Why do people find themselves so smart?

Faith is a subjective term, yes. However, I think you and I both understand that the term that is meant here isn't meant in any form outside of the supernatural. Am I correct? If not, I apologize.

Secondly, several scientists have formed natural-based theories which signify that monogamy is a social conditioning in human beings. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it and I never rejected it in practice.

"The Myth of Monogamy" is an interesting read, btw.

 

What I am saying is, that we can't be sure what somebody meant with the word faith until we have further questioned that person about it. I think you just presumed that Ocean Byrd was using the word in a certain way, because you figured that she has religious believes.

Reading through these sentences again, I still can't tell if "the term [faith] that is meant here isn't meant in any form outside of the supernatural."
I don't know if Ocean Byrd has faith based on what she experienced, or if her faith is a blind believe in something without having any evidence.
And even if she was refering to something that get's described as supernatural, it doesn't mean that it is invalid, because just because something is outside the realm of science doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The universerse isn't limited to what science can explain.
What disturbed me about your comments "The point being that faith is based on ignorance." and "Yeah, confirmation bias and argumentum ad ignorantium. Two KEY ELEMENTS to defending any faith" (I put the italics here) was that you were talking in absolutes when there actually isn't an absolute meaning to the term.

And just a quick note about the monogamy issue: just because something is reinforced, or modeled by conditioning doesn't mean that the behaviour is unnatural as such.

 

Hmmmmm ~ I wonder what kind of question a really smart person would ask to start a post like this??

 

And look at how far we've come otherwise since those tribal-scale days:

*The Internet
*Cures for countless diseases and vaccines for virii
*Sunglasses, need I say more?

Yes, there are problems. But our quality of life, on the whole, has improved *drastically.* I agree that we have our priorities out of whack and the system is nowhere near perfect, but it's a much better system than existed thousands and thousands of years ago.

And just think, only thousands of years ago, man couldn't even travel 25,000 mph, he could only travel about ... well, a grand total of 10 or so!

I'd say, in only several thousand years, we've done damn good for ourselves! Again I never claim that we are anywhere CLOSE to doing perfect, but we've come a long way!

Is that possibly because ... *you can't do that*??

Russia borders so many countries ... you can't POSSIBLY use only 4 colours to colour a map, it's asking the impossible, and I'm sure that there are algorithms out there that CAN colour maps, just with more colours.

Technology CAN'T do the absolutely impossible, but it can make some things plausible.

Hah. I haven't ever studied/taken an interest in higher physics or math? Well, shows what you know!

As a matter of fact, I know a *shitload* about physics. Quantum physics, particle physics, I know the different types of quarks, and the combinations of quarks that form up protons and neutrons, antimatter principals, the theories behind black holes, the theories of relativity ... random tidbits about things like seas of Dirac ... and you say I have no interest in it? Pfft!

You just pretend that I actually don't know any of these things because it's convenient.

And secondly, I have just as much of a capacity to "know" that time goes slower as you go faster, as you have capacity to "know" that a god created everything.

The only difference between what we "know?" I can support mine with tons and tons of experimental evidence that we can recreate any number of times, but *you* can't prove jack, nor do you have ANY evidence WHATSOEVER.

The idea that a God exists is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorum, an argument that argues that something exists or is a certain way, even though there is no conclusive evidence that suggests that one does or doesn't.

Like for example ... I could say ... aliens DO exist, because the possibilities of them existing is so probable, and because you can't prove that they don't exist! But, that'd be a flawed argument, because I can't prove nor do I have any evidence that even suggests that aliens do exist.

My mistake. I was rather tired when I wrote that post.

Alright, I'll give you that much. Regardless, that covers one part that is insulting; not the rest of it by any means. Perhaps you'd like to explain the rest?

Secondly, *I don't pretend or assume that I or anyone else knows much about the real world.* That's where you are wrong. Like Plato/Socrates, I stand by the reasoning that, the only thing I know, is that I know nothing. But, even though I know nothing, I can still show, relatively, that certain things are in certain states in certain ways. This is possible only through science; not through religion.

And thanks for the links, I take your point on the heathens part.

I have *already explained* how you are believing blindly, LOOK AT MY FIRST RESPONSE. But, just for you, I'll do it again.

We know that human perceptions cannot be counted on 100%, so nothing that we experience can be concluded as real. The Matrix movies and psychoactive drugs have shown us that this is true.

Because you cannot rely on your personal perceptions to be 100% accurate, and because you have concuded that there is *WITHOUT A DOUBT* a God, this means that you are not accounting for the possibility that your perceptions are inaccurate.

Take, for example, NASA. Even though their calculations MIGHT be off by just .0000001%, they could miss the orbit of the moon entirely and the mission could be a disaster. Simiarly, even though you may PERCIEVE that there is a God, you can't 100% RELY on that information, or POSSIBLY come to a concusion that your perception is entirely accurate.

Because you do not account for the possibility that your perception is wrong, you are having blind faith in your perceptions, believing (blindly) that they cannot possibly be wrong in any way.

We already have evidence that shows that people often believe what they want to believe. We know that placebo pills, half the time, work just as well as real medicine, so why not placebo with religion? That's my exact point: Just because you *THINK* it's real, or *BELIEVE* it's real, doesn't mean that it's actually the case.

Especially when you can't verify anything you say to another person.

Science does not suggest that God doesn't exist, nor does it suggest that God does exist. But religion has this misconception that science is out to prove that God exists.

If a God exists, science exists to understand what God has created, for our own benefit. That's all.

Exactly. Except, it's not "by chance." It'd be much more accurate to say, "by probability." Even though entropy is a law, so is gravity. Entropy spreads things apart, and gravity pulls things together. Using a combination of these forces into a way of organizing information, and trying different variations on these combinations, over billions and billions of years, in tons and tons of different conditions, life is bound to evolve SOMEWHERE in the universe (which is HUUUUUUUUGE and has TONS of possibilities).

So is religion. It was once thought that, according to science, the universe was like a sea of Dirac; an endless sea of negative-charge particles. This was later proven to be false, but our calculations started working because we thought of it in this way.

The reason we were misguided? We were ignorant! However, now that we are no longer so misguided, we are not as ignorant.

With religion, however, look at how many religions there are in conflict with one another! They have been in conflict for so many years, that there is no way you can even begin to think that one of them is right or wrong! No evidence is ever capable of proving anything religious to be true, and we ARE ignorant!

The only thing we can do, as ignorant people, is try to figure out the world around us. Ignorant people stay ignorant by worshipping things born from heir ignroance, but we become wise by learning (which is what science is a grand process of; learning).

Hundreds of people witness a miracle or spiritual phenomenon? Give me some examples of this ever happening, and you may not use holy texts (since they are disputably badly translated or even fictional).

Who, that you know of, is witness to a miracle that *I* would be able to see?

And, why are the scientists more reliable? Let me enlighten you: Because scientists can reproduce their observations COUNTLESS times, but when people see a miracle, they see it once, and then they can't ever even prove that it happened. THAT is why it is unreliable. Not because man has a need for control (though man DOES have a need for that), but because scientists can re-create what they observe, to prove that it exists.

And, I have not written off your perceptions as false. Nowhere in my posts have I done that. I have simply said, that you are *blindly* believing, because you are not accounting for a simple possibility. I'm not saying they ARE false, they may very well be true, but it's still blind faith because you fail to acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong.

Of course not, *that is not what I said.* I said, people who don't account for the possibility that what they observed could be false, are people who have blind faith in something.

Almost none which have been disproved? Who says they have been PROVED to begin with? I don't have to disprove jack if you haven't proven that it's true to begin with.

