Quote

agnosticism yes, atheism...no such thing. atheism an ego delusion.

Disbelief in flying invisible monkeys floating above your head is an ego delusion!

If you aren't waving your hands madly in the air trying to feel the monkies above you, if you simply accept without a doubt that I'm making them up then you sir are a deluded jerk!

Hyperbole of course but when you get into insulting people just because they don't believe as you do... well you just don't get respect from intelligent people.

I believe in SOME kind of afterlife. I have no "proof". Just seems sensible to me. I could be wrong.

I definitely DON'T believe in heaven or hell. (Don't worry Raw1228, there are a lot of people out there who don't.) Heaven/hell make no sense to me. Again, I have no "proof".

Since there's no possible scientifically verifiable "proof" of either an afterlife existence or an afterlife NONexistence, "burden of proof" is not applicable.

Whatever anybody believes is OK with me, as long as it's not potentially hurtful.

I was surprised a few years ago when my sister told me she believed in reincarnation. She was an occasional church-goer, but she'd never expressed anything about an afterlife before.

I asked her why she believed in reincarnation, and she said, "I HAVE to believe in reincarnation! If it's heaven or hell, I'm going to hell for sure." (ya had to have been there)

One time I asked a friend from a Southern Baptist region if he believed in God. He said, "I don't know, but if you believe in God, ya better pick the right one!"

[all life uses the same common methods of energy utilization, growth, genetic storage, heredity, reproduction and development

hmm..nope ]

That's not what they teach. The only way I can make that statement even a partial truth is to say that all life and life-like forms (viruses) use nucleic acids to store their genetic code.

[well personally I don't put much stock in those subjects ]

That would be because you didn't study and you don't know what they are. It seems to me you'd have an entirely different opinion if you had, and I am not picking on you when I write this, I think it's true for everyone who hasn't studied hardcore biology. Also I strongly suspect that your religious outlook would likely be considerably different as well.

arugula,

What religious outlook are you arguing that strictly diverges from the Deist supposition? And is this the only perspective possible with a comprehension of basic biology(which is not immutable, is it?)? Sorry to ask; my brain is awhirl with everyone's contributions--'tis a merry meleé!

[f basic biology(which is not immutable)]

No, it changes all the time. There was a huge difference in what they were teaching between the time I took core 1 20+ years ago and core 2 last year. We learn based on what is observed and a lot has been observed since then through better tools and use of computers. Looking at how things just fell into place does not seem nearly as preposterous when you look at them in a systematic way. There are connections everywhere, molecule use is conserved in many very diverse life forms, and so are specific proteins, they are very similar between the mouse and the human, and everything is related.

It makes more sense to see it unfold this way, rather than assuming some big guy in the sky pointed his finger to make trees, or took a handful of clay to shape a human in "his own image" and then breathed life into it, insert your preferred mythology here.

I prefer to think of God as a concept rather than en entity that is directing the course of human and liver fluke lives.

not that it really matters but I do have 4 semesters of calculus, statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, but yes..only basic biology and chemistry...officially. they are all kind like the equivalent of a 'paperweight' in my mind these days collecting dust.

just because you can using newtons laws to predict how the trusses of a bridge appear to behave unfortunately does not mean they are suitable to discuss what is fundamentally happening at a quantum level. So a bridge as an example of the proof of the ways forces work is actually false. what is the point of proving something that doesn't manifest materially but exists energetically.


9/10 our 'science' just precipitates answers that are the most convenient or that make us feel like we exert control on the material world. Often we use our theories to prove the evidence rather then vice versa. This is true with evolution, global warming, religion. the same guffaws abound by people so foolishly to claim they have no 'religion' when their religion is obvious.

CB
?
where was the insult? where was the intelligence? I think I made it pretty clear about the intellectual contraction of being an atheist. don't have an opinion? how can you be insulted if you don't have religious beliefs? what beliefs have I shared that force others to believe what I do?

interesting also about atheism The same goes for nihilism. how many nihilists actually walk the walk lol.

