Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on February 03, 2009, 08:35:43 pm
-
Sad really (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/half-of-britons-dont-believe-in-evolution-reveals-survey_100150063.html)
London, Feb 2 (ANI): A new survey has found that half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22 percent preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, and many confused about Charles Darwins theory of evolution.
According to a report in the Guardian, the poll, known as The Rescuing Darwin survey, was carried out to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Darwins birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book, On the Origin of Species.
The poll found that 25 percent of Britons believe Charles Darwins theory of evolution is definitely true, with another quarter saying it is probably true.
-
Do ho ho, welcome to the club UK.
-
As a UK resident, I'm extremely dubious about that poll to be honest, the problem with the UK is that you can adjust percentages depending on where you did the Poll. Also, I think a response to the Guardian article more accurately displays the problem:
Depressing though it is that 22% of British adults believe in creationism (or its deceptive sibling, intelligent design), your headline (Only 25% of Britons believe Darwin's theory of evolution, 2 February) is misleading. You report that 25% say evolution is "definitely true" and another "quarter" say it is "probably true". But it is a basic tenet of science that theories can be disproved but not proved; no matter how great the evidence, or how personally convinced, many scientists would balk at saying evolution is "definitely" true. Perhaps your respondents understand more than their interrogators.
Professor Nicholas J Radcliffe
I could do this poll in one area of Britain and get an 80-90% Evolution Result, I could do it in other areas and get a 10-20% Evolution Result,
Edit: For example, Stoke Newington is populated mostly by Jewish and Islamic faiths, if I did the poll there, I'd get wildly different results to, say Cambridge. Population surveys in the UK are pretty unreliable unless you take a massive sample because of the vast diversity of cultures, particularly in the cities.
-
Yeah, I agree with Flipside. I really doubt that poll was accurate.
-
noooooo
-
As a UK resident, I'm extremely dubious about that poll to be honest, the problem with the UK is that you can adjust percentages depending on where you did the Poll.
Indeed. I despise it when polls, or articles regarding polls, if they don't provide specifics of how they were carried out. This article doesn't seem to mention anything of the sort, so I denounce these data as tosh.
-
Alright, so the next time someone mentions such-and-such percentage of Americans believing in creationism I can just write it off as the poll being inaccurate and cite this thread.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/02/evolution-creationism-darwin-theos
-
Alright, so the next time someone mentions such-and-such percentage of Americans believing in creationism I can just write it off as the poll being inaccurate and cite this thread.
the problem is that ID and other crap is politically relevant in the America, which has not been such a big deal in UK
popularity or ideology per se are not as dangerous as the ideas becoming dominant in politics.
-
Popular notions of Intelligent Design is varied "Things evolved, God just had a helping hand here and there" "God started it and let it evolve by itself" and "God guided evolution, but didn't directly affect it".
Those are just examples of what people have told me they think, and while they all claim to be ID, they range from dressed up Creationism to Deism. People (not scientifically educated people) see ID as "I can believe in evolution, AND acknowledge that God might have done a little". To label the official movement as dressed up Creationism is accurate, but not everybody that claims to support ID really understands what it is.
EDIT: I'm in the American South, by the way.
-
Speaking as someone who lives in the Western United states, in my daily life, there aren't that many people who believe in ID. That doesn't mean I'm more accurate than the polls that say that more then half of Americans do.
-
To label the official movement as dressed up Creationism is accurate, but not everybody that claims to support ID really understands what it is.
Remarkably few do actually. I've asked proponents of ID to explain it to me several times and in the end I had to explain it to them because I understood it better.
Which does raise the question of how on Earth you can be in favour of it when you don't actually understand what it is?
-
My point exactly. When somebody answers ID in a survey, they really mean "I think God had some part in it, but I'm not sure how much, but he did SOMETHING (however small or large)". THAT should be an option for people to select; we'd see less "support" for ID almost immediately.
-
Exactly, it also depends on the wording of the questions, I believe in Evolution, but I wouldn't say that I can rule out entirely the existence of some kind of Deity, partly because scientific method will not allow me to rule it out entirely until it's been wholly disproved and partly because, in their heart, just about everyone believes in this kind of Myth mash.
Under the terms of that poll, this would make me 'not believe' in Evolution, which is wholly untrue, I believe in infinite possibilities, but that doesn't make me religious, maybe it makes me hopeful, but then, who isn't, and I certainly don't believe in either a 'creationist' kind of God or a 'Judgemental' kind either, I don't feel any urge to pray to a Deity to fix my life, because that's simply trying to remove responsibility from myself.
If you include people who support evolution, but refuse to rule out God entirely, then the numbers move to 78%, which I could accept.
-
Bear in mind that evolution and religion are not exclusive. It's only evolution and Young Earth Creationism that are incompatible.
Like many things it's all in the question you ask. If you went out on the same street and asked the same people "Do you believe the world is four billion years old like scientists say or four thousand like some Christians say" I very much doubt you'd get 10% of people saying the latter.
-
I wouldn't say I "believe" in evolution because, to me, that implies it to be a faith of somekind. I accept it as the most likely scientific explanation thus far.
I'm not a person to take things on faith. Like David Attenburgh said, in Africa there's a worm that lives exclusively by burrowing in the eyes of people and causes blindness. How can a benign creator allow such a thing ?
I also got the impression, from his TV programme recently, that it's the idea of man having dominion over all other creatures that DA couldn't accept.
-
Religion is all bullsh*t, but I usually don't have a problem with people following a religion until they start telling me what to do.
-
Religion is just like any mental oddity, it's not a problem until it starts to effect your daily life.
-
Religion is all bullsh*t, but I usually don't have a problem with people following a religion until they start telling me what to do.
A person's rights end where another person's begin (can't recall who said that).
I hate people who tell me my religion is "stupid" and I hate people who tell me my religion isn't "the right one".
Equal hate is my policy.
-
I hate people who tell me my religion is "stupid" and I hate people who tell me my religion isn't "the right one".
Please notify me when gay people stop getting thrown out of their own houses because their parents are stupid religious idiots, and we can start about it.
-
I believe there was also a woman from Britain who homeschools and still breastfeeds her 8 and 5yr olds. Im honestly not surprised.
-
Somehow there was a cosmic easy-bake oven and in this oven a big bang occured which lead to the creation of our solar system and the conditions were just right to cause life to develope. Evolution throughout millions of years has brought humanity to where it is today. Is this what you science worshippers think? Where did the matter that was involved in this big bang even come from in the first place? Doesn't biology say that all life comes from dead or pre-existing matter? Where did the material that is in the universe come from before this big bang occured? Untill you can prove where the universe started, ID is still just as plausible as anything science has brought forward.
-
the god of the gaps is the weakest form of god
-
Somehow there was a cosmic easy-bake oven and in this oven a big bang occured which lead to the creation of our solar system and the conditions were just right to cause life to develope. Evolution throughout millions of years has brought humanity to where it is today. Is this what you science worshippers think? Where did the matter that was involved in this big bang even come from in the first place? Doesn't biology say that all life comes from dead or pre-existing matter? Where did the material that is in the universe come from before this big bang occured? Untill you can prove where the universe started, ID is still just as plausible as anything science has brought forward.
*Checks his userprofile*
You registered for the sole purpose of making yourself look like religious idiot? Wow.
-
You might want to look at String Theory and Singularities. There's a vast difference between the idea of a Deity 'setting the Universe in motion', as Stephen Hawkins states, and the idea of Intelligent Design, which suggests 'constant interference'.
Hawkins refuses to rule out God entirely, other scientists believe we can, it's certainly a fact that He is being pushed further and further back in the Cosmological cycle, right to the point where most of the 'unknown and unexplainable' part of that particular process has been reduced to the first few picoseconds of the Universe' existence.
ID is not exactly plausible if you consider the number of extinctions that have taken place, for example, why deliberate design something for it to be obliterated? That doesn't sound sensible, so we fall back on the old 'God moves in mysterious ways' adage, but that really doesn't explain anything either.
