Adventure Game Studio

We've talked everything from adventure games, to politics and religion, to racism, and violence in culture, and a bunch of other stuff I'm not even remembering.

But what about the final question?Ã, 

What about that one thing that nobody can boast expertise of?

What happens to us after we die?

Do we simply cease to exist in all ways?

Do we go to Heaven, Hell, or are we reborn?

This is a legitimate question that I ask myself nearly every day.Ã,  Sometimes it gets downright depression, and even a bit scary.Ã, 

So what do we do when we get down and out, need to talk and find answers to our questions?Ã,  We go to the forums, of course!Ã,  Ã, ;)

Seriously though, I'm very interested on both an intellectual and spiritual level about the beliefs of others, and on this topic specifically.

I want to have an open discussion about what we believe about what happens to us after we die.Ã,  (Saying we go to the funeral home doesn't count.)

I'm relatively sure this can go over with little or no hardfeelings since death is such an enigma to us all.Ã,  (Or that could be the perfect recipe for a blowup.)

Whatever your opinion or belief is, post it here.

I want to be a head in a jar and never die. Well, I'd perfer a cyborg body, but yes, I don't want to die. I could see myself believing in an afterlife if we were the only beings on the planet, but we're not.

When I would think about God and Heaven, I would begin to see it as this life is just a game, and we're the toys. I think it's quite wrong for God to be treating us this way. (although I do buy the reasoning, somewhat, to what Bender realizes in that episode of Futurama when he becomes a God; about not meddeling)

I love religion. It helps keep some people on track in their lives. Ones that need it. On the other hand, it certainly causes wars.

I'm with Darth Manarb on this one. It will take nothing less than another intelligent being coming to our planet for humanity to become as one. And it would come together a lot quicker if our lives were in danger from such and even then, we would probably not last out against it.

Okay, so I side-tracked. For me, I don't believe in the afterlife. Funny enough, I am partial to believing in ghosts. Not fully, but I do believe there is something going on, and it may just be something as crazy as parallel universes to just energy outputs from something we dont know.

I need sleep. Don't do as I and post when in need of sleep.

Don't have a damn clue about it.

But as I get older, I content myself with the fact that life is enough.  As near as I can tell, before I was alive, I did not exist. And it would seem that death will be the end of me. But for a while, at least, I am alive. And in that time, I (and all of us) have more nobility than any star in the sky. We are aware of those lights in the night sky, while they are aware of nothing, not even their own existence. Hell, even my dog doesn't seem to have a concept of self or anything approaching a soul (other than what I project on him).

But in this moment, I am alive -- and part of an incredible species, at that! Hell, we pulled ourselves (with a bit of divine help, I imagine) up from run-of-the-mill prey animal to the top of the food chain. And we created art, music, poetry and adventure games along the way.

If existance of some sort awaits after death, and I cannot say for certain that it does not, then whatever state we might exist in will be so different from what we know now that we probably cannot even imagine what it would be like. Consider: if you could have awareness as a baby in the womb, based on all you could learn of the world around you, how could you possibly imagine what awaits you after birth? How could you imagine what it is to walk? To be cold? To get a job? To pay taxes?

Life is enough, I suppose, because life is all I know. And it is an amazing thing, at that. Wonderful and frightening and boring. Each in turn and sometimes all at once. (I was in Desert Storm back in the day, and, yes, it IS possible to become bored with danger -- the tedium of constantly incoming scuds even as your body responds with adrenaline -- it's a helluva feeling!)

If something awaits me after life is over,  well, I hope I can take it in stride and be a good sport about spending so much of my life paying taxes and changing the oil in my car regularly.

Just my two cents (and what an interesting topic!)

- Ponch

All I know, is that I'm donating my body to science.

Sure you can donate your organs, but I've read somewhere that medical hospitals can keep a body for 10 or so years to teach medicine to graduate students. Save maybe a few lives with an organ or two, but you can save thousands by donating your body.

And if I've already sold my soul to the Devil, do I still get an afterlife?

It's unknowable, pretty much by definition, until you die. But don't worry, you will someday, and then you'll know!  ;D

Donate your body to Bodyworks or whatever that gruesome thing they have in Casino Royale is...

There's no afterlife.
Your body is just like the body of any other animal. Your brain is more developed and that's why you have the recognition and thinking abilities. Your recognition of yourself aka "the soul" is all in your brain. There's just no logic in any kind of life or being after the body dies.
man invented religion when he was too primitive to understand how things in the world worked through science. So religion solved all those questions. The idea of heaven and hell was invented by man originally to guarantee that people will act descent and later to simply force people to be religious or change their belief to the promoter's specific religion\sect\cult and in today's world even make money from it. If you believe your soul lives in another dimension, what about dog's souls, cat's souls, dolphin's souls and every other living creature on the face of the earth?   if you say only human's souls go on that's hypocricy. And the idea of recycled souls (what's the right term?) is even more ridiculous than the concept of heaven & hell.
In conclusion, don't worry about it.

Quote from: Scummbuddy on Tue 05/12/2006 05:24:12Well, I'd perfer a cyborg body

Me too. I'd be part man, part machine... ALL COP!

Also: Earlier this year, I had a dream where I died and instead of waking up my soul started to float into outer space. So then I could explore the infinite reaches of space for eternity. Only problem was I only got a few lightyears away from earth before I woke up.

It'd be really cool if something like this happnes when you die. I like the idea of being a space explorer in the afterlife.

Maybe other souls are doing the same thing.

Perhaps I might meet my old dog Bugsy in outer space.

Nostradamus summed it up pretty well

If you want to believe any further than the life we know, (unless cremated) you will become food for micro organisms and your cell breakdown will provide nutrients for many other living things, may even help a few trees grow to supply oxygen or fruit for a few more creatures to live a bit longer, alternatively you might rot somewhere and create pollution that kills some creatures, it's all just a cycle.

There's no reason to know, I've always wondered why people want to know so much

Because we is curious motherfuckers!

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 05/12/2006 09:16:21
Also: Earlier this year, I had a dream where I died and instead of waking up my soul started to float into outer space. So then I could explore the infinite reaches of space for eternity. Only problem was I only got a few lightyears away from earth before I woke up.

It'd be really cool if something like this happnes when you die. I like the idea of being a space explorer in the afterlife.

Maybe other souls are doing the same thing.

Perhaps I might meet my old dog Bugsy in outer space.

Perhaps you could write a book about this religious vision you had, and call it "Dianetics"

I think one of the things that nags me all the time is thinking about what it would mean if the Christians are really right. 

What if the next thing I know after I die is God sitting on his throne reading all my offenses off to me, only to conclude by sending me to Hell.

Very interesting answers so far, though!

It nags me more to wonder if Buddhists are right, and I've been frittering away the confoundingly rare oppertunity of being a human which allows one to break out of the cycle of reincarnation to ultimately obtain a higher state of cosmic existance!

Actually, what nags me more is whether or not I'll win the bid for a rare polysynth on eBay. Nirvana can wait, there's a whole load of vintage machines that go 'bloop!' for me to play with first!

Quote from: SSH on Tue 05/12/2006 11:17:18
Perhaps you could write a book about this religious vision you had, and call it "Dianetics"

That's funny, but Dianetics doesn't actually have anything to do with the afterlife or souls. It deals with pseudo-science techniques that are supposed to purge all mental traumas and restore people with a clearer thinking mind. He wrote Dianetics in 1950 and didn't come up with his concept of souls, or "thetans" as he called them, until 1952.

It's also obvious to see how Dianetics gives you a clearer thinking mind, what with their members jumping up and down on couches on live TV.

I've had a lucid-ish dream of the afterlife.
In it I was informed that I was dead and had the choice of
what I wanted to happen. I replied that I wished my consciousness
to dissolve in a comfortable way, to fade out of all existence
and never return. That kind of happened, I dreamed that first everything
around me faded out of existence until all that remained was my
awareness of that there was nothing left, and I could not be fully
at peace until my thoughts had ceased.
To fade away the world was easy, but to stop all thought and go the
full way was difficult. I had perhaps an 30 minute unaware stretch of
nothing before I awakened. I awoke feeling very calm and refreshed in some way.
I guess exploring space could be cool too. I'd go looking for dwarves in dwarf galaxies.

I do not know myself well enough to say if I would be scared at my deathbed,
but I do not wish for any reward or second chances after my heart stops.

I also had a dream of hell once. Fire and brimstone and 16th-century portrayals of hell do not scare me, but the hell I dreamed of had a cubicle allocated for me by people who knew me better than I do.
I remember wearing an iron mask that cut into my skull and the holes where my eyes had been (and some other kinky shit).
It was not especially scary though as I never(?) dream pain.

If hell and heaven exist, I guess I claimed my place in the former before I turned six.
What I wonder is:
1. If heaven/hell exist, do people spend an eternity there?
If the answer is yes, then I wonder about the following:
2. Are they limited dimensions or subdimensions, or will everything eventually happen
in both places?
3. Who controls all possible outcomes in each dimension?

I guess that most people who believe in an infinite heaven/hell believe it to be limited in the way that in hell only punishes and heaven rewards.
Somehow I don't think that any infinite, limited dimension would seem appealing to me, as I grow bored of repetition.
I guess I hope to achieve some kind of closure to certain things before death, set a couple brave footprints in snow, so I don't really dig the pursuit for Nirvana (as much as I know of it, although the middle road concept in Buddhism is appealing).

I imagine it will be something like this:

(http://custardsclutter.com/AfterlifeScreenshot2.png)

I dunno, I think I would eventually get used to burning "alive" for eternity in Hell. I mean, it would just get boring after awhile. That's a lot of trouble to go through to change my nerve endings so that they are fire-proof but will still retain their ability to feel the pain of burning, but wait, my nerve endings can't unless they aren't fire proof.  It boggles the mind!

I wanted to say everything Nostradamus said; but he just said it clearer.

Interesting thread, Raggit! I sincerely hope the afterlife isn't isometric! Hehehe... I'm pretty certain there are greater things out there after death. Even if there aren't I guess we simply "won't know", so it's not really worth bothering about. My personal belief, if I were to really have one - is that I have been given a time and space to exist in, and forever will be part of that time & space. Therefore, I will always live the life I'm living now, only consequences of my actions will change it each time I die/am reborn. LOL, yes, it's a fantasy, but it makes me really happy when things happen that kind of back it up for me. I was almost a Christian, but the thought of going to some almighty white land or a place of hell fire just didn't really click for me. If there is a heaven, it's in yourself - and its finding the best life you can lead. If there is a hell, it's realising that everything is yours, and trashing it.

Just my opinion :)

I'm really boring.  I believe that you die and that's it. 

How depressing :(

I once dreamt I died and went to heaven. When I arrived I was standing in a vast field with grass stretching out as far as I could see. There were some people walking around, and also a coin-operated elevator of some kind, that they said would "take you to the various stages of heaven". But all the stages/floors looked exactly the same.

Everybody there was pretty disappointed about the whole thing.

Maybe you went to Elevator Action heaven?

When I was a lad, my Dad (death to his testes) forced me to watch those old Billy graham left behind movies. for YEARS, my greatest fear was to be left behind, all alone, with no one who loved me or I loved still around. I used to stay awake at night, and get panic attacks that IT had happened. I would quietly get up and check on my family to see if they were still in there beds. Once I had (I think) a nervous breakdown. If I got a panic attack, and I was the only one at home, I would phone friends , just to see if they were home.Ã,  Part of me, who I keep hidden, still has this fear.

As for the afterlife, I want to believe in one, and there appears to some evidence with some of the memories some people have. But to paraphrase "contact", if there isn't, it would seem a terrible waste of mind. When a loved one dies, part of what makes it so hard is the apparent fact that all that the person was, and whatever makes them "them", is gone, forever. That all too brief dance is over, when matter knew itself, and looked at itself and said "I" Its short, and poignant, it is "the gift of men"

After my father died, I had weird dreams where he could leave Heaven on special one-day passes to come visit. He even had a timecard that would have to be punched on leaving and returning to Paradise.

One time I asked him what the meaning of life was, but God interrupted by appearing as a giant cube and said it was a secret.

Dreams are weird.

For all intents and purposes I am agnostic, but on some subconcious level I must believe in all that Divine Light jazz. :-\

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 05/12/2006 20:38:27
I must believe in all that Divine Light jazz. :-\

I imagine they play divine light jazz in God's waiting room.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 05/12/2006 20:38:27
but God interrupted by appearing as a giant cube

I find that amusing, all hail the cube.

Hey that means cubism isn't an expression of art, it's a religion!

Anyway I think the best idea we have of the afterlife comes from Near Death experiences, because really the people who have NDE's are the ones that got very close to the event horizon of death and came back to tell the tale. So when you die you:

1: have a sense  of being dead
2: feel yourself pulled away
3: have an out of body experience
4: your vision tunnels
5: You walk towards a light, with a sense of 'well being'

People who have near death experiences tend to enjoy life more, are no longer afraid of death and are generally more at peace and less worried about all the big questions because "someone or something worked it all out a long time ago."

http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html

I think people who have near death experiences are just experiencing normal brain behavior brought about by extreme circumstances or induced in a lab setting.

So I guess Becky and I are boring to the core.

BOREDCORE!

If you damage part of your brain you can lose memories you had, if you damage a different part you can stop being able to have certain emotions, another part goes and you can't recognise objects, or enjoy music, or perform the tasks you were good at, and so on. It seems clear that each aspect of our conscious minds and personalities is inextricable from the brain that forms them. So I can't envisage anything meaningful existing once that is no longer active.

It makes sense that people who are near brain death experience some similar things, but it doesn't suggest that there's anything "on the other side", just that their faculties are breaking down in a similar way.

Actually any scary thoughts I've considered about death are in that shut down phase, the kinds of effects that could happen when things are completely breaking down... perhaps your perception of that time wouldn't be short and painless at all, who knows. However, I've lost consciousness and nearly died due to lack of oxygen before and I experienced nothing special, so if I had to guess, I expect it'll be like that. Hope so, it's not very scary at all.

Actually I didn't intend to argue for or against the validity of the NDE and whether there's anything on the other side. Even if it IS just 'what happens to a dying brain' I'm saying this is what happens when you die, you have an NDE and then you're dead.

NDEs tell us what happens just before, you can decide for yourself what happens after. I suppose it'd be like a comfortable nothingness.

I think this is slightly off topic but still related.

2 of my friends that I've known since Kindergarten (don't really see them much these days) both their mothers died from cancer before they were 5. They were both strong Christians, strengthened by the belief that their mothers were in heaven (so their fathers told them).

1 of the fathers re married and my friend is now a Christian Minister

The other father never re married and my friend is Gay (don't know if he's still Christian)

I've always wondered if the choices in these guys life has anything to do with the way they were brought up after their mothers died. not that it matters, but it would be an interesting case of nature v nurture

My Dads mother died when he was about 20, and he is a strong Catholic

I guess when sad things happen to people at vulnerable times in their life, they can turn to something that makes them feel more comfortable, I suppose it's safer than turning to drugs unless you become an extremist religious nut.

I also suspect that these decisions are also not really accepting the fate of their loved ones, but tricking themselves into believing they are happy in another place.


EDIT:
Just as I was typing this post I felt something biting my back, so I reached round and pulled out this Tick

(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1148/tik003auc1.jpg)

that's a macro shot on my index finger to give an idea of size

So for a brief moment I was supplying extra life to this vampiris creature, while I was still alive, until I took it into my own hands to end its life. Therefore part of me is already in the afterlife within this deceased creature

So, by that logic, if my balls were eaten by a lion and a hunter shot the lion, my balls would reach heaven before me?

Well, we're constantly shedding matter and replacing it with other matter, so if it was material parts of us that go into the afterlife, then in a sense, we'd constantly be going to heaven. But insofar as our consciousness is what would transcend (and unless I'm mistaken, the consciousness is not housed in our balls... ... ...wait, maybe it is?), then it would have to be when our brain is eaten by a lion and the hunter shoots the lion. Or balls. Whatever.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 06/12/2006 06:48:16
So, by that logic, if my balls were eaten by a lion and a hunter shot the lion, my balls would reach heaven before me?

No, the Lion would be in Hell for eating your balls (or possibly in heaven as the Messiah's favourite pet). your balls would be no longer balls but nutrients in the lions blood + probably a bit of shit in the woods

But my testicles lead a good life. They gave money to charity. Why shouldn't they go to heaven?

