http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/bc.na.gen.us.cultleader.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

A federal judge on Tuesday delayed next week's execution of cult leader Jeffrey Lundgren to allow him to join a lawsuit by five other death row inmates challenging the state's use of lethal injection.

Ya, judges should not be accountable to the people.

Right. What a moron!

Opponents have argued that the use of the lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel and painful and that the procedure is often carried out without specifically trained medical personnel present.
I am trained. If he does not want to feel a thing, he won't feel a thing. I will do it for free(you have to pay my liability insurance though).

Why are they still struggling to make a painless death actually painless? Is this just a legal smokescreen or is the judicial system being incompetent in its executions?

This has been going on for the duration of capital punishment. The electric chair came about because hanging was cruel and unusual.

I suspect it will go on as long as there are people on both sides of the capital punishment issue.

One side wants capital punishment to go away. If they can't outright ban it, then hound the methods.

And they say being fat shortens your life span!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/bc.na.gen.us.cultleader.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories



Ya, judges should not be accountable to the people.

Right. What a moron!

A judge has a responsibility to give a condemned man every opportunity to legally challenge his execution. The execution is irreversible, whereas if you leave him alive to make his attempts to constitutionally challenge issues which many states are dealing with at the moment, you can always kill him later if it is found without merit.

The only moron here is yourself.


I am trained. If he does not want to feel a thing, he won't feel a thing. I will do it for free(you have to pay my liability insurance though).

Obviously this isn't entirely so...

I am trained. If he does not want to feel a thing, he won't feel a thing.How do you know? Do you regularly administer sodium thiopental, pancuronium/tubocurarine, and potassium chloride to kill a patient? Can you be sure the first drug is successful, so he won't feel the others?

If there's even the slightest doubt about an execution, it should be halted until we can be absolutely sure. (Or, better yet, tossed out altogether as a cruel and barbaric punishment.)

On a similar subject...

Even anesthesiologists don't get it right. People wake up in the middle of surgery, paralyzed and unable to communicate, but awake and feeling pain! Can you imagine that happening?

Change the method of death if they are unsure of the dosage of drugs to give. I think a guillotine is always an option. There have never been any reported cases of pain and suffering after such a procedure is successfully performed.

No special training needed for the executioners either, other than to routinely grease the track and sharpen the blade. Probably cheaper than drugs as well.

Change the method of death if they are unsure of the dosage of drugs to give. I think a guillotine is always an option. There have never been any reported cases of pain and suffering after such a procedure is successfully performed.It never ceases to amaze me how the religious zealots, who argue so vociferously against any abortion on the one hand, are all too eager to kill people in the most cruel and violent manner possible. If life is sacred, it should be sacred for all, not just for those whom you pick and choose.

That said, the guillotine is far from swift and painless. I can't believe the French continued to use it until the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuillotineFrom its first use, there has been debate as to whether the guillotine always provided as swift a death as Dr. Guillotin hoped. With previous methods of execution, there was little concern about the suffering inflicted. But where the guillotine was invented specifically to be "humane," the issue was seriously considered. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the very swiftness of the guillotine only prolonged the victim's suffering. The blade cuts quickly enough that there is relatively little impact on the brain case, and perhaps less likelihood of immediate unconsciousness than with a more violent decapitation, or long-drop hanging.

Audiences to guillotinings told numerous stories of blinking eyelids, moving eyes, movement of the mouth, even an expression of "unequivocal indignation" on the face of the decapitated Charlotte Corday when her cheek was slapped.

...

The following report was written by a Dr. Beaurieux, who experimented with the head of a condemned prisoner by the name of Henri Languille, on June 28, 1905:

"Here, then, is what I was able to note immediately after the decapitation: the eyelids and lips of the guillotined man worked in irregularly rhythmic contractions for about five or six seconds. This phenomenon has been remarked by all those finding themselves in the same conditions as myself for observing what happens after the severing of the neck...

"I waited for several seconds. The spasmodic movements ceased. [...] It was then that I called in a strong, sharp voice: 'Languille!' I saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions – I insist advisedly on this peculiarity – but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts.

"Next Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves. I was not, then, dealing with the sort of vague dull look without any expression, that can be observed any day in dying people to whom one speaks: I was dealing with undeniably living eyes which were looking at me. After several seconds, the eyelids closed again, slowly and evenly, and the head took on the same appearance as it had had before I called out.

"It was at that point that I called out again and, once more, without any spasm, slowly, the eyelids lifted and undeniably living eyes fixed themselves on mine with perhaps even more penetration than the first time. Then there was a further closing of the eyelids, but now less complete. I attempted the effect of a third call; there was no further movement – and the eyes took on the glazed look which they have in the dead."

On a similar subject...

Even anesthesiologists don't get it right. People wake up in the middle of surgery, paralyzed and unable to communicate, but awake and feeling pain! Can you imagine that happening?

But of course, they are trying to keep their patients alive.

How do you know? Do you regularly administer sodium thiopental, pancuronium/tubocurarine, and potassium chloride to kill a patient? Can you be sure the first drug is successful, so he won't feel the others?
I really just need one drug, actually.

If there's even the slightest doubt about an execution, it should be halted until we can be absolutely sure. (Or, better yet, tossed out altogether as a cruel and barbaric punishment.)
Only because you say so. Not because it is true.

Obviously this isn't entirely so...

ya, I forgot travel expenses. Sorry.

It never ceases to amaze me how the religious zealots, who argue so vociferously against any abortion on the one hand, are all too eager to kill people in the most cruel and violent manner possible. If life is sacred, it should be sacred for all, not just for those whom you pick and choose.

That said, the guillotine is far from swift and painless. I can't believe the French continued to use it until the 1980s.

/sarcasm
It never ceases to amaze me how that disagreeing morally with a liberal mindset on abortion immediately gets you pegged as "a religious zealot". I guess that makes classification of the wide diversity of mankind easier with all the use of stereotypes.

"If life is sacred, it should be sacred for all?" Where did I declare that? Oh, that's right, I don't have to. As long as one person professing Christianity declared it sometime in the 2000 years since Christianity began, then in your stereotyping eyes, everyone that has ever professed Christianity marches in some sort of cultic lockstep, never interpreting the Bible for ourselves, since, of course, none of us can think for ourselves.
/sarcasm

The correct statement should be: All innocent life is sacred, and all innocent life is sacred for all.

Innocent = below the Age of Accountability, which is a fancy phrase for saying the age in which you realize something is wrong, yet do it anyway.

Anyone else is fair game for capital punishment if their crimes warrant such a penalty. People that commit crimes are no longer innocent, obviously. Incidentally, I think the law covers that. I don't think anyone under the age of say 10 years is eligible for the death penalty, if they do kill somebody. I'd have to do more research to determine if that's the case in all 50 states though.

And I knew someone would bring up the blinking experiments back when guillotining was in full swing. I don't think blinking would count as a form of testimony, unless you have a strange definition of "eyewitness". Severed heads are notoriously silent. (And yes, people have survived both electrocutions and almost-lethal injections, and reported pain, so those have both had "first-hand" accounts of the pain associated with those criminal disposal methods). The best thing that can be said about a flawless guillotining is that it is final. No one comes back from decapitation.

Though I never did understand why one of the most humane ways to put down cattle never was floated as a serious contender for the death penalty methods. The bolt-gun destroys the brain stem, and is to my knowledge instanteous death. Again, I haven't researched this, but in decapitation, I think the brain stem remains intact, whereas its complete destruction should result in immediate loss of consciousness.

I'm all for the best humane method of putting the capital offenders to death, whichever one proves to be so.

It never ceases to amaze me how that disagreeing morally with a liberal mindset on abortion immediately gets you pegged as "a religious zealot".No, the quality of your posts, your various religious references, and your typical right-wing Christian views get you pegged as a religious zealot. (Frequent use of capitalized pronouns is also a tell-tale sign.)As long as one person professing Christianity declared it sometime in the 2000 years since Christianity began, then in your stereotyping eyes, everyone that has ever professed Christianity marches in some sort of cultic lockstep, never interpreting the Bible for ourselves, since, of course, none of us can think for ourselves.So you openly defy Jesus, your primary religious figure, while hypocritically invoking his name? Yep, that would get you pegged too.The correct statement should be: All innocent life is sacred, and all innocent life is sacred for all. Anyone else is fair game for capital punishment if their crimes warrant such a penalty."Innocent" of course being defined as you like it (whatever fancy language you frame it in), which makes the whole concept meaningless and arbitrary. And saying execution is okay, but only when it's warranted is nice circular logic. Arbitrary use of moral commands and circular reasoning would also get you pegged.I'm all for the best humane method of putting the capital offenders to death, whichever one proves to be so.Good. Since natural causes is the most humane method, you should have no objection to it.

No, the quality of your posts, your various religious references, and your typical right-wing Christian views get you pegged as a religious zealot. (Frequent use of capitalized pronouns is also a tell-tale sign.)

No, capitalizing God when referring to Him as a pronoun, that's a sign of respect. Since you obviously don't respect Christianity, I'd imagine it's easy for you to confuse respect as zealotry.

So you openly defy Jesus, your primary religious figure, while hypocritically invoking his name? Yep, that would get you pegged too.
Openly defy Jesus how exactly? I'm waiting to hear this one.

"Innocent" of course being defined as you like it (whatever fancy language you frame it in), which makes the whole concept meaningless and arbitrary.

I note you love using the word arbitrary as a perjorative. Either God exists, and it's His arbitrary decision as to what is and isn't correct, or He doesn't and it's mankind's arbitrary decision on what laws to make up and follow. You cannot avoid arbitrary decisions in this world, no matter your belief or non-belief in God.

The concept of an age of innocence, before you are fully accountable for your actions is not new, nor does Christianity have a monopoly on it. Like I already stated, which you immediately ignored, all our laws treat children of varying ages differently than adults when it comes time for punishment of undesirable actions.

And saying execution is okay, but only when it's warranted is nice circular logic. Arbitrary use of moral commands and circular reasoning would also get you pegged.

What's strange is I quoted the Virginia State Code on what qualifies for the death penalty, and your mind somehow twisted that into circular reasoning. I have no problem with some crimes being punishable by death, and some by life imprisonment, if that is what the state legislatures have established at the time. If I lived in that state, I would cast my vote to toughen penalties on violent crime, up to and including the death penalty.

No state currently follows anything resembling what the Old Testament law requires to be punishable by death, and if you are saying, in some twisted, half-conceived sense, that a non-arbitrary, consistent Christian must either follow every line of Old Testament law, or become a pacifist in order to be consistent, then you do not understand Christianity or the Bible at all.

And, by the way, Jesus had no problem with the death penalty either. He advocated slinging millstones around child molester's necks and dropping them into the sea as the better of punishments for their crimes.

I'm still waiting to hear from you how exactly I'm openly defying Jesus by advocating the death penalty and human existence beginning before birth.

Good. Since natural causes is the most humane method, you should have no objection to it.

So you, Tudamorf, are declaring that assisted suicide in all its forms is wrong then? Because, according to you, natural causes is the most humane method to die, you should have an objection to anything else.

There's no universal agreement on how to show respect.

I found this paragraph interesting:
It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in newsgroup messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.
http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm
(The page has the following caution at the top: "Please note: This page contains the Name of God. If you print it out, please treat it with appropriate respect." The other pages on that site use "G-d" instead.)

When I was a child, I asked my pastor why people refer to God as "He" or "Him", since God isn't supposed to have a gender. My pastor suggested not using pronouns at all. For a while I listened to him carefully and noticed that he rarely if ever substituted a pronoun for God either.

There's no universal agreement on how to show respect.

I found this paragraph interesting:

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm
(The page has the following caution at the top: "Please note: This page contains the Name of God. If you print it out, please treat it with appropriate respect." The other pages on that site use "G-d" instead.)

When I was a child, I asked my pastor why people refer to God as "He" or "Him", since God isn't supposed to have a gender. My pastor suggested not using pronouns at all. For a while I listened to him carefully and noticed that he rarely if ever substituted a pronoun for God either.

Never said that what I did to show respect was universal, nor would I expect Christianity to be monolithic in everything it did, but thanks for the link. It's true, God the Father has no gender, being a spirit, but if you're Christian, Jesus referred constantly to God as our Heavenly Father, so it's just an approximation of us trying to translate infinity into our language use. It's not 100% accurate, of course.

Openly defy Jesus how exactly? I'm waiting to hear this one.

"turning the other cheek" vs "capital punishment" - discuss!

I'll take half-baked messageboard theology for 100, Alex!

Turn the other cheek refers to wrongs done to one's self. Capital punishment is done to prevent further harm to others. These two things are in no way similar.

Turn the other cheek refers to wrongs done to one's self. Capital punishment is done to prevent further harm to others. These two things are in no way similar.

Capital punishment excludes any philosophy of redemption. One prevents the other.

Turn the other cheek refers to wrongs done to one's self. Capital punishment is done to prevent further harm to others. These two things are in no way similar.Execution has nothing to do with preventing further harm to others. It's a violent act of retribution designed to satisfy your blood lust. We have a stable government and very secure prisons, and a lifer isn't going anywhere. Executions also aren't cheaper and don't deter criminals.

As for theology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheekTurn the other cheek is a famous phrase taken from the Sermon on the Mount in the Christian New Testament. In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

A parallel version is offered in the Sermon on the Plain in the Gospel of Luke:

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

This passage is viewed as promoting nonresistance, pacifism or nonviolence.

"You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your race, but will love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18)Those sermons don't preach retribution and he rejects "an eye for an eye". When a criminal does harm to your society, you, as a Christian member of that society, should not look to retribution, even though you personally aren't the victim.

Openly defy Jesus how exactly? I'm waiting to hear this one.Look up. Honestly, according to your myth the guy willingly sacrificed himself for your sins. Does that sound like the kind of guy who would advocate lopping off people's heads when 12 people decide he's guilty of certain crimes?So you, Tudamorf, are declaring that assisted suicide in all its forms is wrong then?On the contrary. I consistently maintain that you should have the right to do whatever you want to your own body, including killing yourself. Since a person should be allowed to choose to kill themselves, I see no reason why someone can't be allowed to help them.

Now you're getting your theology from Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA?!

The internet just got 23% dumber.

That is friggin hysterical.

Hey, if you find something wrong with that wikipedia entry, why not point it out versus just rejecting it because it wasn't printed in a book with King James name printed on it.

The Internet is the great equalizer of knowledge.

Now you're getting your theology from Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA?!Those are quotes from <i>your</i> bible, aren't they?

Change the method of death if they are unsure of the dosage of drugs to give. I think a guillotine is always an option. There have never been any reported cases of pain and suffering after such a procedure is successfully performed.

...there was a reason the guillotine is no longer used as a "humane" method.

It can take up to seven seconds ffor the drop in blood pressure to render a person unconcious, from what I've read.

There's no universal agreement on how to show respect.

I found this paragraph interesting:

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm
(The page has the following caution at the top: "Please note: This page contains the Name of God. If you print it out, please treat it with appropriate respect." The other pages on that site use "G-d" instead.)

When I was a child, I asked my pastor why people refer to God as "He" or "Him", since God isn't supposed to have a gender. My pastor suggested not using pronouns at all. For a while I listened to him carefully and noticed that he rarely if ever substituted a pronoun for God either.

It comes from the commandment that thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain. The intent of the commandment was that you shall not swear upon the Lord (So help me God, for instance), but as with many of the laws over the millenia, it was expanded to help ensure you couldn't possibly break the original commandment, by making it wrong to even speak his name...

Very roughly and basically explained.

Hey, if you find something wrong with that wikipedia entry, why not point it out versus just rejecting it because it wasn't printed in a book with King James name printed on it.
I respect a wide variety of theologies. But I have some criteria for doing so.

1. Did you read the actual source, e.g. the Bible or the Koran? (No, he read ****ing WIKIPEDIA)
2. Did you read the thoughts of past theologians and or discuss it with current theologians? (No, he read ****ing WIKIPEDIA)
3. Have you tried to apply and live the theology you are spouting? (see above)

The Internet is the great equalizer of knowledge.
Wikipedia is only good for unimportant things, like obscure TV shows or internet fads. For important things that represent actual fields of human knowledge, you go to the real source, not some made up crap on wikipedia.

Citing Wikipedia as a source is exactly equivelent to saying "You're wrong, because the smelly homeless guy who sleeps near my bus stop said so". No sensible person takes this as an authority on anything important.

--
Those are quotes from your bible, aren't they?
The quotes from the Bible are fine. I disagree with the fact that you've cited interpretations of those verses as if they hold some authority. The verses are Truth; the interpretations (whether I agree with them or not) are the rambling of some anonymous poster on the internet.

Tudamorf, WITHOUT quoting nonsensical quotes from some anonymous poster, please explain why you think Christ's prohibition against revenge (turn the other cheek) constitutes a prohibition against defending others from harm. I agree with you that vengenace is outlawed. I disagree that protection is, and the death penalty is ultimately about protecting society.

I am soooo glad I am an Atheist.

Don't have to play those silly mythology games.

...there was a reason the guillotine is no longer used as a "humane" method.

It can take up to seven seconds ffor the drop in blood pressure to render a person unconcious, from what I've read.

And activating every nociceptor afferent neuron going to the brain at once.

Aidon, that's what I had assumed too, but that page claims a different reason:
Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

I have no idea whether that site is correct. I'm not Jewish (and, for that matter, don't identify with any organized religion).

Aldarion, you might notice that the Wikipedia page has sources listed. Do you disagree with those sources as well?

Look up. Honestly, according to your myth the guy willingly sacrificed himself for your sins. Does that sound like the kind of guy who would advocate lopping off people's heads when 12 people decide he's guilty of certain crimes?

If someone does something to me directly, I am not to take vengeance for it, I am to forgive. If someone does something to the "little ones":

(4) Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.(5) And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.(6) But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (7) Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=18&version=9

(41) For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. (42) And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:41-42;&version=9;
(1)Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! (2) It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.(3) Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. (4) And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. (5) And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:1-5;&version=9;

That's in 3 gospels. Notice that Luke actually distinguishes in the next verse about how you are supposed to forgive people that transgress against, or offend you, but you are supposed to send people who transgress against children to a watery grave with a handy millstone. Sounds like Jesus is for certain capital punishments depending on the subject of the transgression.

