'Ghostwriting' the Torah? New algorithm distinguishes contributors to the Old Testament with high accuracy

Oct 11, 2011

In both Jewish and Christian traditions, Moses is considered the author of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. Scholars have furnished evidence that multiple writers had a hand in composing the text of the Torah. Other books of the Hebrew Bible and of the New Testament are also thought to be composites. However, delineating these multiple sources has been a laborious task.

Now researchers have developed an algorithm that could help to unravel the different sources that contributed to individual books of the . Prof. Nachum Dershowitz of Tel Aviv University's Blavatnik School of Computer Science, who worked in collaboration with his son, Bible scholar Idan Dershowitz of Hebrew University, and Prof. Moshe Koppel and Ph.D. student Navot Akiva of Bar-Ilan University, says that their recognizes linguistic cues, such as word preference, to divide texts into probable author groupings.

By focusing exclusively on writing style instead of subject or genre, Prof. Dershowitz and his colleagues sidestepped several methodological hurdles that hamper conventional Bible scholarship. These issues include a potential lack of objectivity in content-based analysis and complications caused by the multiple genres and literary forms found in the Bible — including poetry, narrative, law, and parable. Their research was presented at the 49th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics in Portland.

A keen eye for detail

According to Prof. Dershowitz, the software searches for and compares details that human scholars might have difficulty detecting, such as the frequency of the use of "function" words and synonyms. Such details have little bearing on the meaning of the text itself, but each author or source often has his own style. This could be as innocuous as an author's preference for using the word "said" versus "spoke."

To test the validity of their method, the researchers randomly mixed passages from the two Hebrew books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and asked the computer to separate them. By searching for and categorizing chapters by synonym preference, and then looking at usage of common words, the computer program was able to separate the passages with 99 percent accuracy. The software was also able to distinguish between "priestly" materials — those dealing with issues such as religious ritual — and "non-priestly" material in the Torah, a categorization that is widely used by Bible scholars.

While the algorithm is not yet advanced enough to give the researchers a precise number of probable authors involved in the writing of the individual books of the Bible, Prof. Dershowitz says that it can help to identify transition points within the text where a source changes, potentially shedding new light on age-old debates.

Categorizing the unknown

Part of a new field called "digital humanities," computer software like Prof. Dershowitz's is being developed to give more insight into historical sources than ever before. Programs already exist to help attribute previously anonymous texts to well-known authors by writing style, or uncover the gender of a text's author. But the Bible presents a new challenge, says Prof. Dershowitz, as there are no independently attributed works to which to compare the Biblical books.

The Torah algorithm may also provide new information about other enigmatic source material, such as the many pamphlets and treatises of unknown composition that are scattered throughout history. And because the software can identify subtle linguistic cues, it is able to uncover differences within mere percentage points, a feat that has never before been possible. "If the computer can find features that Bible scholars haven't noticed before, it adds new dimensions to their scholarship. That would be gratifying in and of itself," says Prof. Dershowitz.

Explore further: UT Dallas professor to develop framework to protect computers' cores

Related Stories

An Israeli algorithm sheds light on the Bible

Jun 30, 2011

Software developed by an Israeli team is giving intriguing new hints about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible. The new software analyzes style and word choices to distinguish ...

Most ancient Hebrew biblical inscription deciphered

Jan 07, 2010

Professor Gershon Galil of the department of biblical studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that ...

Biblical diet 'unhealthy'

Jan 13, 2009

A new study into the diet of ancient Israel has revealed that far from being 'the land of milk and honey', its inhabitants suffered from the lack of a balanced diet.

Recommended for you

User comments : 411

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

krundoloss
4.2 / 5 (30) Oct 11, 2011
When will people finally admit that ANY religious text ever written was DESIGNED by many people to establish CONTROL and ORDER. Which is good, it definitely kept people from running wild and killing each other in the old days. But what is its usefulness now? It makes people feel better when someone dies. It says "The world is so simple, just be good and go to heaven." I agree with the "just be good" part, but come on. Anyone who believes everything they read in any book is weak minded. Make up your own mind what is right and wrong! Dont rely on a book or a religion to tell you how to think. OPEN YOUR MIND!
truth4life
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 11, 2011
"But what is its usefulness now?"

It has and always will be useful in pointing out the immorality of man. In and of itself humanity is not capable of living a life of purity, of love, and of all things including loving one another. If you think this is possible, then you are in for a big letdown. Of all the religions of the world Christianity/Judaism as birthed from one into the other is its purpose to point out the deficiencies in our immoral and moral characteristics of self. As is said he who is without sin, let him or her cast the first stone, who can do it?
Nanobanano
3.4 / 5 (16) Oct 11, 2011
Truth:

You ever consider that certain moral standards in the Bible might be impossible because they are ridiculous?

By Jesus' standard, as reported by Matthew anyway, just looking at a woman and lusting makes you guilty of adultery. So I don't know about you, but I automatically lose.

Now I ask, isn't the standard ridiculous?

Not everybody is a murderer or a rapist, and I don't think any amount of consenual adultery could possibly be considered on the same plane as murder or rape.

Yet the Bible lists adultery right along side murder and idolatry as things that will send a person to the "Lake of Fire".

Do you believe that?

Do you believe God makes no moral distinction between consentual sex outside or marriage and murder? They both go to the same lake of fire?

Do you believe Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen should or would go to the same final destination as Adolph Hitler and Osama Bin Laden?
Nanobanano
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 11, 2011
I once asked a Christian how is it even possible to date somebody or get married, if it's adultery to so much as look at a woman and lust.

The coudl not give a consistent answer, because by default every person who is a Christian and marries is a hypocrite, because they had to break Jesus' definition of adultery at least one time before they were married.

I used to argue for infallibility fo scripture for years, but I was secretly conflicted, because I could not resolve these paradox nor more blatant paradoxes.

But because of zealotry, I would never have admitted that openly, in my view, because I thought it was my responsibility to "argue" for the Bible and God, and because I thought I had to take the approach of "don't screw something up, and let a more knowledgeable person clear this up later."

But there are very few more knowledgeable persons in the scripture, and those that are tend to abuse their authority, and they ignore these problems as if they didn't exist.
Nanobanano
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2011
It's true that a lot of apparent contradictions can be resolved by a matter of context, but not all.

I return to the theme of a ridiculous standard.

If nobody can keep the standard, perhaps the standard is just BS.

This reminds me of the episode of Star Trek, where Worf had one of his students blindfolded for her final "test" in martial arts. Well, she was "failing" the test, but finally protested that it was ridiculous, that she could not defend herself in that condition, now she passes the real test.

Worf tells her, paraphrasing, not to let "someone" (i.e. the Captain) judge her by an impossible standard.

Do you see how ridiculous some of the commandments in the Bible are, so some preacher can make you feel perpetually "convicted" of your "sinful" condition?

Modern marriage is not even "Biblical" anyway, it's a legalistic financial contract defined by tax laws.
Nanobanano
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2011
Do you see how insane it is that in one place the Bible says, "God is love" and even had the audacity to use the greak "Agapao," but in another place, allegedly the same "God" commanded Samuel and Saul to go butcher some "infants and sucklings" because of crimes their parents or great ancestors commited, but in ANOTHER place, Ezekiel claims "God" swore that children would not be punished for the sins of the parents.

Look how contradictory that is.

On the one hand, "God is love" and does punish children for their parents sins, but on the other hand, God allegedly told the alleged "great prophet" Samuel to do an genocide and infanticide.

And all of the other books quote Samuel as inspired and infallible.

If Samuel is inspired, then God apparently kills whoever he feels like, and whether or not they could reasonably be quilty or know right from wrong.

More likely, Samuel is a false prophet, and nobody else cared to think about it very much...
Yellowdart
2.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
I wonder how this compares to taking someone like C.S. Lewis and examining all of his books while disregarding genre and literary form. His writing style changes.

I think that's the case for many writers even if they stick to one genre or form. Overtime their writing style changes.

Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
I think that's the case for many writers even if they stick to one genre or form. Overtime their writing style changes.


Moses was allegedly raised as a prince of Egypt, and was already 40 years old when he fled from Egypt.

He was allegedly between 80 and 120 years old when most of the Torah was written, and then allegedly Joshua finished the Torah.

However, I don't believe that is true, because the stories in the 5 books of the Torah and Joshua are written from what amounts to the 3rd person perspective, and they are characters in those stories, and based on the context, it is unatural for a person to refer to themself by name over and over in a text.

so by extension, someone else wrote the modern versions of the Torah and the book of Joshua, perhaps from memory or oral tradition, only after Moses and Joshua died.

The Bible itself claims the book of Deuteronomy disappeared,with one copy of it "conveniently" being discovered after a change of power and King Josiah
Yellowdart
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 11, 2011
If nobody can keep the standard, perhaps the standard is just BS.


That is the point. Only one man ever did. Jesus Christ.

The standard is not impossible, for it was fulfilled. Christians are not saved by their own standard, but by Christ.

How do you know all this about the bible, yet miss the central point...JESUS?

If Samuel is inspired, then God apparently kills whoever he feels like, and whether or not they could reasonably be quilty or know right from wrong.


Aside from your lack of references, which would be helpful, the question is:

What God would be God if he was not the giver of life and death? Why should any god ever be subject to his creation?

Who would ever want a God that was not sovereign or one that could be judged by man?
Nanobanano
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2011
Now if you REALLY want to talk Biblical contradictions and impossible standards, let's read about King Josiah.

Hey, I remember when I was so blind, I thought this was right just because it's the Bible!

Read 2 Kings 22.

Note that after all of the chaos and murder that Josiah does, killing all the idolators, corrupt priests, sodomites, astrologers, etc, at the end it says, "He did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord".

So the "Inspired" author of the Bible believes that the right thing for "believers" to do is to pretty much murder unbelievers and "backsliders" on sight, pats him on the back he does!

Good ole Josiah, one of the few people to actually get commended by "God" or one of his alleged prophets in the Bible!

What seems more likely?

A) Deuteronomy is inspired and infallible.

or

B) Josiah and the priest just made it up, so they could kill all of their political enemies, and make up a religious book justifying it.
Nanobanano
2.9 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2011
How do you know all this about the bible, yet miss the central point...JESUS?


You don't know anything about me.

I know this because I was born and raise christian all my life. "Born again" Tongues, everything.

I was "Mr. Christianity" I guess, but christians hated me more than atheists, because I rebuked pastors and forum admins for their hypocrissy.

I know more about the Bible and Christian doctrine than pretty much anyone alive, except maybe a pure dedicated professional scholar or theologian, and that's not exaggerating.

What God would be God if he was not the giver of life and death? Why should any god ever be subject to his creation?


good question.

Why did Jesus get hungry and thirsty, making himself subject to the laws of nature and mortal man?

your own argument defeats you.

Who would ever want a God that was not sovereign or one that could be judged by man?


"God" in the Bible does not meet his own standards or promises...
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
I don't judge God.

but I do tell you that something is absolutely screwed up about the Bible.

I wish I could say otherwise, but I can't and be honest, now can I.

You want references, I give them here:

If Jesus claimed that the Truth shall set you free, let us begin by learning the REAL truth, and not the lie everyone thinks is true.

1 Samuel 15,3, go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...

Ezekiel 18, 20, The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Right here, "God" DIRECTLY, specifically violated his own standards and promises, at least according to the Bilical stories.

If God does not even keep his own promises or the standards of his promises, then how would you know God from the Devil?!?
Nanobanano
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
What is True if "God" himself is a liar, and breaks his own promises?

What is more likely is one or more of these books was written by a false prophet.

If the Bible does not even live up to it's own alleged standards, shouldn't that make you wonder about it's authenticity?

But hey, let's give some more nobody thinks about.

Remember, Ezekiel 18, 20 now. God doesn't kill kids because of parents sins, allegedly.

But wait, in Egypt, "God" sent a death angel killed all the first born as a plague to punish the Egyptians...but...but none of the people who died in the plague were guilty of ANY crime, as they would have been children. God killed the innocent children, and left the "guilty" adults alive, although later, many of the adults were killed in the Red Sea or had been killed in other plagues, according to the story.

Now the BIBLE tells you that God killed all the first born sons who did not have the blood of a lamb n the doorpost...
Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
Now don't try to teach me the symbology of the blood of the lamb on the doorpost being about Jesus death on the cross, because I already know that stuff, and better than most.

You want to talk about the sacrificial system and the passover and what all that means, I know. So I mean, don't take me for some novice. I know more than most pastors, because unlike many of them, I actually studied the stuff and looked for all of the patterns and symbols that most don't even think about. I read the commentaries and found their mistakes too.

You want to talk about Justification, Sanctification, Salvation, "the cross", "The Trinity", Faith, Spiritual Gifts, theology, eschatology, metaphysics, whatever, I can talk about that, I been there and know and experienced those things.

But I mean what I say when I say this book is screwed up and even largely fraudulent. It absolutely HAS to be.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and found out it DOESN'T WORK.
Yellowdart
2 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
Nano,

In Samuel he is talking against the Amalekites. They were wiped off the map, and it has nothing to do with sins of fathers, but of their people as a whole who had taken over Egypt without even a fight. They were the Hyskos, who passed the Israelites by on their way out of Egypt...

In Ezekiel, he speaks to Israel. And you entirely eject that out of context. For verses 21 and following clearly shape up what God is driving at.

The contexts are clearly different.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2011
But I mean, hey, I'm a heretick now by orthodox Christian standards, but I don't know what else I should do.

Like I said, I found out the whole "justification" and "sanctification" thing absolutely doesn't work.

I drove myself half mad trying to be a "good" christian, and went around trying to find all the so-called best teachers to try to tell you how to be a "good" christian.

and about the only thing they can really do at the end of the day is give you the "justification by faith" speech and point you to Romans 6 through 8, but you still can't obey any commandments.

Ironically, the Bible is one of the things I have the weakest memory for, but it's better than most, I think.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
Nano,

In Samuel he is talking against the Amalekites. They were wiped off the map, and it has nothing to do with sins of fathers, but of their people as a whole who had taken over Egypt without even a fight. They were the Hyskos, who passed the Israelites by on their way out of Egypt...

In Ezekiel, he speaks to Israel. And you entirely eject that out of context. For verses 21 and following clearly shape up what God is driving at.

The contexts are clearly different.


The contexts are exactly the same.

Look at your hypocrissy.

so you are saying infanticide is justified, just so long as it isn't done against Christians and Jews?

What the heck is wrong with you?

do you realize the only difference between Samuel and Osama Bin Laden is their NAME is spelled differently?

Even if the Amalekites were so evil, why not kill the guilty adults, and spare the children?

How can you justify that?

Zealotry and blindness...
Yellowdart
2 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
But I mean what I say when I say this book is screwed up and even largely fraudulent. It absolutely HAS to be.


Or what?

And no, I have not brought up any other thing you mentioned, nor disrespected your knowledge. I am glad to discuss what you want to discuss.

But all the knowledge of the Bible is meaningless, if you entirely miss Christ. You make a valid point that no one is perfect...which is why God offered Christ up in the first place.

2 Cor 5:21 - For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
Yes, they're the evil "x-ites".

Gotta irradicate all them "ites" just because they exist. We can kill them, and their kids, and stuff just for the heck of it, because they're different or their daddy was a sinner.

I mean, should we hunt down and execute all of Bin Laden's kids? Hey they are "ites" too, they are "Ladenites", because "ite" is nothing more than a suffix used to imply a decendant of someone by name.

Let's kill all the "ladenites," even if they are innocent or infants, just because their daddy was evil.

That's the standard you use to justify this massacre.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2011
You want to know something really annoying.

You think I don't get it, but I do, and always have.

The problem is that I DID "get" it, and in so doing I lost everything.

But if Jesus is the "only" way to salvation, as the New Testament teaches and as standard Catholic and protestant doctrine teaches, then what did God do with everyone else in the world?

See Romans 3,28, and 5, 13 "sin is not imputed where there is no law."

and other such passages more particularly.

Ah..., According to Paul, We are to believe that God judges such people based on their good intentions, without Christ at all...

But if that's the case, then a "good" unbeliever who doesn't know anything is better off than a believer, who spends their life trying to live up to all the requirements of this book.

then, ironically, the book tells you the law doesn't matter, i.e. "rightousness without the deeds of the law." continued...
Yellowdart
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2011
I drove myself half mad trying to be a "good" christian, and went around trying to find all the so-called best teachers to try to tell you how to be a "good" christian


Many others come from that background. You aren't alone.

so you are saying infanticide is justified, just so long as it isn't done against Christians and Jews?


Not at all. I'm saying God gives and God takes away. He can chose Esau or Jacob, both, or neither. He did not have to send his Son. Mercy is never required. For if it was, it would not be mercy. Israel is punished several times for their sinful nature. God does not excuse the wicked. He excuses Christ for he was righteous.
Silverhill
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
Then there's the incident related in Joshua 11, where Joshua was preparing to fight against several allied kings:
"The LORD said to Joshua, 'Do not be afraid of them, because by this time tomorrow I will hand all of them, slain, over to Israel. You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots.'"

Now, it's foolish at best to demand the wasting of valuable war materiel (the chariots), but it's downright vicious to demand the crippling of innocent animals. The horses could at least be used for Joshua's purposes (as could the chariots), rather than left useless, in great pain, and at the mercy of the local predators.

Human military officers know how (and why) to treat captured enemy property properly; do we have better judgment in these matters than God, then?
Nanobanano
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
But if righteousness is without the deeds of the law, why have the law? Paul tried to address that, but not adequately.

If following the impossible rules was never the issue, why have them in the first place?

To "reveal" sin, to "convict" of sin? nah.

Because none of that helps anyway.

But in John's gospel, Jesus allegedly says that believing in HIM is the only way to salvation, but then elsewhere in the Bible, not even the other New Testament authors agreed with that!

Paul goes through this whole thing about justification and righteousness by faith WITHOUT THE LAW, and yet all Christianity really is is laws "do this, don't do that," etc.

Most of what Paul wrote in other letters are literally a big list of dos and don'ts, which in modern times if you literally follow them, you'd have to live in a fox hole somewhere and have no friends, because it's also a sin to hang around with unbelievers, adulterers, drunks, and hereticks and other sinners. So you still lose.
Yellowdart
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
That's the standard you use to justify this massacre.


The question is not why do some suffer, but why do others not?

In the story of the Amalekites, there was a sect that was not destroyed, because they had shown Israel kindness.

, According to Paul, We are to believe that God judges such people based on their good intentions, without Christ at all...


Where is that? We are never judged on good intentions, but upon our righteousness, which you readily recognize we have none. Which is why we need Jesus.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
I drove myself half mad trying to be a "good" christian, and went around trying to find all the so-called best teachers to try to tell you how to be a "good" christian


Many others come from that background. You aren't alone.


yes, I am,believe me.

You have absolutely no idea.

I'm saying God gives and God takes away. He can chose Esau or Jacob, both, or neither.


Right, but you find no problem with there actually being no real standard. See, that is itself a problem.

He did not have to send his Son. Mercy is never required. For if it was, it would not be mercy. Israel is punished several times for their sinful nature. God does not excuse the wicked.


Massacring innocent children "infants and sucklings" has nothing to do with excusing the wicked. That's just murder.

He excuses Christ for he was righteous.


Salvation or even the person of Christ has nothing to do with this, per se.
truth4life
1.4 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2011
I thank yellowdart for the rapid display of biblical truth as a person who has heard the truth(s) and believed, only believe, not that any deed or work will ever suffice for lack of believeth. It seems at one time you believed or your efforts at dissecting a religion are on par with no religion. Either way we all have to come to conclusions based on evidence(s) to support our claims and yellowdart has done so to the degree of pointing out mans fallen state and pointing to the one who has not fallen but has conquered all things including the greatest enemy death. Suffice to say there are no atheists in fox holes and I urge you to understand that the texts of the bible were written by some 40 different authors over a period of some 1,000 yrs. It is ancient as is man and it reasons to produce a moral man based on absolutes, case in point even if religion is taken out of the equation, there still is the concept of immorality and morality that is inherently plain to man.
Yellowdart
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2011
But if righteousness is without the deeds of the law, why have the law?


The law is required. One fulfilled it.

You are not saved by the law. That is Paul's point. There is freedom in Christ from it's condemnation, but only in Christ.

There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. There's that condition in order for the law to no longer matter as far as it's penalty.

Why does a Christian attempt to be good? Not because we are ordered to, but foremost because we love Christ. If God wanted people to abide by his law without love, he would have just created automatons. Not people, with wills.
truth4life
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
Would not a senseless act of immorality by one individual not be questioned by the moral majority as immoral or wrong if you will? Space is limited, so Ill wrap up with the idea that it is a free will choice to be made. No one is going to get carried into heaven unless they want to be. Sense you can determine right from wrong, youre moving in the right direction.
Yellowdart
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2011
Massacring innocent children "infants and sucklings" has nothing to do with excusing the wicked. That's just murder.


Who is innocent, and who is God, but God? Man even if sinless, is not God. He has no authority over God.

I've gotta run for the evening Nano, feel free to PM me if you'd like to continue the discussion.

Nanobanano
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
Where is that? We are never judged on good intentions, but upon our righteousness, which you readily recognize we have none. Which is why we need Jesus.


No. I will eventually find it, I referenced passages showing you that even Paul didn't quite say that, nor did Jesus for that matter.

Jesus actually said, which is insane, because I guess I go to hell, but Jesus actually said everyone is judged according to their works, repeatedly on many occasions. See Matthew 7.

See Romans 2, 13-15.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves"

And so on.

Now whoopity do...

If that's true, and that people are "justified by faith without works of the law," then ignorance is bliss, we'd be better off not knowing.

I know I sure as hell would, because the ridiculous thing is, Paul later teaches legalism himself, after having said this..
Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
Why does a Christian attempt to be good? Not because we are ordered to, but foremost because we love Christ. If God wanted people to abide by his law without love, he would have just created automatons. Not people, with wills.