Most people don't want to feel pain when they die.Ã,  Ã, When an old man dies in his sleep, his family will say, "well atleast he went painlessly."Ã,  True, long lasting pain is completely undesirableÃ,  -- but you only experience death once!Ã,  Ã, What better bookmark then a sudden contortion or a horrifying shriek.Ã,  Ã, I want people to say "now that's the way you go."

And I won't be done after I die!Ã,  Ã,  I've always had this dream that my corpse would be part of a practical joke.Ã, 

In my will:Ã,  Ã, "Dear friends, please fulfill my wishes and push my corpse out of a plane over a crowded city street.Ã,  For added fun feel free to strap an undeployed parachute onto my back (if not too costly.)Ã,  Please try to take pictures of some of the people below as I descend.Ã,  Thanks."

If I were to donate my body to science it would be best to make it a contest and spread my organs every which way and let the competing organizations race in an easter egg hunt.Ã,  Ã, 

As far as afterlife, hmm, I haven't thought about it.

Hmmm... afterlife huh?

Well in matters of life and death I try to think thus:

Since I'm alive there's no reason of worrying too much about death.
If I die, then it's all over and there's no need to worry since I'm already dead.

;D

I've no idea what happens, but I try to think of it as an eternal sleep of sort with dreams and all. If you lead a good life then you will have a peaceful sleep, if you were an arse then you may get nightmares from which you won't be able to awake from (see hell...)

more or less...

Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 06/12/2006 07:22:43
But my testicles lead a good life. They gave money to charity.

Ouch, that must have really hurt

My testicles will do anything to help the homeless.

I enjoy the term 'brain death'.

I'm from the boring kind, I don't think there'll be anything for me once I die. Wormfood.

However, I keep thinking how in dreams for example, time seems severily relative (haven't you had the 3 second month-long dream?) and therefore if the brain can make me feel as if an eternity is a few minutes, I'm more concerned with the circumstances of my death. I'd rather it not be severily violent or generally painful because if the brain retaliates with my own personal hell for a few minutes-cum-centuries in brain-time, that'd be awful. 

Helm, what you said, especially the "brain can make me feel as if an eternity is a few minutes", reminds me of what they say about how time slows down at moments of death. And, as an aside to that, that whole thing about how your entire life flashes before your eyes. Maybe that's a similar reaction the brain has at moments of facing death.

Yeah. Just imagine that whole reel being a shitty time. Kinda scary. So I am concerned with orchestrating my death in a proper manner. I am leaning towards total and utter disintegration. Gone in a milisecond, no time for my brain to remind me of what a jerk I was.

My issue with the concept of heaven is overcrowding. If everything that's ever died that acted with reasonable conscience is there then its gonna be a nightmare. The place will be overrun with insects. Upon death, I want my corpse to be stuffed and then featured as an extra on The Bill.

I'll tell you when I get back. 8)

Quote from: Helm on Wed 06/12/2006 13:42:48
Gone in a milisecond, no time for my brain to remind me of what a jerk I was.

That's what we're here for.

Also, I recommend you set up a team of people to randomly force you into life or death situations so you can eventually flash back to all events in your life and reach the present. Then when you do finally die [finally!] your brain will have nothing to do.

I can't really decide if I want to have an quick death, where I don't even have a chance to know what's happening, or a slow death, where I have time to finally face death and deal with the real emotions of it.

With the quick death, I feel comfortable not having to suffer through it, but then I worry that if there's any god I need to make peace with before I die, I won't have that chance, and then I'll go to hell, be reincarnated as a turd, or whatever.

With the slow death, I'll probably have to deal with phsyical pain, which could be scary.  But I have time to do some inner searching.  Then I worry that there really is a God, and I'll give my soul to him, and when I get to Heaven,  I'll become a totally brainwashed sheep who does nothing but worship and praise him all the time.  Not a very pretty existence for somebody who likes to be free.

The afterlife is one of those things that I've always had beliefs about that I'd been spoonfed during my whole life so far. Now that I'm abandoning those beliefs, I'm at a point where I hope there's life after death, mostly just for the romance of it. However, as I think more about how existence and my own consciousness appear to me, I'm becoming more and more confused about whether I'm willing to discard any notion of an immaterial part of the consciousness. Actually, I guess I'm making progress, but it's hard to tell which way I'm going on this. So at the moment, everything immaterial, including souls, afterlife, GOD, etc. are in the great big I don't know category.

Mostly, this doesn't affect the part of my life with which I'm reasonably familiar, which is work-art-relate-play.

P.S. Dreams are fun.

P.P.S. I like pie.

Hmm strange thing is but I belive in the  reincarnation !

I just can't explain "nothing" !

Why the hell do we exist if we than die and tottaly disappear ? It's not logical to me.


But than again, I think a lot of things would be far more clearer if we could use whole 100 percent of the brains.

Exactly, its one big case of "I don't know". I would want to be Ã, a spirit (whatever a spirit IS.) and wander through space, exploring the universe. There was this called "Noctis" I used to play, still play it sometimes, where you go around in this spaceship, and your this cat like creature and you can explore a whole freakin GALAXY, oh and the games only one megabyte. Ã, Thats what I! want to do when I die, explore. to quote Buzz Lightyear. 'To Infinitie, and BEYOND!"

edit,
I don't mean to offend, but  as for me, I don't like reincarnation.
It seems to me like an exuse for people to stay in their social status "Oh he is an untouchable, because he was bad in a past life" That is probaly a simplistic view, but thats how I feel. But a discussion on this topic would be enlightening. Please go on.

Quote from: Sektor 13 on Wed 06/12/2006 20:28:47
But than again, I think a lot of things would be far more clearer if we could use whole 100 percent of the brains.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

Man, I am SO boring!

QuoteWhy the hell do we exist if we than die and tottaly disappear? It's not logical to me.

My thoughts are that either every living thing exists and then dies and gets to go to heaven/hell/afterlife of choice, or nothing does...I don't buy into that whole "humans are above every other form of life" malarky.

We exist and then die cause that's what everything else does.  If cows didn't exist then die then I wouldn't get to eat delicious wholesome meat, and if the grass didn't exist and then die there wouldn't be cows...etc.

But because I'm boredcore, I reckon everything just -dies-. 

But why does much of humanity FEEL as if there is an afterlife? When they did sign language experiments with apes, Cocoa, when asked what death was, she signed "Sleep" It may not mean much, it begs the question, why did human think this in the first place?

I want to believe that when we die, we go onto another realm where there is more growing to be done, more to do, more to see, more to experience.  A place where we're the same, but better.

In addition, it'd be cool if we could not only move through space, but time as well. 

Then we could come into the earthly realm and go back and see our own birth.

We could find the answers to our questions about why things happened the way they did in our lifetime by going back to watch each relevant event take place. 

That's what I WANT to believe about the afterlife, if there is one.

QuoteBut why does much of humanity FEEL as if there is an afterlife?

Because we're all shit scared of dying!  Death?  End of our own conciousness? NO WAY.  That's why I reckon people believe anyway.

Personally, I think the Gaia theory is nice.

And simple too, as its singular point is that we simply rejoin the lifeforce of the Earth and are recycled.

Plus it means your spirit can disperse and come back as many different things. Like a small kitten. Or a ducks ankle.

personaly, the gaia theory scares the dikons out of me, I don't want to be recycled, I want to be me. sure living life as duck would be nice, but I like living, aware and free, and well the idea of joining a Cosmic awarness, is not my idea of paradise

overcrowding problem in heaven reminds me of the same issue I have:

what if an anti-social man is condemned to a beautiful cloud full of all his loved ones?    That would be his own personal hell, wouldn't it?

I want to be reincarnated as a sea-turtle. That would effing rock.

Quote from: [lgm] on Wed 06/12/2006 23:38:06
I want to be reincarnated as a sea-turtle. That would effing rock.

You Will Be Reincarnated as an Imperial Attack Spaceturtle! (http://www.locustleaves.com/02%20You%20Will%20Be%20Reincarnated%20As%20an%20Imperial%20Attack%20Spaceturtle%20(Part%201).mp3)

I agree with everything Becky said and people like Sektor 13 should stop trying to put meanings and explanation over so simple stuff.

Why does humanity feel there's an afterlife?
As I said, the concept of heaven and hell was first invented it was to make sure people acted right between each other and then it deleveloped to being religious leaders' way to make people do what they tell them to do "or else they'll go to hell". "Give here this charity money so you will go to heaven". etc.

CAN YOU TELL A GREEN FIELD FROM A COLD STEEL RAIL

Quote from: Nostradamus on Thu 07/12/2006 08:19:56
..people like Sektor 13 should stop trying to put meanings and explanation over so simple stuff.

Why?
If faith motivates somone in this life, I don't see it as a neccesarily negative thing.

lo res man: 

all the sign language experiments with apes led to inconclusive evidence.  To date, there is no proof that any animal uses language in any other way than just repeating words spoken or signed to them.    In this way, you could view Koko as a parrot- learning up to a hundred phrases and simply issuing them back to her keepers often in nonsensical ways.

Language, as in the creative use of words to make new phrases and meaning, is the biggest difference between humans and animals.  Koko is no exception.

BTW: this is hilarious.

"Sexual Harassment

Koko has been "involved" in several sexual harassment lawsuits.  At least three former employees, all female, have claimed that they were pressured into showing their breasts to Koko. They alleged that Dr. Patterson encouraged the behavior, often interpreted Koko's signs as requests for nipple display, and let them know that their job would be in danger if they "did not indulge Koko's nipple fetish". Koko has been known to playfully grab both male and female nipples without warning or provocation. Dr. Patterson claims that Koko uses the word "nipple" to refer to humans.[5]

All claims of harassment have been permanently dropped as of 21 November 2005 after the foundation and the parties involved reached the settlement."

Quote from: biothlebop on Thu 07/12/2006 11:45:32

Quote from: Nostradamus on Thu 07/12/2006 08:19:56
..people like Sektor 13 should stop trying to put meanings and explanation over so simple stuff.

Why?
If faith motivates somone in this life, I don't see it as a neccesarily negative thing.

I agree, though I have no faith I don't see on what authority Nostradamus proclaims what people should and shouldn't do.

edit: ... oh wait, Nostradamus. Figure of authority on wordly things. I'm setting myself up for a joke here.

Quote from: biothlebop on Thu 07/12/2006 11:45:32
Why?
If faith motivates somone in this life, I don't see it as a neccesarily negative thing.

terrorism, suicide bombings, inquisitions, crusades, honor killings, slavery, the caste system, witch trials, gay marriage bans, faith based initiatives, faith tampering with science, etcetera...

granted "I believe in reincarnation" is different than "I believe I should kill these people..." but in my opinion, even seemingly innocuous personal faith can lead to hate or ignorance or both.

I am in no way saying Sektor is any of these things, just answering a question. Maybe as an American surrounded by faith based idiocy in the government and sciences I'm more sensitive than the rest of the rational world?

Well... as far as I know Sektor 13 has nothing to do with the States, and furthermore I could possibly name 1000s of things that would cause gay marriage bans, witch trials, terrorism, etc... (won't copy your whole post...). Of course when you mention "faith tampering with science", I can't find much to say, but I could say "finance tampering with science", which is actually quite as bad/good as faith doing so. ;)

Either way this subject only has to do about what someone thinks about something, nobody has a clue on... So without faith, how can you take part? Provided I think that there is some "kind" of heaven or hell, then I myself have some kind of faith and thus am dangerous to be lead to different "ideas"???

While I understand you being sensetive to matters of faith, I just wanted to point out that there are many more things that could result in the exact same problems as faith... :-/

I really can't see faith motivating someone in his life,as a neccesarily negative thing... (exactly as biolthebop says).

But the question wasn't "If faith motivates somone in this life, I don't see it as a neccesarily negative thing. Also, are there other factors that could lead to negative things?"

There's no reason for me to talk on the possible other contributing factors.

One doesn't need faith to have an opinion on the unknown.

There is not a single instance you can think of when someone's faith in a certain religion has lead to a negative outcome? Not a single solitary instance? It's always something else?

Definately I can think when faith "screwed up", and still does. And not only in the States, but all around the world... I'm not trying to defend faith here. Don't care much to defend it anyways...

But Sektors post didn't seem to me as projecting any kind of faith. The same way I said what I thought is happening, he said it as well. He thinks that we reincarnate, because he otherwise finds little reason of us being here... I don't see absoltuely nothing to dictate faith to any religion really, by that post only.

You need to believe something in order to have an opinion on the unkonwn. not neccesarily to believe in something, but either way chances are that all that we think about afterlife are wrong... (who knows really). The idea is that yyou don't base your opinion on the unknown, on logic, but on something else...

I wasn't even really speaking on what Sektor said, I was answering a question that also wasn't really about Sektor.

I don't quite understand the last few sentences you wrote. If by saying "You need to believe something" you mean "you need to have faith in something" then I disagree.

"The idea is that yyou don't base your opinion on the unknown, on logic, but on something else... "

Also, that confuses me a little. Do you mean me specifically?

First of all since you were not referingto sektor, then there is no problem :D

Now, I wasnt' refering to you at all, on believe and faith and so foruth.

Somehow in order to have an opinion on something that is unknown, you will eventually have to base your opinion on something else than logic or facts, exactly like faith. This does not mean that your beliefs about what happens in the unknown are based on faith, but they share the same kind of non reasoning more or less... So it doesn't take faith, for me, but it takes some kind of "belief system", or anyway some kind of "thoughts" if you like on which you will base your opinion. There is no way of doing this rationally, or based in facts, or by logic. That's what I'm saying.

"The idea that yyou...", no I don't mean you specifically, of course not. :)

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

To reiterate: as I said, I was in no way trying to attack Sektor.

But I don't think someone has to eventually have faith or faith-like views the more and more one gets into the unknown.

One just has to stop and say "I don't know yet." and that's hard to do sometimes and yet it should be the easiest thing ever. "I don't know" usually means to some people "I haven't thought about it" when it could very well be "I have given a lot of thought to it, weighed all the evidence and there is too little evidence for me to make a proper conclusion at this time, so I don't know yet.". In my opinion at least.

Why couldn't a person with faith-like-views say so?

I don't understand the question.

Sorry, read your posts sloppily and realised after hand that you had not really presented the argument I formulated my question for.

Faith is a tool, it can build cathedrals, create health care, help the homeless, preserve learning, feed the hungry help orphans and lepers. It can convince a woman to give her entire life to help others, and can convince a prince to give up a kingdom to find truth, it can convince a scientist the world has natural laws to be discovered. Faith is how you use it. Some use it as an excuse to be xenophobic, others use it as a source of strength to reach out and help others.

I agree completely. People see people using faith as an excuse or a reason to do bad things, and all of a sudden people target faith itself as bad. But it's not fair to do this because faith and religion in general are so incredibly broad.

People without faith can do bad things just as well. Eric, for example the Nazis (do I win this internet argument now?!) killed millions of gupsies, jews, communists, homosexuals, whatevers based on philosophical grounds, not religious. In fact, I'd say all the bad things you attribute to faith-based beliefs are actually using faith to justify their atavistic (that is purely instinctual, animalistic) ignorance, fear, need for control and domination.

Again, I didn't say people without faith can't do bad things.

I can't get into the rest of your post now because it would take more time than I can spare at work. Games only take so long to build!

I Believe dying is like a journey, you go into a big black room and nothing happens because you are dead and need to stop imagining there is more to life. Dead means dead. There wasn't anything before life and there isnt anything after.

An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

Maybe what we percieve as Life is actually an Afterlife to a previous Life.

Huh? Huh? What about THAT one, eh?

...

I think Gandalf puts it quite nicely, guys:

"End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path... One that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass... And then you see it... White shores... and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise."

Gandalf was high.

If the conciousness, or remnants of it, continue to "exist" after the body and mind has ceased to function, how does it cope with the sudden severing of ties to the physical form?

How does it percieve its journey to the afterlife? Is it still a unique identity when it reaches its goal? Will it inhabit a form that mimics the one it left behind? If so, from where in the previous life's timeline will it take that form from? If a baby dies, does it spend eternity in the afterlife as a baby?

In the afterlife, what outfit will I be wearing? Do my clothes ever get dirty? Can I fall in love in the afterlife? If the physical form has been left behind, won't those feelings we experienced in life be moot? Can I smell stuff in the afterlife?