Defend others, forgive offenses against yourself. Or in other words, protect the innocent, punish the guilty.

If someone does something to me directly, I am not to take vengeance for it, I am to forgive.What a convenient loophole. Since execution is a penalty reserved for murder, and the victim is obviously dead, there's no one who is forced to forgive (according to Jesus), and you can torture, maim, and kill with impunity.

I don't buy it. If your religion preaches forgiveness, then you should practice forgiveness, whether or not you are the victim of the crime. In fact, if the murder victim is a good Christian too, then you should automatically assume that he would forgive the murderer, and you should not carry out an execution.Sounds like Jesus is for certain capital punishments depending on the subject of the transgression.No, it sounds like Jesus is saying it's better to be dead than to be an offender, if you read all of the passages. The leap from what's actually written, to "we should execute any offender," is a rather tall one.18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst
of them,
18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the
same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth
me.
18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,
it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and
that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that
offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast
them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed,
rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it
is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two
eyes to be cast into hell fire.
18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say
unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my
Father which is in heaven.

Aldarion, you might notice that the Wikipedia page has sources listed. Do you disagree with those sources as well?
Neither I nor Tudamorf read those sources. They may be good, they may be bad.

Citing sources in place of stating your argument is always bad form. But citing wikipedia - thats like citing the Google home page. "Here is a way to find some information, some of it may even be accurate, have fun". Its an utter cop out.

I am still waiting for a reasoned argument why "turn the other cheek" means "You arent allowed to protect others".

Notice that Luke actually distinguishes in the next verse about how you are supposed to forgive people that transgress against, or offend you, but you are supposed to send people who transgress against children to a watery grave with a handy millstone.

Not at all. My intrepretation is that the punishment worse than a watery grave will be a divine punishment, just as there is a divine reward for the humble.

I am still waiting for a reasoned argument why "turn the other cheek" means "You arent allowed to protect others".

That is the wrong argument so you will not get any answer. A society without capital punishment is not a society without protection from murderers.

Tudamorf, WITHOUT quoting nonsensical quotes from some anonymous poster, please explain why you think Christ's prohibition against revenge (turn the other cheek) constitutes a prohibition against defending others from harm.Please, the side commentary from Wikipedia was minimal, it was virtually all quotes from your bible. You can ignore the commentary if you like; it makes no difference.

As I replied to Gunny: if your religion preaches forgiveness, then you should practice forgiveness, whether or not you are the victim of the crime. In fact, if the murder victim is a good Christian too, then you should automatically assume that he would forgive the murderer, and you should not carry out an execution. Otherwise, you create a convenient loophole in order to get around an inconvenient moral command of your religion.I agree with you that vengenace is outlawed. I disagree that protection is, and the death penalty is ultimately about protecting society.There are four, and only four, goals of punishment in criminal justice: (1) deterrence (preventing that criminal, and others like him, from committing another similar crime); (2) incapacitation (taking the criminal out of society so he can't harm society); (3) retribution (getting revenge on him); and (4) rehabilitation (trying to mold him into a positive member of society).

Our criminal justice system has pretty much thrown rehabilitation out the window, and obviously executions don't help there. Studies show that executions don't deter other criminals from murdering, so that's out. Incapacitation (what you seem to be arguing) is also irrelevant, since we have high security prisons where we can safely keep dangerous criminals without any serious worry that they'll escape.

All that's left is retribution. An eye for an eye. Let's see him fry so that we can sanctify ourselves. That's the real, and only, reason for an execution. And according to my moral compass, and your religion, it's not a valid one.

Aidon, that's what I had assumed too, but that page claims a different reason:


I have no idea whether that site is correct. I'm not Jewish (and, for that matter, don't identify with any organized religion).


I don't know either. In the end there hasn't been a central dogmatic decider of Jewish law since the destruction of the 2nd temple in 79 BCE.

Either one could be correct...or neither...or (most likely) both.

I grew up learning what I mentioned heh.

/me looks at the argument over the New Testament.

Silly Goyim

I will have to add in here that the OT law in the Bible does advocate the death penalty (sometimes by very crude and painful methods as stoning) for various crimes such as Adultery, Murder, Rape just to start the list...

I think it's funny that people don't trust the government to deliver, has to get there on time no exception, mail, but trust the same government to decide who lives and who dies.

Oh it's the jury who decides you say ? I disagree. It's the government who decides when the death penalty is on the table and when it's not, it's the government who decides who gets immunity for murder and who does not. The jury decides the death cases the government puts in front of them.

The whole thing is just to full of politics for me to trust it, so I'm against the death penalty, no need for me to reach into religion to be for or against it.

Cladari

I will have to add in here that the OT law in the Bible does advocate the death penalty (sometimes by very crude and painful methods as stoning) for various crimes such as Adultery, Murder, Rape just to start the list...

I don't know what you mean by the OT law.

And if you can find God telling his people that Rape is bad in the Bible, I will buy you a pint of coleslaw.

I know here in California, if you have sex with a woman without her knowing, that is criminally rape. It is rape even if you masquerade as someone else. I will buy you a years supply of coleslaw if you can find in the Bible, where God asks permission, first, before inseminating the mother of his kid.

In the stories I have read, depending on translation, Joe and/or Mary get notified of divine coitus AFTER it takes place.

I don't know what you mean by the OT law.

And if you can find God telling his people that Rape is bad in the Bible, I will buy you a pint of coleslaw.

I know here in California, if you have sex with a woman without her knowing, that is criminally rape. It is rape even if you masquerade as someone else. I will buy you a years supply of coleslaw if you can find in the Bible, where God asks permission, first, before inseminating the mother of his kid.

In the stories I have read, depending on translation, Joe and/or Mary get notified of divine coitus AFTER it takes place.


Again, you're bringing silly new testament **** into this.

What the **** does that story about God making some broad pregnant have to do with the price of eggs on sunday?

It has nothing to do with the topic, we have derailed this thread so far it is in France.

I was just mentioning that God really had no problem with rape insofar as it is not mentioned in the 10 Commandments in the Old Testament, and even to the extent that God, Himself, is a rapist in the New.

I tell you what, I just watched the new updated Omen...and Satan has got NOTHING on God, in the death, murder, mayhem, and rape department. He is pretty small potatoes all things considered. Ya ya ya, Jews don't have a Satan.

I think I like the one with Keanu Reeves is the best, of all the mumbo jumbo God movies. Constantine? But, I still do like the Heston Brenner 10 Commandments.

It has nothing to do with the topic, we have derailed this thread so far it is in France.

I was just mentioning that God really had no problem with rape insofar as it is not mentioned in the 10 Commandments in the Old Testament, and even to the extent that God, Himself, is a rapist in the New.

I tell you what, I just watched the new updated Omen...and Satan has got NOTHING on God, in the death, murder, mayhem, and rape department. He is pretty small potatoes all things considered. Ya ya ya, Jews don't have a Satan.

I think I like the one with Keanu Reeves is the best, of all the mumbo jumbo God movies. Constantine? But, I still do like the Heston Brenner 10 Commandments.

Hey, Jews never pretended that God was infitinately kind. He's a loving god...He's also a jealous and vengeful God. Technically speaking (though the Orthodox would crap a brick at the notion) he's not even the only God. Nowhere in the Torah does He claim to be the only God...He simply commanded us to worship no other god before him and pray unto no graven images.

Well...four thousand years ago, anyways.

I tend to view God as a father of humanity...before around 1500 BCE, humanity was like an infant. You don't bother trying to discipline or dictate to infants. When He made himself aware to Abraham...it was during humanities toddler stage...by the time the Hebrews left Egypt, humanity was in the child stage where they cannot grasp the why's of how they should act...but know they must do as Dad says, if for no other reason than he said so...and thus we have the Torah, where the basic groundwork for how Humanity should act is laid out. While athiests and pagans love to point out the violence found in the Torah, they also tend to forget that it was the Torah which laid out the fundaments of Western Law and civilization.

Concepts such as being liable for damage your oxen do (which was not a new concept), but no longer having the punishment be equal damage done unto you, but rather a financial compensation. It introduced the idea that you must treat those who work for you well (or were your slaves) and provide a day of rest for them. It introduced the idea that Charity was a mitzvah, but not always optional when it commanded the people to not reap the corners of their fields and to leave any grain which fell to the ground during harvest on the ground, so that the poor may come and partake. It commanded that every seven years the fields lay fallow, so that they may rest, and that every seven years debt must be forgiven (which we see today in our bankruptcy and credit laws). It commanded us to welcome the stranger among us and treat him fairly, kindly, and with respect (unless he was one of a few specific tribes).It taught us to respect the property of our neighbor, to honor our ancestors, and speak the truth before the courts. It commanded we provide basic safety for ourselves and others on our property (i.e. building a rail on a 2nd story patio, yes its in the Torah).

These are the sorts of concepts you hope to instill in your children via dictate as a young child...and as he grows older...you back further and further away from the child as he grows to be a young adult and adult, and you let him use the awesome potential you have given him as he decides to use it and can only watch him.

I tend to view God as a father of humanity...before around 1500 BCE, humanity was like an infant.
Hehe, we've now progressed to adolescence. :)

Interesting but as I was reading Aidon's summary of Torah Do's and Don'ts I was thinking that we all have that, but more as law and custom rather than religion.

Interesting but as I was reading Aidon's summary of Torah Do's and Don'ts I was thinking that we all have that, but more as law and custom rather than religion.Religion was just an early form of law and governance. Why bother threatening people with clubs and spears (which you have to manufacture, and employ forces to find the offenders and use on them) when you can brainwash them into believing that an old man in the sky will vaporize them if they don't follow your instructions?

While <i>some</i> of the religious dictates coincide with our modern views, most don't. Aidon just conveniently lists those few that still do, while leaving out the nasty stuff. Our modern society is way past those archaic beliefs.

If humanity was an infant then, we're now a toddler, and we need to ditch religion and learn to walk on our own two feet and think for ourselves.

Religion was just an early form of law and governance. Why bother threatening people with clubs and spears (which you have to manufacture, and employ forces to find the offenders and use on them) when you can brainwash them into believing that an old man in the sky will vaporize them if they don't follow your instructions?

While <i>some</i> of the religious dictates coincide with our modern views, most don't. Aidon just conveniently lists those few that still do, while leaving out the nasty stuff. Our modern society is way past those archaic beliefs.

If humanity was an infant then, we're now a toddler, and we need to ditch religion and learn to walk on our own two feet and think for ourselves.

Tudamorf...like it or not, our culture is derived directly from the religious beliefs of ancient Judaism (and Christianity obviously). There is a very good reason why our laws mimic the laws found in the Torah....they are directly descendant. Our laws of inheritance, our laws of debt and bankruptcy, the concept of a trial before a judge (juries came later), the idea of civil liability and monetary compensation (rather than the previous standard of literally eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth for both civil and criminal actions), the concept that a property owner has obligations to maintain safety on his land, the concept of humanely butchering livestock. Your secular world was founded on the laws of Judeo-Christianity. You're attempts to hold the people of four thousand years ago to modern standards of logic and though are so preposterous it renders any other argument you make suspect in the extreme.

brainwashing? please...they had no benefit of modern science, modern logic, modern mathematics or medicine. They lived in a world of mystery and a world of chaotic anarchy the likes of which modern western society would find difficult to understand. Even so, you will find that the system laid forth in the Torah is still, today, more conceptually advanced than some cultures in the modern world (like...a goodly portion of sub-saharan africa..the Amazonian basin, and well...Cambodia, where until recently, the only rule of law was what the man with a rifle decided it would be).

Your contempt for the religion which fostered our modern society (and also produced a disproportional number of proponents of secular society, while still retaining their religious beliefs) is bred from the same manner of small minded ignorance as those who hate for hate's sake.

There was a time that predates the religions we know today, although we don't have much in the way of historical access. I would suspect that much of what is our current religion came from whatever culture or customs existed at that time. Despite fundamentalist beliefs to the contrary, religion didn't spring out of nothingness.

Tudamorf...like it or not, our culture is derived directly from the religious beliefs of ancient Judaism (and Christianity obviously). There is a very good reason why our laws mimic the laws found in the Torah....they are directly descendant.I wonder how the Chinese or Japanese managed to come up with laws against murder and theft, without the assistance of your "god". Or the Indians, or any other non-Western culture.

Is it just one grand coincidence? No, these are simply concepts that transcend cultural differences.

You've got it backwards, Aidon. Your religious mumbo jumbo didn't shape society; it <i>was shaped by</i> society. The writers of your bible just stuck an angry, child-like, all-powerful man in the sky as the enforcer, because the people at that time would swallow it.brainwashing? please...they had no benefit of modern science, modern logic, modern mathematics or medicine. They lived in a world of mystery and a world of chaotic anarchy the likes of which modern western society would find difficult to understand.They had the same brains we have today. The same capability for reason and logic. I'm sure they had their share of atheists too, who saw through all the official "god" BS, but they dared not speak for fear of being subjected to a slow, torturous death.

religion didn't spring out of nothingness.
In all likelihood, is sprang from sex, and sex worship.

There was a time that predates the religions we know today, although we don't have much in the way of historical access. I would suspect that much of what is our current religion came from whatever culture or customs existed at that time. Despite fundamentalist beliefs to the contrary, religion didn't spring out of nothingness.

No, they didn't spring wholly formed from thin air.

The social legal aspects of the Torah, which we've been discussing, were in turn descendant from Hammurabi's code...which in turn was descendant from a previous set of laws set forth by...erm, I forget who they think came up with the first uniform code of law, a Sumerian of some sort.

The laws of Judaism, though, advanced the ideas of responsibility, tempered with mercy (in some aspects....) and communal mandatory charity.

Not to get too involved in a religious debate which nobody can win due to the very definition of religious belief....

Isn't mandatory charity an oxymoron?

I wonder how the Chinese or Japanese managed to come up with laws against murder and theft, without the assistance of your "god". Or the Indians, or any other non-Western culture.

Kindly explain what bearing China, Japan, or India have on our discussion, which is specifically about how western religion has played a direct role on western society and its laws? Further, there is more to laws than criminalizing certain actions which no functional society can permit, such as murder and theft. Were those the only laws societies had, we would still live in a state of near anarchy (though I'm sure Fy'yr would love it). I've recounted, a few times, some of the various concepts brought to our society from the Torah. Your argument has no bearing on them.

Is it just one grand coincidence? No, these are simply concepts that transcend cultural differences.

Actually, if you take even a cursory look, you can see that A) Eastern societies, by stint of their philo-religious beliefs, held (and to some degree still hold) life and the sanctity thereof to a much lower standard than the West. When your religion has reincarnation, or advocates that death elevates you to a divine status as an ancestral spirit, your society tends to view death as simply an event. B) Concepts such as equal protection under the law are distinctly Western, promulgated by the Torah and Jewish belief. Jews have always been at the forefront of secularizing society and concepts of equality and equal justice, because for so long we were permitted neither.

Further, the history of eastern law (i.e. chinese law, since it provided most of the societal impetus for its neighbors, including Japan), is vastly different from Western law. A Cursory look at Chinese law from 1400-500 BCE shows that it has little to say on such subjects as...murder, theft, rape, civil liability, debts, slavery, etc etc. Its main focus seems to be on promulgating rules, rituals, standings, etc. of managerial bureaucracies, with virtually no thought to providing law to cover the peasantry...leaving them to the whim of their lords.

You've got it backwards, Aidon. Your religious mumbo jumbo didn't shape society; it <i>was shaped by</i> society. The writers of your bible just stuck an angry, child-like, all-powerful man in the sky as the enforcer, because the people at that time would swallow it.

You cannot seperate Relgion from Society in that part of the world at that time. Your argument has no meaning. A society was its religion. They were one and the same.

They had the same brains we have today. The same capability for reason and logic. I'm sure they had their share of atheists too, who saw through all the official "god" BS, but they dared not speak for fear of being subjected to a slow, torturous death.

Capability of reason and logic does not seperate a culture or society from the necessity of social evolution over time in order to change. By your logic, they should have been able to figure out secular society, germ theory, the combustion engine, and nuclear physics simply because they had the same physiological abilities for reason and logic. Obviously this simply isn't true. Just as it took thousands of years from humanity to evolve from discovering how to create fire to discovering how to harness it for use in self-propelled transportation, so does it take societies centuries or more to evolve.

No, I rather suspect there were few athiests at the time...for there was no science to explain the unknown and inexplicable. It is all well and good to understand that if you take brass and smelt it with tin, you get a harder metal...but why? They knew not of molecular bonds. The why was because Hephaestus, God of the Forge, made it so (as an example from a more recognized time and place). There is a distinct reason why Reason and Logic did not make their appearance until science because making its own appearance.

Not to get too involved in a religious debate which nobody can win due to the very definition of religious belief....

Isn't mandatory charity an oxymoron?

Call it societal charity..then.

Though charity is not, by definition, voluntary. Indeed, one of its many definitions is "public provision for the relief of the needy" (ty Merriam-Websters).

edit: damn, hit post too soon.

In hebrew, Tzadakah (Charity) and Tzadeek (Justice) share the same root. Further, I'm sure we're all familiar with the hebrew word Mitzvah. Tzadakah is without a doubt one of the highest Mitzvahs. The technical definition mitzvah is "Commandment".

I've recounted, a few times, some of the various concepts brought to our society from the Torah. Your argument has no bearing on them.

I think the disagreement is about the implied "but the Torah got it from society, so it didn't START with religion, so kindly do not give religion credit for society's morallity.".

Kindly explain what bearing China, Japan, or India have on our discussion, which is specifically about how western religion has played a direct role on western society and its laws?It shows that the concepts are cross-cultural, and not derived from your religious texts, as you've been brainwashed to believe.A) Eastern societies, by stint of their philo-religious beliefs, held (and to some degree still hold) life and the sanctity thereof to a much lower standard than the West.

