Christians believing that the ascension of christ can be found in my earlier posts. Some fundaMENTAL twit was trying to argue with me that gravity is DISPROVEN by the bible.

Provide the link, then. It would be the first time in my 38 years I have ever heard of that belief attributed to anyone, let alone a Christian. You suggest you need time to get some things done, but then lambast me for not reading every post in this thread or previous incarnations of it? You want me to attribute that belief to all religious people or all those on the religious right based on a sample of n = 1? What about Jews, and all others outside the Judeo/Christian/Muslim tradition?

So what do you advocate, Sarge II? Throw away science because it isn't perfect and doesn't give us the immediate answers you long for?

I advocate education and skepticism. Something you seem to believe one moment, then fight against a moment later. I also advocate giving credit where credit is due, as I have pointed out when I agree with you. Last, I advocate leaving out ad hominem attacks. They serve no place in rational debate.

Now Es99 is being unconfrontational when she says basically 'live and let live'. But sadly, that isn't the case. The religious seek to bend everyone to their view. Look at what's happening in the States at the moment. It's all about 'god, god, god'.

I agree with Es99 that life is brutal. There are obvious dangers to her suggestion that one must seek comfort wherever they can find it.

Your sweeping generalizations are also unhelpful. It is a certain type of religious person that engages in the behaviors you describe in the above quote. If no one argued against them, they'd be a lot more successful in their efforts than they have been. Through education and democracy, their efforts are being limited.

Much as I have to answer to SargeIIs misdirections and misrepresentations, (like about the limits of science) I have a few things to do - will be back to answer those in awhile.

No, instead I challenge you to go look into various mathematical texts across the ages. (In the same way you have challenged Jeffrey.) You still seem to doubt the whole axiomatic system thing. This is all easily verifiable. If you can't grant me this one simple fact, from the one area I will claim to be an expert in, leaving all others as areas in which I simply assert whatever knowledge of it I have and my powers of reasoning to, then how in the world are we going to have rational discourse?

Tell you what. I'll pick up "The Demon Haunted World" towards the end of this month and read large portions of it during the holiday, unless my data collection for my dissertation study is able to begin this semester rather than begin next January. That way, I challenge myself as well. Fair enough?

Take your time.

---

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

The religious seek to bend everyone to their view.

And this is different from your efforts in this forum how?

The religious seek to bend everyone to their view.

And this is different from your efforts in this forum how?

The Religion of Science???

And I'm NOT talking about Scientology.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

The religious seek to bend everyone to their view.

And this is different from your efforts in this forum how?

The Religion of Science???

And I'm NOT talking about Scientology.

Exactly on point.

The religious seek to bend everyone to their view.

And this is different from your efforts in this forum how?

The Religion of Science???

And I'm NOT talking about Scientology.

Exactly on point.

Oxymorons at their best.

---

Account frozen...

Christians believing that the ascension of christ can be found in my earlier posts. Some fundaMENTAL twit was trying to argue with me that gravity is DISPROVEN by the bible. Sorry, SargeII, but you're showing that you're unread; I was presented this case long before. It's just the religious defining the world according to their holy book, because their holy book is 'the truth, the plain truth, and nothing but the truth'.
A 'Christian' by definition would be believing in christ, right?!?

Es99 put the situation quite well. As I have said elsewhere, I, myself was exposed to religion, although not strongly, and did believe in the christian god and christ as his son and savior, and prayed at the age of 10, 11, 12. And then I got into grade 8. History of the world. Science. A developing brain as well. It took several years to truly come to the realization that there is no god, no creator, no 'father with a big white beard' or some 'force that wishes us well'. It took years of science. Years of learning. It's not easy. But anyone who is brave enough to face things as they really are will be drawn to this conclusion. Scientists who cling to their fantasy are not true scientists. As I have said before, they short-circuit their critical thinking when it comes to religion.

Science may not have all the answers to all the questions we ask right now, but it is working on them. It is expanding, growing, developing. The limitations on science ten years ago were much more than they are today. So what do you advocate, Sarge II? Throw away science because it isn't perfect and doesn't give us the immediate answers you long for? Go pray then, coward. Tremble about your mortality. Convince yourself that when your card gets punched, you will have a big, warm, strong daddy to take you in his arms and you won't be snuffed out like a candle after all.