Will I be able to see my house from the Afterlife?

Liken the afterlife to the Matrix, and all your questions will be answered.

QuoteThere wasn't anything before life and there isnt anything after.

I have difficulty beleiving that. Firstly what is "nothing" ? "Nothing" itself is still something. Before I was alive I was still "something" yet at the same time I was nothing. Just because we cannot relate to what we were before birth or may be after death - doesn't mean [to me] that there isn't "anything". Hehehe, it's a complicated but fun discussion :D



And, I did write a lot here in reply to LimpingFish, but I really need to think it through more... ;) I'm waiting for the discussion of drugs to arise, because they've really helped me understand what a "moment" is, what my head is capable of perceiving and how there is this "beyondness" that really can't be reached in every day life. You know how really there's two sides to everything? How every possiblity really only has a 50% chance - either YES or NO? Despite facts maybe saying 73% of people will and 27% won't, when it breaks down to an induvidual, i.e. ME, it either WILL or it WONT, thus making it a straight 50/50 split chance. Yah? Also, why the fuck are we symetrical? Why is just about everything on earth symetrical? What's that all about? Perhaps something to do with these "two" sides? Maybe not, but for the purpose of this paragraph, again let's say 'yah' :P Everything is about one, or the other. "One" is always the part that happens to us, the choice we end up taking, the path we end up walking. What is "the other"? Yes, it's the part we never touched and now we never can. We still know "the other" exists, could have existed and probably still will exist - though just not to us as induviduals because we took the "one" route. Therefore, surely the whole of our lives is "one", and therefore death is "the other". By doing drugs, somehow, unexplainably, you get introduced into "the other". Even if it isn't real, and is the Matrix and is in your head - it's still almost as if you're being treated to the things you shouldn't have been concerned with in the first place. That, in my opinion, either puts death as a crossing to "the other", or simply allows us to sit directly in the "middle" and understand fully the direction of "one" and the direction of "the other". Okay, that doesn't prove if you'll phyiscally exist or not after death, but I think there's a high chance. The universe is pretty fucking big. We're pretty fucking tiny. But there's a whole unstoppable universe inside our heads, in fact we can almost create a universe inside our heads. On our planet we've been blessed with intelligence (to a degree :P) and I think that is the first step in conquering death. We don't know what it is but as far as I'm aware we're the only species to question it. Well obviously, unless there's a bunch of Llama's posting their thoughts on the afterlife in this thread? :D

So, erm..what was I saying? Ah yeah.. Existing phyiscally beyond death. Firstly, what existed before the big bang? Who knows. Secondly, what exists beyond what the universe hasn't yet expanded into? Who knows. But we're a bit like a universe. We "big bang", we "expand", we "wilt" and die. A bit like flowers. A bit like stars. A bit like....well everything natural I assume... It's a very similar process from the tiniest thing to exist to the hugest universesized thing to exist.

I'll finish off by concluding that, as I said, before I was born I was nothing yet still "something". If my birth was effectively a "big bang", that must mean before the Universes big bang, there was "something" in existence despite it seeming like "nothing". As we live, and as the Universe expands, we discover new shit, develop new tastes for foreign food etc.

Okay, as for the death part, I need to think a little further again before I write about it. I'm quite happy to be seen as a crackpot on these matters because I don't represent any religious beleifs, only weird ones, ones as far fetched as Groundhog Day :P But for everyone who just things "nothing" happens, like Becky - that you reach an eternal blackness that you won't even recognise yourselves, I offer this song lyric - which I think is inspirational!

"I want something good to die for...to make it beautiful to live"Ã, 

Yes, partners count. No, terrorism does not! ;)

Anyway, just ranting randomly ;) I stop now.

Quote from: [lgm] on Thu 07/12/2006 18:47:09
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass... And then you see it... White shores... and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise."

I always thought that was the most hair prickling beautiful things I ever read. Ã, And when Ian MacLennin said it, Man, shiver me timbers, it felt almost mystical. And no I wasn't high.
Unless I am naturally high.
Maybe only some people experience an afterlife because only they can withstand the shock of utterly total sensory deprivation. And maybe…who knows, this is all speculation, but hey, THAT is what makes us human.

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 07/12/2006 16:21:44
But I don't think someone has to eventually have faith or faith-like views the more and more one gets into the unknown.

One just has to stop and say "I don't know yet." and that's hard to do sometimes and yet it should be the easiest thing ever. "I don't know" usually means to some people "I haven't thought about it" when it could very well be "I have given a lot of thought to it, weighed all the evidence and there is too little evidence for me to make a proper conclusion at this time, so I don't know yet.". In my opinion at least.

Here is somewhat what I was aiming towards (might be that I misinterpreted again due to obscure words so sorry if this goes off a far tangent):
Driftwood theory (don't know what this is called in english -> didn't wiki -> shitty explanation):
---
Assume that choices exist, the clock is ticking and time is moving forward along a line.
A person is in a situation with x possible outcomes and lacks sufficient information to predict the outcome of any action to 100%.
In case he/she takes no action, factors unrelated to his/her actions might resolve the situation (the time-opportunity-window might close) or eliminate all other options until one possible action remains and force him/her to choose it (kind of a path of least resistance thing).
---
Depending if you view taking no action and saying "I don't know yet." as making a choice, you might still be making some kind of conclusion and acting upon it.

The way I see it, there are so many factors constantly at work in the universe that if I'd just say "I don't know yet.", I'd maybe never get a second chance or my life would take the path of a log in a stream.
I have made several choices with lacking evidence, mostly because I have found that the passive "log in a stream" approach leads usually to erosion.
In order to make more choices and be less passive/pushed around, I have chosen to believe in the following:

- My actions can make a difference
- Everything is not predetermined

This still requires some faith (free will), hard determinism seems like a more logical construction, but could make me more passive.

A scientificish way of loking at this.

Before we were human beings, we were sperm and eggs and after we are human beings, we get broken down by bacteria and grow into something else, like grass, then we get eaten, possibly by a cow, and the cow uses us to grow new cells, maybe she uses thosecells to make milk, maybe a human drinks the milk, and the benefits from that milk help to make new sperm or eggs, and then another human being. That is how I see the circle of life or whatever.

What I mean by nothing before or after, i mean for our consciousness. That is just electronic impulses in our heads giving us thoughts and feelings. Once we die, these impulses stop, and our existence as a sentient being stops. I guess what I'm saying in a convoluted way, is that I don't belive in the soul, or at least a soul that can carry on without our body.

I hope tha made sense to someone.

One of my favourite discworld concepts is the "auditors of reality" The idea of the world working by nice orderly deterministic laws, and WE are the things that don't, just makes me grin, thump my chest, and say "I am ALIVE!" For a brief time, some of the dust the cosmos, coalesced into something that can move and think (whatever THAT is) and love. and after that we crumble back to dust. But for that brief moment the was MORE then matter and energy. Ã, 

Quote from: m0ds on Thu 07/12/2006 19:13:17
I'll finish off by concluding that, as I said, before I was born I was nothing yet still "something".

I not sure if I'm reading this right, but are you saying that before you were born or before you were concieved?

For the purposes of argument ( :P) I'll will direct my point to the latter.

I believe, that before the union of sperm and egg, you where indeed nothing. You weren't a soul looking for a host, or a divine light waiting in a queue, ticket in hand, for the next available vessel. Therefore, in my mind, the concept of a immortal soul is flawed, since it based around the assumption that after we die we return to God.

The whole concept of the Afterlife is simply mankind's way to cope with the horrors of Life, by reassuring themselves that something better waits beyond.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 07/12/2006 18:13:12
An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

That sounds quite wrong actually. As for Gandalf.... okay.

To quote some long dead dude, " 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.' "What I find flawed about the 'soul' concept, is that people explain human conciseness, an almost irreducibly complex concept, with something Ã, simpleas a vapor Ã, or a liquid. or ectoplasmic goo. an infinitly branching tree would be more likely.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 07/12/2006 20:29:25
The whole concept of the Afterlife is simply mankind's way to cope with the horrors of Life, by reassuring themselves that something better waits beyond.

Or maybe... the way of "someone" to makes us follow them blindly. The idea of punishment is also very strong in the after life! ;)

The nazis have been mentioned, and still the thread can carry on undisturbed!
This community is progressing!

Quote from: Helm on Thu 07/12/2006 20:51:05

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 07/12/2006 18:13:12
An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

That sounds quite wrong actually. As for Gandalf.... okay.

Well in an information theory point of view, it's sort of a correct way to think. What consumes energy is not to take in information, it's to get rid of the disinformation.

There is a poem that always sent shivers up my spine,
It describes the human condition in a way that makes you feel almost like an outsider.
ahem*

Imagine

Ã, 

Imagine ghosts, gods and devils.

Imagine hells and heavens, cities floating in the sky and cities sunken in the sea.

Unicorns and centaurs. Witches, warlocks, jinns and banshees.

Angels and harpies. Charms and incantations. Elementals, familiars, demons.

Easy to imagine, all of those things: mankind has been imagining them for thousands of years.

Imagine spaceships and the future.

Easy to imagine: the future is really coming and there'll be spaceships in it.

Is there then anything that's hard to imagine?

Of course there is.

Imagine a piece of matter and yourself inside it, yourself aware, thinking and therefore knowing you exist, able to move that piece of matter that you are in, to make it sleep or wake, make love or walk uphill.

Imagine a universe - infinite or not, as you wish to picture it - with a billion, billion, billion suns in it.

Imagine a blob of mud whirling madly around one of those suns.

Imagine yourself standing on that blob of mud, whirling with it, whirling through time and space to an unknown destination.

Imagine!

****

That is what we are, and if there is nothing after, well I am sorry, but what we do have and what we know, is infinitely special. unlike 99.999....% percent of matter in the universe, we are ALIVE! And even more special, we are AWARE! We can look at the stars and ask, we can look at the Earth and ask...and we can look at ourselves, AND ASK! Though I would love an afterlife, but if there isn't I hope I go peacefully into the final night.

To make this clear my previous comment were not a personal attack on Sektor 13 and whether he or anyone should or should not have faith.
I was just generally saying that people are trying to complicate and find explanations for stuff that really aren't complicated but very simple and need no explanation, yet religions twist them for its purposes. I was just using Sektor 13's name as an example of one who was trying to complicate simple stuff in life.

Children, as of today, pretty much need to believe in an afterlife.    To get by.   To answer the usual questions about existence.  There aren't enough seculars out there to combat the whopper of fundamentalists who throw all kinds of twisted, ALL TOO specific and badly referenced mythology.

I grew up in the South thinking I might drop into Satan's Hell at any second.   I lived by those rules, doing everything with God's watchful eye on me.   Then one day the burden was lifted!   I evolved from a single cell to multiple cells to a fish-like-blob to a newt to a tiny rodent to a primate...... etc. etc.! 

As a kid I COULD have grasped this concept but no one ever sat down and fleshed it out for me.   I knew every character's name in Mario, and the back stories of the Ninja Turtles...    but every secular person in my life was so self conscious or quiet that I never heard one peep besides this "theory" about evolution.    The Bible Belt is churning out people like me every day... and most of those folk don't go to college.   Drop out of high school.   Never question.    They just attend church and love Jesus, and for them that's like..... having called and made a reservation at a fancy floating restaurant in the sky.

And all there is to salvation, for some, is to accept Jesus.   To accept an image of a guy with a beard and toga.   Well my question is.... what does a Martian have to accept in order to go to Heaven?   A Jesus with bearded antennae and a silver jumpsuit?

Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster).

I personely, when i  thought about that question, was the 'narnia' method that is, god came for them, in form that they would recognise, in the form of that speices. Of course, I am so likely wrong it doesn't bear thinking of.

Quote from: evenwolf on Thu 07/12/2006 22:53:51
what does a Martian have to accept in order to go to Heaven?   A Jesus with bearded antennae and a silver jumpsuit?

No, Martians don't exist. God made man in his own image, Himdammit! The Earth is the center of the universe! Outer Space is just some scrubland behind our house!

Dogs won't get into Heaven either, because the little bastards don't have a soul! Not even that really helpful dog who gave you his umbrella when it was raining! F*ck him! Let him find his own messiah!

...


Normal service will resume in 5...4...3...2...

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 07/12/2006 23:05:00
I personely, when i  thought about that question, was the 'narnia' method that is, god came for them, in form that they would recognise, in the form of that speices. Of course, I am so likely wrong it doesn't bear thinking of.

Wasn't that also the Ghostbusters method? :-\

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 07/12/2006 23:05:00
'narnia' method that is, god came for them, in form that they would recognise, in the form of that speices.

There's a reference to a Martian Jesus in the "Chronicles of Narnia"?   

Yes, so other planets have other prophets, other sons of God?   Well then.. if that is true and we can live in Harmony with these other civilizations that accept Martian Jesus and Martian God...  then why is it we cannot accept Jewish Jesus and Jewish God..... or Mohammad Jesus and Islam God.... or Buddhist Jesus and Buddhist God... or Muslim Jesus and Muslim God....or Ron L. Hubbard Jesus... or Egyptian Jesus and Greek God (my favorites, sad they're not trendy anymore)

Why would God's purpose be to set us all against each other, and not connect all the dots.   Why do missionaries even bother harassing natives over semantics and the name of the invisible monster in the sky?

Why do people keep planting "authentic" evidence that some higher being exists?  I argue that it's for the children.  You know, for kids!  I should know.  I was one.

Quote from: Andail on Thu 07/12/2006 22:05:40

Quote from: Helm on Thu 07/12/2006 20:51:05

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 07/12/2006 18:13:12
An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

That sounds quite wrong actually. As for Gandalf.... okay.

Well in an information theory point of view, it's sort of a correct way to think. What consumes energy is not to take in information, it's to get rid of the disinformation.

The thing I quoted is wrong on many levels... First of all, scientific theories concerning the "creation of information?" What? Are we taking data assimilation here, what? Second, nothing the human mechanism does takes 'no energy', and to the point, the process of frogetting most probably is a passive byproduct of the memory mechanism, therefore taking less energy to put waste out than to burn info in. Oh well.

I tend to agree with Helm on this strange side argument.   In anything with a capacity.  For instance a garbage can.   The work of emptying is done by the filling.  Wait...

OK, whoever's talking just needs to shut up.

Quote from: evenwolf on Thu 07/12/2006 22:53:51
Children, as of today, pretty much need to believe in an afterlife.Ã,  Ã,  To get by.Ã,  Ã, To answer the usual questions about existence.Ã, 

What do you mean exactly? 

Are you saying that life is more difficult today than it was when you were a kid?

(I'm not arguing, I'm sincerely interested here.)

No.    I don't imply that in a matter of fifteen years anything has changed.   I was hinting at the possibility of a future where communities (hell, even a world community) find a common bond in science.  If children are encouraged in the sciences early on   (my first real science class was in the 6th grade) I'm inclined to believe that even more enthusiasm will grow towards intelligence.  Towards truth.  Towards the arts.   Away from guilt, insecurity, fears of Hell and the ideals of puritans..

Because many kids (and not just Bible Belt folk) are raised by fundamentalists who are doing nothing more but running a marketing campaign for their own souls.  And the evidence of fossil records, for instance, becomes a test placed by God.   "God is testing us with some silly rocks!  Who are you going to believe?  The man upstairs or some silly rock?  Hell just yesterday them rocks was saying birds come from dinosaurs!"

Yes, sometimes rocks tell stories more compelling than a list of do's and don'ts.

If faith helps you get through the night, then fine. If you use faith to justify actions against other people, not fine. If you use your faith to prove another person's faith wrong, not fine. If faiths prevents you from seeking a method of explanation that is closer to us, more wordly, more practical, more human, not fine. Many things need to be viewed and investigated by the tools which we are granted; the mind and the senses. To circumvent this system of investigation with truisms, grand phrases and quotations from the scriptures is just a sign of laziness and negligence. I'm not saying we must be scientifical or logical, I'm saying we must start with trying to explain things around us with terms that are compatible to ourselves, to roll up our sleeves and really dig into the problem with our own sore hands, and perform a labour that we can be proud of afterwards.
If you, after this meticulous spiritual research, reach the conclusion that you need a diety somewhere in the far end of the cosmic thread we're clinging onto, then fine.