B) Concepts such as equal protection under the law are distinctly Western, promulgated by the Torah and Jewish belief.ROFL.By your logic, they should have been able to figure out secular society, germ theory, the combustion engine, and nuclear physics simply because they had the same physiological abilities for reason and logic.Those things require specialized knowledge. Atheism is just common sense. It stems from the idea that an explanation for an event is meaningless if there isn't any evidence to support the explanation. This is how humans work in every other aspect of life. Atheism has also been around for a long time, and atheists were persecuted brutally by your "we sanctify life" and "we treat everyone equally" West:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#HistoryAlthough the term atheism originated in 16th-century France, ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic existed before the advent of Classical antiquity. Eastern philosophy has a long history of nontheistic belief, starting with Laozi and Siddhartha Gautama in the 6th century BC. Western atheism has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[55] The 5th-century BC Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist", and strongly criticized religion and mysticism. Epicurus was an early philosopher to dispute many religious beliefs, including the existence of an afterlife or a personal deity.

Atheists have been subject to significant persecution and discrimination throughout history. Atheism has been a criminal offense in many parts of the world, and in some cases a "wrong belief" was equated with "unbelief" in order to condemn someone with differing beliefs as an "atheist". For example, despite having expressed belief in various divinities, Socrates was called an atheos and ultimately sentenced to death for impiety on the grounds that he inspired questioning of the state gods.[56][57] During the late Roman Empire, many Christians were executed for "atheism" because of their rejection of the Roman gods, and "heresy" and "godlessness" were serious capital offenses following the rise of Christianity.No, I rather suspect there were few athiests at the time...for there was no science to explain the unknown and inexplicable.No, there were few <i>public</i> atheists, just as there were few <i>public</i> gays, in Western society. Both feared being tortured to death by the Western religious zealots.

Isn't mandatory charity an oxymoron?

Not really, when called by its other name, Communism.

I think the disagreement is about the implied "but the Torah got it from society, so it didn't START with religion, so kindly do not give religion credit for society's morallity.".

Society and religion, at the time and place, were inseperable. The concept of secularism was a few millenium in the future and the day to day life of the common man was permeated with religion. To say that it was the Hebrew society who gave us those ideals is exactly equivilant to saying the religion gave us those ideals.

Society and religion, at the time and place, were inseperable.

Not the point, seing how society undeniably existed before religion (and as such, before society and religion were inseperable), you cannot say that religion "invented" any form of morallity. If anything, it must have been a simple (or not so simple) codification of the rules of society that already existed, or that the rulers of said society wanted to implement, otherwise the religion obviously wouldn't have caught on.

When 82 percent of the world's population agree on something, even as an Atheist myself, something that is so completely irrational, it leads one to believe that religion may not be merely a sociological affectation.

I am not going to dig up the British god gene thing, won't make any difference if I do...but it is completely likely that the belief in gods may be caused by some genetic trait.

When observing psychotic patients during my mental health rotation, virtually all of them had a complete preoccupation with religion. Now it would be easy, for I have in the past, to make the connection that people who require religion are simply crazy. But a behavior which is near universal also points to an innate genetic trait. That is to say, that if mental unhealth is so predictable, and people from different sociological groups and cultures all have the same behaviors, it is also likely that healthy behaviors are somewhat determined at most, or triggered at least, by our human genome.

And if it is genetic, it has to be sexual in origin. For if you have ever really been in a strip club or tittie bar, you would find it completely NOT like it is portrayed in the media and culture. You find men on the tip rail, and for lack of a better word, they are reverent. It is a worship not only in like, but in kind as well.

When 82 percent of the world's population agree on something, even as an Atheist myself, something that is so completely irrational, it leads one to believe that religion may not be merely a sociological affectation.Many of those are just convenience believers, who believe in religion because it's what they were taught to do and because it doesn't interfere with their life too much. If you put the faith of those 82% to the test, many would discard it to protect their own interests.

It's just another social phenomenon, as you can easily see by comparing the zealotry of Japan/South Korea/Russia (very secular) to the U.K. (mildly religious) to the Americas/Middle East (extreme religious zealotry). The reason zealotry is so widespread is that two fanatical religions -- Christianity and Islam -- are also widespread.

It's really no different than you being taught that anorexic white women with gigantic breasts are attractive. Not every society sees it that way, but the media images are so widespread worldwide that a large number of people believe it.

If you put the faith of those 82% to the test, many would discard it to protect their own interests.

I dunno, I bet it would probably match the number of Atheists, in foxholes, who would discard their disbelief under the same conditions, actually.

I know that if the End of Days actually occurs, and I hear Gabriel's Clarion Trumpets from on High, I would jump off this godless bus as fast you can say, "oh ****!", and hijack and start driving me one of them churchy buses.

I got nothing to prove to anyone,,,if the Lord Jehovah just gave me these 15, these 10, 10(opps wrong movie), just a sign, I would switch sides in a heartbeat.

If a faith or god gene exists, I sure did not get one. I will say, that I got a good dose of goddess genes, though.

It's really no different than you being taught that anorexic white women with gigantic breasts are attractive..

I was not taught that.

I dunno, I bet it would probably match the number of Atheists, in foxholes, who would discard their disbelief under the same conditions, actually.The number, or percentage? If it's the latter, then the world is far more godless than your 82% statistic suggests.I know that if the End of Days actually occurs, and I hear Gabriel's Clarion Trumpets from on High, I would jump of this godless bus as fast you can say, "oh ****!", and hijack and start driving me one of them churchy buses.If gods were manifest, we'd all be fools not to believe in them. That's an entirely different story, though.

It shows that the concepts are cross-cultural, and not derived from your religious texts, as you've been brainwashed to believe.

Of course concepts are cross cultural, I presume people take that as given, not some revelatory fact which plays a significant role in history or society, beyond being the fundamental building blocks of society. No society can exist if there are not taboo's against murder and theft. There are some other universal societal inventions also (though they frequently take vastly different forms). Marriage, for instance. Humor. Smiling as a sign of happiness (that one is biological in nature). I completely understood your point and my question still stands.

ROFL.

ROFL all you like. That doesn't change anything. There is no doubt that Eastern peoples hold individual life in far less regard than do Western Society (I am not saying that judgementally...). Their interest is more in building the general community at large...in no small part because of the spread of Buddhism from the 6th century BCE, with its belief in reincarnation, and partly because of the concept of karma. If a person dies, its karma, and he'll be reborn again, so while it sucks on a personal level, generally speaking dying isn't so bad.

Those things require specialized knowledge. Atheism is just common sense. It stems from the idea that an explanation for an event is meaningless if there isn't any evidence to support the explanation.

This is not common sense. This is a learned belief. This is a belief born of a society which has started down the road of scientific belief. If it were common sense, it would have been common, not a rare concept until the past two centuries or so.

This is how humans work in every other aspect of life. Atheism has also been around for a long time, and atheists were persecuted brutally by your "we sanctify life" and "we treat everyone equally" West:

The first Atheist, as we know the idea, was in Greece some 1200-1100 years after the Exodus of Egypt. And compared to the Eastern world you brought into this discussion, we are a vertitable font of lovingkindness, despite the millenia of European hate and deathmongering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#HistoryNo, there were few <i>public</i> atheists, just as there were few <i>public</i> gays, in Western society. Both feared being tortured to death by the Western religious zealots.

You are speaking of a different time and a different place, and it was still very rare, frequently what was considered atheism at the time was simply heretical or worship of Gods other than the "official" God(s) for the time and place.

Not the point, seing how society undeniably existed before religion (and as such, before society and religion were inseperable)

Undeniably? I beg to differ. I would suggest, rather, that so far as we have discovered, our earliest societies were religious, they worshipped gods and goddesses.

you cannot say that religion "invented" any form of morallity. If anything, it must have been a simple (or not so simple) codification of the rules of society that already existed, or that the rulers of said society wanted to implement, otherwise the religion obviously wouldn't have caught on.

Religions catch on for various reasons...but at this point you are simply arguing semantics for the sake of your own idiocy and making rather large assumptions in order to do so.

The number, or percentage? If it's the latter, then the world is far more godless than your 82% statistic suggests.

He got the 82% statistic from various sites which break down the worlds population by religion. The third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam is Secular Humanism/Atheism, etc, with some 16%-18% of the population.


If gods were manifest, we'd all be fools not to believe in them. That's an entirely different story, though.

You're equally a fool to believe that a series of random, fortuitous, unknown, events happened to and on planet earth Over the course of billions of years which finally lead to intelligent life on our planet.

IMO, its far more probable that something started the whole thing off, and/or nudges evolution at points, until intelligent life came to being.

You're equally a fool to believe that a series of random, fortuitous, unknown, events happened to and on planet earth Over the course of billions of years which finally lead to intelligent life on our planet.

IMO, its far more probable that something started the whole thing off, and/or nudges evolution at points, until intelligent life came to being.

Out of all those billions of years and billions of planets and billions of events, don't you think at least ONE (might be others - we don't know) would develope as earth did?

And for sure SOMETHING 'nudged' things. Wheather it was one or more Gods or a volcano or a meteor storm. Who can say? But with or without a God it was bound to happen.

You're equally a fool to believe that a series of random, fortuitous, unknown, events happened to and on planet earth Over the course of billions of years which finally lead to intelligent life on our planet.

IMO, its far more probable that something started the whole thing off, and/or nudges evolution at points, until intelligent life came to being.Please, spare me your circular "god" arguments, I've heard them all before, and they sound stupider each time. We don't know how probable life is on a suitable planet, because we only have one data point. We're not even sure if life existed on Mars, our closest neighbor and the only nearby planet capable of sustaining life forms that we would recognize. And nothing has to "nudge" evolution; there are valid, common sense scientific explanations for why evolution occurred the way it did through natural selection.

In short: we don't exist because of "god", "god" exists because of us.

ROFL all you like. That doesn't change anything. There is no doubt that Eastern peoples hold individual life in far less regard than do Western Society (I am not saying that judgementally...).Perhaps you mean to say, an Easterner holds <i>his own life</i> in less regard than a Westerner holds his. You surely don't mean that Westerners hold <i>other</i> lives in higher regard, as history thoroughly invalidates that theory.Their interest is more in building the general community at large...in no small part because of the spread of Buddhism from the 6th century BCE, with its belief in reincarnation, and partly because of the concept of karma. If a person dies, its karma, and he'll be reborn again, so while it sucks on a personal level, generally speaking dying isn't so bad.If a good Christian dies, he goes to heaven and gets nifty wings. If a good Muslim dies, he gets his horde of virgins to tend to him. I can't recall where a good Jew goes when he dies, but I'm sure it's some nifty place.

Every religion tells you will go to some happy place if you are a good servant who follows all the rules. That's part of the system of control, which is what religious is all about.This is not common sense. This is a learned belief. This is a belief born of a society which has started down the road of scientific belief. If it were common sense, it would have been common, not a rare concept until the past two centuries or so.Of course it's common sense. If I met up with your Abraham in some sand dune and told him to look out for the stampeding elephant, he'd look around, look at me, and say "what elephant?" (well, in his own language). If I insisted there was a stampeding elephant that would trample him if he failed to follow my instructions, he'd probably consider me a madman and run off or attack me. That's common sense. That's atheism.

You're equally a fool to believe that a series of random, fortuitous, unknown, events happened to and on planet earth Over the course of billions of years which finally lead to intelligent life on our planet.

IMO, its far more probable that something started the whole thing off, and/or nudges evolution at points, until intelligent life came to being.

Out of all those billions of years and billions of planets and billions of events, don't you think at least ONE (might be others - we don't know) would develope as earth did?

And for sure SOMETHING 'nudged' things. Wheather it was one or more Gods or a volcano or a meteor storm. Who can say? But with or without a God it was bound to happen.

I don't think it was "bound" to happen. I don't think the Universe was "bound" to happen. Things don't just exist for the sake of existing, even in our natural world, everything has a place and a reason. The idea that the universe just was, out of nothingness and then existed, that time randomly started some 15 or 16 billion years ago for no reason is, frankly, more ludicris than the notion that there some being or beings or sentience or force above us (in a metaphorical sense) which at various points along the line of existance started it and kept it rolling along within certain rules, laws, and boundaries.

Please, spare me your circular "god" arguments, I've heard them all before, and they sound stupider each time. We don't know how probable life is on a suitable planet, because we only have one data point. We're not even sure if life existed on Mars, our closest neighbor and the only nearby planet capable of sustaining life forms that we would recognize. And nothing has to "nudge" evolution; there are valid, common sense scientific explanations for why evolution occurred the way it did through natural selection.

In short: we don't exist because of "god", "god" exists because of us.

Science can explain very little. We do exist because of "God", what he, she, or it may be is speculation and the reason for differing religions. There are still huge gaps in evolution and almost certainly always will be. Is evolution valid science? Of course it is. Does it pretend to hold all of the answers? Only in the minds of atheist zealots. There is no logical reason, whatsoever, for the universe to have begun...or for life on a small planet on the western edge of a remote smallish galaxy to have had even microbial life, let alone have that microbial life evolve over the course of thousands eons into intelligent rational creatures capable of splitting atoms and conquering their planet and others through technology. Yet it happened...and science still cannot explain the why's of it and the day humanity can explain the why's is the day we begin our ascent to divinity.

Why does there need to be a reason for existence?

I have trouble explaining consciousness, which is why I'm open to the idea that there may be something "beyond" the physical universe in some sense, but aside from that I don't see why a god would be necessary for existence.

As for conditions being "just right" to result in humans...remember that if you play a lottery with million-to-one odds a million times, you have about a 63% chance of winning at least once. Then consider the size of the universe:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_extreme_0.html

An estimated 10^22 to 10^24 stars. Sure, the odds of one particular star having a planet or moon with the right conditions to support life are very slim, but with 10^24 chances to play the lottery, so to speak, it doesn't seem all that ridiculous that at least one would have the right conditions just by chance.

10^24 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's a big number. And we haven't even finished ruling out the existence of life outside of Earth within our own solar system--with ONE star out of 10^24.

Generally speaking there needs to be a reason for something to happen in nature...a causation. We can't explain the most basic of causations. What made the time and matter which denotes the Universe go bang...where was it before the bang, what put it there? What exists outside of the universe? Where do the little missing particles go in quantum experiments? What created wherever they go?

We can't answer what made life begin on earth...infact our knowledge of the early stages of microbial life on Earth is really no more than pure speculation based on what we think must have happened, with very little if any proof. Evolution is practically fact, this is without question, but there are gaps in it and the basic fundamental question of how it began is left unanswered and almost certainly will never be answered. But it is nearly unfathomable that a system of life and existance which exists as it does on Earth, with such ordered precision, could spring forth randomly.

Science can explain very little.As I said, spare me your illogical "god" arguments, I've heard them all and they sound stupider each time I hear them.

Just because science can't explain everything, doesn't mean that your "god" explanation is correct. Your "god" explanation is only as valid as the evidence behind it, which amounts to a big fat zero.

There will always be aspects of the Universe that we can't explain. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Wrong answers <i>aren't</i> better than no answers, on the contrary, they're far worse because they lead us in the wrong direction. Unless, of course, you fear the unknown and cower in the pages of some bible for a false answer.There are still huge gaps in evolution and almost certainly always will be. Is evolution valid science? Of course it is.Ironic. Not long ago you'd be tortured to death by religious zealots for even suggesting that, and your bible would be the prosecution's case in chief.There is no logical reason, whatsoever, for the universe to have begun...or for life on a small planet on the western edge of a remote smallish galaxy to have had even microbial life, let alone have that microbial life evolve over the course of thousands eons into intelligent rational creatures capable of splitting atoms and conquering their planet and others through technology.We don't know why the Universe began; we can only even make an educated guess as to <i>how</i> it began. We don't know what other planets with climates suitable to ours have life. We don't even know if Mars, the planet next door, has/had life. For all we know, every planet with liquid water may have a 50% chance of life as we know it, and there may be billions of them out there.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing this stuff. It just encourages us to find out the reasons. We don't need your made-up answers when we can work towards discovering our own.

But it is nearly unfathomable that a system of life and existance which exists as it does on Earth, with such ordered precision, could spring forth randomly.One of the more amusing and common illogical "god" arguments: "We're so special, some old dude in the sky <i>must</i> have made us!" (I guess you zealots might as well stroke your own egos while you concoct these stories.)

In reality, we don't know how special we are. We don't know how common life is in the Universe. We don't even know if our own solar system has it (outside of our planet), let alone the nearly infinite number of systems out there. Life could be common as dirt, and we could be a poor example of it compared to other planets.

We just don't know. Don't make up stories, or draw conclusions, until we do.

What made the time and matter which denotes the Universe go bang...where was it before the bang, what put it there? What exists outside of the universe?
According to our current understanding, they are meaningless questions. Stephen Hawking compares it to asking what's north of the north pole.

Any concept of something "outside" the universe is pure speculation; by definition there can be no evidence of anything outside the universe, because if something is observable, it is part of the observable universe, which is a subset of the universe.

Where do the little missing particles go in quantum experiments?
This question suggests a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

We can't answer what made life begin on earth...infact our knowledge of the early stages of microbial life on Earth is really no more than pure speculation based on what we think must have happened, with very little if any proof. Evolution is practically fact, this is without question, but there are gaps in it and the basic fundamental question of how it began is left unanswered and almost certainly will never be answered.
I'd call it a little more than speculation--we have some reasonable hypotheses--but for the most part I agree with you here.

But it is nearly unfathomable that a system of life and existance which exists as it does on Earth, with such ordered precision, could spring forth randomly.
This part I disagree with--it's easily fathomable to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Look at Go, for example: a game with simple rules that gives rise to complex strategy. While I won't rule out other possibilities, I have no trouble considering the possibility that simple rules of physics give rise to complex structures.

As I've mentioned, the only part I have trouble with is explaining consciousness, and I don't think anyone has a good answer to that.

You are speaking of a different time and a different place, and it was still very rare, frequently what was considered atheism at the time was simply heretical or worship of Gods other than the "official" God(s) for the time and place.

If you do not know that Atheists are victim to severe personal and societal discrimination, you are just blind, I suppose.

And it occurs today.

Best thing is, that we look just like everybody else, and our names do not denote us as such. We are able to blend into the rest of you rather well, when we want to.

It is just a foregone conclusion by most people that everyone believes in gods, ghosts, and zombies.

According to our current understanding, they are meaningless questions. Stephen Hawking compares it to asking what's north of the north pole.

Any concept of something "outside" the universe is pure speculation; by definition there can be no evidence of anything outside the universe, because if something is observable, it is part of the observable universe, which is a subset of the universe.
Aye, and the concept of "before" is meaningless if, as most cosmologists believe, time (and space) are properties that are inseparable from the universe.