Now Es99 is being unconfrontational when she says basically 'live and let live'. But sadly, that isn't the case. The religious seek to bend everyone to their view. Look at what's happening in the States at the moment. It's all about 'god, god, god'. Science is being trashed. Ignorance grows. No. Stupididty must be fought.

Much as I have to answer to SargeIIs misdirections and misrepresentations, (like about the limits of science) I have a few things to do - will be back to answer those in awhile.

Chuck..I don't think it is a matter of being non confrontational. There are a lot of people who have huge troubles in their lives, or who have mental health issues. If religion helps them to cope and get along, then I would be foolish to try and take that from them.

People can believe whatever they wish as long as they do not try to control others with their views, or force others to join with them in their beliefs.

Not everyone is strong enough to cope with the idea of death being final..or the essential loneliness of the human condition, a curse of our conscious state of self awareness. Religion is a crutch that can help people cope with that. There are many different religions, and many different ways of seeing 'God'. Not all of them are as destructive as fundamental Christianity or fundamental Islam.

As to scientists not being true scientists if they believe in God...I am not sure how you arrive at that. A true scientist has an open mind.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Look guys. Science means there has to be proof of something. Without proof, you can't have a definitive answer. If you don't have a definitive answer, and can NEVER get your definitive answer, how can you call it science? You can't. So you call it faith, because it rests solely on your conviction that it is true.

So how can a scientist be doing science when he resorts to faith? He isn't resorting to science. Science demands proof. A scientist is bypassing the scientific method, in which he is already trained when he practices his belief system. He therefore doesn't deserve to be called a scientist: the protocol and rules are straightforward. If he's the weak type who can't bear to think of his own mortality, then it is understandable, but even so, he should know better.

For the twits who go around claiming science is a 'religion', yet again, I will try to drill it into their thick skulls that religion rests on belief. Science does NOT rest on belief at all. Not at all. Zero percent. Get it? Therefore, it can't possibly be a 'religion'. Those claims are made by people who
a)don't understand what science is, and/or
b)have an agenda and so try to redefine the opposition's very defining points to match their own. Or, in the more crude and brainless twerp, try to piss the opposition off by calling them the very same thing that opposition is against.

For the non-college educated, that is like my saying that Oranges are good for you, while apples are proven to kill you. Then the apple advocate will go claiming that since both grow on trees, oranges are therefore also proven to kill you.

This is the illogic that seems the basic norm around here. Is it any wonder I have no patience?

Es99, have you ever met a religious person that doesn't want to try and help you find the 'truth'? Or made decisions based on logic without any input at all from their religions?

Sarge II, if you can't understand the argument, fine, I'll go get the proof when I have time. It's on its way. And I have more of your -clever- illogic to answer too.

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

Look guys. Science means there has to be proof of something. Without proof, you can't have a definitive answer. If you don't have a definitive answer, and can NEVER get your definitive answer, how can you call it science? You can't. So you call it faith, because it rests solely on your conviction that it is true.

So how can a scientist be doing science when he resorts to faith? He isn't resorting to science. Science demands proof. A scientist is bypassing the scientific method, in which he is already trained when he practices his belief system. He therefore doesn't deserve to be called a scientist: the protocol and rules are straightforward. If he's the weak type who can't bear to think of his own mortality, then it is understandable, but even so, he should know better.

Chuck, you seem fixated on this idea of proof. Proof is a mathematical term and not really applicable to science. In science we look for evidence, and construct the best theory to fit the evidence. To suggest proof would mean there is an absolute answer...but no scientist in their right mind would suggest that we have all the right answers and they are never going to change. We have the best answers based on the evidence we have. As that evidence changes, we will adjust our theories accordingly. It's not a matter of faith and it's not a matter of absolute facts.

For the twits who go around claiming science is a 'religion', yet again, I will try to drill it into their thick skulls that religion rests on belief. Science does NOT rest on belief at all. Not at all. Zero percent. Get it? Therefore, it can't possibly be a 'religion'. Those claims are made by people who
a)don't understand what science is, and/or
b)have an agenda and so try to redefine the opposition's very defining points to match their own. Or, in the more crude and brainless twerp, try to piss the opposition off by calling them the very same thing that opposition is against.

For the non-college educated, that is like my saying that Oranges are good for you, while apples are proven to kill you. Then the apple advocate will go claiming that since both grow on trees, oranges are therefore also proven to kill you.

This is the illogic that seems the basic norm around here. Is it any wonder I have no patience?

