God does not exist v. "I can't know" (Atheism v. Agnosticism)

[Valley Oak]

Here is a fascinating debate on the issue of the non-existence of god, with Gore Vidal participating (he was by far the most interesting part of the debate):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=epn7QG9GLW0&mode=related&search=

Anyone care to comment? (after viewing this scintillating, sobering, and eye opening encounter)

[Valley Oak]

Thanks, Clancy. I could reflect on various points you made but the one that sticks out for me the most is that when reason and comfort compete, comfort always wins. Excellent point, even though it's not true 100%. Maybe it's true most of the time, 67% of the time, or even 90% of the time. ;-D
I guess people with that kind of infantile mentality, most people, are wimps and are incapable of accepting life on its terms.

Edward


It's a very big, inexplicable universe we find ourselves in, and the awareness of our own mortality is a terrible burden to bear. Denial is a popular response, so are the various afterlife mythologies.

Agnostism is a reasonable position on the question of whether there is a God or not, but the concept of God gives millions of people some measure of comfort, and when reason or comfort compete, comfort almost always wins.

[Clancy]

I didn't say comfort always wins, I said it almost always wins, and infantile or not, it's very human. I think you expect far too much from people, we're basically talking apes, just waking up to our position in a mysterious, inexplicable universe. The amazing thing is that we do as well as we do given human nature and limitations.



Thanks, Clancy. I could reflect on various points you made but the one that sticks out for me the most is that when reason and comfort compete, comfort always wins. Excellent point, even though it's not true 100%. Maybe it's true most of the time, 67% of the time, or even 90% of the time. ;-D
I guess people with that kind of infantile mentality, most people, are wimps and are incapable of accepting life on its terms.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

Thank you for your enlightening observation. I must say that I agree!

Although remembering the genocide committed by the Germans against Jewish and other people's, the Witch burnings of Salem and the Burning Times in Europe, Rwanda, infanticide, clitorectomies, government terrorism, bloody US coups and military dictatorships throughout Latin America and the rest of the world, the grip on power of the religious right in the US and other nations, abortion clinic bombings and assassinations of doctors, stolen elections, suspension of Habeas Corpus, suspension of due process of law, loss of the Magna Carta, torture, the Spanish Inquisition, Abu Grhaib (not to mention US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and new plans to invade Iran), just to name a few human deficiencies, well, quite frankly, it's all still a huge bottle of bitter horse pills to swallow. But I still agree with you. I don't forgive or defend the Nazis, for example, but I think I understand what you are trying to say.

Thanks again,

Edward


I didn't say comfort always wins, I said it almost always wins, and infantile or not, it's very human. I think you expect far too much from people, we're basically talking apes, just waking up to our position in a mysterious, inexplicable universe. The amazing thing is that we do as well as we do given human nature and limitations.

[Clancy]

I'm not defending or forgiving the Nazis either, but the fact that people have committed genocide throughout history, often while claiming to be religious has little or no bearing on the question of whether God exists or not.

I wish there were a category called something like 'spiritually agnostic', that's how I'd like to define myself. Just because we can't prove God exists, that doesn't mean that God (or some other concept we can't even imagine) doesn't exist, and there's lots of evidence that belief in God is beneficial to individuals and society. Myriad studies have shown that people who believe in God tend to live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives, and those who regularly meditate do even better.

Can we prove God exists? No.

Can we prove that believing God exists and living our lives as if the universe supports us is beneficial? Yes.



Thank you for your enlightening observation. I must say that I agree!

Although remembering the genocide committed by the Germans against Jewish and other people's, the Witch burnings of Salem and the Burning Times in Europe, Rwanda, infanticide, clitorectomies, government terrorism, bloody US coups and military dictatorships throughout Latin America and the rest of the world, the grip on power of the religious right in the US and other nations, abortion clinic bombings and assassinations of doctors, stolen elections, suspension of Habeas Corpus, suspension of due process of law, loss of the Magna Carta, torture, the Spanish Inquisition, Abu Grhaib (not to mention US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and new plans to invade Iran), just to name a few human deficiencies, well, quite frankly, it's all still a huge bottle of bitter horse pills to swallow. But I still agree with you. I don't forgive or defend the Nazis, for example, but I think I understand what you are trying to say.

Thanks again,

Edward

[ThePhiant]

I'm not defending or forgiving the Nazis either,that is an interesting lifestyle. Hating the Nazis for the rest of your life.
do you hate the jews too for erecting concentration camps for the Palestinians???
the Israeli's have now modeled their society after the Third Reich, including a fierce Gestapo, separate ID's for Palestinians, demolishing of homes, no rights for Palestinians.
Sieg Heil????????

[mykil]

https://home.comcast.net/~junknjewels/images/mysaint1.jpgI am truly sorry, I thought you all where a tad bit brighter than this! Jesus has sent me St Peter to watch over me and to prove to you all there is a god, you can see him for yourself in front of my store everyday I am open. Please come on down and take a peek and a picture with you posing with the Late Great Saint! If I were you all I would start kissing my feet now, I am the only way into heaven as we now it and speak. My storefront is now the pearly gates and no one shall pass without a small donation! The key lies with me! Peace!

[Valley Oak]

Thank you, Mykil, for gifting us with the opportunity of salvation! You will see me shortly, kneeling in front of your store, kissing the feet of Jesus (or is it you?) so that I may enter into the kingdom of heaven (with a small donation to your store along the way). Incidentally, what is the cheapest product you sell?

I also want to give thanks to the ignore list available on Wacco, to which I have included the Phiant. WHOOPEE!

Thank you infinitely,

Edward



I am truly sorry, I thought you all where a tad bit brighter than this! Jesus has sent me St Peter to watch over me and to prove to you all there is a god, you can see him for yourself in front of my store everyday I am open. ...

[AnnaLisaW]

I find it facinating how many people blame faith in a god for the actions of people without real faith. Atrocities are not committed by people who have a deep abiding faith in God. They are committed by people who have used a warped view of God as an excuse to act out fear, greed or anger. The leaders of hate groups hide their lack of faith in self-righteousness that would never have been condoned by Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha or any other great religious leader I have studied.
Religion is a human institution. God has no need of it.
Sincerely, AnnaLisa

[ThePhiant]

LMFAO
put some glasses on him and it will even look like you!!!
Is the gate keeper for sale???

[ThePhiant]

well then, does God have any need for great religious leaders???


I find it facinating how many people blame faith in a god for the actions of people without real faith. Atrocities are not committed by people who have a deep abiding faith in God. They are committed by people who have used a warped view of God as an excuse to act out fear, greed or anger. The leaders of hate groups hide their lack of faith in self-righteousness that would never have been condoned by Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha or any other great religious leader I have studied.
Religion is a human institution. God has no need of it.
Sincerely, AnnaLisa

[mykil]

I myself truly believe there is god. Not there is a god, just there is god! AS my world came tumbling down a number of years ago, when the disbelief that Christianity had led me astray and most likely was full of… I turned to my own self and started to absorb all I could take on about myself, my true beliefs, my environment, and the world around ME! Thus bringing in my own reality as I know it today. Along the way I have tried to meditate what the true lessons of the whole GOD ideas were all about. Thinking on this subject probably way more than one should I imagine, I have come to my own conclusions. I have given up on reading any material that might cloud my own judgments or intrude on any thought pattern that may arouse from the writings, reading, and teachings that I am trying to disregard and cleanse my soul, mind, brain and thought pattern of.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I pretty much have come to the conclusion WE ARE LOVE! LOVE IS GOD! GOD IS WE! I believe we all know everything there is to know about everything between us all. WE ARE ONE! WE might be subject to other worldly, universal., or even galaxies integrations, inspirations or even belong to a whole body in itself, but for the most we are we and alone as one collective. What a ride!
<o:p></o:p>
Praying is a good thing I suppose, at least in cleanses the soul, and releases anger, fear, remorse. As I was at Harbin over the weekend meditating I came to another semi conclusion. I was reflecting in the warm pool on my thoughts wondering more around god. As I was thinking about holy water and blessings of the waters such as the warm pool and other things in life. I thought it might not be a good idea for everyone to bless things. Only people with pure thoughts should bless things. If we ourselves try to bless things, our DNA, which I believe is exported in every thought we have, might be doing more harm than good. I believe it all starts from the thoughts and emits from our true selves. What I mean is every ounce of flesh on our body is a thought. DNA emitted from our brain. This is the way we see ourselves and this is the way we are. Our god is all around us all, this is plain to see, easy to feel. It is a residue emitted form each and every thought each and every one of us has, GOD KNOWS ALL! Yeah I’m crazy!!! PEACE!!! Kind of a rambling of the brain but I think you might get where I am coming from.<o:p></o:p>

[Sonomamark]

I am sure you meant this sincerely, AnnaLisa, but I have to say this is profoundly naive. Thousands of atrocities across the course of history have been committed by people with a deep abiding faith in God. They use that faith to excuse and justify their atrocities. It has nothing to do with Jesus, or Mohammad, or Buddha, or any of the other historical figures who have been blown up into fairy tales and about the reality of whom we know practically nothing. God is an imaginary Rohrschach blot, onto which people can project whatever they wish.

It would be nice to live in a world where what you say is true. But neither you nor I live in that world.

"God" is a human institution. We invent deities to serve our purposes. Typically, to amass power, feel superior, and justify acting on our impulses.


Sonomamark


I find it facinating how many people blame faith in a god for the actions of people without real faith. Atrocities are not committed by people who have a deep abiding faith in God. They are committed by people who have used a warped view of God as an excuse to act out fear, greed or anger. The leaders of hate groups hide their lack of faith in self-righteousness that would never have been condoned by Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha or any other great religious leader I have studied.
Religion is a human institution. God has no need of it.
Sincerely, AnnaLisa

[Valley Oak]

Touché!


I am sure you meant this sincerely, AnnaLisa, but I have to say this is profoundly naive. Thousands of atrocities across the course of history have been committed by people with a deep abiding faith in God. They use that faith to excuse and justify their atrocities. It has nothing to do with Jesus, or Mohammad, or Buddha, or any of the other historical figures who have been blown up into fairy tales and about the reality of whom we know practically nothing. God is an imaginary Rohrschach blot, onto which people can project whatever they wish.

It would be nice to live in a world where what you say is true. But neither you nor I live in that world.

"God" is a human institution. We invent deities to serve our purposes. Typically, to amass power, feel superior, and justify acting on our impulses.


Sonomamark

[AnnaLisaW]

Sonomamark wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=36387#post36387)
"...Thousands of atrocities across the course of history have been committed by people with a deep abiding faith in God. They use that faith to excuse and justify their atrocities."

"Deep abiding FAITH in God" my foot! I spent considerable time with in conversation with and historical studies of these monsters. They talk a good story, but when it comes down to it, the only thing they have is fear, not faith. They hide their lack of faith by feeding the fear of those around them and leading them against an imaginary enemy. (Like Dubya and the Terrorists?) They count themselves as righteous based on the number of frightened fools they command.

-ALW

[Braggi]

I think both AnnaLisa and SonomaMark are correct. AnnaLisa mostly about the leaders and SonomaMark mostly about the foot soldiers who did the actual "work."

I opened a searchable online "Bible" and plucked out these two passages:

===King James Version===
Genesis 14:20 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=14&verse=20&version=9&context=verse)
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Deuteronomy 20:14 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=20&verse=14&version=9&context=verse)
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
====end quote=====

These particular passages speak to the values of the author(s). Many followers of the patriarchal religions believe their particular "scriptures" were written by "God." In these passages "God" gives permission to take the spoils of war which, again, exposes the values of the author(s). If you truly believe your God has given permission or even the command to take the valuables of anyone defined as "enemies" (assuming you've killed the grown men) we have clearly given people of "faith" reason to go to war and kill and steal.

History is filled, almost nonstop, since "the Beginning," with people who felt justified in their atrocities based on their "scriptures."

Blessings,

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

Touché! Touché!

Edward


I think both AnnaLisa and SonomaMark are correct. AnnaLisa mostly about the leaders and SonomaMark mostly about the foot soldiers who did the actual "work."

I opened a searchable online "Bible" and plucked out these two passages:

===King James Version===
Genesis 14:20 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=14&verse=20&version=9&context=verse)
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Deuteronomy 20:14 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=20&verse=14&version=9&context=verse)
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
====end quote=====

These particular passages speak to the values of the author(s). Many followers of the patriarchal religions believe their particular "scriptures" were written by "God." In these passages "God" gives permission to take the spoils of war which, again, exposes the values of the author(s). If you truly believe your God has given permission or even the command to take the valuables of anyone defined as "enemies" (assuming you've killed the grown men) we have clearly given people of "faith" reason to go to war and kill and steal.