This part I disagree with--it's easily fathomable to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Look at Go, for example: a game with simple rules that gives rise to complex strategy. While I won't rule out other possibilities, I have no trouble considering the possibility that simple rules of physics give rise to complex structures.
I always liked the way the "anthropic principle" deals with this -- the universe appears "fine-tuned" so as to permit life as we know it to exist, because were the universe not fine tuned in this fashion, human beings would not exist and hence could not observe the universe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)

Look at Go, for example: a game with simple rules that gives rise to complex strategy.
The "Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life)" is a good example of complex behavior emerging from an extremely simple set of rules being repeatedly applied to a simple data set.

I agree with you about consciousness being difficult to explain. Deterministic models like The Game of Life don't provide much insight into it either.

If you do not know that Atheists are victim to severe personal and societal discrimination, you are just blind, I suppose.

And it occurs today.
Aye, I'll wager that we'll have a Jewish president before we have an atheist/agnostic one.

I agree with you about consciousness being difficult to explain. Deterministic models like The Game of Life don't provide much insight into it either.

I hope that was meant to be as funny as it was.

rofl.

That is almost good enough for a sig. hehe.

Generally speaking there needs to be a reason for something to happen in nature...a causation. We can't explain the most basic of causations.

Actually, the formation of amino acids is rather chemically simple.

Then then them forming more complex proteins, is just a matter of shape and size, and time.

But the idea of reason, well that comes from the minds of humans.

Anyway, pure Genesis really concerns theologians, or those scientists motivated to prove theologians wrong.

And really makes little difference in our day to day lives. But people spend a whole lot of time and money on the subject to be sure.

What is more interesting to me, is when what we did between when we were primates and when we became human....And what we did after that. We know that that time occured, but there seems to be such a taboo on the subject. I get criticized constantly for focusing on that period of time of our existence(I can't say history, because there was none) as a species.

But it is surely the most important; it helps determine present behavior. And allows us to predict future behavior(or at least feelings).

What is more interesting to me, is when what we did between when we were primates and when we became human....And what we did after that.You mean non-human primates (we're still primates). Well, we probably mated a lot with the ancestor of the modern chimpanzee (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/18/MNGGDITQ6D1.DTL), inherited a minor mutation that greatly increased brain size (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/19/MNGVJHOGV71.DTL), particularly the neocortex, and branched off into a few species before they all died out, leaving only modern homo sapiens.

Or do you mean something else? I'm not aware of any "taboo" subject in this area.

The problem with the Big Bang theory is...

We can see the Universe is expanding.

I believe that it is.

But if light can be both a wave and matter(in the form of a photon) a particle, which are two completely disparate notions. If we can wrap our minds around something being two different states at the same time, then..

Then there is NOTHING to say that the Universe is expanding, and has always been expanding, and will always be expanding.

You mean non-human primates (we're still primates). Well, we probably mated a lot with the ancestor of the modern chimpanzee (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/18/MNGGDITQ6D1.DTL), inherited a minor mutation that greatly increased brain size (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/19/MNGVJHOGV71.DTL), particularly the neocortex, and branched off into a few species before they all died out, leaving only modern homo sapiens.
I would not jump to 'random' all that quick. And I know, that you know, that I know what a primate is(yes, humans are primates).

Or do you mean something else? I'm not aware of any "taboo" subject in this area.
Actually the most interesting part is between your quick jump between chimp sex and modern humans.

Your quick jump is part of the example of the 'taboo' I mentioned.

Increased brain size, increases cranial size, which increases not only fetal mortality, but also maternal mortality. Which would obviously threaten species survivability. You and I have discussed this before, of course.

6 months ago, I asked the head MD of OB at a leading hospital in this area. Not a stupid man. I asked him about his opinion of MATERNAL mortality in the pre history period of our species. And his train was so stuck on his rails, even a smart educated man, he completely missed the topic and switched tracks to infant mortality. It was like he was programmed to completely ignore the issue. It definately was not a topic he thought about, and this is a man whose profession originated from maternal mortality complications, and maternal death(I thought it would be easy, all things considered). Or he was very very smart, and dodged my question on purpose( I really don't care which).

Chimpanzees do NOT, NOT, assist female chimpanzees giving birth. Humans do. I am interested in the time of human existence when we started doing that, for that, that is the true beginning of the human species. No other primate does this.

Other of our competitors, say Neanderthal for example, had much larger cranial capacities than our ancestors at the time. As much as it is likely that we just killed them and ate them, it is just as likely that they died out because their females died in childbirth(because of large cranial capacities of their neonates), and they had no social mechanisms to overcome the issue, and thus the species perished into extinction.

That is an original thought. I have never read this. If no one is exploring something so obvious as this, there just has to be some taboo to exploring the subject.

Those are three examples of the taboo of which I mentioned.

I hope that was meant to be as funny as it was.

rofl.

That is almost good enough for a sig. hehe.
Hehe, it definitely lends itself to alternate interpretations.

Hehe, it definitely lends itself to alternate interpretations.

Hey, I loved the movie PI just as much as the next geek.

But there is a big difference between Go and amino acids or proteins forming. I don't even think that is remotely comparable.

Enzymatic reactions can take place at 60 thousand reactions per second.

If you had a stack of Go boards, 60 thousand high, which all could play against each other, then, maybe the analogy would be a good analogy.

Chimpanzees do NOT, NOT, assist female chimpanzees giving birth. Humans do. I am interested in the time of human existence when we started doing that, for that, that is the true beginning of the human species.No it isn't. There are morphological indicators that tell us what is a modern human, what is a Neanderthal, what is an Australopithecine, and so on. Assisting child birth most likely became a necessity when humans became more bipedal, in addition to the larger brain size. (E.g., read this (http://www.hss.caltech.edu/courses/2005-06/Spring/An101/Readings/22.%20%20Rosenberg%2020031.pdf) and this (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web1/cphillips.html).) Bipedalism and rotation of the genitalia also brought about the default missionary position and great enlargement of the penis, unlike other primates. But all this doesn't tell us when we became human.Other of our competitors, say Neanderthal for example, had much larger cranial capacities than our ancestors at the time. As much as it is likely that we just killed them and ate them, it is just as likely that they died out because their females died in childbirth(because of large cranial capacities of their neonates), and they had no social mechanisms to overcome the issue, and thus the species perished into extinction.They almost certainly assisted in child birth. I read articles suggesting that even earlier proto-humans did. And Neanderthals most likely died out because they could not adapt when global climates changed after the last ice age, not for the reasons you mentioned.That is an original thought. I have never read this. If no one is exploring something so obvious as this, there just has to be some taboo to exploring the subject.Many have explored it. It's an intersection between the fields of medical anthropology and physical anthropology. I linked you two articles, I am sure there are many more if you look for them.

While I enjoyed Pi as well, I mentioned Go only to provide a quick example of something with very simple rules but (relatively) complex behavior. I don't see how it fails as a simple analogy though. Sure, the ratio of behavior complexity to rule complexity (if such a thing can be defined) differs, but the point I was trying to make was that such a ratio could be "large", and that it's quite common for systems to exist with this property.

if light can be both a wave and matter(in the form of a photon) a particle, which are two completely disparate notions
I think it would be more accurate to state that both waves and photons are incomplete models. Both lead to accurate predictions when used correctly, but neither fully describes the behavior of light.

Think of an object photographed from two different angles. Both photographs provide accurate yet incomplete information about the object.

No it isn't. There are morphological indicators that tell us what is a modern human,

Of course, morphology are sexually, and non randomly, chosen by human breeders(and non breeders). I would not expect less.

what is a Neanderthal,

Well, it is a competing species to ours, which died out 50 to 60 thousands years ago.

what is an Australopithecine

Well, they are most probably our ancestors, who died out as a species in and of itself 2-4 million years ago.

, and so on. Assisting child birth most likely became a necessity when humans became more bipedal,

Of course it was. The shift of the male, and especially female pelvic girdle would imply that. Pelvic girdle to neonate ratios is very important.

Especially for sexual attraction and selection.

in addition to the larger brain size. (E.g., read this and this.) Bipedalism and rotation of the genitalia

Actually, the generic preoccupation by both females and males(with regard to this subject) with gluteal preponderance is very interesting. Baby got

back. A sexually appealling trait, shared by both genders, which is cross cultural and universal. Humans don't like flat asses in their mates, a trait

which would not traditionally attached to any reproductive nature(butt sex makes no babies). Until you factor in bipedalism and our knack(which is not

shared by any other primate) for running.

also brought about the default missionary position and great enlargement of the penis, unlike other primates. But all this doesn't tell us when we

became human.

I still like doggie style the best. 69 is better, but that is only if she is good. Which may be anomolous of course. A woman will choose your eyes

over your penis size, for the most part, she may chose that even over you tongue skill. Seeing you, that intimacy, is a breeding behavior. One which

would imply a better connection with the woman, and thus the raising of her children. Missionary position, is what it is for a reason. It is a female

position, not a male position. I still don't know how default it is, frankly.

They almost certainly assisted in child birth.

I don't doubt that, but there is more. What happens when mom still dies. The result is a social convention, a sexual convention, a reproductive

convention, a genetic convention. You can't just let the baby starve, and Dad bringing home mastadon meat is not going to feed that newborn.

I read articles suggesting that even earlier proto-humans did.

That is the beginning of the most interesting time of our existence as a species.

And Neanderthals most likely died out because they could not adapt when global climates changed after the last ice age, not for the reasons you

mentioned.


That does not seem likely to me.
Why would you assume that? Humans, even prehistorical humans, have been able to live in very cold inhospitable regions. I don't think that Neanderthal

died out just because it was cold. They had much larger cranial capacities than our ancestors at the time, and even us presently. One might assume that

they were smart enough to get out of the cold.

any have explored it. It's an intersection between the fields of medical anthropology and physical anthropology. I linked you two articles, I am sure there are many more if you look for them.

I have read articles like you have linked.
The fields of evolutionary psychology interest me more. Behaviors are selected sexually for thousands of generations. Behaviors which are beneficial to

the survival of our species. I see the patterns of those behaviors all around us today.

There are many many differences between us and other primates. For example, how about you link a study which explores the idea that all other primates

have estrus(3-4 cycles per year) and humans have 13 cycles per year. No other animal on the planet has that. Why?

I don't think it was "bound" to happen. I don't think the Universe was "bound" to happen. Things don't just exist for the sake of existing, even in our natural world, everything has a place and a reason. The idea that the universe just was, out of nothingness and then existed, that time randomly started some 15 or 16 billion years ago for no reason is, frankly, more ludicris than the notion that there some being or beings or sentience or force above us (in a metaphorical sense) which at various points along the line of existance started it and kept it rolling along within certain rules, laws, and boundaries.


I don't think it's more ludicris. It's just as ludicris. And things do exist just for the sake of existing. They may interact with things around them, or they may not. I guess that's a perspective and hard to explain.

I still sit in awe when I think about what was 'before'. Weather you believe a God made everything or not. Before there was everything, as we know it, what was there? Is there a 'time' before time started? Time, as a man made rationalization or measurement, would still exist, by our definition of it, before the 'time' everything started. If there was a God, where was this God if there was no universe? And how was that place created? And was that God created by another from yet another place?

Yet it happened...and science still cannot explain the why's of it and the day humanity can explain the why's is the day we begin our ascent to divinity.


When people don't understand things they tend to make up reasons for them that are later found to be untrue. We used to think that bad weather and seasons were caused by agry Gods. But we no longer do. I don't think that makes us any closer to divinity. We have disproved many many things which were at one time unexplainable and sometimes attributed to an act of a God.

As I said, spare me your illogical "god" arguments, I've heard them all and they sound stupider each time I hear them.

Just because science can't explain everything, doesn't mean that your "god" explanation is correct. Your "god" explanation is only as valid as the evidence behind it, which amounts to a big fat zero.

There is no evidence behind a great number of scientific theories, especially regarding the universe itself. Its all based on speculative mathematics. That is why they are called theories. My theory is that some entity or entities beyond our comprehension most likely played a key role in the formation of the universe and earth and set up the building blocks to create intelligent life.

There will always be aspects of the Universe that we can't explain. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Wrong answers <i>aren't</i> better than no answers, on the contrary, they're far worse because they lead us in the wrong direction. Unless, of course, you fear the unknown and cower in the pages of some bible for a false answer.

It seems to me you are the one who is fearful. Fearful of anything suggesting that there might be something out there beyond our knowing which created the universe and drafted the natural laws we operate under. Myself, I'm quite content. There is no disparity of philosophies in my mind. It all meshes quite nicely. It is you who rails against something which you don't know.

Ironic. Not long ago you'd be tortured to death by religious zealots for even suggesting that, and your bible would be the prosecution's case in chief.

Not by my people I wouldn't be. We stopped torturing or executing people for possible heresey some two thousand years ago. Don't blame us because your ancestors were incapable of social evolution and fell behind. What is particularly amusing in your...diatribe, is the number of Jews who were and still are at the forefront of science which you view as your personal holy writ...and yet the majority of them retain their faith in God.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing this stuff. It just encourages us to find out the reasons. We don't need your made-up answers when we can work towards discovering our own.

And yet, as I just mentioned, those who actually do seek the reasons and find them still retain their faith in God.

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

"Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not."

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties, he integrates empirically"

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. It is no mere chance that our older universities developed from clerical schools. Both churches and universities — insofar as they live up to their true function — serve the ennoblement of the individual. They seek to fulfill this great task by spreading moral and cultural understanding, renouncing the use of brute force.
The essential unity of ecclesiastical and secular institutions was lost during the 19th century, to the point of senseless hostility. Yet there was never any doubt as to the striving for culture. No one doubted the sacredness of the goal. It was the approach that was disputed. "

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God"


Albert Einstein, all.

There is no evidence behind a great number of scientific theories, especially regarding the universe itself. Its all based on speculative mathematics. That is why they are called theories.

I think you need to look up how the word "theory" is used in science.

There is no evidence behind a great number of scientific theories, especially regarding the universe itself. Its all based on speculative mathematics. That is why they are called theories. My theory is that some entity or entities beyond our comprehension most likely played a key role in the formation of the universe and earth and set up the building blocks to create intelligent life.
You're misusing the term "theory" here. (A lot of people do.) Theory does _not_ mean "guess" or even "educated guess".

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.
I'll see your Albert Einstein and raise you a Stephen Hawking. :P

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.

Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Scientists need to get together and have a powwow and make a new name for theories so people either unintentionally misunderstand what it entails, or purposeless obfuscates its meaning for political purposes.

ake up some word that doesnt have a corollary word in common speech.

Although they dont do any favors by calling Things such as "String Theory"... "String Theory" Really should be Called "String Hypothosis" or something

True, even some scientists are guilty of misusing the word.

According to our current understanding, they are meaningless questions. Stephen Hawking compares it to asking what's north of the north pole.

Any concept of something "outside" the universe is pure speculation; by definition there can be no evidence of anything outside the universe, because if something is observable, it is part of the observable universe, which is a subset of the universe.

Again, this is nothing more than philosophical word games. Diverting and entertaining, sure, but not indicative of much. It doesn't even begin to address the fact that current science believes there was a beginning of the universe and that eventually entropy will spell out the end of the universe, given the conservation of matter which is a natural law within the universe, something funky must have happened.

This question suggests a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

I was simply referring to the light experiment used most often as a basic explanation.


I'd call it a little more than speculation--we have some reasonable hypotheses--but for the most part I agree with you here.


This part I disagree with--it's easily fathomable to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Look at Go, for example: a game with simple rules that gives rise to complex strategy. While I won't rule out other possibilities, I have no trouble considering the possibility that simple rules of physics give rise to complex structures.

I've played Go...the complexities of the most complex games or strategy Humanity could ever devise, would pale before the complexities of the ecosystem and the steps evolution took to produce creatures of the intelligence and productiveness found in Humanity.

Further, it seems to me that Emergence is a term we've decided to use to explain the inexplicable. It disputes nothing, it just gives it a more scientific name than "God" or "Being" "For reasons we are not sure of, "when these small things got together, they formed a coherant big thing that was unpredictable from the small things themselves"

If you do not know that Atheists are victim to severe personal and societal discrimination, you are just blind, I suppose.

And it occurs today.

Best thing is, that we look just like everybody else, and our names do not denote us as such. We are able to blend into the rest of you rather well, when we want to.

It is just a foregone conclusion by most people that everyone believes in gods, ghosts, and zombies.

You, also, are speaking of a different time and place. Is there some widespread inability to grasp the flow of time in human history on these boards?

We stopped torturing or executing people for possible heresey some two thousand years ago.

Heheh, and we all know what that started.

Just imagine where you all would be now, if your people had just left that poor carpenter alone.

That was funny, Aidon.

Aye, I'll wager that we'll have a Jewish president before we have an atheist/agnostic one.

I doubt it, actually. if Lieberman makes it, then yes, if he doesn't then I rather suspect not.

You, also, are speaking of a different time and place. Is there some widespread inability to grasp the flow of time in human history on these boards?

No, I am adamantly talking about the present.

While we certainly are not strung up on poles and set afire anymore, negative discrimination is currently rooted firmly here in the present day.

Well, it is a competing species to ours, which died out 50 to 60 thousands years ago.Neanderthals became extinct in Europe far later than that.I don't think that Neanderthal died out just because it was cold.No, they died out because it <i>wasn't</i> cold. They were well adapted to the cold climate, and modern humans weren't. When that advantage was taken away, modern humans, with greater adaptability, drove them to extinction. They were tougher, but we were smarter.I still like doggie style the best.I knew it. You're an evolutionary throwback. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>A woman will choose your eyes over your penis size, for the most part, she may chose that even over you tongue skill.Evolution disagrees with you. For our body size, our penises are enormous compared to apes, in fact several times bigger (when erect). There must have been a very strong selection in favor of large penises.

Yet it happened...and science still cannot explain the why's of it and the day humanity can explain the why's is the day we begin our ascent to divinity.


When people don't understand things they tend to make up reasons for them that are later found to be untrue. We used to think that bad weather and seasons were caused by agry Gods. But we no longer do. I don't think that makes us any closer to divinity. We have disproved many many things which were at one time unexplainable and sometimes attributed to an act of a God.