Listen, how many religious and holy texts are there out there? The Bible, the Koran, the Tathagata ... all of those several tens of holy writings, THEY CAN'T ALL BE RIGHT. If one of them and only one of them is right, then that means *THE REST OF THEM ARE FICTIONAL.*

Now, if that means that there are tens of these holy writings are fictional ... why can't one more be fictional?

People argue about how "valid" the Bible is, but they only argue this because of how long people have believed in it! People believed in Egyptian gods and pagan gods for just as long, but rarely are these even considered "valid" because not many people believe in them anymore. What makes Christianity, Catholicism, or Judiasm any more valid?

The Bible has thousands of "verified" stories? The Bible also contradicts itself all over the place. In the Bible, it says that, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth, right? So, heaven MUST be a place. Then, God created man afterwards. Yet, it is later said that the Kingdom of Heaven is as a mustard seed, for it grows within you.

So, is it a place? Is it a state of mind? What is it? The Bible calls it many things, but it can't be all of them.

Exactly. We can't "prove" anything, but because you take your perceptions to be "indisputable" and you have NO DOUBTS WHATSOEVER about God existing, you are being a blind believer. You take your perceptions as proof, and then admit that they aren't.

 

Our quality of life has improved drastically? Or has it...?
This entirely depends on how you define quality of life.
We like to believe that we have it so much better these days than people in ancient times, but infact we don't know that at all.
True, they didn't have the Internet and all sorts of other technological advancements, but they also weren't exposed to toxics in their food, polluted air and water and they were living a sustainable way of life instead of raping the planet of it's recources. They didn't have to work multiple jobs to be able to pay their food, rent and all the other things that belong to our modern standard of living. They weren't bombarded by advertisment that creates (false) desires and were spending time with each others instead of sitting infront of the TV and getting brainwashed by the media. Yes, I know not everybody lives like that, but look at our society. Many, if not most people are unhappy, stressed, unhealthy and detached from nature and sometimes one has to ask were love has gone.
All this advancements you are mentioning might seem great, but aren't they just substitutes for what our lives are lacking these days?
Sure people in ancient times were living much simpler lives, but I tend to believe that they were overall more happy and in touch with nature and imo that is an indicator for a high quality of living and not what kind of fancy car one is driving or that one can take a plane and fly to another country (for one's annual two weeks holiday. Haha)
And since you seem so convinced that vaccines are such a great advancement of our scientific progress I suggest to read the article
Dispelling the Vaccination Myth.

 

I think people are less connected with each other now that we don't need each other as immediately as ancient people did.
I've met people from poorer parts of the world and on the one hand the life they describe in their home country sounds harsh; poverty, lack of convienances, less access to medical, etc.
On the other hand these people also tell stories of how close their families and communitys are. I think that makes up for alot.

 

Haha, well I feel like we are closing in on some sort of argreement, so at least that's good.

Here is why I disagree:

Have we come a long way in the perspective of man? Yes, in a very short time. Have we come a very long way in the perspective of the universe, knowledge, etc. NO. I think this point sums up my overall argument very well.

I strongly disagree that the system "thousands and thousands" of years ago was inferior to ours now. Keep in mind that things like vaccines, etc. all became serious problems only AFTER tribal-scale cultures had been replaced by "big-man" cultures in which large populations of people now began living together. In a sense all we've started to do is correct problems which we created.

--Also, while physical health may have been poorer, I think it is abundantly clear that modern life is incredibly unhealthy for the mind. Put into perspective I really do not think we've come very far, its just an illusion. The majority of our modern "improvements" are simply temporary cures for problems we created. See the post above regarding vaccines.

I'm glad you have an interest in the stuff, if you do, then I was wrong.



*However, If you can do that proof I'm sure the mathematical community would love to know, in fact you'd probably be set for life. It is comments like the above which lead me to question your ability to comprehend, and your background in the subjects we are discussing. It is indeed very possible to color a map with only 4 colors and have no 2 colors touch, however our math system is so lacking that there is no proof for it. You continually are demonstrating your ignorance on these subjects. I don't think I really need to say anything further.

You rip on me for basing my belief on perceptions (mine own, mind you, as compared with you’re your indirect perceptions in which you place your trust), but how else do you experience something? I'm pretty sure you "know" your evidence through your perceptions, or am I wrong here??? These experiments are based on the perceptions of instruments built by man, then perceived a second time by the scientists. The end conclusion is often 3 or more times removed from the actual observation. Now, do I think this makes them wrong? No, that would be silly. My point is that I hope you can see that you need to more clearly define "perceptions" as flawed if they are going to be the base of your argument.



Secondly, the idea that God exists is not a fallacy. An idea cannot itself be a fallacy; only the reason for believing can be a fallacy. A fallacy is a flaw in logic. Simply because I cannot produce God for you to see does not make the belief any type of fallacy. You stated earlier that you believed in some higher power, are you recanting that now? As far as conclusive evidence, I’ve given what I believe to be conclusive evidence in terms of the way life is organized, and that there is the act of “being” itself. Eventually the buck has to stop somewhere; that is to say I think there must be an absolute, as tough of a concept as that is to get a hold of (myself included).

I’m not even going to try and argue with that, it is way too vague.

You’re argument here can easily be turned on science. Skepticism can be taken to an almost infinite level, you use double standards of which degree you take this to to accept science and deny the possibility of God. That’s just poor arguing prowess.



The Matrix movies prove something??? Haha, that’s a good one. I’m in the boat with DesCartes, and though everything else may be a deception, my mind is mine and proof that I am.



I think you are under the impression that I do not understand your argument on this particular topic, but I do. You are just skewing your degree of skepticism when differentiating between God and science. I could (using quantum mechanics as scientific proof) validly say there is absolutely no evidence that you or I exist, so then what is left??? At least with my argument I am basing my beliefs on my experiences. You seem to think that my experiences/perceptions are merely sensory. There were actual events, beyond chance as well as sensory perceptions which led me to my conclusions.

I completely agree that that is what science was, however it has become a means of defining man as his own god. (which is my problem with modern science)

That is an assumption. There is absolutely no proof that life spontaneously begins, or that there is other life. Is it possible, sure, is there proof? No. (Pleeeeaaase don’t cite the “amino acids” experiment, the jump from amino acids to complex life is just way way way way way to large for that experiment to hold any validity as an argument.) I can accept a pseudo-evolutionary belief after a significant organism is created, but the spontaneous formation of life is, even over such a period of time a very near statistical impossibility.

Why does science continually fail to see that EVEN IF LIFE WERE TO DEVELOP IT WOULD BE EQUALLY AS LIKELY TO BE DESTROYED BY SAID “CONDITIONS”? THUS NEGATING THE PROBABILITY TO ZERO. I mean, just the very idea that once 1 cell formed, it would self-propagate, know what to “eat” to survive, and do everything else necessary to survive is almost insane.

This is EXACTLY what I was trying to point out, and get people to contemplate with my post! I’m glad you said that. THE ASSUMPTION THAT OUR ONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE IS “RIGHT.” Our perspective is no more correct, absolute, or omniscient than any previous generation. History has proven this time and time again. The most dangerous knowledge is common knowledge because no one questions it. It’s a great irony that science was persecuted by religion in earlier centuries, now religion is persecuted by science.

You are correct, I used religion and God interchangeably, my fault. I place almost no trust in “religion” or individual “religions.” By “religion” I meant to say the belief in God, I should have defined that.