History is filled, almost nonstop, since "the Beginning," with people who felt justified in their atrocities based on their "scriptures."

Blessings,

-Jeff

[mykil]

I think in today’s society that all of the above in void of any meaning what so ever. Everything you guys are talking about is pre TV. Pre Television. Pre Stereo, Pre microwave. That there might have been a god to take up most of the time people had on there hands to sooth there worries cause they had no TV to take their minds off of everyday life is the only explanation that is worthy of talking about. As soon as the third world countries catch up with all the wiring and cables they need to be able to watch, listen, and type the way we do, all the religions will be thrown out the window and forgotten about. It might be stuck in the back of a few diehards’ brains simmering and waiting till the electricity goes out on a stormy night, but I don’t feel “hell freezing over” will not be in the script of the future. More likely it might sound like “you had better go to bed or the computer nerds will erase your hard drive for being up so late”. Or better yet “Thou shall not commit adultery without sweeping the room for hidden mini cam transmitters”, might be one of the new Ten Commandments.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I might go to church if ever decide to make it a little more appropriate and change a few of the rule of engagement. They might start by preaching about something along the lines GOD LOVES A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT instead of the old GODLINESS IS CLEANLINESS. Or could you ever imagine making church more fun by maybe choosing a new god every week. Just pick someone out of the crown and say “you are our god for the week”. Talk about an ego booster!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

[Braggi]

Nonsense Mykil,

The fundies use technology with the best of 'em. Modern times have only made them more resolute and given them more power. I wish you were right.

-Jeff

[mykil]

I strongly dissagree Jeff; As soon as they get settled in and there children start acting like our children, sitting around getting fat and lazy, our world will start to see huge changes! I wish I was wrong. I see nothing in our future that states otherwise.



Nonsense Mykil,

The fundies use technology with the best of 'em. Modern times have only made them more resolute and given them more power. I wish you were right.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Mykil,
You totally don't get it. I'm not talking about "them." I'm talking about "us" (U.S.).

https://religiousfreaks.com/2006/07/12/my-kid-is-going-to-jesus-camp/ (Roble is going to like this one)

-Jeff

[Clancy]

Interestingly, most christian churches in the US were against the invasion of Iraq;
https://www.ncccusa.org/news/02news83.html

Even Bush's own church opposed it and called it "unjust and immoral"
https://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051112/NEWS/511120368/1004

[AnnaLisaW]

Interestingly, most christian churches in the US were against the invasion of Iraq;
https://www.ncccusa.org/news/02news83.html

Even Bush's own church opposed it and called it "unjust and immoral"
https://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051112/NEWS/511120368/1004

Cool. I really liked Jesus of Nazareth's teachings. It's good to hear when his supposed followers really follow his teachings.:wink:

[Valley Oak]

We saw the movie, "Jesus Camp," at home. It was good even though it was slow moving and not hard-hitting enough, in my opinion.

The movie, "Borat," in a church revival scene that lasts only a few minutes says more than Jesus camp does in some ways by pointing out important aspects of U.S. religious and political culture. It's worth your while to rewind that scene three or four times to fully capture what "Borat" is trying to reveal in that scene. Almost every shot, word, and personage in that scene is crucial to understanding the larger canvass.

Edward


Mykil,
You totally don't get it. I'm not talking about "them." I'm talking about "us" (U.S.).

https://religiousfreaks.com/2006/07/12/my-kid-is-going-to-jesus-camp/ (Roble is going to like this one)

-Jeff

[Sonomamark]

Jeff, thanks for the perspective and effort to bring disparate points together, but I don't think history supports the distinction.
I grant that there are plenty of examples of cynical leaders exploiting the ignorant belief of their followers to incite evil acts, but very often the leaders of atrocities, not just their foot soldiers, have themselves been filled with faith and a sense of relationship with God. Examples: Torquemada, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the various military leaders of the Crusades, Osama bin Laden, Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin, David Ben-Gurion, Moqtada al-Sadr, the Ayatollah Khomenei and a whole slew of Popes including Pius XII ("Hitler's Pope"), the promulgators of the Crusades and the slaughterers of "heretics" such as Huguenots, Cathars, Albigensians, Protestants and anyone else who seemed inconvenient at the time.

Fanatical Hindus slaughter Muslims in Kashmir, who slaughter them right back. Fanatical Jews slaughter Muslims, and vice versa, at the goading of leaders who certainly seem to be filled with conviction that their flavor of Big Invisible Dude is calling the shots. The beat goes on, and nobody gets out clean: written history is spotty, but there's enough of it, added to archaeology, to lay a bunch of murder at the feet of Pagans, too. Mormons did their share of killing back in the 19th century, and they're a brand-new religion.

Oh, lest we fall into romantic Rousseau's trap, let's not forget Aztecs and Mayans, helping the sun up each morning with a heapin' helpin' o' hemorrhagin' hearts. Micronesian ancestor-worshipping cannibals, gaining power in the spirit world with each swallowed eyeball. Or the Anasazi--cannibalism too. Volcano-hurling Polynesians. Jonestown.

The idea that not a single one of the instigators of all of these awful actions--every last one--didn't "really" have "faith in God" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

What I hear is that AnnaLisa really, really doesn't want to believe that a person with "faith in God" is capable of such things. But again: we don't live in that world. Since God is something we make up, it can be whatever we want it to be. She wants hers to be very, very nice. Others don't invent theirs quite so warm and fuzzy--actually, Jeff, the OT quotes you pulled were pretty mild compared to some that are available.

We live in a world where parents who think their children are "possessed" starve and abuse them to death out of faith in their God. Where millions of evangelical Christians right here in the US of A are praying for apocalyptic war in the Middle East because they think that's necessary for their God to come back. Where people blow themselves and others up out of fanatical faith in their God.

People do these things. They commit these acts for God, out of genuine, insane belief that an invisible, all-powerful entity actually wants them to commit them.

Which is why I conclude we're well done with gods. At this point in history, a good argument can be made that humanity's greatest enemy is God: the mythology that keeps on killing.



Mark


I think both AnnaLisa and SonomaMark are correct. AnnaLisa mostly about the leaders and SonomaMark mostly about the foot soldiers who did the actual "work."

I opened a searchable online "Bible" and plucked out these two passages:

===King James Version===
Genesis 14:20 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=14&verse=20&version=9&context=verse)
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Deuteronomy 20:14 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=20&verse=14&version=9&context=verse)
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
====end quote=====

These particular passages speak to the values of the author(s). Many followers of the patriarchal religions believe their particular "scriptures" were written by "God." In these passages "God" gives permission to take the spoils of war which, again, exposes the values of the author(s). If you truly believe your God has given permission or even the command to take the valuables of anyone defined as "enemies" (assuming you've killed the grown men) we have clearly given people of "faith" reason to go to war and kill and steal.

History is filled, almost nonstop, since "the Beginning," with people who felt justified in their atrocities based on their "scriptures."

Blessings,

-Jeff

[Clancy]

Everything you say is true, but your conclusion sounds like you are asserting that we wouldn't be so obscenely violent if so many of us didn't believe in God, and I don't see how you reached that conclusion. It's possible that we'd be even more violent without the social injunctions against it, like the golden rule, that comes with most if not all religions.


People do these things. They commit these acts for God, out of genuine, insane belief that an invisible, all-powerful entity actually wants them to commit them.

Which is why I conclude we're well done with gods. At this point in history, a good argument can be made that humanity's greatest enemy is God: the mythology that keeps on killing.

[Valley Oak]

Mark, if you haven't written any books yet, you should start. I will be one of your first readers.

Thanks for your well informed perspective,

Edward



Jeff, thanks for the perspective and effort to bring disparate points together, but I don't think history supports the distinction. ...

[Sonomamark]

First of all, thanks, Roble...but I'm not sure everyone else is ready to be quite that depressed, yet.

Clancy, I do believe that humans would be less obscenely violent if they were more rational. In fact, the "Age of Reason"--one of the less violent periods of European history, generally speaking, though not yet up to speed on the racial-equality principle-- was basically a reaction to the horrors of the senseless centuries of religious slaughter that had preceded them. It wasn't completely peaceful, but by comparison to times both previous and subsequent, it wasn't half bad. And often, when there was war, it was over principles of uplifting humanity, instead of the greed, hatred and chauvinism that are the prime movers of war now, and were in the Middle Ages.

We are leaving the Age of Reason now--the last crumbs of it will fall away with the death of the Boomers. The generation of the 60s threw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting reason in favor of wacky ideologies and superstition just because Mom and Dad were secular reasoning types and the world was still filled with injustice: clearly, reason had to go.

People tend to believe the right-wing myth that the 1950s were a time of big Christian dominance and "family values". The emphasis on normality and domesticity was certainly true--pretty much every family in the country had seen its young men shipped across the world to shoot and get shot at, and that will make you want a little downtime pretty quickly.

But church attendance was far lower than it is now in the 1950s. Most people were registered Democrats--but not fanatical about it, they liked Ike-- and they supported labor, fairness and moderation. Thoughtful, informed, reasonable people dominated the national discussion, and when someone went over the edge (...say, Joe McCarthy), the public abandoned him (it was always a him in those days). When it was really rubbed in their faces, most acknowledged that the racial inequality in the country was wrong--if they hadn't, the civil rights movement never would have gotten anywhere. Being reasonable and reasoning was a virtue.

Today, the likes of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, instead of being shunned into the twilight fringe like the John Birchers and the KKK of the 50s, command audiences of many millions. People dope themselves up on nonsense like "documentaries" about ghosts on the Discovery Channel. Critical thinking is out the window.

Religion is the enemy of reason. It demands that adherents believe things which are patently silly to believe--and typically encourages as much ignorance as possible so they won't start connecting the dots.

Did you know that well less than 50% of the populations of Spain and Italy now consider themselves Catholic? You know why? I'll tell you: education.

You have to be ignorant to be religious. You have to be actively willing to dismiss what humanity's accumulated knowledge can now tell us about the nature of the Universe, and believe in things which the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows not only aren't real, but cannot be real.

Now, all this said, the question remains, when religion is dispensed with, of how to fill the void that it leaves behind. All cultures have religions, so clearly, they fill a need. Speaking personally, I can say that it's hard to have a sense of there being much of a point to life when looking at it clearly: I am an accidental being, none of the works of whom can possibly matter in the Grand Scheme of Things. I will live for an eyeblink of time on a teeny salt mudball whirling at the edge of a nondescript galaxy in a Universe which contains more galaxies than the Milky Way does stars.

The extraordinary evolutionary step of humans is our capacity to use our neocortexes to visualize the possible future outcomes of our various potential actions: to anticipate, to imagine. This allows us to strategize what we choose to do based on our predictions of the outcome as informed by past experience, which is commonly called "intelligence".

That's extremely powerful, and also a curse. Many of those potential outcomes are fatal, and unlike all the other critters out there, we're not just instinctively shying away from death, we know we're going to die. That knowledge could, in principle, completely paralyze us, render us incapable of any action for fear of what the outcome might be.

In the short term, I believe this is why we evolved a sense of humor, a universal human trait. Humor takes the pressure out of scary things. Look at what we laugh at: things that scare us and make us uncomfortable. Humiliation. Stupidity. Sex. Bodily injury. Death.

But in a broader sense, being able to imagine the future waves the what's the damned point question in front of us all. I believe this is why we have an evolutionary predilection for religiosity. We have a deep need to believe that there is something hardwired into the Universe that will make it all work out okay in the end. Having a Big Invisible Friend that is going to usher us into Happyland or recycle us into a Better Next Life or bring us Good Things if we are just Good Enough is a pretty natural thing to want, especially when we spend our first 10+ years looking up to parents from whom we expect exactly the same things.

Far-ranging post, Clancy, but short version: I see no evidence that religious injunctions against violence have led to less violence. This is the most religious industrialized nation on Earth, and we are armed to the teeth, violent as hell, and go to war at the drop of a hat.


Mark


Everything you say is true, but your conclusion sounds like you are asserting that we wouldn't be so obscenely violent if so many of us didn't believe in God, and I don't see how you reached that conclusion. It's possible that we'd be even more violent without the social injunctions against it, like the golden rule, that comes with most if not all religions.

[ThePhiant]

Mark
that's quite some words, Mark
so let's stick to the rational part, even though I forget if you are allowed to answer any body like me questioning you.

so there is this lifeforce in me, I don't know where it comes from and I don't know where it goes when I die.
you as a rational man can you explain to me what it is ?
how does it work?
I'll stick to this Q for now

[Sonomamark]

Just to be clear with everyone, I see that ThePhiant has replied to my post, but I have that person on my Ignore list--which I must say is a splendid feature, Barry--and do not see its posts. Thus, no response.