I did not say that the day we devised an explanation, but the day we find the correct explanation is the day that we will have begun our ascent, as a species, into the realm of what we've always considered the divine.

Scientists need to get together and have a powwow and make a new name for theories so people either unintentionally misunderstand what it entails, or purposeless obfuscates its meaning for political purposes.

ake up some word that doesnt have a corollary word in common speech.

Although they dont do any favors by calling Things such as "String Theory"... "String Theory" Really should be Called "String Hypothosis" or something

Notable observation.

It really amuses me that many(if not most) people think that this is all like some Schoolhouse rock cartoon. That a Theory must somehow "grow up" and become a Law.

In the end, it really doesn't make any difference what you call something, it is what it is. And even if you agree on what something is called, does not necessarily mean that you know what it is or what causes it.

Take Gravity for instance.

We have a Law of Gravity. We know that it exists. We know how to measure and predict it. It is an absolute certitude. So much is known about it, that we really don't even expect any new discoveries about it ever taking place.

But we really don't even know what it is or what causes it. And that does not change the fact that it is what it is.

There is no evidence behind a great number of scientific theories, especially regarding the universe itself.If there's zero evidence behind it, it's not called a theory. Furthermore, a theory is never considered to be fact unless proven. String theorists know their theory isn't fact. They don't go around persecuting non-believers, rather they put their efforts into trying to refine and prove that their theory is correct.

Please stop comparing your fictional "god" speculation to a scientific theory, it's laughable.My theory is that some entity or entities beyond our comprehension most likely played a key role in the formation of the universe and earth and set up the building blocks to create intelligent life.Your evidence? Oh that's right, <b>YOU HAVE NONE</b>, you merely have speculation, circular reasoning, and illogical conclusions.It seems to me you are the one who is fearful. Fearful of anything suggesting that there might be something out there beyond our knowing which created the universe and drafted the natural laws we operate under.Please. I've said it several times: there is nothing wrong with not knowing, and we will likely never fully understand the Universe. I'm content with that, without having to fill in the gaps with fantasies to convince myself I'm special.is the number of Jews who were and still are at the forefront of science which you view as your personal holy writ...and yet the majority of them retain their faith in God.Mostly convenience believers. They know that science is correct, and religion is fantasy, and if forced to choose, they will pick science every time. Religion is just like a polite social custom to these people, a set of rituals which helps them feel comfortable with society.

Of course there are those like Einstein, who wasted the last decades of his life trying to invent a new theory because "God does not play dice."

Take Gravity for instance.

We have a Law of Gravity. We know that it exists. We know how to measure and predict it. It is an absolute certitude. So much is known about it, that we really don't even expect any new discoveries about it ever taking place.

But we really don't even know what it is or what causes it. And that does not change the fact that it is what it is.Uh, General Relativity?

I think you need to look up how the word "theory" is used in science.

I think you do.

Not all scientific theories are just so for technicality's sake, such as the theory of gravity. Especially in theoretical physics, which is pretty much the science of figuring out how everything works, which is most pertinent to our discussion at hand.

String Theory is a theory in the exact definition and usage I've been using the term, for example.

It is entirely possible, and happens not all that infrequently, for a theory (a model with assumed arbitrary elements which sets forth specific results and then attains them) to later be proven incorrect. Which is why they are called theories. In the end, they are little more than rank mathematical speculation that if this and this and this are true, then that happens, and the math supports it. Unfortunately, while math is an excellent means of understanding the universe, there isn't a physicist around who would pretend that science is capable of explaining everything.

Neanderthals became extinct in Europe far later than that.
The Neanderthal Genome Project is currently mapping the DNA of a Neanderthal male longbone that is estimated at 38K years ago.


No, they died out because it <i>wasn't</i> cold. They were well adapted to the cold climate, and modern humans weren't.
I think the jury is still out on that.

When that advantage was taken away, modern humans, with greater adaptability, drove them to extinction.
Considering the lack of human remains between 20K and 200K ago, it is very plausible that humans were nearly at the brink of extinction.

They were tougher, but we were smarter.
Or we had coding for behavior which allowed for our survivability, which our competitors lacked.

I knew it. You're an evolutionary throwback.
Well, we know we both disagree about the non verbal communication of human scents.

Evolution disagrees with you. For our body size, our penises are enormous compared to apes, in fact several times bigger (when erect).
It is not unimaginable, in fact it is completely practical, that two opposing behaviors or traits can be selected for concurrently. While less predominant in males, you can see the characteristic commonly in females; both wanting and not wanting something at the very same time.

In the end, I would bet I could bed a woman easier than with my eyes, than if we just waved our cocks at her.

There must have been a very strong selection in favor of large penises.
Ya, until the invention of clothes.

ales with very small penises were still selected to mate with, for they continue to exist. And it would be interesting to see the curve on both sides of the average.

Anyway, here is an interesting link on the subject.
http://www.neoteny.org/a/testiclesize.html
Which deals with testicular size relative to weight, rather so much penis size(though mentioned).

I also think that mean time to ejaculation should also be considered. Very few human males can ejaculate as quickly as bonobos, for instance. Time in ejaculation is being selected at this time, now, in the present; I doubt that it was not selected for in our past. And in all deference, this is just a correlary to your face to face sexual positioning point, that you are making.

That is to say, that the more intimate face on face position, or longer mean time to ejaculation somehow denoted to our grandmothers 10,000 generations ago that the male they are breeding with had a stronger connection to her, and thus willingness to provide her and her offspring with provisions by way of non random selection. Or additionally it was merely selected out(by Nature or mom), and those males who were not intimate, and did not provision, had their offspring terminated before or after birth.

Uh, General Relativity?

Does the bending of space time cause the effects of gravity, or does the effect of gravity bend space time?

In the end, they are little more than rank mathematical speculation that if this and this and this are true, then that happens, and the math supports it.
No. Theories are not simply "rank mathematical speculation"; they must have successfully predicted experimental results to be considered theories.
String Theory is currently a misnomer; to my knowledge no string theory has predicted a result that (1) has been experimentally verified, and (2) has not been predicted by existing theories.

The Neanderthal Genome Project is currently mapping the DNA of a Neanderthal male longbone that is estimated at 38K years ago.Gorham's Cave (http://archaeology.about.com/od/neanderthals/a/gorhams_cave.htm), 25K years ago.Males with very small penises were still selected to mate with, for they continue to exist. And it would be interesting to see the curve on both sides of the average.If our penis length to body size ratio were like an average ape's, it would be about 1" long. Even what you'd consider a "small" human penis is relatively enormous.That is to say, that the more intimate face on face position, or longer mean time to ejaculation somehow denoted to our grandmothers 10,000 generations ago that the male they are breeding with had a stronger connection to her, and thus willingness to provide her and her offspring with provisions by way of non random selection.Seems like a wild theory. Besides, I don't think humans naturally hold it for that long, we just intentionally prolong it today as a pleasure technique. An uncircumcised man who hasn't had sex in a week can finish very quickly if he wants to.

Gorham's Cave (http://archaeology.about.com/od/neanderthals/a/gorhams_cave.htm), 25K years ago.
Thanks for the link.

Does the bending of space time cause the effects of gravity, or does the effect of gravity bend space time?The former. Then again string theorists have crazy ideas about gravity, crossing universe membranes and what not. But Einstein's theory is the only one that has been experimentally proven.

The former.

How do you know?

How do you know?I'm just repeating what Einstein said. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif> I don't even pretend to understand the intricacies of general relativity.

You're misusing the term "theory" here. (A lot of people do.) Theory does _not_ mean "guess" or even "educated guess".


I'll see your Albert Einstein and raise you a Stephen Hawking. :P

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

In the end, Hawking's just confirms my point, which was not whether or not determinist physics was or is valid, but that even great physicists (and chemists and anthropologist and biologist, etc. etc.) retain a belief in God. Their belief tends to be more deistic rather than ascribing to any particular religion, but that is true, to some degree, of anyone in the modern era who ascribed to both science and faith. The God of the Bible is not the God of today, if he ever was interventionist God that the bible portrays him.

This, however, does not detract from their faith, nor does it detract from their embrace of their religious identity, if they have one. Steven Hawkings is most definately not an atheist. He is agnostic or deistic, I've seen it suggested that the current big bang theory comes as close to "proof" of a Creator as has ever been before, and comments by Stephen Hawkings which indicate at the very least, he doesn't consider the idea preposterous.

As for quantum mechanics, well, it seems to me that much of it is theoretical in an almost pure sense, where people have devised a mathematical "language" (pure mathematical version of symbolic logic, if you would) to explain the unverifiable and as they notice phenonmenon which contradict their theories, they make adjustments to the "language" until it fits. I am not arguing the validity of the methodology, or suggesting that it is not most likely the best means we currently have...I merely suggest that those who seem to take an almost dogmatic view of Science, such as Tudamorf, realize that a good portion of science is most likely no more accurate than Ptolemy was and to discount the notion of a God because it remains unproven smacks of a certain hypocracy given their faith like belief in the witching stick of science.

No, I am adamantly talking about the present.

While we certainly are not strung up on poles and set afire anymore, negative discrimination is currently rooted firmly here in the present day.

I don't disagree, but I was speaking of society in the 14th or 15th century BCE.

Mostly convenience believers. They know that science is correct, and religion is fantasy, and if forced to choose, they will pick science every time. Religion is just like a polite social custom to these people, a set of rituals which helps them feel comfortable with society.

ost of the rest of your post was simple nattering denoting an inability to discuss or debate the issue due to either an incapability of grasping abstract concepts or a blind faith in your personal religion of Science, a zealotry you hold, when the very "priests" of science, the scientists, don't.

But this comment...is insulting. Who are you to suggest that someone isn't actually religious, that they don't hold a real belief? Are you omniscient now? Are you psychic? You sound like one of the Great White imperialists who just knew that those savages needed to be enlightened with belief in Jesus Christ, because they would be much happier if they no longer held true to their faith, without any understanding or knowledge of their faith. As I've said before, you are as bad as the Evangalists, attempting to foster your religion on other people, against their will, because you believe you are correct and that their beliefs cannot be correct.


Of course there are those like Einstein, who wasted the last decades of his life trying to invent a new theory because "God does not play dice."

Or Hawkins, who also does not hold to atheistic principles in the slightest? You ****ing moron.

No. Theories are not simply "rank mathematical speculation"; they must have successfully predicted experimental results to be considered theories.
String Theory is currently a misnomer; to my knowledge no string theory has predicted a result that (1) has been experimentally verified, and (2) has not been predicted by existing theories.

The purpose of this discussion is not to argue about the various definitions of theory, even withint science itself.

One can jump onto Wiki to easily see that theory is a multi-hued word of which the meaning varies based on discipline, purpose, and general use.

None of it has bearing on the discussion at hand which is that science and religon are not mutually exclusive and that the atheistic insistance that science refutes faith in God, and demands a lack of faith.

I never claimed that physicists tend to be atheists. I'd suggest quite the opposite, actually: many people that study physics see beauty in the equations that seem to govern the universe, especially in certain types of symmetry that can be found. This can lead them to believe in a creator of some sort. Some equate that with the Judeo-Christian God. Others choose not to make such a leap, and simply leave the creator undefined, not necessarily having the attributes that God is traditionally claimed to have.

Such beliefs are entirely separate from science though (even when motivated by science). They do not produce knowledge.

In any case, I think Hawking was using "God" figuratively.

The word "theory" in a scientific context has a very specific meaning. Any other meaning applied to a scientific theory is incorrect.

I never claimed that physicists tend to be atheists. I'd suggest quite the opposite, actually: many people that study physics see beauty in the equations that seem to govern the universe, especially in certain types of symmetry that can be found. This can lead them to believe in a creator of some sort. Some equate that with the Judeo-Christian God. Others choose not to make such a leap, and simply leave the creator undefined, not necessarily having the attributes that God is traditionally claimed to have.

Such beliefs are entirely separate from science though (even when motivated by science). They do not produce knowledge.

In any case, I think Hawking was using "God" figuratively.

Other comments Hawking has made from other sources show that it wasn't entirely figuratively.

I merely suggest that those who seem to take an almost dogmatic view of Science, such as Tudamorf, realize that a good portion of science is most likely no more accurate than Ptolemy was and to discount the notion of a God because it remains unproven smacks of a certain hypocracy given their faith like belief in the witching stick of science.Each theory in science is weighted according to how well it has been proven.

The effect of gravity is so well proven, it's considered a "fact". String theory is not proven at all, and you'd be laughed out of scientific circles if you affirmatively declared it a "fact".

Your religion is roughly the opposite. The less evidence there is to support a conclusion, the more weight you assign to it. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

No, I don't discount the <i>possibility</i> of superior life forms that may have influenced the creation of what we know as the Universe. But until I see evidence of it, I'm not going to consider it a fact, or even a theory. And I'm certainly not going to bow down to the ramblings of some ancient human scribes as if they were dictating the "truth" about "god."

No, I don't discount the <i>possibility</i> of superior life forms that may have influenced the creation of what we know as the Universe. But until I see evidence of it, I'm not going to consider it a fact, or even a theory. And I'm certainly not going to bow down to the ramblings of some ancient human scribes as if they were dictating the "truth" about "god."

Well the logical problem remains, if there is a creator or creators, who created them?

Well the logical problem remains, if there is a creator or creators, who created them?If there are creators, their perception of reality would probably be far more advanced than ours is. Not to mention, we understand so little about their creation, they'd probably laugh at the stupidity of our questions. I'd guess that <i>their</i> creation would simply be beyond our comprehension, like trying to teach general relativity to a microbe.

If there are creators, their perception of reality would probably be far more advanced than ours is. Not to mention, we understand so little about their creation, they'd probably laugh at the stupidity of our questions. I'd guess that their creation would simply be beyond our comprehension, like trying to teach general relativity to a microbe.

I think that the evidence for a creator is pretty good. After all, the stunning complexity of the natural world invites that conclusion and invites further investigation. The problem is partly that some modern life scientists (especially the rabid screamer Dawkins) proceed without any idea of a creator and take that as their starting point, rather than starting with the evidence that seeing where it leads. This is even more surprising given that despite the bland assertions that 'life-is-everywhere-in-the-universe' life scientists have not been able to create these 'simple' lifeforms in the lab. And even if they did it would only show that life needs intelligence to create it.

At the end, we can only stumble around unless the creator chooses to reveal himself.

And I'm certainly not going to bow down to the ramblings of some ancient human scribes as if they were dictating the "truth" about "god."

I never suggested you should. Worship, or don't worship who or what you wish as you wish, but your atheism goes beyond that, with your admitted desire to ban all religion and your reinvention of history to preclude the social advances some religions have given our culture.

I never suggested you should. Worship, or don't worship who or what you wish as you wish, but your atheism goes beyond that, with your admitted desire to ban all religion and your reinvention of history to preclude the social advances some religions have given our culture.Where did I say to ban all religion? I don't care if you practice your religion all day long, so long as you don't impose your religious doctrines on others.

Unfortunately, in our supposedly secular America, everywhere you turn you see religious zealots in power trying to force their religion on others. To name just a few examples: prayer in school, abortion, Christmas religious displays, "intelligent design," stem cell research, and gay marriage. Public approval and endorsement of religion is everywhere.

However, I'd be scared if religion were banned. Without their fantasy world to cling to, the masses of religious sheep might riot or revolt.

However, I'd be scared if religion were banned. Without their fantasy world to cling to, the masses of religious sheep might riot or revolt.

I too realized that years ago.

Where did I say to ban all religion? I don't care if you practice your religion all day long, so long as you don't impose your religious doctrines on others.

Unfortunately, in our supposedly secular America, everywhere you turn you see religious zealots in power trying to force their religion on others. To name just a few examples: prayer in school, abortion, Christmas religious displays, "intelligent design," stem cell research, and gay marriage. Public approval and endorsement of religion is everywhere.

However, I'd be scared if religion were banned. Without their fantasy world to cling to, the masses of religious sheep might riot or revolt.

Don't paint all religion with those goyshe far right Christians. Most Jews are, like me (and most liberal Christians, as well), staunch supporters of a seperation of Church and State. Myself, I'm almost fanatically against any mix of relgion and governance in America. Pledge? Remove God or don't say it in school. Money? Remove "In God We Trust", Prayer shouldn't even be whispered about in a public school. Keep the Crosses and Hannukiahs and Kwanzaa menorah rip-offs away from public lands. Because God said so isn't sufficient reason to remove the rights of anyone in the United States (with the notable exception of Wolverines, because everyone knows God is a Buckeye and Wolverines should be segregated like the virulent rodents they are) and just because some Pope once declared the fetus to have rights above and beyond those of the mother, doesn't mean the law of the land should reflect so (and in the case of Michigan fans, I'm a fan of mandatory abortion).

Don't paint all religion with those goyshe far right Christians.I'll grant you that, at the moment, your zealots are less intrusive than the Christian zealots. But that's largely because your group is a tiny minority.

If you were in the majority, I'm sure I'd be seeing public displays of your religious symbols, be forced to mutilate my children's penises, be forced to close my business on Saturdays, and so on. You zealots are fundamentally the same, and your religion is really just a beta version of Christianity, so I find it hard to believe you won't be as annoying.

There are some funny quotes in this article.

Losing Our Religion (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15653706/site/newsweek/)
A gathering of scientists and atheists explores whether faith in science can ever substitute for belief in God.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Updated: 9:43 p.m. PT Nov 11, 2006

Nov. 10, 2006 - The great Danish physicist Niels Bohr, it is said, had a good-luck horseshoe hanging in his office. "You don't believe in that nonsense, do you?" a visitor once asked, to which Bohr replied, "No, but they say it works whether you believe in it or not."

[More... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15653706/site/newsweek/)]

It seems like the War on Christmas starts earlier and earlier every year! :p

It seems like the War on Christmas starts earlier and earlier every year! :p
Santa is prepared for all contingencies. (http://www.violentflashgames.com/games/Santa_s-Vengeance)

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/rhinoceros/blog_images/armed_santa.jpg

It is entirely possible, and happens not all that infrequently, for a theory (a model with assumed arbitrary elements which sets forth specific results and then attains them) to later be proven incorrect.

Indeed, and it's one of science's greatest virtues - and how we achieve progress, we adapt the ideas when proven wrong, instead of the oposite.