Es99, have you ever met a religious person that doesn't want to try and help you find the 'truth'? Or made decisions based on logic without any input at all from their religions?

Sarge II, if you can't understand the argument, fine, I'll go get the proof when I have time. It's on its way. And I have more of your -clever- illogic to answer too.

Proof! Proof! Is it just ne that feels uncomfortable with this word when applied to science?

You are right that most God botherers often try and convince you to convert to their version of reality, but you won't convince any of them by ranting at them and insulting them.

Religion is faith based, science is evidence based..anyone who tries to put the two on an equal footing simply needs to go and find out what they are talking about.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Look guys. Science means there has to be proof of something. Without proof, you can't have a definitive answer. If you don't have a definitive answer, and can NEVER get your definitive answer, how can you call it science? You can't. So you call it faith, because it rests solely on your conviction that it is true.

So you do understand!

You just want to proselytize to us and convert us to your religion.

I understand now, but no thank you Chuck, I am comfortable with my faith and although I can agree with many of the facts you share, I do not agree with your conclusions.

Have a good day though.

Christians believing that the ascension of christ can be found in my earlier posts. Some fundaMENTAL twit was trying to argue with me that gravity is DISPROVEN by the bible.

Provide the link, then.

I just found this Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory. Whether this website is any more or less farcical than http://landoverbaptist.org, I do not know. I am going to see what other links I can find.

---

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

From Intelligent falling: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

Intelligent falling (IF) is a supernatural explanation for the tendency of masses to attract each other that has its roots at least as far back as Isaac Newton. It has recently been brought to public attention as a satirical response to the ongoing "intelligent design" (ID) debate. It proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them.

==================================================================================
If this Wikipedia entry is correct, then why the need for the satire? Obviously, the ideas being satirized are thought to be wild and crazy enough already. (In the same vein as "Truth is stranger than fiction"!) So, why not battle the actual thoughts and beliefs of those you disagree with? It doesn't help to put words in people's mouths, attribute thoughts and beliefs to them, etc. ... . Furthermore, to go so far in battling what is apparently farcical is frankly a waste of time.

---

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

Hawking resolves black hole dilemma

[Or does he?]

From the Irish Times:

"The information paradox on black holes was resolved by Prof Stephen Hawking when he rejected his earlier theory that they irretrievably swallow up everything, writes Daniel McConnell

"Internationally renowned scientist Prof Stephen Hawking announced in Dublin yesterday that he had solved one of the 'major problems in theoretical physics'.

"His new theory, however, which states that information can actually be recovered from black holes, is unlikely to end the long-standing debate within the science community that has been running for over 30 years ...

"Black holes were often thought of as being void areas of space into which energy and matter can fall and disappear forever. In 1974 Prof Hawking discovered that, in fact, they are not completely 'black' but that they emit radiation, now known as Hawking radiation. This discovery led to what has been known as the information paradox on black holes which has puzzled the international science community ever since ...

"Prof Hawking conceded that his previous theory that all information was lost was incorrect and the assembled crowd witnessed the conclusion of a long-standing bet between him, Prof Kip Thorne and Prof John Preskill."

As you can read for yourself, Professor Hawking flatly denies his own proof of over 30 years standing!





B-IV

As you can read for yourself, Professor Hawking flatly denies his own proof of over 30 years standing!

As you should re-read, it does not say Hawking claimed to have prove the previous. It was a theory. Now let's watch as someone misdirects this, claiming I am the misdirector. :)

---

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

Hawking is clearly a celebrity. More, he is a hero, a figure of moral authority whose celebrity rests on his intellectual achievements and ability to overcome adversity. He is, as the titles of so many articles about him proclaim, the "master of the universe," living proof of the power of "mind over matter." A Hawking press conference has been likened to "being granted an audience with the Dalai Lama," rapt reporters "hanging on Hawking's every word, hoping to learn the secrets of the universe." 12 So inspiring is his example that at least five biographies have been written of him expressly for children. 13 The Chicago bar owners, asked why they launched the Hawking fan club, explained that in our media-saturated age, the world needs "real" heroes rather than those produced by the sports/entertainment industry. 14 This view reflects the position, adopted by most commentators on celebrity and the media since Daniel Boorstin, that modern celebrities are people known not for their merits but simply for being well known. 15 Hawking is thus a refreshing antidote, a throwback to a time when the famous served as worthy role models.