SM

[Clancy]

Clancy, I do believe that humans would be less obscenely violent if they were more rational.

That may be true, but religion or not, we're not a rational species. Look at the millions slaughtered by the Chinese without the benefit of religion. We are ruled by emotion and self interest, it's a rare human being who transcends her egocentric, animalistic nature. Jane Goodall was shocked to see chimpanzees conducting warfare with organized raiding parties committing rape and murder. Our DNA is over 99% identical to chimps.

Logic and reason simply irritate most people, it doesn't come to us easily. Look at the myriad irrational beliefs promoted on this board alone, held by supposedly enlightened people.

Species live and die by the millions, I don't think the verdict is in yet on evolution's latest experiment with big brained bipeds, but it's not looking very good.

In any case, I always enjoy your thoughtful posts, thanks for writing.

[Dixon]

Hi, Clancy!

It's certainly true that religious beliefs spur people to do good as well as evil, and it may be impossible to calculate whether the net effect is good or bad (though I suspect Mark would agree with my bias that the net effect of religion--certainly of conservative religion--is bad).

The main point I want to mention here is that it's fallacious to equate the Golden Rule with religion, or even to imply that there's a positive correlation between religion and the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is a common-sense rule that is at least as likely to be followed by atheists as religionists. Anyone who needs some kind of god or goddess to tell them to treat their brothers/sisters as they themselves would like to be treated is a moral retard. With the possible exception of the occasional extreme sociopath, we all have within us the capacity for empathy, which by itself gives us the Golden Rule with no need for "divine" direction. Personally, I'm AT LEAST as committed to the Golden Rule now that I'm an atheist as I was when I was a Christian.

Blessings on ya;

Dixon





Everything you say is true, but your conclusion sounds like you are asserting that we wouldn't be so obscenely violent if so many of us didn't believe in God, and I don't see how you reached that conclusion. It's possible that we'd be even more violent without the social injunctions against it, like the golden rule, that comes with most if not all religions.

[Clancy]

I have to admit, you make a good point Dixon. And SonomaMark does too.

So, all I can say with any authority is that a spiritual, religious component in my life has certainly been beneficial, whether God actually exists or not.

Blessings on you too Dixon, and I hope to see you on the dance floor soon.



Hi, Clancy!

It's certainly true that religious beliefs spur people to do good as well as evil, and it may be impossible to calculate whether the net effect is good or bad (though I suspect Mark would agree with my bias that the net effect of religion--certainly of conservative religion--is bad).

The main point I want to mention here is that it's fallacious to equate the Golden Rule with religion, or even to imply that there's a positive correlation between religion and the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is a common-sense rule that is at least as likely to be followed by atheists as religionists. Anyone who needs some kind of god or goddess to tell them to treat their brothers/sisters as they themselves would like to be treated is a moral retard. With the possible exception of the occasional extreme sociopath, we all have within us the capacity for empathy, which by itself gives us the Golden Rule with no need for "divine" direction. Personally, I'm AT LEAST as committed to the Golden Rule now that I'm an atheist as I was when I was a Christian.

Blessings on ya;

Dixon

[Sonomamark]

Aha! You make my point for me, Clancy. Religion is a subset of the larger human fallacy of ideology. In China, the form of authoritarianism they have labeled Communism IS the religion. It just doesn't involve gods--unusual, but not unheard of. Buddhists don't have gods, either (well, let's not quibble over Tibetan Buddhism, which is a syncretic blend of Buddhism and polytheistic Hinduism)...yet there are a bunch of examples of Buddhists finding good reason to slaughter people who aren't like them.

When our culture reinforces acting out of ignorance and ideology, it happens a lot more. So whether we're "ruled by emotion and self interest" or not--of course we are--a great deal of the problem can be laid at the feet of culture. A central element of which is very often religion.

Logic and reason irritated people in our society a lot less fifty years ago than they do now, and our culture was far less driven by ignorant emotional impulse then than now. That's cultural, not biological. I'm not saying everything about that culture was good--it wasn't, at all. But it's far worse now. And the rise of ignorance, superstition and fanatical ideology is at the core of that phenomenon, in my opinion.

I, too, agree your posts and thinking. Thanks for the discussion.

M


That may be true, but religion or not, we're not a rational species. Look at the millions slaughtered by the Chinese without the benefit of religion. We are ruled by emotion and self interest, it's a rare human being who transcends her egocentric, animalistic nature. Jane Goodall was shocked to see chimpanzees conducting warfare with organized raiding parties committing rape and murder. Our DNA is over 99% identical to chimps.

Logic and reason simply irritate most people, it doesn't come to us easily. Look at the myriad irrational beliefs promoted on this board alone, held by supposedly enlightened people.

Species live and die by the millions, I don't think the verdict is in yet on evolution's latest experiment with big brained bipeds, but it's not looking very good.

In any case, I always enjoy your thoughtful posts, thanks for writing.

[ThePhiant]

let's see of the fearless atheist can answer this question

so there is this lifeforce in me, I don't know where it comes from and I don't know where it goes when I die.
you as a rational man can you explain to me what it is ?
how does it work?





Dixon

[ThePhiant]

Just to be clear with everyone, I see that ThePhiant has replied to my post, but I have that person on my Ignore list--which I must say is a splendid feature, Barry--and do not see its posts. Thus, no response.


SM
oh yeah the ignorance feature
IGNORANCE IS BLISS!!
are all atheists that rational?????

[Juggledude]

Clancy,

While I appreciate your personal experience with the divine, and what benefit you have received from it in your life, I must agree with Mark, this post of yours lends much weight to his points. Your earlier post suggested the premise that religion was at least influential in curbing the violent nature of humans, and that left to reason alone, we'd be in a sorrier state.

Yet, you clearly state (and I agree) that we are ruled by emotion and self interest. Handles which are routinely grabbed by the religious leaders and used to move and motivate their respective masses into violent action. Reason does not lend itself so handily to such manipulation. Jane Goodall would undoubtedly have been more shocked to see chimpanzees conducting themselves with piety, especially if that piety led to the violence you describe. Though the chimps share 99% of our DNA (btw, doesn't a potato share 97% or so?) they are still a tad shy of our predictive abilities, which Mark so eloquently illustrated as being a key factor in our "intelligence".

Interesting point about logic and reason irritating people. I'll have to try to focus on that, to see if I can notice this. My personal myopic world view is much more aware that religion and faith are sources of irritation to many, though, as Mark points out, there does appear to be an apparent and unfortunate shift away from the rational. Interesting to bring Mykil's Teevangelical point to bear, though in a different way that his esteemed silliness did, what handles are being grabbed through the insidious presence of mass media, and to what end are they being pulled?

From one big brained as well as big boned biped, I'm going to remain optimistic about both our own personal divinity and our long term survival chances, as discussions like this seem to lend credence to both points! (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary)

All 'yall art God(dess)

Royce


That may be true, but religion or not, we're not a rational species. Look at the millions slaughtered by the Chinese without the benefit of religion. We are ruled by emotion and self interest, it's a rare human being who transcends her egocentric, animalistic nature. Jane Goodall was shocked to see chimpanzees conducting warfare with organized raiding parties committing rape and murder. Our DNA is over 99% identical to chimps.

Logic and reason simply irritate most people, it doesn't come to us easily. Look at the myriad irrational beliefs promoted on this board alone, held by supposedly enlightened people.

Species live and die by the millions, I don't think the verdict is in yet on evolution's latest experiment with big brained bipeds, but it's not looking very good.

In any case, I always enjoy your thoughtful posts, thanks for writing.

["Mad" Miles]

Yo Mark, AnnaLisa, Clancy, Dixon, Royce,

Kudos on a decent discussion, not much to add save this:

If life/existence has no intrinsic meaning, then we as self-aware (whatever that means) beings (big-brained or small brained bipeds, take your pick!) have the opportunity to create meaning for ourselves, and receptive others, as we wish.

That's the ultimate Freedom, both terrifying and potentially satisfying.

And as for the ameliorating value of Reason as an antidote to superstition, well, to quote Goya quoting Goethe, "El Sueno de Razon, Produce Montruos" (The Dream of Reason Produces / Creates Monsters).

Much slaughter has been done in the name of Reason. Perhaps not as much as in the name of Righteous Faith, but plenty. Napoleon, and his followers, certainly did their share.

For a detailed exploration of the limits of Western Reason I recommend the Frankfurt School and Post-Structuralism. Critics of Reason who themselves did not agree.

To return to my main point; we're making it up as we go along. Get used to it, embrace it, enjoy it.

As I've mentioned before on previous similar threads, check out Iris DeMent's lyrics to "Let The Mystery Be" for a great commentary on religious belief.


LET THE MYSTERY BE (Iris DeMent)

(c) 1992 Songs of Iris/Forerunner Music, Inc. ASCAP

Infamous Angel (Album Title)

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they they all came from
everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
when the whole thing's done
but no one knows for certain
and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever
and some say you're gonna come back
Some say you rest in the arms of the Saviour
if in sinful ways you lack
Some say that they're comin' back in a garden
bunch of carrots and little sweet peas
I think I'll just let the mystery be

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they they all came from
everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
when the whole thing's done
but no one knows for certain
and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be

Some say they're goin' to a place called Glory
and I ain't saying it ain't a fact
but I've heard that I'm on the road to purgatory
and I don't like the sound of that
I believe in love and I live my life accordingly
but I choose to let the mystery be

Everybody is wondering what and where they they all came from
everybody is worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
when the whole thing's done
but no one knows for certain
and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be
I think I'll just let the mystery be



And Mark, whether things are worse now than in the fifties, well, from my reading of cultural and intellectual history, I find that every generation as it ages, becomes convinced that the following ones are going to hell in a handbasket (Kids these days!!!). So far, they get proved wrong, or right, depending.

Even if we're ad-libbing on the road to oblivion, (I loved your H alliteration on Aztec / Maya sacrificial practices!) who's to say Reason, Consciousness or for that matter Faith have anything to do with it? Who's to say that the Irrational/Unconscious: Market Forces, Demographics, Ecological Limits and Processes, Unconscious Social and Behavioral Habits buried and inherited in our DNA and early childhood learning, etc. aren't the final determiners in the global/galactic crap shoot?

Me, I'm just trying to enjoy the ride while doing what little I can to push in the direction that seems best (to me). That makes me little different than the faithful, except that I don't expect certainty. In fact I expect uncertainty, which in its own way is a kind of back-handed certainty!

If my paltry efforts are futile, so what? At least I tried and didn't just acquiesce to .... not sure what; inertia? true believers with whom I profoundly disagree? the selfish greed of others? etc., etc., etc....


If - Religion is the Opiate of the Masses (Marx) - is - Revolution the Opiate of the Intellectuals? (Not sure who penned this one first.)


At least I know which is my drug of choice!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

[Valley Oak]

Hello again, Miles,

I just noticed that right next to your photo, which comes up whenever you post something, it says:
""Mad" Miles
Co-Creator Member

So the truth has finally come out for all to see. That you are the "Co-Creator!"

Here we all are, knocking ourselves out, trying to figure out this whole god thing and it turns out that the Cloud Guy is right here in the forum with us debating about himself! How narcisistic.

Jeeeez! I guess The Creator has a sense of humor.

(just kidding)

Edward


[QUOTE=Mad Miles;36633]Yo Mark, AnnaLisa, Clancy, Dixon, Royce,

Kudos on a decent discussion, not much to add save this:

If life/existence has no intrinsic meaning, then we as self-aware (whatever that means) beings (big-brained or small brained bipeds, take your pick!) have the opportunity to create meaning for ourselves, and receptive others, as we wish.

That's the ultimate Freedom, both terrifying and potentially satisfying.

And as for the ameliorating value of Reason as an antidote to superstition, well, to quote Goya quoting Goethe, "El Sueno de Razon, Produce Montruos" (The Dream of Reason Produces / Creates Monsters).

Much slaughter has been done in the name of Reason. Perhaps not as much as in the name of Righteous Faith, but plenty. Napoleon, and his followers, certainly did their share.

For a detailed exploration of the limits of Western Reason I recommend the Frankfurt School and Post-Structuralism. Critics of Reason who themselves did not agree.

To return to my main point; we're making it up as we go along. Get used to it, embrace it, enjoy it.

As I've mentioned before on previous similar threads, check out Iris DeMent's lyrics to "Let The Mystery Be" for a great commentary on religious belief.

[Valley Oak]

I'm getting sick and tired of all of this mental trapeeze work about god, no god, maybe god, pick your own god, etc crap!!!

Who is the jerk that started this confounded thread in the first place anyway?! That noodle brained 'person' should be banned permanently from Wacco for bringing up such disturbing, head challening, intellectul nonsense!