You're totally blind due, because you think I'm something I'm not.

You think I'm a "seeker" or yesterday's convert and don't know anything.

You think my question was interrogative, it it was rhetorical, because I'm so far ahead of you that you have no idea what I'm even talking about, but I don't know how to put it in words you understand.

I wasn't yesterday's convert. I believed this stuff for 25 years, and I commited myself to God with everything that was in me, and I lost my humanity along the way, because I don't even know what the hell it is to "live" any more, I don't.

I quit going to church 6 years ago, because I can't find one that isn't a fanatic, a con artist or a cult.
pauljpease
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2011
So if you can't meet the standard, get rid of it? Has anyone considered that the benefit doesn't come from actually living up to the standard, but TRYING to live up to it? Sure, it's difficult to walk around and not see beautiful women and have those feelings of lust. But perhaps Jesus was trying to tell us that by striving to avoid that, we will improve our ourselves. Instead of constantly sexualizing people we randomly see around us, we might begin to see them in a different way. Maybe we'll ask ourselves what we can do to help that person, rather than thinking about how that person can help us. Modern psychology research (the scientific kind!) backs up this idea. For example, nobody follows the old traditions like telling kids to "sit up straight" anymore. Nobody could see a benefit to it. Turns out that while you might not have better posture, the EFFORT of trying to remember to sit up straight increases your willpower and self-control, measurably increasing success in life.
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2011
I used to TEACH salvation and justification by faith to others, and I believed it with everything I had in me.

I used to hang out with the professional preachers and theologians and Bible students.

But it never worked for ME. I didn't tell people outwardly, because I told myself that if I just held on, eventually things would come around. It was just "my cross to bear" or a "thorn in the flesh" or some other religious psycho babble "convince yourself it's working", because it doesn't.

It never gets easier, it never gets better.

The song that claims "the longer I serve him the Sweeter it grows" is a damn religious lie.

I can't sing stuff like that any more, because it isn't true. It never was, and it doesn't get better. Life sucks.

You can't have friends and be a Christian either, I know, because there's always some Biblical commandment requiring you to have nothign to do with somebody, or some crap.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
There's not "friends" at church, because everyone is fake.

People at church are worse than much of anyone on this forum. People here treat me like shit, and maybe they should,maybe I deserve it, but at least they don't charge me 10 percent for the favor.

I wasn't always as cynical as I am now, but after all the crap I've been through in my life, It's pretty darn hard not to be. Nothing good ever happens to me. It's been 13 years at least since the last time anything good actually happened in my life, and life sucked then too.

But no, if you "actually" follow the bible, you can't have friends, because the christians have to lie to one another all the time to cover up their faults. and you can't do what your "friends" are doing, because the Bible forbids all that,so tough luck.

I don't have peace. I don't have joy.

I don't know what the hell that is, except a word in a book.

Then the fool pastors tell you it's not enough faith or not the right kind of faith, or somethin
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2011
...anything mystical or gnostic enough or vague enough to convince you to calm down temporarily.

That's how it operates, they rely on the fact you will "eventually" sort it out on your own, but attribute it to the "doctrine" or the theology of Christ, or whatever, and be content.

---

I was raised in complete poverty by fanatics, hgh school dropout fanatics.

I thought that was "normal" back then, but I know enough now to know both of my parents, especially my dad, were bat shit insane fanatics.

Not supposed to dishonour your father and mother, but God help me, that's the truth. He was worse than westboro baptist church, for goodness sake.

My older brother and I practically worked our selvs to death as kids doing their chores and my grandparents chores, to the point that I started having heart attacks at 21 years old.
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2011
And my parents didn't teach me much of anything, because they were too uneducated to teach anything, well, except the Bible, but you know, just a stupid kid. Do what you're told or they shant' "spare the rod", not one bit.

They can't spell an english word they do every day, but beat the hell out of you for failing French in the 4th grade.

go throw hay in the middle of summer, and pick their parent's garden at 6 and 7 years old, while normal people actually taught their kids something useful fo ra future...

I never saw my dad read ANYTHING in his life except a Bible, and oh yes, watch "wrastling".

He never taught me ANYTHING and I mean nothing. In fact, I had to teach him to spell, and I had to do his math for him on a job site, because he didn't know how to do it.

He couldn't educate himself, but he'd be the crazy guy with a horn "preaching" to people telling everyone thus and so, as if he was somehow qualified.
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2011
But I forced myself to learn everything I could, because I saw from a very early age how God aweful stupid my family was, but when you have no options as a kid, you're sort of brainwashed for a good 20 years, by the time you count college.

But think of that, he'd read the bible, but would not learn anything, refused to learn anything, to better himself.

My mother? All her life at minimum wage jobs, or try as much as 10 years of no employment at all, BUT complain about not having money.

Like I said, if you didn't do perfectly in school, it was beat the hell out of you as a kid, and when I was a teen it was grounding.

But they couldn't do what we now consider modern 5th grade math.

Who the hell was somebody like me supposed to get help from in college math classes?

I taught myself that too, because in most cases the professors were a joke. If I knew then what I know now, I should have sued the university for the incompetence of the teachers and counsellors.
Nanobanano
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
Do you yet understand what I'm telling you that Christianity does to people?

There's something absolutely insane about it.

No offense to God, but I've been totally wrecked ever since college.

I don't have any "real" identity any more, and yes, most of that is because of what the bible requires of you. My life has no "real" direction, in reality, in spite of the fact that's part of what the Bible supposedly is all about. The only direction I've ever had was a hyper-spiritual self-denial, that has destroyed my personality to the point that nothing matters.

Nihilism? I guess I'm there.

I'd like to have good things, and a good life, but I know nothing of what that really is.

Everything I do usually falls apart eventually, typically because of something I have little or no control over.

But I'm supposed to somehow keep going like that?

I don't know why the hell I'm writing this any more,it's a public forum and an unrelated topic, but it's not a rant. It's reality.
JRDarby
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2011
Nano, PM me (back) if you get to it sometime/want to.
Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
People in my family:

Mother
Sister
Step father (real one died of cancer several years back)
other relatives, etc...

(note. I don't have a girlfriend, never have, if you're wondering.)

(note 2: Not that i'd be a decent guy for any self-respecting woman, because I'm penniless right now, because I can't get anyone to hire me for anything, even though I can do damn near anything they could want...but tthat's another story.)

ANYWAY, I can't even talk to relatives, because I have ZERO in common with them. I actually get told, "shut up, we don't know what you're talking about," because of course they are all extremely uneducated. If you mention a computer technology, or math, or science, or pretty much anything above the "idiot, uneducated farmer who wishes it was 50 years ago," level, they pretty much ignore you or ask you to shut up.

That's life guys.

That's my real life.

That's what I got from my "christian" friends, family and counsellors: Pretty much nothing.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
I spent the past 9 years of my life trying to "right the ship" as it were, but I'm actually worse off now than I ever was. Financially, socially, Spiritually (if you want to try to come up with a real way to guage that which isn't purely speculative,) and emotionally, and well, physically too.

Anyway, after the past 9 years of my life, I'm worse off than I ever was.

Well, I have to correct that.

For the first time in what must be, my entire life, I haven't been suicidal for since maybe this entire year. (That whole "overbearing conscience" thing is hard to kick when you remember almost everything.)

Now why that should be, I don't know honestly, maybe it has something to do with me "snapping back" or something. Killing one's self can't help much of anything anyway; or maybe its because I told God it just doesn't work. I meant no offense, but maybe if I had peace without that book I'd be better off than having no peace with it.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (16) Oct 11, 2011
Not at all. I'm saying God gives and God takes away. He can chose Esau or Jacob, both, or neither. He did not have to send his Son. Mercy is never required. For if it was, it would not be mercy. Israel is punished several times for their sinful nature. God does not excuse the wicked. He excuses Christ for he was righteous.


Christianity is stupid and it is shameful how people try to justify the atrocities in the bible by saying little more than "it is god, god can do whatever he wants, god is above reproach"...

What a bunch of horseshit, that's not good enough for me and it should not be good enough for anyone.
Argiod
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
And, is this new program capable of accounting for the many translations, the many languages the bible was written in, and the ideomatic conventions of each over time? Or is it written to determine all this in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin?
These would seem to be factors that would complicate the issue to a great degree.
A2G
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2011
Nano, you studied and studied, but you never learn one basic thing...walking in the Spirit..

If you do that being a good Christian, is easy...You may have tried really hard, but you missed a very simple door that makes it all very easy...

CHollman, you have no chance of even beginning to understand what I just said. Sorry, but that is a fact. Good luck with you judgement of God. If you do not understand what I wrote to nano, you can never understand God.

One day all of you will see it, hopefully before it is too late for you..

This is not God's fault..It is your lack of understanding.

Back to work for me..
spaceagesoup
5 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2011
Everyone please!

This is a scientific forum, and the article is about authorship. Kindly stay on topic for everyone's benefit and take the theology elsewhere, it is irrelevant in the context of the article, as are your anecdotes about your various Christian lifestyles , situations, ideas ,etc.

Linguistics, literature and text analysis please!
superhuman
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2011
Well, that was some pretty interesting read. It's one thing to realize the damage religion is capable of but another to read a first hand account.

If it's any consolation you would likely and up with nihilism even if there was no religion in your life at all, there is simply no justification for anything else.
LivaN
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2011
Yellowdart
Who is innocent

Those without sin, of which "infants and sucklings" would be prime examples.

Yellowdart
Man even if sinless, is not God. He has no authority over God.

It was not argued he does. You are misrepresenting the error as a contradiction between man and God, when it is actually a contradiction between God's word and God's word, as understood by man.
LivaN
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2011
A2G
Nano, you studied and studied, but you never learn one basic thing...walking in the Spirit..

He is right Nano. If you want religious peace of mind you must forsake knowledge and reason, and embrace ignorance.

A2G
If you do that being a good Christian, is easy...

So true. With the comforting embrace of ignorance, the multitudes of errors simply vanish. Everything becomes easy.

A2G
You may have tried really hard, but you missed a very simple door that makes it all very easy...

Ignorance is bliss. By avoiding the problems and contradictions, we avoid the associated hardships. All very easy.

A2G has kindly attested to the success of this method.
roboferret
5 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2011

yes, I am,believe me.

You have absolutely no idea.


Sounds like you come from a very similar background to me, creationist, pentecostal, heavy shepherding. There are a few of us around, I think folks who have suffered under that are more likely to notice that the whole religion thing is bat-shit crazy. You're not alone!
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (54) Oct 12, 2011
@A2G
CHollman, you have no chance of even beginning to understand what I just said. Sorry, but that is a fact. Good luck with you judgement of God.


Translation: "I don't like you so my sky-boyfriend is going to beat you up."

You're wicked A2G and I almost wish hell exists so you could go there, but I'm not as much of a shithead as you. Have fun with your fairy-tales.

@superhuman
It's one thing to realize the damage religion is capable of but another to read a first hand account.


This is the sad irony here. It's obvious QC (nanobanano) is an intelligent guy, though probably not as much as he thinks. What's sad is he realizes how much crap organized religion, mainstream christianity, and even the bible itself are, but he just can't take that extra step. And he is so tortured by it. I really feel for him. If I thought someone was reading my mind, watching me masturbate for fear of hell I'd be crazy too. Sadly, QC is far closer to the xian ideal than most. He pays for it.
CHollman82
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
CHollman, you have no chance of even beginning to understand what I just said. Sorry, but that is a fact. Good luck with you judgement of God. If you do not understand what I wrote to nano, you can never understand God.


I understand that you are granting "god" a pardon from committing atrocities simply because he/she/it is above us and we are his creations...

What if we apply the same logic to parents? It could be said that parents create their children and are above them, should a child never question the actions of his parents?

I bet you will say yes, because you're an idiot.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2011
Getting back to the topic at hand. . . .I have a problem with a book written by multiple authors, both old and new testaments. Although there is a lot of great advice in the Bible to live one's life accordingly, the fact that there were so many authors, and thus, so many personalities involved, creates somewhat of a "conflict of interest". On the one hand, in the Old Testament, God demands sacrifices of a physical nature. We learn first that Abraham is commanded to kill his own son to prove that he is obedient to God's demands. Then, just before the deed is done, an angel intervenes and Abraham spares Isaac from slaughter. But what if the angel had not intervened on time? And, all the innocents that were murdered by the Jews in the biblical stories at the command of the Creator. I fail to understand why all the killings of innocents was necessary and then one of the Commandments is "Thou shall not kill".
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2011
There are too many inconsistencies, and I blame that on the fact that the Book was written by many, each having his own biases and idiosyncracies (sp?) that may have tainted all or some of the stories.
Another thing is that the teachings of Jesus was not meant for Gentiles, who in his day were mainly the Romans. If I recall his words about not throwing pearls before swine, he was referring to the Gentiles, ANY Gentiles or anyone who was not a Jew, should not receive his teachings because any non-Jew was unclean.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2011
Remarkably, even to this day, Jews who follow the Torah and Talmud still believe that we Gentiles are unclean even though they may deny it. So basically, we Christians have faith in a belief that was never meant for us because we are not of the chosen people. There are many Jews who are not real Jews, their family having only converted to the faith not that long ago. But they are accepted as Jews, nevertheless. Christians however, can never be regarded as Jewish, even though we keep the Old Testament as part of our religion, simply because one has to be born into that religion even though some of the Orthodox Jewry might accept a Christian convert if young enough.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2011
As to the problem of attempting to follow the laws of Christianity to the letter, the God that you worship knows that you are NOT infallible and will make allowances for many things. He knew that already that following the Commandments can be a struggle, but it is the struggle itself that helps make us more acceptable to Him. Nothing comes easy. . .life was never intended to be easy. It's when times are hard that most people can find the courage to lift themselves out of the rut they're in and turn bad times into something better. I always think to myself that I may be poor now, but someday I might get a break and start a business that will provide jobs for others too. I don't feel sorry for myself. I'm just grateful for what I have, and not covet someone else's goods or whatever. I like to be upbeat, it makes me feel good and I don't have time to wallow in misery like Nano apparently does. I prefer reading the "Book of Enoch". It explains a lot that is not included in the Bible.
krundoloss
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2011
Its a little out of context, but I just have to say that I was turned off to Christianity at an early age. I remember being in 3rd grade and saying "I dont believe in God". All the other kids would say plainly, "You are goind to hell". Why would they judge me? Why would my beliefs, not my way of life, determine my ultimate destination. And what is hell anyway? Whatever! I will keep my mind open to what I think is correct in regards to the afterlife, morality, and the creation of the universe. And it doesnt even have to be written in stone! I can change my beliefs at will when new information presents itself! Unchanging beliefs represent a doomed system. Christians that do what they want and go to Church on Sunday are NOT "better people" than people that dont. They fool themselves into thinking they are righteous, and that they are safe because others will agree with them. Have the courage to develop YOUR OWN BELIEFS!
krundoloss
1.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2011
But I have to say, Christians do good things in this world, and I am grateful for such as altruistic group. Ultimately, religion at its core is meant to be a force of good. It is truly a shame when beliefs are twisted and lead people to do evil, such as terrorist acts (with the terrorist believing he will go to heaven for killing innocent people).
Silverhill
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2011
Pirouette:
I fail to understand why all the killings of innocents was necessary and then one of the Commandments is "Thou shall not kill".
The better translation of that one is "Thou shalt not *murder*." There's permitted killing (warfare, execution of criminals (such as "stubborn and rebellious" children; see Deuteronomy 21:18-21)), and then there's unpermitted killing (murder).
JRDarby
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2011
Actually, Silverhill, I looked it up and the root word is "ratsach," which you could translate either way. It's perfectly legitimate to translate it as "kill" rather than "murder." The idea is of someone killing another like a predatory animal.

http://www.bluele...mp;t=NIV
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2011
Nevertheless, whichever definition is appropriate. . .it all comes down to the same thing, the taking of a life. . . .or lives. I think that all the killings (or murders) committed by the Jews as commanded by their "God" was not commanded by the one true God, but demanded by the tribal elders for the sake of the seizing and taking by force of real estate and commodities that belonged to others who were not of their tribe(s). It was all about power and control over people. The tribal elders needed a way to acquire wealth and slaves legitimately, so they falsely accused God as requiring the Jewish men to kill (aka murder) innocent men, women and children of foreign tribes to get them out of the way.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
And yet, the 4th Commandment remains as, "Thou shalt not kill". I have found it to be an inconsistency for the Creator of all life to make this Commandment, and then change His mind and demand just the opposite as though suffering from a split personality.
You may say that God can do any ol' thing He darn pleases, but not when it comes to demanding a whole army to commit murder and slaughter the innocent. Even Isaac's life was spared at the last minute. But the Jews were told to do this evil act on the whim of their leaders.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
Much evil has been done in the name of religion. . . .and please don't get me started on the Catholic church and now the Muslim extremists.
I also feel that too many authors, along with their biases and not just their way with words, have confused the issues in both the old and new testament. The very word "testament" indicates a personal testimony or eyewitness account of that particular episode and at that particular timeframe. But most of those authors were not present at the events and so could not have recorded it from memory. And yet, each author writes as though he saw it all through his own eyes and heard it with his own ears, or acted as scribe to record what proceeded.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
We should all remember that tribal leaders (governments) always need a ruse, whether a legitimate one or not, to start wars, kill and maim, and take over real estate and goods (other countries). The Israelites had their own version of the military-industrial complex, i.e. weapons making, crops to feed a standing army, etc.
And, if anyone believes that governments are all doing it for the good of the people. . .guess again. It's more to line their own pockets. I am very careful as to what I will put my faith and trust in, in the Bible. The veracity of the Bible is questionable, at best.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2011
Pirouette:

Since there is so much of the Bible that you do not believe why then do you believe in any of it?

Ethelred
LivaN
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2011
Pirouette
I am very careful as to what I will put my faith and trust in, in the Bible. The veracity of the Bible is questionable, at best.


If you doubt the bible, how do you know God exists?
krundoloss
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2011
@Ethelred
It cannot be disputed that a book designed to be filled with wisdom does not contain ANY. Even if Jesus Christ never existed, that does not make the real TRUTH any less so. We should love our neighbors, respect each other, do for others more than you do for yourself, etc. Yes there are some things that contradict or claim that god has faults like humans. But that does not discredit the large volume of wisdom contained within Bible.
krundoloss
1.3 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2011
Remember in Star Wars -

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes".

Well said, Obi Wan!

Point being, you cannot say "Well if some of the bible is BS than all of it must be." Everyone has faults, should you now also say that if a person does something bad, they are a bad person? No. So is the bible, its not perfect, but if we all followed even half of what it says, then the world would be a utopia.
FrankHerbert
1.1 / 5 (51) Oct 14, 2011
Which half? lol You'd have to be pretty damn selective to execute half of the bible's demands and achieve a utopia.
JRDarby
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2011
Point being, you cannot say "Well if some of the bible is BS than all of it must be."


For better or for worse, I think fundamentalists of all types would vehemently disagree in theory (though in practice I can tell you from personal experience that many do pick and choose sections they like and don't like and don't see this as violating their all-or-nothing principle).
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2011
Which half? lol You'd have to be pretty damn selective to execute half of the bible's demands and achieve a utopia.


Right, you'd have to execute none of them...
krundoloss
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
Ok then. Well a Utopia can be achieved through only one principal: Do more for others than you do for yourself. Forget everything else, that would be all each of us would need to do to create an ideal society.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2011
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
and
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
These are a part of the Declaration of Independence, in which both paragraphs mention that all the good things we enjoy stems from the grace of God AND the Laws of Nature. The laws of nature do not endow us with the freedoms; it is God who gives us that right. Then it is up to us to preserve it. The laws of nature are, basically, dog-eat-dog.

Mankind falls short of perfection in his failings through temptation and what are regarded as the "7 deadly sins". Only God can be and is, perfect. But belief in God by man presents a problem, in that men expect an easy ride throughout life and, no matter how hard they pray and struggle to be good and follow all the rules set up by their religion, they feel that God is not on their side because they don't see it as their OWN failings, but more that God failed to help them.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
MY belief in a God is a choice I made long ago, and not because I needed a scapegoat to blame for my own failings and shortcomings and the shortcomings of others, but because I believe that, truth be told, God is an Extraterrestrial. IMHO, God is not some will 'o wisp that gives us free will and then judges us on the spot in order to mess us up and screw up our love life, etc., etc. He allows us to go through life and continue to write our own final destination. You buy the ticket and pay the price, then you are free to stay on that train for as long as you wish. If you decide that you want to get off that one and get on a much nicer train with a fantastic destination. . .of course, it's your choice as well. I feel that God very seldom interferes to make things right for individuals. . .even whole nations. We have to make our own way in the world; the Bible is only a guideline and is, in reality, geared toward the Jewish people. Some of them follow their Torah and Talmud to the letter.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
But many more are too busy being assimilated into the realities of the West. You may wonder why I believe that God is an E.T. Unlike most of humanity, I happen to KNOW that extraterrestrials do exist. I consider myself one of the lucky ones to see an E.T. spacecraft in the sky in 2000. You can hoot and holler all you want, but we ARE being watched, observed, and perhaps getting readied for something. That is another reason why I was better able to understand the Book of Enoch and accept it as truth. The Jews and Catholics rejected that Book most likely because it ascribes sexuality to angels, for whom it was a no-no and who disgraced themselves with human women.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2011
It is for that reason that I regard God and his angels as E.T.s rather than a ghostly entity. I also regard that E.T. as the architect of the Universe because He is timeless.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
Point being, you cannot say "Well if some of the bible is BS than all of it must be."


For better or for worse, I think fundamentalists of all types would vehemently disagree in theory (though in practice I can tell you from personal experience that many do pick and choose sections they like and don't like and don't see this as violating their all-or-nothing principle).