Science has becoming something to be worshipped, not a grand process of learning. Go out on the street and ask anyone very, very, very basic questions about science and they will come up blank. Then ask them, if they believe in God, and if they say no, ask them why? A great majority will say “there is no scientific proof” or “science has proven evolution,” etc. They simply believe based on assumptions. You would be no less convinced that the world was flat 700 years ago than you are convinced science is providing reliable answers about the universe now.

There are literally thousands of examples. The Virgin Mary at Lourdes, various well documented exorcisms, etc. Hehe, since you’re citing movies as proof go watch The Exorcist (j/k). Just because something is not manipulateable (sp?) by man, does not mean it doesn’t exist. No one has ever seen a quasar with their own eyes, it is observed by machines (imperfect ones at that) built by man. Just because man can’t build a machine to measure “supernatural” phenomena, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t or can’t exist.

I agree with you about sciences ability to reproduce, however, that wasn’t what my argument was trying to point out. You don’t acknowledge that similar spiritual things happen to different people with incredibly close details, however they can’t control them, so they’re false.

If you can give me an example where science accepts something where it’s perception cannot be controlled or manipulated I’d like to hear it. *This is a seemingly small thing, but if you really think about its common acceptance I think it will cause you to reconsider.*



There are many things witnessed and experienced by many people (near death experiences for one) that have details (for people spotting objects on roof tops which they could not have possibly known about) which if not for the spiritual nature of the event would be accepted.

First, like I said I didn’t mean to bring organized religion into it, I went off on a tangent, I just wanted to talk about the existence of God. At any rate, that argument could be said of science as well. Do you think that in 200 years people will still see the “planetary” view of the atom (like you and I were taught in school) as valid? Nope.

You’re taking those out of context and using them as proof. In the first example “heaven” speaks of the universe as a physical place. In the second, “heaven” is the spiritual domain of God, beyond the physical.

So my 2 choices are: make an educated decision based on MY perceptions, and MY experiences, and MY research or base my decision on OTHER peoples perceptions, OTHER’S experiences, and OTHER’S research, and mine is the blind choice???????

 

Everybody does both. cest la vei...

 

I don't think that it's necessarily an agreement, but a conclusion ... yeah, yeah I think maybe with a little more hammering out we'll have something. =)

This point I agree with you on. However, I'm not concerned about knowing everything about the universe. Look how small each of us is, in the grand scheme of things; do you think it's even POSSIBLE to know most of the things about this universe? =P

I don't think it is right to give a god credit for *everything.* Because there ARE some things that man has accomplished (and in my opinion, I see no reason to give a specific god credit for doing ANYTHING, as most of them are just made up by man to begin with).

While this is true, in some cases, in other cases, we've been working to correct problems that we have always been plagued with. We've conquered the heat, the cold, we've learned agriculture ... we can work with genetics to make things better or worse. I'm not going to go on and on forever, because that's pointless, but ... we create some problems, and are working to fix them. We also have fixed many problems we haven't created. All in all, we are *well on our way,* in my opinion.

I do think that, thousands of years ago, our system was pretty bad. I sure as hell don't want to be an Egyptian slave, forced to carry blocks that literally weigh tons, with hundreds of my fellow slaves, for 18 hours a day ...

This I will agree with you on. However, people (as I'm sure you know) have always been lemmings, and have always been pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Even though, right now, many people indulge in a lifestyle that is incredibly unhealthy for the mind, most of this is *just* in America (which is definately the most misguided country), and in a few other industrialized countries.

Out in countries like India or Brasil, life is harder, but it's also much more wholesome. And hey, I live in America, and I think my lifestyle is pretty healthy, for mind, body, and even soul (if I end up having one). Sometimes, I marvel just at the accomplishment we have of being able to get onto these forums and have an argument. =P

I don't think it's our math system that's lacking. Rather, our computing technology.

While we may not have a program that can colour maps so perfectly, we DO have a program that can beat a human in a game of Chess.

But take in mind, for example, the game of Go (or Igo in Japan/Ogo in China). A 19x19 grid with only two pieces: a black stone and a white stone. And our best AI is only equivalent to a child. But ... do you know why? It's because, if we built in the actual thinking patterns of a Go master into our slow, slow computers, it would take years just to think through a single game, because of the vast number of options.

Regardless, why don't you show me a map that uses only 4 colours? I'm still relatively unconvinced that it's possible.

How else do you experience something? You can't.

I'm not trying to say that you're a complete idiot for basing your beliefs on your perceptions. That's not what I'm saying at all; I base my beliefs on perceptions too. However, I also acknowledge the possibility that my perceptions are wrong or misleading, so I don't have "blind faith" in my perceptions. You were ripping on people for having blind belief, but since you don't acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong (for whatever reason), that can easily be called blind faith, because you're turning a blind eye to that possibility, like tunnelvision.

I know only evidence that I have gathered through my perceptions, and while I do base my beliefs off of that evidence, I do not make any conclusions that aren't probabilities. I don't usually say, "this is DEFINATELY ALWAYS this way" or "that is never this way," unless it's in regards to something that is literally impossible within the system of logic that we experience (such as 4 being equal to 5; that is NEVER possible in our system of logic; Kharakov and I had a long discussion about that).

But that's exactly my point. You haven't acknowledged that perceptions aren't 100% precise; you've only based your beliefs off of your perceptions, and haven't thought about the possibility that they might not be precise.

Try describing an ice cube: Cold. Transparent. Melting.

If you describe an ice cube as "cold, transparent, and melting," that's a better description than describing an ice cube just as "cold." Both descriptions are very accurate, but one of them is more precise than the other; like rounding from the nearest .1 compared to rounding from the nearest .0001.

However, no amount of words in any language, will give you the essence of a true ice cube. With perceptions, there is *ALWAYS,* no matter what, a loss of precision, and since perceptions are external, there is always a degree to which they are warped or skewed. And this is especially true with the workings of our brains; percpetions become EXTREMELY warped, just by taking psychoactive substances, like LSD or cannabis.

I'm sure I don't have to lecture you about that, but ... look at oxygen, and carbon dioxide! BOTH of these have been determined to be psychoactive; if you stick your head into a box filled with CO2, and breathe in a few times, *you will feel strong effects similar to that of LSD.*

My point is, every single one of our perceptions is warped, even if it's just by the things that we breathe in the air. Because of this, we have no idea exactly how much it's warped, we only have this fleeting idea that it isn't warped, because our perceptions tend to match up and make sense most of the time, because we are exposed to these chemicals so much.

You are correct; I think I didn't use the right wording. I didn't mean to imply (or express) that the idea of a God existing is a fallacy. What you said here is true.

I do believe in a higher power; that of the universe itself, including its physics, laws, and logic.

The problem I have with the typical deitic conception is ... take Ockham's Razor to it, and it'll be cut to shreds. Let me give you an example:

It makes MUCH more sense to say this:

The universe just up and created itself, or has always existed.

Than it does to say this:

God just up and created himself, or has always existed, and then God created the universe.

Since there is no empirical evidence (other than human imagination) that supports the idea that there is a God or that there is some kind of intelligent, non-random design throughout the universe, it just doesn't seem to make sense to me to conclude that there is a god. It seems like an unnecessary step.

If everything was created by some kind of higher being, then what created that higher being? If that being has always existed, or created itself, then why can't the universe itself undergo the same phenomena? It MUST be possible, if some kind of god has done it.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here ... perhaps you can re-explain?

I'm not arguing that. The Matrix backs up DesCartes' idea! The Matrix concept is that all of our perceptions can be false, even if they make sense. But, even if they are all false, the fact that you can think and experience *something* is definate proof that you do exist, in some way, shape, or form.