I have sold more books on physics than Madonna has on sex.

Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time

I thought you might find this interesting.





B-IV

Look guys. Science means there has to be proof of something. Without proof, you can't have a definitive answer. If you don't have a definitive answer, and can NEVER get your definitive answer, how can you call it science? You can't. So you call it faith, because it rests solely on your conviction that it is true.

So you do understand!

You just want to proselytize to us and convert us to your religion.

I understand now, but no thank you Chuck, I am comfortable with my faith and although I can agree with many of the facts you share, I do not agree with your conclusions.

Have a good day though.

Science is not a religion Bill, for the simple reason that a scientist bases his/her ideas on evidence, reason and logic. They do not stick with a ridiculous idea once it has been shown to be incorrect. There is no faith involved.

Religious people come up with ideas and explanations based on little more than wishful thinking and superstitious constructs based on coincidence (see the idea of the Parking Space God). You are trying to compare chalk and cheese just to make yourself feel better.

---

Reality Internet Personality

There is room for silliness in this thread, noodly or otherwise, but sometimes people actually discuss (argue, complain, rant about) religious issues.

Sorry, okay on to a more serious topic. Most of the discussions have been about monotheistic faiths and attheism/agnosticism. Does anyone have insight they'd like to share about other kinds of religious experience, such as polytheism (paganism) or pantheism or "personal spirituality"?

There was an article in Discover magazine in the last few years that indicated environment initially shaped whether a culture developed a monotheistic or a polytheistic faith.

---

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

As for "personal spirituality", where does one start?

One could start by reading the Bible and the Qur'an to better understand your Creator... After all, it is He who gave us the Spirit in the first place... Unless of course, it simply evolved too...

What motivation would one have to search for and try to achieve such a state?

To find answers to the age old questions:

1. Where did we come from?
2. Why are we here?
3. Where are we going next?

Not too mention...

4. How to achieve the promise of eternal life?

Which is a good enough motivation for me... ;)

Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the bones. (Rush, 1990 or 1991.)

---

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

Look guys. Science means there has to be proof of something. Without proof, you can't have a definitive answer. If you don't have a definitive answer, and can NEVER get your definitive answer, how can you call it science? You can't. So you call it faith, because it rests solely on your conviction that it is true.

So you do understand!

You just want to proselytize to us and convert us to your religion.

I understand now, but no thank you Chuck, I am comfortable with my faith and although I can agree with many of the facts you share, I do not agree with your conclusions.

Have a good day though.

Science is not a religion Bill, for the simple reason that a scientist bases his/her ideas on evidence, reason and logic. They do not stick with a ridiculous idea once it has been shown to be incorrect. There is no faith involved.

Religious people come up with ideas and explanations based on little more than wishful thinking and superstitious constructs based on coincidence (see the idea of the Parking Space God). You are trying to compare chalk and cheese just to make yourself feel better.

Es, I maintain that science is a de facto religion for some people because those people replace the God or Gods of their ancestors with a particular Scientist or pantheon of Scientists as their authority and the final arbiter of their world. For these people, anyone questioning their Scientist god's word, in however reasonable or reasoned an argument is blaspheming and said blasphemer is attacked. And the attacke are just as vicious, hate filled and unreasoning as any from the good old days of Torquemada, Cotton Mather or todays Islamofascist groups.

As evidence in the US, I give you the emotion charged arguments surrounding the fetal stem cell issue. Despite the fact that there is not a shred of useful results from fetal stem cell research in more than two decades, a few scientists and (worse yet) political pundits have claimed that fetal stem cell research promises results tomorrow if only you award me the next grant (elect my political candidate). These pronouncements are believed with the same faith and fervor as any formal religious dogma and with less reason.

As an aside, adult stem cell reasearch has produced useful results, with dozens of treatments in use today.

Back to the point. There are those who profess to believe that science is the be all and and end all for any problem, condition or issue in this world. Chuck comes to mind. These people continually, and in many cases knowingly, ignore the fact that, for most fields, the science of today is the superstitious cant of tomorrow.

Most people do not have the time or the knowledge base to judge if one scientist or another of diametrically opposed opinion about any given subject is correct. They then do exactly what any self respecting religious person does and decide upon whose opinion they will place their faith.