Edward

[ThePhiant]

quote]


Who is the jerk that started this confounded thread in the first place anyway?! That noodle brained 'person' should be banned permanently from Wacco for bringing up such disturbing, head nonsense!

Edward

[/quote]



now you are starting to make sense!!!
if you can delete this troll, we'd all be better off!!

[ThePhiant]

Interesting point about logic and reason irritating people.

that is very interesting that this is what you perceived.
when I posed a simple question to the collected bunch of atheists, they seemed to have lost all their intellect and rationale.
of course Atheism is not based on intelligence but merely on disputing what other people beleve in, and the back slapping good old boys are a prime example of such self-congratulating behavior.

[Valley Oak]

In all seriousness now folks, this thread is impressive to say the least. I attempted to inject some humor but I was never known as a great comedian.

However, following one of the central themes of this great debate, I urge all of you to view this short video clip of a famous atheist, Ann Druyan:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MVqtZvf8U&mode=related&search= (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MVqtZvf8U&mode=related&search=)

Druyan briefly addresses some of the topics that have been hotly debated here and I know that some of you will find it of value.

Sincerely,

Edward


Yo Mark, AnnaLisa, Clancy, Dixon, Royce,

Kudos on a decent discussion, not much to add save this:

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

[Sonomamark]

Hey, Miles. You know, I agree with nearly everything you write here, and it's what I practice: inventing meaning in life when there is non inherently, and working for social change in the name of issues and causes I care about, without ever knowing whether, in the long run, it can make any difference.

The one quibble I have is that I don't think you can equate a military dictatorship headed by a megalomaniac (Napoleon) with a "Reason"-driven society. For one thing, I'm talking about democracies, however compromised, where public opinion has significant traction over policy and leadership. The only decisionmaker under The Little Emperor was him, and he was not a rational man.

Slaughter that has been done in the supposed name of Reason has happened under dictators whose "logic" was built on faulty axioms--like, say, the racial inferiority of everyone who isn't blond and blue-eyed. In an educated and reasoning democratic society, that kind of demagoguery gets taken down pretty quickly--and Hitler would have been, if he hadn't suspended democracy. But nowadays, we have right-wing leaders do and say outrageous things all the time, and no one bats an eye. Today it was Tom Tancredo, saying the federal government has "done enough" for New Orleans. That should cost him his job, but it won't. Bill O'Reilly calls for Al Queda to bomb Coit Tower--nary a peep. Ann Coulter...well, you get my meaning.

Thanks for a great post. Baffling as it is, life is a great ride.


Mark


Yo Mark, AnnaLisa, Clancy, Dixon, Royce,

Kudos on a decent discussion, not much to add save this:

If life/existence has no intrinsic meaning, then we as self-aware (whatever that means) beings (big-brained or small brained bipeds, take your pick!) have the opportunity to create meaning for ourselves, and receptive others, as we wish.

That's the ultimate Freedom, both terrifying and potentially satisfying.

And as for the ameliorating value of Reason as an antidote to superstition, well, to quote Goya quoting Goethe, "El Sueno de Razon, Produce Montruos" (The Dream of Reason Produces / Creates Monsters).

Much slaughter has been done in the name of Reason. Perhaps not as much as in the name of Righteous Faith, but plenty. Napoleon, and his followers, certainly did their share.

For a detailed exploration of the limits of Western Reason I recommend the Frankfurt School and Post-Structuralism. Critics of Reason who themselves did not agree.

To return to my main point; we're making it up as we go along. Get used to it, embrace it, enjoy it.

As I've mentioned before on previous similar threads, check out Iris DeMent's lyrics to "Let The Mystery Be" for a great commentary on religious belief.


LET THE MYSTERY BE (Iris DeMent)

(c) 1992 Songs of Iris/Forerunner Music, Inc. ASCAP

Infamous Angel (Album Title)

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they they all came from
everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
when the whole thing's done
but no one knows for certain
and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever
and some say you're gonna come back
Some say you rest in the arms of the Saviour
if in sinful ways you lack
Some say that they're comin' back in a garden
bunch of carrots and little sweet peas
I think I'll just let the mystery be

Everybody's wonderin' what and where they they all came from
everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
when the whole thing's done
but no one knows for certain
and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be

Some say they're goin' to a place called Glory
and I ain't saying it ain't a fact
but I've heard that I'm on the road to purgatory
and I don't like the sound of that
I believe in love and I live my life accordingly
but I choose to let the mystery be

Everybody is wondering what and where they they all came from
everybody is worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
when the whole thing's done
but no one knows for certain
and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be
I think I'll just let the mystery be



And Mark, whether things are worse now than in the fifties, well, from my reading of cultural and intellectual history, I find that every generation as it ages, becomes convinced that the following ones are going to hell in a handbasket (Kids these days!!!). So far, they get proved wrong, or right, depending.

Even if we're ad-libbing on the road to oblivion, (I loved your H alliteration on Aztec / Maya sacrificial practices!) who's to say Reason, Consciousness or for that matter Faith have anything to do with it? Who's to say that the Irrational/Unconscious: Market Forces, Demographics, Ecological Limits and Processes, Unconscious Social and Behavioral Habits buried and inherited in our DNA and early childhood learning, etc. aren't the final determiners in the global/galactic crap shoot?

Me, I'm just trying to enjoy the ride while doing what little I can to push in the direction that seems best (to me). That makes me little different than the faithful, except that I don't expect certainty. In fact I expect uncertainty, which in its own way is a kind of back-handed certainty!

If my paltry efforts are futile, so what? At least I tried and didn't just acquiesce to .... not sure what; inertia? true believers with whom I profoundly disagree? the selfish greed of others? etc., etc., etc....


If - Religion is the Opiate of the Masses (Marx) - is - Revolution the Opiate of the Intellectuals? (Not sure who penned this one first.)


At least I know which is my drug of choice!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

[ThePhiant]

The one quibble I have is that I don't think you can equate a military dictatorship headed by a megalomaniac (Napoleon) with a "Reason"-driven society. The only decisionmaker under The Little Emperor was him, and he was not a rational man.


Mark

this is another example of someone shooting of their mouth without checking history first.
Napoleon not rational????????????????
it was him who standardized all measurements in Europe
it was him who mandated that everybody needed a first and a last name
it was him who advanced science for the greater good
it was him who started to keep civil records
it was him who tried to unify all of Europe
I suggest you read Everything before you expose yourself

[Sonomamark]

I've been thinking about this bit, and thought I'd chime in again.

It certainly hasn't been lost on me that in recent years, "kids these days" has actually crept into my lexicon. It's shocking to me: I was a punk rocker, and if you see me driving my old 1987 Honda down Occidental Road, odds are good there is a Very Loud Sound coming out of it in the form of something embarrassingly head-banging like the Von Bondies, X, Firewater, the Donnas or the Voidoids. Well, when I'm not listening to early music, which is my other love.

But our culture has changed, and not for the better. The two elements I identify as most at fault for this go directly to youth culture which has predominated since GenX, and they are:

1) A sense of personal entitlement that is so inflated as to be grotesque. The typical middle class kid coming of age in the US over the past 20 years or so not only expects to be handed a college education, a car, and every electronic toy available under the sun...s/he also expects to move directly into some kind of "self fulfilling" job that pays a lot but doesn't actually involve a lot of work. It's staggering, and I have no doubt that it is a direct outgrowth of the we-deserve-it-all mentality of the 60's.

2) Hip-hop culture. This isn't about race: most of the market for hip-hop is white teenaged middle class boys. Taken as a whole, hip-hop is shallow, materialistic, violent, misogynistic and homophobic: it's like the mind of a 16-year-old male on steroids and speed. Because it is entirely rhythmic, it is incapable of tenderness, and this narrow emotional palette leads to a whole generation whose understanding of how to be is strutting, confrontational, demanding, brutal and conspicuously consuming. Whether there are some artists that are somewhat different in message is beside the point.

Others will complain, I expect, that this is just like the older folks in the 20's complaining about jazz as "that Devil music", likewise rock n' roll in the 50's, but I haven't heard the one about Dion and the Belmont's posse rubbing out a bunch of Elvis' crew, have you? This is something different. It is the ugliness of America's violent and greedy nature, distilled down to something pure and ugly, and set to a beat.

My critique isn't just about "kids these days", but kids don't have the benefit of life experience to temper the garbage pouring into their ears from mainstream culture, so they're far more susceptible to it. When murderous video games and drum-thumping chants about killing, beating and raping are "entertainment", it's no surprise we've got problems.

Of course, somebody makes money on it. In America, I guess that makes it all okay.



Mark


And Mark, whether things are worse now than in the fifties, well, from my reading of cultural and intellectual history, I find that every generation as it ages, becomes convinced that the following ones are going to hell in a handbasket (Kids these days!!!). So far, they get proved wrong, or right, depending.

[Dixon]

...And as for the ameliorating value of Reason as an antidote to superstition, well, to quote Goya quoting Goethe, "El Sueno de Razon, Produce Montruos" (The Dream of Reason Produces / Creates Monsters)

The way you translate the quote, Miles, makes it sound like Reason produces monsters. But that quote is usually translated as "The SLEEP of Reason produces monsters", which seems to point toward the opposite message: unreason (i.e., letting our Reason fall asleep) creates monsters.


...Much slaughter has been done in the name of Reason.

I hope you're not blaming slaughter on Reason, Miles. That would be as fallacious as blaming Jesus for the slaughter done daily in his name. No matter how vociferously the slaughterers invoke Reason, needless slaughter is UNreasonable, so the Reason they claim to represent is counterfeit; certainly it's fallacious to criticize Reason on the basis of slaughterers' faux "Reason".

Some would say that needless slaughter could actually be reasonable depending on what premises you're reasoning from. This is true if you're reasoning from sociopathic premises, but I'd argue that sociopathic premises are themselves unreasonable. If I'm right about that, attributing slaughter to Reason is, well, unreasonable!

And let's not confuse the issue by equating Reason with the pronouncements of some social faction like the scientific establishment, some bureaucracy, or the intelligentsia, all of which regularly conduct themselves unreasonably.

We don't fuck others over when we're being reasonable. Heartful Reason is probably our single best bet for a freer and more peaceful, democratic, just, sustainable planet.

In Love and Reason;

Dixon

["Mad" Miles]

Dixon, My Reasonable Brother,

The Goya quote in one of his most famous panels of "Los Caprichos" is interpreted both ways. As, "The Dream of Reason Produces Monsters" and as "The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters".

https://www.asama.org/images/news/2005/june/goya_L.jpg

The Spanish, "El Sueno de La Razon Produce Montruos" is ambiguous. Some read it as Goya's Romantic cri de couer against the excesses of The Enlightenment (yes, the Enlightenment, that great triumph of reason over superstition and unquestionable belief, had excesses, can you say Industrial Capitalism?) or as a complaint that when reason sleeps, i.e. is inactive and or not utilized, terrible things result.

Yes, the two interpretations mean quite the opposite of each other. Since Goya's work in Los Caprichos was a protest against the inequalities, corruption and excesses of traditional Spanish Catholic society, your, and my second above, interpretation has credence.

But Senor Goya was a tricky fellow, and he used a lot of satire and ambiguity in his work. His most famous series of prints "The Disasters of War" were a gruesome protest, or it could be put, a protest against the gruesomeness, of the excesses of war when the French, invaded Spain, occupied it and tried to subjugate it, in the name of REASON and DEMOCRACY.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Los_desastres_de_la_guerra


My interpretation of the quote by the way, is supported by the scholarship as evidenced in the recent show of Goya's "Los Caprichos" at the Sonoma Valley Museum. But I've been hip to it ever since Professor Phil Lieder's art history classes at UC Irvine in the late seventies.


As for Reason being the only thing we have. Well Reason, like all such meta-floating signifiers (Love, Justice, Truth, etc.) is in the mind of the reasoner, and highly subject to interpretation. Hence my original referral to the bodies of work known as Critical Theory and Post-Structuralism/Deconstruction.


Happy cool, overcast Sunday. The perfect weather for a photo-sensitive, frustrated "Night Cat"* like myself,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:


P.S. *Night Cat is the literal translation of the Chinese term for what we call Night Owl.

Lot's of newsprint to scan before returning to the salt mines of correctional education after a week off!


P.P.S. I originally attributed the phrase "El Sueno de la Razon Produce Monstruos" as a quote by Goya of Goethe, but I can't find any such attribution online. This after looking over every one of the "Disasters of War" prints, reading bios of both Goya and Goethe, etc. I wonder where I made that conflation? Since I've held it for many years. But it is not a Goethe quote, although he has many, many good ones. And its attribution to Goya is more complicated than I've related it here. Check it out!