Evenwolf:  Jewish Jesus?   Muslim Jesus?  Buddhist Jesus?  Egyptian Jesus?...
Jews don't believe in persons who lived in are divine, only the one god, no "son of god". Muslims do have Muhammad, but it's not a "localized Jesus", he's not a son of god in Islam, just his divine prophet. Buddhism is an utterly different kind of religion than the Jewish\Christian\Muslim trio. Egyptian mythology had many gods, never one saviour. You should really learn more about toher religions than you're own dude. Christianity isn't the first religion ever existed on Earth that eveyone copyed and had "their own Jesus".
You should really learn more about other religions than your own.
Or maybe you just tryed to explain a point just didn't know how. I believe your point is that it makes no sense that one god would send differnet sons\prophets to differnet peoples and make them interpret them their own way and believe in different religions causing them to fight each other, and what only would make sense is that one prophet will lead all people of Earth\the Universe to belive in the true god, instead of the above. Now with that I agree. Good point.
However the Bible says god picked Abraham to father his chosen people because he was pure and whatever and they will be his chosen people and only them deserve the true faith and only them will remain after the messiah comes.
Then in Christianity only Christians could go to heaven because god changed the religion through his son. Then in Islam god chose Ishmael's descendantns (muslims) and not Isaac's descendants (jews) [Isaac and Ishmael the sons of Abraham) and only muslims could go to heaven.
Basically Christianity said god fixed and changed Judaism to Christianity by sending Jesus and Muslims says god corrected\disowned Judaism and changed it and picked the other people by sending Muhammad.
So all those 3 religions have their justification in their holy texts why god chose only them and not the others.
Does that prove you wrong? hell no. It's propaganda needed to base the religion in the eyes of its believers. But it shows you how these religions can exist but not co-exist in the eyes of their religious leaders.
This even makes your point stronger - why would one god lead different peoples in differnet religions to think THEY are the chosen people, they are right and only they will go to heaven etc. because it would make them fight for everyone to have "the true faith' etc.
So either it proves that one religion of the three is right and the others wrongly changed it (never ending arguement) or that all of them are just made by man and changed and brached to different religions in man's interests. And if that is so there couldn't be no afterlife.

So I hope I helped explain your point, because I really hated your "Jewish Jesus, Muslim Jesus, Buddhist Jesus" etc. statements, and so I hope I explained your point in a more true ot the source light. If you helped you understand other religions better good, if you already knew this then I hope I just explained it better in a way that wouldn't put other religions in a bad light because you presented them like they were Christiniaty copycats.

And I agree with Andail.
Faith is OK if it helps people live their life and be good people. Blind faith is dangerous. Blind faith where the believer never asks "how" or "why" and choose ro ignore scientific facts. People who for them the only answers to "why" are "because god said so" "because god wants so" "because the holy book said so" or "because the priest\rabbi\other religious leaders said so". Even if it's completley against facts and logic. And so they also do whatever that holy book or religious leader tells them do because they said so. And there's no need in repeating what that can lead to.

As far as I'm aware, Nostradamus, Christianity doesn't believe that only Christians go to heaven, in fact, Christians all seem to agree with the "Chosen People" status of the Jews. Also, I seem to remember reading that the Catholic Church accepts the validity of Islam as a religion of God (although I'm sure they consider them to have a few things wrong). Also, Islam accepts the validity of Christianity and Judaism (as well apparently any religion/person, nonwithstanding that they might be a few things wrong if they aren't Muslims) who believes in God (to them, the "covenant" wasn't with only the line of Ishmael/Isaac's family, but with all who accept it), and they all get a chance to go to heaven. Also, I recall that both these religions (I don't think Judaism has a heaven/hell) say that if the person didn't have proper knowledge of the message of God, they will go to heaven depending on their actions.

As far as questioning your faith, I think that should be done constantly! If you have to hide/ignore facts to retain your faith, I wouldn't consider it a very stable faith at all. However, I don't think there should be a schism that everyone feels like making between science and religion. Why does being religious have to mean you aren't logical or scientific? Why does being religious mean you're only in it "Just incase it's true, and then I won't go to hell?". That's the stupidest reason to believe in God.

About the original question, it really, really, can't be answered while one is alive, and once you are dead, it can't be answered either. One can only go on what one believes.

QuoteMany things need to be viewed and investigated by the tools which we are granted; the mind and the senses.

Sensory perception lies a lot. 'Logic' fails us. Looking at someone pointing at a map and going to that foreign land isn't the same thing. We fail at experiencing truth, we fail at inspecting our own inner workings. It is like teeth trying to bite themselves.

I can understand why people turn to the fantastic and the divine.

Nostradamus, thanks for helping to flesh that out in a more mature way than I did.

You would have had to have followed the Martian Jesus thing and given me a little creative license there. With each of the divinities mentioned, I was simply trying to make it more and more absurd that God or Jesus existed and simply appeared in that people's image.

Christians:   Go ahead and ask your peers about other planets, and if they must accept Jesus Christ to be saved.  Because if there is a God and the key to understanding him is through one human being such as Jesus-  firstly only humans can be "saved".   If the answer is "God sent other planets a Jesus-like prophet in their form" then why wouldn't he do that with the seven continents of Earth?  Wouldn't God have to send messengers even to the smallest, most remote tribes in the wilderness?   Different messengers for different cultures and peoples?

And so if this is what God has done, he actually failed to harmonize anyone and instead has caused wars and mass bigotry.   Like you said Nostradamus, most religions have their own answers for why they alone will be saved.  The chosen people.

I argue that these ideas exist not because people are selfish, but simply because religious fanatics cannot come up with an answer to "what about all the little babies born where the word Jesus can't be pronounced?"

It was just an idea I had, a long time ago. of course, right  now, I don't know what to think, so, take the idea or leave it. I ain't no fanatic.

(http://volveralfuturo.galeon.com/doclinea.jpg)

You're just not thinking  10th dimensionally.  (http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php)


Bt

Blackthorne, the video on that site is mind bending!

Very thought provoking!

Quote from: Helm on Thu 07/12/2006 17:26:34
People without faith can do bad things just as well. Eric, for example the Nazis (do I win this internet argument now?!) killed millions of gupsies, jews, communists, homosexuals, whatevers based on philosophical grounds, not religious. In fact, I'd say all the bad things you attribute to faith-based beliefs are actually using faith to justify their atavistic (that is purely instinctual, animalistic) ignorance, fear, need for control and domination.

I can't accept that every bad thing that was attributed to faith was actually just a knowing or unknowing cover for something else. Unless you can accept that faith is animalistic and instinctual and leads people to do animalist and instinctual deeds.

"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination." I would say that is a direct link to faith. If someone searched out faith with the purpose of justifying their hate of gay people then sure, but I highly doubt that's the norm among religious people.

And if people create religions and beliefs then they are creating them to justify certain things they want or don't want. So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?

biothlebop:

I think I understand what you mean but I don't know how it applies to my quote really.

I was talking about unknows, mostly. Not about every choice in life. "What do you want for dinner?" "I don't have enough input to offer a proper answer!" "Well then, you're getting hotdogs." "I am having hotdogs for dinner." Not like that at all.

Again, "I don't know, yet." isn't a dismissive "Put it on the back burner" statement to me.

I don't expect people to make decisions only when they have 100% of all the evidence needed to make one. I make decisions all the time not knowing what I'm doing 100% [like getting involved in internet debates!] but I don't have to resort to faith in something to make a decision. If one were to over stretch the definition of faith and say "But you have FAITH that your car will start each morning or FAITH that the sun will come up!" sure, but that's silly. I have a pretty good idea how cars work (http://www.howstuffworks.com/engine.htm") and a pretty good idea of why the sun does what it does (http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun.htm") but for things like the afterlife... I don't know. There is only one path of least reistance that would force me to make up my mind about the afterlife. Then again, taking all the evidence we currently have about religions, various beliefs about the afterlife, the human body, how the body dies and what happens to the brain when we die... It is, in my opinion, very safe to assume that when you die you cease to exist as a concious thing and stop existing out-right. However, I'm still accepting evidence.

But anyway, excuse me if I was confusing, I tend to get confusing if I write more than a paragraph.

lo_res_man:

"What I find flawed about the 'soul' concept, is that people explain human conciseness, an almost irreducibly complex concept, with somethingÃ,  simpleas a vaporÃ,  or a liquid. or ectoplasmic goo. an infinitly branching tree would be more likely."

Be more likely? How? If you have evidence of the sort I'd like to hear it! Also, how conciousness is irreducable.

Raggit:

If only string theory ment anything...

Homage to Ghormak:
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/ACHTUNGHEAVEN.png)

MrColossal:
As I see it, I (sort of) make all my decisions based on faith (and in situations involving unknowns) and do not see the stretching of the definition of faith to everything as very silly.
This sterns from my problem with authorities/truths, some (science) are harder to work around/dismiss, while some (religion) are easier.
I have more faith in science, since I feel it relies on less assumptions than religion and therefore is a more solid base to choose my actions upon. I still see science as a neccesary evil (authority), but a much smaller one than religious faith, especially organised religion, since organisation requires cooperation therefore organised religion always influences society (for good or bad).
What science cannot explain, I have no trouble letting religion or "I don't know yet." fill. A large part of the world as I percieve it remains still in the dark and even the parts I think I know don't quite fit.
Taking the leap from nothing (no assumptions) to establishing science requires a leap of faith, as well as the leaps to "I don't know" and "God" ("I don't know" being perhaps the smallest and "God" being the greatest).
I am also sadly in the "nothing happens after death" camp, but I guess this is still an area for me where "I don't know" takes the lead, so God won't sneak into other areas of my universe, create paradoxes and contradict him/herself.
Regarding evidence, I don't believe anything can be proven true (even having some minor problems with I think, therefore I am), but due to stretching faith to encompass everything, small amounts of faith help me function in this world and accept assumptions as truths.

I don't think I am very far from your line of thinking, this side discussion is more of a definition-of-faith thing than a argument about religious faith.

Now on to my opinion on some points you directed at helm:
"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination."
How about this version of the argument?
"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because it is not natural reproductive behaviour."

So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?
Yes, I see my faith having it's origin in my fears and desires, I believe I am almost incapable of unselfish action.

I find reading about Out of body experiences intruige me greatly,
so, I think that the afterlife would be almost identical to out of body experiences, apart from you'd be in a different world...
but since I'm Christian I feel somewhat limited of thinking about life after death...But WHO KNOWS???

Ok, I don't really think about it but if I had to give my opinion I'd say that I don't believe in an afterlife. The reason I don't think about it is because it's just meaningless pondering. Some religion's ponderings are reasonably harmless but others can be fairly dangerous.
I know a few people who believe in reincarnation (no not one of the dangerous ones ;) ), reason being? We get another chance to correct our wrongs. How about we just focus on the life that we have and do our best not to make wrongs in the first place?
How amazingly privelaged are we to just have the 80 odd years of life that we have? Do we really need more? Sometimes I think hoping (or believing) in an afterlife is just greedy. Maybe there is one. Most logically there isn't. So what either way? Let's just make the most out of real life.

Quote from: Zooty on Thu 07/12/2006 20:14:47
A scientificish way of loking at this.

Before we were human beings, we were sperm and eggs and after we are human beings, we get broken down by bacteria and grow into something else, like grass, then we get eaten, possibly by a cow, and the cow uses us to grow new cells, maybe she uses thosecells to make milk, maybe a human drinks the milk, and the benefits from that milk help to make new sperm or eggs, and then another human being. That is how I see the circle of life or whatever.

What I mean by nothing before or after, i mean for our consciousness. That is just electronic impulses in our heads giving us thoughts and feelings. Once we die, these impulses stop, and our existence as a sentient being stops. I guess what I'm saying in a convoluted way, is that I don't belive in the soul, or at least a soul that can carry on without our body.

I hope tha made sense to someone.

If you want... our atoms have exited for BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of years, and we're all about the same age.

Babar: It says several times in the Catholic bible (I CBA looking for exact quotes) that if you don't accept Jesus as the ONE TRUE son of God (moslems and Jews don't) then you're knocking on the door of damnation. Also, Moslems believe Christians are fundamentally and irrevocably wrong about Jesus being God and think Christians are going to hell for glorifying him. And Jews think everyone after the prophets were sorcerors acting in the name of God.

Also those who don't know the message of God are unjudged and drift in the eternal limbo of death.

general comment: If there wasn't any religion, what would the internet argue about? Therefore there's a reason for religion.

Quote from: biothlebop on Sat 09/12/2006 14:23:24
I don't think I am very far from your line of thinking, this side discussion is more of a definition-of-faith thing than a argument about religious faith.

Probably, however it seems like you'd like to believe in god from some of the things you said? That's probably the biggest difference keeping us from being indistinguishable as different people on the street!

Quote
Now on to my opinion on some points you directed at helm:
"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination."
How about this version of the argument?
"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because it is not natural reproductive behaviour."

Unacceptable to me. If you believed that then that gets rid of fertility clinics, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, in vitro fertilization and adoption [make a baby, don't claim one already made! SPREAD YOUR DNA!]. Sterilization and hysterectomy are out too, probably.

To further fall into the "It's not natural" mindset there goes plastics, silicone, some vaccinations and geneticall modified foods. Way to ruin it for everyone, the gays!

Quote
So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?
Yes, I see my faith having it's origin in my fears and desires, I believe I am almost incapable of unselfish action.

And in the process of designing your faith based off of fears and desires and selfishness, you've never done anything bad as a result of your faith? Even if you haven't, no one else has in the history of the world?

QuoteI can't accept that every bad thing that was attributed to faith was actually just a knowing or unknowing cover for something else. Unless you can accept that faith is animalistic and instinctual and leads people to do animalist and instinctual deeds.

Sure. Faith is animalistic and instinctual and leads people to do animalistic and instinctual deeds.

Quote"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination." I would say that is a direct link to faith.

I'd say it's a direct link to instinct, mistrust, fear and disgust of that which is different. Faith is just a conduit for that sort of thing, like a lot of other stuff people do.

QuoteAnd if people create religions and beliefs then they are creating them to justify certain things they want or don't want. So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?

Sure, yes, I think so.

So... then faith can motivate people to do negative things?

How I view faith and good and bad:
- We cannot come to any absolute truths, there are no absoute truths, only assumptions of how things are
- Faith is the thing that elevates an assumption to a truth
- Good and bad do not exist as truths or absoutes, we define and create good and bad through faith
- Some assumptions require less faith to become truths (science is a lower-faith assumption, God is a higher-faith assumption)

How do we choose which assumptions to elevate to truth status?
- By amount of faith required
- If the assumption can be used as a mean toward an end (fears/desires/selfishness)

About the nature of man:
-All our actions are deep down motivated by selfish, animalistic and instincual things

About the amount of faith:
- The amount of faith one has dictates how seemingly unselfishly one can act

Now to answer some of your questions:

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 10/12/2006 16:00:09
however it seems like you'd like to believe in god from some of the things you said?

I'd like to have more faith (for example: faith in that the world is worth to save). More faith -> more actions and less obviously selfish actions -> perhaps a better person (in the eyes of others?)

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 10/12/2006 16:00:09
Unacceptable to me. If you believed that then that gets rid of fertility clinics, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, in vitro fertilization and adoption [make a baby, don't claim one already made! SPREAD YOUR DNA!]. Sterilization and hysterectomy are out too, probably.

To further fall into the "It's not natural" mindset there goes plastics, silicone, some vaccinations and geneticall modified foods. Way to ruin it for everyone, the gays!

There exist people that believe that man should live naturally like in the caveman days, and probably a couple individuals on earth do so too. However, the point was that even science can be twisted through faith to serve the same fears and desires. It is indeed harder to use precisely (get rid of the scary gays but give up a bunch of other stuff that is good on the way) than religion.

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 10/12/2006 16:00:09
And in the process of designing your faith based off of fears and desires and selfishness, you've never done anything bad as a result of your faith? Even if you haven't, no one else has in the history of the world?

I do daily bad things due to my faith (and lack thereof). The questions I ask myself are: Would I do less bad if I had more faith, if I was more naive, if I was less egocentrical?
The christians in my surroundings (that seem to have more faith than me) seem to do more good to others than I do (I mostly care about myself and keeping my head above the water). Someone who can devote their time to keep another person afloat in this world must have their own shit sorted out first, and I guess I am jealous of those people, their energy and faith, rather than that I wish to believe in god.