@JRDarby
There are many phrases to describe that phenomenon of selective acceptance. "Whatever floats your boat" is one. LOL

Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
One other thing: Most men (and also women) are like a block of ice. When things get too hot, they fall apart and desperately look for someone or some THING to save them. For many, belief in Jesus Christ as their savior is a temporary, or maybe even permanent salve for their psyche. They are not concerned or even interested in weighing the irrationality of such a belief. It is not irrational to them, while it is to others who disagree and prefer something more solid and based on absolute fact.
But, consider this: who is more likely to demand equal justice for all, as well as the protection of the innocents and to condemn violence by dictatorships and despots in a country ruled with an iron hand by a dictator? Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use? Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
Some believers have a fear of going to hell after they die, and that is their main reason for their belief in God, and so they strive for perfection without understanding that they will never be perfect, simply BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMAN. And so they obsess almost daily about it instead of accepting that they are only human and just do the right thing. If everyone of us could be perfect and pure, we would all be candidates for sainthood. Atheism is also a religion unto itself. Atheists obsess endlessly about the irrationality of belief in a Supreme Being, as though they have absolute proof and can provide evidence that they are right. Unfortunately, there are some from both sides who will even murder to prove their point(s).
ComputerWiz
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
This same software can be used to verify who actually wrote Obama's 2 autobiographies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use? Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?
Uh it is the atheists because only they have the potential to judge everybody equally and not sort them out according to particular flavor of superstitious belief.
Some believers have a fear of going to hell after they die, and that is their main reason for their belief in God
No, I think the fear of death for themselves and their loved ones is why they fall for superstition in the first place. Hell is a clever convenience as a place where your enemies will go when you can't see them suffer in this life.

The desire for this is what establishes hell. Then all your Keepers have to do is convince you that youwill also end up there if you dont do what They say, and you are effectively penned. Vengeance is just as compelling as immortality because we can't forget about either.
CHollman82
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2011
Atheism is also a religion unto itself. Atheists obsess endlessly about the irrationality of belief in a Supreme Being, as though they have absolute proof and can provide evidence that they are right. Unfortunately, there are some from both sides who will even murder to prove their point(s).


Atheism is not a religion... in that it does not satisfy any of the qualities or properties that define the term

Having no pudding is not the same as having pudding, buddy, or I would be obese...

Also, Atheists do not believe they have "absolute proof" of anything... Most Atheists are intelligent enough to realize that "absolute proof" is an anti concept.

I am an Atheist and I don't know if god exists or not... what makes me an Atheist is that I do not BELIEVE in god(s)
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2011
CHollman82, you are not an atheist. By your own definition you are an agnostic. In order to cross that line into atheism you must first come to the conclusion that there is no god and 'know it' for yourself.

Those who do not know whether or not there is a god or gods are agnostic, the derivation of that word coming from two Greek words that mean 'without knowing' or 'not knowing.'

The term 'atheism' on the other hand comes from two Greek words with the compound meaning of 'no god' or 'without god.' You apparently are not there yet. Just saying... :)
NeptuneAD
not rated yet Oct 15, 2011
So if the atheist knows there isn't a god and the christian knows there is, does that mean that since both can't be right, neither actually knows, so the term knowing isn't correct and we should leave it to science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2011
So if the atheist knows there isn't a god and the christian knows there is, does that mean that since both can't be right, neither actually knows, so the term knowing isn't correct and we should leave it to science.
No it means we must fight the scourge that is religion until the earth is rid of it. 'For mankind to live, religion must die.' -Bill Maher
http://www.youtub...TVUulGwc

-Lets focus on the important things.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
@Skepticus Rex

I must agree with your definitive description and origin of both terms. The real Atheist KNOWS without a doubt in his heart and mind that there is no such thing as God, or ANY gods or goddesses. There is no room for either a low or high possibility that one just MIGHT exist and is laying low so as to avoid detection for whatever the reason, and might only perform a miracle occasionally. The true Atheist has it all figured out and is bent on convincing everyone within earshot of the non-existence of a Supreme Being. He believes that law and order came out of a chaotic universal environment without the need for an Intelligence to author the Laws of Nature and keep the Laws consistent in their natural order. He believes it all just fell together over some billions of years.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
The true Atheist religiously considers Creationists as the fools whose beliefs in a Creator are utterly wrong and even designed to be an irritant to Atheistic values. When the true Atheist fails to convince Creationists that God doesn't exist, he resorts to mocking their religion, values and even their human rights to worship as they choose. He will attempt to make their lives miserable by pushing legislation and lawsuits for removing from public view such things as crucifixes, the Ten Commandments, a creche or symbols representing the holy family with the baby Jesus within a stable, and yes, even Christmas trees which, of course, are really a pagan symbol. But everyone knows that.
He will regard Creationists as an insult to his intelligence because he doesn't believe as they do, therefore, they have to be wrong. He will never understand that without God, it's just a dog-eat-dog world.
Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
So if the atheist knows there isn't a god and the christian knows there is, does that mean that since both can't be right, neither actually knows, so the term knowing isn't correct and we should leave it to science.


@Neptune. . .if there ever comes a time when scientists are able to use technology to devise a "God detector" that can see the unseen or unseeable, then the big question will be answered. Until then, in the mighty words of the great Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" :))
Ethelred
4 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
But that does not discredit the large volume of wisdom contained within Bible.
Where did I claim there weren't any? That is not the question. The question is why believe it? Mein Kampf has some wisdom in it. It is still the ravings a psychopath. An occasional bit of wisdom set within a book with a god that frequently demanded the Israelites engage in genocide and that has the god engaging in pathological behavior has me asking why bother with it as a source of wisdom.

Why does anyone actually believe in it? Besides they believe in it. Which is circular and seems to be main reason for belief.

So is the bible, its not perfect, but if we all followed even half of what it says, then the world would be a utopia.
Nonsense. Choose which half? The parts about slavery and genocide?

Do more for others than you do for yourself
Like do slavery unto them?

Ethelred
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
"Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use? Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?"
""Uh it is the atheists because only they have the potential to judge everybody equally and not sort them out according to particular flavor of superstitious belief.""
@TheGhost
Atheists, like most everyone else, are encumbered with their own prejudices, biases, possibly disagreeable character, unswerving loyalty to their own cause(s), and intolerance for those of a different opinion. They are no more saints than those Creationists who believe themselves to be righteous, but who are, in reality, SELF-RIGHTEOUS.
Merak
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2011
I love these God discussions. They don't usually change anyones mind, but it is interesting to see how other beings think of the mysteries of life. I am somewhat like Nano in that I was raised christian but found its doctrine unsupportable when questioned in depth. I am agnostic as the universe is too big to say anything is impossible, just highly unlikely. A couple years ago I started studying buddism and although as with most philosophies, it has its crackpots, for the most part it has helped me understand my own motivations and how my mind actually works as opposed to being told by someone else what reality is although they themselves are only repeating someone elses experiences. Beware the true believer!
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
These are a part of the Declaration of Independence, in which both paragraphs mention that all the good things we enjoy stems from the grace of God AND the Laws of Nature.
Mostly written by Thomas Jefferson who was not a Christian. And it is not part of US law. Its a propaganda piece.

The laws of nature do not endow us with the freedoms; it is God who gives us that right.
False. It WE THE PEOPLE that give us rights.

Only God can be and is, perfect.
So genocide is perfect? I don't see it that way.

MY belief in a God is a choice I made long ago,
Since you seem to believe in Jehovah and you don't actually believe in the book that is about Jehovah perhaps it is time you think it out again now that you have more information.

God is an Extraterrestrial.
Then it isn't perfect nor a god. However this does feel a bit like it might be from Joseph Smith.>>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
God doesn't exist, he resorts to mocking their religion, values and even their human rights to worship as they choose
I prefer to emphasize what religions invariably do, as they all pretty much say the same things (we are special, god loves us best, all other Religionists are blasphemers, etc) What religions DO is use this institutionalized bigotry to compel their believers to attempt to outreproduce and supplant all the others. As they are in turn trying to do to THEM.

The result throughout history has been war, famine, pogrom, and abuses of every kind. Because god DEMANDS these things. It is in all your books.

Your right to worship nonsense does NOT supersede our right to survive. Religion will NOT be allowed to end civilization, as it now threatens to do. Whether dormant or active, all present the same threat. All must go.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
We have to make our own way in the world; the Bible is only a guideline and is, in reality, geared toward the Jewish people.
Sorry but the question was WHY believe any of that?

You may wonder why I believe that God is an E.T.
Now that you mention it YES. Especially when you call it a god which contradicts being an ET.

Unlike most of humanity, I happen to KNOW that extraterrestrials do exist.
I doubt that. You know it in the same way people know the Bible is right or that some people know that the NSA has their homes tapped.

I consider myself one of the lucky ones to see an E.T. spacecraft in the sky in 2000.
Or a UFO which simply means you don't know what it was.

I also regard that E.T. as the architect of the Universe because He is timeless.
That does not follow from seeing a UFO nor from anything else you have said. Indeed ET means something that came from another world not a god.>>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
A couple years ago I started studying buddism and although as with most philosophies, it has its crackpots, for the most part it has helped me understand my own motivations and how my mind actually works
Meanwhile buddhists are slaughtering each other in Sri Lanka and on the border between Thailand and Cambodia; people are dying there over who owns a temple.

Elsewhere and throughout history buddhists dutifully present themselves for martyrdom. Most of them killed or driven off in India, the birthplace of their religion.

Perhaps you would like to explore something a little more benign and less fanciful than a religious dogma conceived centuries ago by people who had NO IDEA how the brain actually worked and no conception of empirical methods for finding out? Perhaps you could choose not to support another mindless dogma the ONLY purpose of which is to get people killed?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
But, consider this: who is more likely to demand equal justice for all, as well as the protection of the innocents and to condemn violence by dictatorships and despots in a country ruled with an iron hand by a dictator?
Sure. Though I am an Agnostic not an Atheist the best known Atheists today sure want that.

Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?
No. Indeed the Bible supports injustice. Demands it even.

If everyone of us could be perfect and pure, we would all be candidates for sainthood.
No. Sainthood requires a belief in Jehovah AND the Trinity.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
By the way despite the title of this article, otto did not write the Torah. Although I could have you know, if I had had all that earlier stuff to copy from like the team known as 'Moses' did. Piece of halavah.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
@Ethelred. . . . .you may doubt my beliefs all you want. . .that's YOUR problem, not mine. No, I did not see a UFO. . .I identified it immediately as an Extraterrestrial spacecraft that was not of this Earth. You might prefer to never see one yourself or have anyone else see it, but it is not YOUR decision to make. My beliefs are on solid ground, unlike yours and Creationists who believe in a ghostly entity that cannot be seen. You may not realize it, but you and other agnostics or atheists are exactly like those that you oppose.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2011
Atheism is also a religion unto itself.
No. But that is a popular lie these days.

SOME, not all, Atheists have a RELIGIOUS belief that there is no god but that is not the same as religion. However MOST Atheists are aware that there might be a god. Richard Dawkins has said that. He and other Atheists simply see no reason to believe in one and they consider the odds of the existence of a god are so low it it near to zero chance. I simply don't see how to put a probility on it so I am an Agnostic. True none of the proposed gods have any evidence to support their existence and in almost all cases are actually proved nonexistent by evidence.

Atheists obsess endlessly about the irrationality of belief in a Supreme
Nonsense. That is YOU endless obsessing on Atheism. Oh you don't do that. Well neither do they. You mistaking YOUR observations of rare public events for the entirety of their lives.>>
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2011
And with that, I just want to wish Prof. Dershowitz and his son the best of luck in their endevours at interpreting who the authors of the Bible were, through technology
I tire of this conversation. I was not put on the Earth to turn your life around for the sake of your redemption. I do not care what you believe, it is of no matter to me. It is a waste of my time anyway. To all the Creationists, I say keep on believing what you believe in and don't worry about others who are of no great consequence to your existence.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
In order to cross that line into atheism you must first come to the conclusion that there is no god and 'know it' for yourself.
KNOW is not needed. Richard Dawkins does no KNOW. It is of such low odds there is no ratinal reason to believe otherwise. This is true from many Atheists.

The late Madaline Murry O'Hare did not define all of Atheism.

The real Atheist KNOWS without a doubt in his heart and mind that there is no such thing as God, or ANY gods or goddesses.
No. That is YOUR definition. No one else is beholden to it.

You and Skepticus are insisting on a definition that few self described Atheist agree with.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
You may not realize it, but you and other agnostics or atheists are exactly like those that you oppose.
Naw we don't use mindless dogma as an excuse to demean others and kill people like Religionists do.

Obama is unfortunately having to send 100 US servicemen to fight Xian fanatics in Uganda. While these people enjoy the usual slaughter and mayhem, they also like to round up children to assist them with this, and to use as sex slaves.

In related news the bishop of Kansas city was arrested Friday for failing to protect children.

These people do these things because god tells them they are SPECIAL. Because they are devout, god will grant their wishes and allow them to rape and kill and torture and pillage. Because they're, uh, special.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
@Ethelred. . . . .you may doubt my beliefs all you want. . .that's YOUR problem, not mine.
Not a problem for me in anyway.

No, I did not see a UFO. . .I identified it immediately as an Extraterrestrial spacecraft that was not of this Earth.
How?

You might prefer to never see one yourself or have anyone else see it, but it is not YOUR decision to make.
You diecisions as to what something is or was do not effect the reality. They may not even remotely reflect the reality.

My beliefs are on solid ground, unlike yours
No. You have't even managed to teill WHY you believe in any of the Bible. And since I go on evidence not belief it would be helpful if you were to explain what you think something is a belief of mine and why it might not be factually based.

Creationists who believe in a ghostly entity that cannot be seen.
Well I am not one of those. I think I have been pretty clear on that.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
You may not realize it, but you and other agnostics or atheists are exactly like those that you oppose.
I don't go on fantasy or belief so what the hell are you talking about?

I tire of this conversation. I was not put on the Earth to turn your life around for the sake of your redemption.
Translation - I can't answer the questions and that annoys me.

And most Christians would disagree with you on your purpose.

Ethelred
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
You apparently skipped over things I have said and then taken other things out of context. I NEVER said that I believe in the Biblical stories, especially the first five books (Pentateuch). I have already said that a rabbi has said that those books are allegorical and should not be misconstrued as entirely true. I have also said many times already that the Bible is a HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE and that even the New testament was not meant for Gentiles, but ONLY for the Jews. At least not until Paul started preaching to the Greeks and others. Then the Catholic church took over as guardians of the Jewish faith and its testaments and proceeded to change the sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. That and other reasons are why I don't believe in that book or its ghostly entity. I have no idea where you get the idea that I am a believer in that Jewish book. Or maybe it was because I was defending the rights of Creationists to believe what they will.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
And no, most Christians would NOT disagree with me on my purpose for being on this Earth. I am not clergy, therefore I haven't the calling to even care about your redemption or damnation. It doesn't concern me at all and I have far better things to do than pick apart the text of your little speeches and opinions.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2011
This thread just got filled with stupid.

Atheism is a DISBELIEF in god. Belief is not the same thing as KNOWLEDGE.

Thank you and goodnight.
CHollman82
3.1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2011
CHollman82, you are not an atheist.


Yes, I am, you have no idea what you are talking about and should shut your ignorant mouth until you do.

The term 'atheism' on the other hand comes from two Greek words with the compound meaning of 'no god' or 'without god.' You apparently are not there yet. Just saying... :)


Theism refers to BELIEF in god... a-theism means without BELIEF in god.

There, now you know, stop saying stupid things and telling people what they are or aren't.
flashgordon
not rated yet Oct 15, 2011
As a chapter title of Ed Regis says "Greek chorus of whoa!"

The fact that this post was reposted today is as amazing as the length of replies has become. I hope people understand my posts as an effort to get people to put the mythologies of the past in historical perspective and leave it there. This appears to be a hard conception to get across.
flashgordon
not rated yet Oct 15, 2011
hmm, this appears to be a new post; it is similar to a previous article they put up I don't know how many months ago. That alone is interesting. I don't know what to say about that!
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
Hey flash. . .nice to see you. I think the gist of all this is that nobody can be satisfied and just let people be. Very few people, anyway. I guess there will always be disgruntled people in the world who have a need to define their own beliefs, or lack of it, by the beliefs of others with whom they disagree. I have been defending the underdog, who are, in this instance, the Bible thumpers.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 15, 2011
Chair and Couch

Everyone that will does place thoughts here.
The couch is big. The sessions numberless.
Did you lie or sit?
spaceagesoup
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
i was just about to write in defence of CHollman82s statement -

atheism is not believing in gods. it is not the same as believing gods do not exist.
i think the central tenet of most atheist thought that differentiates it from agnosticism is that they see little point in dealing with introduced concepts that aren't required to generate the phenomena we observe in existence.

and the lack of having a good idea about how this all began is no good reason to start implying a "man in the sky" did it.
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
lol
It all began with association.
Everyone has associations. No exceptions.

I'm sitting.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
i think the central tenet of most atheist thought that differentiates it from agnosticism is that they see little point in dealing with introduced concepts that aren't required to generate the phenomena we observe in existence.
So how is that different? I don't see any. In fact it is pretty close the original definition of Agnostic which was coined by Thomas Huxley. People keep trying to winkle out a definition from the words antecedents instead of going to the source.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.


Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
Kudos.
You sat where I was sitting.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
Well space. . . .I agree with your definition of what constitutes the beliefs and non beliefs of both agnostics and atheists. The argument takes on a whole new meaning, however, when one group mocks the beliefs of another group, rather than respecting the fact that everyone is an individual, goes through life with different opinions on everything, and should be left alone to enjoy their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When one group resorts to tyranny and oppression over another group, everyone suffers. There are many forms of tyranny, oppression and persecution of individuals and groups of people. One of those forms is religious persecution, something which has happened in the past and is happening even now where groups of people who are purported to believe in God are, instead, persecuting others because they follow a different religion. The same holds true when people who are non-believers forget common decency and attempt, in so many ways, to persecute believers.
Pirouette
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
The point is not if you believe, or you don't believe, or you don't know WHAT to believe. The point is to treat each and everyone with respect as you would like them to treat you. . .also known as "the Golden Rule". I think there would be a lot fewer wars that way. I'm not saying that that would eliminate wars entirely, but it would help.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
The argument takes on a whole new meaning, however, when one group mocks the beliefs of another group,
Some beliefs are contrary to reality. Pointing this out is often falsely called mocking. Then again parody is a often a useful tool for making things clear.

If you should look over a few older threads you will see why some people here have enough of Creationists on this site. While I don't approve of many of the actions of those that are tired of the anti-science posts on a science site I do understand the motivation behind those actions.

and should be left alone to enjoy their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The anti-science posters could try doing that. Then they would not be making comments that worthy of mocking.

When one group resorts to tyranny and oppression over another group, everyone suffers.
The religious oppressors do not agree with you.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
One of those forms is religious persecution,
Indeed. People make me use money with false claims of 'In God We Trust'.

The same holds true when people who are non-believers forget common decency and attempt, in so many ways, to persecute believers.
I don't see that happening here. I see people getting irked by science and some people responding in kind to that behavior. I am aware that you are new here. Have a look around and see what is happening. Try to think in NON-religious terms when you do it and see just how annoying the Kevins or even the Dave57s of the world are on a science site.

And I note that you still haven't answered my question. Why do you believe anything in the Bible? You DO appear to accept some of the stuff there even if you paint it as ETs instead of a god you still seem to be accepting some stuff that has no corroboration.>>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
The same holds true when people who are non-believers forget common decency and attempt, in so many ways, to persecute believers.
Yes this us the argument the Lords Resistance Army uses when people try to stop them from raping and pillaging and enslaving. And al Qaida from bombing and hanging 10 year olds. And the FLDS when they want to marry a few young virgins. Etc etc.

Religionists should expect to be persecuted because they do so much of it themselves dont you think?
sherriffwoody
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
Is nano trying to convince others or himself? He sounds like a priest in his own religion.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
The point is to treat each and everyone with respect as you would like them to treat you. . .also known as "the Golden Rule".
Go tell it to the Kevins. And there really isn't anything to respect in claims that the world is 6000 years old. Tolerance is one thing. Respect must be earned.

I think there would be a lot fewer wars that way. I'm not saying that that would eliminate wars entirely, but it would help.
Sure. It would have meant all the deaths due to religion would not have occurred. Millions of deaths.

Ethelred
spaceagesoup
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Ethelred - the concepts are different, and mutually exclusive.

The reason we don't revert to Huxley's simplistic and definitive version of agnosticism is because is does not envelope anything outside of the modern Christian gods. I'm sure Huxley himself would have ridiculed numerous other sects and sets of ideas whilst holding the Christian "God" from the context of his life in a different esteem.

Agnosticism treats the concept of a creator with relative weight, but surmises that because it isn't a reasonable hypothesis (i.e. not able to be deduced with reason) that it is outside of the realm of (present)( human knowledge and judgement.

Atheism doesn't bother to concern itself with invented concepts that fall outside of reason (generally). It isn't so much about not believing in gods anymore so than it is about not believing in flying pigs or how to grow spaghetti, where no processes are seen, or required to fulfill other phenomena.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Ethelred - the concepts are different, and mutually exclusive.
No. Not if you are referring to Atheism vs Agnosticism anyway. There are hard and soft Atheists and most of the soft Atheists are NEARLY indistinguishable from Agnostics.

The reason we don't revert to Huxley's simplistic and definitive version of agnosticism is because is does not envelope anything outside of the modern Christian gods.
That is YOU not WE. And it sure wasn't simplistic nor limited to Jehovah.

I'm sure Huxley himself would have ridiculed numerous other sects and sets of ideas whilst holding the Christian "God" from the context of his life in a different esteem.
You really need to check up on that. He didn't believe in any god. As for myself I hold the Jehovah of Genesis in exactly as much regard as I do the Norse gods. None of them exist.