[Dixon]

...the Enlightenment, that great triumph of reason over superstition and unquestionable belief, had excesses, can you say Industrial Capitalism?

Of course, Miles, everything has its dark and light sides, but just because industrial capitalism is founded on technology which was founded on Reason, that doesn't mean that its excesses (exploitation, ongoing pollution with insufficient commitment to decreasing it, etc.) are reasonable. Reason leads to power which is often applied unreasonably. Blaming Reason for unreasonable applications of power makes no more sense than saying there's something wrong with a hammer because someone used it to kill somebody.

Proper moral reasoning, proceeding from the quite reasonable premise called the Golden Rule, clearly condemns the various excesses that you apparently want to blame on Reason.


Well Reason, like all such meta-floating signifiers (Love, Justice, Truth, etc.) is in the mind of the reasoner, and highly subject to interpretation.

Let's not slide into the fallacy of subjectivizing the objective. While there are plenty of grey areas for reasonable people to disagree about, we live in a largely objective universe which it is possible to describe more or less accurately. Habits of thought that lead to demonstrably more accurate descriptions of reality (and thus to better solutions to problems) are objectively more reasonable than those that don't, regardless of the pronouncements of philosophers who would like reality and reason to be fuzzier and more subjective so they can justify believing whatever claptrap they like.

I'm sensitive to criticisms of Reason because often such (usually fallacious) criticisms come from people who wish to invalidate Reason so they can justify their superstitious beliefs and unreasonable, even brutal, policies/actions.

Dixon

[ThePhiant]

I'm sensitive to criticisms of Reason because often such (usually fallacious) criticisms come from people who wish to invalidate Reason so they can justify their superstitious beliefs and unreasonable, even brutal, policies/actions.

Dixon[/QUOTE]

this sounds like you only can hear what you consider reasonable, and therefor becomes reasonable as a fact.
therefor everybody who disagrees with you is unreasonable.
many dictators have used this kind of reasoning to justify their actions

[AnnaLisaW]

Having followed this thread for a while, I have been impressed with the knowlege that has been shared and pain that has been expressed.
There seem to be some who believe that reason and religion cannot co-exist. This is not precisely true. Neither is the idea that one must worship a particular God/dess to have a religion. Wikipedia gives a definition of "religion" as a "set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people." A few churches exist that call themselves "liberal" religions and espose more rational views than traditional Christian dogma proposes.
Having grown up attending church every Sunday and usually recieving some form of religious instruction during the week, I was seriously troubled when my personal beliefs grew to be at odds with those of my spiritual community. Moving from chuch to church and finally from religion to religion, I decided that my concept of God should encompass Science and Reason as well as Spirit and Magic. I tried to keep my mouth shut so that I could keep my relationships with the people I had come to love but hypocracy was just not my style. I spent most of the past 15 years bouncing around and learning how many people cannot tolerate having their beliefs scrutinized. Almost 2 years ago I stepped into UUCSR on Mendocino Ave and found a home. While I have met many people there who totally disagree with me, no one has been so self-righteous as to tell me that what I know or feel is wrong or "evil."
So, if you are interested in having a place to explore your spiritual beliefs and learn from people who think that agnostics, atheists and theists can worship together, check out the website: www.uusantarosa.org (https://www.uusantarosa.org) or just stop by 547 Mendocino on Sunday morning.
Blessings, AnnaLisa

[Valley Oak]

The Unitarians are a great group of folks. My wife and I along with our daughter have been to their congregation on Mendocino Ave many times for different reasons. They have many interesting events and programs, most of which are open to the public and there is usually the option to pay for services that are meant for members only. Among other outstanding programs, the local UU organizes an O.W.L. program, which is one of the main reasons we started to associate with them in the first place. Public education is worthless and supplementing your child's learning with additional activities, such as in the UU, is a definite need. Also, the UU's religious education program is excellent and teaches about the different religions in the world, not just their own. This makes for a very accepting and open minded view of the world, not an exclusionary one like most churches and religions.

Another super group of folks are the Pagans. Of all of the religious tendencies, they are the ones that come closest to our hearts.

Edward


Having followed this thread for a while, I have been impressed with the knowlege that has been shared and pain that has been expressed.
There seem to be some who believe that reason and religion cannot co-exist. This is not precisely true. Neither is the idea that one must worship a particular God/dess to have a religion. Wikipedia gives a definition of "religion" as a "set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people." A few churches exist that call themselves "liberal" religions and espose more rational views than traditional Christian dogma proposes.
Having grown up attending church every Sunday and usually recieving some form of religious instruction during the week, I was seriously troubled when my personal beliefs grew to be at odds with those of my spiritual community. Moving from chuch to church and finally from religion to religion, I decided that my concept of God should encompass Science and Reason as well as Spirit and Magic. I tried to keep my mouth shut so that I could keep my relationships with the people I had come to love but hypocracy was just not my style. I spent most of the past 15 years bouncing around and learning how many people cannot tolerate having their beliefs scrutinized. Almost 2 years ago I stepped into UUCSR on Mendocino Ave and found a home. While I have met many people there who totally disagree with me, no one has been so self-righteous as to tell me that what I know or feel is wrong or "evil."
So, if you are interested in having a place to explore your spiritual beliefs and learn from people who think that agnostics, atheists and theists can worship together, check out the website: www.uusantarosa.org (https://www.uusantarosa.org) or just stop by 547 Mendocino on Sunday morning.
Blessings, AnnaLisa

[AnnaLisaW]

I find it amazing how many wonderful, loving and loveable atheists I know. Their faith in humankind amazes me. Personally, I have many inexplicable reasons for believing in the Goddess and the God (whom I regard as inexoribly linked.) The simple truth is, when I put my faith in the Universe, I feel loved and supported and live is fuller and more wondrous.

Blessings,
AnnaLisa

[Sonomamark]

Bobby2You, you can suspend your belief. What we know now about the nature of the Universe renders the idea of a traditional god (invisible noncorporeal intelligence, can suspend or transcend the laws of physics at will, lives "outside" the Universe yet can intervene in its events) is a complete impossibility. As a "gambler", you can relax: it's a 100% bet that there is no god, at least not of that description.

As to the "evidence" you discuss, well:

I've seen the tunnel and the light myself. I nearly drowned in Grand Canyon ten years ago, and saw it then. What happens when the brain begins to lose oxygen is that visual processing (which consumes more energy than any other single brain function) begins to fail. Peripheral vision begins to narrow, and the range gets smaller and smaller--creating the appearance of a black tunnel with a little spot of light in the middle. It's not supernatural, it's just neurology.

Out of body experiences have now been reproduced in the laboratory, and it's becoming clear that they have nothing to do with anything other than the brain trying to adjust for perceptual confusion, as can happen when there is a near-death crisis.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/ucl-foe081407.php

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305202657.htm

Fear of death often leads people to seize onto irrational ideas, and if they have a close call, it's pretty common for them to "get religion" in the hopes of staving off the Big Black. Very few people want to die, so we grasp at straws.

But we're going to die, anyway. In my opinion, it's best to look clear-eyed at our situation, and live as well as we can, with as little self-delusion as possible.



Sonomamark


Hello, I rather believe in god, am a gambler. I rather died and find out their a god, than to die and not belive in god and find out there is a god.

If Believing in god alone gets me to heaven or close to it than i am a believer, but it doesn't work like that, cause the devil belives in god and he knows he isn't going.

I speak from experince. my ex father in law was a atheist and didn't believe in god and hated anybody who did. Well that all changed 37 years ago when i was 17 years old. He had a big heart attact and died, he seen his soul leave his body and he seen the doctors working on him while he was leaving his body, he also heard them say we have lost him and seen them scambling to save him. At that point he noticed he was in a dark tunnel and a light at the end of that tunnel and as he got closer to the light he felt at peace with his self that he never had before. once at the light he seen a gate with all his friends that had died while working for the city in those 25 years he worked for them and his mother and father who had been dead for many years. At that moment he sensed a brither light apraoch and he said that he didn't want to die just yet and that he had a few things to do before he died. At the instant he felt himself head back into the tunnel and back into his body and he heard the doctors say we got him back which all this took less than 2 mins. Well from the time he came back he told everybody that god really existed and that he was living proof and he never smoke again or did anything which he felt would offend god. and 2 months later he had a small heart attach and died. A happy person i might ad. This happen way before any stories about tunnels and all that years later on tv and stuff. I have never shared this story with no one but i felt i had to now for some reason or another but there it is and take it for whats it worth and good luck and always be kind to those who can't.
God Bless to all who deserve,
Micheal

[Sonomamark]

Thanks for saying this, AnnaLisa. Far too often, conversations like this one lead into claims that those who don't believe in gods are amoral.

I wouldn't necessarily say that I have "faith in humanity". The only "faith" I have is based in evidence, and leads me to believe that we are in a physical Universe which is constantly evolving and changing. We are a product of that, and sooner or later we'll die off. In the meantime, we'll be amazing and infuriating and not nearly as perfect as many of us think we're supposed to be. And the galaxy will turn and the Universe will expand and the arrow of time will fly entropically into the future. As long as we are here to watch, we will ascribe meanings of beauty and horror and wonder to all this. I'm glad, random product that I am, to have lucked into having a ticket on the ride.


Sonomamark


I find it amazing how many wonderful, loving and loveable atheists I know. Their faith in humankind amazes me. Personally, I have many inexplicable reasons for believing in the Goddess and the God (whom I regard as inexoribly linked.) The simple truth is, when I put my faith in the Universe, I feel loved and supported and live is fuller and more wondrous.

Blessings,
AnnaLisa

[Willie Lumplump]

I find it amazing how many wonderful, loving and loveable atheists I know. Their faith in humankind amazes me. Personally, I have many inexplicable reasons for believing in the Goddess and the God (whom I regard as inexoribly linked.) The simple truth is, when I put my faith in the Universe, I feel loved and supported and live is fuller and more wondrous.

Blessings,
AnnaLisa

A.L.,

What do you mean when you say that you "put your faith in the Universe"? I'm also confused about "God" and "Goddess." We can assume that God doesn't reproduce, so why would he be male or female?

--W.L.

[Valley Oak]

I personally sold god 50 trillion condoms just for last week alone! They were of the pinstriped and glow in the dark variety with pistachio, vanilla, and tutti frutti flavors. He's a real lover boy because he really loves the Goddess. Actually, God is a cuckold wimp because the Goddess screws around with whomever and whatever she pleases and he can't do a thing about it.

That's the skinny on God, Goddess, and their reproductive habits. They are very productive (or reproductive) and seem to have an insatiable appetite for copulating. Everywhere I look it appears, in one form or another, the God and the Goddess are "doing it" just about every conceivable manner and form! Jeeez, what horny bastards.

Edward


A.L.,

What do you mean when you say that you "put your faith in the Universe"? I'm also confused about "God" and "Goddess." We can assume that God doesn't reproduce, so why would he be male or female?

--W.L.

[AnnaLisaW]

(for Willie)
I think the idea of assigning a sex to "God" is a reflection of our desire to create a connection with something more powerful than ourselves. For most of us, the idea of a supernatural parent, Mother/Father or God/Goddess is more personal than saying “Universe” or “Cosmic Consciousness” or what have you. There are more different words for God than there are languages on this planet.
I was raised to believe that God was some big white dude who ran the universe. I dropped that image when I decided that being a woman wasn't a bad thing. Creating a mental image of a powerful, loving Goddess helps me to focus on the kind of person I wish to be. She gives me comfort when I am frightened and helps me keep going when I get discouraged. I do not claim to understand everything; the more I learn, the less I know. What I do know is that the very act of exploring life's mysteries brings me peace and a sence of well being.
Blessings, AnnaLisa
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[AnnaLisaW]

P.S. It never occurred to that gods don't reproduce. The Greek and Roman gods and goddesses did it all the time!:wink:
ALW

[Willie Lumplump]

[quote=AnnaLisaW;37808](for Willie)
For most of us, the idea of a supernatural parent, Mother/Father or God/Goddess is more personal than saying “Universe” or “Cosmic Consciousness” or what have you. There are more different words for God than there are languages on this planet.

Response:
There are more different words for God than there are languages on this planet because people keep multiplying the definitions of God. "Universe" is a familar word with an accepted definition. It refers to everything that exists. There is no denotation or connotation of religion, spirits, gods, or anything else along that line. If you want to co-opt the word for your own religious or spiritual purposes, you are corrupting the language that we all depend on not only to make our thoughts known to others, but also to create thoughts in the first place. We cannot think without language. If you co-opt "half a ham sandwich" as a definition of God, you give up the power to distinguish half a ham sandwich from God. In that way the language loses power, and what the language loses, we lose.