I thought we were talking about biology. Yes, scientific theory is based on

formulate hypothesis
design an experiment to test the hypothesis, it should be well-controlled and repeatable
observation
refute or confirm hypothesis
which eventually might become a theory
and later accepted more or less as a fact

Science makes progress in fits and starts, and there are a lot of false paths. But we know more every successive year than the year before. And there is no need to know what is happening fundamentally on a quantum level to make progress in biology, that's for the physicists to ponder. However, biology at the molecular level is still in its infancy and is a very exciting field to be in because of that.

Recently they have developed scanning tunneling electron microscopes that allow you to actually see the electron density clouds in atoms, and guess what, they look just like those dumbbell shapes that we saw in the chemistry books many decades ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2008 12:55AM by arugula.

Or perhaps they look like we expect them to look ? The fact that we are learning more and more every year is an interesting one, because one could argue that it isn't realy doing anything for us other than letting us multiply . It reminds me of a quote I can't recall the author to, but it was said by some scientist a few years ago saying "in a few more years we will know all there is to know".

This overlooks the fact that our science, like other human cognition is emergent in nature. What we believe now is different to everything that we have thought before as far back as we are aware of, and there is no evidence that it will ever stop evolving.

[it isn't realy doing anything for us other than letting us multiply]

modifications:

-the more we learn, the less we multiply (educated women have fewer kids, the more education, the fewer the kids)

but

-the more we learn, longer we live

and

-the more we learn, the more damage we do to the planet as individuals, with bigger ecological footprints due to use of more goods and services

USA people have ecological footprints of 9.5 hectares per person and 2.1 kids per woman. Somalian people have ecological footprints of 0.5 hectares per person and a total fertility rate of 6.6 kids per woman.

It is estimated that only 1.8 hectares per capita are available for human use.

What really baffles me about Christianity is that the bible says, "Multiply like rabbits" and nothing about being stewards for the environment while we pillage and plunder the planet. I think it's time for second coming, and this time let the Messiah tell us to stop multiplying like rabbits and to scale down, way down, with our consumption.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2008 03:14PM by arugula.

The Genesis "Be fruitfull and multiply..." referred first to birds and fish, God blessing every creature in the sea.... then to humans at a time when there were wild animals and warring tribes that might anihilate a weaker neighbor if given the opportunity.. they were brutal times, and there was strength in numbers.

The coming of Jesus saw a shift to "Blessed be women who have not born children..." looking to an apocalyptic period soon to follow (the fall of Jerusalem and the Dispersion). Nevertheless, "Be fruitful and multiply (and fill the earth and subdue it)" is induring.

We are supposed to be stewards of our animals, a principle from the earliest times. The bible looks forward to a New Jeruselem with streets paved with gold with water running down its center with trees of life, leaving the impression of a pristine place, where the people who lived 2000 years ago might like to be or at least dream of.

If:

a) God is love

and

b) It is not possible to scientifically "prove" that love exists (as veronique has pointed out in the past)

then it would not be possible to "prove" that God exists. The existence of God would therefore always remain outside the purview of science until science developed the capability to prove that love exists (and mapping the brain doesn't count).

My own empirical evidence of God as well as that of others (and I'm not talking about religious belief) serves me well, so I'm not waiting for science to catch up.


Jose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You start with NOTHING, and have to prove EVERY
> assertion you make about the world. That is the
> rational approach which makes sense.
>
> You can't prove a negative. You can only prove a
> positive. You assume a negative until proven
> otherwise.

So do atheists not believe that love exists since, like the flying spaghetti monster, it cannot be proven?

Love can be proven. Everytime a mother (or father or complete stranger) risks their life to save a child (or anyone else), that's love.

There are two kinds of love - felt love (which can be measured by observing the brain, it's similar to cocaine) and expressed love (loving actions) which is measurable. If someone never does anything nice for you they might be indulging themselves with emotional love but they sure aren't expressing it.

anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CB
> ?
> where was the insult? where was the intelligence?

Use the later to find the former.