The key you seem to be missing is EVIDENCE. The evidence is against Jehovah as described in Genesis.>>
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
Agnosticism treats the concept of a creator with relative weight,
As do most Atheists.

It isn't so much about not believing in gods anymore so than it is about not believing in flying pigs or how to grow spaghetti,
I am afraid that adding spaghetti into that turned it into nonsense. Want to try again?

Many people that call themselves Atheists just do it to piss off their parents. Some are just delusional with C. S. Lewis being the most obvious and clear example. He was NOT an Atheist and he sure as anything was not an Agnostic. Neither would pray for guidance from any god.

The main reason anyone these days calls themselves Agnostic rather than Atheist is to make it clear that don't know either way even though most are pretty sure there is no god of any kind there simply is no evidence that a sufficiently vague defined god can not exist. The Jehovah of the Old Testament clearly does not exist.

Ethelred
spaceagesoup
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
dont get personal man, and i dont need evidence, these are subjective personal ideas we're talking about here.

and please excuse me not making clearer points, i'm really just trolling to get a rise :D

what you think most people do to piss off their parents would need some supporting evidence if any comment on here did.

and you said yourself that "he didn't believe in any god" - so that would make him an atheist then.

agnosticism is an ethos defined by a negative. it's barely even worthy of discussion. useless fence sitting.
Sean_W
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
I would like to see this algorithm used on the Korran. Since it was compiled after Mohammed's death from written scraps and memorized recitals it would be interesting to see whether any material from other sources were incorporated or if it was kept pure by Allah's will.
spaceagesoup
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
and besides we digress. the article isn't even about this. OT
Burnerjack
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
For those who doubt the usefulness of these texts, clear your mind and take a look at the modern world which seems to have turned away from the basic concepts presented therein. A bit off topic, I admit.
More to the point, how does this "square" with the skip interval codind alledged to be found in these texts? I find the whole "Bible Code" intriguing at the very least.
To the "scientific types" out there, I ask you this:"You can believe in WIMPS, Dark Energy, multiverses, multidimensions and all manner of concepts with no proof and no observation, but simple faith in a higher consciousness elludes you? Why is that?" I make no arguement either way as stated beforehand, these are personal ideas and beliefs which, IMNSHO, deserve to be respected even with difference.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
For those who doubt the usefulness of these texts, clear your mind and take a look at the modern world which seems to have turned away from the basic concepts presented therein.
Which texts are those? Koran? Mishnah? Bhagavad Gita? BIBLE?? It seems that there is peace and cooperation in parts of the world where people have turned away from these books, while there is war, starvation, and suffering among people who practice what they teach. Why is that?

You think they're not practicing the way that YOU think is right? And that if only everybody practiced the same way YOU do, then the world would be a better place?

Well, they are thinking the same things about you. And their books tell them that they are just as right as yours does you. And they are ALL just as convinced as you that you must change your mind, in order to save the world. Or you are not worthy to live here and endanger their chances at immortality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
-As their beliefs endanger your chances in turn. Your books all teach you to hate unbelievers with sad condescending smiles on your faces, because you all know your counterparts are going to roast for eternity.

This is all well and good until your children begin to starve because you've all been busy trying to out-begat one another. And then the roasting begins in THIS life. Doesn't it? And your books all conveniently tell you just how to go about doing this, with a clear conscience and a song in your heart. And the name of your particular godman on your lips.

End religion before it ends us.

You can start by giving up your own sickness NOW.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
Now I know why another science reporting website I visit ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/ ) doesn't have a comments feature.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
lol
Why?

Because of all the nut-jobs that come out of the woodwork anytime any article dealing with religion is posted.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
lol
Why?

Because of all the nut-jobs that come out of the woodwork anytime any article dealing with religion is posted.
Except that this site is far more popular. Wonder why?
http://en.wikiped.../PhysOrg

Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
The argument takes on a whole new meaning, however, when one group mocks the beliefs of another group,

and Ethelred says:
""Some beliefs are contrary to reality. Pointing this out is often falsely called mocking. Then again parody is a often a useful tool for making things clear.""

No, mocking one's religion is what it is. Pointing out your own belief as a non-believer to someone who has been steeped in his religion, maybe all of his life is essentially an invitation to an argument or worse. It's the same in reverse also.
Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in. Parody is also a form of mocking. What you consider as contrary to reality is actually what is contrary to YOUR reality, not theirs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in.
Your selfish indulgence in superstition endangers the world. Obviously. Why wouldn't you expect sane rational people to at least mock it? Many of us are laughing at you with a very fed-up look in our eyes.

There is no god to worship, no superhero to grant your every wish at the expense of others. There is unfortunately no place for your nonexistent soul to go when you die. This life is ALL there is. Your only chance at immortality is in the world you leave your offspring.

Make a good example. Start acting like an adult. Discard your fantasies.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
and should be left alone to enjoy their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ethelred says:
""The anti-science posters could try doing that. Then they would not be making comments that worthy of mocking.""

SEE? You DO admit that mocking is involved. And where do you get the idea that ALL believers are anti-science? Did they actually TELL you that? Or are you forming a general consensus on what they believe about science?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
When one group resorts to tyranny and oppression over another group, everyone suffers.

Ethelred says:
""The religious oppressors do not agree with you."">>

And how do you KNOW all this? Have you taken a poll on the suffering of both oppressed and oppressor? Do you not understand yet that world opinion is against the oppressor and possible future sanctions and military action by other countries will happen to the oppressor if they don't cease and desist? It doesn't matter if the oppressor believes in their God or the oppressor is an atheist, agnostic, or a member of a different denomination. World opinion is AGAINST THE AGGRESSOR. Your reality is yours and theirs belongs to them, and if you mock theirs without provocation, then YOU become the aggressor. It also holds true in reverse.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
I aggressively refute religion, because ALL religion aggressively impacts my life. I give my opinions, and convey them relative to faith, because I am oppressed by people ignorant of my actual views. Like this one:

Suffice to say there are no atheists in fox holes


Utter bullshit, and offensive. I was one, and know many still in service, risking their lives daily. In fact, there is a whitehouse.gov petition right now collecting digital signatures to end the discrimination of atheists in the US military.

You religionists act so appalled by atheists striving for their own freedom. Freedom from YOU. You have no sense of your own history. NO empathy. Isn't that what you are supposed to be good at? Isn't that the most important thing your Jebus/prophets asks you to do? Ya know, what is required for that golden rule thing?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in.
and TheGhost says:
""Your selfish indulgence in superstition endangers the world. Obviously. Why wouldn't you expect sane rational people to at least mock it? Many of us are laughing at you with a very fed-up look in our eyes. ""
LOL. . .MY selfish indulgence in superstition endangers the world??
Wow, Ghost, you have given me by that statement a grandiose opinion of myself and now I will be expecting everyone I meet to bow down in my presence to honor my new found power.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
and The Ghost says:
""There is no god to worship, no superhero to grant your every wish at the expense of others. There is unfortunately no place for your nonexistent soul to go when you die. This life is ALL there is. Your only chance at immortality is in the world you leave your offspring. ""

Well Ghost, I guess that says it all. Therefore, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro brothers, and all of the murderers in history, including the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer and many others throughout history all get a free pass. According to you, they will not have to pay for their sins. If you have a son or daughter and they get raped and murdered, why, their killer will never have to pay for their crimes beyond an injection in their arm, right? Therefore, they have nothing to worry about. Their enemies, the Creationists, most of them anyway, will continue to be mocked by atheists and agnostics, so that they will be shamed into not reforming convicts and murderers.

Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
and TheGhost says:
""Make a good example. Start acting like an adult. Discard your fantasies.""

Which fantasies, Ghost? The one about Brad Pitt? Nope, I'm not willing to give THAT one up.
If you bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread and not take them out of context the way Ethelred enjoys doing, you would have found that I don't believe in a ghostly entity of the Bible because the Bible was written by too many authors with their biases and idiosyncracies and that they may have indulged in a bit of author's licence? and put a little of themselves in the stories. It's all just hearsay anyway. However, I do believe in Extraterrestrials, simply b/c I had the pleasure of seeing one of their spacecraft flying overhead one day. And quite close, I might add. We don't have such a ship unless our gummint is hiding that technology from us taxpayers. So you see, you are barking up the wrong tree when you accuse me of these things.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Personally, I don't really care what other people believe or not believe in. I believe in myself, and I believe that we are NOT alone in our solar system and I've seen the proof already. You could try to convince me that the ship wasn't real, but it was too close in the sky to misidentify it. I know that there are people who don't like the idea that we are not alone, and there are those who, like me, are waiting for either the invasion to begin, or the historic meeting between us and off-worlders. No matter their appearance (they might think WE'RE ugly), I would welcome them as brothers. I love the idea that we're not alone in the Universe. It would scare me far worse to know that we are.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Anyway, MY God is an Extraterrestrial, who is so far superior to us technologically that we might never catch up without His help. Mock me if you wish, I don't really care. I have seen something far more inspiring and exciting than what is in the Bible. The Book of Enoch is also inspiring to me, there is some science in it if you read the whole thing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Ah. So you've chosen to create your own special religion, in your own image so to speak, right? Are you an alien from space then?

You did say this:
But, consider this: who is more likely to demand equal justice for all, as well as the protection of the innocents and to condemn violence by dictatorships and despots in a country ruled with an iron hand by a dictator? Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use? Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?
-Which makes me believe you have no appreciation of what religion is or the ruin it is capable of.

Educate yourself.
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Bill maher is certainly not the final word. But it is a good place to start.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Anyway, MY God is an Extraterrestrial, who is so far superior to us technologically that we might never catch up without His help. Mock me if you wish, I don't really care. I have seen something far more inspiring and exciting than what is in the Bible. The Book of Enoch is also inspiring to me, there is some science in it if you read the whole thing.
You should consider that in a few hundred years or so and without any interference, mankind will have become very machine-like. By the time we reach the stage of your ETs, if they exist, we can be expected to be totally mechanical.

Sentient life will be machine life, with a central singularity intelligence and umpteen billion peripherals. Nobody to argue with, nobody to tolerate except perhaps the next singularity a few dozen ly away.

So your buddies from the cosmos are most likely machines. Just to put your pseudoreligion in the proper perspective.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
However, I do believe in Extraterrestrials, simply b/c I had the pleasure of seeing one of their spacecraft flying overhead one day. And quite close, I might add.
Did you shoot at it? I would have got a hunting rifle, preferably .300 win mag, and shot at it. Like these guys:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-This is the proper way to greet ETs. It shows them you have some self-respect.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
lol
Why?

Because of all the nut-jobs that come out of the woodwork anytime any article dealing with religion is posted.
Except that this site is far more popular. Wonder why?
http://en.wikiped.../PhysOrg


Probably because there are a lot more nut-jobs eager to spout off than people strictly interested in the science being reported.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Like these guys?
http://www.youtub...a_player

THIS is how we say hello to our robot usurpers (and any gods that may care to show up.)

I'm just having fun.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
Like these guys?
http://www.youtub...a_player

THIS is how we say hello to our robot usurpers (and any gods that may care to show up.)

I'm just having fun.

Thanks,lol!
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
and TheGhost says:
""Ah. So you've chosen to create your own special religion, in your own image so to speak, right? Are you an alien from space then?

You did say this:
But, consider this: who is more likely to demand equal justice for all, as well as the protection of the innocents and to condemn violence by dictatorships and despots in a country ruled with an iron hand by a dictator? Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use? Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive in their country or someone else's?
-Which makes me believe you have no appreciation of what religion is or the ruin it is capable of. ""
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
LOL Ghost. . .now you're getting mighty silly. Last I heard, let's see now, Fidel Castro, his late brother, Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and several other Communists, ARE ALL ATHEISTS, come to think of it. Have they demanded equal justice for all? Have they protected innocents or condemned violence? Did they insist on fairness and have they kept their word of turning their respective countries into a paradise where everyone doesn't go without? Of course not. Cuban people are desperate to leave their own country.
Russia is headed back toward Communism with Putin.
And you're worried whether or not I have an appreciation for any harm done by religion?

Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
Now if you quoted to me the evils of the Spanish and Italian Inquisition, I would agree with you, 100%, But so far, you seem to be bitter and angry because these church-attending, praying, misanthropes to you and Ethelred, are not joining forces with you. You just can't leave it alone, can you?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Have you and all the other atheists and agnostics ever stopped to think of WHY you obsess so hard about Creationists and their belief in a God? It almost seems to me that you're all somehow jealous of them and their faith.
I KNOW that there are A LOT of atheists and agnostics who are good men and women and who pursue their life , liberty, and happiness in the best possible way they can, and bear malice toward none. I can easily be friends with those people.
But those of you who are so wrapped up in your anger, I can do without.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
I prefer to consider myself an antireligionist. Whether god exists or not is irrelevant. From what I can see he is completely unnecessary. And why would any self-respecting god create a universe in which he is superfluous?

Macht's nichts. You obviously fail to grasp the peril that religions put the world in. I have family in the military. I do not want to see them risk their lives in yet another idiot war CAUSED by some religions insistence that they alone have the right to fill up the world.

I don't want them threatened back home here either, by Religionists at the helm of countries with fat budgets who are intent on finding any way possible to rid the earth of unbelievers. Those ways are increasing in number every day; Iranian nukes being perhaps the least of them.

And I happen to take satisfaction in the knowledge that mankind has assembled through it's hard work and sacrifice. Our most prized possession. Much of it irreplaceable. Religions declare a great deal of it blasphemy
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
And no I do not want to swap examples. You Religionists always lose that game but are never able to admit it.

The existence of any one religion justifies the existence of any and all of them. Believers of one necessarily invite the contempt of others. The more radical one becomes, the more radical their opponents become in concert.

And as they are ALL designed to maximize their own growth by bribery, deception, propagation, or by force if need be, they will ALWAYS cause trouble. They are fighting for the souls of themselves and their loved ones you see. They are capable of doing ANYTHING to avoid hell and death for them and their families.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
The SANEST thing that civilization can do, is declare that religion is NOT the way to make god happy, if he indeed exists (he does not.) The only way to make god pleased with our conduct is to eliminate those things which CAUSE conflict in society.

And I am sure he would fully understand if we made the elimination of all the many thousands of variations on how to kiss his holy ass, our FIRST priority.
CHollman82
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2011
The argument takes on a whole new meaning, however, when one group mocks the beliefs of another group,

and Ethelred says:
""Some beliefs are contrary to reality. Pointing this out is often falsely called mocking. Then again parody is a often a useful tool for making things clear.""

No, mocking one's religion is what it is. Pointing out your own belief as a non-believer to someone who has been steeped in his religion, maybe all of his life is essentially an invitation to an argument or worse. It's the same in reverse also.
Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in. Parody is also a form of mocking. What you consider as contrary to reality is actually what is contrary to YOUR reality, not theirs.


Sorry, reality is not subjective.
CHollman82
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2011
Well Ghost, I guess that says it all. Therefore, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro brothers, and all of the murderers in history, including the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer and many others throughout history all get a free pass. According to you, they will not have to pay for their sins. If you have a son or daughter and they get raped and murdered, why, their killer will never have to pay for their crimes beyond an injection in their arm, right? Therefore, they have nothing to worry about.


That's correct... reality is not influenced by what is comfortable or preferable to you. Your personal opinion on what is "just" or "right" has no bearing whatsoever on what is real or true.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2011
Personally, I don't really care what other people believe or not believe in. I believe in myself, and I believe that we are NOT alone in our solar system and I've seen the proof already. You could try to convince me that the ship wasn't real, but it was too close in the sky to misidentify it. I know that there are people who don't like the idea that we are not alone, and there are those who, like me, are waiting for either the invasion to begin, or the historic meeting between us and off-worlders.


Aaannnddd.... you're stupid.

I suspected it all along, thanks for the confirmation.
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2011
and CHollman82 says:
""Aaannnddd.... you're stupid.

I suspected it all along, thanks for the confirmation.""

So, is that all you have to offer to this thread and to me? You defend your stance poorly. It's obvious you are at a loss in the face of true intelligence and the fact that my experience with the sighting of an extraterrestrial spacecraft is twisting your skivvies in a knot. Take heart, you may find one some day, that is unless your destination is in the trash heap of the discontented.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
and TheGhost says:
""And no I do not want to swap examples. You Religionists always lose that game but are never able to admit it.""

Ghost, how many times must I remind you that I am NOT a Religionist (or Creationist). I don't BELIEVE in that stuff, I tell ya. Why are you belaboring the subject. . .get off my virtual back, for pete's sake. You seem like a nice guy from what I've read, but you and these others seem to expect people to be submissive to your ideology. Don't do that
hush1
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
Sorry, reality is not subjective. - CH


Well, even if reality is not subjective your associations with reality are subjective. Why?

Because no two peoples' associations are alike - despite identical physical input.

In fact your sensory perceptions make heroic efforts to delivery the physical as undistorted as possible.
(red is red as far as sensory function and processing is concern)

As soon as 'color' encounters your associations with it, it's like no other red someone else sees. That is called the difference in associations.
No two people enjoy identical associations.

It is similarity in gathered and stored associations(from mutual interaction with reality) than determines what human can agree to or not.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
Sorry, reality is not subjective. - CH


Well, even if reality is not subjective your associations with reality are subjective. Why?

Because no two peoples' associations are alike - despite identical physical input.

In fact your sensory perceptions make heroic efforts to delivery the physical as undistorted as possible.
(red is red as far as sensory function and processing is concern)

As soon as 'color' encounters your associations with it, it's like no other red someone else sees. That is called the difference in associations.
No two people enjoy identical associations.

It is similarity in gathered and stored associations(from mutual interaction with reality) than determines what human can agree to or not.


I agree with all of this but it's irrelevant.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
So, is that all you have to offer to this thread and to me?


Was that my only post in this thread?

You defend your stance poorly.


Which stance, that you're a loon? I haven't needed to defend it yet you provide sufficient evidence.

It's obvious you are at a loss in the face of true intelligence and the fact that my experience with the sighting of an extraterrestrial spacecraft is twisting your skivvies in a knot.


True intelligence...

Take heart, you may find one some day, that is unless your destination is in the trash heap of the discontented.


Find one what? ET? You cannot even put a coherent thought to word, likely because you have few if any coherent thoughts.

I, like you, suspect that Earth does not contain the only life in the universe. But I, unlike you, realize the absurdity in the belief that they frequently visit us and fail so miserably at concealing themselves... or do you think only your encounter was real?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
The relevancy is subtle. The computer algorithm searches for associations as well, or at least correlations. The catch is:

All computer algorithms are written by humans.
All algorithms are searches for correlations that reflect the the author of an algorithm - where the associations of all humans are most similar.
An unavoidable bias.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
Well Ghost, I guess that says it all. Therefore, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro brothers, and all of the murderers in history, including the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer and many others throughout history all get a free pass. According to you, they will not have to pay for their sins. If you have a son or daughter and they get raped and murdered, why, their killer will never have to pay for their crimes beyond an injection in their arm, right?


I posted this on facebook in your honor:

"Your opinion of what is "good" or "right" or "just" has no bearing on what is real or true. It's amazing how many people try to base an argument dealing with what is real on the consequences of it's existences or nonexistence. The fact that one alternative may be preferable to the other has nothing to do with the reality of either alternative.

Reality is not a fairy tale, your wishes do not dictate reality."
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
""Well, even if reality is not subjective your associations with reality are subjective. Why?
Because no two peoples' associations are alike - despite identical physical input.""

Quite right, Hush1. . . .thank you
Take the old hypothesis of twins where one is an astronaut and the other, a girl, stays back on Earth. They are both the same age, having been born within minutes of each other. Brother goes off in a spacecraft to a planet that is 5999 ly from Earth and Sis expects him back home for Christmas dinner in 6 months.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
His round trip takes him 11998 ly and he is back within the 6 months. When he greets his sister, he finds that she has aged and is now 99 years of age, while he appears to be still only 27. Time/space has moved each one into a different physical reality, although they are both now facing each other. They look at each other, both from a different perspective. He says, "you're old" and she says, "you're young". Although they're the same age, their life experiences have changed each one's reality.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
and CHollman82 says:
"Your opinion of what is "good" or "right" or "just" has no bearing on what is real or true. It's amazing how many people try to base an argument dealing with what is real on the consequences of it's existences or nonexistence. The fact that one alternative may be preferable to the other has nothing to do with the reality of either alternative.

Reality is not a fairy tale, your wishes do not dictate reality."

I NEVER said that it is MY opinion. I was merely going by the views of Creationists. Your reality is not the same as their reality, even though you both walk on this Earth at the same time.
You appear to be a very combative person who resorts to name calling when you cannot convince someone of your version of the truth. Too bad.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 17, 2011
Although they're the same age, their life experiences have changed each one's reality. - P


Both shared the same reality. Their realities are subjective.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 17, 2011
One's (subjective and unique) associations are invariant to any reality that is objective.

Otherwise words like "stubborn" can never find a use.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
hush1. . .yes, of course the siblings share the same reality but something has changed for the one. It's a bit similar to the timeframe involved for a telescope like Kepler or Hubble to pick up an image that is from billions of years ago, and is only now coming to us. The image is in the same time frame as the scope, but the image is from long ago. Don't you think so?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
Therefore, what's in the image cannot be real, even though the star image in the picture SEEMS to be real, but in reality, the star may have exploded and is no longer its former self. The place where the star WAS shares our same time frame, in any case.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
But I'm not really certain that the space where the star used to be is actually sharing the same time frame as Kepler and Earth simultaneously. It might be that that space is ahead of us or behind us
Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
I'll have to find another thread to talk about this. Good night.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
Your reality is not the same as their reality, even though you both walk on this Earth at the same time.


Sorry, reality is not subjective. Delusions are though...

You appear to be a very combative person who resorts to name calling when you cannot convince someone of your version of the truth. Too bad.