Which is why they are called theories.

No, it's why it's called science.

there isn't a physicist around who would pretend that science is capable of explaining everything.

Good for them. They'd be lying, or deciving themselves, if they made such outlandish claims. However, that fact does not make it so that the word "theory" in general language means the same as it is applied in science, nor does it support any religious theory one little bit.

"We don't know" does not mean "It must be God - specifically YOUR God".

Indeed, and it's one of science's greatest virtues - and how we achieve progress, we adapt the ideas when proven wrong, instead of the oposite.



No, it's why it's called science.



Good for them. They'd be lying, or deciving themselves, if they made such outlandish claims. However, that fact does not make it so that the word "theory" in general language means the same as it is applied in science, nor does it support any religious theory one little bit.

"We don't know" does not mean "It must be God - specifically YOUR God".

Actually, people like Richard Dawkins are the worst kind of fundamentalists. Dawkins will rant and rave about his hatred of christianity and judaism and any-ism but dawkins-ism with the fury and intensity of a little hitler. quite amusing - those of you who live in the UK who saw his little hatred-ridden spiel the other month will know what Im referring to. And refusing to acknowledge that evolution was a theory - insisting, when challenged, that it was a 'fact', the 'fact' of evolution (and by this he means macroevolution, not microevolution) shows that he rules out the belief in a creator or any sort of intelligent design of the universe without even considering it. Is this not putting the conclusion before the evidence?

odern science is founded fundamentally on repeatable experimentation. This is based on the worldview that the universe is inherently consistent and that we can understand the world because it was made by someone who has ordered the world according to laws and rules that we can also discover. This is different from scientific history, if you like, that extrapolates backwards in time assuming the present conditions have remained the same forthe last billion years or so. We have no scientific method that proves that in the same way we have demonstrable laws of genetics or electricity.

Tell me: 1. Is your body more complicated than the PC you are working on? 2. Could that PC ever 'just' have formed by random changes? Come on now, be honest - it's pretty unlikely, isnt it? That disc drive, with its precision engineering, that CPU with its atom-sized electrical pathways, that blue screen, delivered courteousy of MS...

If this is the case and a computer is obviously artificial, how can it be so difficult to conclude that man himself is a created being?

Well, most facts are really just opinions anyway. Almost all forms of scientific facts are some form of estimation or measurement. But this is assuming the fact that you know that estimations are just another form of opinion.

People call things facts when there just are a very lot of people who hold the same opinion.

If I have a graduated cylinder filled with 10mls of fluid. The fact that it is filled with 10mls is really just an estimation, based on my observation. I could, in fact, design a more accurate graduated cylinder than the one that I am currently using, and then find out that I don't really don't have 10ml, but 10.1mls. And so on.

But when I stated I had 10mls of fluid, and though an opinion, I still had the amount of fluid in the cylinder that I had, and 10mls is good enough to be called a fact, for my purposes.

ost things which are called fact, are in fact, opinions. Depending on how accurate or precise the opinion is, helps establish that fact. And, more cloudy of course, some people hold the opinion that something is a fact when more, or many more, people share the same opinion. I don't buy this one out of hand myself, for it is a fact that smart people can be wrong, and many people can be wrong, and even many smart people can be wrong.

Also, I think that you are putting WAY too much emphasis on 'random'.

Just because you don't understand the causes and the causes appear random to you now, does not mean that they are random.

I can anthropomorphize chemistry all I like,,,
For example...
Two hydrogens just LIKE to hook up with an oxygen.

But hydrogen atoms are just atoms, they don't like or dislike anything.

They do what they do without regard to human emotions. And I can further state that there is little randomness about their association to one another, this atomic level threeway, if you will.

Your computer analogy is simply a poor one, even considering that analogies are a poor argument tool in the first place.

Once you understand why two hydrogen atoms bond to the oxygen atom, you may then start forming a more accurate model; models are better argument tools, only partly because you call them models, and partly because if accurate, they are more accurate.

If you want to say,,,"Well you know, the hydrogens just like the oxygen, because God wants them to like each other", and that for you that may work. But it does not work for me.

If this is the case and a computer is obviously artificial, how can it be so difficult to conclude that man himself is a created being?

Complexity does not make something artificially created. The computer is one of our greatest contemporary achievements. Will it seem spectacular compared to the achievements of our grandchildren? Probably not. Your argument would seem as ridiculous to them as if you presented a water wheel to me today as something that justifies the existence of God.

Our contemporary lack of knowledge as a species does not imply the existence of God. We don't understand the big band or evolution. So what? Early humans didn't understand weather systems or the galaxy but that didn't mean that Gods actually created hurricanes or a God in fiery chariot pulled the sun across the sky. We now understand the weather and the galaxy a little better and don't those religious fools look stupid now, using the supernatural to fill the unknown. Nobody can ever convince me to make the same mistake.

The more subtle argument, "I know enough science to know this will always be inconcievable to man, I therefore have faith in the divine", could be true but typically isn't. In the case in point, we don't actually have enough knowledge about evolution to say that is impossible to generate human life in perfect conditions on our planet. Someone might know enough science to guess that human evolution will probably always be inconcievable, but faith is still being used to bridge the unknown.

If you feel spiritually that a God exists then please continue to do so. If you feel the need to persuade other people that a God must exist because of humanity's current scientific ignorance then please, please keep it to yourself.

I'll grant you that, at the moment, your zealots are less intrusive than the Christian zealots. But that's largely because your group is a tiny minority.

If you were in the majority, I'm sure I'd be seeing public displays of your religious symbols, be forced to mutilate my children's penises, be forced to close my business on Saturdays, and so on. You zealots are fundamentally the same, and your religion is really just a beta version of Christianity, so I find it hard to believe you won't be as annoying.

Except, we are the majority in a nation right now and, yes, there are public displays of our religious symbols, for it is a nation for our Religion. However, there is no forced circumcision in Israel, you are not forced to close your business on Saturdays (though it is the custom and practice, much like closing business on Sundays here is not mandated, but is custom and practice), and restaraunts do not have to maintain a kosher kitchen. And this is in a nation which was created to be a Jewish homeland.

Keep your uninformed speculations to yourself.

Indeed, and it's one of science's greatest virtues - and how we achieve progress, we adapt the ideas when proven wrong, instead of the oposite.



No, it's why it's called science.



Good for them. They'd be lying, or deciving themselves, if they made such outlandish claims. However, that fact does not make it so that the word "theory" in general language means the same as it is applied in science, nor does it support any religious theory one little bit.

"We don't know" does not mean "It must be God - specifically YOUR God".

Listen, you presumptive wretch, I don't know where you intolerant athiestic ****tards get the notion that a defense of Divinity is a direct assault on science and an exhortation to believe, but stop fitting words into my mouth.

You can believe or disbelieve as you wish, it doesn't matter to me, or to most religious people, expecially Jews. We don't want to convert you goyim. In fact, the more orthodox the Jew, the less inclined he is to convert non-Jews to Judaism. It is hard to convert to Judaism specifically because the religion isn't about converting the non-believer.

I don't disbelieve science. Science is a good thing, its one of the best things mankind has discovered. I think science is awesome. I make my living via technology. I am not, however, so filled with scientific hubris as to think Science holds all answers currently and I chose a course of faith which has exactly as much bearing and credibility as any other speculation as to certain unanswered aspects of our world, evolution, and universe.

Quit attempting to paint me as some uninformed, ignorant Luddite simply because I chose to believe that the answer to certain, almost certainly unanswerable, questions is a Creator being, whom I equate with the God of my ancestors.

I swear, you arrogant ****tards are just as bad as the zealots you proclaim to despise. But you despise them simply because they are heretical to your religion of science, not because you disagree with the mere notion of forcing a system of beliefs on other people.

Also, I think that you are putting WAY too much emphasis on 'random'.

Just because you don't understand the causes and the causes appear random to you now, does not mean that they are random.

I can anthropomorphize chemistry all I like,,,
For example...
Two hydrogens just LIKE to hook up with an oxygen.

But hydrogen atoms are just atoms, they don't like or dislike anything.

They do what they do without regard to human emotions. And I can further state that there is little randomness about their association to one another, this atomic level threeway, if you will.

Your computer analogy is simply a poor one, even considering that analogies are a poor argument tool in the first place.

Once you understand why two hydrogen atoms bond to the oxygen atom, you may then start forming a more accurate model; models are better argument tools, only partly because you call them models, and partly because if accurate, they are more accurate.

If you want to say,,,"Well you know, the hydrogens just like the oxygen, because God wants them to like each other", and that for you that may work. But it does not work for me.

I think you are limiting the concept of randomness to a purely physical aspect, which would lead you to misapprehend my usage of it.

I am not simply referring to the fact that a pair of hydrogen atoms have a propensity for forming with an ogygen atom to great a water molecule, but rather the randomness involves the fact that that combination of energy happened to create the fundamental aspect for life, which then recomplicated itself in ways we don't yet fully understand, over the course of millions of eons to expand in ways specific to the creation of life. The randomness comes in that what happened when a pair of H's and an O got together to do a three way bop, the result was condusive to the creation of a more complex molecule which created yet a more complex molecule, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitim until such time as Fy'yr is sitting there suggesting it was inevitable.

Out of curiosity, I wonder where the O came from...the H comes from Stars, but the O? I'll have to look that up.

Complexity does not make something artificially created. The computer is one of our greatest contemporary achievements. Will it seem spectacular compared to the achievements of our grandchildren? Probably not. Your argument would seem as ridiculous to them as if you presented a water wheel to me today as something that justifies the existence of God.

Our contemporary lack of knowledge as a species does not imply the existence of God. We don't understand the big band or evolution. So what? Early humans didn't understand weather systems or the galaxy but that didn't mean that Gods actually created hurricanes or a God in fiery chariot pulled the sun across the sky. We now understand the weather and the galaxy a little better and don't those religious fools look stupid now, using the supernatural to fill the unknown. Nobody can ever convince me to make the same mistake.

Right now, God pulling a fiery chariot across the sky holds exactly as much veracity as any theory as to what started this whole shebang off.

There are aspects of the universe and the evolution of mankind that, I believe, will denote the ascencion of humanity to the realm of divinity upon their discovery and manipulativity. The day we discover what created "all of the heavens and earth" and can do so ourselves, we can call ourselves Gods. That we did so via science changes nothing.

And nobody is trying to convince you to "make the same mistake" you dundering clod. Believe or disbelieve as you wish. I would suggest that your inability to consider anything that other people haven't claimed to have proven (or your faithlike acceptance of everything which other people declare to be proven unto you) denotes a narrowness of thought which is equal to any acolyte.

The more subtle argument, "I know enough science to know this will always be inconcievable to man, I therefore have faith in the divine", could be true but typically isn't. In the case in point, we don't actually have enough knowledge about evolution to say that is impossible to generate human life in perfect conditions on our planet. Someone might know enough science to guess that human evolution will probably always be inconcievable, but faith is still being used to bridge the unknown.

If you feel spiritually that a God exists then please continue to do so. If you feel the need to persuade other people that a God must exist because of humanity's current scientific ignorance then please, please keep it to yourself.[/QUOTE]

I would suggest that your inability to consider anything that other people haven't claimed to have proven (or your faithlike acceptance of everything which other people declare to be proven unto you) denotes a narrowness of thought which is equal to any acolyte.So, we're the narrow-minded fools for believing an explanation that can be objectively proven before our very eyes, but you're the wise one for believing some fantasy novel from an ancient L. Ron Hubbard.

Riiiight.I am not, however, so filled with scientific hubris as to think Science holds all answers currently and I chose a course of faith which has exactly as much bearing and credibility as any other speculation as to certain unanswered aspects of our world, evolution, and universe.We don't believe science has all the answers. We just believe that the proven answers that it <i>does</i> have are the correct ones. While there are some scientific hypotheses that remain unproven, we don't consider them a fact unless and until they <i>are</i> proven.

Your religion gives you all the answers, but they're all fake. Furthermore, you're expected to believe them automatically, even though not one of them is proven in any way. In fact, each time science thoroughly <i>disproves</i> one, you zealots either have to burn the scientist at the stake, or concoct twisted explanations as to why your ancient L. Ron Hubbard was actually right.

If ignorance truly is bliss for you, enjoy your false answers. But as for credibility, don't make me laugh.

And nobody is trying to convince you to "make the same mistake" you dundering clod. Believe or disbelieve as you wish. I would suggest that your inability to consider anything that other people haven't claimed to have proven (or your faithlike acceptance of everything which other people declare to be proven unto you) denotes a narrowness of thought which is equal to any acolyte.

Where did I say anyone in this thread was trying to convince me? Where did I say that I had permanently discounted faith and refused to consider it? I refused to consider my personal ignorance as a reason for a God to exist, but there are plenty of other reasons.

Keep your prejudices and relentless insults locked away please. My argument holds. Religion should not be a crutch to explain the unknown.

Right now, God pulling a fiery chariot across the sky holds exactly as much veracity as any theory as to what started this whole shebang off.

Not exactly true, but let's assume for the sake of argument it is. Let's assume we have no clues to the creation of the universe within our current human knowledge. How does that prove the existence of the divine? How does that prove anything or lead to absolute faith in anything?

I have no argument against people holding a faith and then using their faith to explain their existence. I have problem with people using their ignorance of their existence to justify their faith.

I think you are limiting the concept of randomness to a purely physical aspect, which would lead you to misapprehend my usage of it.
Actually, I was rebutting another poster. But oh well.

I am not simply referring to the fact that a pair of hydrogen atoms have a propensity for forming with an ogygen atom to great a water molecule, but rather the randomness involves the fact that that combination of energy happened to create the fundamental aspect for life, which then recomplicated itself in ways we don't yet fully understand, over the course of millions of eons to expand in ways specific to the creation of life.
The point is that that simple molecule, which is required for life, is but a model for other chemical reactions. Which are the basis of life. Amino acid formation, and protein folding, and further enzyme formation, etc.


The randomness comes in that what happened when a pair of H's and an O got together to do a three way bop, the result was condusive to the creation of a more complex molecule which created yet a more complex molecule, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitim until such time as Fy'yr is sitting there suggesting it was inevitable.
I am not suggesting that life was inevitable, that denotes a conscious forward thinking action.

Out of curiosity, I wonder where the O came from...the H comes from Stars, but the O? I'll have to look that up.
If you can make the leap of faith that God was always here, why is it so difficult to make the leap that matter was always here? If God did not need a creator, then why, oh why, does the Universe need one?

It is a simple posit. If God has always existed, then surely the Universe could as well have always existed.

That is only one of the reasons why I generally reject the Big Bang theory. There is no more proof of it occurring than Genesis. And one could argue that the reason why it was formulated in the first place was to placate and appease theologically minded individuals who require some form of genesis.

Our only proof that it has happened is that the Universe is currently expanding. We can observe that, we can deduce that. I don't doubt that part. It is as completely likely that the Universe has just always been expanding, will continue to expand, and that is just its nature.

And no, not very many smart people share my opinion. I know of only two, and one of them is dead. The person living, who shares my opinion, just also happens to be the world's smartest person(besides me of course, I just don't believe in taking tests for vanity's sake). Not like I am mentioning this to change your opinion on the matter, I don't really care because it does not matter. Not like the overwhelming numbers of smart people, two, will help convince anyone to share the opinion.

OBTW, she thinks Picasso(and all the other abstractionists) was a hack, just like I have always felt and known, as well.

Out of curiosity, I wonder where the O came from...the H comes from Stars, but the O? I'll have to look that up.
The O comes from the stars as well. Stars are fusion powered and fusion binds lighter elements into heavier elements and produces energy. Most of the really heavy elements are created by supernovas.

Our only proof that it has happened is that the Universe is currently expanding. We can observe that, we can deduce that. I don't doubt that part. It is as completely likely that the Universe has just always been expanding, will continue to expand, and that is just its nature.
I assume you mean "evidence" rather than "proof" here, since science generally doesn't "prove" anything, strictly speaking.

The apparent expansion of the universe isn't the only evidence for the Big Bang though. What about cosmic background radiation?

(I'll certainly agree that the Big Bang theory is not as well supported as many other scientific theories, though.)

It is as completely likely that the Universe has just always been expanding, will continue to expand, and that is just its nature.No, it is not as completely likely, unless you can explain how the Universe can be both infinitely old and always expanding. (That should be easy for the world's smartest person.)

I assume you mean "evidence" rather than "proof" here, since science generally doesn't "prove" anything, strictly speaking.
Aye, aye, captain.

The apparent expansion of the universe isn't the only evidence for the Big Bang though. What about cosmic background radiation?
What about it?

Are you saying that the Universe is so small, that there is not more stuff just right 'over there'? And then some more stuff, right past that, and so on.

As far as I know, the whole theory is based on the Doppler red shift that can be observed. Denoting that there are stars moving away from us. I don't know of any other plausible proof behind the Big Bang.

I just make the leap and quite reasonably say, that the Universe has always been expanding. And that those who require a Big Bang, only formed that opinion to appease Creationists(even those in the scientific community). For there is no evidence, no proof that it has not always been expanding. Not one shred of observational material to support the notion(unless there is new science, then cmiiw)

(I'll certainly agree that the Big Bang theory is not as well supported as many other scientific theories, though.)
It certainly has a great many adherents and followers.

No, it is not as completely likely, unless you can explain how the Universe can be both infinitely old and always expanding. (That should be easy for the world's smartest person.)
That _is_ easy.
Consider the function f(x) = 2^x. f(x) is both positive and increasing for all real values of x.

No, it is not as completely likely, unless you can explain how the Universe can be both infinitely old and always expanding. (That should be easy for the world's smartest person.)

See how vestigial the myths are stuck in even your psyche?

The Universe can be infinitely old and always expanding. There is nothing showing that it is not, but our old expections and intuitions(many formed by religions).

If light can be both a wave and a particle, both without mass and with mass at the same time, then surely the Universe could be infinitely old and always expanding.

You are thinking in an old way, using simple tangible and intuitive models. There is nothing to denote that it has not always been expanding, other than our reason(or religion) which says that something had to have been created and formed by something else.

Even removing all theological motivations for it, physics in not intuitive to us without tangible models at this time. I just think that the Big Bang is based on an inaccurate model. For that model is based on the notion that something had to be created, and there is nothing really supporting that notion(besides culture).