I think it's clear, you're saying that those who don't believe as you do (or at least acknowledge you could be right) are living in "ego delusion". This is an insult. Just as much as if you said those who don't believe eating just grapes is the way to live (or acknowledge that maybe all grapes is the way to live) are delusional.

Calling someone delusional isn't exactly a compliment.


> I think I made it pretty clear about the
> intellectual contraction of being an atheist.
> don't have an opinion? how can you be insulted if
> you don't have religious beliefs?

Because it's a personal insult.

It's like insulting someone for being skinny (or fat, or tall). They may not have any beliefs (hypothetically) about their weight or height but still could be annoyed at you for being rude about it.


> what beliefs
> have I shared that force others to believe what I
> do?
>

Not in as many words but you're basically saying you choose to view those who don't believe as you do as "deluded".


> interesting also about atheism The same goes for
> nihilism. how many nihilists actually walk the
> walk lol.

How "should" an atheist walk his/her talk?

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> modifications:
>
> -the more we learn, the less we multiply (educated
> women have fewer kids, the more education, the
> fewer the kids)

To me, making this assumption based on a stat comparison is like claiming that hokey pokey ice cream is responcible for tourism, seeing as people in countries that eat it tend to travel more... or some such. How about, the less educated women tend to live in societies which a) don't have as much access to birth control, b) have a lower reqirement for supporting a child, c) have a lower range of activity to occupy their time, d) may not have as much social protection for personal choice in this regards ?

Or if you are talking about a single country or city, it could be because they live in social and economic conditions whos influences tend to provide similar conditions to those I have mentioned, or just simply more similar than those of their more educated counterparts. Of course I have no idea about this, but I am fairly confinced that the reason for it is most probably not the education.

>
> but
>
> -the more we learn, longer we live

Tell that to the Okinawans

>
> and
>
> -the more we learn, the more damage we do to the
> planet as individuals,

Ummm... ?

with bigger ecological
> footprints due to use of more goods and services
>

I definately feel that this is not a law, but rather a behavioural patern of recent times. We could live in synergism with the earth and her environment and still have technology and education IMO.

>Tell that to the Okinawans

They are an insignificant blip compared to the rest of humanity. The elders' longer lifespans was predominately due to calorie restriction combined with coincidental adequate nutrition severe enough to stunt their growth but support longer lifespans.


>> -the more we learn, the more damage we do to the
>> planet as individuals,

>Ummm... ?

The people who give a sh*t about the planet in the Westernized world and act accordingly comprise about 2% of the population.

Quote

The people who give a sh*t about the planet in the Westernized world and act accordingly comprise about 2% of the population.

And even they usually make thousands of little daily compromises due to societal, economic & social pressure. It's rough out there!

Arugula,
from what I can gather, western culture has limited and biased information on the requirements for longevity. It it has been studied and collected with a strong compartmental and mechanical premise, so IMO the conclusions that have been reached are incomplete. We still believe that our health is controled by our genetics, and that raw food has insufficient nutrients for us.

It is my belief that both of these are incomplete, and that there are countless examples through our established understandings that are limited. So the idea that modern luxuries which remove us from physical work, combined with the access to plenty of "food" and "medicine", does not provide an appropriate argument for our statstically longer life spans to me. But that is just my opinion

I agree with Lightform. One of my favorite articles on longevity is one where a longevity researcher studing people in the Caucasus comes to the conclusion that the LESS information people have and are exposed to, the longer they live.

"'The less information a person has,' she says, 'the longer he lives. There's less stress.'"

[azer.com]


At the same time, I think that for the "less information=longer life" equation to be true, it requires a very simple lifestyle, independent of "the system," and in accordance with Nature.

Quote

I agree with Lightform. One of my favorite articles on longevity is one where a longevity researcher studing people in the Caucasus comes to the conclusion that the LESS information people have and are exposed to, the longer they live.

"'The less information a person has,' she says, 'the longer he lives. There's less stress.'"

[azer.com]


At the same time, I think that for the "less information=longer life" equation to be true, it requires a very simple lifestyle, independent of "the system," and in accordance with Nature.