Only when the opposition is not worth the effort. I've spoken with enough people about such topics to adequately discern who is and who is not worth the effort.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
One's (subjective and unique) associations are invariant to any reality that is objective.

Otherwise words like "stubborn" can never find a use.


No.

Reality is what exists, not what one thinks exists. Reality is not contingent on knowledge.

You're simply bastardizing the word.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
Look, I understand what you're saying, but the point is when someone says something like "God might not be real to you but he is real to believers" it makes me want to vomit in rage, it is a misuse of the word "real".
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
and the lack of having a good idea about how this all began is no good reason to start implying a "man in the sky" did it.


Why not? Its a place marker no different from Dark Energy/Matter. Just for clarity I don't believe in God or Dark stuff very much.

Sorry, reality is not subjective.
-CHollman

I feel sorry for you that you have such a limited understanding of the nature of reality. Perhaps some elementary reading in other areas of science might help you. Physics and Math (of which you have a very limited understanding in any case) are not the sole repository of knowledge.

Oh, just in case that was a few too many words for you to understand CHollman, heres a summary - You are a fool.

CHollman82
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2011
Why is physorg infested with gypsies and mystics and tarot card readers and astrologers all of a sudden?

Reality is not subjective. Your personal experience of it is subjective, but reality itself is NOT subjective.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
Why is physorg infested with gypsies and mystics and tarot card readers and astrologers all of a sudden?


You could leave and that would help reduce the infestation.

Reality is not subjective


... and somehow your magical power allows YOU to be the arbiter of what is objective.

Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
as well as a bully. . . .I recognized that fact from his earlier posts in reply to others.
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
A bully? Yeah I guess I'm a bully to people spouting off bullshit about reality being whatever you make of it and if you have enough faith anything can be "true"... People who think like that make me sick. Get your head out of the clouds, reality is real and it is real independent of experience.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
CHollman, - go look up 'Primacy of Consciousness' and perhaps read some of Descartes writings. Help yourself understand some of the arguments by researching the arguments of Locke, Hume or Hegel. Then come back more fully informed and debate Objectivism.

In the meantime shooting your mouth off about subjects that you have little or no understanding just makes you seem like an arrogant fool.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
Wow... first you assume I am unfamiliar with those arguments... next you fail to understand my point, and then you insult me. You're batting 1000...

Reality is real, reality does not depend on your perception of it. The arguments of the mystics you speak of are head-in-the-clouds philo bullshit.

Objective reality is best determined by the consensus of individual subjective perceptions thereof. The very fact that there is widespread, if not total, consensus of the subjective experience of reality suggest that reality is objective and independent of that subjective experience. Are there possible alternatives? Sure... is there any evidence for them? No.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
Look, I understand what you're saying, but the point is when someone says something like "God might not be real to you but he is real to believers" it makes me want to vomit in rage, it is a misuse of the word "real".
rRage vomit is only effective when directed at at a target. Puke as a weapon-
I feel sorry for you that you have such a limited understanding of the nature of reality. Perhaps some elementary reading in other areas of science might help you. Physics and Math (of which you have a very limited understanding in any case) are not the sole repository of knowledge.
No, there is knowledge which is not physical which is sociopolitical in nature, useful for getting people to DENY the reality of physical things including their own nature. It is real in that it is useful for modifying behavior.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2011
Ans. from another thread to a lost soul. (Not you CH, you are only confused, not lost. By the way, you and I were in full agreement with each other until you started disagreeing with yourself.)

"You have to free yourself from your classical traditional maths. All Geometry is shape or form.
Poincare's Conjecture:
All shapes and forms without a hole is a sphere.
When you realize what this means for all Geometry, you will find Euclid insufficient, unnecessary, and incomplete.
You can not use the physical to defend your stance or math.
The new paradigm is:
All Geometry is Poincarian, not Euclidean. And when one does this, n-body problems are no longer intractable. Field equations have exact solutions, and protein folding problem is solved."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
Unreal knowledge such as this crap:
CHollman, - go look up 'Primacy of Consciousness' and perhaps read some of Descartes writings. Help yourself understand some of the arguments by researching the arguments of Locke, Hume or Hegel. Then come back more fully informed and debate Objectivism.
-Written by sociopolitical propagandists for certain target groups immune to the more pedestrian kind of propaganda.

Good for replacing religious dogma (with something equally absurd) in the age of enlightenment. Good for convincing intelligent people to support manifest destiny, communism, and fascism. For convincing them to ignore Malthus and embrace Nietzsche for instance.

Philos will encapsulate their motivational one-liners in incomprehensible bullshit in order to give it credibility. Like the bible does. Only philo crap appeals to the intellect and not the emotions.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
CHollman,

You insult yourself by pretending to have any understanding of the arguments pertaining to the nature of reality.

To demean great thinkers and insist that you have a monopoly on truth without any reasoned conjecture other than 'consensus' and 'bullshit', further demonstrates your lack of reasoning capability. Enjoy your ignorance alone.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
Written by sociopolitical propagandists
- GOO

.. and your 'objective' comment differs exactly how? Is your nonsensical crap any better?

hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
Otto
Stop.
The rope you offer others neither hangs or reaches you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
Philo crap is also useful for pretentious name-dropper types who think they can impress people somehow by dropping 'hegel' in discussion? I suggest 'schopenhauer' for greater bitch-slapping power. It conveys a more thorough background in the muck.

-Too late little poet. Pandora has opened his box.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
@ bluehigh

My point in defense of Creationists is mainly in the realm of individual human rights, whereby irregardless of the "nature" of reality it can be said that each human, indeed every organic and inorganic entity or substance in the Universe has its own reality in time/space due to its experiences or non-experience, whatever the case may be. A rock may have no experience b/c it lacks a brain even though it has rolled downhill. But a human and other organisms equipped with a brain will count their own experiences as unique from the reality of others. However, time and space as we know it are connections to a BASIC reality, which is why clocks were invented. But time is inconsistent and one side of our specific world will be 12 hours ahead on one side and 12 hours behind on the other side and that's a reality unto itself.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 17, 2011
or=nor
Typo

The rope you offer others neither hangs nor reaches you.
There. Much better.

To others: Forget Otto's labels.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2011
Each brain of an organism is not tied to the reality of all other brains except for the purpose of connecting with them, such as in whales mating or at a business meeting appointment. Those are usually sporadic and when it ends, everyone goes back to their own reality even though each one has been to the same place and shared the reality of that place. An atomic clock in Kansas will give you the real time there, but another clock in China will give you a different real time even though they are of the same make and model. The time reference is according to sundown and sunsets in each place, although basic reality may be the same everywhere.
To Creationists, their belief in their God is based on basic reality as well as in their own personal reality. It has to be to avoid any inconsistencies in each individual's belief system. For a believer to have faith only in his/her religion within ONLY his.her reality and not in the real world at large would be ridiculous and counter-productive.
hush1
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
Pirouette
Obfuscation. Umpteen zillion concepts in one paragraph.
Physics, Philosophy, Neuron science, and Religion.
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2011
However, the point I'm also trying to make is that Creationists for the most part, (with the exception of extremist Muslims and SOME atheists who would like to eliminate ALL Creationists or Infidels who are a constant irritant to their psyche), are aware that their God is unseen and can only go by what is written in the Bible and any miraculous events that may solidify their faith.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2011
-Too late little poet. Pandora has opened his box.


* Invokes Schrodinger knowing that as long as I dont look, the box is neither open nor closed and I run as far away as possible before the probability of a rope existing becomes a problem *

Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
Certainly, many denominations seek to add to their numbers by proselytizing, and it doesn't always work. But basically, Creationists, aside from those who force their views on their children and others, are like everyone else in the world. There are good ones and bad ones, just as there are good atheists and bad. And whatever a person WANTS to believe or disbelieve is up to that individual. Thomas Jefferson may not have been a Creationist, but he certainly did not have a hatred of those who were, and understood that it takes ALL kinds of people to make a country.
Now I know the bully will take this apart piece by piece and out of context, but that is his right, in a public thread. But name calling and vindictiveness reveals a brutish side that CHollman82 displays so well.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2011
Pandora - HIS box? No Rope of Hope.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
Pandora - HIS box? No Rope of Hope.
And you will note the use of the word 'bitch'. Am I really more subtle than you?
You insult yourself by pretending to have any understanding of the arguments pertaining to the nature of reality.
You insult yourself by invoking 'great thinkers' who reached their conclusions without any knowledge at all of how the world works. They thought they could figure it all out by sitting around and TALKING about it.

Science has since proved them wrong. Ask hawking, Feynman, dawkins, or Lawrence Krause. Just to drop the names of some people who are genuine authorities on reality.
http://www.telegr...ead.html
To others: Forget Otto's labels.
And in Detroit everybody's a bitch. So what? You are culturally limited.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2011
Kudos Bluehigh
Impressive focus.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
Pirouette
Obfuscation. Umpteen zillion concepts in one paragraph.
Physics, Philosophy, Neuron science, and Religion.


Hush1, I know. Was just trying to get in as much as possible due to time constraints. Sorry about that.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
Pirouette
No need to take advantage of CH's amok emotional states. His other states remain consistent.

Over generalization seeks to rescue your stance. Your stance grows weaker with it's repeated use.
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2011
If talking to examine the statement 'Reality is not subjective' is not helpful for you, can you provide some Math as proof. Can you apply Math or Physics to a Philosophical proposition? None of the names you mentioned would even consider rationalizing such a statement in terms of the physical sciences.

Did you need some help GOO to remove your head from your arse. Clearly all you can see is your own crap. You, of course will never be even a minor thinker by refusing to explore the reasoning behind the conclusions drawn by both sides of the debate. Though, you could qualify for being a bitch but your not even good at that!
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2011
I know, I should have just walked away but its late and I'm tired. I'm still teachable so next time I'll be more restrained. Goodnight.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
"No need to take advantage of CH's amok emotional states. His other states remain consistent."

I like that :D
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
One last for tonight. Apologies Pirouette, your interesting comments deserved much further discussion but I got side tracked by ... um, well you know.

Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
Creationists, aside from those who force their views on their children and others, are like everyone else in the world.


So, 5% of creationists, then? You really think someone that chooses to take literally a single book of allegory to base their lives on will instill open-mindedness into their children? You really think that the kids that share that blind authority-following DNA will even be capable? I don't.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
If you don't think reality is objective... what the hell do you think it is? There is no alternative that has ANY evidence in its favor, and thus no reason to believe.

The evidence for an objective reality is the mutual consensus of individual subjective perceptions of reality.
thales
5 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
Wow, a lot of momentum in this thread. As long as we're throwing personal stories around, I'd like to add that I grew up in a Pentecostal, creationist house, and only woke up a couple years ago, at age 29.

A big support for me was finding blogs written by former Xtians, especially former fundies. This site was really helpful for me emotionally: http://www.infide...monials/

My entire family is still fundamentalist, and I have found that arguing with them is usually counterproductive. So I lurk on threads and occasionally throw out bon mots.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 17, 2011
Goodnight, Bluehigh. See ya around later.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2011
TIL the phrase 'bon mot' :)
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
TIL I learned the acronym TIL
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2011
Can you apply Math or Physics to a Philosophical proposition? None of the names you mentioned would even consider rationalizing such a statement in terms of the physical sciences.
Well, in philo speak this is called 'logic' which is word math. Philos will try to use word math to justify their maunderings but as words have inexact meaning, this never works well.

And none of those people think the metaphysical exists. They are of course right.

Scientists are busy overturning all things philosophical, although not consciously. They just know how to examine the world. Philos never explained anything, never got anywhere, never established a school of thought that wasn't overturned in a gen or 2, only to be resurrected by some later gen of philos who couldn't come up with anything original. Which tells us that it's only fashion.

Nietzsche and Marx did help to convince an entire continent full of people to slaughter each other didn't they? This is the only real utility of Philosophy
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
@ thales

Congrats on your escape from a very restrictive sect. I understand that they don't allow movies, dancing and other basic things that make living enjoyable. It's a wonder that they haven't banned sex also. I have heard that the Shakers did that. As in many Theist and atheist groups, there are power struggles and the need to control and compel the populace so as to keep coffers filled and the put-down of the masses continuous. The Catholic church and the U.S.S.R. and every other country steeped in Socialist and Communist ideology and values are in some ways related to each other in certain areas, such as redistribution of the wealth of others.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
But, the church takes in voluntary contributions, while Communism/Socialism forces contribution at the point of a gun or the threat of jail. The struggle for power and control exists in all of them; However, the denigration and degradation of Creationists and their core beliefs are wrong and is something one should not indulge in, no matter your new-found philosophy. I'm not suggesting that you are doing that, but it is a fact that many who have left their faith have become brutal towards it, which is unnecessary . I wish you good luck with your new found freedom.
CHollman82
2.9 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2011
Otto shares my disdain for philosophy...
CHollman82
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
However, the denigration and degradation of Creationists and their core beliefs are wrong and is something one should not indulge in, no matter your new-found philosophy. I'm not suggesting that you are doing that, but it is a fact that many who have left their faith have become brutal towards it, which is unnecessary


There is good reason to be "brutal" toward stupidity that affects all of us...
hush1
4 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
There is nothing wrong declaring philosophy useless and superfluous. Wittgenstein did this. And I second the motion.

Now, where were we?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
and CHollman82 in his infinite wisdom says:
""There is good reason to be "brutal" toward stupidity that affects all of us...""

I disagree. Brutality, whether verbal or physical defines the brute committing the atrocity as stupid and intolerant, as well as of low intelligence, no matter his I.Q. or grade point average.
Stupidity does NOT affect all of us, irregardless of your OWN perceived definition of what is stupid. By your account, there would have been nothing to stop you from celebrating the gassing and burning of the Jews and others in the concentration camps, because you thought of them as stupid. They also were Creationists and for that reason, you would condemn them.
CHollman82
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2011
and CHollman82 in his infinite wisdom says:
""There is good reason to be "brutal" toward stupidity that affects all of us...""

I disagree. Brutality, whether verbal or physical defines the brute committing the atrocity as stupid and intolerant, as well as of low intelligence, no matter his I.Q. or grade point average.
Stupidity does NOT affect all of us, irregardless of your OWN perceived definition of what is stupid. By your account, there would have been nothing to stop you from celebrating the gassing and burning of the Jews and others in the concentration camps, because you thought of them as stupid. They also were Creationists and for that reason, you would condemn them.


Do you ever NOT go off on an irrelevant, sensationalist, rant that invokes the Nazi's?

Would you be "brutal" in defense of your personal liberties? Would you be "brutal" in defense of your right to exist?

Nothing is black and white, stop thinking in simplistic terms.
CHollman82
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2011
Oh, and widespread public stupidity absolutely affects all of us when it seeps into government... and there is absolutely widespread religious stupidity in the American government.

The rapture is coming, no sense worrying about fiscal responsibility.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
I disagree. Brutality, whether verbal or physical defines the brute committing the atrocity as stupid and intolerant, as well as of low intelligence, no matter his I.Q. or grade point average.
'Beer drinkers are incapable of subtle thought.' -Nietzsche
The rapture is coming, no sense worrying about fiscal responsibility.
Yeah and right after that, Halloween. For the rest of us.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
The rapture is coming, no sense worrying about fiscal responsibility.


or environmental protection
or population control
or preventative medicine
or social progression
or scientific research
or anything else the "religious right" isn't concerned about

kinda puts political motivations into clarity, huh?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
Hmmmm, last I've heard, neither Obama nor Sarkozy were talking about "The Rapture" in terms of what they hoped for their respective country. Obama isn't supporting Creationists, he supports Socialism. The union thugs will provide the brute force.
I do agree with Nietzsche on the beer drinkers.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
and CHollan82 says:

""Do you ever NOT go off on an irrelevant, sensationalist, rant that invokes the Nazi's?

Oh, so you think the plight of the Creationist Jews in Europe was irrelevant, and sensationalist? I take that to mean that you don't really know how to answer that.

Would you be "brutal" in defense of your personal liberties? Would you be "brutal" in defense of your right to exist?

Last time I checked, my personal liberties were not at risk at all. Brutality in the defense of one's life is not brutality, but self preservation. You need to get your priorities straight.

Nothing is black and white, stop thinking in simplistic terms.""

Sorry, there are very few gray areas in life. Maybe in yours, but not mine.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
CH. . . .I don't know about a coming Rapture, that is ONE gray area. But I DO know that our country is being overhauled by Communist/Socialists and it is THAT that will hurt us, NOT the Creationists. Get used to it or fight it. Can't have a Republic with mob rule
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
You want as few dilemmas as possible.
If you specialize in dilemma creation, then the measure of your thoroughness is the success of the moral constructs you create. If you are sloppy, you won't even bother to construct one and use one already constructed.

Of course there are those who 'spoil' everything by creating
dilemma free societies. Or try.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
wb hush1. . . .I can't think of any time in modern history, other than the Inquisitions, but that was further back, where Creationists actually harbored a need to create a dilemma. Of course, with the twists and turns of history, some dilemma can always pop up inadvertently, but not by itself. There is always a catalyst involved.
Take for instance the rock cornish hen I placed in the oven and hoped for it to be ready for dinner. I just looked at it awhile ago and realized that the small oven had turned off after an hour and the chicken wasn't done. So, I had several choices. . .either call up and order a pizza, or turn the oven back on, and THIS time be more vigilant. I chose the latter. See? Free choice. LOL
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
The rapture is coming, no sense worrying about fiscal responsibility.


or environmental protection
or population control
or preventative medicine
or social progression
or scientific research
or anything else the "religious right" isn't concerned about

kinda puts political motivations into clarity, huh?
No really, it's this weekend. Set your alarm clock (or not.)
http://global.chr...n-58368/
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
Dang it, Ghost. . . .somebody oughtta get on a horse, Paul Revere style and yell out all over the country, "The Rapture is coming, The Rapture is coming". Would you kindly do the honors, please?
ROFLOL
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
i'm really just trolling to get a rise :D
Then don't complain when someone points out that you were wrong. And you blew it again.

what you think most people do to piss off their parents would need some supporting evidence if any comment on here did.
I never said most and if you don't think SOME people call themselves Atheists primarily to piss off their parents you are naive about teenagers. Teenagers have pissing off their parents semi-intentionally as long as humans have existed. It seems to part of what gets kids out on their own.

and you said yourself that "he didn't believe in any god" - so that would make him an atheist then
No, this is what you blew. You clearly don't have a clue. I am not an Atheist and I do not believe in any god. NOR do I ACTIVELY DISBELIEVE in ALL gods. There is no evidence either way and people that think like me usually call themselves Agnostics AND it fits what Thomas Huxley intended when he coined the term.>>
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
I don't give a damn how some modern Atheists try to redefine it. They can piss off. That includes YOU orac the Chicken.

Many people that call themselves Atheist fit Agnosticism as well, and it usually referred to as soft Atheism when the person can't bring themselves to call themselves Agnostics. Some Atheists have real problem with people that call themselves Agnostics. I have had people try to browbeat me.

Believers in gods tend to think of Atheists as people that ACTIVELY disbelieve in all gods. Many Atheists do not do that. They just consider the odds of the existence of a god so low that they just say there aren't any. From what I can see many of them calculate the odds by looking at Jehovah and Allah and forgetting about Deism. Its this false dichotomy that has many people calling themselves Atheists.

I have managed to convince several people that called themselves Atheists that Agnostic was a better fit for their thinking.

Ethelred
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
:)
Better fit? Not off the rack?
The best never too good for thinking? Armani-like without the cost?
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
well said, Ethelred. . . .glad to see you've come back. . . .I've missed your thrust and parry. I hear a Rapture is scheduled for the 21st. Have you packed your bags yet? You've taught me much and I appreciate it since my critical thinking app within my neural software was a bit rusty from being rarely used up until meeting you head on and locking horns. The squeaky wheel has been oiled.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
No, mocking one's religion is what it is. Pointing out your own belief as a non-believer to someone who has been steeped in his religion, maybe all of his life is essentially an invitation to an argument or worse. It's the same in reverse also.
That is an abuse of English and it looks very much like an attempt to censure me. This NOT mocking you. It is pointing out that you are WRONG. Again.

Mocking any religion by an agnostic, atheist or member of any other denomination is, in reality, a put-down of something in which an individual or a group fervently believes in.
And that is an excuse for you advocating censorship? How? And again DISAGREEING WITH YOU is NOT mocking. Learn and use English as it the correct language for this site.

Parody is also a form of mocking.
No. Not ALSO.

What you consider as contrary to reality is actually what is contrary to YOUR reality, not theirs.
Reality is not a matter of consensus.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
.I've missed your thrust and parry.
Not from what I can see. You made an awful lot of personal attacks directed at me. I have read and written comments to all you posts but it is so long I am trying to cut it down to the essentials.

SEE? You DO admit that mocking is involved.
I said it happens so what you going about this time. AGAIN since you have trouble with English disagreement IS NOT MOCKING. Parody is. Learn the difference.

And where do you get the idea that ALL believers are anti-science?
Where did I make that claim? I am not going to defend a claim I did not make. However a LOT of believers are anti-science. Try admitting that Evolution is real if you are Muslim. There will be a fatwa. Or if you are a Southern Baptist you will be kicked out of your church.

Did they actually TELL you that?
Read what I actually write.

THAT right there is one of the essentials. You seem to have some serious anger issues that are limiting your comprehension.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
And how do you KNOW all this?
I read what they say. Try looking at Dogbert's posts.

Do you not understand yet that world opinion is against the oppressor
Do you have a clue about the repression of Science in the United States?

Your reality is yours and theirs belongs to them
Have your lost your mind? You certainly have lost your temper. Go read what I ACTUALLY wrote again.

Reality NOT a matter of consensus. Please get a clue.

if you mock theirs without provocation, then YOU become the aggressor.
Please start using ENGLISH. Disagreement is NOT mocking and while parody is it is NOT oppresion.

take them out of context the way Ethelred enjoys doing
Your entire post is available for anyone to read. It is not out of context I am giveing a clue as to what I am replying to. If you haven't notice there is character LIMIT.