Then your newest question:

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 10/12/2006 19:02:51
So... then faith can motivate people to do negative things?

Yes, without faith we would act only toward instant goals and live in the moment. Faith is the motivator that makes people invest energy in something imaginary/abstract and theoretical and this form of society could not exist without faith (or long term goals).

Lastly, my opinion on religious faith:
Personal faith in god = good (motivates a person to do what they believe is good)
Organised faith in god (example: the bible) = bad (used as a political, social etc. tool, based on outdated concepts, keeps society from redefining good and bad)

Does the concept of an Afterlife have to go hand in hand with religious beliefs? :-\

Limping Fish.   If anyone were to get specific into their vision of the afterlife, it would have to tie into something religious wouldn't it?

Afterall, aren't religions formed after too many people start to ask the question "what happens after I die?"   Remember, years and years ago, people were isolated where they had no exact answer.   Religions began to form based on the stories the elders would tell.   I'm mostly using Native Americans as an example here.  Their mythologies are the best.  My favorite was about a sort of heaven built on the back of a floating turtle.  If I can find the myths on google I'll paste them here eventually.  Very insightful on human nature and what happens after people ask "what happens after I die?"

Does an atheist believe in an Afterlife? Does he believe the conciousness goes on after death, regardless of a belief in a divine power?

Discussing the concept of an Afterlife actually becomes interesting if you remove the religious aspect.

There's a disambiguation thing on wikipedia about atheists and agnostics.  They have soooo many categories.   I don't even know what kind of agnostic I am based on their categories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostics  (I guess I'm a weak agnostic?)

But I've considered myself an "active agnostic" for the past couple years.   Too many people hear the word and associate with "doesn't care".   Someone said that earlier, and it's so true.   But I think I'm more active into research and questioning than most that I qualify for "really really cares but thinks most organized religions are full of shit."  Just turn on the TV late at night and there are preachers selling holy bottled water.   They actually sell the stuff, the sheisters!   Now most communities are filled with priests who have great intentions and care for the congregation.  But the questions we've asked in this thread never come up.  It's just blind dumb faith.

Funny story!   My mom wanted me to join her church so I went to bible study a few times and they held an "interview" for me to join their congregation.    During the interview, I felt my stomach getting shaky so I excused myself and ran down the hall.  I got halfway to the bathroom before I puked all over the floor.    After I got cleaned up I walked outside to see my mom mopping up after me.     They MADE MY MOM clean it up!   And they never asked me to interview after that.  They made it pretty clear.    My mom on the way home said "don't worry about it, Jesse.   You just did me a favor and taught me a lesson about that church."    It's the closest to God I've ever felt.

On a sidenote, it was the Presbyterian church attended by Bush Sr.'s adviser and campaign spokesman Howard Baker.

Quote from: evenwolf on Mon 11/12/2006 01:55:18
Limping Fish.   If anyone were to get specific into their vision of the afterlife, it would have to tie into something religious wouldn't it?

I'd say it'd be less to do with religion and more to do with spirituality.

It's a pedantic distinction I'm making, but I feel it's necessary because I think a person can believe in an afterlife without subscribing to a religion.

I personally would find it enjoyable if after my avatar died, I could roam freely across the map and go through buildings.

I would pick up pennies with my finger. Make them appear to float to my loved ones. With The Righteous Brothers playing in the background.

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 10/12/2006 19:02:51
So... then faith can motivate people to do negative things?

That's a value judgement, and a pretty ambiguous one at that (negative for whom?) but in the sense you mean it - if I understand you correctly - sure! Just like any other impulse can motivate you to do negative things. I think you're putting undue pressure on faith and religion (and I'm the one whose soul belongs to satan) when the whole of the human condition leads to a lot of hilarious (and sad) stupidity and error constantly.

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 10/12/2006 19:02:51
So... then faith can motivate people to do negative things?

That's a value judgement, and a pretty ambiguous one at that (negative for whom?) but in the sense you mean it - if I understand you correctly - sure! Just like any other impulse can motivate you to do negative things. I think you're putting undue pressure on faith and religion (and I'm the one whose soul belongs to satan) when the whole of the human condition leads to a lot of hilarious (and sad) stupidity and error constantly.

QuoteDoes an atheist believe in an Afterlife? Does he believe the conciousness goes on after death, regardless of a belief in a divine power?

Discussing the concept of an Afterlife actually becomes interesting if you remove the religious aspect.

Most atheists have no time for concepts of immortal souls. Therefore if some believe in an afterlife, it would at least have to be a finite one.

A tangent off Helm's point:

Infinity is the only way some religions can justify an afterlife.   Because what's the point of another life if it ends?    How is life anymore meaningful when its simply going to end... again?  Most spiritual leaders could not answer this question without calling life simply a test (ie. St. Peter & the pearly gates)  As a child I was told that all my dead relatives would be waiting on a cloud when I died.   Their lives are infinite in the afterlife, so they have nothing better to do but watch over me and wait for me to die.   (This sucks in my opinion.)  Also it sucks because I'm uneasy around most people and infinity is a scary ass amount of time.   (I barely know how to spend a good 15 minutes!)   

I understand how infinity can be comforting for children.   But adults expecting infinity... are naive?  Comes right back around to my point that most myths are created for children.  Remember, children ask A LOT of questions.   Parents make up really dumb but comforting things to tell the children.   And I do think that they harm the child by feeding him/her delusions.   My friend Aaron was convinced by his parents that every time he flipped a light switch it cost them 20 cents.   He grew up thinking about that every time he turned on the electricity.  Every time he opened the refrigerator door.   My parents convinced me there was a God.  I thought about him every time I cursed, every time I had lustful thoughts, every time I stole.   God has a list of whose naughty or nice.

Infinity is a hoax designed to comfort children.  A finite afterlife is more realistic.   But it doesn't help solve the meaning of life.  It just solves the meaning of the previous life.   You would have to have infinite lives and after an eternity you still wouldn't know the meaning of a life while you were experiencing it.

It's somewhat depressing that so many people assume that the only reason to believe in God is so that you can get that eternal 1st-class ticket.

Somewhat off-topic(?):

Quote from: Dmitri on Sun 10/12/2006 13:14:57
Babar: It says several times in the Catholic bible (I CBA looking for exact quotes) that if you don't accept Jesus as the ONE TRUE son of God (moslems and Jews don't) then you're knocking on the door of damnation. Also, Moslems believe Christians are fundamentally and irrevocably wrong about Jesus being God and think Christians are going to hell for glorifying him. And Jews think everyone after the prophets were sorcerors acting in the name of God.

Also those who don't know the message of God are unjudged and drift in the eternal limbo of death.

As far as I can remember, the Bible quotes Jesus saying that the two main rules, on which EVERYTHING else hangs is: "Love your Lord God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind" and "Love your neighbour like yourself". I don't know what the Catholic(?) bible says, but the Pope (the old one at least) on numerous occasions accepted the Muslims to be believers in God. I've even met Jews who believe that muslims are Jewish. As far as muslims go, while they do think that Christians are fundementally wrong in that Jesus is God, I've seen a passage that (I CBA looking for exact quotes :) ) says that anyone who believes in God has nothing to fear.

As far as limbo goes, I think that the Catholic church has said now that it doesn't exist.

Quote from: Babar on Mon 11/12/2006 08:32:00

As far as I can remember, the Bible quotes Jesus saying that the two main rules, on which EVERYTHING else hangs is: "Love your Lord God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind" and "Love your neighbour like yourself".

You're wrong, these are the 2 of the 10 commandments, which Moses came up with on Mount Sinay in the Jewish Bible, hundreds of years before Jesus ever lived.

Now Jews don't belive Muslims are Jews, just realize the fact that Christianity and Islam came out of Judaism, they both recognize parts of the BIble\Old Testament and belive in the same one god.

[quote author: biothlebop] Some assumptions require less faith to become truths (science is a lower-faith assumption, God is a higher-faith assumption)

Quote

No, Science is based on facts and proofs. Any ausumptions in it are based on facts. Faith is based on myths and illogical things that can't be proven and are taken for granted because it's written in a holy book.

QuoteAs far as limbo goes, I think that the Catholic church has said now that it doesn't exist.

Dude, don't let your spirituality be controlled by a Microsoft Update Patch.


Limbo and most parts of Hell were not even characterized until fictionalized accounts such as "Dante's Inferno".  The cantos or circles of Hell comes from this book.   What's interesting is that Dante's Inferno was simply a political satire of the author's times in Italy.  There were two feuding parties, the Guelphs and the Ghibellines.    As Dante descends further into Hell he comes across members of those families experiencing worse and worse eternities.   In modern times, the book would be like Jon Stewart writing an account of finding Bill O'Reilly and George Bush drenched in dog poo in Hell.    Dante wrote his political adversaries in Hell!  Most views on Hell come from literature like Inferno and Paradise Lost.  And Inferno was a comedy satire. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%27s_Inferno

tell me when you download your next update, and in turn, what you believe that day.

Heheh....things would be so much simpler if people tried!

I didn't say Jesus came up with them. I just said that he was quoted saying them. I think in another version of the same story(?) he asks an expert, and those are the replies he gets, so he says "You are correct".

I don't know about whether Jews believe that muslims are Jewish, I said I've met Jews who believe Muslims are Jewish (she explained how muslims keep the covenant and such. I don't remember her whole argument).

Just for the sake of the argument, Nostradamus, Science is based on myths and illogical things that are taken for granted because it's written in a science book.

I really don't understand why there is such a huge God/Science divide. "I don't believe in God, I believe in science" is such a ridiculuous thing to say, that it's become a joke, but people still say it!

EDIT to evenwolf: That's probably why they said now that it doesn't exist. At least they have the courage to say "This is wrong, it shouldn't be here". Is there a jab at me somewhere in there?

No it's more likely that other media influenced the catholic people to become less endearing toward the idea of Limbo.   In movies like "What Dreams May Come" limbo is pictured as the worst place to be condemned.   A very depressing and lonely place for innocent people.

Sensing a change of attitude (and number of incoming dollars) the Catholic Church probably decided it would be more beneficial to EDIT what they originally said.    Which was all based on literature anyway.  Which is what I forgot to say.

Science is not a belief.
When I read a science book it shows me facts, it shows me proofs and if I use my mind to analyze it I would reach the same conclusions.
Like for example if you see that the first flying animals on Earth were dinosaurs\reptiliamn and hter'es proof of that (fossizlized life forms with wings, and a bone structure of dinosaurs and dated the same era by a factual way) and then you see that later in time these flying dinosaurs developed feathers and through time you see their bones structure have been changing to be more suited for being in the air and using the air to fly, and the less needed body parts such as legs become smaller and less significant. So you maybe don't have ALL the millions of stages of that evolution but you have all the major waypoints, so you assume the minor stages happened, because it must be in that process and so you have facts and proofs. Or you find different fossilized marine mammals in eras from which there wren't many if at all dry ground mammals. You have one family of mammals that still lives in the sea to this day - the family of whales (includes dolphins). And then you have Australia which has been isolated from the world until a couple of hundresds of years ago and you have amphibian mammals there in a part of the world which didn't evolve as fast as the rest of it. You have many more waypoints in fossilized animals that shows their advanved from marine annimals to amphibieans to ground animals. Such as fins developing to legs, lung changes etc. You have all the waypoints and poroof and facts you need to see that mammals must have started at sea and developed to ground animals.
This is in contrast to blind faith that long ago people could turn sticks into snakes, turn a loaf of bread to many, walk on water, split the sea and so on. Sutff that are unproveable, illogical and mythical. How come all those supposed mircales don't happen today?

So the point si you can't take what I said about religion and say "for the sake of the arguemnt let's the say the same thing about science". Science is differnet. In science if you think something is wrong you can research, prove it wrong and present it and it will change the perception and texts. In religious if you question it you're a sinner, a blasphemer, basically you're not allowed to try to prove anything wrong or change anything even if you have proof.

Quote
No, Science is based on facts and proofs. Any ausumptions in it are based on facts. Faith is based on myths and illogical things that can't be proven and are taken for granted because it's written in a holy book.

Science is based on axioms. From wikipedia:
An axiom is any sentence, proposition, statement or rule that forms the basis of a formal system. Unlike theorems, axioms are neither derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by formal proofs. Instead, an axiom is taken for granted as valid, and serves as a necessary starting point for deducing and inferencing logically consistent propositions. In many usages, "axiom," "postulate," and "assumption" are used interchangeably.

Axioms/assumptions require faith to become truths. Without any axioms, you wouldn't have science (or religion), example: If we question ZFC, math falls apart, if we question god, most religions fall apart. The arguments you present base themselves on axioms (and go off a tangent so sorry for ignoring the lengthy example about evolution), but should one be capable of disproving an axiom it uses, science would come tumbling down. Science however has been able to use less axioms (and more intuitive ones) to explain more and remain consistent, therefore I see it as a better base than religion for explaining the world.
Science has not yet solved everything though, and I don't mind if god exists in the areas that science has not touched (my concept of him, not the one created by men and doucumented in the bible). Luckily I come in contact with those areas seldomly so I don't have to resort to god or back out of arguments and say "I don't know".
If people continue to question the axioms and the deductions made upon those axioms that make up science, I have no problems with it.

Quote
In religious if you question it you're a sinner, a blasphemer, basically you're not allowed to try to prove anything wrong or change anything even if you have proof.

Religion has come a long way since the writing of the old testament, look up discordianism for an example. But yes, I see any unquestionable authority as a negative thing (think of how Aristotle's authority held science down). Still, as long as science is not able to explain everything, I believe religion has room to coexist with it, perhaps man will even come up with a religion that can be questioned in it's deductions.

Nostradamous, read bio's post well.

QuoteScience is not a belief.
When I read a science book it shows me facts, it shows me proofs and if I use my mind to analyze it I would reach the same conclusions.

Please concern yourself with a primer on the concept of epistemology. Eric should probably do likewise. Just because scientific constructions seem to suggest a theory is dependable (say, gravity) it doesn't mean there isn't an act of faith on your part to hold is dependable as such. Is it a more justified assumption to say gravity will continue to exist next second than to say a God exists? Probably. Is it a far more rigoriously tested premise? Yes. Is it sensible and helpful to every-day life? Absolutely. But is it the result of an action of faith on the part of a human being to believe something to be true, ultimately? Yes.

I see this as knee-jerking. Seculars have become afraid of the word 'faith' because of the stack on negative connotations involved in religious belief. But it requires faith just to get out of bed in the morning. Faith that today will be a better day than the last one, that you are bettering yourself, that you will have reason to smile, that life is good...

We are animals. We need to survive. Faith is necessary.

Yes, science are based on many axioms. Which do not come out of the blue, but are there to fill the gaps between facts and are the result of research.
Moreso, scientiests are trying to do reseatrch to turn many axioms into proven facts.
And as I said earlier anyone can "attack" those axioms and prove them wrong and change them at any given time if capable. Unlike religion.
True, science doesn't has an answer for everything and never will, but it still brings more answers than the "because god wants so\did so\say so" answers.


Helm, the examples you gave of faith were non-religiuous everyday faith and I have no problem with that, you're absoloutely right.

If you read a brief history of scientific research, you'll find that the majority of scientists have very personal goals and a multitude of faiths in this or that which affect the outcome of their scientific work.
Most researchers only present results that go hand in hand with their personal desires (or their sponsors'); if they cannot produce such results they either shut up or tweak the results until they're at least ambigous or impossible to identify.
The romantic idea of absolute, blind science only applies to very few.
Still, scientific labour as a joint universal effort has in my opinion shedded more light on the mysteries of our existence than any religion has - the latter having obscured things instead.

But the individual, general scientist is not a faithless truth-seeking robot.

True.

Doesn't take anything away from my points though.

Quote from: Nostradamus on Mon 11/12/2006 11:07:38
Yes, science are based on many axioms. Which do not come out of the blue, but are there to fill the gaps between facts and are the result of research.

Are you implying that religious axioms come out of the blue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

When religious axioms are stuff like turning sticks to snakes, walking on water, turning a loaf of bread to many, afterlife and all sorts of that stuff, then yes they are based on nothing real.
Unless similiar events happened where the people seeing it were deceived by trickery like modern day magic.
And ok you brought one small religion\sect that rejects the supernatural stuff in the bible. OK, but that's small, an insignificant part of the society. I'm talking about the major religions here.