First off, I don't think you understand the situation of quantum physics.

Using current quantum physics rules, it is possible to prove that (1) an infinite number of multiple universes exist, and (2) our universe doesn't exist.

Now, think here ... if you can prove that ALL possible universes exist, and at the same time, prove that THIS universe DOESN'T exist ... that is a DIRECT contradiction, that is definate proof that the laws of quantum physics are flawed, whether it's because they are incomplete, or because they are just plain wrong.

So, even if you can prove that you and I do not exist, you can ONLY prove this using a flawed system of logic (quantum physics), which is already hypothetical as it is.

So the laws of quantum physics have no place in a logical debate to begin with.

Secondly, my argument is ALSO based on beliefs on my experiences; you seem to have failed to see this. However, I acknowledge that my experiences may be distorted and wrong. My argument with you is NOT that "God is illogical," it's that, you came here saying that we blindly believe in science, but you're the one who hasn't acknowledged that your experiences could be distorted even if they make a lot of sense.

All of my experiences and beliefs, which are based on science, I only hold these to be valid IF my experiences are real. Since they make sense to me, I consider them to be real, unless I have other experiences that don't make sense.

But because of this, I can't say that I have concluded, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that the universe is a higher power. I can say, evidence I have obtained through my experiences heavily SUGGESTS that the universe is a higher power, but I can't conclude it with no doubts whatsoever.

I think the problem here, is not with science, but with your (and my and other people's) perceptions of science.

People who throw their chips in with science rarely do it because it defines man as his own god. They do it because it's the only thing they have that makes sense that they can rely on.

I throw my chips in with science for this same reason. However, because science has evidence that indicates that certain religions are wrong, many religions have this idea that science is some kind of Satanic power that allows people to define themselves as gods (and thus prove that the religion is wrong).

This is the dictionary.com definition of science:

Nowhere in here does it say anything about man being defined as a god. Instead, it only explains that science is related to our knowledge of our situation. Look at number 4: Knowledge, *especially that gained through experience.*

I mean, science is the ONLY thing we can rely on, because it's all about observing, identifying, describing, and investigating our experiences. It's not about us being our own gods or anything of the sort. Anything superfluous to science is religious.

And yet, according to what we DO know thanks to science, the idea that the Earth was created only around 6,000 years ago, is ALSO very near a statistical impossibility.

Science and religion are merely two ways of going about explaining the same event: Our existance.

The only difference is, science goes about explaining it by examining the things we experience, and most religion goes about it by stating that there is a higher power which we cannot prove exists, which created us.

You need to remember: science has given us ONLY THEORIES. Religion is exactly the same!

We, as human beings, *DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER!*

We are SEARCHING for it, but neither religion or science is capable of answering all of our questions.

Science, however, is incomplete; we are not done examining our experiences, as you very well know. Religion, on the other hand, is pretty much complete; it's all layed out in holy texts already.

Science will continue to investigate the truth, through theories which are just as often incorrect as they are correct, until we find the truth. It's a process of elimination: If this and that are true, then this other thing cannot be true.

Remember, the theory of evolution IS A THEORY. So is creationism: nothing more than a THEORY that cannot be proven. We don't actually KNOW for certain what happened, but we can examine our experiences to have a better idea of what MIGHT have happened.

Our theory of evolution is, by and large, *INCOMPLETE.* One day, it may be complete, and there may indeed BE proof that we evolved. There isn't proof now, but we aren't very advanced as a species yet either.

Your statement (which I bolded here) is absolutely correct. HOWEVER, while we are not definately more correct, absolute, or omniscient, we DO have more knowledge than previous generations, with regards to our experiences. Science is only a means of putting a puzzle together. The puzzle isn't complete (yet), but it MAY become complete as we advance through the ages.

As for persecution ... you say that religion is now persecuted by science, but *take a look at our boards on the Hip Forums here!*

It's not that "one persecutes the other," it's that both sides are trying to persecute eachother! It'd be ignorant to say that only one of them is persecuting the other. You're the one here, representing religion, who is making assumptions and persecuting the people who believe in science by saying we have blind belief and such things!!

 

If science has become something to be worshipped and not a grand process of learning, then your perception of what science is is wrong.

I do not "worship" science or come to any conclusions for worshipping ANYTHING due to science. Religion is what calls for worship, science only calls for investigation.

I do not know anyone who does "worship" science or anything of the sort. The only truth about worshipping science is that, because people use science to back up their beliefs, religion has deemed science as evil and anti-religious (the latter of which it may very well be), and has falsely concluded that people worship science or believe that science is some kind of ultimate god or is the answer to ultimate truth, which it is not! It is MERELY a method for TRYING to find the truth, and it may or may not lead us there!

If you honestly believe that science is something to be worshipped, then you need to sit down and re-think your beliefs about it!

Even if you ask people basic questions about science, and they answer that "there is no scientific proof" regarding God ... okay, let me explain it like this.

If you ask a person if there are ice cream factories on Mars, and they answer no, because there is no scientific evidence ... it's not that there is scientific evidence AGAINST ice cream factories on Mars scientific evidence FOR ice cream factories on Mars.

The question of "is there a God?" never arises, because we have no evidence that suggests that one might exist to begin with.

Science is not about "providing reliable answers about the universe" as you suggest. Science is a method for TRYING to provide reliable answers. It doesn't promise them, but because science is an investigation of our experiences, it is the ONLY thing that we have to work with, if we are truly going to go out and find these answers for ourselves.

And who says it is wrong or conceited for us to want to find out these answers? You want to know them just as much as I do! You just hold religion to be the ultimate answer.

First off, about the Matrix movie ... I did NOT point that out as "proof," only as an indication, a *fabricated story,* that explains HOW our experiences might easily be manipulated and distorted.

Secondly, it's not about supernatural phenomena not or being unable to exist. It's that, there is no reason to believe that it exists, unless you have experiential evidence for it.

That being said, you have experiential evidence that suggests that a god exists. And I don't slight you for this being true. However ...

You have come here and arrogantly told me and others that we are blind blievers in science, when you are the one who hasn't acknowledged that experiences can be wrong!

This is why science works in probabilities and not so much in definate answers. This is why we learn statistics and probabilities, in addition to calculus and mathematics.

Stop assuming that I think all experiences are false just because they aren't 100% correct. I am NOT saying that.

I am saying that, you can't TAKE an experience to be absolutely 100% true (which is what you have done, and then claimed that we have done, and insulted us for it!).

I don't understand what you're asking; can you rephrase the question? What do you mean by "its perception cannot be controlled or manipulated?" Perhaps you can give a few examples or counter-examples?

Take near death experiences for example.

On the streets, you can buy a drug called "DMT," or dimethyltryptamine. It is highly psychoactive and very powerful; considered to be one of the most overwhelming psychoactives, with regards to sensory input and disotortion of experiences.

However, science has shown us ... that DMT is *produced* in the cerebral cortex of the brain, DURING a near death experience, as a bodily function, to CALM the self!

As person who has tried a psychoactive (Salvia divinorum) that is described as "rather similar" to DMT, in regards to its nature of percpetion distorting, I have also had "spiritual" experiences that I was convinced were real. However, because I knew that I was under the influence of a psychoactive, I was able to deduce that the experience was so distorted that I could not take it to be definately real.

But because people don't KNOW that they're under the influence of DMT when they are having a near-death experience, they usually believe that it was 100% real.

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

That's a link to some information about the gland that produces DMT.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt.shtml

And there's a link to Erowid information about DMT; if you peruse the articles, I'm sure you will find information about how DMT is produced in the brain during near-death experiences.