Anyway, MY God is an Extraterrestrial,
That isn't a god. And even YOU only claim to have seen a vehicle.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
But, consider this: who is more likely to demand equal justice for all,
Agnostics.

Is it the atheists who believe everything in the Bible is of no use?
Them too.

Or is it the belief in God that drives good men to condemn all the iniquities that is so pervasive
Sure isn't that. Your god is something you know nothing about since all you saw was a vehicle. If you are referring to the Bible it sure doesn't encourage that. It DOES encourage slavery and genocide.

Fidel Castro, his late brother, Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and several other Communists, ARE ALL ATHEISTS,
Naw. Communism is their god. Now Hitler was a Christian.

Have they demanded equal justice for all?
Yes. They don't provide it but it is part of Marxism.

Are you SURE that Chavez is an Atheist? There are Christian Communists and almost everyone south of the US border are Christians. Around 90%.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
And you're worried whether or not I have an appreciation for any harm done by religion?
Yes. Religion has killed millions. Your beliefs did not stop the psychos whether they were or were not religious.

Now if you quoted to me the evils of the Spanish and Italian Inquisition, I would agree with you, 100%
How about the Thirty Years War, The Islamic conquests, The Chinese Civil War (yes that WAS religion and it was Christian, insane but based on Christianity). There are more and it is still going on.

misanthropes to you and Ethelred,
Nice that you made that up for me. I am not Otto. Do not mistake his ideas for mine.

You just can't leave it alone, can you?
Well you do keep saying some remarkably silly things and in my case you are attacking me for things I did not say.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
Have you and all the other atheists and agnostics ever stopped to think of WHY you obsess so hard about Creationists and their belief in a God?
They keep saying stupid things right in front of me. As I pointed out on another thread, that you saw, I don't start these.

But those of you who are so wrapped up in your anger, I can do without.
I am not angry. YOU clearly are since you don't seem to be able to deal with things I actually say. I quote what I reply to for a reason. You should try it. It might cut down on the nonsense you accuse me of.

I don't BELIEVE in that stuff, I tell ya.
Yet you make such bizarre and irrational defenses of them.

You seem like a nice guy from what I've read,
Otto?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
But time is inconsistent and one side of our specific world will be 12 hours ahead on one side and 12 hours behind on the other side and that's a reality unto itself.
The rest of that post was worse. This is merely wrong. Neither is a reality unto itself and neither is using a different time scale. The 24 hour clock is presently based on Greenwich Mean Time and that is the official time for all Earth.

Each brain of an organism is not tied to the reality of all other brains except for the purpose of connecting with them
No. They are tied to the reality despite SOMETIMES perceiving it differently.

An atomic clock in Kansas will give you the real time there, but another clock in China will give you a different real time
No. Official time is based on international agreements and time ZONES and only in narrow parts of each band do the official and the solar times coincide. Solar time and official time are two ways of measuring the same reality.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
Creationists, their belief in their God is based on basic reality
No. It is based on a book written long ago by ignorant men. Men that were wrong in their perceptions of reality.

It has to be to avoid any inconsistencies in each individual's belief system
Creationists have LOTS of inconsistencies. They have contradictory beliefs. They don't avoid them they lie to themselves and others about them.

For a believer to have faith only in his/her religion within ONLY his.her reality and not in the real world at large would be ridiculous and counter-productive
YES. That is why Creationism IS counterproductive.

trying to make is that Creationists for the most part(with the exception of extremist Muslims and SOME atheists
Now that is a sign of serious confusion. I recommend reading what you wrote before posting. More than once. I still make messes like that occasionally but that is due to writing several things and then trying to shorten the post. Usually.

Ethelred
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
Being born a Christian and into a Christian family means nothing if the person does not practice and continue in his Christian faith. Your opinions on religion and what you prefer to label yourself as, are fine with me. It's really none of my concern what you and others think on these and other issues. Your attack of my use of the English language is ludicrous, for I and others cannot see that yours is any better. Have a great life with your obvious hatred of Creationists. They don't affect my life in any way whatsoever, and I am amused by the vitriol that people like you prefer to heap on Creationists as though they were a cancer in your body. I see that I am wasting my time answering your diatribes against me and I will never be able to get you to have a change of heart. You obviously feel persecuted by Creationists and I will no longer play your game.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 18, 2011
99% of this thread is repeating the word "no" to words others will have alleged you to have said.
Unfortunately, "you" includes everyone who has commented so far.
That's a lot of "no"s. to a lot of alleging.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
are aware that their God is unseen
Many Creationists would disagree. The Bible disagrees though is also agrees, at least in regards to the face of Jehovah. Hey it isn't my fault the Bible is contradictory on this.

written in the Bible and any miraculous events that may solidify their faith
They could instead go on actual evidence. Evidence that shows the Bible has many errors and contradictions.

he certainly did not have a hatred of those who were
He wasn't religious either. Creationism, as it exists today, did NOT exist in Jefferson's time. It came about AFTER Darwin though there were certainly some pretty hard core Fundamentalists before Darwin. The Captain of the Beagle was one of them.

Now I know the bully will take this apart piece by piece and out of context,
Well that can only be aimed at me and it is a LIE. I am not bullying you or anyone else and I am NOT destroying the context. ANYONE can go up the thread and see your original post.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2011
99% of this thread is repeating the word "no" to words others will have alleged you to have said.
No.

Unfortunately, "you" includes everyone who has commented so far.
Yes. So which 'you' where you(hush1) replying to?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
It's a wonder that they haven't banned sex also. I have heard that the Shakers did that.
That is
the reason there are still Pentecostals but no Shakers. Yes the Shakers did that. Paul encouraged the
concept as well. If Paul had his way on that there would be no Christians.

The Catholic church and the U.S.S.R. and every other country steeped in Socialist and Communist ideology
OK now that is just plain idiotic. The Catholic Church is NOT Socialist much less Communist though the early Church certainly had SOME socialist leanings they did not last long.

And Communism does NOT equal Socialism no matter times someone tries to force fit it.

However, the denigration and degradation of Creationists and their core beliefs are wrong
Wrong. Education of people on the reality of the Universe is not a bad to do. Yet that is what you are claiming.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
By your account, there would have been nothing to stop you from celebrating the gassing and burning of the Jews and others in the concentration camps,
Gosh I was thinking about a FIVE for that post til you made this hate inspired remark. You really do have serious issues with non-believers. Just can't stop lying about us.

They also were Creationists and for that reason, you would condemn them.
Actually most Jews are NOT Creationists. And the condemnation there is all your own creation. CHollman needs to learn to control his temper. You need stop with that hate.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
Both shared the same reality. Their realities are subjective.
Not quite right. Their PERCEPTIONS of reality are subjective. This is an important distinction in that I can test my perceptions by using other ways of testing IF I am willing to do so. Many refuse to test or even questions their subjective perceptions.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
it makes me want to vomit in rage, it is a misuse of the word "real".
You really to get grip on yourself. Stupidity in others, as long as they do put it into action against you, is not a rational cause for rage. Neither you nor Pirouette have been showing much in the way of self-control.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
Being born a Christian and into a Christian family means nothing if the person does not practice and continue in his Christian faith.
Sure it does. If that person sees reason they are likely to quit being Christians. Happened with me. I noticed that historians and even Anthropologists tended to look at other religions objectively but not their own. So I looked at Catholicism objectively and found it was little different than other religions in that it was just myth and legend.

I see that I am wasting my time answering your diatribes against me and I will never be able to get you to have a change of heart.
Chicken. I have done that. Changed peoples attitude, at least a little. Of course to do so you would have to change YOURSELF first. Reason and rational discussion is needed to change the minds of others. Which is why CHolman and even Otto are not going to change minds. CHolman looses his temper and Otto is all over the place on top of being just plain over the top.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
You obviously feel persecuted by Creationists and I will no longer play your game.
You feel persecuted by Atheists. And frankly in the US it is the Atheists that persecuted. Just try and run for office without being a Christian or at least pretend to be one these days. There have been Presidents who had little or no religion but none in a very long time, at least publicly.

Ethelred
CHollman82
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2011
Chicken. I have done that. Changed peoples attitude, at least a little. Of course to do so you would have to change YOURSELF first. Reason and rational discussion is needed to change the minds of others.


Reason will not sway the irrational.

Which is why CHolman and even Otto are not going to change minds. CHolman looses his temper and Otto is all over the place on top of being just plain over the top


I accept your constructive criticism. I do tend to lose it after being in such a discussion for a while, It is good for me to walk away for a bit and come back later.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2011
Which is why CHolman and even Otto are not going to change minds. CHolman looses his temper and...


I accept your constructive criticism.
But I do not. ET misuses the word 'looses' in an unforgivable marjonite manner which I find unconscionable. God will smite you this sabbath for sure. You are NOT on the list.
Otto is all over the place on top of being just plain over the top
You be Marx and I'll be Lenin. Both were necessary to Change things (Lenin had lots more fun).
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
@HUSH1
I am interested in this paragraph from the above article. It says,
"In both Jewish and Christian traditions, Moses is considered the author of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. Scholars have furnished evidence that multiple writers had a hand in composing the text of the Torah. Other books of the Hebrew Bible and of the New Testament are also thought to be composites."

If not only Moses, then who else of his contemporaries would have had the knowledge to write the Torah? I understand how Moses may have dictated to someone else of his tribe the words to put down, but WHO were they? Maybe I missed something in the Pentateuch. Is it possible that Moses or whoever the other authors were, may have used earlier texts by Enoch to add to the Pentateuch?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
http://en.wikiped..._Atheism

also: http://newatheists.org/

I was listening to talk radio and decided to find another station that I am also interested in, when I stopped at one station that had a preacher on who was talking about "THE NEW ATHEISTS". I had not heard that term before, so I listened further and found out that that group of atheists has decided that all beliefs in a Supreme Being is delusional and that people who believe in such religions have to be reeducated. I knew already that atheists feel that religion is delusional. However, I did not realize that atheists have taken it upon themselves to reeducate the masses of religious into their OWN doctrines of atheism. I see that according to these new atheists, SCIENCE is the only legitimate venue for the people of Earth and religion must be eliminated entirely.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
It was an aha moment and I understood then as to why so many atheists and agnostics who seem so angry have come into this thread to vent their hatred against believers in religion, of which I am not one. The topic of this thread concerns the collating and identification of the various authors of the Torah, and yet, very few have taken up that topic at all. So I now see what the true agenda is from certain posters in this thread. I have just reeducated myself by chance, after listening to the radio.
I googled the words "the new atheists" and it was a real eye-opener.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
I also have seen that Ethelred STILL has a bad habit OF TAKING MY COMMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT so that he can copy and paste parts of MY comments and make it seem as though I had said something entirely different. He resorts to these tactics because he cannot put argument to my original words, only parts of it. He's not the only one, and THEY know who THEY are!! It's a popular NAZI and COMMUNIST tactic in order to belittle and lie about what a person has said in order to get the masses dead set against that person.

It's been tried before many times and in many cultures. It works on those who do not keep themselves informed and those who ignore THE SIGNS OF TOTALITARIANISM.
Personally, I'm glad that atheists are here and out of the closet. The fence-sitters (agnostics) also. That's what makes the world go round, I guess. :)
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
Sorry, dude. I don't know what your agenda /really/ is, but we aren't going to magically start respecting religion more, just because some OTHER people /might/ be overreaching in their vitriol. Yeah, sure, I go over the top about my disdain for religion from time to time. But that's on the internet. I discuss things here so that I don't have to in real life. No one wants to hear it; even most 'agnostics.' Atheists are the ones that are more often oppressed. Any statement otherwise is just patently false.
hush1
2 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2011
[Not quite right. Their PERCEPTIONS of reality are subjective. This is an important distinction in that I can test my perceptions by using other ways of testing IF I am willing to do so. Many refuse to test or even questions their subjective perceptions. - Ethelred

Yes. I see and understand your view. I adhere to the assertion that your senses of perception don't distort the physical (the information the physical is able to provide to your senses within their spectrum of resolution or constrictions.)

Once this constricted and distortionless information enters the brain via the senses, prior associations in the brain merge and distort this information.

Their PERCEPTIONS of reality are subjective.

Their ASSOCIATIONS of reality are subjective.

You can trust your senses. You can not trust your brain.
Your senses don't give a hoot about what happens to information they delivery to the brain as long as the physical meets the working criterion the senses work with.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
Your five sense can fail you. Subjectivity enters the equation with perception through sensation, not subsequent association. Granted it is rare for one of your senses to report incorrectly, though it does occur.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 18, 2011
Without associations perception is not possible.
The origin of all associations is physical.
The origin of all perceptions is nonphysical or if you will, the merger of two or more associations can not take place outside the brain.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
Damaged senses do not distort information. 'Damage' can add or subtract to information. This 'adding' or 'subtracting' is called 'distortion'. Information can neither be created nor destroyed.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 18, 2011
To test your associations you must find their origins. The origins of all association are physical.

I place your hand on a hot plate and make you look at sun.
Your senses have done their job without distortion.

You might associate the sunlight to pain or pain to sunlight.
Later you be accused of bias - because no one else associates a pain in their hand with sunlight.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2011
When you test your associations you test your perceptions.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2011
When you find the origins of your associations you find the meaning of perceptions. And your perceptions need at least two associations to exist. And what does reality need? Dunno.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 18, 2011
So I now see what the true agenda is... - Piroeutte


Any human language is agenda.
The truest of agendas is the agenda your senses present you before you know how to speak, read, or write.

The second truest of agendas is math - in attempt to be true, reduces or eliminates all associations that give perception meaning.

Music imitates the truest of agendas - there is no need for reading, writing and speech.

Obviously, the perception of God has many authors. There are as many perceptions as there are combinations of associations.
Well, if the origins of associations is physical, is the complete description of the physical possible? Yes. Yet, no one is comfortable with descriptions of the infinite.
CHollman82
2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
An atomic clock in Kansas will give you the real time there, but another clock in China will give you a different real time


WOW...

Holy hell...

I'm speechless. Congratulations, you've overloaded my capacity for tolerance of ignorance to the point of internal combustion.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 18, 2011
lol
The response your adversary wished. Lago's is of sophistry. You are his Othello. Your inconsistent states are of value. Your consistent states of no use.

and on it continues...
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
Skultch says:
Sorry, dude. I don't know what your agenda /really/ is, but we aren't going to magically start respecting religion more, just because some OTHER people /might/ be overreaching in their vitriol. Yeah, sure, I go over the top about my disdain for religion from time to time. But that's on the internet. I discuss things here so that I don't have to in real life. No one wants to hear it; even most 'agnostics.' Atheists are the ones that are more often oppressed. Any statement otherwise is just patently false.


Yes, I can understand how you feel about organized religion and religion in general. I fell away from my church because of all the scandals of priests and bishops sexually molesting young boys and teens.. . .turning innocent boys into butt buddies. It turned my stomach and swore I would never allow my sons near a priest. I don't trust priests. I know many or even most of them are good priests, but how do you tell the good ones from the bad?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
For that matter, how do you tell the good from the bad in ANY group, even boy scout leaders. Even atheists could have a yen for a nice juicy young boy. The best way is to keep watch over your children as close as possible until they reach the age of reason.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
I started being anti-religion after I learned of the Inquisition and excommunications in HS. I've been an agnostic since I was capable of critical thinking; when I realized no one can really know, no matter how fervently they say otherwise. (yes, I believe "the touched" are delusional, and it's not their fault) I became an atheist after I learned just how unlikely, superfluous and redundant a god's existence would be. I didn't necessarily know that I agreed with those labels right away. The last stage took considerable discussion and study of current scientific understanding to reach that level of confidence.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
@ Skultch
I respect your views but I haven't gotten to the level yet of hatred of Creationists. They haven't done harm to me except for the terrible disappointment and let-down feeling that I experienced in the face of discovering evil in the ranks of those whom I had revered and trusted for so long since childhood. I saw a documentary one night on PBS about a boy who had been sexually molested on a camping trip by a priest whom his parents trusted without question. When he told his parents what the priest had done to him, they resorted to name calling and "how dare you tell such horrible lies about Father ______". They assumed that their innocent son had somehow known all the sexual terminology on his own, but that the priest had taught him in reality.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
Watching that video, I felt revulsion at the thought of a beautiful angelic child had to endure such evil from a grown man that he had trusted and who took advantage of him. I never went back to church after seeing that. And I warned my sons about pederasts and other perverts. . .in no uncertain terms. I also told all my friends and neighbors and they all said that they would look out for such activities.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
I don't condemn ALL clergy because I don't know all of them and what they do. But I will never again put my faith in them in the way I once did. I suppose it was watching that PBS documentary and reading about all the sexual scandals in the priesthood that turned me off to religion, especially organized religion. I know that homosexuals tend to gravitate to the priesthood, the military, seminaries and any other organization where men are in abundance and they can find either cooperating individuals there, or victims.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
That is the way of the world that I do not accept, even though there is nothing I can do to eliminate it. I no longer donate money nor my time for these reasons. My sons are grown men now with families of their own and they, in turn, watch out for their own sons. I cringe now each time I see a priest or any other clergyman and I resent that some of these so-called pastors were so tight with Republican politicians in the past. That tainted the GOP for me and that is why I became a Conservative.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
At first, I also thought that Obama might be good for the country with his hope and change spiel, and that turned out to be a big fat lie.
It is hard to find anyone now in which you can put faith and trust. I now place my faith and trust in E.T. and I really don't give a darn what people think of that. That is MY choice and I am happy with it. I figure whatever happens, happens. My belief is not in the supernatural, but in something tangible and touchable. Eventually, we might be touched by them.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
Without associations perception is not possible.
The origin of all associations is physical.
The origin of all perceptions is nonphysical or if you will, the merger of two or more associations can not take place outside the brain.


You've got it backwards, or we are using these terms differently in any case.

Perception is the physical act of your sensory organs collecting information and relaying it to your brain... you need NO prior knowledge for this to work, the first time you open your eyes as an infant you see, without ever seeing before. You don't have to have knowledge to relate for the purely physical function of your five senses.

Relations are made in the brain AFTER acquiring knowledge of the world, because relations are made between pieces of knowledge... you have to GET knowledge before you can RELATE knowledge, and you get knowledge from your five senses.

Sensory perception is a prerequisite of forming relations between the knowledge that those senses provide.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
Damaged senses do not distort information. 'Damage' can add or subtract to information. This 'adding' or 'subtracting' is called 'distortion'. Information can neither be created nor destroyed.


Wait... you said:

"Damaged senses DO NOT distort information"

Then you say:

Damage can add or subtract to information. This 'adding' or 'subtracting' is called 'distortion'.

Make up your mind...
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
When you find the origins of your associations you find the meaning of perceptions. And your perceptions need at least two associations to exist. And what does reality need? Dunno.


What the hell are you talking about? Sensory perception is the ORIGIN of all knowledge in your brain. Without at least one of your five senses providing information about the outside world to your brain you wouldn't know anything or be able to form associations at all.

You really have to reevaluate your position here, or define your terms because they are clearly at odds with the common usage.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
If not only Moses, then who else of his contemporaries would have had the knowledge to write the Torah? I understand how Moses may have dictated to someone else of his tribe the words to put down, but WHO were they?
Uh you're overlooking the fact that Moses didn't exist, there were never 2M slaves/anybody in goshen, there WAS no exodus, no joshuan rampage through the levant, etc etc no Solomon or David grand kingdoms etc. None of it. Archeology tells us this. There's nothing THERE.
Maybe I missed something
Yah I guess you did.
in the Pentateuch. Is it possible that Moses or whoever the other authors were, may have used earlier texts by Enoch to add to the Pentateuch?
Those who wrote that stuff copied and edited a great deal of it from many previous sources including Sumerian. There is a lot you do not know. Enoch was most likely modeled on the Egyptian god Thoth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
Music imitates the truest of agendas - there is no need for reading, writing and speech.
So... Tell me how to get to Tacoma from here using only music. Can you solve a quadratic equation with song? Or defend yourself in court with a snappy tune?

Religionists
Philosophers
And then...
Poets
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
spaceagesoup
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
Ethelred

Fine, we have both misquoted each other. Who cares for the section of society which is comprised of "some" teenagers who arrive at their ideas (consciously or otherwise) just to annoy their folks? Accounting for this group is a useless conversation. Yes, yes *everyone is entitled to an opinion*, but factoring this point in as a relevant component in philosophical dialogue is ineffectual.

You're seeking to put 'most' atheists and all agnostics into the same basket. Atheism in of itself doesn't require "actively believing in no gods". That statement requires the concept of a god to be given weight in the analysis. Am I right in saying you would call those who actively believe in no god, "hard atheists", and those who don't believe in gods, "soft atheists"? I would call the same two conjectures "atheism" and "agnosticism" respectively.