Well you better forget that "information" quick, lest it kill you. ahahahaha

No seriously, we're all bombarded with information against our will & have absorbed plenty of it since childhood (much of it misinformation). And much of it is meaningless & stressinducing, I agree.

That said, one needs to distinguish between information & knowledge. Information could be memorizing a vacume cleaner instruction booklet but I wouldn't exactly call that knowledge.

You need knowledge to survive. How to earn a living, how to take care of yourself, how to deal with others & maintain relationships, etc.

You don't necessary need a lot of information just relevant information.

The love of information (news, etc.) may be a detrimental addiction but the love of knowledge is good & pure & may well save the world.

We're not going to be saved by some hermit meditating in the words to get away from it all because he wants to escape worldly things & the overwhelm of the modern world.

Willful ignorance isn't particularly healthy, IMO. That's why I respect people with a passion for learning about alternative health, because unlike 95% of the population they don't just believe what they're told by doctors & advertisers.

I agree CB, the distinction between knowledge and information is an important one.

For the Azerbaijanis in the article, it appears that they already have all the knowledge they need in order to live their independent, agricultural, simple, harmonious lives, and so even basic information may only be superfluous to them and a source of stress.

[We still believe that our health is controled by our genetics, and that raw food has insufficient nutrients for us. ]

No, we don't. There have lots of studies showing that carrying a particular gene for a thing does not mean a death sentence because epigenetics (how that gene will express itself) is under environmental influence.

[I think that for the "less information=longer life" equation to be true, it requires a very simple lifestyle, independent of "the system," and in accordance with Nature.]

It's easy to refute that in the USA by comparing mortality rates for people who lived in different decades.

Humans by Erac Average Lifespan at Birth (years), and comments

Upper Paleolithic 33
At age 15: 39 (to age 54)[1][2]

Neolithic 20

Bronze Age[3] 18

Classical Greece[4] 20-30

Classical Rome[5][6] 20-30

Pre-Columbian North America[7] 25-35

Medieval Islamic Caliphate[8] 35+ The average lifespans of the scholarly class were 59–84.3 years in the Middle East[9][10] and 69–75 in Islamic Spain.[11]

Medieval Britain[12][13] 20-30

Early 20th Century[14][15] 30-40

Current world average[16][17] 66.12 (2008 est.)

Likely educated people in America live far longer than their less educated peers. Obviously income has something to do with this but probably isn't the whole story.

The longevity gap between having 0 and 17+ years of education is about six years of life.

source: table 2
[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]

the truth is .. there is no truth !

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Jgunn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the truth is .. there is no truth !


I disagree. And furthermore, with no offense intended, this belief is mentally lazy at best & dangerous at worst.

If no truth exist how do you prosecute a murderer or rapist. After all, maybe the women used "The Secret" to get himself raped or the guy who raped her was actually an evil clone of the dependent who's DNA was found on the scene & therefore he's totally innocent.

Would you hire an electricity or building contractor who thought facts & truth were unimportant? Maybe if you also thought whether your building collapsed on your head or not was unimportant.

Oh & by the way...

I changed my mind about God. He exists. And look, here He is!

[www.komonews.com]

Hallelujah, CB; I beelllieeeeeeeve!!!!!

That's a great picture communitybuilder! I wonder if you could sell an icycle on ebay, like the grill cheese sandwhich madonna or the cabinet door Jesus? Wasn't there a frito once? Pretty wild!

Well, anything's possible.

I like the possibility that Omega mentioned above - that God is Love.

If that's true, it's an entirely different discription of God than the one about the guy with the beard - or whatever that kind of god would look like.

And if, as communitybuilder suggests, it's true that love can be proven, then to whomever God is perceived to be Love, God can be proven.

Of course, the skeptic might require proof that God is Love to start with. Again, that probably couldn't be proven to be true OR false. So again, proof would not be applicable.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2009 07:13AM by suncloud.

I said before that I definitely didn't believe in Heaven or Hell.

I take that back. I definitely DON'T believe in Hell. But I think Heaven's an OK possibility.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2009 07:24AM by suncloud.

snow icicle