It's not the "spiritual nature" of the experience that makes it unaccepted, it's the fact that people literally don't know that they're tripping balls when they're having these experiences.

You are correct. However, the "planetary" view of the atom, is *just a theory,* again. Many people, today, theorize that it's very very far from a "planetary" view.

In fact, I personally don't even think that the planetary view is correct. I just think it's a convenient way of graphically representing the concepts we are talking about.

Granted. I can see how that makes sense.

That has nothing to do with it, *at all.*

Your choice is blind because you fail to acknowledge that, no matter WHOSE experiences you base your beliefs on, those experiences can *very, very* easily be highly distorted, and still make sense (like with DMT or Salvia divinorum).

If carbon dioxide and oxygen can be shown to be as psychoactive as LSD, DMT, and Salvia, then how can we rely on those experiences to be 100% accurate? Yet, this is exactly what you have done, and then you have accused the rest of us of doing this (when we haven't), and insulted us for it!

Anyway, the end. =P Sorry for such a long post, and sorry I took a long time to response. I just never got around to it; I just got a job over the summer and there are more hours than full time (because I need the money), so I've been pretty tired over the past week.

 

Off topic, but I thought they taught you that the 'planetary view' was incorrect in school, that it was just a way of representing the # of particles? The electron is not in a specific place, it's more of a wave that is spread out in the electron cloud around the atom?

Ohh, and '5 = 4' in some instances, such as a substitution cypher chart.

The only way the quantity 5 = the quantity 4 is if God wanted it too.

 

Ok, I got you. I agree with you; I definitely do not think it is possible to know most of the things about this universe. That’s why I asked “why do people find themselves so smart?” is because I think many people assume that science can know everything about the universe, and thus conclusively negate the possibility that there is a God.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “give credit to,” but I do agree that many gods are made up by man.

I am speaking mainly about domestic/tribal scale culture which was (so far) the longest lasting and most efficient type of cultural organization. Tribes were always under 500 people. This occurred up to about 5K years ago, before the advent of political, large scale cultures. These types of cultures were the only ones to demonstrate a sustained adaptive system. Also, slavery is still a problem today, and was until relatively recently a large problem in this very country. Sure we’ve learned agriculture, but even that was only to cope with growing populations and problems feeding people. I’m not saying all modern advancements have been completely detrimental, there are many things which are good, but most of them, if you track them far enough to the source are destructive to the environment or a group of people in some way. Like with agriculture, there more than enough food to feed the entire world, with surplus, but due to the mal-distribution of wealth and power the poorest are neglected. Hmm, anyhow, I’m drifting off topic into anthro.

I do agree. But even living in America, what we (myself included) completely neglect is the degree to which we indirectly participate in the complete exploitation of pretty much the rest of the world. The fact that the rest of the world is on some level envious and striving towards a capitalistic economy (if not political system) suggests to me that there is little hope for reconciling to a “happy medium” of balance between consumption and production, power and its distribution.

I don’t disagree with your examples at all, but I do disagree that our mathematical system is advanced enough to conquer the types of problems people are now running into. Also, the computers have proven to be as good as people at chess, no better, no worse. Then watch the person, get up, walk around, drive home, etc. And the computer can simply calculate odds. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. At any rate, here is an example of a 4 color map.

Ok, I see your point. I’m not saying that there is no possibility that there is no God. That is a possibility, no question about it. However, for myself I have come to the conclusion that there is, and there is nothing strong enough at this point (since I have had enough “proof” to convince me) to suggest convincingly that there is no God, I will believe %100 that there is a God.

I know my perceptions aren’t %100 accurate. In a past life (haha) I’ve tried more than my fair share of psychedelic drugs, from salvia and ayahusca to all the available RCs. My point is that, scientific perceptions and logic are *just* as likely to be skewed as are my theistic experiences. If my belief was based on 1 vision of God coming to me in the middle of the night, then yes I would understand others being highly suspect of its validity; however, after my own personal experiences, including actual physical events, coincidences, etc. I have ruled conclusively as to what my beliefs are. I think at some point there is a black, and there is a white, its just that there is A LOT of gray in between. I get the feeling that you are a skeptic, in which case it is all gray, not that that is wrong, but I believe that are absolutes, even if we as people cannot fully understand what that means.

That’s what I mean by an absolute. Something that just is. It’s a nearly impossible concept for anyone to really grasp as it is beyond logic, but I think (that is to say my personal epistemological base) at some point there must be an absolute. This also ties in with my criticizing your “skepticism.” Everything can be reduced to nothing if you take it far enough, for example perceptions. I think if you’re going to criticize perceptions and the religious conclusions people can draw from them, then science must be put to the same scrutiny. At any rate, I’ve given you examples of “intelligent, non-random design,” to which you replied that they were natural, balancing phenomena, agreeing on the ends, but disagreeing with me on the means…so I’ve got to ask do you think there is, or is not intelligent design?

In the end there isn’t really a right or wrong in terms of the foundation of epistemology. There are quite a few “valid” starting points, and the conclusions drawn by people are of course going to be in large part based on their initial views. I think this is probably why we are in disagreement.



Quote:

You’re argument here can easily be turned on science. Skepticism can be taken to an almost infinite level, you use double standards of which degree you take this to to accept science and deny the possibility of God. That’s just poor arguing prowess.

I mean that if you’re going to be skeptical of religious perceptions you need to place an equal amount of skepticism on scientific observations.

I agree, and so it stands to reason that at some point there was a definite beginning. I know I didn’t create myself. I also know that I have not always been in the state I am in. So, there is one more reason I see to believe in some single higher power, which I call God.

I understand QP pretty well. It’s not possible yet (or maybe at any future point) to prove either one of those situations. My argument is that using your skepticism, backed by the current trends in QP I could say that there is only a probability that you are I are even here. According to QP we may very well be phantom interactions from some other universe. The deeper QP goes, the more it seems that the “physical” world is just arbitrary interactions of energies which are not understood. So how can science come to “hard” conclusions in the macro world when the “micro” world is a near complete mystery? It’s like attempting calculus when you don’t understand how the Arabic number system is setup. This is my point.

First, (I thought I had stated this in a previous post, but if not, here it is) I never laid a blanket statement that all atheists believe blindly, or that all religious people do not believe blindly. I understand the door swings both ways, and believe me, I have witnessed enough stupidity on the religious side that I often become outright depressed because they turn people completely off to explore the possibility of God for themselves. If you would re-read the 1st post I think you would see that. I stated that most of the attacks I saw on people’s beliefs in God were based on their belief/assumption that man can comprehend ALL, and that science held all the answers, which I *think* we have established that we both agree is not the case.

Second, I agree, you have to make due with the experiences and perceptions laid out/established to and by yourself. I never once stated that your beliefs were wrong. I questioned WHY you believed what you did, and you seem to know why, I’ve got absolutely no problem with that. Again, certain things became clear to me after years of doubt, research, experiences and perceptions which proved to me beyond any doubt that there is a God.

 

I agree that science does not explicitly say it has all the answers; “science” is of course defined by people and not some independent living entity. However, like I’ve said previously science only accepts answers which are manipulate-able and controllable by people and their instruments, after all this is a defining point of a valid experiment or observation. Being that we are not close to omniscient, I think this severely limits sciences abilities to explain anything conclusively.