As an illustration of this point, todays understanding of the workings of the human brain is severely limited. But there have been enough pundits prouncing that they can cure almost any condition that the term "pop psychology" was coined to describe the endless flow. From Papa Freud to Timothy Leary, they have promised that they can cure or enhace or illuminate your understanding. And many have achieved results in greater or lesser measure, but they have achieved their results by trial and error. Yes, even Freud.

Researchers all over the world are making discoveries almost daily that expand the body of knowledge and even invalidate long held theories about brain function, memory storage, endocrine activity and any number of other subjects dealing with the brain. I have even watched a television show in which a well respected scientist was apparently able to briefly induce savant-like abilities in normal subjects.

At one time, cocaine was hailed as one of the most beneficial drugs ever discovered. Thalidomide was thought to be a safe sedative for pregnant women. Western doctors viewed accupuncture as superstitious hornswaggle and low carbohydrate diets were viewed as almost certain death. Those making the pronouncements on these subjects sometimes availed themselves of the scientific method, as they understood it; other times, as in the low carbohydrate diet pronouncements from the AMA, they didn't. Their pronouncements were believed with the same faith as any religious pronouncement ex cathedra or otherwise. And their positions were protected with faith, passion and perseverence. Just like any other religions' scripture.

Science can develop ethics itself, if it follows its findings and what the findings imply. We find experimentation causes pain, we try a different experiment that won't, or we minimize the pain if the experiment must be done. We do this for a good scientific reason: minimize confounding variables. An animal in pain doesn't react the same way one without pain would react. If the pain has no relation at all to what we are observing, then we should still minimize pain for the simple reason that most people are uncomfortable with it, and might demand experiments stop. These are all simple IF THEN relations to me. I don't see where philosophy comes into play in this regard.

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

Chuck, philosophy was the beginning of all if-then discussions, as I have pointed out before. Once again, applying deductive reasoning applied within an axiomatic system became necessary due to the Sophists. (Look up Sophists, sophism and sophistry.) The need to avoid circular reasoning.

Chuck, you seem fixated on this idea of proof. Proof is a mathematical term and not really applicable to science. In science we look for evidence, and construct the best theory to fit the evidence. To suggest proof would mean there is an absolute answer...but no scientist in their right mind would suggest that we have all the right answers and they are never going to change. We have the best answers based on the evidence we have. As that evidence changes, we will adjust our theories accordingly. It's not a matter of faith and it's not a matter of absolute facts.

Es, proof is not a term which belongs solely to mathematics, though the systematization of axiomatic systems, deductive reasoning and proof is something largely used mostly in philosophy, followed by mathematics. (The Greek geometers … mathematicians … that established the techniques we follow 2000-2500 years later were better known as philosophers.) In non-mathematical contexts, proof “means … [many] … different things. To a judge and jury it means something established by evidence ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. To a statistician it means something occuring [sic] with a probability calculated from assumptions about the likelihood of certain events happening randomly. To a scientist it means something can be tested – the proof that water boils at 100oC is to carry out an experiment. A mathematician wants more – simply predicting and testing is not enough – for there may be hidden assumptions” (Tall, 1989, p. 28). (Tall, D. (1989). The Nature of Mathematical Proof. Mathematics Teaching, 127, 28-32.) (David Orme Tall, Professor in Mathematical Thinking at the University of Warwick.)

Besides, Chuck knows scientific theories are subject to ever increasing refinement. His error is in his choice of words.)

That's your problem, SargeII. There is proof in such books. If you want to prove it to yourself, there is a reference section at the back.

Chuck, since I have no plans of going out and purchasing Cosmos on video but I already have the book, please point out a few pages to me where Carl Sagan had something to say about religion in that book.

In the paper-back version of Cosmos, yes, there is an index section. At the bottom of p. 319, we find relativity as the last entry on that page, and at the top of p. 320, it picks up with Rembrandt. So, again, I ask you for where Sagan specifically discussed religion in Cosmos. It was and is a sincere question.

You attempt to throw doubt on all science, along with the best of 'scientologists', by using very subtle misdirections:
Mathematics, although they may (or may not) have axiom 'assumptions' …

If there were only one thing I knew to be demonstrably true, it would be that mathematicians work within axiomatic systems. I asked you to go and look that up, Chuck. Why do you still doubt this or not understand it?
As for the other line there, “misdirection” suggests a deliberate attempt to deceive and an agenda. What, then, is my agenda? Or, could it be that you and I both have something to learn? That our knowledge and reasoning can be improved through our debates? I’ve already said a few posts back: there’s one area I claim to be an expert in … mathematics, teaching it, and researching mathematics education. (Don’t get me wrong! I mean relative to this group.) Such openness hardly suggests deliberate attempts at misdirection and misrepresentation. There’s only one other poster to this thread that I know what that person does, and that is Es. (Provided we can trust what she says! Maybe she doesn’t really teach science! I’ll trust you for now, Es! ;) )

Not quite true, Mr. Koenig.