Just because Science doesn't have the answers yet doesn't mean that 'God did it', just as not knowing the orbital velocity of the Earth didn't mean it wasn't moving several centuries ago. Science is about finding the answers to those questions, but I think assuming the ID is valid up until the point that science has all the answers is not really a productive way of looking at things.
-
I don't think science will ever have all the answers... It seems like the best we can do so far is "all the evidence points to ____, and it hasn't been disproved yet."
-
You registered for the sole purpose of making yourself look like religious idiot? Wow.
[/quote]
Why do you think anyone who is religious is an idiot? Scientists sure haven't proved anything about where life came from have they? Doesn't pascow's wager make some sense?
-
I say let people choose to be religious or not.
Do we got the freedom to choose and not be force by both sides.
I say so what they are religious or not. We don't have the right to force them around and getting after their faith.
-
No. Pascal's Wager makes no sense.
-
Why do you think anyone who is religious is an idiot? Scientists sure haven't proved anything about where life came from have they? Doesn't pascow's wager make some sense?
Nope, and Pascals wager doesn't either. Science has proved plenty about the origins of life, whatparticular aspect are you referring to?
-
Where did the matter that was involved in the big bang originate from? Did it just magically appear from oblivion?
-
I say let people choose to be religious or not.
Do we got the freedom to choose and not be force by both sides.
I say so what they are religious or not. We don't have the right to force them around and getting after their faith.
Agreed, I'm fine with what people believe, but I believe for the main part in Science, and trying to push ID forward as 'Science' is, to me, attempting to force their beliefs into mine.
-
Where did the matter that was involved in the big bang originate from? Did it just magically appear from oblivion?
Well, I'll respond with another question in that case, what has that got to do with intelligent design?
-
Seriously, people trying to argue for the invisible man in the sky get evolution and abiogenesis confused all the time
-
It's the argument that all science that conflicts with the bible is wrong because ______ is not adequately explained.
-
The big bang is science's explanation of the origin of the universe and evolution is science's explanation of humans, so i would say they are related.
-
Why do you think anyone who is religious is an idiot?
Because if you are religious, you get to go HAHAHA IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! OH WHAT NOW?
To which I say "Please go spew bull**** somewhere else, your getting it on my new shirt."
Now, for the people who believe in religion but choose not to burden everyone else with useless, factless, and utterly pointless arguments, I have nothing against.
People who register for the sole purpose of arguing for a religious standpoint? uh, WHAT?
-
assholeish atheism is just as annoying, blackhole.
-
Naw this topic is not my only reason for registering, I do enjoy Freespace and space sims in general. I do like a good debate, I don't take it personally.
-
The big bang is science's explanation of the origin of the universe and evolution is science's explanation of humans, so i would say they are related.
Evolution is not sciences' explanation of humans, it's sciences explanation of all Life, and Life is not the same as the creation of Stars etc except in the most abstract of fashions, as in Supernovae etc provided the complex materials required to create the building blocks of life.
And who's to say that matter cannot spontaneously come into being? It doesn't happen 'now' to our knowledge, but then, we are inside the effects of the Big Bang even now, the more we learn of the pre-universe, the more it becomes apparent that it was a very strange place, we'd have to travel outside the Universe in order to experience it.
Basically nothing happened before Time existed because there was no time for it to happen in, Time itself is a very tricky subject, and we are a long way off from understanding its real nature, but that doesn't mean its nature is incapable of being understood.
And don't worry, I'm not taking it personally ;)
-
Naw this topic is not my only reason for registering, I do enjoy Freespace and space sims in general. I do like a good debate, I don't take it personally.
I am not good at debating, I'm just good at yelling very loudly, which is why I will remove myself from this conversation.
assholeish atheism is just as annoying, blackhole.
No I'm just an asshole in general, like you :D
-
assholeish atheism is just as annoying, blackhole.
We got Religious Zealots and Atheism Zealots.
To me they are ZEALOTS. :hopping:
That why I don't like zealots.
-
I get on Turambar about it all the time.
Maybe it's just because I'm secretly a bit religious.
-
I get on Turambar about it all the time.
Maybe it's just because I'm secretly a bit religious.
you just like to believe in hell because it gives you a good reason to not kill yourself.
cause me being all sad and lonely isn't a good enough reason :(
-
OMG. You have an IM window with me open.
</hypocrisy>
-
I am not a religious Zealot by any means, in fact i'm a fairly rational, open-minded person who likes to hear other people's opinion's even if they don't jive with mine. How can we learn anything of the pre-universe when we can't even see but a few hundred light years in our universe?
-
Actually, I think the observable universe is like 13.8 billion light years, ain't it?
-
Everything we currently see is moving away from a single point.
what does that suggest to you?
-
Not to be rude these type of topics get flamed the most.
-
Everything we currently see is moving away from a single point.
what does that suggest to you?
Wait, wait, what?
Everything is moving away from everything else. Because space is expanding.
There's no single point that everything is hurtling away from, I believe.
However, that's still powerful evidence for the Big Bang (which is the best explanation we have, and a darn good one.)
-
If everything is so many light years away, how do we know that everything is moving away, is it that rapid of a movement that we can notice?
-
As long as people can ask questions and answer questions and not get all self-righteous and snobby (see coolhand's first post) threads like this are great fun. Even if they get heated.
-
If everything is so many light years away, how do we know that everything is moving away, is it that rapid of a movement?
I thought Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with the milkyway in 2 billion years. ;)
But Everything else, Expanding away.
-
Is the conclusion that everything is moving away based on observational differences that humans have detected in recorded history or what?
-
I think like near to all the stuff we know about space is based on mathy physics more than looking up and watching stuff happen. Like knowing how big a planet orbiting a star that's retardedly far away is.
-
If everything is so many light years away, how do we know that everything is moving away, is it that rapid of a movement that we can notice?
In Astronomy, there is this thing called redshift. Basically the Doppler-effect for light. Short Explanation: If something is moving away from you, its emission spectra seems to be shifted towards the red end of visible light (lower frequency). Since suns of a given size tend to have similar emission spectra, you can compare those. The redder they seem, the faster they move away from you. (Longer explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift))
I think like near to all the stuff we know about space is based on mathy physics more than looking up and watching stuff happen. Like knowing how big a planet orbiting a star that's retardedly far away is.
Actually, most of the stuff we know about the universe were deducted by first looking up, then doing the math to explain what was observed. Don't confuse Astrophysics with particle physics, while they may overlap, they are somewhat different.
-
Well, yeah, I know that. But I mean, we look up and see the stars and planets move, and then it took mathy weirdness to know that stuff ain't orbiting us.. right?
-
Well, there were some weird things that gave it away, the Moon, for example obviously went round us, but scientists noticed that planets sometimes went backwards, known as retrograding, and they ended up realising that this was because they weren't going round us, but we were all going round something else, and that the Earth was going round its own axis. From there it was a pretty short step to figuring out that the Sun didn't rise and set, it just went in and out of view from a particular hemisphere :)
-
Well, yeah, I know that. But I mean, we look up and see the stars and planets move, and then it took mathy weirdness to know that stuff ain't orbiting us.. right?
You don't necessarily need math for that, just logic. But the math helps to make predictions, which in turn help proving your theories.
Well, there were some weird things that gave it away, the Moon, for example obviously went round us, but scientists noticed that planets sometimes went backwards, known as retrograding, and they ended up realising that this was because they weren't going round us, but we were all going round something else.
Although some of the models that the geocentric people made to explain what was happening were truly stunning in their Rube-Goldbergness...
-
Indeed, those models may have served no scientific purpose, but they are still massive fun to watch ;)
-
All the 'mathy stuff' aside, science hasn't provided for several of the key points that are absolutely crucial to the explanation of the theories of evolution and the big bang.
Let's start with the big bang:
Where did it all come from. I did not and could not just magically appear, unless God made it so (opinion speaking)
If everything exploded from one point in space, why are the two galaxies colliding? They should always be moving away from each other.
Evolution:
I'm going to borrow a bit for this.