I can observe Evolution in one generation. A Dalmation breeding with a Husky, produces a litter of Huskalations. And not one of the progeny looks like either of the parents. I can see two turtles, one with long necks, the other with short necks, and see that the short necked ones die of starvation while the long one lives and breeds successfully. I can deduce from this very easily, and track(intuitively) that type of behavior back. I can't really do that with just a Red Shift to go on.

The Universe can be infinitely old and always expanding. There is nothing showing that it is not, but our old expections and intuitions(many formed by religions).You could be an alien from Mars in disguise. There is nothing showing that you are not. Does that mean it's equally likely that you are, and are not?

Please spare me the pointless exercise of proving the negative; that's a typical religious zealot tactic that should be below you.If light can be both a wave and a particle, both without mass and with mass at the same time, then surely the Universe could be infinitely old and always expanding.<i>Non sequitur</i>. The mere fact that light <i>can be described as</i> either a wave or a particle doesn't mean that any paradox you invent is automatically true.You are thinking in an old way, using simple tangible and intuitive models. There is nothing to denote that it has not always been expanding, other than our reason(or religion) which says that something had to have been created and formed by something else.Just because something is not impossible does not mean it is likely, or just as likely as something else.

Nothing is impossible, and anything you say <i>could</i> be true. There <i>could</i> be an old man in the sky that created the planet and humans and covered up the evidence by leaving clues of evolution. So what?

Absent evidence to the contrary, it's more likely that the physics of the entire Universe works in the same way we observe physics to work in our explored segment of the Universe. That makes your explanation less likely.For that model is based on the notion that something had to be created, and there is nothing really supporting that notion(besides culture).No, it's based on a very simple idea. If a bunch of things are moving away from one another, with no explanation for <i>why</i> they are moving despite an opposing force pulling them the other way, you can presume that, at one point, they were propelled there from a common point.

That doesn't mean that the Big Bang theory is correct and yours is false, it just means the Big Bang theory is more likely.I can deduce from this very easily, and track(intuitively) that type of behavior back. I can't really do that with just a Red Shift to go on.So, you will never draw a conclusion as to astronomical phenomena simply because you can't observe them directly within your lifetime? Ok.

...you can presume that, at one point, they were propelled there from a common point.

You can presume that.

I don't wish to.

You are using a simple 3D model for your common point theory. There is no other reason for it.

It is like Carl Sagan's little Flatlanders story(I think he got it from someone else). Your explanation and model is tainted with what you currently know, or only know; that things must be created, and that things moving away from one another must have had a starting point.

There is nothing to actually show that there was a starting point.

And not only that, there is no scientific reason to buy the theory. We get nothing, nor can we predict anything for any practical or scientific purpose by believing the theory. The Universe, in that regard, is what it is.

If you can show me any tangible or scientific artifact or knowledge which we have gleaned by believing the theory, I might buy it. edit: No, strike that, I would buy it, because if we have gotten anything from it, then that would be some evidence of it.

What have we used it to predict? If it can't be used to predict(and then subsequently used to change something) then it is a philosophy and not a science in the first place. What can we use it for to predict?

The Big Bang model successfully predicted cosmic background radiation years before it was ever detected.
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

What have we used it to predict? If it can't be used to predict(and then subsequently used to change something) then it is a philosophy and not a science in the first place. What can we use it for to predict?
If you're talking about the Big Bang theory then you're wrong. Amongst other things, it predicted the existence of cosmic background radiation.

Absent evidence to the contrary, it's more likely that the physics of the entire Universe works in the same way we observe physics to work in our explored segment of the Universe. That makes your explanation less likely.

I can tangibly and intuitively know the effects of Gravity.
I can visualize, in my mind, Einstein's Space Time deflections.

But that still does not leave us with an explanation of what exactly Gravity is. It is a force, I know that. But what causes forces, what are forces, what actually generates them.

The most basic, most intuitive part, of living on this planet, ie you fall down, has no real explanation.

And then all of that Einstein stuff is just like Newton stuff, which is description of behavior, not explanation of what it is.

And even that, that is enough to predict, and to change our world around us.

Big Bang does not even do that. It merely placates and soothes those who require a Creation.

If you're talking about the Big Bang theory then you're wrong. Amongst other things, it predicted the existence of cosmic background radiation.

Why would there NOT be cosmic background radiation?

With or without Big Bang.

Why would there NOT be stuff, over there, that we can't see or detect right now, but we are just waiting for the right technological devices to detect it? There is matter over there, and radiation over there, and Gravity, and forces, of course there is going to be background cosmic radiation.

Now if you can show me, that there is a border, over there, the edge, whereby on the other side there is nothingness, not even void, then I will buy your point.

Because that is what your theory implies. That beyond the expanding Universe there is Nothing, to which the Universe is expanding into.

If you can show me that, I will buy your theory.

y theory already accounts for stuff already over there, and beyond that, and so on. That is what my theory is. There is always going to be more stuff. MY theory accounts for that, more stuff. You point a big enough telescope at it, and you will see it. And its moving, and has always been moving, and will always be moving. And then build a bigger telescope, and you can see more, again so.

Big Bang says(or rather implies) that there is a Nothing, a lack of existence, beyond the fringe or border of the Universe, not more stuff. And even before Big Bang, intuition itself would tell you that there is more stuff giving off radiation over there(I thought that when I was a kid, BEFORE I even heard of Big Bang).

Why would there NOT be cosmic background radiation?
Evidence suggests that the CBR is omnidirectional and evenly distributed throughout the universe. That would not be the case if it originated from from a point source at some earlier stage of an ever-expanding universe. How do you account for this in your theory?

Big Bang says(or rather implies) that there is a Nothing, a lack of existence, beyond the fringe or border of the Universe, not more stuff.
AFAIK, the big bang theory doesn't address what is "outside" our universe at all. If anything, it implies that this is unknowable -- at least given our current understanding of the laws of physics.

Why would there NOT be cosmic background radiation?
This argument makes no sense, given that cosmic background radiation isn't just "stuff" but has specific properties (uniform in all directions, a spectral distribution approximating that of a 3 K blackbody).
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radiation.html

Big Bang says(or rather implies) that there is a Nothing, a lack of existence, beyond the fringe or border of the Universe, not more stuff.
Incorrect. Sorry, you simply don't know what you're talking about here.

From the link provided
One of the profound observations of the 20th century is that the universe is expanding. This expansion implies the universe was smaller, denser and hotter in the distant past.

That is a big jump there.

Completely ignores an equally plausible cosmic reason. Flatlander thinking, if you ask me. Just because something is moving, in terms of cosmic import, does NOT imply that it was stationary at one time.

Now, if your model is a firecracker, of course, it makes sense.


Ya, ya, I know all about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. An Anti-Entropic Force(to oppose entropy, of course), heretofore undiscovered, overcomes that. There is no proof, yet, for this theory, of course, other than it make perfect sense.

Actually my Anti-Entropic Force overcomes problems with the Big Bang, if you think about it. But I don't want to discuss that, other than just a bone thrown.

Evidence suggests that the CBR is omnidirectional and evenly distributed throughout the universe. That would not be the case if it originated from from a point source at some earlier stage of an ever-expanding universe. How do you account for this in your theory?
The Universe is infinitely large.

Take a room. An infinite room. And fill it with an infinite amount of candles.
Now take your light meter, and point in in any direction. It will read the same value, no matter where you point it.

And your meter will not change even if the candles are all moving away from one another(and away from you), because there is an infinite amount of them.

Now of course that is visible light, and you are talking about microwaves(and a very particular band).

I did not read it thoroughly, but was there a red shift on this band of microwaves?


AFAIK, the big bang theory doesn't address what is "outside" our universe at all. If anything, it implies that this is unknowable -- at least given our current understanding of the laws of physics.
Sounds like God talk, to me.

This argument makes no sense, given that cosmic background radiation isn't just "stuff" but has specific properties (uniform in all directions, a spectral distribution approximating that of a 3 K blackbody).
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radiation.html
Well, it is coming from something.

Sorry for using the Carl Sagan vernacular with you.

Radiation is stuff, matter is stuff, forces are stuff. I don't care what you call it, it still is there(and does not care either what you call it).


Incorrect. Sorry, you simply don't know what you're talking about here.
Well, ok.
At the beginning of the Universe.
There was a singularity, right.
Where everything was in one spot.
All existence, all stuff, all time.
Right?
Then it exploded.
Like a bullet out of a rifle.
In all directions.
At the same time.
An infinite 360 degree sphere, if you will.
That Nothingness, that was just outside the pre Big Bang singularity.
That non existence, now has to be in front of all those bullets.
Outside the expanding Universe.
Right?

There has to be nothingness on the other side, in front of the nosecone of the bullet.
Unless the Universe is already there.

Once again you seem to be assuming that the universe cannot expand unless it is expanding "into" something. This is an unnecessary assumption, and no scientific theory makes claims about the existence (or non-existence, for that matter) of an embedding space for the universe.

Once again you seem to be assuming that the universe cannot expand unless it is expanding "into" something. This is an unnecessary assumption, and no scientific theory makes claims about the existence (or non-existence, for that matter) of an embedding space for the universe.

If there is existence there, then the Universe is already there. That is what a Universe is, existence....stuff.

Big Bang implies that there is nothing there, not as you say, something. The Universe is not expanding into something. It has to be expanding into nothing, according to the theory.

For if there is something there, that would be Universe. Hence if there is Universe there when the stuff from the Big Bang got to it, then that defeats the idea of the Big Bang.

So, showing me that there is stuff there, way out there, does not evidence Big Bang. The opposite. If you can show that there is Nothing out there, past the Universe, with some sofar unbuilt device, then you would have proof for Big Bang.

We knew(well we did not actually know, we assumed) there was stuff out there BEFORE anyone conceived of the idea of Big Bang. Showing that there is stuff out there, way out there, does not prove or evidence Big Bang.

I don't know what you mean by "embedding space for the Universe".

Space and time are the Universe.

Unless you are saying that the Big Bang only encompasses matter and energy, and that the Universe is the infinite container into which it is expanding. But that is only saying that the Universe was already there, which is what I am saying(the already there part, not the container part).

Big Bang implies that there is nothing there, not as you say, something. The Universe is not expanding into something. It has to be expanding into nothing, according to the theory.
No, no, no! It is not necessarily expanding into anything, whether "nothing" or "something". It is simply expanding. Period.

Do I need to bring up the surface-of-a-balloon analogy again?

No, no, no! It is not necessarily expanding into anything, whether "nothing" or "something".
If there is existence there, that is Universe.

It is simply expanding. Period.
Thank you! Finally, you understand.

It is simply expanding. PERIOD!

Do I need to bring up the surface-of-a-balloon analogy again?
Depends if it is an accurate model or not.

I don't care what you call it, btw..divide by zero, not anything, nothing, or nonexistence. You can call it anti-Universe, if you like, or even anti-Singularity or anti-infinity. It is your theory, not mine.

"Complexity does not make something artificially created. The computer is one of our greatest contemporary
achievements. Will it seem spectacular compared to the achievements of our grandchildren? Probably not. Your
argument would seem as ridiculous to them as if you presented a water wheel to me today as something that justifies
the existence of God."

>> Complexity is an indication that something has put intelligence and energy into making something more organised
that that its surrounding environment. And once again, a water wheel demonstrates an intelligence to fabricate from
the surrounding environment something which is different and which holds marks of intelligence. It has been designed
for a purpose. It doesnt in itself prove the existence of not of God, but it does show that something other than
random applications of force have been occurring.

"Our contemporary lack of knowledge as a species does not imply the existence of God. We don't understand the big
band or evolution. So what? Early humans didn't understand weather systems or the galaxy but that didn't mean that
Gods actually created hurricanes or a God in fiery chariot pulled the sun across the sky. We now understand the
weather and the galaxy a little better and don't those religious fools look stupid now, using the supernatural to
fill the unknown. Nobody can ever convince me to make the same mistake."

>> But aren't you making the same mistake anyway at the other end of the spectrum? By saying that noone will ever
know anything for sure - so why bother? But if the universe does follow set laws that we can understand, why not try
to discover who the lawmaker is? Hell, our archeologists and paleontologists spend decades sifting coprolite and
broken pottery and bits of stone to find out something about some long gone settlement and yet we can work out
something about those people! What about he who created the laws of the universe?

"The more subtle argument, "I know enough science to know this will always be inconcievable to man, I therefore have
faith in the divine", could be true but typically isn't. In the case in point, we don't actually have enough
knowledge about evolution to say that is impossible to generate human life in perfect conditions on our planet.
Someone might know enough science to guess that human evolution will probably always be inconcievable, but faith is
still being used to bridge the unknown. "

Perhaps not, but what we do have is the law of biogenesis - that life can only come from life. Faith will always be
used to bridge the unknown. I have faith that when I get behind the wheel that the carmaker has designed the car to
operate in a certain way, when I board a plane, that the engineers have ensure that aircraft is airworthy and that
the pilot and co-pilots are trained. Everything you do is based on faith, on trust.

Perhaps not, but what we do have is the law of biogenesis...

Is that a law? What kind of law is it, was it a Bill first. Did it sit on top of Capitol Hill wishing it were a law?

Who wrote it? Pasteur did. But that was long time ago.
Who interprets it now? Um, Creationists interpret it now.

What happens when we break that law?
Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey broke it.
How fair was their trial? Did they get probation or jail time?

I have faith that when I get behind the wheel that the carmaker has designed the car to
operate in a certain way, when I board a plane, that the engineers have ensure that aircraft is airworthy and that
the pilot and co-pilots are trained. Everything you do is based on faith, on trust.

Are we really going to engage is a definitional argument at this stage of the game?

You are using a single word with different meanings as your basis.

Confounding a real discussion with semantic tap shoe dancing?

The Greeks had at least 4 different words for our single word Love.
The Eskimos have 150 different words for snow.

Our language has many words that have two or more meanings, even opposing meanings. That does not mean that the meanings mean the same meaning.

What I mean to say is, Even the word mean, has itself at least 8 different meanings to it.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

You can call it anti-Universe, if you like, or even anti-Singularity or anti-infinity.
What is it that you are trying to describe here? I think you still don't understand.

It would help if you had an understanding of what a manifold is, but I can't seem to find a resource that describes this in a way that is accessible to people without a background in mathematics. For now I guess I'll just quote the opening sentence of the Wikipedia entry, since the formal mathematical definition is not important here, but rather the concept:
A manifold is an abstract mathematical space in which every point has a neighborhood which resembles Euclidean space, but in which the global structure may be more complicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold

So, when I talk about the universe expanding, think of it as a change in how points in the universe are connected, rather than some kind of addition of "new" points.

What is it that you are trying to describe here? I think you still don't understand.
Well, how can one describe nothingness best?

I think a rudimentary model which I thought of when I was like six is something like this.

You exist now. You know that you exist.
Now imagine if your parents had never met.
Think about that notion for a bit, where would you be?
Think about it some more.
How do you describe that?

It would help if you had an understanding of what a manifold is, but I can't seem to find a resource that describes this in a way that is accessible to people without a background in mathematics. For now I guess I'll just quote the opening sentence of the Wikipedia entry, since the formal mathematical definition is not important here, but rather the concept:
I have to confess, my mathematics ended with differential calculus and non linear algebra(which I can only think of symbolically these days). And that was over 20 years ago. But math is like skiing or riding a bike, if I need to get back on it, I usually can. If I don't, I don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold
Interesting.
Edit, it is like a tesseract? But with more points and vertices(and infinite amount)?


So, when I talk about the universe expanding, think of it as a change in how points in the universe are connected, rather than some kind of addition of "new" points.
So like a mesh, with points and vertices. But then you squish it into a tight little ball. That is the singularity.

Now the Big Bang you say, is like rapidly opening up that mesh, like those expanding toys you buy at the Discovery Store. Infinitely. Let me think about that for a bit, if that is accurate of what you are meaning.

Oh, if you know of a fractal 3d modeling program.

That can produce 3d models that look like this

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1268847&member

Easily. Not the greeble'y floor part. The spiral part.

Gimme a link.

Been trying to figure out how he models those things, and I want to make them.

/smile
tyia

This might be of use:
http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/rendering/povfrac/final/

(Huh, I didn't realize POVRay supported certain types of fractals as primitives now. Neat!)

POVRay is free, though you may need to find a front end if you don't like the idea of describing 3D scenes using text files:
http://www.povray.org/

Take a look at the POVRay source files in the first link to see what I mean.

Assuming a tesseract is a 4-dimensional hypercube, I don't see the connection, other than the tesseract being a trivial example of a 4-dimensional manifold, in the same way that a solid cube is a trivial 3-dimensional manifold.

aybe it would make more sense if I say that a (hollow) sphere is a 2-dimensional manifold? Any point on the sphere has an immediate neighborhood that looks like the neighborhood of a point on a 2-dimensional plane. But on a larger scale, this does not accurately describe how points on the sphere are connected. It is, however, possible to describe the large scale structure without ever referring to the interior or exterior of the sphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorema_egregrium
Informally, the theorem says that the curvature of a surface can be determined entirely by measuring angles and distances on the surface, that is, it does not depend on how the surface might be embedded in (3-dimensional) space.

Going back to the entry on manifolds, I want to point out this paragraph as being useful for intuitively understanding manifolds:
The spherical Earth is navigated using flat maps or charts, collected in an atlas. Similarly, a differentiable manifold can be described using mathematical maps, called coordinate charts, collected in a mathematical atlas. It is not generally possible to describe a manifold with just one chart, because the global structure of the manifold is different from the simple structure of the charts. For example, no single flat map can properly represent the entire Earth. When a manifold is constructed from multiple overlapping charts, the regions where they overlap carry information essential to understanding the global structure.


So like a mesh, with points and vertices. But then you squish it into a tight little ball. That is the singularity.

Now the Big Bang you say, is like rapidly opening up that mesh, like those expanding toys you buy at the Discovery Store. Infinitely. Let me think about that for a bit, if that is accurate of what you are meaning.
That's a remarkably good description of what I've been trying to get at, especially once combined with the concept of a manifold.

Assuming a tesseract is a 4-dimensional hypercube, I don't see the connection, other than the tesseract being a trivial example of a 4-dimensional manifold, in the same way that a solid cube is a trivial 3-dimensional manifold.