Same with "cosmic consciousness." Consciousness is a faculty of human beings and, to a lesser extent, other animals such as chimps, gorillas, and certain parrots. Consciousness is a useful word. I don't know what it means for consciousness to be "cosmic," but maybe it can happen. But even if it does happen, it is not God because by any reasonable definition, God cannot be a mere faculty of an animal, human or otherwise. If God can be a faculty, he can also be a ham sandwich. Or anything else we care to name.

This corruption of the language is a very serious matter because it impairs our ability to think. And we need to think like never before. We have the new fascist menace to think about (I refer to G. Dubbya). We have the problem of global warming to think about. We have the problem of a mass extinction, the greatest in the last 65 million years, to think about. We need clarity, not linguistic corruption and confusion.

--"Willie"

[Valley Oak]

Willie, Anna Lisa and all,

I would like to provide this link as a segue back to the original post of this thread: www.spikedhumor.com/articles/123923/Re_The_Richard_Dawkins_Delusion.html

Among picking up some of the points debated so far in this thread, this clip provides some new, refreshing points of view. An interesting perspective.

Edward


[quote=AnnaLisaW;37808](for Willie)
For most of us, the idea of a supernatural parent, Mother/Father or God/Goddess is more personal than saying “Universe” or “Cosmic Consciousness” or what have you. There are more different words for God than there are languages on this planet.

Response:
There are more different words for God than there are languages on this planet because people keep multiplying the definitions of God. "Universe" is a familar word with an accepted definition. It refers to everything that exists. There is no denotation or connotation of religion, spirits, gods, or anything else along that line. If you want to co-opt the word for your own religious or spiritual purposes, you are corrupting the language that we all depend on not only to make our thoughts known to others, but also to create thoughts in the first place. We cannot think without language. If you co-opt "half a ham sandwich" as a definition of God, you give up the power to distinguish half a ham sandwich from God. In that way the language loses power, and what the language loses, we lose.

Same with "cosmic consciousness." Consciousness is a faculty of human beings and, to a lesser extent, other animals such as chimps, gorillas, and certain parrots. Consciousness is a useful word. I don't know what it means for consciousness to be "cosmic," but maybe it can happen. But even if it does happen, it is not God because by any reasonable definition, God cannot be a mere faculty of an animal, human or otherwise. If God can be a faculty, he can also be a ham sandwich. Or anything else we care to name.

This corruption of the language is a very serious matter because it impairs our ability to think. And we need to think like never before. We have the new fascist menace to think about (I refer to G. Dubbya). We have the problem of global warming to think about. We have the problem of a mass extinction, the greatest in the last 65 million years, to think about. We need clarity, not linguistic corruption and confusion.

--"Willie"

[Braggi]

(for Willie)
For most of us, the idea of a supernatural parent, Mother/Father or God/Goddess is more personal than saying “Universe” or “Cosmic Consciousness” or what have you. There are more different words for God than there are languages on this planet.

Response:
There are more different words for God than there are languages on this planet because people keep multiplying the definitions of God. "Universe" is a familar word with an accepted definition. It refers to everything that exists. There is no denotation or connotation of religion, spirits, gods, or anything else along that line. If you want to co-opt the word for your own religious or spiritual purposes, you are corrupting the language ...

Same with "cosmic consciousness." Consciousness is a faculty of human beings and, to a lesser extent, other animals such as chimps, gorillas, and certain parrots...

This corruption of the language is a very serious matter because it impairs our ability to think... We need clarity, not linguistic corruption and confusion.
--"Willie"

Oh no. I'm finding myself disagreeing with Willie and with Aquagyrl in a single digest!!! Please tell me it isn't true! Someone who is ultimately reasonable and a Goddess/Queen I haven't even met in the flesh, yet lust after because of her provocative, assertive writing. <sigh>

Here goes: I understand that Anna Lisa makes personal use of the concepts of God and Goddess and ascribes divinity to the Universe and feels there is a "cosmic consciousness." These all make perfect sense to me and therein I find no dilution or corruption of accurate language use. These concepts are personal with her and she owns their usage without projecting correctness or making anyone else wrong for having different ideas. That's pretty clean and clear thinking and I feel highly moral.

We have thousands of Gods and Goddesses in myth and culture for very good reasons: they help us understand ourselves. God/desses, in my way of thinking, are archetypes that provide us with images that can be used for recognizing in ourselves and teaching others aspects of human and other natures. Kronos is time personified. Aphrodite is love personified. Guess who personifies narcissism, arrogance, impatience and jealousy as well as thirst for power and money? I think of Thor as the God Caterpillar tractor used as an example and then went way over the edge with (smashing stone giants and all). These are all useful as teaching tools. Myths are the concentrated wisdom of a culture and were usually assembled before writing came on the scene. When a culture adopts or develops a written language the wisdom of the culture doesn't fail, die or lose accuracy. It is monotheism that rejects the wisdom of the ancients that is problematic in my way of thinking. Jung would have been hung by some fundamentalists.

Many Indian tribes deify the universe as the "Great Spirit" or some variation. I see no problem with that. I think every bit of science and physics is imbued with magic and spirit. Why not view the Whole as Holy? I don't think that way of feeling awe and respect for nature does anything but inspire a person. It certainly does nothing to interfere with reason or the scientific method.

And then there's the notion of Cosmic Consciousness. I'd let you argue the minutia of that with Rupert Sheldrake, but let's just say there appear to be ways of knowing and communicating that defy science as we understand it. I'm open to whatever truth might arise that will explain it, but for the time being I'll assume there is some force that binds us all together. Don't understand it and don't suppose I ever will, but there have been times I've known things that seem to surpass my own wisdom and experience. I don't know if I'm in the human morphic field, gaining access to genetic memories from my ancestors, or being taught by Gods and Goddesses, but I've learned to trust the messages. I'd say within reason, but they always do seem to be within reason. I don't think that dilutes my scientific thinking or my use of language. The more I've leaned to trust "inner wisdom" which could also be understood or explained as cosmic consciousness, the better off I am. By the way, Willie, what makes you think consciousness is so limited that only humans, apes and some parrots have it? Just because you can't communicate with a snail doesn't mean it isn't conscious. Perhaps it's conscious in a way we'll never understand. Perhaps you're overly restricting language in an attempt to make it accurate. It's even been proposed that ants have a consciousness that is shared! How cosmic is that? Please don't bother posting definitions of consciousness. That's the stuff of longer arguments than we have time for.

I appreciate your thoughts Willie. I also appreciate Anna Lisa's process. I think both are valid and need not be in conflict.

May you be blessed by the Big Cosmic Mamma(s) and Pappa(s)!

-Jeff</sigh>

[Willie Lumplump]

let's just say there appear to be ways of knowing and communicating that defy science as we understand it. -Jeff

Response:
"Appear" is a good weasel-word. The relevant questions are, "Appear to whom?" And "For what reason?" "Ways of knowing" is arguable because the concept of knowing can be bent so far out of shape. Not so with "communicating." There is no communication that defies science. There are only beliefs about communication that defy science. And, of course, that's exactly the problem.

[Willie Lumplump]

[quote=Willie Lumplump;37812]

what makes you think consciousness is so limited that only humans, apes and some parrots have it? Just because you can't communicate with a snail doesn't mean it isn't conscious. It's even been proposed that ants have a consciousness that is shared! How cosmic is that-Jeff</SIGH>

Response:
You make a good point. I confused self-awareness or "theory of mind" with consciousness. Very few animals are self-aware, but I believe that consciousness exists as a continuum in all animals from the lowest amoeba to man. It isn't possible to determine where consciousness starts in the animal kingdom any more than it's possible to determine exactly when a boiled pot of water changes from warm to hot.

Whoever proposed that ants have a shared consciousness was not a biologist. Ants continuously communicate with each other through external chemical signals, and each ant responds individually. The sum total of individual responses is what appears to us as organized behavior, but no ant or collection of ants is directing the others. This isn't to say that the results aren't amazing. Some species have "learners" who memorize the location of the best food sources in the fall. In the spring these are the first ants to leave the nest, and the other ants follow along behind to the likely source of food.

[Braggi]

There is no communication that defies science. There are only beliefs about communication that defy science. And, of course, that's exactly the problem.

I'll refer you to Sheldrake. He's a pretty bright guy and he's done a lot of work on this topic.

https://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Rupert+Sheldrake&ots=IYc27G9bQQ&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

[Willie Lumplump]

I'll refer you to Sheldrake. He's a pretty bright guy and he's done a lot of work on this topic.

https://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Rupert+Sheldrake&ots=IYc27G9bQQ&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

Response (from Wikkipedia):

David Marks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marks_%28psychologist%29) and John Colwell have criticized Sheldrake's experimental procedures. They suggest that the sequences Sheldrake has used in his research follow the same patterning that people who guess and gamble like to follow. These guessing patterns have relatively few long runs and many alternations. The non-randomness of Sheldrake's sequences leads to implicit or explicit pattern learning when feedback is provided. When the patterns being guessed mirror naturally occurring guessing patterns, the results could go above or below chance levels even without feedback. Thus significant results can occur purely from nonrandom guessing. Non-randomisation is one of seven flaws in parapsychological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychological) research identified in David Marks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marks_%28psychologist%29)' book The Psychology of the Psychic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychology_of_the_Psychic) (p. 305).

Sheldrake’s ideas have been subjected to much discussion in journals and newspapers, and his book A New Science of Life was reviewed in a variety of scientific and religious publications. Attitudes of mainstream scientists were generally negative. In September 1981, the scientific journal Nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29) carried an editorial by the journal’s senior editor, John Maddox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maddox), entitled A book for burning?.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-nature_1>[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#_note-nature)</SUP> It was highly critical of his work, as were subsequent reviews of his books in the magazine.

[Braggi]

Response:

Whoever proposed that ants have a shared consciousness was not a biologist. Ants continuously communicate with each other through external chemical signals, and each ant responds individually. ...

Gee, most or all plants and animals communicate with each other, both within and outside of their species, through external chemical signals. Perhaps consciousness on any level wouldn't exist without this system. I agree that ants have a pretty limited consciousness when compared to a whale or a chimp, but that doesn't mean they have none or that they don't share consciousness. It's unlikely anything could be proved along these lines.

The very word consciousness is so slippery and difficult to pin down perhaps we ought to drop this relatively off topic bit of the thread.

The notion of "self awareness" is so human centered trying to figure out if animals who don't give a shit about it are able or unable to do it is a bit of a joke. Imagine projecting our notions of vanity on other animals? Ha. I read about some studies where animals had red circles painted on their bodies and faces and then the researchers watched from hidden locations while the animals in question looked in mirrors. Some researchers have too much time on their hands.

-Jeff

[Willie Lumplump]

I agree that ants have a pretty limited consciousness when compared to a whale or a chimp, but that doesn't mean they have none or that they don't share consciousness. It's unlikely anything could be proved along these lines.

Response:

I think the question was whether or not a colony of ants shares a consciousness. If the definition of consciousness is expanded to cover ant colonies, I would argue that the entire concept of consciousness is losing its meaning. What's next? Dandelion consciousness?

-----------------------
The notion of "self awareness" is so human centered trying to figure out if animals who don't give a shit about it are able or unable to do it is a bit of a joke. --Jeff

Response:

Not at all! It's generally accepted by animal behaviorists that certain animals are self-aware. If a gorilla sees it's reflection in a mirror and is then asked, "Who is that?", and if the gorilla then uses sign language to signal back its own name (Koko), the gorilla is aware of itself as an individual. One researcher went so far as to set up a film dating system for a female gorilla for whom she was trying to find mate. The researcher would show a film clip and ask the gorilla for its (her) response. In some cases the gorilla signalled, "unclean. bad toilet." A gorilla who interviews prospective mates by film and comments on toilet habits is pretty evidently self-aware.

[Valley Oak]

Wow! Can this gorilla dating service be modified to serve my romantic needs? If so, I want to get started right now!

Edward



Response:

I think the question was whether or not a colony of ants shares a consciousness. If the definition of consciousness is expanded to cover ant colonies, I would argue that the entire concept of consciousness is losing its meaning. What's next? Dandelion consciousness?

-----------------------
The notion of "self awareness" is so human centered trying to figure out if animals who don't give a shit about it are able or unable to do it is a bit of a joke. --Jeff

Response:

Not at all! It's generally accepted by animal behaviorists that certain animals are self-aware. If a gorilla sees it's reflection in a mirror and is then asked, "Who is that?", and if the gorilla then uses sign language to signal back its own name (Koko), the gorilla is aware of itself as an individual. One researcher went so far as to set up a film dating system for a female gorilla for whom she was trying to find mate. The researcher would show a film clip and ask the gorilla for its (her) response. In some cases the gorilla signalled, "unclean. bad toilet." A gorilla who interviews prospective mates by film and comments on toilet habits is pretty evidently self-aware.