I think any scientist/researcher worth his salt would agree that for every 1 answer quite a few more questions arise, and that our understanding of the universe/world is truly infinitesimal. The same goes for philosophers (as we’ve already talked about). The problem that I see is that the general public has accepted somehow into their ontological beliefs that science does indeed hold all the answers. Since science is defined by people, that is why I say it has become something to be worshiped, and accepted as all powerful.

This idea is never outright, but actions speak louder than words. People in large part seem very sure that humanity is on the cusp of omniscience, however if you look at the planet the chances of us destroying ourselves is becoming ever more likely, and I would dare to say nearly inevitable at this point.

Quote:

That is an assumption. There is absolutely no proof that life spontaneously begins, or that there is other life. Is it possible, sure, is there proof? No. (Pleeeeaaase don’t cite the “amino acids” experiment, the jump from amino acids to complex life is just way way way way way to large for that experiment to hold any validity as an argument.) I can accept a pseudo-evolutionary belief after a significant organism is created, but the spontaneous formation of life is, even over such a period of time a very near statistical impossibility.

The idea that the Earth was created 6K years ago was devised by a single clergyman, the bible never said, or implied anything of the sort. (Also, I’d like to keep the arguments to God vs. no God, rather than religion vs. no religion.)

I’m not sure what science has to do with this point on creation (as my point in bringing up creation/evolution was in regards to “proof” that a higher power exists, not in that science is a better means of explaining existence better then religion).



Quote:

Why does science continually fail to see that EVEN IF LIFE WERE TO DEVELOP IT WOULD BE EQUALLY AS LIKELY TO BE DESTROYED BY SAID “CONDITIONS”? THUS NEGATING THE PROBABILITY TO ZERO. I mean, just the very idea that once 1 cell formed, it would self-propagate, know what to “eat” to survive, and do everything else necessary to survive is almost insane.

Again, this is taking this discussion off topic. My point is that life itself (and its very structure) is proof of the “intelligible design” of which you were skeptical of (as quoted in this post above). Other than that, I agree, they are both theories, however I think the idea that life began with a “nudge” from a higher power, then evolved further is really the only logical theory at this point.

I agree that we have more knowledge, but at the same time we’ve got A LOT more questions, so overall I think we are pretty close to the same place. And what have we done with the knowledge??? We still have the exact same problems, only on a larger scale.

My statement on persecution was rather tongue in cheek; though it is true in the real world outside of the Hip Forums. What is taught in schools? What do the majority of people believe? What’s on the media? Etc, etc.

And again, if I have to reiterate this point one more time my head may explode. I never “persecuted” anyone, go back and read the posts. My argument was towards a very specific group of people, and it was and is completely valid. I never once laid a blanket statement on any group, or said anyone was wrong. I pointed out the ignorance of a choosing one viewpoint over another. And, I never said anything about religion in the initial post, I said “God.” I’d like to hear what assumptions I made. I showed the “blind belief” in a very specific context and used very specific examples. You are side-stepping quite a few of my arguments and turning them into a religion vs. science debate.

No one has deemed science evil. Science is again an inanimate thing, it is on the whole what people make of it. People have for the most part given it to connotation that it can, or will be able to explain, and conquer EVERYTHING. Perhaps “worship” was the wrong word, but I do not think it is far off. Science has been put on some sort of pedestal as the means to a higher understanding and salvation for humanity. Again, you side step the point and turn this into an argument about science vs. religion, instead of why people believe what they do and their assumptions. The point (quite obviously I might add) is that people use science as a basis for their belief system, when in fact most have an extremely questionable understanding of science to begin with, and thus, their believe blindly.

No one says it is wrong or conceited; did I ever even come close to saying that??? I said it was wrong to assume science is right.

“…We know that human perceptions cannot be counted on 100%, so nothing that we experience can be concluded as real. The Matrix movies and psychoactive drugs have shown us that this is true.”

Seems like you’re using it as proof to me.

There is reason to believe they exist, as I already stated above (thousands of individual accounts, etc.)

Geez, again, I stated clearly who and why they were “blind believers,” if you can’t read, or refuse to, that’s your problem. It’s not arrogant, its truth.

And again, science only accepts what it can control, I’ve shown this, you don’t accept it, but provide no argument against it.

Science does work in theory like you say, however this is not the understanding of science that I would argue most of the world takes. (Again, this point has been said by me at least three times)

You’ve argued this point over and over again. I’ve told you it was a series of numerous things, over the span of years which led me to decide conclusively that there is a God. Regardless of that, it has no effect on my argument whatsoever; it just continues to be something which you seem to use to avoid my point.

I think I’ve already cleared this up above, but just to be sure….For example: a scientific experiment must be executable by people. Scientists must control the experiment.

First off, I’ve done dmt as well as salvia. The experiences are in no way, shape, or form close to what is described by people with near-death experiences, nor are they anywhere close to as linear (that is to say, commonly themed and in large part similar). Secondly, I’ve seen no report scientific or otherwise that DMT is released during death. That is to the best of my knowledge an urban legend. I’d like to see the proof, or are you just assuming it’s true??? DMT experiences also have little correlation to do with “out of body” experiences.

I’m not saying it’s correct, it is not correct. It is still taught in school even now. Kids still have to memorize the different “shells,” etc. even though its later shown to be wrong

I think you need to look up the word “blind” since you continue to say I believe blindly, despite my giving you abundant reasons for my beliefs, obviously making them “not blind.” I know the difference between a hallucinogenic experience, and a non-hallucinogenic experience. They are different, and I know the difference, I would wager that you do as well. Could someone who hasn’t tripped before tell the difference, I don’t know.

I base my beliefs on things that I understand and comprehend vs. basing my beliefs on things I do not. That is why they are not blind. (At this point I think my head may really explode)

Don’t worry about the long post, this one is longer and I took longer to respond I think as well.

 

I particularly want to take note of where you said, "if you track them far enough to the source are destructive to the environment or a group of people in some way."

But, that's how our world works. Disadvantage some to advantage the rest. Yes there is still pollution and slavery and all kinds of bad things, but there are either benefits in return for it (pollution) or the problems are now much more isolated and reduced (slavery).

We can't solve *all* the problems, but I think we've eliminated a lot of them and replaced them with benefits.

Yeah, I'm not really fond of the whole capitalism situation either ... it's pretty crappy. I agree with you on that. But hey, there are also countries, particularly fundamentalist Islam countries, and China, that really don't want capitalism at all.

I apologize, I should have been more specific ... I thought we were talking about a 4-colour map of the world.

Otherwise, Big Blue did indeed beat Gary Kasparov, and I don't believe he's beaten Big Blue since then ... =P

True that a computer can only calculate odds, but if you think about it, the computer is only an extension of our mathematical system; it's not supposed to be able to do anything other than calculate and compute. Plus, computers are only new within the past 70 years ... we have a long way to go with computing technology. But, I think we'll be able to go very, very far with it.

Well, I am a skeptic, but I don't think there are really any shades of gray. =P I see things entirely in black and white, since I'm a programmer. Zero and one, and I hate the concept of "fuzzy logic." I see how zeroes and ones can come together to form "gray matter," in a sense, but I still think that, at the lowest commmon demoninator, it's all still black and white, true and false.

Anyway, I can understand deciding that you believe strongly in God, it's just the "100% conclusive" part I don't agree with.

Well first off, something that just is? The entire universe just is, but we don't see it that way because we are a finite part of the universe with a certain viewpoint.

Also, the concept of a God isn't "beyond" all logic. It may be beyond all perception, but in order for something to exist, it must exist within some kind of operational bounds and laws. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if it exists or not. Just by the definition of existance, if you exist, there must be some way to tell that you exist, or some way to tell that you don't not exist. Not necessarily that we know the way, but a way must exist. There must be some structure before any kind of existance can take place.