The usage of the word, 'faith', is often a smuggled in concept that generally means 'trust' or 'confidence' in everyday speak. When someone asserts that the term, 'faith' is essential to the fundamental understandings of science or philosophy they're usually trying to pull wool over someone's eyes by making one thing seem as another.

A scientist doesn't claim to know that the law of gravity is what it is based on a thing called, 'faith'. He knows it by logic and more importantly facts based upon observations of nature.

When others use this nebulous and ultimately dishonest word, 'faith', they are typically speaking of some sort of supposed truth discovered in this undefineable and nebulous world of the supernatural which has nothing whatsoever to do with the realm of science.

That was the character of Susan's post above.

R/B: here, you, too, suggest an attempt at misrepresentation or misdirection. Fact: languages and meanings of words evolve, just like life-forms. Proof: try reading Beowulf or the Canterbury Tales as originally written.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>

While most of these definitions fit what you have said, the first does not and, in fact, it is interesting to look at the beginning of the entry: “from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust.” You said the word faith is being used dishonestly, in place of words such as trust or conviction, yet if the entry at Merriam-Webster is to be trusted, their usage of the word faith is both historically and currently not incorrect.

I certainly don't think Seti is a religion. Seti relies on scientific method in order to solve a mystery. And of course, I don't think many Seti members go out and pray to the stars. Nor is ET regarded as a supernatural being or power. Seti is, therefore, pure science, but it needs a little bit of faith in order to get started in the first place. I call it optimism, the hope that there is something out there with whom we can communicate.

So, R/B, I think one of the definitions and the history of the root of the word bear out that Susan did not deserve to be told she was using the word faith, such as in the above quote, dishonestly.

Years of learning. It's not easy. But anyone who is brave enough to face things as they really are will be drawn to this conclusion. Scientists who cling to their fantasy are not true scientists. As I have said before, they short-circuit their critical thinking when it comes to religion.

Science may not have all the answers to all the questions we ask right now, but it is working on them. It is expanding, growing, developing. The limitations on science ten years ago were much more than they are today. So what do you advocate, Sarge II? Throw away science because it isn't perfect and doesn't give us the immediate answers you long for? Go pray then, coward. Tremble about your mortality. Convince yourself that when your card gets punched, you will have a big, warm, strong daddy to take you in his arms and you won't be snuffed out like a candle after all.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary’s definition of scientist seems pretty weak. Look it up yourself, folks, if you like. I’ll just say that it makes reference to scientific investigation. So, Chuck, first, who are you to decide who is a scientist and who is not? There are many things that go on in a day, and in a life. Why are you so hard on those who are scientists but not involved in investigation 24/7?

Second, you have attributed thoughts/beliefs to me or put words in my mouth.
A) What did it mean to you when I said when I was raised Christian, but have been incredibly inactive?

Just because we don't have a full picture of reality, why should we then invent fantasies, or endorse someone else's fantasy? Use science to give you an answer. And if you have to wait 500 years for an answer, as Da Vinci did to be able to fly, so what? At least you have a project to pass on after you die. That's the only immortality you can have.

B) How often does the average person think about death? How often do you think I think about death? I will tell you. Maybe once every few years. What goes through my mind at those times? Worry that I will not complete things I have set out to do, never marry, or never have children. Much more rarely do I think or worry about “what will happen to me after I am gone.” Now, come on. Does this sound like being cowardly and trembling about my mortality 24/7? (BTW, besides having a “project to pass on” is one way to keep one’s self going after death, in a sense, as is passing on one’s genes by having children. Obviously, this goes back to sentence six or so in this paragraph.)

I think the following was from “Palomar Jack”:

Besides, if you're right and death is it, done, no more, so… the hell… what? It seems you're worried more that they'll be disappointed than anything. "AW DAMN! Chuck was right, there is no afterlife. I am soooo disappointed." PUH-lease …

And this was from Es:

These things stand on their own. I know why so many people need to believe in God and so many need the comfort to deal with the existential trauma that life is...and unlike Chuck I respect that. People should use what ever they need to make it through, life is tough and the idea of an outside father figure taking care of us can help people cope with the brutality of it.