The simplest known living organism has over 500 amino acids. When amino acids form, they are less than one-millionth the size of a human hair. When they form, they form with side groups of atoms. Scientist have found that all non-living amino acids form with 50% of side atoms on the right side of the acid and 50% on the left. This is true on all non-living amino acids. Living cells can ONLY contain amino acids on the left side. ALL amino acids found in every single living cell contains only left-sided amino acids. In the most favorable environment of scientific labs, this has never been duplicated. No scientist has ever created the left-handed amino acid that is critical to the formation of life. All amino acids always form with left and right sided atoms. If scientist in perfect conditions can't duplicate one single left-sided amino acid, how could the 500 necessary for life form by chance? The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is only one of the 500 aminos necessary for the simplest life form. 20 specific aminos are needed for the simplest cell, but 500 in order for life to sustain in itself. The odds get worse. Those 500 different types of amino acids have to 'evolve' within a fraction of a millimeter of each other just to give them the chance of uniting. It gets worse. They also have to 'by chance' evolve at the exact same moment in time in a process that scientist say takes hundreds of millions of years. Elements break down the amino acids, so timing is critical. The chances of all these resources falling into place at the exact same time with the exact needed elements at the exact same place on earth within a few millionths of a millimeter of each other are 1 to the ERROR..Calculation overflow. Sorry, my Pentium doesn't have enough memory to even write the number.
How the hell does that work? No way chance worked with that.
I am somewhat religious, so I hold the opinion that God started it, and then left it alone. It works for me.
-
It makes sense that the universe is expanding based on what we see, but I still think god made it happen. Just like evolution, I can see that some things fit, like surviival of the fittest and mutations, but i still think God had a hand in it. i would probably be one of those people in the poll to sau that i didn't believe in evolution if i was only given the choice of yes or no. That doesn't mean I take the Bible literally on the 6 day creation either.
-
Galactic Collisions are possible even with a permanently expanding Universe, this one had me wondering for a while as well when I first heard about it, but it needs to be borne in mind that Gravitic Attraction is also playing a role, and that not everything is moving at the same speed, a Galaxy has a massive Gravity well, and they will pull on each other if they are close enough.
As for Amino Acids, you need to consider that there was pre-life Amino-strings, that aligned themselves to the most economical orientation before there was life, it wasn't a vast number of disparate molecules coming together, it was groups of molecules aligning themselves. Even then the odds are slim, but we are talking about probably several million fusions per day over a period of around a billion years.
-
Let's start with the big bang:
Where did it all come from. I did not and could not just magically appear, unless God made it so (opinion speaking)
If everything exploded from one point in space, why are the two galaxies colliding? They should always be moving away from each other.
Ahem. First, the Big-Bang-theory very explicitly states that it basically kicks in shortly after the Big Bang itself, it only describes the effect, not the cause. Basically, the physicists are still working on it, which is why we have things like the LHC around. Second, look at a typical explosion. Debris is flying everywhere, and it does occasionally collide. When you throw around galaxies, they are going to collide if they come close enough to one another, since they have this little thing called gravity.
Oh, and concerning the aminoacids and the statistic impropability of them meeting exactly the right way? It's a big universe. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
-
None of which explains where everything came from. It cannot have come from nothing. Then, the big-bang theory states that everything came from a single point of infinite density and temperature mass. That said, it comes from a single point. It does not explode in more than one direction (unlike modern explosives, which explode along their entire surface area, not a single, infinitesmal speck). By the big bang theory, galaxies should not collide.
-
How depressing if we just turn into a heap of decomposing matter when we die. What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?
-
What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?
The fact that there is no such thing as pascow's wager. :p
-
None of which explains where everything came from. It cannot have come from nothing. Then, the big-bang theory states that everything came from a single point of infinite density and temperature mass. That said, it comes from a single point. It does not explode in more than one direction (unlike modern explosives, which explode along their entire surface area, not a single, infinitesmal speck). By the big bang theory, galaxies should not collide.
Congratulations. You stumbled on a deficiency in a scientific theory. Now, you have several options.
1. Ignore it.
2. Complain about it.
3. Study the subject and try to come up with a better theory.
4. Wait calmly while the people who have studied the subject work out the flaws in the theory
Option 4 is the hardest to do, admittedly. Scientific work is basically never finished and consists of constantly questioning previously established theories. This is a marked difference to the common religious model, which provides you with premade answers that are perfectly satisfactory to you[citation needed]. Me, i like to figure stuff out for myself.
How depressing if we just turn into a heap of decomposing matter when we die. What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?
Pascal's wager, you mean? To me, it doesn't mean anything. In the end, Kant's categorical imperative is more applicable to me, because i actually do not care whether there is a god or not. Unless he/she/it starts interfering with my life, that is.
-
How depressing if we just turn into a heap of decomposing matter when we die.
Doesn't matter what's depressing and what isn't, it matters what actually happens.
Make the most of the life you have, don't just prepare for the life you probably won't.
-
Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack. :P
-
Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack. :P
Yeah, but it's all just delusion in the end.
-
Yeah, but it's all just delusion in the end.
Unproveables. They are shiney, yes?
-
Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack. :P
It also opens the door to some of the most hideous forms of psychological influence known to man. Seriously, Blow yourself up and have fun later? Be good to people because you will be rewarded AFTER you die? Repent your sins or burn in hell? I'd like to have my jam today, please.
-
I believe in it, but that doesn't count as evidence of its existence to anyone else, I suppose that's where the line between faith and science exists, I'm fine with that, as long as people remain aware that there are boundaries between them :)
And, frankly, it's a theory of mine that I am in absolutely no rush whatsoever to test ;)
-
Remember These topic usually don't end well. :)
-
None of which explains where everything came from. It cannot have come from nothing. Then, the big-bang theory states that everything came from a single point of infinite density and temperature mass. That said, it comes from a single point. It does not explode in more than one direction (unlike modern explosives, which explode along their entire surface area, not a single, infinitesmal speck). By the big bang theory, galaxies should not collide.
Congratulations. You stumbled on a deficiency in a scientific theory. Now, you have several options.
1. Ignore it.
2. Complain about it.
3. Study the subject and try to come up with a better theory.
4. Wait calmly while the people who have studied the subject work out the flaws in the theory
Option 4 is the hardest to do, admittedly. Scientific work is basically never finished and consists of constantly questioning previously established theories. This is a marked difference to the common religious model, which provides you with premade answers that are perfectly satisfactory to you[citation needed]. Me, i like to figure stuff out for myself.
How depressing if we just turn into a heap of decomposing matter when we die. What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?
Pascal's wager, you mean? To me, it doesn't mean anything. In the end, Kant's categorical imperative is more applicable to me, because i actually do not care whether there is a god or not. Unless he/she/it starts interfering with my life, that is.
oops my bad, it's been awhile :doubt:
What if there really is a god and you have to earn your way to heaven by your conduct in life, but you only know this is certain upon your death, by which it's too late to make your life acceptable for heaven? As opposed to dying and your gone for eternity. If there's even a lisht chance that there is a heaven, isn't it wise to live your life in order to make it there as opposed to planning on becomming nothing when you die?
-
Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack. :P
It also opens the door to some of the most hideous forms of psychological influence known to man. Seriously, Blow yourself up and have fun later? Be good to people because you will be rewarded AFTER you die? Repent your sins or burn in hell? I'd like to have my jam today, please.
Arguably, the people that believe *that* stuff were ****ed up anyway.
What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?
Pascal's Wager only works if there is only one religion which damns everyone who is not part of that religion. Being Christian will put you in hell if it turns out the Muzzies are right. In fact, Being Catholic when the Baptists are right will put you in hell. Etc.
It is not a coin flip. It is a die with so many sides it is effectively a sphere.
-
Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack. :P
Yeah, but it's all just delusion in the end.
So what? The whole point of placebo is that delusions can have very real effects. Prayer can bring a person a lot of peace, even if it turns out god isn't real. If it's real to you, then it doesn't matter what is real objectively.
-
oops my bad, it's been awhile :doubt:
What if there really is a god and you have to earn your way to heaven by your conduct in life, but you only know this is certain upon your death, by which it's too late to make your life acceptable for heaven? As opposed to dying and your gone for eternity. If there's even a lisht chance that there is a heaven, isn't it wise to live your life in order to make it there?
