Muslims are instructed to believe the results of science.

I've been thinking about this... Who exactly is instructing Muslims to believe the results of science?

Not that believing the results of science is a bad thing, and I don't foresee those results ever conflicting with my religious beliefs, but I most assuredly would never ever ever ever believe anything just because someone instructed me to do so... ;)

I don't know what his source was nor his exact words. I could not think of a better way to put it at the time.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'

---

me@rescam.org

Women, he said, were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.

Well, I can't argue with that! lol... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

BTW, the tools of statistics for analyzing experimental data are developed using mathematics, obviously. I thought I'd already gone over, and finally made my point, regarding use of deductive proof within an axiomatic system ... that a small set of assumptions must be made from the outset so that arguments do not go around in circles and possibly lead to two contradictory statements within the same system.

Furthermore, it is becoming clearer as I think about it that your view of science is rather positivistic. I am sure it came as quite a surprise to scientists working in certain areas over the past 100-150 years that observing an experiment can affect its outcome!

Well said that man!!

Care to add your knowledge of scientific pursuits to this, Es?

I would..but then I'd have to actually read Chuck's posts properly to see exactly what he is on about. Sometimes he says things that are ok..but they are often lost in a sea of insults and random rantings.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'

I've never quite understood the logic that says..men can't control themselves, therefore women have to be punished. If it's that bad for all these men, they should be the ones forced to wear blinkers..or blindfolds..

I just don't buy the bull sh*t that men can't control themselves. The Cleric here is the one who thinks so little of men that he compares them to animals.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'

I've never quite understood the logic that says..men can't control themselves, therefore women have to be punished. If it's that bad for all these men, they should be the ones forced to wear blinkers..or blindfolds..

I just don't buy the bull sh*t that men can't control themselves. The Cleric here is the one who thinks so little of men that he compares them to animals.

Wow, nice turnabout! I wonder how well the blindfold idea will go over? This could change society as we know it! :)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

hmmm

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

People adhere to religion for one of a few well defined reasons:
They are insecure
They love the feel of sand in their ears as they stick their heads into a dune
They are incapable of logical thought
They have relatively few brain cells
etc etc ...........

This might better describe a large portion of the human race, not just those that adhere to any religion.

I win.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I don't presume to speak for Troy, but I know lots of Christians, and I can't think of even one that I personally know who thinks the Bible is literally true. On the other hand, I have read posts (in these religious threads) by people who think that way--yet even here, those folks are a small minority.

Don't be so sure that there are so few of them. I've met loads of these type of Christian, and so help me, I've even tried to teach some of them the big bang theory and the theory of evolution.

There is nothing more frustrating than being confronted with several angry young people who tell you that fossils were put there by God to test you that there is no way that we're descended from monkeys and that you are going to burn in hell.

..and pretty much all them denounce both theories without actually knowing or wanting to know a thing about them.

I also have met some who think this way, but I do believe the numbers are small.
Perhaps it was due to a quirk of the area you taught in?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Science has killed off god utterly. Go read about Carl Sagan's last moments "there was no last-minute repentance". Go see what actual scientists really 'believe' in. I'm sure you'll find none of them 'believe' in anything.

Strange, I know people with doctorates from various academic areas, including scientific ones, that go to church.

You are one of the few who will actually use his brain to understand the world around him. But you are still held by religion. Tell me, did you choose this relligion on your own? Or was it presented to you as something approving, as something you were smiled upon for following as part of a group? The easiest of brainwashing is one where the subject actively participates willingly.

Similarly speaking, my former roommate (a guy that was suicidal and alcholic) had a tough time answering my question whether he himself, as an atheist, chose to be an atheist or became one because his mother was one and so he never experienced going to church or whatever else. Therefore, the ones who can contribute best to these discussions are those who can keep an open mind, regardless of their upbringings. As in science, can one refine their ideas?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I do respect Carl Sagan greatly, he did more to advance sciance then almost any one, and they fact that there was no change in him at the last second honestly proves nothing.

Carl Sagan was better known for advancing people's awareness and understanding of science. Of course, he was a scientist holding a doctorate, so he must have added to the body of astronomical knowledge, but how much these things in themselves did to provide big advances to science, I do not know.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

OK, here we go, Es. Here is a relevant quote for one of the current discussions.

Science is about PROOF. Religion is about faith. Science CANNOT admit any tenent that is not proven.

Basically, I entered the fray to demonstrate what proof to a mathematician is, since mathematics is one of the few areas with a well-defined, demonstrable approach to axiomatic systems and proof via deductive reasoning.

Scientific experiments are often for the purpose of determining causation or correlation. The tools for testing such data are mathematical. Within this thread and others, I have demonstrated the limitations (not flaws) of mathematical proof. When reporting the results of hypothesis testing (rejecting the null hypothesis or failure to do so), we do not make claims of 100% certainty. Commonly referred to numbers are 95 or 99 percent certainty, etc. ... . Not to mention measurement errors, or variables not taken into consideration, etc. ... .

Then we could go again into how science refines itself. Scientists seek better theories: better in the sense of explanatory power and usefulness in making predictions.

The bottom line is that scientific pursuits, and mathematics, have limitations. Some of the limitations of scientific pursuit are due to the limitations of the mathematical tools which support science.