But what are the major religions? 2000 years ago, give or take a few decades, Christianity was nothing more then a small sect of Judaism that thought the long promised messiah was a carpenter who had gotten himself executed. Weird huh? Or Islam, rich merchant who saw things then decides there is only one god, I mean, everyone knows there is more. Crazy.  Or the prince who left home and wealth, loony enough, but then thought that even that even being an ascetic wasn't holy enough for him. Idiot. Who knows what the next great religion will be. It may be some cult some weirdo starts in his back yard, based on old computer games. Ave Chrisi Jonsi sic 

QuoteWhen religious axioms are stuff like turning sticks to snakes, walking on water, turning a loaf of bread to many, afterlife and all sorts of that stuff, then yes they are based on nothing real.

I feel bad about replying to you as I do because I don't believe in gods so presumably we're more alike than different, but your way of simplifying stuff irks. Those miracles aren't axioms of faith (sic), they are manifestations of divine power. What's so logic-breaking about an effect that be attributed to a lot of different things anyway? It's where the power to conjure this effects comes from with which you should have a problem, as an atheist. That power comes from an all-powerful, omnipresent, omniescent God. That's your target. Not sticks to snakes and walking on water.

"Based on nothing real" buh that you think you can call upon authority because you like science on this matter is absurd. You have no idea what real is, as you are a subject in a whole, only able to see outside, not gaze inwards, not understand anything. You know nothing.

We know nothing, but I find illusions comforting. The modern scientific theory of a importent part of the universe, with the most physical proof is quantem physics. And it says the universe dosn't exist when we don't look at it. Isay the if reality is an illusion, then illusions are reallity. I don't care if I live in a world of mist and abstracts, the importen thing is to LIVE. Life is a great adventure, So live it. Help those around you, make a splash, and live life well.  and the afterlife? Well, to quote peter pan "Death will be a great adventure"

Helm already took this to the direction I was pursuing, but here is my version.

Seeing that you are concerned with limiting this to the major theistic religions, I'll try to limit this to only miracle-believing branches of Christianity and Islam.

Here is a four step reasoning (stolen from here: http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp)
that traces back miracles to an omnipotent christian god which should coincide with the religious groups we are targeting
(don't know if the muslims think alike):
   1.  The Bible asserts that an omnipotent God created the universe ex nihilo and governs natural laws.
   2.  If God governs natural laws, God can suspend natural laws
   3.  A suspension of natural laws is a definition of a miracle.
   4.  Therefore if the God of Christianity exists, He can perform miracles.

So, the actual axiom regarding miracles is not if/how/why they happened or not, but if the bible is true. If the bible is true, then there is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent etc. god which explains everything else inside the bible, no matter how unintuitive those concepts may seem on their own. The weapons we have against disproving the bible (or any of it's individual contents like a specific miracle) must be directed toward the concept of god, the way that the bible presents him/her/it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_nature_of_God_in_Western_theology

The link to deism was not because they reject supernatural events, but because of this: "deists hold that correct religious beliefs must be founded on human reason". Reasoning, deductions and logic can be applied to any axioms to build and explain more constructions (like miracles), and are not luxuries that religion never heard of.

The question I was actually asking was: Are you implying that the concept of an all-knowing, infinite, benevolent, all-powerful judge came out of the blue?
With additional questions to see where I am aiming at:
What was mankind's motivation to create such a concept? What purposes did it serve? Has this concept become obsolete?

Quote from: biothlebop on Mon 11/12/2006 23:16:26

The question I was actually asking was: Are you implying that the concept of an all-knowing, infinite, benevolent, all-powerful judge came out of the blue?
With additional questions to see where I am aiming at:
What was mankind's motivation to create such a concept? What purposes did it serve? Has this concept become obsolete?

As I already said in my original post, man has created religion because he had no ways or tools to explain things in nature to him, like death, the light of the sun, how rain happens etc. Later when it was organized it was a made a system to try to make sure people will  act well with others. And of course in more recent history religion is abused for profits and power.
The earliest "gods" of men where the sun, the moon, mother earth and such. The purpose it served is explaining howcome things in the nature are what they are. It then developed to multigods systems of beliefs. Getting more detailed because more types of nature's things, and parts of life (including life and death) were assigned gods, and therefore it was more simple to explain how the world worked (again for people who hadn't the tools to research it), and already back in that type of religious world,thousands of years ago, avanve was taken on it for profits - collect taxes and gifs and sacrificies that the leaders of worshipping took and profited on (not everywhere, but a lot). Judaism was the first religion that believed in one god and out of which came Christianity & Islam. These religions made much more rules desgined to ensure people will act descent and be good with each other, which is the good aspect I see in faith, but with that came again the the taxes, the gifts and the profits.

To sum it up again man created religion 1) to explain things he couldn't explain otherwise. 2) Then to ensure pepole being good to each other 3) and it developed to make profit and get power with it.

What I'm saying is now that you have the tools to explain things that happens in the nature that those ancients couldn't, you should listen to it. Whatever is still unexplainable if it sits well with faith, go ahead and believe in it. But don't disregard facts.
I'm saying we shouldn't live in the world of beliefs of thousands of years ago without questioning it and tkaing  out what's irrelevant, our world has changed, our technology and intelligence has progressed, let's progress with it.

There are actually times when I worry that religion ISN'T serving just as a system to make money and profit. 

I actually find it more disturbing to think that the most radical of radical fundamentalists AREN'T just sitting around a table behind closed doors asking themselves how they can make a little more cash of ignorant people. 

I worry more that they ACTUALLY believe everything they say.  That they really are as blind and fanatical as they appear, and they believe in their heart of hearts that it is their duty to take as many people with them to Heaven as possible. 

A moneymaking conspiracy you can break... one where the leaders actually have faith in what they're saying you can't.

If man is as rational as people like to say, how come opinions are harder to change?
This is just throwing this out there, for one must try to look at oneself honestly and try to gain an outside perspective.

Quote
I'm saying we shouldn't live in the world of beliefs of thousands of years ago without questioning it and tkaing  out what's irrelevant, our world has changed, our technology and intelligence has progressed, let's progress with it.

This I agree with, if the instances of the word "progress" are exchanged for "change" (or other words without clearly positive/negative values assigned to them).

I think it is important to realise the possibility that many western moral values are based on god and that belief in the all-seeing judge has kept people working toward common goals. The concept of god supports the idea of moral absolutes.

This next part is stolen from here (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/decline.html):
-----
"False ideas are bringing about the decline of western culture. Carl F. H. Henry, in his book Twilight of a Great Civilization, says:

    There is a new barbarism. This barbarism has embraced a new pagan mentality . . . not simply rejecting the legacy of the West, but embracing a new pagan mentality where there is no fixed truth.

Today we live in a world where biblical absolutes are ignored, and unless we return to these biblical truths, our nation will continue to decline."
----

I am of the opinion that moral values are creations, and that we all define good and bad to suit our personal goals.
I see it as a realistic possibility that societies are torn apart by internal conflicts when people begin to pursue their individual goals.

I also believe that christianity is failing (because people do not have faith in it anymore), and if we cling to it, our society that bases it's morals in it might go under unless we see a resurgence of faith. Unlike the above quote, I can see a society function without biblical truths.

I see faith (not neccesarily theistic) as essential for any society to function, and we may be able to restructure this society to function without moral realism. However, absolute values that cannot be questioned will probably be a stronger incentive for acting in a certain way than a questionable agreement between men.

Quote from: Nostradamus on Tue 12/12/2006 08:31:46
As I already said in my original post, man has created religion because he had no ways or tools to explain things in nature to him, like death, the light of the sun, how rain happens etc. Later when it was organized it was a made a system to try to make sure people will  act well with others. And of course in more recent history religion is abused for profits and power.
The earliest "gods" of men where the sun, the moon, mother earth and such. The purpose it served is explaining howcome things in the nature are what they are. It then developed to multigods systems of beliefs. Getting more detailed because more types of nature's things, and parts of life (including life and death) were assigned gods, and therefore it was more simple to explain how the world worked (again for people who hadn't the tools to research it), and already back in that type of religious world,thousands of years ago, avanve was taken on it for profits - collect taxes and gifs and sacrificies that the leaders of worshipping took and profited on (not everywhere, but a lot). Judaism was the first religion that believed in one god and out of which came Christianity & Islam. These religions made much more rules desgined to ensure people will act descent and be good with each other, which is the good aspect I see in faith, but with that came again the the taxes, the gifts and the profits.

To sum it up again man created religion 1) to explain things he couldn't explain otherwise. 2) Then to ensure pepole being good to each other 3) and it developed to make profit and get power with it.

What I'm saying is now that you have the tools to explain things that happens in the nature that those ancients couldn't, you should listen to it. Whatever is still unexplainable if it sits well with faith, go ahead and believe in it. But don't disregard facts.
I'm saying we shouldn't live in the world of beliefs of thousands of years ago without questioning it and tkaing  out what's irrelevant, our world has changed, our technology and intelligence has progressed, let's progress with it.

That's a wonderful post, Nost.     

In a few hundred years mankind will treat each other with common decency without religion.    I feel this way because science does have most of the answers now, geology is a wonderful example: an asteroid lands on the earth and geologists can use carbon dating to better understand the history of the solar system (the planets formed at roughly the same time and those distant from the sun contain more gases because of an explosion that blew the majority of those gases away from the nearby planets, like Earth!   From the leftover gases that existed on Earth and energy from volcanic activity or lightning etc, an atmosphere began to develop.  It was dark and uninhabitable but water began to accumulate!   Organisms began to grow in this water, as the atmosphere continued to develop into one which could be breathed in, and eventually a fish grew fins which were little stubby legs and his descendents volved into amphibians, and one of them took the first step onto land! Or more like sludge.... )

Nobody even guessed that before Darwin! Even Darwin had shitty evidence like finches and turtles and crap.   So unless we had a time machine how are we to know the writers of the Bible wouldn't take the facts we have and consider them?   How can tradition even COMPETE with scientific evidence?

Of course, evidence can come along and prove any theory wrong.   But most religions REFUTE evidence due to conflicts with words in a book.  But look how far we've come.    Science knows few questions that have no reasonable guess or theory.    In the future, I'm confident the one book way will pass and people will grow faith in multiple books.

What Evenwolf said.

What I find amusing is how religions are friendly towards to science when its in their favor, but when it turns up some evidence AGAINST their belief, all of a sudden its just finite human logic, and its the deceptions of Satan, and all that crap.

Many religions will probably be laughed out of existence if they continue to reject scientific evidence against them as it becomes law.

Quote from: biothlebop on Mon 11/12/2006 23:16:26So, the actual axiom regarding miracles is not if/how/why they happened or not, but if the bible is true.

I think you got this turned around. The basic axiom of religion is "God exists." For science, it's "the world that we perceive through the senses is real."

In the case of science, we usually can all usually agree on what we're seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. If we assume that this is real, then it opens the whole world up for discovery. Of course, if it turns out that we're all hooked up to the matrix or that I'm actually hallucinating all of this, then science begins to break down.

In the case of religion, as you yourself pointed out in the Wikipedia articles you linked to earlier, when we say "God exists," we can't even agree on a common definition of God, hence all the multitude of religions. Furthermore, asserting the existence of a god doesn't necessarily give us a useful starting point for exploring and experiencing our reality. And does it really make a difference whether or not God actually exists? After all, athiests don't seem to have any more problems getting through life and dealing with reality than those who believe in a god.

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God here. I'm just trying to point out that the axiom underlying religion and the implications that follow seem to bring a lot more problems to the table than the axiom underlying science.

Quote from: biothlebop on Tue 12/12/2006 21:58:52
I think it is important to realise the possibility that many western moral values are based on god and that belief in the all-seeing judge has kept people working toward common goals. The concept of god supports the idea of moral absolutes.

I find the concept of moral absolutes very disturbing. In fact, I think most of the problems we see in the world today aren't because of some breakdown of morals, but because too many people adhere to moral absolutes without actually thinking for themselves. Fundamentalism; discrimination against gays, minorities, and woman; religious and racial tensions ... pretty much the world over; ideologically-driven wars (World War II anyone?) .... The list doesn't end.

Absolutism of any form is bad. It doesn't allow for exceptions and it makes a distinction between those who feel the same way and those who don't. Life is fine and dandy as long as you buy into the party line. Perhaps if people didn't cling so blindly to moral absolutes and on who's right or wrong, and instead focused on all the pain, suffering and death that such black-and-white viewpoints bring on other human beings, we could instead work towards living with our differences and making the short, fleeting lives that we have a little bit better for everyone.

If we can have any kind absolute definition of evil, it is when people act selfish. When they consider there lives worth more, or what what they want is more importent, and that they the deserve it. But I am sure there is even exceptions to that.

I don't think even that can be agreed upon. Humanism (generally that of the cosmic variety) considers selfishness as a virtue. The tip of this iceberg being that the need for self-actualization exists on a personal basis, and thinking/acting for the good of a group dilutes it.

Quote from: evenwolf on Wed 13/12/2006 00:09:19
Of course, evidence can come along and prove any theory wrong.   But most religions REFUTE evidence due to conflicts with words in a book.  But look how far we've come.    Science knows few questions that have no reasonable guess or theory.    In the future, I'm confident the one book way will pass and people will grow faith in multiple books.

I'd like to point out that there is a distinction between a religious system of belief and stances/arguments championed by individuals or groups of people. Christianity as a system of beliefs outlined in a series of old documents, for example, should not be viewed as an enemy of science, because it doesn't address science. Subsets of the Christian population might be enemies of science, but certainly not all of Christiandom rejects scientific evidence. My point is that it's not the whole of religion or faith or theism that tries to get in the way of science and rationale. These are cultural phenomenons, and it's much more complicated than, "Religion refutes scientific evidence that contradicts it."

Also, science knows many questions that we have little to go on. Gravity, for example. We may observe lots about how gravity works, but why does it operate the way it does? This is a mystery to this day. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Didn't Newton give you all you need to know?


Well, Eranan I like your point about cultural phenomenons but the real truth about Christianity is that its like politics.  When a person hears the word "politics" they associate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  All the politicians of the daily news.  Same with Christianity as to where ... if I hear about South Carolina schools placing labels in textbooks calling out evolution as only a "theory" and therefore nothing more than a guess or hunch... well I'm going to think of those Christian fundamentalists when we talk about religion vs. science.  They are the forerunners of the Christian faith where science is concerned. They are setting precedents.   And retarded ones at that.  Same with the Kansas school boards  etc.   

Christians want to cockblock science from kids.  They are further causing ignorance, they surely don't think of their practices this way.  But that is precisely what these Christians are doing.   Save some face and stop your fellow Christian folk.

That's a pretty broad statement.

Keep in mind that scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, and Faraday professed the Christian faith. Bacon, known as the "father of inductive reasoning", also practiced Christianity. Much of our modern science is built on the foundations these men laid. To say that Christians want to spread ignorance would seem a hasty generalization.

Big brother, maybe the christians in question are the millions and millions of missionaries, narrowminded priests, conservative catholics who condemn just about everything, etc etc, all those who actually need to spread ignorance to the people in order to maintain their power? I don't think a handful of scientists (who happened to be religious) change this argument.

Whoops, did I say "phenomenons"? :-[ I meant "phenomena," of course!

Quote from: evenwolf on Fri 15/12/2006 08:16:09
Christians want to cockblock science from kids.Ã,  They are further causing ignorance, they surely don't think of their practices this way.Ã,  But that is precisely what these Christians are doing.Ã,  Ã, Save some face and stop your fellow Christian folk.

Seeing as I no longer affiliate myself with Christianity in general, let alone Christian groups in South Carolina and Kansas, I fail to see how I'm somehow responsible for the messes that certain Christians may be making. Even if I did still consider myself Christian, I still fail to see how a Californian Christian (enough school system issues in this state to last me a lifetime, thank you very much) would be expected to "save some face," as you put it, by going on tour around America trying to stop other Christians from setting unreasonable precedents about political issues, which would be a daunting task, indeed!

Now, when you say that Christianity is like politics, you seem to take this a step further and equate Christianity itself with politics in which many Christians are involved. Creationism vs. Evolution is not an issue dealing with Christianity as a religion. This is political in nature, something that many Christians are concerned with because they consider it relevant to their faith. Personally, I find it only marginally relevant at best.