Well, read about the categorical imperative one day. As long as i adhere to its rules, i should be in the target zone for some heavenly goodness after my death. I do not have a problem with there not being an afterlife. To sum it up, my plan is, basically,
1. Get Born
2. Live
3. Die
4. Improvise
Point 1 is accomplished, currently working on 2.
-
Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack. :P
Yeah, but it's all just delusion in the end.
So scientists are wasting their lives trying to prove to us dellusional religious nuts that we are wasting our lives chasing after the great delusion of an afterlife?
-
Uh, if you are chasing after it, then you are wasting your life.
-
No. Science isn't capable of proving or disproving the existence of an afterlife.
-
An afterlife is unlikely.
-
Uh, if you are chasing after it, then you are wasting your life.
Define "waste".
-
oops my bad, it's been awhile :doubt:
What if there really is a god and you have to earn your way to heaven by your conduct in life, but you only know this is certain upon your death, by which it's too late to make your life acceptable for heaven? As opposed to dying and your gone for eternity. If there's even a lisht chance that there is a heaven, isn't it wise to live your life in order to make it there?
I want to point out that according to Christians, all homosexuals go to hell, regardless of whether or not they are a good person. You can change that definition, but then you're just picking and choosing what "going to heaven" really means. Once you are at the point where humans are choosing how you get to heaven, how the heck does this have anything to do with God?
Personally, if there was a God, I think he'd let people into heaven based on whether or not they were a good person, not on petty things like sexual orientation or praying or baptism that we mortals obsess over.
*goes back to attempting to ignore this thread even though its being posted in so often he has to hit the "post" button like 3 times before his reply actually gets through*
-
An afterlife is unlikely.
I do believe in an Afterlife. :p
-
How the hell does that work? No way chance worked with that.
It's possible that the simplest organisms now need 500 amino acids (though I find that unlikely - biochemistry is ased around a much, much smaller number of amino acids - I suspect that the removal of some of them - a lot of them, actually, would probably shorten lifespans and impede functionality, but simple life could probably survive without them). but the fist hyper simplistic chemical replicators probably didn't. And as long as you have some kind of replication going on, chance as we understand it - or at least, as it's understood by the author of your quote there, stops being relevant, and we're into evolution.
-
oops my bad, it's been awhile :doubt:
What if there really is a god and you have to earn your way to heaven by your conduct in life, but you only know this is certain upon your death, by which it's too late to make your life acceptable for heaven? As opposed to dying and your gone for eternity. If there's even a lisht chance that there is a heaven, isn't it wise to live your life in order to make it there?
I want to point out that according to Christians, all homosexuals go to hell, regardless of whether or not they are a good person. You can change that definition, but then you're just picking and choosing what "going to heaven" really means. Once you are at the point where humans are choosing how you get to heaven, how the heck does this have anything to do with God?
Personally, if there was a God, I think he'd let people into heaven based on whether or not they were a good person, not on petty things like sexual orientation or praying or baptism that we mortals obsess over.
*goes back to attempting to ignore this thread even though its being posted in so often he has to hit the "post" button like 3 times before his reply actually gets through*
Actually, Lutherans believe that everyone is going to heaven regardless of sin or belief. God is totally forgiving and stuff
An afterlife is unlikely.
I do believe in an Afterlife. :p
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
-
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
-
Sounds good. I'll start with Turambar.
But you've got it backwards. I'm not going to church and praying and blah blah blah. I just do what I'd do anyway if I didn't believe in an afterlife. See the most recently locked thread.
-
Sounds good. I'll start with Turambar.
:eek2:
-
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
because that's a total dick move. just cause there's no reward for behaving doesn't mean you shouldn't behave.
-
I want to point out that according to Christians, all homosexuals go to hell, regardless of whether or not they are a good person. You can change that definition, but then you're just picking and choosing what "going to heaven" really means. Once you are at the point where humans are choosing how you get to heaven, how the heck does this have anything to do with God?
Nope! Christian =! Catholic.
Episcopal church is having a shcism over this very issue right now. Congradulations, you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Because of an inate knowledge of what is Right and Wrong, and not from a Divine perspective, we are pack animals, the pack will reject that which damages it, therefore we are built with a set of rules that define what is acceptable within that pack.
That same tribal instinct is the very hurdle we have to vault when trying to overcome acceptance of Gays, different races etc, they are not of 'our' pack, therefore part of us treats them with suspicion.
-
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
because that's a total dick move. just cause there's no reward for behaving doesn't mean you shouldn't behave.
I'm not going to behave if I'm not rewarded. **** you.
-
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
because that's a total dick move. just cause there's no reward for behaving doesn't mean you shouldn't behave.
Well, to be honest, iamzack did say something about there being no morals. :p
Better watch your back man. ;)
-
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
because that's a total dick move. just cause there's no reward for behaving doesn't mean you shouldn't behave.
If there's no consequence for your actions, why not be the most self-centered, selfish, ass clown in the universe?
-
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
because that's a total dick move. just cause there's no reward for behaving doesn't mean you shouldn't behave.
If there's no consequence for your actions, why not be the most self-centered, selfish, ass clown in the universe?
There totally is consequence. I'm not going to kill Turambar because I find him useful. I'm not going to mow down some school childrenw ith my mother's car because she would probably make me clean it afterwards.
-
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
because that's a total dick move. just cause there's no reward for behaving doesn't mean you shouldn't behave.
If there's no consequence for your actions, why not be the most self-centered, selfish, ass clown in the universe?
this sounds like a job for... . PHILOSOPHY!!
or, failing that, it's a job for the legal system.
-
There's no Divine consequence for them. It takes a fool to believe in an afterlife so strongly as to risk being LAPD'd through the head for it ;)
-
Me too. But that's it. No chasing. No altering what I do to fit some religion's standards for getting in. Etc.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
because that's a total dick move. just cause there's no reward for behaving doesn't mean you shouldn't behave.
If there's no consequence for your actions, why not be the most self-centered, selfish, ass clown in the universe?
this sounds like a job for... . PHILOSOPHY!!
or, failing that, it's a job for the legal system.
The legal system is awesome because it's based on "do whatever, just don't infringe on anybody else's rights"
You know, except when people with money get in there and start making drugs illegal and stuff.
-
Episcopal church is having a shcism over this very issue right now. Congradulations, you don't know what you're talking about.
That shcism is exactly what I was talking about - How can religion be arguing over what gets you into heaven and what doesn't? That means humans are defining the terms that get you into heaven which removes all possible relation to what they tell you and what actually does.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
I don't need to believe in an afterlife to behave myself. Why do you?
-
The legal system is awesome because it's based on "do whatever, just don't infringe on anybody else's rights"
You know, except when people with money get in there and start making drugs illegal and stuff.
Always considered it odd how two of the most dangerous drugs out there are the legal ones.
-
Episcopal church is having a shcism over this very issue right now. Congradulations, you don't know what you're talking about.
That shcism is exactly what I was talking about - How can religion be arguing over what gets you into heaven and what doesn't? That means humans are defining the terms that get you into heaven which removes all possible relation to what they tell you and what actually does.
So why don't you go murder a ton of people, steal all their possessions and live a life of leisure?
I don't need to believe in an afterlife to behave myself. Why do you?
The way(s) to get into heaven is debateable because it is just a philosophical thing. IF there is a god, what is it? Etc.
Some people do need threat of consequence to not kill people. I would seriously be out curbstomping little kids if it wasn't illegal.
Edit: actually, just the ugly ones. and the loud ones. and the sticky ones. and the retards. cute, quiet, clean, not-retarded little kids are fine.
-
But then, what would be happening to you without those same laws? That is, in a way, why they exist, even tribal instinct can't fix everything.
Edit: actually, just the ugly ones. and the loud ones. and the sticky ones. and the retards. cute, quiet, clean, not-retarded little kids are fine.
So roughly 98% of them then? ;)
-
But then, what would be happening to you without those same laws? That is, in a way, why they exist, even tribal instinct can't fix everything.
Edit: actually, just the ugly ones. and the loud ones. and the sticky ones. and the retards. cute, quiet, clean, not-retarded little kids are fine.
