, have always been an optimist-I&#8217;m a bit of an oddball. The way it worked for me, precocious lad that I&#8217;m told that I was, I found out that our sun will die, _someday_, as In 5 billion years or so from now. The sun will become a red giant as it runs out of fuel, and then simply sputter out, cool off and become a black dwarf-a cindered diamond, really. End of sun. Confronted every day with my death (I think at this time I was nearing 7, and had actually &#8220;died&#8221; twice) the eventual end of the sun was something of a comfort to me-_the sun&#8217;s going to die,* and so am I*_ is what I used to think. I can&#8217;t even describe-even today-what it felt like to find out at 9 (by which time they had always said I&#8217;d surely be dead) just what &#8220;not yet&#8221; would start to come to mean to me, never mind at 13, 15, and at 18 and 20. Mind you, my day starts and ends with a boggling array of pills, and-well, have you ever seen someone in the mall, say, with an oxygen tank or generator? Whenever I see someone like that, especially lately, I have to remind myself that before I die-provided I don&#8217;t get hit by a bus, murdered by a jealous husband, or smashed by a toilet seat from outer space-I&#8217;ll be toting one of those around myself. In spite of that,I remain the optimist I&#8217;ve always been, and wonder how it is I&#8217;m going to swim with the thing. :lfao: (See, John? That&#8217;s me mocking myself. You should feel flattered!)

I&#8217;m still thankful for my life, for every breath I&#8217;ve drawn, for each and every day, and begin each and every day with that: saying thank you. 

So, to come full circle-_who, exactly, do I thank?_ I could thank my parents for having and raising me, and I do, but they had two other children, adopted a third, and, really, when I say &#8220;_thank you for my life_&#8221; I&#8217;m really giving thanks for the *fact* of _me_-something unique that is more than just the product of the biological coupling of Jeffrey Cuffee and Carol , his wife. I could also thank _myself_-and I do-for the will to live, and being optimistic and upbeat through it all (in spite of my rather snarky, curmudgeonly online persona-really!) , but that&#8217;s still less than the *fact* of _me_-in the end, *I&#8217;m* left with God, or the Mystery, or foot-I call him &#8220;foot&#8221; sometimes, it&#8217;s a joke between us&#8230;..:lfao: It&#8217;s the Creator that I thank, until that day this body breathes its last, and I pass into the Mystery myself.

And, getting back to the OP: he's FOS. Really. And all you atheists can believe- or _"know"_-whatever you like. Doesn't bother me-heck, it's one more of "ten thousand things" that make life more interesting! :asian:


----------



## Jenna (Sep 1, 2011)

I am sorry to hear elder999 that you had such a fraught childhood.  And but if you believe it has made the man of you that it has then perhaps it was not imposed upon you gratuitously or maliciously by Foot (I think Foot requires due reverence and capitalisation ).  Alternatively perhaps this is just the way that you, me and others with a faith rationalise what is merely unfortunate chance or circumstance whose path intersects with their life - I do not know for sure. That your life now, hampered as it is by medical miscreancies (my neologism for the day ), has not angered you wholly away from faith, I think is a testament to the integrity of your faith. Others will say you are a walking disproof of your own belief.  I am sure your personal experiences allow for infinite rebuttal should you so desire, without even breaking sweat.

I will say, I always enjoy reading your opinions on these issues because your point of view is singularly faithful and yet refreshingly open.  I cannot possibly put argument to that.  I have time for all variant theists and atheists alike.  And but only when they can accept the alternative worldview as having relevance *to those who espouse it* if not to theirselves.  What I do not have much time for is those who regard an opposing worldview as flat out ridiculous and are not afraid to tell you to your face that you are an idiot.  And that happens on both sides of the faith coin.

No, I do not have cancer.  I used that disease as illustration as it brings its own connotations and is therefore symbolic for many.  My health situation is not important and but the point remains the same though; in that post, I was trying to draw out the difference between the necessarily dispassionate format of science and the emotional framework of faith. To that, I am certain you will attest. I was trying to show specifically that it is not only the Creationist lobbies who can directly influence for the worse, those that do not subscribe to their beliefs, and but also that cold hard science can influence for the worse those of us who do not hold scientifically proven fact as the sole foundations for their way of life. Medicines can be rationalised based upon scientific probability of survival.  And while we all understand the economics of healthcare, the point is that for those of us who are hospital regulars, our longevity long or short is judged on the basis of that scientific evidence and will never include our strength in faith. Science trumps belief where money is concerned.