Science should be put to the same scrutiny that religious perceptions are ... I agree. However, I fail to see how I haven't done so. Religious percpetions are things that happen once and done, and you can't repeat them or prove that they aren't coincidences. Science allows us to test and re-test theories.

You ask if I think there is, or is not, intelligent non-random design?

From a supreme being? No, I don't believe there is, how to say, super-intelligent non-random design. I don't believe that it DOESN'T exist, but I see no evidence that supports that it does exist.

However, intelligent non-random design does exist; look at humans. We're "intelligent" compared to many, many things (save a god), and we design things non-randomly.

Perhaps.

Does it stand to reason? I don't necessarily agree. I think that it is quite possible that the universe has always existed and is in a state of "infinite loop," in a sense.

Not to bring Buddhism into this, but I agree with the idea of the "non-self." That is, the idea that there is even a "self" to which we can refer is wrong; that with every single moment, a different "self" arises, lives, and dies, with each moment, and that that "self" conditions the state of the new "self" in the next moment. The idea of "self" is, along this line of thinking, an illusion, or a trick that is played on our minds, because each self conditions the next self to believe that it was the former self, and because each self's perceptions become the next self's memories.

So I don't see that there is a reason to believe in a single higher power; I think it's just as likely, if not more likely, for no higher power to exist, or for the universe as we know it to be the "higher" power, in which case it's not actually higher, just more complete compared to each of us individually.

The thing is, QP and mechanical physics (MP) are two different things entirely. It's not so much like doing calculus with a foreign number system, as it is doing calculus using a base 10 number system and doing spatial geometry using a base 16 number system.

As it stands now, QP disagrees with the same rules as MP. Thus, two different rulesets apply when we deal with issues. MP is the thing that can be observed every day, QP is just a theory (and an obviously incomplete one at that).

Science doesn't come to "hard" conclusions in the macro world, only hard probabilities.

We can agree that's not the case, but you must admit, your first post was still very insulting. I know I'm not the only one who took offense to it. That's what my original problem was, that and your statement about blind believing.

I think that, in the eyes of a higher power, our "science" may not be able to conclude anything, but in the limited perceptions of ourselves, science can do quite a lot to conclude many things about OUR lives (as opposed to absolute truth and the universe). I think that an absolute truth exists, but that science isn't the "doorway" into which we can look to see absolute truth.

But see, the general public has accepted that science holds all the answers, not because science does hold them or because scientists are smart, but rather because popular religion has labelled science, and claimed that scientists think that science can solve all the problems, which is very far from true.

Science, in my opinion, can show us truth in our lives, but not absolutely. I still, however, don't see how a conclusion can be drawn about worshipping something, especially when we aren't even sure what to worship, and when we have been arguing over that for millennia.

I don't know; I disagree. If you went up and asked someone if they thought that humanity was on the cusp of omniscience, I doubt that anyone would say this is so. I think your idea of what science is all about is skewed from what science actually is to most people.

See, I can't see how life itself is proof of intelligent design. I'm skeptical of it because it can't be proven true or false. Just because all the 0's and 1's are arranged in such a way that life has come into existance doesn't show to me that it's because of a higher intelligence. If there are enough 0's and 1's, then that pattern may very well be highly likely to show up, at random.

Have you ever read Ghost in the Shell? You should give it a check out; it has a neat theory about the universe being comprised of "copies" from an original, some copies of which are flawed or incomplete, which create the imperfections in the universe.

See I disagree. We have the same problems, but many of those problems are now under control or isolated. Look at the random diseases we have learned to cure ... people no longer die just from getting fevers. They still get them, but that's because we have no control over how our bodies came to function.

Valid, maybe. But, just take a look at your sentences here ... you never "persecuted" anyone, but your argument was offensive and was directed towards a specific group of people (among which I number). If it's directed towards me and/or others, and it's offensive, that's persecution.

per·se·cute Audio pronunciation of "persecute" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrs-kyt)
tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

Even if it doesn't fit into oppression or harassment (the latter of which is the case), it DOES fit into the second part, especially since it was offensive.

So you want this to be a God vs. science debate rather than a religion vs. science debate?

Maybe the "blind belief" was in a specific context with specific examples, but it was still hypocritical, with you accusing others of having blind beliefs.

"I'd like to hear what assumptions I made."

"The fact is that humans do not have an even half way decent understanding of the cosmos, yet we have become so sure of so much."

In the last example, you only assume that we have become so sure of so much, but if you ask any random person on the street, I highly doubt they will tell you that they think we have come very far in the long run.

"When did people become their own gods?"

Here you assume that people commonly think that we are our own gods, which is not the case.

Regardless, the entire post is just highly offensive. It's like sticking landmines in the dirt, and when somebody steps on one of them and yells at you for it, you say it's entirely their fault for stepping on the landmine.

That's definately false. The church has DEFINATELY deemed science as evil, because science opposes the church and anything that opposes God is evil.

That's because it's given us more answers for dealing with the real world than any other system has, including any kind of religion.

I thought we already concluded that people believe what they do and their assumptions because they don't know any better ... ?

But, people DON'T use science as a basis for their belief system. That's the thing. People LACK beliefs because of science, but there is no actual "scientific religion" or "the religion of science," because science is not a belief system. You have groups that CALL themselves scientific, like certain Christian groups, but they aren't actually truly scientific.

 

Here's in your first post:

"The failure to understand just how incredibly feeble people and their minds are. This arrogance is incredible."

I don't think I need to say more. You did obviously imply that people are conceited (or more accurately, arrogant, of which conceit is a form), and you also implied that people think their minds are more than what they are (implying conceitedness).

The word "shows" does not mean "proves." Showing is to examples as proving is to actual cases.

Then, there is reason to believe, according to thousands of individual accounts in the modern world, that Salvia divinorum is a portal to a world more fundamental than ours, and through which one can communicate with a higher being?

Thousands of accounts is not a reason to believe. Look at the Bush administration: Their many "accounts" as to Saddam's nuclear weapons had people believing things, but those accounts were HIGHLY inaccurate, and are not a reason to believe that Saddam had WMD, as the follow-up report released recently shows.

Truth, maybe, but it IS arrogant, AND hypocritical, because you yourself are guilty of the same thing you slight others for being guilty of.

Sorry if I haven't been clear. I accept this as true for the most part, which is why I provide no arguments. However, I think it may be more reasonable to say that science accepts only what it can observe. We obviously can't control black holes, but we do accept them in the scientific community. We just aren't sure of exactly what's going on ... yet ... but we still accept them.

You keep saying this, but there is no reason to believe that the rest of the world takes this understanding. So far, you have only shown me that you take this understanding.

What about experiments with things we can't control, like black holes? Experiments are trials of data; sometimes the data is controlled, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, we take measures to create the data (under a controlled environment), and sometimes we observe and take data as it was already created (like radiation waves from iron in black holes).

I just showed you the articles that showed that DMT is produced in the brain during near-death experiences.

Also, I've tried Salvia, and I would say that it is INDEED similar to a near-death experience sometimes. I can't tell you how many times that I have thought that I was dying, or that I was already dead, because I was under the influence of Salvia.

Go look at the erowid.org DMT section; there is an experience that is literally titled "Near Death Experience." On www.serendipity.li, people describe DMT images as "near-death," and just doing a search on google for "dmt near death experiences" gives thousands of results of people describing DMT experiences as near-death, or correllating the two in some way.

And on Wikipedia, it does say that the pineal gland in the brain produces DMT in small amounts.