My point is just that: This whole anti-modern scientific theory trend in Christian circles these days is not a Christian issue. To say that religion is to blame is, in my opinion, very shortsighted, because the religion in and of itself does not directly address the issue in any way shape or form. This is something that people are doing. The fact that they happen to be Christian is no black mark on the religion itself.

Well I don't see any Buddhists trying to force the teaching of Buddhism in schools...


OK, we won't let a couple of rotten eggs ruin the omelet.  I will from this point on use the term "Southern Baptists" for all Christian ignoramuses.   But I think it's a little unfair that those with faith in science are forced to follow the thousands of chess pieces and moves and arbitrary distinctions of religions one considers a myth to begin with.

You're all at fault in that regard, I'm afraid.   Simplify your silly teams.

Athiests are skins, you guys can be shirts!

Evenwolf, are you asking for Christians across the world all to agree to have the same opinions on everything so that scientists don't have to distinguish between them? Yeah, I guess that's fair. :P

Yes!   From now you must be Catholic!   From now on you must wear one of those silly rubber things on the end of your cock!

Only if all scientists agree to work on a time machine for me.

Science has better things to do than chase unicorns!   Don't get me started on time travel.  If it existed, don't you think there'd be some evidence other than some kid posting on the internet!

Furthermore, Scid built a monument in his backyard which said "Here on this date, time travelers first appeared publically and let their presence be known."     And no one ever showed up!    Time travel doesn't exist, even as a possibility.  That's a whole other thread.

Just to clarify... we were joking, yes?

I hope so, time travile does exist, the most evidense comes from time travle to the future, its called time dilation and its part of relitivity. We need super computers to compinsate for the rate of time gps satilites go at, othereeise gps would be much more inaccurate. time travle to the past? posssible, but we can't do it yet, all you require are closed loops of space time. go find a black hole or something. I guess part of the problem, is that for millenia religion has answerd life question, the sciense comes along, a relitive upstart, and starts asking questions. its a transition stage. I am sure in a few hundred years, it'll all work out people will hold religios belifs, and not even think about sciense for the most part. In the future not everone is going to be scinetest, contrary to star trek mythos

Not everyone will be scientists?   Did I make this claim?   If today's trend is religion, and I say in the future we will see a shift towards science... then am I also making the claim that everyone today is a priest or a rabbi?


And so you've been to the future?   Does the english language still exsit?

Look everyone, Evenwolf is delirious

QuoteAthiests are skins, you guys can be shirts!

Taste the man-sweat.

No, no, no, let's not make this a time travel discussion!  (What is it with AGSers and time travel, anyway?)

I do have to agree with wolfy.  As I said earlier, Christians disregard any science that disproves what they believe, and embrace any science that supports them.

It's because they ONLY want to teach what looks good to them in schools that they're "cockblocking."

Either they want to bar any other science from being taught at all, or they want to "teach" them both, side by side, which, in my view, is inappropriate.

Has science disproved God? (I'm seriously just curious because I don't know if it has or not)

Dmitri-  Nothing can actually disprove God.   That's the problem many rational people have with him.   Even if the Big Bang were proven, people could argue intelligent design.

Just don't get us started on intelligent design! We had a thread about that not long ago. I made so good arguments in that thread, it'd take me several minutes to come up with equally good arguments.

The Big Bang theory isn't an atheistic theory. It says absolutely nothing about whether God or something else caused the universe to exist. (I think.) In fact, there are already lots and lots of theists who believe in the Big Bang.

BACK to the original discussion.  I just noticed this topic, and I must say, that I don't really CARE what the afterlife has for me.  When I do, boo hoo, I'm gone, what's next?  Well, if it's something, go me, if not, I'm not going to care much since I don't exist, will I?

Quote from: Erenan on Sat 16/12/2006 18:42:00
In fact, there are already lots and lots of theists who believe in the Big Bang.

And this is the problem with this kind of discussion. Belief systems have become so fractured and fragmented, that nobody can even agree on the basic points of each others arguments.

Which kills any hope of constructive debate.

Quote from: Erenan on Sat 16/12/2006 18:42:00
The Big Bang theory isn't an atheistic theory. It says absolutely nothing about whether God or something else caused the universe to exist. (I think.) In fact, there are already lots and lots of theists who believe in the Big Bang.

Erenan.  I think you proved my point here.  The reason why the Big Bang is acceptable is because some theists adopted intelligent design... EVENTUALLY.    Intelligent design is a reaction to scientific fact that is hard to dispute.   Proof that science is slowly but surely winning.

The problem with certain religious sects adopting Big Bang is that they have specific langauge that says "On the first day God created the universe.   On the second day God created the earth, on the third day God created man, blah blah blah."      And its this language that gets bastardized once science offers evidence to the contrary.   People will say "Oh, well we didn't mean ACTUAL days. You children thought we meant Earth days?   We meant GOD days Of course the earth wasn't created in one day.   Duh!"  And its the langauge in the form of a book that everybody is supposed to agree on!  Or atleast believe in...

Surely you get the point here.  Religion has a certain flexibility because the langauge and text can be twisted any such way.  As to where the Big Bang can be squeezed in there... even when clearly it had nothing to do with the original text or context.     The Bible is like the U.S.  Constitution.   It gets amended.  The specific words don't change but their meaning becomes whatever suits the purpose.   [edit]  and the difference between the Constitution and the Bible is that the Bible is filled with historical events and an everlasting being's specific commands and suggestions.   And its usually those commands and suggestions that get amended.   Not to mention- nobody ever researches the authors of the specific passages where in some cases the passage was written hundreds of years after the event in the passage.   (there are three accounts of the sermon on the mount - one called "sermon on the plain".)  If those authors couldn't agree on the place where it happened... how in the world can a modern day Christian be confident of the order of events that happened there??  (where?)

Amazingly said.  You should write a paper, it'd be really good.
Kudos, really.  I'm wordless.  Awesomely said man.

-Respects, Akumayo

Who, me?

evenwolf, actually.

I have a few things to say to you, evenwolf...

I said "theists," not "Christians." There's a big difference between believing in some kind of God who created the universe through the Big Bang and believing in the Christian God specifically having done it.

I am not a Christian. I am also not a theist.

I was a Christian for a long time, however, and personally I don't find it at all a stretch to look at the creation account in Genesis and treat it as poetry, not intended to be understood literally. This isn't saying, "Well, we can't read it literally any longer because of scientific evidence. Let's look at it in other ways!" It does appear to be a poetical work. There are repeated themes, such as "And there was evening, and there was morning." Does this mean that if it didn't happen in six days that God doesn't exist? No. Does it even mean that the Christian God doesn't exist? No, I don't think it even means that. But this is stupid! I'm arguing this not out of personal conviction, but out of habit! I don't even believe it any more. So nevermind.

I've also been told (and here I must stress that I've heard this only from one person) that many Big Bang Cosmologists are becoming theists because of what they are finding out there. Apparently a lot of them are under the impression that a personal agent is the most likely reason that the universe exists. Obviously, there are a great many scientists who disagree with that.

I'm not a scientist. I'm a composer.

I never intended to debunk the Bible as bad literature.   It's truly inspiring and has done more good than harm in the world.  Anything that joins so many people together in a common bond must be looked upon with respect.  But it is literature.   Regardless what's a poem and what's a fact.... it's a string of words in a book.   It must give way.

Eranan,  the example I chose was Genesis.   We could toy with others if you' like.   But I don't want you to feel conflicted.   I like to debate because I am fleshing out what I believe by writing.    If I didn't express them the  thoughts and feelings would swim around aimlessly in my head.  And it would weaken me with  lack of direction and organization.

Christianity shouldn't be frowned upon for "twisting words around" due to the fact that most religions do.   Before the advent of the printing press, and even before written language, religion was all the more flexible.   In the native American tribes they used spoken language to pass down the myths and the names of the gods.   The mythology would change with almost every generation.  The stories would grow in complexity and be amended.    So Christianity and every other religion has its fair share of exploiting language as a failsafe.   But with written language there is now something new.   Accountability. 

What do you mean by "it must give way"? Give way to science? I don't think it's really in opposition to science, though. In any case, what I was talking with you about is old news now. So I guess I'm done for now. :)

So what have we learned from this thread?

That A is B, and B becomes H with a little help from Z.

Therefore, ie, eg. The answer to question one is the question to answer two, but only on Sundays.

A duck will not qualify for beatification unless water rolls off his back at a level perpendicular to the curvature of the Earth.

To err is to play skinny trombone in a small jazz band balanced on the head of a pin blessed by the pope.

God is in, but you can't afford his rates.

The views and opinions expressed in the magazines available in Purgatory are not those of God Inc, nor any of its affiliates.

Saint Peter says "Hi".

Quote from: Erenan on Mon 18/12/2006 00:56:00
I don't think it's really in opposition to science, though.

Man descended from monkeys!*   There was no Adam and Eve!  How's that??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html


*among other things

It's an odd thing for me to see people who are atheists, like me, attack organised religion and get the knee-jerk reaction of wanting to stick up for the latter. I mean, it must really say a lot about the level of argumentation 'my side' has going on if I feel the urge to mutiny.

Religion does not play by the same rules as science and doesn't stand in opposition to science.  Unless you're buying into the idea that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, I can't see why you draw the conclusion that religion and science are two opposite points of view.  Perhaps the "worldviews" attatched to the two things stand in opposition...but I don't really think religion and science are naturally paired opposites standing in opposition to each other.

QuoteBut with written language there is now something new.   Accountability.

I don't think that the Bible makes any substantial comment upon the detailed workings of the majority of areas of science...it's not supposed to.  If people use the Bible (or any religious text) to try and disprove elements of science, then that's an individual conclusion that the two oppose.  Just because it's written down doesn't mean its true, or claiming to be scientific.

I agree.  Religion and science are separate entities, never specifically meant to oppose or rival one another.  Religion seems to me, at times, to be like an escapist fantasy novel.  Whenever life gets just a little too rough, or the books that provide a detailed account of war and death get a little too much for you, you turn to an escapist novel, you turn to religion. 
For some reason that reminded me of a quote in Blood Diamond:
"Sometimes I look around this place [Sierra Leone] and I wonder how God can just look down here and not stop what's going on.  And then I realize, God abondoned this place a long time ago."

My random thoughts, anyhow.

-Regards, Akumayo

What Becky said, really.

True, religion is rather escapist, we live with illusions all the time, we may be sober, but we are not 'knurd' the rules of society do not have to apply to you, they have no physical meaning. Psychopaths see that truth. That's why the act well, psycho. Religion is one of those things we live with that helps us live with the universe. Because the universe doesn't give a care, when our species goes extinct, no one will morn, for there will be none TO morn. That is not to say atheists are psychopaths, its just that religion is one of several rose colored glasses we use. There are many others.

Someone will mourn us when we are gone: The army of emotion-laden androids that I'm building for that express purpose.

good luck with that, but in effect, if these androids could morn our passing, and had the same psycology as us woudn't they BE us?

No, because these androids don't like pie.

okay, enough of THAT. :-X

I'm done resenting my Southern Baptist captors.

Seriously, I was held in a cage and beaten with Bibles.  Helm, I think you had a little bit more laid back experience to understand.

Quote from: evenwolf on Tue 19/12/2006 05:23:59
Seriously, I was held in a cage and beaten with Bibles.Ã, 

The scary part is, I can't tell if that's a joke or the truth.

QuoteSeriously, I was held in a cage and beaten with Bibles.  Helm, I think you had a little bit more laid back experience to understand.

Well I don't know... I've been chased by idiots for months, eventually caught and beat up for not being a good christian in school. I've been dumped for being satan's child too. What could be more substantial than physical and emotional harm to make me an extremist?

"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
that is my mantra, and though we all have these discussions that seem to last forever, and go nowere, I am glad that we can. Though part of me is scared to death  ;) of what comes after, I think it better to focus on living a life worth living and helping others. anything else is just "who knows" So all ye piles of organized atoms, with or without a soul, lets go out there and LIVE :D

Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 19/12/2006 19:54:54
"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
that is my mantra

That's silly, because you most likely wouldn't risk dying. Most people who talk like that, realise that they wouldn't even risk their pinky toe to defend freedom of speech for all those millions of people in numerous countries in the world who don't have it.
Sorry, just in a cynical mood right now...

I understand, I went through a cynical phase as well, then I relized I care too much. The way things are going in the usa and in the northern state of canada, I think I might be having to "risk my pinky toe" right where I live. Do NOT get me started on the patriot act.
George W Bush lied through his buck TEETH, then YEARS , and BILLIONS of dollers, later. he admits it, and its just NORMAL. There is work to be done here, right NOW. Next election in my contrey of any sort, I am throwing my hat in the ring, which is more then most people could say.

You certainly care enough to let an internet forum know how much you care. That's the extent to which any of us can testify. Otherwise, deeds, not words seal the deal. Get to it. There's a lot of causes where your eagerness to die would be welcomed.

sorry if I sounded snarky. It is my intention to run for office, hopefully there will be elections next time. SOrry for any confusion, it is a quote, I think voltaire said something like it. It is also retoric. And somewhat hyperboyle. As in, " I could just die for a glass of water" Clumsy languege on my part. :'( sorry.

How disappointing...

Look, I am passionate moderate okay, call me wishy washy if you want,,but  I think freedom of speechg is the most importent one we have, it also appears to be the first to be discarded.I hold opinions of my own, I just don't think we should start a war over them.

When you say that the freedom of speech is the first to be discarded, what do you mean? That people don't take advantage of their right to say how they feel and what they think? Or that people's freedom of speech is being taken away from them by people in authority? Or something else?

I must agree with lo_res_man, that freedom of speech is BEING discarded. (Don't know about Canada, but definately in America.)

It's in its first stages of being discarded, with people being put on terror watch lists for disagreeing with and protesting the government, photographers and journalists being intimidated and blocked, and, of course, dissenters being called TRAITORS.

Good on you, lo_res_man, if you're running for office.  That is indeed more than most people can say for themselves.

This is getting WAY off topic, but how are things in Canada, politically?  How do you view the way America has been behaving recently?

I was mildly okay with Afghanistan, but, apparently, Iraq was completely unjustified. people should be protesting in the streets when ol' George admitted he had LIED, but NOTHING happened. In canada things could be worse, we don't have the patriot act, thank GOD, but with Harper, its hard to know what we got, the guy is so secretive. Most Canadians think American are a bunch of doody heads, but that isn't true, is it? And yes when I said freedom of speechis the first to be discarded, I meant it is being discarded, NOW. To quote Sergeant York, (I wonder if there will be a remake) "War is killin' and killin' is against the 'Book.'" If you ask me a patriot is not just one who follows his government, but one who is willing to question his government when he thinks they are wrong .the government isn't the country, WE, (well not me if I am elected) are the country. They may be management, but how much work in a company does management do? By the blood and toil of the millions of people men and woman, employed and unemployed, In prison and free, WE are the country. The government is important, there is no questioning but the truth of the matter is, WE are the country.

When did Bush actually say he lied?  I only ever heard him say the intelligence turned out to be wrong, but I never heard him say he lied. 

Not calling you a liar, just asking. 

BTW, what will you be running for? 

Let's hope you actually qualify for office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office).

Whatever election comes up next, except for a federal, I don't own any property. :'(

Becky, read the thread and check his profile.  He lives in Canada. 

Ah, sorry, my mistake.

though enough people have made that mistake, ask enough americans, and at least one will think canada is part of america.

Do you mean to say "canada is a part of USA"?

Um... yes… pardon my English, my grammar always rusty, but doesn't it mean the same thing? ??? And yes, all Bush jr. said was that the intelligence was wrong. But his own intelligence must be abysmal for him to not have already known that. On second thought, your right, he didn't lie. ;)

Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 20/12/2006 22:17:27
Um... yes… pardon my English, my grammar always rusty, but doesn't it mean the same thing? ??? And yes, all Bush jr. said was that the intelligence was wrong. But his own intelligence must be abysmal for him to not have already known that. On second thought, your right, he didn't lie. ;)

No, no, don't get me wrong!  Bush DID lie right out of his ass to get into Iraq.  I just didn't remember him actually admitting it.  If he did, I was gonna ask you for sources and start emailing all my Bush-bot friends.   ;D

Well he admitted the intelligence was wrong, it was on cnn. and don't ask me when, I once hummed a song, it got in someones head they asked me what the song was 30 seconds later, and I couldn't tell them for the life of me. so my memory is not the best in the world.
[edit] here the internets not the best sorce, but here
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html

Why is it SO hard for people to believe that we cease to exist when we die? That there is nothing left?Ã, 

Energy cannot be destroyed or created, only change form/purpose/cycle. So we could assume that if all beings carry this "energy", when they die it is "realeased" and joins a different energy cycle. Maybe something like providing nutrients to the soil, as the body is decomposed in ground, is an example of that?