Es, there are plenty of other ways to seek comfort. Alcohol … drugs … sex … . So, why the appeal of religion to so many of the world’s people, particularly if they think about death as rarely as I do or even less often? Are all the ways in which one seeks comfort from the brutality of life equally acceptable?

C) Have there not been psychological studies that have shown human beings naturally fill in gaps? For example, our word processors have spelling and grammar checkers, but they are not perfect. So, we re-read what we write before submission. We may have to several people proof-read for us. Sometimes, errors still slip by! Why? Because for some things we have a sense of where it is going and our minds somehow fill in the gap and we miss the error.


(Like a couple of sentences back: I deliberately left out “one.” It should have read “We may have one to several people proof-read for us.” How many of you caught it? I sincerely doubt that there are any readers of, or posters to, this thread that does not have a brain that naturally fills in some gaps, for good or ill.)

Troy, you gotta realize that it's always religion that's used in BIG measure to justify any war. That's the idiotic fantasy. What was the favorite quote of Dubya right after 9/11? "God is on OUR side."
Right. If there were any gods involved, then it was obviously Alla who carried the day.
Tell me, how many times did you hear 'god' this or 'god' that during your training? During your pep-speeches? During Dubya's addresses? How many fellow soldiers were you aware of that were athiests?

The friend I have mentioned that became more fundamentalist after we’d graduated from high school I believe became that way due to his time in the U.S. Air Force. However, he told me on a number of occasions about his atheist neighbor who was also in the U.S.A.F.

You are right that most God botherers often try and convince you to convert to their version of reality, but you won't convince any of them by ranting at them and insulting them.

Es, the Arabic friends I have mentioned elsewhere in this and few other threads have never tried to convert me or our fellow department member who is somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. I have never tried to convert him either. Our infrequent questioning or debating of each other is a lot more civilized and rational, though.

On the other hand, I will tell you that in my ten years of living in the Midwest, I have been shocked to see wandering preachers on or nearby university campuses, shouting for hours on end during warm weather. On rare occasions, one can see some sitting to listen or to argue. Most of us just pass them by. What does that tell you? I suggest that, even if some people find some of the points made by a wandering preacher interesting or correct, they generally find the techniques of the wandering preacher as embarrassing!

Why are the latest studies showing that people who are prayed over in the hospital at their bedsides get worse!??

I'll have to route around the interweb to see if I can find that artical, I've seen a lot of publication on the benifits and I'd be interested to see a counter argument.

1) Has anyone been able to track that article, first mentioned by R/B, down? I know I heard about it a few months back.
2) I just had to bring up Troy’s use of the term “interweb,” as it reminds me of the drummer of Metallica (Lars Ulrich) calling it the interweb during the Napster fights.

Actually, Christian Fundamentalism, or rather Charismatic Christianity, is doing rather well in the rest of the world both outside the U.S.A and outside Western Europe, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, such as Sub-Saharan Africa …

You’re right, Susan, and I had forgotten this at the time of my post. I recall now how certain Episcopalian churches have aligned themselves with ones in Africa since the appointment of the openly gay bishop.

The bible was written hundreds of years after the events took place.

Wow, Walla seems a bit mixed up! Several million to billions of years had gone by between the formation of the Earth and the time period during which the books of the Bible were written.

Sounds like it's time for someone to go off and say their 5 'hail carls' and 5 'our sagans'...

Actually, Jeffrey, in the original version of Battlestar Galactica, airing in 1978 or so, you can hear phrases that sound a heck of a lot like “For Sagan’s sake … .” Interesting, considering the creator of the show, Glen A. Larson, is a Mormon and his beliefs can be seen to be peppered into the mythology of the show from time-to-time.

You got a pi-in-the-sky solution for that, Walla? I do. It's called REPLACE RELIGION WITH SCIENCE. THEN you'll see no more hatred in the world.

Like at those conferences you described, Chuck, where one group of researchers won’t talk, let alone even look, at another group? Or like this thread? :) [Humor on]I think you need to read the bit on the medulla oblongata again.[/Humor off] Meaning, maybe you need to look at some long-standing biological or psychological factors, rather than, again, blaming everything on religion.

---

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

tips hat to Sarge_II

---