Thus if Huxley doesn't believe in any gods, by definition he is Atheist. Who cares for his introduction of an appeasing, agnostic conjecture?
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
Without at least one of your five senses providing information about the outside world to your brain you wouldn't know anything or be able to form associations at all. - CH


The source for any sense is the physical.
The source for any association are the senses.
The source for any perception are associations.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
Can you solve a quadratic equation with song? Or defend yourself in court with a snappy tune? - O


The answer is yes.
A song is pressure and density fluctuations - quadratic expressions of any order.
Your court plaidoyer is sound. A good plaidoyer is 'music' to any jurist - just not 'music' in conventional usage.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
Make up your mind... - CH


The signal is the information. You can add or subtract from the signal's information. (One less degree of freedom) This makes the signal less descriptive of the source the signal is describing - not more distorted.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
Perception is the physical act of your sensory organs collecting information and relaying it to your brain - CH


(Physical=shape or form of energy)

The physical is the act on your senses. Your senses simply shaped the physical to a form capable to be send to the brain. Once the physical arrives in the brain shaped by senses to a form the brain is able to process, the brain compares this physical (energy shape) to other physicals store in the brain. The matching of two stored physicals (associations) is the perception of the original incoming signal.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
Pirouette,

I'm not sure how long you've been reading PO comments, but what you will eventually find is that the vast majority of the regular anti-religion people on this site derive their opinion from reason more than emotion (i.e. your traumatic experience). Emotions do not provide us with philosophical truth; they provide us with simple ways of dealing with life and people. I'm glad you do not use other people (clergy) to do your philosophical thinking for you, but we really don't appear to have anything else in common. I respect your opinion as much as any other opinion, but I do not respect your methodology. I find it counterproductive and I'm surprised that you have not, given the fact that you apparently have had plenty of time to introspect on it.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
@Ghost

So, I guess it's safe to assume that you are saying that the history of the Jews in the Middle East is non-existent before the "Diaspora" and their occupation of Europe, Eastern Europe, China and other countries in those parts of the world? Therefore, modern day Jews have misidentified themselves as "THE CHOSEN PEOPLE" and, at best, are frauds and religious charlatans? In that case, who was it that the Diaspora was all about? Also, if there was NO Jewish history with Solomon, David, and even Yeshuah, then could it be that there is no such thing as ANTI-SEMITISM, because there were no Jewish Semites, only Arab Semites? In the Bible, Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, both of the same father and different mothers, as you well know.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
you need NO prior knowledge for this to work, the first time you open your eyes as an infant you see, without ever seeing before. - CH


This is the common fallacy. All senses are subject to "dry runs" before or prior to being use for the 'real thing'.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
But by your statement of the non-existence of the Jews in the Bible, you are also negating the existence of the progenitor of the Arabs of the Middle East and have eliminated Ishmael from Arab history also, since the Koran counts Abraham as one of their prophets.
I know that Arabs don't generally refer to themselves as Semitic, but that IS the classification they fall into, but if the Jews are not Semitic, then WHAT are they?
By the way, I have a theory for the hatred of the Arabs (Muslims) toward the Jews. I think that it is not so much that the Muslims hate them for their religion, but more for their ethnicity. The huge influx of European Jews from Europe, Russia and America changed the ethnicity of the Jewish demographics of the Middle East after WW2.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2011
No longer were the Jews almost exclusively similar in appearance to the Arabs, but the influx brought so many Jewish blondes, redheads, blue, green and gray-eyes to Israel from Europe that the Muslim Arabs could no longer identify with them as the same Jewish people who had lived in Israel and LOOKED JUST LIKE ARABS.
So, IMO, it has now become a matter of ethnicity and race. I think that now the Muslims are motivated in hating the Jews because of their RACIAL makeup, rather than religion so much. It's a matter of "not in MY neighborhood", as well as the fact that the Israelis have been limiting Arab access to certain areas of Jerusalem.
The Muslims have become racists, in addition to the difference in religious doctrine.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
@Skultch

As I've said earlier, ""I respect your views but I haven't gotten to the level yet of hatred of Creationists. They haven't done harm to me except for the terrible disappointment and let-down feeling that I experienced in the face of discovering evil in the ranks of those whom I had revered and trusted for so long since childhood.""
It is virtually impossible for me, AT THIS TIME, to divorce myself from my emotions as would an automaton. I still live in the real world and, as such, have to weigh different factors as to my thinking processes. I have tried to be emotionless, but that doesn't work. Upon the death of my parents and my spouse, it was impossible to rationalize it completely and eliminate emotion. Comes the day when scientists are able to eliminate emotional thought from the human brain, it MIGHT be a milestone for mankind.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
However, it would create a huge loss in certain areas such as, if I see that you're drowning, I would not have the moral impetus to save you, and just let you drown. My sense of morality would be non-existent because it might go against the rationale of the situation.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
CH
Example of "dry runs":
As an embryo, your cells are specializing. Cells that carry the 'label' neurons are active (firing below threshold) and are waiting. Cells 'labeling' themselves 'ears' are active firing above threshold - above threshold signals target neurons. The cells of your future ears are sending signals to your neurons. I stop here. You know this is an
oversimplication - details go beyond a commentary thread.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
Skultch
You see Pirouette's 'plate'. Mere commentary will not make the plate's contents palatable.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
Piro,

It takes years of effort to be able to routinely observe just how your emotions affect your decision making. I'm lucky that I was shown the value and a way to mold and separate my emotional reactions and trump them with reason at a young age, while my mind is still relatively malleable. At some point we have to stop the introspection and self-analysis and just do what works best. I look at it like training for sports. Practice improves us, but when you step to the plate, you have to clear your mind, forget about mechanics, and trust your muscle memory.

Since I clearly prefer my own method (who doesn't?), the value I place on opinions derived from what I see as inferior methods is lower. IOW, you have almost no chance at convincing me to change my mind on anything (not that you were trying), since I find your opinions hopelessly biased.

How do you decide which opinions deserve extra consideration? I hope it's not merely that they "fit" inside your existing views.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
Skultch
You see Pirouette's 'plate'. Mere commentary will not make the plate's contents palatable.


Perhaps, but he also appears to not mind talking about his motivations. I think we still have things to learn from each other; mostly how people different from us think and perceive. Sorry, that's OT. Piro, PM me if interested.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
Sensory perception is a prerequisite of forming relations between the knowledge that those senses provide. - CH


The senses are prerequisites for association. Two or more associations form perception. Perceptions are 'knowledge'.

.1)Physical ->.2)Senses ->3.)Association ->4.)Perception ->.5)"Knowledge"
There. Much better.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
I think we still have things to learn from each other - Skultch


Yes. Few close themselves to openness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
Can you solve a quadratic equation with song? Or defend yourself in court with a snappy tune? - O


The answer is yes.
A song is pressure and density fluctuations - quadratic expressions of any order.
Your court plaidoyer is sound. A good plaidoyer is 'music' to any jurist - just not 'music' in conventional usage.
Uh huh. You would STILL have to pay the fine and you would STILL flunk the test. Try writing a song for the clerk instead of paying the fine. Whistle a happy tune while they are locking you up.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
Perception is the physical act of your sensory organs collecting information and relaying it to your brain - CH


(Physical=shape or form of energy)

The physical is the act on your senses. Your senses simply shaped the physical to a form capable to be send to the brain. Once the physical arrives in the brain shaped by senses to a form the brain is able to process, the brain compares this physical (energy shape) to other physicals store in the brain. The matching of two stored physicals (associations) is the perception of the original incoming signal.


Nonsense... if that were true you would never be able to perceive anything.

Open your eyes for the first time and you can see... you may not know what you are seeing but you will see just the same. Perception is the relay of information obtained by your senses about objective physical reality to your brain. Corruption can occur during this relay, but it is what it is, it needs no prior knowledge to work.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
You're one of those wierdos that believes the story of the Native Americans not being able to see European ships as they approached the shore because they had never seen such a thing before... Sight does not depend on knowledge, sight is mechanical, photons hit photoreceptors which generate electrochemical impulses on nerves that propagate to your brain. None of this requires any prerequisite knowledge to function. You're putting the cart before the horse and if you thought about it for more than two seconds you would realize this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
Also, if there was NO Jewish history with Solomon, David, and even Yeshuah,
No real history - only clever fables.
then could it be that there is no such thing as ANTI-SEMITISM, because there were no Jewish Semites, only Arab Semites?
Uh - what?
In the Bible, Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, both of the same father and different mothers, as you well know.
But in the reality most of us live in, science has looked for evidence of bible stories and found none. Religionists cite Hittites and jericho and herod and say that, because these exist, then the patriarchs and jebus and isaiah et al must have existed.

But evidence tells us that, during the exodus for instance, the entire route including all of canaan was occupied by egypt with garrisons and outposts all over. It tells us that during the periods of solomon and david, jerusalem was a little hilltop village or even deserted.

And people like Dr Shlomo Sand give compelling argument that there WAS no diaspora.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2011
Sensory perception is a prerequisite of forming relations between the knowledge that those senses provide. - CH


The senses are prerequisites for association. Two or more associations form perception. Perceptions are 'knowledge'.

.1)Physical ->.2)Senses ->3.)Association ->4.)Perception ->.5)"Knowledge"
There. Much better.


Sensory perception is your number 2... that is perception.

Physical -> Sensory Perception -> Knowledge -> Association -> Refined Knowledge.

There is actually a loop, but I can't express that well in text.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
Dr Sand of Tel Aviv U:
http://www.youtub...index=14

-So with all this obvious disinformation (lies) in the bible, what might we conclude about even earlier stories of abraham, the 12 tribes, joseph and pharoah and such, for which there is little hope of ever finding evidence either for or against? Is there REALLY any possibility of them being literally true?

No.

This does not mean that these myths and legends are without content or value. I think there is Enormous value in their brilliant allegory. They tell the Tale of the establishment of Order in the midst of chaos. They describe exactly how to do this; by giving a group of people an identity and a promise that if they resist temptation and do exactly as their priests tell them, they will inherit a promised land and live forever in paradise.

The bible gives detailed instructions on how this can be done. Many conquerors throughout history have used it to create Empire.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
I think we still have things to learn from each other - Skultch


Yes. Few close themselves to openness.


It appears that you haven't met many American men in their 50s or older.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
lol
I have met many people. Over 40,000 personally.
Only three is where I did not have a key to open them.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
There is actually a loop, but I can't express that well in text. - CH

The loop's order is not correct. You can not predict human behavior with your loop. My loop predicts human behavior.

I understand your attempts. I undertook the same attempts long ago.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
"Uh huh.... "- O

Besides the point being made. You know this.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
You're one of those wierdos that believes the story of the Native Americans not being able to see European ships... CH


Please. Don't assume my beliefs. The film is entertainment for the masses, not science.

Your error stems from the incorrect usage of the word 'perception'. And placing the word alongside of the word 'sensory'. The confounds the issue.
"Knowledge" is simply a collection of associations.

Take the voodoo magic out of people's words who want what is labeled "human being" to be more than something explainable and accessible to description. Put the science back in. Take the unscientific out.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
"The conscious recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli that serve as a basis for understanding, learning, and knowing."

That is sensory perception... as stated it serves a BASIS FOR (thus is a prerequisite of) understanding, learning, and knowing.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
Another definition:

"The conscious mental registration of a sensory stimulus."

Note it says nothing about associations... It is simply the ability to receive sensory stimulus. This is from the American Heritage Medical Dictionary...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
lol
I have met many people. Over 40,000 personally.
But whos counting.
Only three is where I did not have a key to open them.
My arent we perceptive. I am starting to get where youre poetic license originates. Indecipherable does not mean superior. Poet.

Maybe if you expressed yourself a little less cryptically we would be able to plumb your lack of depth. That would be a shame wouldnt it?

lol = lack of license?

I am pondering not posting this. Yes or no? Is this really any of my concern? Who am I talking to? My conscience? Who cares?
THE_ANTIPHILO
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
lol
I have met many people. Over 40,000 personally.
But whos counting.
Only three is where I did not have a key to open them.
My arent we perceptive. I am starting to get where youre poetic license originates. Indecipherable does not mean superior. Poet.

Maybe if you expressed yourself a little less cryptically we would be able to plumb your lack of depth. That would be a shame wouldnt it?

lol = lack of license?

I am pondering not posting this. Yes or no? Is this really any of my concern? Who am I talking to? My conscience? Who cares?
I for one fully approve this message.

I think we've got a live one.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
"The conscious mental registration - CH


The "registration" can only occur with associations already present and imprinted in the brain.
"The conscious recognition and interpretation...CH


...can only occur with associations already present and imprinted in the brain.

The senses function immediately when the external stimuli they were designed for is introduced.
They can not function from the "clean slate" you are proposing the senses start out with.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
The sum of the associations is your perception of the signals send, via the senses, to you.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
Otto?
Kudos.
You now have a following of one. Congratulations.
And you speak for this person. Do not shirk your responsibility for this lost soul. You speak for two now.

I for one fully approve this message.

I think we've got a live one. - Antelope


What is this person in search of?
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
:)
Maybe if you expressed yourself a little less cryptically we would be able to plumb your lack of depth. That would be a shame wouldnt it? - O


Translation:
"we"= Otto/Antelope.
Recommendation:
Ignore. Consequences? None.
lol
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
"The conscious mental registration - CH

The "registration" can only occur with associations already present and imprinted in the brain.


How the hell do you ever get anything in your brain then? You are proposing an infinite regression paradox, you realize that right?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
How the hell do you ever get anything in your brain then? - CH


The senses when mature handle external stimuli when called upon, adding to the associations already in the brain.

Spell out the infinite regression and/or paradox you see.

Your 'clean slate' proposal is incorrect. Do you see why?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
@Hush1
Hush1 says: ""The senses are prerequisites for association. Two or more associations form perception. Perceptions are 'knowledge'.

.1)Physical ->.2)Senses ->3.)Association ->4.)Perception ->.5)"Knowledge"
There. Much better.""

Shouldn't the factor of RECOGNITION be thrown into the mix?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
A 2 year old is sitting in his playpen. He looks up and sees (SENSES) a black dog coming toward him. He PERCEIVES that the dog is black and ASSOCIATES the dog as the family pet and RECOGNIZES that fact at the same time. Was that of any help? lol
THE_ANTIPHILO
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
Otto?
Kudos.
You now have a following of one. Congratulations.
And you speak for this person. Do not shirk your responsibility for this lost soul. You speak for two now.

I for one fully approve this message.

I think we've got a live one. - Antelope


What is this person in search of?
NOTHING LESS THAN THE END OF ALL CRAP. This may take awhile.

Prepare to be unemployed. Crap will soon be ILLEGAL.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
@Ghost. . . .thanks for the link to Dr. Shlomo Sand's hypothesis . . . .or may we consider it as fact? So if this is the case, then Jewish existence according to biblical lore is a complete hoax and the joke's on them. Apparently, Jews are not willing to accept that and they look about ready to string the good professor up on a lamppost.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
A raw perception is formed with the minimal of associations.

(You don't have to 'know' what you are looking at..or what you are hearing if the example is sound)

Added to the raw perception are additional associations. The 'later additions' of associations 'identified' the raw
perception.

("At first I did not recognize what I was looking at")

The identification of raw perception using and adding additional associations is called or labeled "recognition".

("After a while everyone realized and recognized what they were looking at")

A 2 year old is sitting in his playpen.
He looks up and sees an object growing in size.
His senses delivery the color and motion to his brain.
He does not have a label for color or motion. Both color and motion without the labeling are associated with previous experiences delivered by the senses. (Night time and anything that has move within his field of vision in the past).

cont...

hush1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
The sum of all the associations described in the preceding paragraph about the 2 year old produces a perception. This perception despite additional associations from past experiences remains a raw perception - the episode is stored in memory with only the associations of night and motion. Later associations from ongoing experiences will finally give way to recognition of the perception with enough associations.
(Hearing the dog breath, bark, lick, being called dog or black, the feel, the hair, the smell...all senses delivering associations to arrived at perception and finally "recognition" alternatively labeled as "knowledge"

Was that of any help? lol - piroeutte

No. That's why the laughter.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
NOTHING LESS THAN THE END OF ALL CRAP. This may take awhile.

Prepare to be unemployed. Crap will soon be ILLEGAL. - Antelope


This is harbored aggression, specifically against anything that either is:
.1)religious (the article)
or
.2)cognitive (the mind)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
@Ghost. . . .thanks for the link to Dr. Shlomo Sand's hypothesis . . . .or may we consider it as fact? So if this is the case, then Jewish existence according to biblical lore is a complete hoax and the joke's on them. Apparently, Jews are not willing to accept that and they look about ready to string the good professor up on a lamppost.
Well you bet. It gives rise to incendiary things like this:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-c/o holocaust denier ahmadinejad and his mighty little country. Dr Sand represents a rising consensus for a 1 state solution for israel and the Palestinians. This won't be able to happen however until a few ancient religionist cultures are destroyed.

Irrespective of his politics, it is pretty clear to many that most of israels history is fabrication. Like the rest of ours is. But it was nevertheless created for extremely important Reasons, and with extremely beneficial Results in mind.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
May the best (written) history prevail.
Hire Antelope as an historian. And put an end to crap. And be prepared to be unemployed. Crap will soon be illegal.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
awwww ok. . . .well, how about THIS. A newborn baby boy is brought to his mother at the hospital. The baby has no experience with perception, recognition, or anything else. His mother uncovers her breast and places the nipple in his mouth and a little milk enters it. He tastes the warm, sweet milk and natural instinct produces the need to suck at the nipple to get more milk. After awhile, he looks up at his mother's face, is sated, then goes to sleep.
At the next feeding, Mama doesn't need to place the nipple in his mouth, he automatically roots around for it. While suckling, he looks up at Mama's face and, after getting his fill of the milk, goes to sleep. During subsequent feedings, the same thing happens again and again.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
Wow, , ,that is definitely incendiary and puts the onus on the Jewish people now to PROVE their lineage, whether religious or through ethnicity. I recall that a Hollywood actress, I think she was, had her DNA sequenced and then was told that she had no Sephardic Jew ancestry in her at all. She was quite upset over that, needless to say. Sephardics are said to be the closest link to the original Israelis, and so, are desirable to be linked with.
But, if there is NO physical evidence at all to show the connection with Canaan, Jerusalem and other places in the holy land, I guess the Jews really were just nomads from Egypt and nothing more, as was said. That is not sitting well with them. If the Muslims argue that point with Israelis, I can't imagine the results.
hush1
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
A touching rendition.

Let us give the final word to the Fotus:

"Been there, done it. Suckling, (the thumb, toe, whatever), hiccups (swallowing is a bitch at first), Mom's Getto Blaster during a binge of amniotic fluid, you name it, I did it.
Kicked and elbowed. Pooed and ate it. Street fighter and astronaut - you try weightlessness for nine months - makes space boys look like amateurs. lol. Perception? Recognition? Down in the womb, from where I come from, those are fighting words. Try it. Do what I did in those nine months and replicate that. And then birth to tell about it. You can't. Thought so. Another wanna be."

It is obviously, this Fotus harbors resentment towards you.
Not giving him credit where credit was due. You have no idea.


Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
@Hush1. . . . .hahahahahah. . .that's hilarious. . . .loved it
hush1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
Wow...results. - P

Share the algorithm. That way everyone can tweak it to their advantage. A level playing field. Again.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
<<<<<<munching on late night boiled butterbeans and corndoodles
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
Hush1. . . .since no one else is here. . .what do you think of a Herman Cain/Michelle Bachmann ticket?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
I think I scared them all away with talk of natural instincts and suckling stuff.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 20, 2011
Unqualified to express even an uninformed opinion about Herman Cain/Michelle Bachmann. Too much effort to understand the personalities with so few sources of reliability. I see well founded disillusionment in people everywhere nowadays.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
Hush1. . . .since no one else is here. . .what do you think of a Herman Cain/Michelle Bachmann ticket?
A fantastic way to either destroy the Republican Party or the Nation if the worst should occur and they won the election.

At this moment the Republican Party could be more correctly called the Hard Shell Baptist Party. I am actually thinking it would be a good thing for a Mormon to win a nomination, despite my thinking it is an exceedingly idiotic religion that was created by in an intentional act of fraud much like Scientology was.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2011
Fine, we have both misquoted each other.
Where did I misquote you?

Who cares for the section of society which is comprised of "some" teenagers who arrive at their ideas (consciously or otherwise) just to annoy their folks?
Their parents. That should have been bloody obvious.

You're seeking to put 'most' atheists and all agnostics into the same basket.
Somewhat. A better way to put it, that is without emotional loading, is that there is an overlap in the definitions.

Atheism in of itself doesn't require "actively believing in no gods".
I made that clear.

Am I right in saying you would call those who actively believe in no god, "hard atheists",
I said that. So yes.>>
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
and those who don't believe in gods, "soft atheists"?
That is sloppy. Those who do not ACTIVELY DISBELIEVE in gods would be soft Atheists unless they choose to go with the definition of Agnostic. The difference in the way people choose to define themselves seems to be related to two things. Their awareness of the choice of Agnostic vs Atheist, and when they are aware the choice, the level at which they go on odds, that are pure guesswork, or perhaps with their level of annoyance.

I would call the same two conjectures "atheism" and "agnosticism" respectively.
There a lot of people that call themselves Atheist that disagree. Richard Dawkins would be one and I suspect that Johnathon Miller would be another but I don't recall if he has ever stated that a god might be possible.

Thus if Huxley doesn't believe in any gods, by definition he is Atheist.
NO. You just agreed with his definition and then used the wrong label anyway.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
What is so bloody hard about this? I do NOT believe in any god and neither did Huxley. HOWEVER that does not mean that there is no possibility that there is a god. Just there is no evidence of one. Thus he came up with Agnosticism to cover that.

You seem to be insistent on pounding round pegs into square holes.

Atheism and Agnostic overlap. Some Atheists could just as easily call themselves Agnostics. Not all Atheists could be Agnostics but all Agnostics could call themselves soft Atheists if they wanted to confuse things.

Who cares for his introduction of an appeasing, agnostic conjecture?
He did except there is no appeasement and I am NOT going to appease you by lying and calling myself an Atheist.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2011
Orac how about you explain what your problem is?

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
A fantastic way to either destroy the Republican Party or the Nation if the worst should occur and they won the election.
Please. No spokesmodel is ever allowed to have that kind of power. The king at Burger King is not the king of anything (like that one hush?)

Whoever gets Installed in these positions gives some indication of what may be in store for the country.
Orac how about you explain what your problem is?
No guts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2011
good thing for a Mormon to win a nomination, despite my thinking it is an exceedingly idiotic religion that was created by in an intentional act of fraud much like Scientology was.
But with a Purpose. Excellent for quickly filling up resource-rich but uninhabited regions with miners and laborers. Works kind of like a gold rush but you get 4 young virgins. Until quotas are reached then you are out of luck unless you know Warren Jeffs.
LivaN
5 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2011
spaceagesoup
Atheism [..] doesn't require "actively believing in no gods"[..]those who actively believe in no god[..]I would call[..]"atheism"[..]

those who don't believe in gods[..]I would call[..]"agnosticism"[..]Huxley doesn't believe in any gods, by definition he is Atheist.