So roughly 98% of them then? ;)
Luckily, I avoid paradoxing myself because I have no sense of self-preservation.
-
To be honest...yes I would do a lot of bad things if i didn't think i would have to answer for them. I am not saying I would be a killer, but I sure would steal, cheat, and be a player.
-
I'm not going to behave if I'm not rewarded. **** you.
And sadly, it is people like you, people unable to maintain a morality in and of themselves, for whom religion was written.
If there's no consequence for your actions, why not be the most self-centered, selfish, ass clown in the universe?
Because there is a consequence, one of this world rather than beyond it. But even in those cases where there is no consequence, or where we can beat the rap so to speak, some of us naturally default to altruistic behavior. And some don't.
That shcism is exactly what I was talking about - How can religion be arguing over what gets you into heaven and what doesn't? That means humans are defining the terms that get you into heaven which removes all possible relation to what they tell you and what actually does.
Because it's all about interpretation. Religion naturally acknowledges itself as fallable, as it claims to be man attempting to to filter the will or the way of something beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend. Mistakes will be made, and it is for this reason that religions grow and evolve like any other organization. Hence the schism, Vatican II, the Council of Nicea, the existence of multiple translations of the Bible, the existence of Protestant churches.
-
See, then all you have to do is believe in an eternally forgiving god.
-
To be honest...yes I would do a lot of bad things if i didn't think i would have to answer for them. I am not saying I would be a killer, but I sure would steal, cheat, and be a player.
Well, as far as being a player is concerned, it takes two to play, I'm not sure being 'free and easy' is exactly criminal. Of course, using lies in order to do so is unethical and unkind, but that's a personal choice more than a crime, some people have a conscience that will not allow them to behave in such a way, but if 2 people are happy with a casual relationship, then good luck to them.
Edit: We've filled up the new replies box without flaming each other, that's rare....
-
There's no Divine consequence for them. It takes a fool to believe in an afterlife so strongly as to risk being LAPD'd through the head for it ;)
Is that quite harsh what you said.
So what you believe after you die.
-
To be honest...yes I would do a lot of bad things if i didn't think i would have to answer for them. I am not saying I would be a killer, but I sure would steal, cheat, and be a player.
I wouldn't, and I don't.
I do not believe in an afterlife. Furthermore, if there is an afterlife, I'm probably going to hell.
I don't care
I try to behave myself for the sake of my fellow human beings, not because I'll get thrown in jail if I don't. I am not perfect and I will make mistakes, but I try to do the right thing because I wouldn't' be able to live with myself if I didn't. I don't get an afterlife, so what I do here, on this planet, is what I will be remembered for. I'd rather be remembered for trying to help people then be another Exxon CEO.
Religion is therefore a product of our own inherent evil.
-
Edit: We've filled up the new replies box without flaming each other, that's rare....
Yeah, but you must admit Flip, there really isn't much discussion going on. :p
-
Edit: We've filled up the new replies box without flaming each other, that's rare....
Yeah, but you must admit Flip, there really isn't much discussion going on. :p
shuddup
oops, what the **** did i do?
-
Religion is therefore a product of our own inherent evil.
Really. All Religion is evil. :mad: :no:
Lock this topic. :hopping:
-
Religion is therefore a product of our own inherent evil.
Really. All Religion is evil. :mad: :no:
Lock this topic. :hopping:
Atheist zealot. All religion is not, in fact, evil.
What's evil about Buddhists?
-
There's no Divine consequence for them. It takes a fool to believe in an afterlife so strongly as to risk being LAPD'd through the head for it ;)
Is that quite harsh what you said.
So what you believe after you die.
I suppose I'm more a supporter of reincarnation, I don't think there's a God up there that judges my actions as such, but I kind of like the idea that each time we go round the wheel, we are learning something for a purpose, good or bad, it's experience.
I think that when you die, you are sent back to learn more, somewhere else, someone else, maybe not even human, but I don't think your actions in one life define what you come back as.
It'd be nice to think we are all an attempt by the Universe to understand itself, that all life is exactly that, similar to the question of whether 'God' can create a puzzle so complex that even He cannot solve it, and that we are that puzzle.
-
Edit: We've filled up the new replies box without flaming each other, that's rare....
Yeah, but you must admit Flip, there really isn't much discussion going on. :p
:lol: There's enough to make the topic interesting :)
-
Well I am A Baptist. :mad: :hopping:
And I am NOT a Zealot
I just quoting him and replied to him.
-
Atheist zealot. All religion is not, in fact, evil.
What's evil about Buddhists?
Oh I never said religion was all evil. I simply said it was a product of our inherent self-absorbed nature. Religion, in that view, is a good thing, because it keeps us from being the nasty cheating whores we would be otherwise. At least, it tries to, but then you get priests who go about raping kids...
-
There's no Divine consequence for them. It takes a fool to believe in an afterlife so strongly as to risk being LAPD'd through the head for it ;)
Is that quite harsh what you said.
So what you believe after you die.
I suppose I'm more a supporter of reincarnation, I don't think there's a God up there that judges my actions as such, but I kind of like the idea that each time we go round the wheel, we are learning something for a purpose, good or bad, it's experience.
I think that when you die, you are sent back to learn more, somewhere else, someone else, maybe not even human, but I don't think your actions in one life define what you come back as.
It'd be nice to think we are all an attempt by the Universe to understand itself, that all life is exactly that, similar to the question of whether 'God' can create a puzzle so complex that even He cannot solve it, and that we are that puzzle.
Reincarnation is fun to think about. I rather like the idea that maybe you don't come back immediately, though. Like you get a break in between to chill with other folks.
-
Reincarnation is fun to think about. I rather like the idea that maybe you don't come back immediately, though. Like you get a break in between to chill with other folks.
I'd want to come back as a rabbit :P
-
Religion isn't evil, organised religion is evil.
-
Reincarnation is fun to think about. I rather like the idea that maybe you don't come back immediately, though. Like you get a break in between to chill with other folks.
I'd want to come back as a rabbit :P
I want to come back as a middle class white male american. or a tree.
-
Edit: We've filled up the new replies box without flaming each other, that's rare....
Yeah, but you must admit Flip, there really isn't much discussion going on. :p
:lol: There's enough to make the topic interesting :)
Sooo true, definitely interesting no doubt.
-
Religion isn't evil, organised religion is evil.
I concur.
-
Atheist zealot. All religion is not, in fact, evil.
What's evil about Buddhists?
Oh I never said religion was all evil. I simply said it was a product of our inherent self-absorbed nature. Religion, in that view, is a good thing, because it keeps us from being the nasty cheating whores we would be otherwise. At least, it tries to, but then you get priests who go about raping kids...
You sometime got corrupted Atheist People and Religious People.
-
Actually the *really* interesting thing about reincarnation is that since matter is never created or destroyed, atoms are recycled. Technically, we were other things before we were us. Time to get high. Oh my gods.
-
There's no Divine consequence for them. It takes a fool to believe in an afterlife so strongly as to risk being LAPD'd through the head for it ;)
Is that quite harsh what you said.
So what you believe after you die.
I suppose I'm more a supporter of reincarnation, I don't think there's a God up there that judges my actions as such, but I kind of like the idea that each time we go round the wheel, we are learning something for a purpose, good or bad, it's experience.
I think that when you die, you are sent back to learn more, somewhere else, someone else, maybe not even human, but I don't think your actions in one life define what you come back as.
It'd be nice to think we are all an attempt by the Universe to understand itself, that all life is exactly that, similar to the question of whether 'God' can create a puzzle so complex that even He cannot solve it, and that we are that puzzle.
Reincarnation is fun to think about. I rather like the idea that maybe you don't come back immediately, though. Like you get a break in between to chill with other folks.
Must admit, that would be nice, though, of course, if everyone you know has already started somewhere else, you might be a bit short of people to chat to, but even then, it's not impossible that there is a 'greater' us that permanently exists (almost God-like themselves) and a 'lesser' us that we create to experience and learn.