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

"... DMT is naturally secreted by the human pineal gland ..."

"By some scientific accounts, DMT can be found in elevated amounts during times of visual dreaming or after near-death experiences."

Regardless, as someone else already pointed out in this thread, IN SCHOOLS, they teach that the idea is not correct, and that it's just a means for visualization of the concepts.

Just because you have reasons doesn't mean it's not blind belief. Reasons do not justify something 100%, but you have "100%" concluded that God eixsts. Reasons that are based on personal experience cannot justify something completely.

I don't say you believe blindly just because you base your beliefs off of personal experience.

I say you believe blindly because you FAIL to acknowledge that beliefs based off of personal experience cannot justify something completely.

You obviously ... no let me start this again.

You aren't showing a good knowledge of what a "hallucinogenic experience" is. ALL experiences are hallucinogenic, because we REQUIRE nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide to live, and ALL of these substances have been shown to be HIGHLY psychoactive. If we are breathing all the time, we are obviously under the influence of psychoactive substances constantly.

Let me explain.

You say that you base your beliefs on things that you understand and comprehend.

You have demonstrated in this discussion that you understand that personal experience is not a 100% justification for anything, no matter how likely it is.

And yet, you say your beliefs are absolute and 100% concluded.

So, it is OBVIOUS that something that you DON'T understand and comprehend is in the equation here.

 

Haha, well at this point I think we're just going around in circles, so I'm not going to quote, etc. (I'm sure you're getting tired of it as well )

I do not see what I said as insulting or arrogant. I DO think it is incredibly arrogant for people to assume that they can know everything. If, you thought that I implied my brain was not "feeble," then I apoligize, my brain is certainly included in the over-all feeble-ness of man's mind power. Humans do not have a half way decent understanding of the cosmos. When the two basic models of matter contradict each other to the point that our theories do, it is safe to say our understanding is not half way decent.

Secondly, believing something %100 is not a blind belief, regardless of how you like to think about it. Linguistically, logically, etc. my beliefs are in no way "blind." If you'd like to use a different term, I could accept that, however, "blind" is just wrong, plain and simple.

You, say believing something %100 is blind, but yet you claim:
"Well, I am a skeptic, but I don't think there are really any shades of gray. =P I see things entirely in black and white, since I'm a programmer. Zero and one, and I hate the concept of "fuzzy logic." I see how zeroes and ones can come together to form "gray matter," in a sense, but I still think that, at the lowest commmon demoninator, it's all still black and white, true and false."

I would like to point out that a main point of your argumentative basis is that religion can neither be proven or disproven.....interestingly that is exactly what you have chosen to base your arguements on as a skeptic. EXACTLY...think about that.

You seem to have no knowledge of the tribal scale culture I speak of, or a decent anthropological base.
Kasparov lost 3.5 to 2.5 vs. Big Blue, subsequent matches between super computers and top ranked players have all been draws or within 1 game of it.
China doesn't want Capitalism??? You're kidding right??? What do you think the Islamic countries selling oil is???
A theory stating that DMT may be released at times of death is not proof. You've just given me links to one person's theory (and wikipedia's regurgitation of it.)
You're entire arguement from beginning to end on "existence" is severely, I mean severely flawed.
Our number system (1,2,3, etc) is the "Arabic" system. It is not foreign.
The concept of something (God) simply existing without being created is beyond logic.
Losing your ego while tripping is not similar to keeping your ego and going towards a light as described in a near death experience.
4 colors can color a map of the world, or a theroretical map, there is no difference between a shape, and a shape called "Nigeria."

**Without being insulting and trying to be as diplomatic as possible, the above examples, coupled with the numerous ones from your previous posts suggest that you do not have a solid grounding of most of the topics discussed. I think this shows it would not be of any benefit to continue this arguement with you.

 

Yeah, it is starting to get tiring, lol ...

Well I could call you a shit-faced demon-spawn from Hell (which I DON'T mean to call you, that's just hypothetical) and think that I'm not being insulting, but the point is, several people took offense to what you said, even if you didn't mean to be offensive. You need to check yourself if you make a post like that and don't want to be flamed for it, you know?

And you STILL have not apologized for being offensive.

Believing something 100% isn't blind just because it's 100%, but in this case, it IS blind because it's based on a highly deviant personal experience that cannot be validated, reproduced, or verified in any way.

But see, I didn't say I believe 100% in zeroes and ones. That seems to me to be one of the most logical choices, yes, but I have several other theories too, that don't seem quite as logical but still seem plausible.

Either way, what I said here has nothing to do with whether or not religion can be proven or disproven, so I am failing to see your point. I was just telling you my beliefs, because you made the assumption (or I took what you said to mean that you were assuming; no harm done either way) that I didn't believe in something absolute.

This I know, but I also know that the group who made Big Blue refused to give Kasparov a rematch after it finally beat him.

Surivival. I know in more than one public statement, China has said that it is not willing to become a democracy.

Then go and read "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Rick Straussman.

Or check out this: http://www.acutcmdetox.com/tryptophan2.html

Oh, yeah, okay. My bad, hahaha ... I didn't realize that base-10 was called the "Arabic" system.

Right, but existance is something that is defined WITHIN logic.

For example, if there is no world for something to exist in, how can it possibly exist? If it exists, it must be defined in some way, and if it is defined, it must be in some kind of world or in some kind of structure that allows definitions.

You don't always/usually lose your ego while tripping, and there are plenty of people who have experienced moving towards lights and foreign or almost alien entities while on DMT. Just read the experiences on Erowid.

*** Don't you think that I feel the same way, that you honestly have no idea what you're talking about? The point of a discussion/argument is to figure out who is wrong and why, because we both obviously feel that we are right and the other person is wrong. You haven't demonstrated to me that you know what you're talking about either; most of what you have been doing is refuting what I've been saying based on conclusions that just don't follow from what we were talking about.

*** Also, I'm not looking to win this argument. I'm looking for you to apologize for being offensive and hypocritical.

 

Haha, alright, I think its pointless to argue any further as we both feel we are right (and probably winning the arguement haha)

I apoligize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention, nor was my post intended as an attack, or counter-attack on atheists or their beliefs.

I still see absolutely no hypocracy in what I said, so I give no apology for that.

 

There now ...

So, you want to hit up the bar?

 

Hey Hikky Z,

We've chatted before, and you seem to be pretty intelligent. However (and this is for EVERYBODY), I consider the real sign of intelligence to be an appreciation of not just everyone else's ignorance, but one's own ignorance as well.

You do seem to be a bit of a novice in the theory behind logic. Understandable, since at 18 you would probably have just finished your freshman year of college. The real good stuff comes in your next three years if you choose to pursue it, though you may not get to the details on Godel (where we last talked) until graduate math. I would however recommend a good course on the foundations of logic and philosophy; it'll help sharpen your understanding considerably.

Even so, I think that you can presently understand how EVERY logic system starts with certain basic assumptions, called axioms, which by nature are not provable (otherwise it's circular reasoning -- not too logical). Change the axioms, and you change the outcome. Sometimes you can get contradictions and paradoxes, but other times you merely get results that are weird but still logically consistent. Either way, this may open up new understandings.

Of course, everyone is ultimately limited to their own heads. At least in understanding one's own ignorance, there is always room to gain new insights. No one of us knows it all, and God (if he exists) has so far not spoken in any fashion that I find credible (i.e., the claims along these lines all contradict one another and often themselves). In the end, all that any of us can know is our own experiences and what we do with them.

PS I do like the bar idea, I'll buy the first round.