I will take my strength in faith over drugs anyways. Perhaps that in itself is foolish I do not care.  What I believe is that the body has an infinite capacity to heal itself and but can only be tasked with healing in severe cases when the key of belief is turned in its lock. For some, they can do this (they imagine) without God.  That can, I know, lead to a sense of being the ubermensch incarnate. I prefer to see the workings of healing through belief coming courtesy of God.

In reality, my life and my death are nothing more than a set of statistical probabilities ranging from today to twenty years hence. That, as you say, is the same for us all, on our various timelines.  And but my faith can counteract my scientific likelihoods. That, I know. The whys and wherefores on the other hand, I do not apprehend. I choose to interpret them as a belief that I am upheld by God, whether or not that is in reality the truth.

If anyone believes otherwise, then that is perfectly fine with me.  I am not a persuader.  I believe that I am only here to try to live my life as an example. So far, I self-grade a C-. I am still working on it  Again I apologise for being not too cogent or rambling or wayward English. Thank you for using my post as a basis for your reply and for replying in such a comprehensive and well-written way.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 1, 2011)

I had a childhood similiar to Elder in many ways it seems.  Things are still...interesting as an adult.  I've seen four people die this year.  Two of which were sitting in a chair next to me.  There were a few days this year when the docs thought I might not be among the living much longer.  Death has been a campanion of mine, though not quite on talking terms yet.  I find my faith is pretty much the same as it has always been.  I believe what I do, but not because I'm in that situation.  Though my faith does give me a bit of comfort.  Everyone isn't the same though.

I see many people who are critically ill.  I've seen some of those people go from very critical of religion to very vocal followers of thier specific religion.  It is amazing what immense pain or the threat of immenent death will do to increase one's belief.  Fear is a powerful motivator it seems.  Regardless if thier faith is based upon faulty bedrock, it brings them comfort.  Who am I to say thier faith isn't real or is just delusional thinking?  I really don't care.  They recieve comfort from it, so good for them.  I think in the end, that is what religious faith is for most people.  It is a comfort for the painful knowledge that we are mortal.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 1, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I had a childhood similiar to Elder in many ways it seems.  Things are still...interesting as an adult.  I've seen four people die this year.  Two of which were sitting in a chair next to me.  There were a few days this year when the docs thought I might not be among the living much longer.  Death has been a campanion of mine, though not quite on talking terms yet.  I find my faith is pretty much the same as it has always been.  I believe what I do, but not because I'm in that situation.  Though my faith does give me a bit of comfort.  Everyone isn't the same though.
> 
> I see many people who are critically ill.  I've seen some of those people go from very critical of religion to very vocal followers of thier specific religion.  It is amazing what immense pain or the threat of immenent death will do to increase one's belief.  Fear is a powerful motivator it seems.  Regardless if thier faith is based upon faulty bedrock, it brings them comfort.  Who am I to say thier faith isn't real or is just delusional thinking?  I really don't care.  They recieve comfort from it, so good for them.  I think in the end, that is what religious faith is for most people.  It is a comfort for the painful knowledge that we are mortal.


What if research on telomerase and prolonging longevity from genetics actually rendered us theoretically immortal. Do you think would we have no need for faith? Would Man become God then?


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> What if research on telomerase and prolonging longevity from genetics actually rendered us theoretically immortal. Do you think would we have no need for faith? Would Man become God then?



I do think there would be a lot less that are religious. I can't deny my experience of seeing so many "turn to God" when thier own mortality is shown to them.  Would religions end?  No, I don't think so.  There are those that follow religions and practice faith because it helps them in thier daily lives.  There are plenty of men now who believe they are god already, or the direct pipeline to god.  I could see once men like these reeching virtual immortality replacing thier own name with various Gods' names.  The human race is nothing if not vain and arrogant


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Sep 1, 2011)

As far as transcending biology or even just artificial enhancement, I don't think hyperintelligence would solve the debate but it would allow for more meaningful discussions about it.


----------