-
I think someone once used souls moving in and out of hell to prove that the universe was exothermic :nervous:
</random>
-
There's no Divine consequence for them. It takes a fool to believe in an afterlife so strongly as to risk being LAPD'd through the head for it ;)
Is that quite harsh what you said.
So what you believe after you die.
I suppose I'm more a supporter of reincarnation, I don't think there's a God up there that judges my actions as such, but I kind of like the idea that each time we go round the wheel, we are learning something for a purpose, good or bad, it's experience.
I think that when you die, you are sent back to learn more, somewhere else, someone else, maybe not even human, but I don't think your actions in one life define what you come back as.
It'd be nice to think we are all an attempt by the Universe to understand itself, that all life is exactly that, similar to the question of whether 'God' can create a puzzle so complex that even He cannot solve it, and that we are that puzzle.
Reincarnation is fun to think about. I rather like the idea that maybe you don't come back immediately, though. Like you get a break in between to chill with other folks.
Must admit, that would be nice, though, of course, if everyone you know has already started somewhere else, you might be a bit short of people to chat to, but even then, it's not impossible that there is a 'greater' us that permanently exists (almost God-like themselves) and a 'lesser' us that we create to experience and learn.
Like if we have an overarching personality, and only minor details are changed, depending on the life we are currently living? Awesome. XD
-
Wow dubee passing time
Amazing what decendants of amebia can think about eh?
-
Oh I never said religion was all evil. I simply said it was a product of our inherent self-absorbed nature. Religion, in that view, is a good thing, because it keeps us from being the nasty cheating whores we would be otherwise. At least, it tries to, but then you get priests who go about raping kids...
Call bull**** again, the portion of priests is identical to that of teachers. :P
-
And police officers. And parents.
-
I remember seeing a scene from Babylon 5, whilst describing souls, where a light was shone on a wall, and G'Kar was saying that we fool ourselves into thinking that the light comes from the wall, when in truth it is just a projection of what is coming from the torch.
I always thought that was simply awesome, and wouldn't it be wonderful if that was somewhere near the truth :)
Edit: And wouldn't it be better if you could bunny ears in that projection ;)
-
:[ You done lost me.
-
:[ You done lost me.
Basically, that what we perceive as 'us' is just a projection made by our 'greater' selves. It's a short summary really of what I'd stated earlier.
-
:[ You done lost me.
Basically, that what we perceive as 'us' is just a projection made by our 'greater' selves. It's a short summary really of what I'd stated earlier.
So how do we then explain the fact that there were about 2 million of us and there are now almost 7 billion of us?
-
Oh, oh. I get it nao. XD
Like the whole world is the best MMRPG ever. Like, so great we forget the "real" world while we play it.
-
:[ You done lost me.
Basically, that what we perceive as 'us' is just a projection made by our 'greater' selves. It's a short summary really of what I'd stated earlier.
So how do we then explain the fact that there were about 2 million of us and there are now almost 7 billion of us?
Well, there used to be a couple million buffalo in N. America and now there's like sixteen. We don't have a monopoly on life and death. There's trees, too.
-
These last posts is getting confusing to me. :wtf:
-
Because 'souls' (for want of a better word) are not limited to people, animals or even this planet, once again, I'm slipping into pure conjecture, but there's no reason why the next turn of the wheel wouldn't take place on a completely different planet.
After all, once upon a time there were none of us, but we evolved, the vase doesn't define the content, after all ;)
-
These last posts is getting confusing to me. :wtf:
They're pretty confusing to me, and I'm making them.
It's turned into a highly spiritual debate to be honest, which is ok, as long as we all hold in mind that it's all conjecture :)
-
Maybe stars have souls.
It's fun to think about, which is why I hate Turambar telling me "but it's all delusion" all the time. :P
-
They are born, the grow, they live they die, there's no reason why they couldn't have simplistic souls from that particular point of view.
-
Well, they don't really "live" but they exist as an entitysorta. But everything does. :\ Wouldn't be as much fun if all our molecules had seperate souls and stuff.
-
:[ You done lost me.
Basically, that what we perceive as 'us' is just a projection made by our 'greater' selves. It's a short summary really of what I'd stated earlier.
So how do we then explain the fact that there were about 2 million of us and there are now almost 7 billion of us?
Well, there used to be a couple million buffalo in N. America and now there's like sixteen. We don't have a monopoly on life and death. There's trees, too.
So what about the rabbit incident in australia?
-
:[ You done lost me.
Basically, that what we perceive as 'us' is just a projection made by our 'greater' selves. It's a short summary really of what I'd stated earlier.
So how do we then explain the fact that there were about 2 million of us and there are now almost 7 billion of us?
Well, there used to be a couple million buffalo in N. America and now there's like sixteen. We don't have a monopoly on life and death. There's trees, too.
So what about the rabbit incident in australia?
Tch. Smallpox is near extinct.
-
Well, they don't really "live" but they exist as an entitysorta. But everything does. :\ Wouldn't be as much fun if all our molecules had seperate souls and stuff.
yea, if an matter meet with anti-matter. ;)
Then what happen to that soul. ;7
-
English is not my first language, so you have to speak it better than that for me to understand you.
-
English is not my first language, so you have to speak it better than that for me to understand you.
See, now you're going to hell for making fun of him :P
-
Well, they don't really "live" but they exist as an entitysorta. But everything does. :\ Wouldn't be as much fun if all our molecules had seperate souls and stuff.
I've always considered it more a question of interaction rather than simply 'being', a star does interact with it's surroundings, it responds to outside influences and influences things outside itself.
That said it has no 'consciousness' as such, which makes matters unlikely, it's not aware of the Universe around it, which has always struck me as a quintessential definition of higher life-forms. Bacteria, for example responds more to stimuli that through any coherent thought, so the odds, to my mind, of Bacteria having anything that could be defined as a 'soul' are pretty slim to none.
-
I wasn't making fun of him. I really can't understand him.
-
Yeah, I'm firmly in the 'we are meat machines' camp (along with the 'we are all the scum on a rock floating around a star' camp). I've experienced nothing to convince me otherwise.
-
Well, they don't really "live" but they exist as an entitysorta. But everything does. :\ Wouldn't be as much fun if all our molecules had seperate souls and stuff.
I've always considered it more a question of interaction rather than simply 'being', a star does interact with it's surroundings, it responds to outside influences and influences things outside itself.
That said it has no 'consciousness' as such, which makes matters unlikely, it's not aware of the Universe around it, which has always struck me as a quintessential definition of higher life-forms. Bacteria, for example responds more to stimuli that through any coherent thought, so the odds, to my mind, of Bacteria having anything that could be defined as a 'soul' are pretty slim to none.
Huh. Maybe. But stars and rocks don't respond to stimuli like bacteria does. I'd say rocks could have souls, but they break. Would the soul split as well, or would it be a multi-bodied soul? I think rocks should have souls. :\
-
Yeah, I'm firmly in the 'we are meat machines' camp (along with the 'we are all the scum on a rock floating around a star' camp). I've experienced nothing to convince me otherwise.
You fail hypothetical discussion. Go die.
-
I wasn't making fun of him. I really can't understand him.
Well you got a problem and most people understand me.
-
Huh. Maybe. But stars and rocks don't respond to stimuli like bacteria does. I'd say rocks could have souls, but they break. Would the soul split as well, or would it be a multi-bodied soul? I think rocks should have souls. :\
OCCAM'S RAZOR
-
I think if a Rock had a soul and it broke in two, then it would be two rocks and therefore now have two different souls, after all, there are plenty to go round ;)
Edit: Big text is Big.
-
Huh. Maybe. But stars and rocks don't respond to stimuli like bacteria does. I'd say rocks could have souls, but they break. Would the soul split as well, or would it be a multi-bodied soul? I think rocks should have souls. :\
OCCAM'S RAZOR
EVERYTHING IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS PURE CONJECTURE
-
This is like the biggest case of weird surrealism I've ever encountered btw ;)
And stop the big text, dammit, this has been fun so far :p
-
I think if a Rock had a soul and it broke in two, then it would be two rocks and therefore now have two different souls, after all, there are plenty to go round ;)
Edit: Big text is Big.
What happens when it's sand? And if that's the case, do dead things have souls?