I seem to be the only one that likes the idea that we came from primates and that when we die we are completely gone (so live your life accordingly).

I agree with you guys saying you would rather die a painful death then a peaceful one.

I mean think about it for a second, why do we fear pain? In a way when we experience it we relate it to death. But if you know you are going to die and your brain accepts it, what is pain? Its nothing. Its just there but it dosent mean anything because you WANT to and ARE dying. Does someone understand what Im trying to say? lol

I think a 'cool' death would be jumping out of an airplane from the highest height possible without a parachute. That would have to have an awesome "bliss" effect on your brain to be falling through the sky like that.Ã, 

edit: c'mon man, no triple posting, you should know that...

Jumping out of an airoplane would give you plenty of time to go:

"Shit! Did I do the right thing? Shit! am I right? Am I going to die? Did I turn off the lights?" and mirriad other stuff, so I wouldn't think that it would be enjoyable enough...

No a fast death is better.

Pain is suffering it's not something close to death, so that if we know we're dying we should accept it.

Not to mention all the people who actually know that they are dying. Do you think they feel fine? Aids, drugs, terminal diseases... Bad things, bad...

I'm going to die whilst saving a blind orphan's crippled puppy from an exploding convent.

Oh, come on Nikolas, don't be such a wuss! :)

When I die, this is how I want to go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing). I bet you get one hell of a head rush. Bring it!!! 8)

edit: Changed the link to the Wikipedia entry. The original website I linked to had some other disturbing stuff on it. :P Sometimes Google is not your friend!

Quote from: EagerMind on Fri 22/12/2006 17:38:50
Oh, come on Nikolas, don't be such a wuss! :)

When I die, this is how I want to go (http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/misc/torture/25.html). I bet you get one hell of a head rush. Bring it!!! 8)

Hell yeah!

QuoteAs we can see from a series of printings and engravings of that period, the victim was hung in an inverted position in order to assure sufficient oxygenation of the brain and to slow down the general loss of blood so that he didn't lose consciousness at once, thus to inflict a longer suffering before death struck.

Sick people! :P

Quote from: the vict0r on Fri 22/12/2006 20:28:10

QuoteAs we can see from a series of printings and engravings of that period, the victim was hung in an inverted position in order to assure sufficient oxygenation of the brain and to slow down the general loss of blood so that he didn't lose consciousness at once, thus to inflict a longer suffering before death struck.

Sick people! :P

I believe humans probably act cruel like that in a natural environment. Its civilization and society that allows us to get rid of the animal side of our brain.

We don't get 'rid' of shit. And also 'animal side'? You can't cauterize that sort of thing out.

Helm, what do you believe about our "animal side?" 

Do you believe that we have one, and society blocks us from acting on it? 

the word that creates problems is 'side'. We are animals.

I'm with Helm on this one but the only clarification I'll add is that humans, during one (call it fortunate) turn of evolution, developed speech and the ability to form languages.

Linguists propose that humans developed language around the time tools were invented.  Humans needed some way to express how to use a tool to younger generations, also money in the form of tokens and whatnot, gave humans a system in which to gain an understanding with each other.  Spoken word offered humans into a category beyond "animal".

But thinkl about yourself.  If your parents kept you in isolation, away from langauge and the proper role models, you as a human would behave much like an animal.

Make sense?  It should, but of course I am currently innebriated.

Should we revert to our original ways, and become animals in the wild, killing each other, and taking what we want? 

Do orcas kill each other of their kind?   Do wolves kill those in their immediate circle?  I think not.  Dolphins, they live in harmony until meeting groups outside their own.   We are animals.  Try another point of view and I will be happy to disprove it.

Yes, even more innebriated.   I am orangatang. 

Quote from: Helm on Fri 22/12/2006 23:16:17
We don't get 'rid' of shit. And also 'animal side'? You can't cauterize that sort of thing out.

someone begs to differ...

(http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/66/185066_thumb.jpg)

Quote from: Helm on Sat 23/12/2006 00:36:57
the word that creates problems is 'side'. We are animals.

You are wise.

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 23/12/2006 02:35:16
Should we revert to our original ways, and become animals in the wild, killing each other, and taking what we want? 

If it is the way nature intended for us to be why would we do it any other way? Im sure antelope dont enjoy being eaten by the lion but it happens anyways. You dont see them building spears to escape their destiny.

edit: Seriously, stop double and triple posting!

Quote from: evenwolf on Sat 23/12/2006 02:38:49
Do orcas kill each other of their kind?Ã,  Ã, Do wolves kill those in their immediate circle?Ã,  I think not.Ã,  Dolphins, they live in harmony until meeting groups outside their own.Ã,  Ã, We are animals.Ã,  Try another point of view and I will be happy to disprove it.

Yes, even more innebriated.Ã,  Ã, I am orangatang.Ã, 

Then what causes humans to kill each other off in captivity?

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 23/12/2006 02:35:16
Should we revert to our original ways, and become animals in the wild, killing each other, and taking what we want? 

I am having trouble telling you what the human should be doing, because it's already doing the only thing it could be doing. The situation that has led to this point is massively complex, interfacing, and holistic.

I was objecting to dividing a human down the middle, here's your atavistic side, and here's your rational side. I've had a long experience trying to live that one out and it didn't lead to anything viable. If anything, the many facets of a human being are tied together and support each other to create an unfathomable, singular configuration that is beyond our moral scrutiny.

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Sat 23/12/2006 02:55:01If it is the way nature intended for us to be why would we do it any other way? Im sure antelope dont enjoy being eaten by the lion but it happens anyways. You dont see them building spears to escape their destiny.

The implication being that the history of human civilization is somehow unnatural?

It's natural for ants to dig habitats in the earth and scavenge resources from the surrounding environment. It's natural for a pride of lions to live, hunt, and otherwise coexist together as a social unit. It's natural for a hornet hive to send out some hornets to massacre honeybees hives and steal their honey. But it's not natural for humans to form and develop civilizations?

What makes you think that humans are anything other than what nature has intended them to be?

Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 23/12/2006 07:11:46

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Sat 23/12/2006 02:55:01If it is the way nature intended for us to be why would we do it any other way? Im sure antelope dont enjoy being eaten by the lion but it happens anyways. You dont see them building spears to escape their destiny.

The implication being that the history of human civilization is somehow unnatural?

It's natural for ants to dig habitats in the earth and scavenge resources from the surrounding environment. It's natural for a pride of lions to live, hunt, and otherwise coexist together as a social unit. It's natural for a hornet hive to send out some hornets to massacre honeybees hives and steal their honey. But it's not natural for humans to form and develop civilizations?

What makes you think that humans are anything other than what nature has intended them to be?

Because we are the only species of anything in the known galaxy that is capable of destroying its own planet (nukes)?

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Sat 23/12/2006 07:58:20

Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 23/12/2006 07:11:46

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Sat 23/12/2006 02:55:01If it is the way nature intended for us to be why would we do it any other way? Im sure antelope dont enjoy being eaten by the lion but it happens anyways. You dont see them building spears to escape their destiny.

The implication being that the history of human civilization is somehow unnatural?

It's natural for ants to dig habitats in the earth and scavenge resources from the surrounding environment. It's natural for a pride of lions to live, hunt, and otherwise coexist together as a social unit. It's natural for a hornet hive to send out some hornets to massacre honeybees hives and steal their honey. But it's not natural for humans to form and develop civilizations?

What makes you think that humans are anything other than what nature has intended them to be?

Because we are the only species of anything in the known galaxy that is capable of destroying its own planet (nukes)?

If you want to make a philosophical or ethical demand, make it. But there's no natural and self-apparent distinction between us or anything else that occurs on this earth because we've made nukes.

Yes shitar... Why do you pick a specific issue and determine it' s the one to make one specie unnatural? Komodo female dragons can have babies without the pressence of the male, why don' t you pick that abbility as the one to determine that specie is unnatural? Also, bats have wings, and they are mammals... the only case in nature, are they "unnatural"?

Ornitorrincos are also special, because they are mammals and they have beack... If we use your rule of three, of course.

Is there a point being made that humans are doing exactly what they should be doing?

I don't think the example you gave are valid, Farl. Those animals were like that naturally. I think shitar meant that some human ACTIONS are unnatural, not human traits. A person with 6 fingers isn't unnatural, but surgery to add an extra finger would be (as I consider it) unnatural.

I don't think 'unnatural' necessarily means 'wrong', but (I'd think that) natural would always mean right.

About the humans being different only because of speech, once again, I personally don't think so. It seems unfashionable to say it, but I'd think humans are separated from other animals due to their intelligence. Parrots have the ability to speak, but somehow I wouldn't put them in the same class as humans. If dolphins or whales or orangutangs suddenly developed humanly understandable speech, would they be as intelligent as us? I don't think so. It seems many animals already have great forms of communication, that serve them perfectly for what they need it.

It's funny how Raggit connected animal with "killing each other and taking what we want". To me, it seems that the very thing that makes us different as humans is what makes us kill each other and take what we want.

Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but it seems (taking the example of that site) that humans are the only creatures that inflict pain for the sake of inflicting pain. BTW, That seems a horrible way to go, considering that it's meant to keep you alive as long as possible for maximum pain effect.

Someone should take some of the +10 page threads and make graphs of them, to see how weirdly (or harmoniously? heh) topics and opinions jump around.

Language implies intelligence.  The only problem is that no one has defined that intelligence of a baby who learns how to speak.   So humans speak.

I find, for the most part, that intelligence is a social trait.   We're not talking about running around and bumping your head on a tree stump.   Because animals aren't morons.  They're instinctual entities.   But they have no langauge and likewise, do not have many of the social distinctions that humans have. 

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Fri 22/12/2006 04:09:48
Why is it SO hard for people to believe that we cease to exist when we die? That there is nothing left? 

*Jumps into the middle of discussion he hasn't been involved in or really read*

The point when I found it SO hard to believe that was when my grandma died. I just cannot accept that she is gone, and there is nothing left of her except the memories in my mind. I need hope to go on. I gave myself hope that all the people who have died in my life will be there to greet me in some form of an afterlife. Prior to losing someone close to me (But not my brother Simon as I was too young to remember him) I thought that we probably just cease to exist, but I was never 100% sure. Now I WANT to believe that there is an afterlife, that my deceased loved ones are out there somewhere...

Quote from: Nacho on Sat 23/12/2006 10:02:11
Yes shitar... Why do you pick a specific issue and determine it' s the one to make one specie unnatural? Komodo female dragons can have babies without the pressence of the male, why don' t you pick that abbility as the one to determine that specie is unnatural? Also, bats have wings, and they are mammals... the only case in nature, are they "unnatural"?

Ornitorrincos are also special, because they are mammals and they have beack... If we use your rule of three, of course.

Any female lizard can do it due to genetics not just a komodo dragon. Its natural. The fact that we have the capability to destroy entire planets with our own "tools" is what I think is unnatural. Bats dont have wings per-se. Structural like wings yes but not in the ways a bird is, it is not unnatural and you are clearly not understanding what I was stating about "natural and unnatural". Okay? Platypus's have beaks also? Whats your point? They were born like that? Im not understanding how your points are in any way related to my thoughts.

Quote from: Helm on Sat 23/12/2006 08:13:40

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Sat 23/12/2006 07:58:20

Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 23/12/2006 07:11:46

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Sat 23/12/2006 02:55:01If it is the way nature intended for us to be why would we do it any other way? Im sure antelope dont enjoy being eaten by the lion but it happens anyways. You dont see them building spears to escape their destiny.

The implication being that the history of human civilization is somehow unnatural?

It's natural for ants to dig habitats in the earth and scavenge resources from the surrounding environment. It's natural for a pride of lions to live, hunt, and otherwise coexist together as a social unit. It's natural for a hornet hive to send out some hornets to massacre honeybees hives and steal their honey. But it's not natural for humans to form and develop civilizations?

What makes you think that humans are anything other than what nature has intended them to be?

Because we are the only species of anything in the known galaxy that is capable of destroying its own planet (nukes)?

If you want to make a philosophical or ethical demand, make it. But there's no natural and self-apparent distinction between us or anything else that occurs on this earth because we've made nukes.

So blowing up the moon with nuclear weapons and then mars and eventually earth itself, is natural?

I am not understanding your point either... You say "Humans are unnature because they are the only ones which can do X" I say "Ok, but some animals are the only ones that can make Y, or Z!" And you say "No... that's  different!"

Why it' s different? Why do you pick "X"? Why is your "X" valid and my "Y" or "Z" isn' t?

Human are special in the sense that they have developed an intelligence level that it incredible higher than the second specie in the list... But they are just that, animals very specialised in an specific issue... We can find examples very specialised in other issues, the sonar system of the bat is quite impressive... (And don' t star with the game "well, whales have sonar too" Because then I' ll enter in the game of "Chimpanzes have intelligence too, like gorillas and Baboons, etc, etc...)

We are not special in the "metaphorical" sense you want to give... We are just very smart (in some cases) apes.

QuotePlatypus's have beaks also?

It's the same thing...

The fact that humans can blow up planets is not any more unnatural than for example a monkey using a rock to open a nut! It's a species using a tool to accomplish a task. What you say are something like "Humans aren't animals! We use tools to do stuff."
Well, yeah, thats because we have the fucking intelligence to do so. And we are not the only species to use tools.

Monkeys:

QuoteIn Tanzania, chimps construct tools from grass and twigs which they use to extract ants from their holes.  Wild chimps have also been observed using sticks to withdraw honey from beehives, dig up edible roots, and as levers to open boxes of bananas left by scientists.  Leaves are also used as tools by chimps for collecting water and for wiping mud, blood, and sticky fruit from their bodies.

Vultures:

QuoteHungry Egyptian vultures use ingenuity in obtaining their food.  Since the shells of ostrich eggs are too hard to break open by simply pecking at them, the vultures use rocks to assist them.  According to reports by Jane Goodall from Tanzania, the vultures will search as far as 50 yards from the coveted egg in order to find a proper smashing tool.  Interestingly, the forward jerking movement of the vultures' head exhibited when breaking an egg with a stone is very similar to the movement used when the bird simply pecks to break open an egg.  Other species of birds break eggs open by throwing them down on stones.  However, this behavior is not considered tool use because the stone is not being used as an extension of the bird's body.

And more animals! (http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/tools.htm)

The only main difference is that humans have the intelligence to do it on a larger scale.

Like Maniac Matt, I'm also leaping into this debate without having read much of it. I just want to address this point:

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Sat 23/12/2006 19:36:03
So blowing up the moon with nuclear weapons and then mars and eventually earth itself, is natural?

This argument doesn't make sense. You note that we're a species with nuclear capabilities. I'm a human, but I couldn't build a nuclear weapon. It's not something our species has, it's something our culture has. Culture in itself is natural, many other animals have forms of culture. The fact that our culture has developed something profoundly terrifying does not make our behaviour unnatural.

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Sat 23/12/2006 19:36:03
So blowing up the moon with nuclear weapons and then mars and eventually earth itself, is natural?

As natural as a bird building a nest, or one gorilla grooming another. Just much, much more horrible.

I understand your point but I just simply can't see it that way for myself.

How is mankind with its nukes any different than a bear ripping up a tree trunk?   Its just the scale of the destruction. 

I repeat my question... Why do you say that differenciation between species comes with the level of destruction they can do? Why don' t we messure it by how deep can the specie swimm, or how high can the specie fly, or how many time without drink can the specie spent?

You clap your fingers and say "Ok... the more destruction, the more different the specie is respect the others" and you want us to agree... but there is no rationality or logical in that statement... Sorry, I could even agree that we are quite special (without defining that "special" as good or bad, at the moment), but the reason you say is quite random, IMO.