Although you state that atheism doesn't require "actively believing in no gods", only those who "actively believing in no gods" you would call atheists. You then call Huxley an atheist, contrary to your definition.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
@Ghost
Ghost said: ""Well you bet. It gives rise to incendiary things like this:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-c/o holocaust denier ahmadinejad and his mighty little country. Dr Sand represents a rising consensus for a 1 state solution for israel and the Palestinians. This won't be able to happen however until a few ancient religionist cultures are destroyed. ""

Obviously, you can't have the destruction of Jewish history simply because it's now perceived as a fabrication, without also causing the destruction in the beliefs of Arab and Muslims everywhere whose beliefs have their basis in Jewish history. You might have the ability to turn many Christians and Jews away from their religion, but the Muslim world is a whole different ballgame.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2011
Extremist Muslims are far worse than Christians and Jews in their irrationality and violence. They might celebrate at first the news that Jews may have no genetic-based rights of return to Israel and Jews really have no history as a people, UNTIL it dawns on them that it also negates the basic doctrines of their OWN Koran-based religion.
I think it's a VERY dangerous Pandora's box that atheists and agnostics are opening up, and many innocent people will be murdered because of it. You might say that the end justifies the means, but the murder of the innocents would equal the murders of all the innocents in the Bible stories, of which you are against. One murder is good while another is bad is irrational in itself.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2011
Ha! I am awaiting on pins and needles the time when atheists, agnostics, and Communists are able to completely destroy the religion(s) of Muslims worldwide. Good luck on that, but it can't be done and your attempts will only result in beheadings and worldwide misery. The best solution is to let sleeping dogs lie as long as they're not attacking you or your loved ones.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2011
Hmmmm....just heard on the radio that there's a rumour? that Khadafy is now room temperature.
Could it be the act of some atheist or agnostic?
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2011
Atheism and Agnostic overlap - Eth


Hybridismostic?
I am a Hybridismostic. Whew! Settled then. :)
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2011
Personally , I don't vote for a candidate on the basis of his or her religion or lack of it, as so many others do. Nor do I vote for a candidate based on what's between his or her thighs, only what's between his/her EARS. I'm also aware that some candidates lie or misrepresent his/her agenda in order to fool the public into voting for him/her, then soon after winning the election, does an about-face, or ADDS certain elements to his propaganda to change most or or all of his political spectrum. The Socialist Obama has done this and is still fomenting trouble in the USA by promoting and enabling further dependence on government handouts, and diminishing self-reliance and independence of the masses. The end result, if allowed to go unchecked, will be a Communist society. And we all know about the misery and pain caused by Communism in the U.S.S.R.
It will not be any better in the United States except for those in power. They will still be among the HAVEs and the rest of us, the have-nots.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2011
So, I will not vote for a Republican unless he or she displays Conservative values, whether religious or not. And the candidate has to have a prior record of adhering to the U.S. Constitution as Law, which is something the Liberal Socialist Obama has decided to circumvent.
There are too many American "useful idiots" now, as there were in the U.S.S.R. during Lenin's time and beyond. The genuine poor have the options of attaining help from charitable organizations., but eventually, even charities may be outlawed by a Socialist government to the actual detriment of the genuine poor. It will happen; it has happened again and again in many countries. If I believed in the Jewish God, I would say, "God help us all".
hush1
5 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
Now repeat all your comments posted here.
What is the closest time span or sentence where you stop remembering what you said. The past sentence? Second to last sentence? Third to last? Forth to last?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
LOL. . .I've already forgotten . . .unless prodded with a Dove bar.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2011
Hush1. . .don't you think that a godless, Socialist/Communist society would be quite a novelty in the USA? It would be different for a lot of citizens. Property would be confiscated from one and given to another according to his needs. Kids in high school would have no hope for Uni versity unless he/she was a good member of the American version of Komsomol or Pioneers. . . .and there would be no such thing as Intellectual Property or Patents. . .everything would be considered as property belonging to the Party rather than to individuals, except for maybe your blanket and clothing. And your toothbrush. Sounds like a grand ol' time to be had by all.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2011
Those kids from well-off parents who are protesting on Wall Street and other places actually NEED a taste of Communism to teach them a few good lessons.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2011
Socialist/Communist society would be quite a novelty in the USA? It would be different for a lot of citizens. Property would be confiscated from one and given to another according to his needs. Kids in high school would have no hope for Uni versity unless...blah, blah... Those kids from well-off parents who are protesting on Wall Street and other places actually NEED a taste of Communism to teach them a few good lessons.

Wow. I've rarely seen such a poorly built strawman. Lousy design and outstandingly shoddy workmanship. Would be kind of like a Tim Burton or Dr. Suess strawman. But less pretty.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
huh? Care to elaborate?
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2011
Impossible to say if those last two paragraphs and words can be the last words of anyone on their last breath. Poverty is easier to share than wealth. Too little to quibble about.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 20, 2011
Last two paragraphs:
Specificallly "Those kids..."& "don't cha think...godless"
targeted from the above comment.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
Nawww. . .I was just trying to point out that none of those kids are poverty stricken and their parents are paying for their college education at Columbia and other expensive universities. But under Communist rule, their parents are not likely to have the money to send them to college and also demonstrate for their respective beefs the way they do down in Wall Street. They couldn't get away with that crap in a Communist system.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
godless refers to a Communist system and way of life when religion is banned. OK maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. . .sorry
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2011
I've just watched a YouTube of Khadafy being mauled by Libyan Muslims. . .what savages. . .it's horrendous. NOBODY should be treated that way. They had him up against a yellow vehicle, beating him and ripping at him. . .it's revolting.

http://www.youtub...rinter=1
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
you have convinced yourself of many things
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2011
Pirouette:

Communism does not equal Socialism.

Socialism does not equal Communism.

Godless is the way things most likely are whether any nations acknowledges it or not but Socialism is not godless by design.

Neither Socialism nor even Communism is inherently evil. Though Communism as espoused by Marx as opposed the Early Christians is an inherently bad economic system as is Libertarianism as both are dependent on non-humans organisms and thus guaranteed to fail for our species.

This country has ALWAYS had Socialist elements at least since the Constitution was ratified and frequently before.

Trolling is a waste of time.

Please stop doing it. All right that is the first assumption in this post. You may not be a man in his underwear cackling with glee over the consternation that brain damaged posts create. You may actually believe the nonsense you are posting.

The toll theory is me giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2011
Gaddafi deserved whatever he got. He was an evil man who killed many thousands for his own ends. He tortured, imprisoned, terrorized and used people just to retain power.

And you might want to look up what happened to Mussolini. The Italians did pretty much the same thing to him. This sort of savagery was engendered by the monsters themselves. The only thing wrong with it is that sometimes it doesn't stop with the death of the monster. See the Terror in France for how bad that can get.

Few Nations have managed to rid themselves of tyrants without at least a few over the top events. So far Egypt has managed to do things reasonably well.

True success will require leaders that are willing to give up power when the time comes.

Ethelred
Gawad
not rated yet Oct 21, 2011
huh? Care to elaborate?


Hummm. Let me think about that....
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2011
huh? Care to elaborate


O.k....not really. You're a bright boy, right? You've managed to figure out that the universe is created, that it's a trillion years old and that none of the evidence that produced the standard cosmological model adds up to a hill of beans. AND you place the burden of (dis)proof regarding your extraordinary claims on cosmologists. You should be bright enough to at least form a theory as to how my post relates to yours all by yourself, no?

Besides, in addtion to the post I initially responded to, the compendium of logical fallacies you've cumulated in your multitude of posts on this thread tells me pretty much all I need to know to answer your request. You are neither an honest debater nor a particulary bright one and you are full of yourself. I.e., a waste of time. And that's in addtion to the fact that you're obviously trolling. I was really just pointing out that your trolls are particulary amaturish, for such a self-proclaimed beacon of intellect.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2011
huh? Care to elaborate?


I was referring only to Hush1's comment, not to anyone else's. You presume way to much, and Ethelred's comments are duly noted.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
@Ethelred
""And you might want to look up what happened to Mussolini. The Italians did pretty much the same thing to him. This sort of savagery was engendered by the monsters themselves. The only thing wrong with it is that sometimes it doesn't stop with the death of the monster. See the Terror in France for how bad that can get.""

:) Yes, I've read the history books and watched docs on TV such as "World at War" and many others. That piano wire method must have been extremely painful but too quick. But the French Revolution was completely irrational after the deposing (and DISposing) of the monarchy where even innocent seamstresses were guillotined only because they worked for the Queen. Not too mention innocent children were murdered also along with their parents.
That whole thing became a sickness and veered from the original intent. Ben Franklin loved France but realized his error soon after when he saw what was really going on.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2011
Oh, and yes, I DO believe that that the Universe is more than 13.7 billion years old, or whatever the number is. I adhere to the theory that the Universe is flat and goes on forever. If it was a closed unit like a globe or saddle-shaped, then there would be a chance that it may not be older than that figure they give us. But, until I see evidence that there is an OTHER side to this Universe, such as a wall, I will always believe that it goes on for eternity, and therefore is at least a trillion years old.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2011
@Ethelred
""Neither Socialism nor even Communism is inherently evil. Though Communism as espoused by Marx as opposed the Early Christians is an inherently bad economic system as is Libertarianism as both are dependent on non-humans organisms and thus guaranteed to fail for our species.

This country has ALWAYS had Socialist elements at least since the Constitution was ratified and frequently before.

Trolling is a waste of time.

Please stop doing it. All right that is the first assumption in this post. You may not be a man in his underwear cackling with glee over the consternation that brain damaged posts create. You may actually believe the nonsense you are posting.""
Ethelred. . .The only thing I understood was your first sentence. I agree they're not inherently evil. But they become evil because of evil men and their evil agendas.
Second thing: I AM NOT A TROLL AND I HAVEN'T BEEN TROLLING. So why do you accuse me of that?
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
huh? Care to elaborate?


You presume way to (sic.) much.

Coming from you, that's pretty rich.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
I AM NOT A TROLL AND I HAVEN'T BEEN TROLLING. So why do you accuse me of that?
Because the alternative is worse. You actually believe the crap.

Oh, the Universe does seem to be pretty flat but that does not make the Universe eternal. The universal expansion of the Universe shows that it was once smaller than it is now. Run back in time and you get it having some sort of starting point. The time for that is 13.7 billion years or a close approximation thereof.

Ethelred
Gawad
4.8 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2011
Oh, and yes, I DO believe that that the Universe is more than 13.7 billion years old, or whatever the number is. I adhere to the theory that the Universe is flat and goes on forever. If it was a closed unit like a globe or saddle-shaped, then there would be a chance that it may not be older than that figure they give us. But, until I see evidence that there is an OTHER side to this Universe, such as a wall, I will always believe that it goes on for eternity, and therefore is at least a trillion years old.


An other SIDE to the universe? A WALL?

Like I said, pal...all I need to know. Thanks for the chuckle, it's a fun thread.

Now...all stop! Z minus 10 000 meters Mr. Scultch!
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
Who's in for lunch at The Restaurant at the End of the Universe? I hear today's show is going to be a DOOOZY!
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
@Ethelred
I AM NOT A TROLL AND I HAVEN'T BEEN TROLLING. So why do you accuse me of that?
Because the alternative is worse. You actually believe the crap.

Oh, the Universe does seem to be pretty flat but that does not make the Universe eternal. The
universal expansion of the Universe shows that it was once smaller than it is now. Run back in time and you get it having some sort of starting point. The time for that is 13.7 billion years or a close approximation thereof.

Ethelred

Those are exactly my beliefs and, as I've said, I'll be waiting on the final data. If the Universe started out with very little room for expansion other than the room available in the beginning, then how is it that all the galaxies are moving away from each other. The Universe would have to be finite in order for it to be only 13.7 billion years old. There has to be something beyond all that for it all to keep going and going without ant evidence that gravity will pull all galaxies back togethe
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2011
In a flat Universe, which is ONE of the theories, each galaxy and everything within it is cupped into a gravity well, right? So, in a FLAT Universe, might not all of those gravity wells serve a purpose of keeping it flat instead of folding in on itself.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2011
And even if the Universe started from a small point before the BB, the impetus of galaxies flying in all directions should flatten further the space that they're headed toward. . .and that space MAY be infinite and never ending. Even real scientists don't know the answer. You and I don't know either, but I am merely hypothesizing because you seem to want to know what I believe. Everything is hypothesis, but ideas are tested to help find the truth of the matter. Of course, you knew that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
In a flat Universe, which is ONE of the theories, each galaxy and everything within it is cupped into a gravity well, right? So, in a FLAT Universe, might not all of those gravity wells serve a purpose of keeping it flat instead of folding in on itself.
Uh no.

Hey skultch anybody disappear yet? Any cracks in your backyard? Tidal wave crashing over the rockies? Let me know. Hey the moon - it's getting impossibly bright...
http://www.washin...log.html
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
Ah yes. . .and what time was it set for? LOL. . .if I feel the Earth move under my feet, I will blame YOU, Ghost
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
Harold Camping said, I really am beginning to think as I restudied these matters that theres going to be no big display of any kind, he said in an audio address after suffering a stroke in June. The end is going to come very, very quietly.

Well, the Bible said clearly enough that it will come like a thief in the night. . .maybe he forgot that part. :)
Skultch
not rated yet Oct 21, 2011
I haven't seen anyone disappear yet, but as I was driving home from work today, on the side of the road where there is usually horses, I saw a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type was giving me an eerily giving and intelligent gaze while shaking his rump at me.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
Those are exactly my beliefs and, as I've said, I'll be waiting on the final data.
Well hold your breath. Please.

There is no such thing as final data. BUT the present data is VERY clear. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.

If the Universe started out with very little room for expansion other than the room available in the beginning,
It didn't.

then how is it that all the galaxies are moving away from each other.
Space is expanding.

The Universe would have to be finite in order for it to be only 13.7 billion years old.
It is. It is 13.7 billion light years from here to the farthest we can observe. That is finite.

There has to be something beyond all that for it all to keep going
No. SPACE ITSELF is expanding. At least that is what the evidence shows and the evidence is very strong and from different sources measured in different ways.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
and going without ant evidence that gravity will pull all galaxies back together
Well there is no such evidence. At present the Universe is not only expanding but the rate of expansion seems to be increasing.

Really the Internet is a really big place. Please use it to learn about the things seem interested in but are clearly quite ignorant about. Or you could use a library and read a few dozen books or so. I read about a dozen science books a year. Plus much more on the web.

In a flat Universe, which is ONE of the theories,
Not so much a theory but what the evidence shows the Universe to be.

each galaxy and everything within it is cupped into a gravity well, right?
No. Each bit of mass warps space. There is no well. Its a nice turn of phrase but it can lead to incorrect thinking. 'The Earth has a deep gravity well' sounds good and is useful EXCEPT when we are talking about the shape of space.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
might not all of those gravity wells serve a purpose of keeping it flat instead of folding in on itself.
See what I mean. That thinking must have come from seeing all those dubious images of balls rolling around on elastic sheets. And the word 'purpose' is worse. There is no purpose just properties.

Analogies can help a person wrap their brain around ideas. But they can also send a person in the wrong direction when the analogy is carried too far or used without understanding that it is not a real representation of reality.

And even if the Universe started from a small point before the BB,
That is one possibility. There are ways that the Universe could have started from something much larger than a point or rather a smallest possible bit of space-time. In Brane theory it could have started much larger.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
the impetus of galaxies flying in all directions should flatten further the space that they're headed toward.
They are not headed for space. There are within space and space is carrying them along as space itself expands. This is part of General Relativity. Oh galaxies do move within space as well but that is a local thing like the way the Milky Way and M31 in Andromeda are moving towards each other.

.and that space MAY be infinite and never ending.
We can't see it or be effected by it. MAY yes IS we don't know but at present the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and any part of it can only observe a sphere of 27.4 billion lights years across.

Everything is hypothesis
Not everything. Indeed there is a lot of pure crap that does not fit the evidence. An eternal Universe is one those ideas.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
Kadafi? 200 billion? Richer than the richest? Huh?
http://www.latime...lat-pick

Khadafy being mauled by Libyan Muslims. . .what savages. . .it's horrendous. - P


Do you at least send condolence?
OT comment from me. Report abuse.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
Ethelred says:
""This country has ALWAYS had Socialist elements at least since the Constitution was ratified and frequently before.""

Personally, I prefer the Amish and Mennonites as a good example of Socialists/Creationists. That's a good mix there.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2011
They should bury him with a Torah. The guy was so rich and he couldn't afford a comb and a close shave?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2011
You may not believe in God but you are lucky because God believes in you.

Even atheists are blessed with the Lords love and care.

God is great.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2011
bluehigh. . . .whether you're a believer, a non-believer, or a disbeliever. . .the fact is that the Bible and the Koran, which are all derived from the Torah (the Pentateuch and other books), is merely a history of the Jews. And now, there are Jews who DENY the history that is supposedly theirs, as well as denying the existence of their God and their right of return to Israel. They have found no evidence of God and are going by that. Swords and breastplates made of iron are long gone in most cases and written accounts could be fictional.
Funny thing though, if YOU were captured by extremist Muslims, you would have a better chance of surviving and not be beheaded than an atheist would. . .they would have more respect for YOU as a believer in their God, than a non-believer or disbeliever. I would suggest to atheists and agnostics to not EVER reveal to an extremist Muslim that they have no belief in a God. . .or lose their head.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2011
Pirouette, your knowledge of modern cosmology is practically non-existent. Almost everything you said when you were rambling about the universe and it's potential origins and properties was wrong.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
No. Each bit of mass warps space. There is no well. Its a nice turn of phrase but it can lead to incorrect thinking. 'The Earth has a deep gravity well' sounds good and is useful EXCEPT when we are talking about the shape of space.>>
But it is fun to mislead the dweebish sometimes.
Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
OK Ghost. . .so, according to present technology, the AGE of the Universe from the time of the BB is only 13.7 billion years. However, the SIZE of the Universe is more difficult to ascertain. Is that correct? If correct, then couldn't the Universe, if flat, go on forever?
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2011
lol
An object that does not exhibit curvature is flat.
Simply because an object has zero curvature does not imply the object is without curvature. Call it potential curvature.
Potential curvature must be special. To exist even in the extremest of conditions:
A point of infinite density and temperature.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
<<<<<is on a learning curve.
OK, so a flat space/time fabric is flat, but has the potential for curvature. And how do you know if and when the curvature occurs? what does this potential curvature rely on other than infinite density and temp. . . .and what are the signs for it? and how can you tell if and when it's happening if your technology cannot SEE all the way to the end of the Universe?
hush1
4 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2011
And how do you know if and when the curvature occurs? - P


The assumption is 'mass' is one sure way to bring about curvature.

what does this potential curvature rely on other than infinite density and temp... -P

On math - inadmissible for the rest of science.
...and what are the signs for it?...

Off hand and ad hoc I can not find a physical object that can satisfied zero curvature criteria.

...and how can you tell if and when it's happening. - P

The 'mechanics' of celestial bodies leads me to a curve, not a line.

if your technology cannot SEE all the way to the end of the Universe?
- P

I can not count the elements of infinite sets.
The cardinality of the sets still separates the sets.
Pirouette
2.5 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
thank you, Hush1. . . .I will google a lot of this data. . .to find out further. . .but it all seems to be merely conjecture except for this part: "The 'mechanics' of celestial bodies leads me to a curve, not a line"
hush1
not rated yet Oct 23, 2011
Your welcome.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
You may not believe in God but you are lucky because God believes in you.
Which god? And how do you know it exists? Because someone told you or did have a personal hallucination?

Even atheists are blessed with the Lords love and care.
Not from what most Christians say. We are going to Hell according to them. They usually have an absolutely psychotic idea of what this mythological places is. Occasionally they tell me, very rare, that it is just like here, that is we won't have the presence of Jehovah. Considering how Jehovah is described in the Bible that seems like a good thing. The best part of those descriptions is that they are fantasy.

God is great.
Allahu Akbar. And either way its based on a god that either doesn't exist or isn't the one described in the Old Testament and the New Testament or the Quran as those gods are supposed to have done things that never happened.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2011
If correct, then couldn't the Universe, if flat, go on forever?
Depends on how you define The Universe. I prefer the Observable Universe as we really can't say what is going on outside that.

OK, so a flat space/time fabric is flat, but has the potential for curvature.
Within the limits of observation there is local curvature but it is flat overall.

what does this potential curvature rely on other than infinite density and temp.
Locally it depends on density of energy or matter.

.and what are the signs for it?


cannot SEE all the way to the end of the Universe?
We do see all the way IF you are talking about the Observable Universe. If you aren't you are just speculating in which case it is reasonable to assume that things would be the same but still not infinite. If you do assume infinite space then you will eventually have an exact repetition of our Observable Universe. Infinity is REALLY big.

Ethelred
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
Perfect pairings of infinite densities and temperatures might give rise to a Euler characteristic for a point. And I will not be disappointed if this proved to be fractional Euler characteristic.

That has potential - to solve all of physics for the next hundred years at least.

I digress no further. Doesn't belong on this site.

More news stories

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...

A homemade solar lamp for developing countries

(Phys.org) —The solar lamp developed by the start-up LEDsafari is a more effective, safer, and less expensive form of illumination than the traditional oil lamp currently used by more than one billion people ...

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...

Filipino tests negative for Middle East virus

A Filipino nurse who tested positive for the Middle East virus has been found free of infection in a subsequent examination after he returned home, Philippine health officials said Saturday.

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...