-
Yes if a black hole is a Soul and it suck a Star into the black hole. What will happen to the Star soul.
Get compressed into singularity.
-
how can a black hole have a soul?
-
Yes if a black hole is a Soul and it suck a Star into the black hole. What will happen to the Star soul.
Get compressed into singularity.
I AM THE SOUL-EATER! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:lol:
-
your mom
-
you don't have a soul, you have software!
-
you don't have a soul, you have software!
My software eats your software >C
-
you don't have a soul, you have software!
i would withhold sex from you for that if you had a sex drive.
-
you don't have a soul, you have software!
i would withhold sex from you for that if you had a sex drive.
That'd be F:\Sex
-
you were telling me to behave not 3 hours ago
and i totally saw that edit
-
F:\sex\
MD F:\sex\Babies
-
Back to the topic of reincarnation, I find rabbits to be amusingly similar to humans in many regards. They are highly social creatures, they can't stop multiplying, and they live in fear of being eaten by predators, whereas humans live in fear of other humans :P
-
It's like measuring the length of a beach, if you measure around every grain of sand, a beach can be infinitely long, I'm not 100% sold on the idea that inanimate object can have a soul, because I'm not entirely sure they have 'experiences' as such, but if you take a grain of sand away from a beach, is it still part of the beach despite being removed from it?
Maybe a grain of sand, like a rock, might have a soul, but then so does a mountain, so does a beach, people have individual souls, but then humanity might have a communal soul as well.
A grain of sand is, after all, simply a rock broken up into tiny pieces, maybe souls get less 'influential' depending on the sentience of the holder.
If you've ever read 'Foundation's Edge' and Asimov's explanation of 'Gaia', I might be able to explain it a little more clearly.
-
Back to the topic of reincarnation, I find rabbits to be amusingly similar to humans in many regards. They are highly social creatures, they can't stop multiplying, and they live in fear of being eaten by predators, whereas humans live in fear of other humans :P
but rabbits are cute, and humans are ugly
-
Back to the topic of reincarnation, I find rabbits to be amusingly similar to humans in many regards. They are highly social creatures, they can't stop multiplying, and they live in fear of being eaten by predators, whereas humans live in fear of other humans :P
I wanted to reincarnated as Alpha one in Freespace.
-
Surveys=bull****
-
It's like measuring the length of a beach, if you measure around every grain of sand, a beach can be infinitely long, I'm not 100% sold on the idea that inanimate object can have a soul, because I'm not entirely sure they have 'experiences' as such, but if you take a grain of sand away from a beach, is it still part of the beach despite being removed from it?
Maybe a grain of sand, like a rock, might have a soul, but then so does a mountain, so does a beach, people have individual souls, but then humanity might have a communal soul as well.
A grain of sand is, after all, simply a rock broken up into tiny pieces, maybe souls get less 'influential' depending on the sentience of the holder.
If you've ever read 'Foundation's Edge' and Asimov's explanation of 'Gaia', I might be able to explain it a little more clearly.
I just think that if something as weird as a soul can exist then there's no reason inanimate objects can't experience things.
I don't like sci-fi.
-
I know Gaia. Explain.
-
Back to the topic of reincarnation, I find rabbits to be amusingly similar to humans in many regards. They are highly social creatures, they can't stop multiplying, and they live in fear of being eaten by predators, whereas humans live in fear of other humans :P
but rabbits are cute, and humans are ugly
And people ask me why I represent myself with an anthropomorphic rabbit...
-
(http://www.driko.org/blogicons/bugsdrag27.jpg)
what's up, doc?
-
I suppose the problem is that 'soul' still sounds too religious, as though it were something that is applied to an object, rather than inherent in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(Foundation_universe)
Here's a brief rundown of the theory of Gaia.
I know Gaia. Explain.
That basically, whilst a rock by itself may not have sentience, a vast bulk of rock can have sentience of a kind, that an entire planet has the possibility to be a living organism in and of itself, and that a sufficiently developed race can create a world that they exist symbiotically with, every atom on that planet being influenced by the needs of every other atom on it.
-
I like the idea of a planet having a soul.
-
Arrrgh you changed your post:
You asked what if experiences have souls?
I wouldn't think so, experiences are the result of the interaction of souls, not souls in and of themselves.
-
In D&D you can have dimensions that are sentient.
It's really freaking weird.
-
Maybe, but one of the types of hauntings is like, a memory imprinted on a place. Like something happens and is so emotionally charged that the memory stays there. That's why I thought of it.
-
That could be, in a way, an imprint on the area around where the soul had an experience, if the experience is traumatic enough, the sub-sentience of the room around it gets imprinted with the souls reaction to that experience, which is, ironically enough, strangely Gaia-like ;)
-
This topic got freaky :eek: :wtf:
-
Freaky is good ;7
-
people are trying to argue that inanimate objects have basic intelligence, and that there is a part to them that isn't physically part of them.
what do you expect?
-
people are trying to argue that inanimate objects have basic intelligence, and that there is a part to them that isn't physically part of them.
what do you expect?
And this is one the most interesting topic I ever saw. :yes:
-
CONGRATULATIONS, Turambar!!!
You win the "forever missing the point" award!
-
people are trying to argue that inanimate objects have basic intelligence, and that there is a part to them that isn't physically part of them.
what do you expect?
Well, when you move to the sub-atomic level, since it's impossible to know where their electrons are at the same time as knowing what direction they are moving in, that sort of suggests that they are never truly all 'there' at any point in time? ;)
-
What if atoms somehow have information about where they've been imprinted on them? So an atom is changed by being part of a rock verses part of a cow?
-
What if atoms somehow have information about where they've been imprinted on them? So an atom is changed by being part of a rock verses part of a cow?
that's going to require a lot of sciencing to prove
-
CONGRATULATIONS, Turambar!!!
You win the "forever missing the point" award!
-
Well, at atom is an atom, it's a building block really, I don't think an atom remembers being a 'cow' as such, but if a soul is seperate to the atoms that make up the physical object, then there's no reason that somewhere there are parts of a cow that remember being a rock, after all, there are certainly parts of a human that remember being an ape, a lizard or a rabbit, we even have the evidence right here in our bodies, just look at our DNA, or our Brains, or even our teeth, our entire history is marked out somewhere inside our own bodies.
-
Well, the atom might not 'remember' really, but it might be just a little different from an atom who wasn't a rock... but atoms are small. So what if it's mostly affected by recent thins happening to it? Like, instead of storing it's whole life, it has a limited span of whatever... So two atoms of one element would be different from each other in just that little way or whatever.
-
It's possible, I suppose, but immeasurable, being part of something else might imprint itself on the Electrons in some way or something, but since they are impossible to observe, we'd never really be able to confirm it.
-
Who cares? We can't confirm whether rocks have souls either.
-
Exactly, that's half the fun of hypothetical discussions ;)
It'd be kind of nice to think that the Universe scribes it's own history on the hearts of atoms, it has a nice poetic ring to it :)
-
Who cares? We can't confirm whether rocks have souls either.
Like saying a shivan in freespace 2 got a soul.
If so :shaking:
-
Who cares? We can't confirm whether rocks have souls either.
Like saying a shivan in freespace 2 got a soul.
If so :shaking:
If they existed, then yes, they would have a soul, the trick is not to fall into the trap of believing the religious definition of 'Soul', it would be more of a medium for transferring experience than some kind of holy 'aura' as such.
-
i fart evolution
-
That must be quite an experience... :p
-
This thread just makes me wish I had mushrooms.
-
:lol: Too much Bill Hicks is bad for you ;)
-
:lol: Too much Bill Hicks is bad for you ;)
Not really. Sometimes we all need a reminder to squeegee our third eye.
-
:lol: Too much Bill Hicks is bad for you ;)
Not really. Sometimes we all need a reminder to squeegee our third eye.
...Of course
-
It's alright, I don't believe in half of Britain anyway.
Their existence is a theory, not a fact, told by half-baked journalists who wish to undermine us.
-
Wha?