[Willie Lumplump]

Wow! Can this gorilla dating service be modified to serve my romantic needs? If so, I want to get started right now!

EdwardI'm pretty sure that some dating outfits offer this service, but they are pricey.

[Valley Oak]

Well I was actually interested in experimenting with a gorilla. I would be willing to pay any price for that service.



I'm pretty sure that some dating outfits offer this service, but they are pricey.

[Willie Lumplump]

I don't think the verdict is in yet on evolution's latest experiment with big brained bipeds, but it's not looking very good.I'm afraid that the evolutionary experiment is over. From now on we'll have to depend on cultural changes if we are to have better lives. We've pretty much put an end to natural selection in our species by protecting the weak, by multiplying our numbers to produce an enormous gene pool, and by developing technologies that allow us to spread our genes freely from place to place. There's still some natural selection in populations exposed to deadly diseases such as AIDS, but evolving disease resistance isn't going to improve us much, and the germs keep evolving their own new defenses.

[Willie Lumplump]

Well I was actually interested in experimenting with a gorilla.Yes, I understand. That's why the service is so pricey.

["Mad" Miles]

Willie, Everybody,

For a mini-review of a film that specifically addresses your claims about the end of natural selection for human beings, see:

Post #6 Second film covered, "Idiocracy"

https://www.waccobb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17471 (https://www.waccobb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17471)

And Mykil, in response to your recent criticism of my main man Dr. Fred, which complaint I will characterize as, "Ya'll talk funny an' use dem big wurds dat I doan unerstan, kwit'it." You might find yourself quite comfortable in the world portrayed in the film.

Ever hear of the cultural practice called "Medieval Midnight"? A work friend introduced me to to the concept a couple of months ago. I seem to be experiencing one this morning.

Rain, rain come again, wash this world clean of pain,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:


P.S. What any of the recent posts on this thread have to do with belief or non-belief in God(s), I don't know, nor do I care. In fact that attitude pretty much sums up my views on that question as well!

Anyone paying attention knows I'm not a thread purity fetishist, in fact I like the tangential wanderings that our "conversations" take on this board.

Categories, categories, we don't need no stinking categories!

[Frederick M. Dolan]

If by God one means the God of Judaism and Christianity, that narrows it down a bit, for then we are considering whether there exists one god and one only that is personally interested in a people (Judaism) or individual confessors (Christianity). The real battle here is whether there are nations who can be rallied to this idea or individuals who can make sense of their lives by means of this idea. The question whether God does or doesn't exist doesn't arise in a vacuum. It is shouted out be peoples and individuals who are at their wits' end because they put their faith in Him but things have not turned out as they imagined. It's Job's question.

One can of course reduce it to the question of whether God's existence can be proved. This is a very narrow question. I doubt whether many believers have ever thought it could be proved. That something must be proved is a rather severe test and I doubt that much of what we care about would survive it.

The only "evidence" religion needs to concern itself with is eyewitness testimony. All the great religions depend on it, and I notice that our courts give it a lot of weight too. I personally don't believe in the Jewish God because I've never encountered him and although in many ways I love the Jewish Bible, it doesn't speak to me except in rogue texts like Job and Ecclesiastes. Jesus is a bit different but he still comes off to me as a rather etiolated Palestinian Buddha and I prefer the real thing.

Asking about god is asking whether there is any purpose or meaning to our sojourn here -- that's all religion has ever been about. I am convinced that there must be, despite all the evidence against it. I guess that makes me a theist, although that can't have anything to do with the kind of god who cares about us personally and made everything from an external position.



Here is a fascinating debate on the issue of the non-existence of god, with Gore Vidal participating (he was by far the most interesting part of the debate):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=epn7QG9GLW0&mode=related&search=

Anyone care to comment? (after viewing this scintillating, sobering, and eye opening encounter)

[Valley Oak]

Your post, if I'm not mistaken, deals with agnosticism and theism but what about the concept of atheism? Are you loathe to the idea because you feel that you are a theist? Have I misinterpreted what you are trying to say?

Thomas Huxley coined the term 'agnosticism' and said, if I remember correctly, that the concept of god is too vast for the human mind to comprehend.

Atheism, if I'm defining it accurately, asserts the non-existence of god. I am an atheist. Although I was told once by one of my Political Science professors that it is impossible to prove that god does not exist. If so, I guess that forces me into a kind of uncomfortable bed partner of agnosticism or who knows what.

Edward



If by God one means the God of Judaism and Christianity, that narrows it down a bit, for then we are considering whether there exists one god and one only that is personally interested in a people (Judaism) or individual confessors (Christianity). The real battle here is whether there are nations who can be rallied to this idea or individuals who can make sense of their lives by means of this idea. The question whether God does or doesn't exist doesn't arise in a vacuum. It is shouted out be peoples and individuals who are at their wits' end because they put their faith in Him but things have not turned out as they imagined. It's Job's question.

One can of course reduce it to the question of whether God's existence can be proved. This is a very narrow question. I doubt whether many believers have ever thought it could be proved. That something must be proved is a rather severe test and I doubt that much of what we care about would survive it.

The only "evidence" religion needs to concern itself with is eyewitness testimony. All the great religions depend on it, and I notice that our courts give it a lot of weight too. I personally don't believe in the Jewish God because I've never encountered him and although in many ways I love the Jewish Bible, it doesn't speak to me except in rogue texts like Job and Ecclesiastes. Jesus is a bit different but he still comes off to me as a rather etiolated Palestinian Buddha and I prefer the real thing.

Asking about god is asking whether there is any purpose or meaning to our sojourn here -- that's all religion has ever been about. I am convinced that there must be, despite all the evidence against it. I guess that makes me a theist, although that can't have anything to do with the kind of god who cares about us personally and made everything from an external position.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Atheism makes sense to me in only two ways: either a denial of the Judeo-Christian God, or the idea that the existence of God can't be proved.

Neither of these positions raises any arguable issues. To deny the Judeo-Christian God means that you haven't seen him or his representative and that if you've seen the latter (in the form of tradition or scripture), you're not compelled by them. Presumably, you've encountered a more attractive god, such as Enlightenment, Truth, Love, Fame, Money, Prestige, etc. Just because the Judeo-Christian god is dead is no reason to believe that no other gods are being born -- the cult of reason, for example, or Mammon, or Democracy -- it doesn't mean that we're no longer sacrificing for the sake of some Idea. It's hard to imagine what it would be to be human if we weren't -- even if it's only a matter of the time we're sacrificing to discover the unified field theory. Presumably, if you were to stumble upon the Judeo-Christian god, you'd at least give him a hearing. The denial of one god is not the denial of all or any gods.

To say that the existence of God can't be proved is a non sequitur. Who ever claimed it could be proved? The whole point of revelation is that only a few individuals are singled out for an utterly indubitable encounter with God.

T. Huxley's use of "agnosticism" is interesting. The Gnostics were originally people who rejected the idea that any single version of the truth was likely to be adequate and that one should greet any version offered with an open mind, and I think that's more or less what Huxley had in mind. By "truth" they meant an interpretation of the world such that things appear meaningful. A lot of secular culture seems to want us to accept the idea that the world is perhaps meaningless. Meaningless, that is, defined as a world not planned in advance by some intelligence that is external to it. That strikes me as a great spiritual quest in itself, to live with meaninglessness.


Your post, if I'm not mistaken, deals with agnosticism and theism but what about the concept of atheism? Are you loathe to the idea because you feel that you are a theist? Have I misinterpreted what you are trying to say?

Thomas Huxley coined the term 'agnosticism' and said, if I remember correctly, that the concept of god is too vast for the human mind to comprehend.

Atheism, if I'm defining it accurately, asserts the non-existence of god. I am an atheist. Although I was told once by one of my Political Science professors that it is impossible to prove that god does not exist. If so, I guess that forces me into a kind of uncomfortable bed partner of agnosticism or who knows what.

Edward

[alanora]

What difference will answering this question make? More and more I am being asked to hold divergent opinions simultaneously which requires great enlarging of self concepts.....Just try thinking that both are true and there is no either/or......mindy

[podfish]

I'm afraid that the evolutionary experiment is over. From now on we'll have to depend on cultural changes if we are to have better lives. We've pretty much put an end to natural selection in our species by protecting the weak, by multiplying our numbers to produce an enormous gene pool, and by developing technologies that allow us to spread our genes freely from place to place. There's still some natural selection in populations exposed to deadly diseases such as AIDS, but evolving disease resistance isn't going to improve us much, and the germs keep evolving their own new defenses.

That's a misunderstanding of natural selection. The nice thing about that theory is that it defines its own winners and losers. You don't get to define 'weak' individuals. If they aren't weeded out, they're not weak, at least in nature's eyes. And that's without even going into the definition of 'individual'...

[Kermit1941]

Asking about god is asking whether there is any purpose or meaning to our sojourn here -- that's all religion has ever been about.



For myself, I answer the question,
"What is the purpose of life?"
with the maxim,

The purpose of life is to live.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Conly]

>
For myself, I answer the question,
>"What is the purpose of life?"
>with the maxim,

>The purpose of life is to live.

>Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

No.
The purpose of "Life" is to reproduce.
And I say that as One who does not.

>God does not exist v. "I can't know" (Atheism v. Agnosticism)

If "god has/did not invent Humanity it would be nessisary for Humanity to invent God"

Just my two bits

[Willie Lumplump]

That's a misunderstanding of natural selection.I doubt it.
The nice thing about that theory is that it defines its own winners and losers.Quite so!
You don't get to define 'weak' individuals.Nor was I trying. In Darwinian terms, weak individuals have less fitness than strong individuals, and fitness is defined entirely by the ability to reproduce.
If they aren't weeded out, they're not weak, at least in nature's eyes.Nature is responsible for natural selection, and man is responsible for artificial selection. In human populations, artificial selection (i.e., the protecting of people who are unfit in Darwinian terms) has largely replaced natural selection. The natural selection that does remain in human populations does not assure further evolution. After a favorable gene is selected for, it has to survive and build up (i.e., reproduce itself) to a level where it can exert its influence at the population level. Human populations are so mobile that favorable genes have no chance to build up. Favorable genes are "swamped out" in the larger gene pool. I might add that surprisingly little gene exchange between neighboring populations is needed to cancel out the effects of natural selection.

[Willie Lumplump]

Atheism makes sense to me in only two ways: either a denial of the Judeo-Christian God, or the idea that the existence of God can't be proved.But it's not up to atheists to disprove the existence of God. Rather, it's the task of believers to prove God's existence. The burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim, and the the more extravagant the claim, the more evidence is required.

[Willie Lumplump]

What difference will answering this question make? More and more I am being asked to hold divergent opinions simultaneously which requires great enlarging of self concepts.....Just try thinking that both are true and there is no either/or......mindyIt's a fundamental axiom of logic that "A" and "Not A" cannot both simultaneously be true.

[Willie Lumplump]

For a mini-review of a film that specifically addresses your claims about the end of natural selection for human beings, see:Post #6 Second film covered, "Idiocracy"The film does not deal with natural selection, it deals with artificial selection. Artificial selection can go two ways, either (1) protection of individuals who would be eliminated by natural selection, or (2) eugenics. The film deals with the first way.

[MsTerry]

if what you are saying is true, please explain to me what came first;
a chicken or an egg? and how did they get here?
please use only the rational logic that is available to a scientist and entomologist of your caliber.
thanks


It's a fundamental axiom of logic that "A" and "Not A" cannot both simultaneously be true.

[Willie Lumplump]

if what you are saying is true, please explain to me what came first; a chicken or an egg? and how did they get here?
please use only the rational logic that is available to a scientist and entomologist of your caliber. thanksTo start with some perspective, birds (all of which lay eggs) are the sole surviving line of dinosaurs (specifically the therapod group), and, as far as is known, dinosaurs all laid eggs. Even if some dinosaurs bore their young alive, they would have done so by hatching a normal egg inside their bodies in the same way that many reptiles do today (this is known as ovoviviparity, in case you're interested). So birds were laying eggs and eggs were developing into birds when the first birds appeared in the Middle Jurassic. If you want to search for the origin of eggs (i.e., eggs in the chicken sense), you have to go back to the origin of reptiles early in the Triassic Period, a period that pre-dated the birds by about 90 million years. The amphibian ancestors of reptiles evolved hard shells that could survive on land. At the same time they evolved other adaptations to a terrestrial existence, and in doing so they became reptiles. However, eggs without shells existed long before reptilian eggs that had shells. Eggs without shells started very far back in time, certainly in pre-Cambrian times over 543 million years ago, and that was long before even the first vertebrates appeared.