What I have been trying to get across to Chuck and others is a better understanding of proof and scientific pursuits, so that we might do a better job at making our cases within this thread, rather than going around in circles, ranting, and insulting others.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'

I've never quite understood the logic that says..men can't control themselves, therefore women have to be punished. If it's that bad for all these men, they should be the ones forced to wear blinkers..or blindfolds..

I just don't buy the bull sh*t that men can't control themselves. The Cleric here is the one who thinks so little of men that he compares them to animals.

This is just an example of old men using religion to control women. All these so called religious leaders know damn well that men can control themselves and use such nonsense to exert and maintain control over women.

---

flaming balloons

This is just an example of old men using religion to control women. All these so called religious leaders know damn well that men can control themselves and use such nonsense to exert and maintain control over women.

Obviously, there are some men who cannot control themselves, even in the 21st century! However, that does not detract from Es' point or suggestion of it being men that be the ones blindfolded.

Is it a way of exerting/maintaining control of women? Perhaps. It could also be the result of limited minds. Since, as I have pointed out, some men cannot control themselves, people go looking for reasons. Some of the reasons we come up with just happen to be complete junk!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

My former roommate (a guy that was suicidal and alcholic) had a tough time answering my question whether he himself, as an atheist, chose to be an atheist or became one because his mother was one and so he never experienced going to church or whatever else.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Check out "Leading Minds" by Howard Gardner.
He will tell you, Chuck, that there are cognitive/psychological (you shoud like this) reasons why people hold beliefs about certain scientific phenomena that are blatantly wrong or can even hold two conflicting concept images! How much longer will you try to convince us that it's all religion's fault, when in fact (even in the 21st century) our poor little brains aren't as advanced as you seem to think they are. We have limitations. This includes limitations to cognition and understanding. Get used to it. Learn the bigger picture and ease up from your scapegoat. Isn't your soapbox a bit slippery by now with lather? LOL.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

From http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/061026/0177325.html

"As a result of advances in brain imaging technology, researchers are learning more about how different areas of the brain function based on their respective neural activity. In 1997, scientists discovered a particular area of the brain associated with intense religious experience, named by the popular media as the "God Spot." Neuroscientists claim that this discovery neither reduces religion to a brain function, nor does it prove that our brains are designed to receive the divine."

The previous was not the full article, but the next one is.

From http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060829_god_spot.html

No 'God Spot' in the Human Brain
By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 29 August 2006
01:43 pm ET

The human brain does not contain a single "God spot" responsible for mystical and religious experiences, a new study finds.

Instead, the sense of union with God or something greater than the self often described by those who have undergone such experiences involves the recruitment and activation of a variety brain regions normally implicated in different functions such as self-consciousness, emotion and body representation.

The finding, detailed in the current issue of Neuroscience Letters, contradicts previous suggestions by other researchers that the there might be a specific region in the brain designed for communication with God.

What it means

"The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience," said study leader Mario Beauregard of the University of Montreal in Canada. "This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience, and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God."

In the study, 15 cloistered Carmelite nuns, ranging in age from 23 to 64, had their brains scanned while asked to relive the most intense mystical experience they had ever had as members of the religious order.

The nuns were not asked to try and actually achieve a state of spiritual union with God during the experiment because, as the nuns put it, "God cannot be summoned at will."

Joy and love

Nevertheless, the researchers believe their method was justified because previous studies have shown that actors asked to enter a particular state activated the same brain regions as people actually experiencing those emotions.

As a control, the nuns were instructed to relive the most intense state of union with another human ever felt in their lives while in the Carmelite order.

The study found that mystical experiences activate more than a dozen different areas of the brain at once. One of the regions, called the caudate nucleus, has been implicated in positive emotions such as happiness, romantic love and maternal love.

The researchers speculate that activation of this brain region during mystical experiences is related to the feelings of joy and unconditional love the nuns described.

If there is nothing at all to investigate, what investigating can be done? No god has ever shown itself to the world's population. There is no solid evidence anywhere for any god. How can a pure and applied discipline investigate what isn't there to measure???!! The only thing it can prove, is, when it is advanced enough, that the faith ideas come from a certain area of the brain, that, when stimulated, provokes a religious epiphany or 'vision'.

Oh guess what! Science already proved that!

Goodness, Chuck, this article suggests otherwise. So, which researchers do you believe? Let me rephrase: which researchers do you have faith in, lol?!?

BTW, after you seemed to get the point about "proof," you continue to fall back on the term? This reminds of the song by the glam metal band "Ratt" from 1983 called "Round and Round." You remember, that Milton Berle guy was in the video. LOL.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

If I remember correctly, if you drop two things from the exact same height, they should hit the ground at pretty much the same time. (Of course, depending on their shape, air resistance can play a small role.) Now, tell me, Chuck ... when did religion ever protest this scientific finding? I'll give you a hint: NEVER! So, why is it that so often, 17 year olds will state they believe the heavier object will hit the ground first?

Could it be that simpler ideas have great psychological strength, therefore they are difficult to dislodge, even in the face of demonstration?

Is this religion at fault for this biological/psychological fact? Nope!
Have some religious figures, however, told a simple story and had people believe them? Yes. Is this true of all religious figures and all followers of religion? No. Can we find other figures that tell us simple stories and get a fair number of people to believe them? Yes. They're called politicians.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Come on, there has to be somebody out there who wants to debate my points with me or indicate they've been enlightened!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Come on, there has to be somebody out there who wants to debate my points with me or indicate they've been enlightened!

I concur.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...