-
Flip, you should check out the Ender series (if you haven't already). The later books get into pretty much exactly what you've been talking about here. :)
-
That must be quite an experience... :p
well since we can apparently get completely side-tracked by obvious ABIOGENESIS BIG BANG EVOLUTION red herring then I can as well note that my farts contain trace amounts of aminic acids which are a component of prokaryote organisms inhabiting my colon
-
Then I demand that your colon be examined... IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE!
-
This thread needs some ATHEIST'S NIGHTMARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
-
This thread needs some ATHEIST'S NIGHTMARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
:lol: Please tell me that's Satire...
So, let me get this straight, God based the Banana on a Soda Can??
-
God is not good at originality. We just confuse the effects of that for DEVILution
-
This thread needs some ATHEIST'S NIGHTMARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
hahahahaha oh man i had already forgot that
-
This thread needs some ATHEIST'S NIGHTMARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
If God made the banana then walnuts must be Satan's work cause those ****ers are a ***** to open. :p
-
Funny part is, common Supermarket Bananas have to be grown from cuttings of themselves, since they've been so heavily altered over the years that they cannot reproduce naturally, so whilst claiming the 'perfection' of Gods' work, he was holding something that was almost entirely the product of human inventiveness. Bananas ARE intelligently designed, they were just a bit out when it came to naming the designer...
This is a wild Banana...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg
-
Best thread ever, weirdest thread ever, or thread that pushes me to try some sort of hallucinogenic substance? Jury's still out.
Maybe I should go and ask what the rock thinks.
-
The rock would have to ask the Mountain ;)
-
:doubt: You just killed all my interest in this thread.
At least until the next post.
-
I would ask to see the wording of the poll
These are often presented with deceptive phrasing so the results are often inaccurate
-
I don't think I doubt polls like this too much. I know a girl who doesn't believe in evolution. She doesn't believe in young earth creaitionism, though. If you mention it, she gets all smug and goes "well, how long is a "day'?"
Usually someone turns around and just says "approximately 23 hours and 58 minutes." It's not worth the stress of arguing with one of the few people who don't refuse to recognize your existence.
-
Wha?
See, people who disbelieve in evolution often say that it's just a theory. (What they fail to realize is that so is the theory of gravity.)
I riffed on that.
-
Wha?
See, people who disbelieve in evolution often say that it's just a theory. (What they fail to realize is that so is the theory of gravity.)
I riffed on that.
Not to mention there's more evidence for evolution than even for gravity.
-
Not to mention there's more evidence for evolution than even for gravity.
Looking around my room this very moment, I'd argue that gravity is far more easily observed. :p
-
Not to mention there's more evidence for evolution than even for gravity.
Looking around my room this very moment, I'd argue that gravity is far more easily observed. :p
Yeah, that statement can't be true
-
Not to mention there's more evidence for evolution than even for gravity.
Looking around my room this very moment, I'd argue that gravity is far more easily observed. :p
Yeah, that statement can't be true
He said there was more evidence for evolution. Which arguably is true.
-
When you take it to the level of Space-Time curvature etc, I wouldn't actually be surprised, yes, we can observe what Gravity does, but the hows and whys, and it's behaviour at macro and micro scales is still probably not as clearly defined as we think.
-
I guess looking at all the species we have there is by number more evidence for evolution.
-
When you take it to the level of Space-Time curvature etc, I wouldn't actually be surprised, yes, we can observe what Gravity does, but the hows and whys, and it's behaviour at macro and micro scales is still probably not as clearly defined as we think.
Well yes, puzzling out the exact mechanics of how natural selection leads to evolution is far more clear-cut than puzzling out the actual mechanics of gravity, but I was kind of being tongue-in-cheek at Ghostavo's apparent implication that it's hard to tell that gravity exists. :p
-
I know, but I can't resist the odd bout of pedantry ;)
-
When you take it to the level of Space-Time curvature etc, I wouldn't actually be surprised, yes, we can observe what Gravity does, but the hows and whys, and it's behaviour at macro and micro scales is still probably not as clearly defined as we think.
Well yes, puzzling out the exact mechanics of how natural selection leads to evolution is far more clear-cut than puzzling out the actual mechanics of gravity, but I was kind of being tongue-in-cheek at Ghostavo's apparent implication that it's hard to tell that gravity exists. :p
I wasn't saying it was hard to tell that gravity exists, I was just saying that the evidence for the theory of gravity while massive, is nowhere as big as the evidence for evolution. One just has to mention the graviton for it to become more apparent. :p
While both are scientific facts, their theories are more than just pointing both facts.
-
How the natural world works is a question for science.
Why the natural world works is a question for philosophy.
Religion is philosophy, not science. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief.
-
How the natural world works is a question for science.
Why the natural world works is a question for philosophy.
Religion is philosophy, not science. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief.
Funny thing is, modern science is the child of philosophy.
-
How the natural world works is a question for science.
Why the natural world works is a question for philosophy.
Religion is philosophy, not science. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief.
Pretty much the exact same point I made on the Epicurus thread.
-
How the natural world works is a question for science.
Why the natural world works is a question for philosophy.
Religion is philosophy, not science. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief.
Funny thing is, modern science is the child of philosophy.
And we are childs of small chordates that looked remarkably like a fillet of fish. Does not mean that we should act like one!
-
I find it interesting that we have a more-or-less equivalent argument on the epicurius quote thread.
-
They're about the similar topics, so that's not a surprise.
-
This thread WAS different... :\
-
In my opinion, at least half of all Britons haven't been participating in evolution, if you know what I mean.
-
Which half would that be?
-
In my opinion, at least half of all Britons haven't been participating in evolution, if you know what I mean.
Oh you'd never know
-
Which half would that be?
The ones who don't realize how momumentally screwed they are in their voting choices?
-
:lol: Good point ;)
Seriously though, I think most people know we can vote either Right-Wing or Right-Wing, the problem is, no other options are available :(
-
This thread is awesome
Basically, that what we perceive as 'us' is just a projection made by our 'greater' selves. It's a short summary really of what I'd stated earlier.
That's what I think also. I don't talk about this very often first because I'm a scientist and there is no way I could show or test this and second I have only met a handful people that can actually do something what I understand as a manifestation of this. I unfortunately don't have words to describe this any further, you just have to know yourself. So ignore me if you please, I don't care. It is a question about some strange kind of sensitivity.
If somebody wants to dig deeper on this, I would start asking how some husbands and wives could tell if their partners died in accidents. Oh by the way Flip, one day I started to think that there are no separate greater 'selves'. It's all them together. That's your home. It was quite relieving thought actually.
Should I add something like "Killing threads legitimately since 2006" to custom text? I bet this thread is pretty much over now that I got my hands on it.
Mika
EDIT: Had to add s's to the end of some words after I realized I said something hilarious Engrish like...
-
I refuse to let you kill this thread! Eh, nevermind, let's just keep the epicurius quote thread going. 10 pages and not a flame or ban! :D
-
I still don't understand what you are saying.
-
I still don't understand what you are saying.
Who? Me?
If that is because of clear grammatical errors in text, then I correct those and let's try again, otherwise, it is the easiest and most clear way I could write the whole thing down. I think there simply isn't any better words to describe those things.
If there isn't grammatical stuff involved, forget the rest and think what I said about accidents. I recall reading something about dogs showing similar behaviour without any possible physical way of information travelling between them. The rest of my post is more metaphysical, about things that you are able to sense and experience or don't.
Mika
-
I still don't understand what you are saying.
Who? Me?
If that is because of clear grammatical errors in text, then I correct those and let's try again, otherwise, it is the easiest and most clear way I could write the whole thing down. I think there simply isn't any better words to describe those things.
If there isn't grammatical stuff involved, forget the rest and think what I said about accidents. I recall reading something about dogs showing similar behaviour without any possible physical way of information travelling between them. The rest of my post is more metaphysical, about things that you are able to sense and experience or don't.
Mika
As a scientist you should know there are plenty of rational explanations for how those dog events could have occurred.
-
As a scientist you should know there are plenty of rational explanations for how those dog events could have occurred.
Yeah, I'm positive that there are many good rational explanations but then again when you know you have experienced the same...
Mika