The upshot of all this is that adult birds and their eggs (which, after all, are only immature birds) came into existence simultaneously, and so of course did chickens and their eggs. If you could go back in time and look at every proximate ancestor of birds and all of the first birds, you wouldn't be able to pick out a single individual and say, "this is a bird," or "this is a dinosaurian ancestor of birds." It's rather like a pot of water on a hot stove. Exactly when does the water stop being cold and become warm?"

[Kermit1941]

if what you are saying is true, please explain to me what came first;
a chicken or an egg? and how did they get here?
please use only the rational logic that is available to a scientist and entomologist of your caliber.
thanks[






Hello Ms Terry.
( Love your name. )

I propose this argument for saying the egg necessarily comes first.

Evolution is a gradual process.
The chicken ( identified by a set of characteristics )
evolved from a non-chicken ( Lacking enough of the characteristics to justify calling it a chicken. )

The first chicken hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken.

Most likely, that first chicken did not generated all chickens.

Most likely the mutations that led to chickens had to occur over and over again to shift the species of non-chicken into the specifies identifiable as
chickens.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

The upshot of all this is that adult birds and their eggs (which, after all, are only immature birds) came into existence simultaneously???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
, and so of course did chickens and their eggs. If you could go back in time and look at every proximate ancestor of birds and all of the first birds, you wouldn't be able to pick out a single individual and say, "this is a bird," or "this is a dinosaurian ancestor of birds."
It's rather like a pot of water on a hot stove. Exactly when does the water stop being cold and become warm?"

this is a jawbreaker! this is neither logic nor rational.
I guess you feel you can spin yarn from thin air
Are you testing my IQ or yours?

[MsTerry]

Hello Ms Terry.
( Love your name. )

I propose this argument for saying the egg necessarily comes first.

Evolution is a gradual process.
The chicken ( identified by a set of characteristics )
evolved from a non-chicken ( Lacking enough of the characteristics to justify calling it a chicken. )

The first chicken hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken.

Most likely, that first chicken did not generated all chickens.

Most likely the mutations that led to chickens had to occur over and over again to shift the species of non-chicken into the specifies identifiable as
chickens.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

Yes Kermit, I agree the first chicken most likely came from a non-chicken egg, but when did the egglaying begin? and where did it came from?
and how about that rooster? How did he come in to play?

[Jahshua]

I understand some cultures used to throw babies in freezing rivers.. that really strengthened the gene pool, I bet.. I think it was up around Nepal or someplace near the Himalayas..

What do we do here in California? As a parent, I've been trying to find a balance between nurturing my son's individual freedom/exploration, and avoiding big emergency room or legal bills, mostly. It seems to be working out okay. It's important to note that interactive, loving parenting is a "secret ingredient" in survival of children. I learned a lot from a relatively unsupervised childhood in the Northwest, but came up short on the loving attentions of my parents. I tried to remedy this as a parent. Firm, flexible boundaries, lovingly supervised, with as little intervention as was safe and practical, (and also respecting other peoples spaces).

I may well get in trouble for this, but that doesn't generally stop me..
Artificial selection might include individuals that are able to be successful in other ways than physical competition, or even reproductive health. (rich folks can afford expensive fertility treatments, or artificial ways of bearing and delivering babies. In that way, unnatural selection may work against physical health and viability, but.. Maybe intellect and other kinds of "intelligence" are also valuable survival traits that are strengthened even in artificial selection. Smart guys with money (or smart, successful women, of course), can afford to marry attractive healthy and strong women, (or men) even if the guys (gals) are relatively unattractive nerds/geeks. (think the originators of Apple, Google, etc.) The financially and socially successful people get to have mates and babies, and can afford to offer them good medical care, education, and other beneficial conditions for survival the thrive-al. (guys with good vocabularies and creative linguistic skills can even get chicks.. ; ) I speak as a short, bald guy with a very good looking, healthy, tall smart 18 year-old son, and as a former husband of an attractive woman.. so, hey, the marriage didn't work out, but.. from a reproductive/survival POV, everything is cool; Possibly inbred western-European genes, mixed with Russian-Jewish genes make a cool kiddo.. life goes on and natures objectives are met. Sex & survival.

On the other hand, maybe the bright side of immigration from other countries is the "cross-pollination" of genetic types; I sometimes wonder if even inbred genetic lines can strengthen other lines, because they add other qualities that have been eliminated. Countries that have few variations in genetic type, (such as Japan) might benefit from mixtures with other kinds of people even if it's culturally not supported. And Americans might not always appreciate the influx of other cultures, but then again, genetically we might benefit from vital genetic survival factors. ( I'm not scientifically educated on this, so I expect to be "educated" about whether this makes any sense.)

The people who immigrate here, legally or otherwise seem to me to be possibly the more motivated, physically (and reproductively) viable people, not the complacent, placid, compliant (inbred?) people. Of course, some of them are inclined to have a lot of kids, while here, for reasons including religious beliefs, wanting to give their kids the advantages of the American Dream (cue Star Spangled Banner), or outmoded agrarian patterns of survival; more kids equals more people to work the fields, support the aging parents, or whatever..

(I have issues with population growth, can you tell? No matter how much evolution takes place, isn't it true that too many people will not be serving the greater good? As people become more educated and affluent, I think they are likely to have fewer kids.. Also, better health care, quality of life, etc. This is why education is critical for saving the planet! Even, or, especially for those who can least afford to pay for it! )

BTW, what is the (economic) advantage of a large, poorly educated pool of people, with lots of kids? I imagine it has to do with a cheap labor pool.
It gets even uglier when there are classes (ghettos) of people who are often almost forced into crime and penal institutionalization. (lots of money to be made in prisons and law-enforcement, lots of justification for reducing public rights and freedoms.)

I know some of what I've said is going to annoy someone. I am trying to sort out my attitudes, to see the good (as well as the not-so-good), in all cultures and try to figure out what are the best ways to deal with overpopulation, the dumbing-down of our educational system, (for what ends?) and the huge shifts in the global ecology and economic systems.
Not that I have so much power, but to at least sort out my own values, goals and perspectives..

I'm open to any input about how to be a better global citizen or parent you guys might have to offer.. : ) I'm pretty sure I have finished my reproductive duties, unless I get an amazing offer I can't refuse. : )
Besides I think I just got really, really lucky on the outcome of that project.

Scott.



I doubt it.Quite so!Nor was I trying. In Darwinian terms, weak individuals have less fitness than strong individuals, and fitness is defined entirely by the ability to reproduce.Nature is responsible for natural selection, and man is responsible for artificial selection. In human populations, artificial selection (i.e., the protecting of people who are unfit in Darwinian terms) has largely replaced natural selection. The natural selection that does remain in human populations does not assure further evolution. After a favorable gene is selected for, it has to survive and build up (i.e., reproduce itself) to a level where it can exert its influence at the population level. Human populations are so mobile that favorable genes have no chance to build up. Favorable genes are "swamped out" in the larger gene pool. I might add that surprisingly little gene exchange between neighboring populations is needed to cancel out the effects of natural selection.

[Willie Lumplump]

Hello Ms Terry.
( Love your name. )

I propose this argument for saying the egg necessarily comes first.

Evolution is a gradual process.
The chicken ( identified by a set of characteristics )
evolved from a non-chicken ( Lacking enough of the characteristics to justify calling it a chicken. )

The first chicken hatched from an egg laid by a non-chicken.

Most likely, that first chicken did not generated all chickens.

Most likely the mutations that led to chickens had to occur over and over again to shift the species of non-chicken into the specifies identifiable as
chickens.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >The key to understanding your argument is your first sentence, "Evolution is a gradual process." If we look just at the fossil record, it seems that evolution proceeds in jumps because the gaps in the fossil record are so large. However, if you could have witnessed the entire evolution of chickens from their non-chicken ancestors, there would be no point at which you could say, "This parent bird was a non-chicken, but its egg was a chicken egg." Again, it's like the pot of water on a stove. At what point does it stop being cold and start being warm? There is no such point. And even if there were such a point in chicken evolution, it's likely that populations of incipient chickens hovered around the chicken/non-chicken point, perhaps crossing back-and-forth many times in response to fluctuating selective pressures, before finally crossing definitively a last time into the realm of chickenhood. Therefore, if you insist on the single-point hypothesis, you'd have to accept that in some cases chickens laid eggs that belonged to their non-chicken ancestors, and that's a little difficult to swallow.

By the way, mutations don't necessarily have to occur over and over again to create a new species. In fact, speciation depends on natural selection of single mutations rather than on repeated mutations of the same genes. Also, in some cases considerable evolution may occur through recombination of existing genetic material without involving any new mutations at all.

[Willie Lumplump]

I understand some cultures used to throw babies in freezing rivers.. that really strengthened the gene pool, I bet.. I think it was up around Nepal or someplace near the Himalayas..Despite what the eugenicists might tell you, you're not going to degrade the human gene pool significantly by throwing babies into rivers or by providing medical care to genetically weak infants. One reason is that most deleterious mutations are recessive (that is, they have to occur as a pair of alleles to exert an effect). The human species already carries a large load of deleterious genes, but these genes aren't extirpated because the more scarce they become, the less often they are expressed in the phenotype and therefore the less they are exposed to the pressure of natural selection.
Maybe intellect and other kinds of "intelligence" are also valuable survival traits that are strengthened even in artificial selection.This is quite possible. It would happen if there were close linkage on the chromosome between deleterious genes being deliberately selected against and adjacent beneficial genes.
everything is cool; Possibly inbred western-European genes, mixed with Russian-Jewish genes make a cool kiddo.. Well, there has been so much gene exchange within the human race that all of our genes are pretty well mixed up anyway. Besides that, all humans are descended from a relatively few--perhaps as few as several hundred--people that survived the catastrophic eruption of Mt. Tambora 70,000 years ago. That accounts for why people are so genetically similar all around the world.
I sometimes wonder if even inbred genetic lines can strengthen other lines, because they add other qualities that have been eliminated.If you're talking about cows or corn, yes. If you're talking about people, no.
As people become more educated and affluent, I think they are likely to have fewer kids..Quite true.
BTW, what is the (economic) advantage of a large, poorly educated pool of people, with lots of kids? I imagine it has to do with a cheap labor pool.Exactly so. Republicans are trying to create a large supply of serf laborers that are paid starvation wages. These serfs are also extremely useful as canon fodder during our perpetual wars.
I know some of what I've said is going to annoy someone.Maybe. But not me.

[MsTerry]

So, that must mean you are testing your own IQ.
and all you can produce is that
1) chicken and egg came at the same time
2) eggs are immature birds

?!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!?
WOW,
no wonder they shipped you off to Congo
Are you the Easterbunny too?


I have a feeling that testing your IQ would not be a productive occupation.

[Willie Lumplump]

So, that must mean you are testing your own IQ.
and all you can produce is that
1) chicken and egg came at the same time
2) eggs are immature birds

?!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!?
WOW,
no wonder they shipped you off to Congo
Are you the Easterbunny too?I believe that you omitted a final exclamation point at the end of line 5.

[Kermit1941]

So, that must mean you are testing your own IQ.
and all you can produce is that
1) chicken and egg came at the same time
2) eggs are immature birds

?!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!?!?!!?
WOW,
no wonder they shipped you off to Congo
Are you the Easterbunny too?




:) Ms Terry, you are showing off your cleverness, but not your kindness.


Peace resides within every person.
Please show your peace.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Frederick M. Dolan]

What about Russell's Paradox?


It's a fundamental axiom of logic that "A" and "Not A" cannot both simultaneously be true.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

But it's not up to atheists to disprove the existence of God. Rather, it's the task of believers to prove God's existence. The burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim, and the the more extravagant the claim, the more evidence is required.

Again, I don't think this would come as a surprise to or trouble any believer. The believer typically recognizes the extravagance of the claim that God exists and offers testimony not proof. Yes, it was fashionable in the middle ages for learned monks to construct and debate proofs, but that is hardly central to the experience of faith by man at large and it plays absolutely no role in the founding texts of the major religions. And among modern theologians, from Kierkegaard on, the stress has been on the absence of (logical) proof of God's existence as an essential dimension of faith.

[Willie Lumplump]

Again, I don't think this would come as a surprise to or trouble any believer.Actually, I hear that argument, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," just about any time that the question God's existence comes up. But I imagine that educated people are less likely to make it.

[alanora]

I feel I have been summarily dismissed by the willie bird as being illogical. It does not feel good, tho any arguments for which I reach become immediately seen as illogical and I have no precedents to quote. Arrrrrgh I am awaiting news of the development of halo correction lenses but I may have been dismissed in that regard as well. Mindy


What about Russell's Paradox?