Because it is a model which might help me visualize what you are describing.

In your manifold, all the vertices appear to us, and are equal length.

If we smush our mesh down to a singularity, then all the distances, say the distance between you and I, and between Alpha Centuari would 'appear' to be the same length(that is to say, almost, but not quite, infinitely small).

The only place for those 'extra lengths' of vertices to go would be into time(or someplace else). They would all still be the same length, just like all the vertices of the tesseract are(which don't appear to us in 3D as equal length).

Spring Theory?

ha

By the way, thanks for the POVray link.

Awfully powerful renderer.
No bloaty overhead, fast.

I need to play with it for a while.

Yup. :) It has to be fast--it was originally designed to work on much slower computers than the ones we use today. I first played around with POVRay (a much earlier DOS version) on a 486 computer about 15 years ago.

Is that a law? What kind of law is it, was it a Bill first. Did it sit on top of Capitol Hill wishing it were a law?

Who wrote it? Pasteur did. But that was long time ago.
Who interprets it now? Um, Creationists interpret it now.

What happens when we break that law?
Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey broke it.
How fair was their trial? Did they get probation or jail time?

The Miller experiment assumed a primordial atmosphere and then used a complex system of traps to isolate amino acids. They are in the wrong amounts (being produced 50/50 left/right handed acids instead of the 90/10 required for life) and without these traps would have eliminated each other in that environment.

not even Miller believes that experiment proved anything now - the primordial atmosphere is now assumed to be different for a start. As to life, well its a long way between amino acids and living cells. It would take a miracle to bridge the gap, no?

Are we really going to engage is a definitional argument at this stage of the game?

You are using a single word with different meanings as your basis.

Confounding a real discussion with semantic tap shoe dancing?

The Greeks had at least 4 different words for our single word Love.
The Eskimos have 150 different words for snow.

Our language has many words that have two or more meanings, even opposing meanings. That does not mean that the meanings mean the same meaning.

What I mean to say is, Even the word mean, has itself at least 8 different meanings to it.


OK, why dont we cut through the theories and discuss words. No, better, just a single word. The Word, The Word who was God, who was with God from the beginning and through whom all things were made. The Word in whom by faith one is promised and guaranteed peace with God and eternal life. Now THAT is a word with real meaning!

SNIP

And even that, that is enough to predict, and to change our world around us.

Big Bang does not even do that. It merely placates and soothes those who require a Creation.

No, but the fact is that very very few people believe that the universe was always existing. Virtually all cosmologists believe that the universe had a starting point. For the universe to have always existed would mean that there would be an infinite amount of time to reach this point in time, ergo, we would never have got to the point where we are writing these exchanges.

If you go beyond this and postulate that the universe is forever collapsing and expanding then you still need a 'first cause'. But once you do this you are outside the realm of time and observation and into philosophy - these other theories cannot be proved or disproved and are therefore outside scientific enquiry.

See how vestigial the myths are stuck in even your psyche?

The Universe can be infinitely old and always expanding. There is nothing showing that it is not, but our old expections and intuitions(many formed by religions).

If light can be both a wave and a particle, both without mass and with mass at the same time, then surely the Universe could be infinitely old and always expanding.

I think the issue becomes conflict with the concept of the conservation of energy. If there is a finite and unchanging amount of energy in the universe which simply shifts form but not amount, expansion must be from some...central time/point/place, etc. A constant and eternal expansion would seem to require the creation of new energy, making the Universe the only perpetual motion machine in all of...well the universe.

You are thinking in an old way, using simple tangible and intuitive models. There is nothing to denote that it has not always been expanding, other than our reason(or religion) which says that something had to have been created and formed by something else.

Your theory seems to be based on...well as much evidence as my belief in a God. ;)

Even removing all theological motivations for it, physics in not intuitive to us without tangible models at this time. I just think that the Big Bang is based on an inaccurate model. For that model is based on the notion that something had to be created, and there is nothing really supporting that notion(besides culture).

Again, I think the concept of a beginning and an end comes not so much from a cultural standpoint (for a good half of the planet believes in a cyclic existance rather than the linear beliefs of the West), but from the notion that if the Universe is expanding and all of the energy which exists in the Universe is already in existance, then it could not be expanding without some very serious problems (gets pictures of loose galaxies at the edges of the universe breaking the universal gravitational (or whatever) pull and drifting off into the void =P).

I can tangibly and intuitively know the effects of Gravity.
I can visualize, in my mind, Einstein's Space Time deflections.

But that still does not leave us with an explanation of what exactly Gravity is. It is a force, I know that. But what causes forces, what are forces, what actually generates them.

The most basic, most intuitive part, of living on this planet, ie you fall down, has no real explanation.

And then all of that Einstein stuff is just like Newton stuff, which is description of behavior, not explanation of what it is.

And even that, that is enough to predict, and to change our world around us.

Big Bang does not even do that. It merely placates and soothes those who require a Creation.

And here Fy'yr begins to argue my point all along lol.

Full circle from the mega-athiest.

You're correct. We know how gravity or space/time works. We don't know whatthey are though. We don't know why they are. We don't know what made them do what they do. We suspect there was a Big Bang...we don't know what preceeded it nor do we know what caused it. We don't even have a concept of what could have preceeded it because science has shown us that space and time are inextricably linked, and thus before there was space there could be no time. We are fairly sure there are black holes, but we don't truly know how they form (yes yes, big star runs out of hydrogen, gravity condences until it forms a black hole...but how is this black hole get so dense as to evidently pierce some unknown veil and reduce all that enters its maw down to a point of singularity so that it ceases to exist except as the radiation which somehow spins off a black hole?).

We have questions and concepts that mankind cannot answer, and may never be able to answer...concepts who's mastery thereof would elevate us beyond our current state of being and make us as Gods compared to our current state, much like we would be unto Gods compared to the humans of 10,000 years ago.

Nothing stipulates that God is or isn't some great nebulous being or force beyond our comprehension. It seems just as, if not more, likely that God(s) were/are nothing more than a race of beings who's ability to manipulate the very foundations of the Universe elevated them to a such a level above even our imaginations as to render them nothing less than Godlike compared to ourselves.

Sounds like God talk, to me.
Not at all. Saying something is unknowable given our current technology is simply facing the reality of our limitations.

Another problem for your eternal-expansion theory is that it does not explain the distribution of elements we observe. Given that stars convert lighter elements into heavier elements at predictable rates, we can make an estimation of the age of the universe based upon the ratios we currently observe. Those ratios not only support but were predicted by the big bang theory.

FWIW, I don't hold the big bang theory as some sort of final answer as to how the universe was created but it is a successful scientific theory in that it has made predictions that have been been tested for and found.

No, no, no! It is not necessarily expanding into anything, whether "nothing" or "something". It is simply expanding. Period.

Do I need to bring up the surface-of-a-balloon analogy again?

The surface of a balloon still exists in something and has an external limit, indeed, the surface of a baloon has two borders, as it were.

The notion of an expanding universe without limit is preposterous and only exists as a mathematical presumption because we define the universe as infinite, when, in fact, it must be finite or else it violates its own laws.

The surface of a balloon still exists in something and has an external limit, indeed, the surface of a balloon has two borders, as it were.
The balloon is just a 3D analogy. There may well be limits but our current science/technology isn't capable of providing insight into things that aren't inside our universe.

The notion of an expanding universe without limit is preposterous and only exists as a mathematical presumption because we define the universe as infinite, when, in fact, it must be finite or else it violates its own laws.
Scientists usually describe our universe as as finite and boundless, not infinite. Like the surface of a balloon, if you go in one direction across the surface long enough you'd return to where you started.

Tell me: 1. Is your body more complicated than the PC you are working on? 2. Could that PC ever 'just' have formed by random changes? Come on now, be honest - it's pretty unlikely, isnt it? That disc drive, with its precision engineering, that CPU with its atom-sized electrical pathways, that blue screen, delivered courteousy of MS...

If this is the case and a computer is obviously artificial, how can it be so difficult to conclude that man himself is a created being?

Because there is nothing supporting that conclusion. Might be a woman. Might be a flying spaghetti monster. Might be the tooth fairy. Might be random occurences beyong what our feeble minds feel like accepting as "likely". Might be a lot of things - but "We do not know" does not translate to "God did it - specifically - YOUR god did it".

Listen, you presumptive wretch, I don't know where you intolerant athiestic ****tards get the notion that a defense of Divinity is a direct assault on science and an exhortation to believe, but stop fitting words into my mouth.

Oi, I just wanted you to stop using the word "theory" incorrectly.

The balloon is just a 3D analogy. There may well be limits but our current science/technology isn't capable of providing insight into things that aren't inside our universe.


Scientists usually describe our universe as as finite and boundless, not infinite. Like the surface of a balloon, if you go in one direction across the surface long enough you'd return to where you started.

If you keep expanding a balloon...eventually it goes pop...

If you have a state of being...a Universe, there must be some definitive subtext which unifies it. Something which says both the Milky Way and Andromeda are both part of this catagory we call a Universe.

If the Universe continues to expand, without boundary, eventually the void between objects which inhabit the Universe would become so great that they would cease to be relational, yes no?

The very concept of a boundless finite seems impossible without invoking bizarre additional dimensions (which I am given to understand some scientists are postulating these days, that our universe exists within a 5th dimension).

As a complete aside...I find it utterly amazing and vastly amusing that we can take a thread from someone being too fat for the death penalty through religious history and its effect on society to a debate on atheism vs faith to a debate on the metaphysical existance of our universe.

Oi, I just wanted you to stop using the word "theory" incorrectly.

I wasn't.

There are a myriad of variations for theory even within the sciences.

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

If you have a state of being...a Universe, there must be some definitive subtext which unifies it. Something which says both the Milky Way and Andromeda are both part of this catagory we call a Universe.
There is such a subtext -- space. I think where most people start having trouble in their understanding is that they believe that the big bang is an explosion that blasted matter out into an existing volume. What current scientific theory suggests is that the big bang actually *created* the volume.

If the Universe continues to expand, without boundary, eventually the void between objects which inhabit the Universe would become so great that they would cease to be relational, yes no?
I'm not sure what you mean here.

The very concept of a boundless finite seems impossible without invoking bizarre additional dimensions (which I am given to understand some scientists are postulating these days, that our universe exists within a 5th dimension).
Heck, some flavors of string theory invoke as many as 26 dimensions. Talk about bizarre!

As a complete aside...I find it utterly amazing and vastly amusing that we can take a thread from someone being too fat for the death penalty through religious history and its effect on society to a debate on atheism vs faith to a debate on the metaphysical existance of our universe.
It's all tied together. If the universe continues to expand then, eventually, we'll all be too fat for the death penalty.

I wasn't.

You were - you were using it as if there was no requirements at all, that any statement could be tossed out there and scientifically labelled a "theory". That is incorrect, sir.

No, but the fact is that very very few people believe that the universe was always existing.
I know that. I have said that.

Virtually all cosmologists believe that the universe had a starting point.
Yup. But I have a brain, and form my own opinions.

For the universe to have always existed would mean that there would be an infinite amount of time to reach this point in time, ergo, we would never have got to the point where we are writing these exchanges.
I don't agree with that conclusion. There is nothing that evidences that conclusion, in theory or in practicum.

If you go beyond this and postulate that the universe is forever collapsing and expanding then you still need a 'first cause'.
That is only one alternative, the Cosma Shiva Theory. I don't think that is a useful idea. It would not matter to us if it were true. A pulsating Universe of collapse and explosion theory would never, as long as we are humans, do us any good to formulate.

Your 'first cause' is still just a remnant of Genesis. It is a theological notion forced onto science(by theologians). Your imposition of that idea is a ludicrous to me, and if I imposed Gravity onto your God. BTW, how much does your God weigh?

See how absurd that sounds to you?

But once you do this you are outside the realm of time and observation and into philosophy - these other theories cannot be proved or disproved and are therefore outside scientific enquiry.
We are discussing philosophy. I stated that pages ago.

If 82 percent of the worlds population have a 'god gene'. Then looking even at scientific phenomenon has to be filtered through it for those of you who have it. Likewise, it is very likely that people in the scientific community irrationally have to resolve this genetic trigger and trait when formulating and proposing their ideas and theories.

It is like a filter on the lens of a camera. If the photographer knows that the filter is there, he can adjust his settings to overcome it; and take a more accurate picture. If the photographer does not know the filter is there, he is going to believe that the world just really looks like just like what he sees through the lens. He would not know that it really looks different.

Go back and read a chapter or two from anything that Darwin wrote. He talks about God all the time(well wrote about it). His books are written completely acknowledging the existence of God, and the original theories were actually formulated out of that acknowledgment.

If the Universe continues to expand, without boundary, eventually the void between objects which inhabit the Universe would become so great that they would cease to be relational, yes no?
If I understand what you mean here, yes, that is one possibility--if the cosmological constant is too large:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

If the cosmological constant is too small:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch

If the cosmological constant is "exactly right" then while the universe would expand forever, the rate of expansion over time would approach zero.

Note that all three scenarios should not be taken as scientific theories, but rather as extrapolation of existing theories; the ultimate fate of the universe is the subject of ongoing research and debate.

If you keep expanding a balloon...eventually it goes pop...
Consider the infinite series:
S[1] = 1
S[2] = 1.5 = 1 + 1/2
S[3] = 1.75 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4
S[4] = 1.875 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8
etc.
Note that each successive term is larger than the previous one, but we can still set an upper limit on S: no element of S is greater than or equal to 2.

The very concept of a boundless finite seems impossible without invoking bizarre additional dimensions (which I am given to understand some scientists are postulating these days, that our universe exists within a 5th dimension).
You can conceptualize curved 4-dimensional spacetime as some kind of structure inside a "flat" 5-dimensional embedding space. However, that does not make the embedding space _necessary_--the structure of spacetime can be fully described in terms of measurements within the 4-dimensional structure.

Again imagine the surface of a sphere, as a 2-dimensional analog to our universe. A hypothetical 3-dimensional space for that surface to exist in gives us a convenient way to describe the surface (as that of a sphere), but that does not necessarily mean that a 3-dimensional space must exist to contain the 2-dimensional surface. The curvature of the surface, and the distances between points on the surface (as measured without leaving the surface), are intrinsic properties that do not require an embedding space.

As a complete aside...I find it utterly amazing and vastly amusing that we can take a thread from someone being too fat for the death penalty through religious history and its effect on society to a debate on atheism vs faith to a debate on the metaphysical existance of our universe.
I like the direction the thread has taken. It gives me a use for a philosophy course I took in college, beyond fulfilling humanities requirements (and yes, I got humanities credit for studying this stuff). :P

There are a myriad of variations for theory even within the sciences.
Perhaps, but there are still narrow restrictions on the use of the word "theory" in a scientific context.

Perhaps, but there are still narrow restrictions on the use of the word "theory" in a scientific context.
A scientific context would imply that the theory was formulated through the application of the scientific method.

On a side note, Einstein himself raised the possibility of a finite but unbounded universe:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html
(a translation of Einstein's "Relativity: The Special and General Theory")

I can tangibly and intuitively know the effects of Gravity.
I can visualize, in my mind, Einstein's Space Time deflections.

But that still does not leave us with an explanation of what exactly Gravity is. It is a force, I know that. But what causes forces, what are forces, what actually generates them.According to Einstein, gravity isn't a force, but an effect caused by a mass warping spacetime. Objects respond to the effect by following the resulting curvature of spacetime.

Imagine dropping a ball into the middle of a flat, stretched out net. The ball would sink in the middle of the net, causing a curvature downwards. Now, imagine a smaller ball rolling by on the net. It would respond to this curvature by changing its direction and rolling around the bigger ball. That's a description of what causes gravity -- what it "is" -- not just how big the effect is.

It sounds as though you're resisting any explanation that doesn't involve an actor pulling the strings of the Universe. That's a very narrow-minded, religious zealot type view.Big Bang does not even do that. It merely placates and soothes those who require a Creation.The Big Bang is simply <i>a</i> creation, not necessarily <i>the</i> creation in the religious sense.

According to Einstein, gravity isn't a force, but an effect caused by a mass warping spacetime. Objects respond to the effect by following the resulting curvature of spacetime.

I don't care what you call it, he still does not explain what it is. A force, some thing, is warping space time.

Imagine dropping a ball into the middle of a flat, stretched out net. The ball would sink in the middle of the net, causing a curvature downwards. Now, imagine a smaller ball rolling by on the net. It would respond to this curvature by changing its direction and rolling around the bigger ball. That's a description of what causes gravity -- what it "is" -- not just how big the effect is.
I am quite aware of that model.

It sounds as though you're resisting any explanation that doesn't involve an actor pulling the strings of the Universe. That's a very narrow-minded, religious zealot type view.The Big Bang is simply <i>a</i> creation, not necessarily <i>the</i> creation in the religious sense.
y point is that there is a drive, and instinct for this. And no, I am resisting any notion that there is some actor pulling strings.

You may call it a cultural aspect if you like. In the end, most people appear to have it, so whether it is innate or just learned does not make any difference to this minute point in this big discussion. Every culture and religion has some form of Creation myth at the beginning. Whether it is some goddess squirting breast milk out across the sky, or that we are just the dream of some sleeping reposed god, they all have it.

Which leads to the main point, that if you are expecting a creation, any creation,,,then you will find it in religion, of course; and you will impose the idea of creation on science.

If I stand here in Lodi, California and I drop a steel ball, I expect it to fall. If I drive to San Francisco, because you invited me to have a couple belts of Scotch with you, and I drop the steel ball, I expect it to fall.

I am expecting it to fall, because that is what I know. It is tangible. But if I book a trip on the Vomit Comet and drop the steel ball, it will not fall(well half the time it won't). It will go against my intuition, just like the idea of no creation appears to be with most people, even scientists and cosmologists.

I don't care what you call it, he still does not explain what it is. A force, some thing, is warping space time.Mass is warping it. I don't see what you're getting at here (assuming you are, in fact, getting at something).Which leads to the main point, that if you are expecting a creation, any creation,,,then you will find it in religion, of course; and you will impose the idea of creation on science.We conclude it because that's the most likely explanation, based on the evidence, not because it's what we expect.

Obviously we can only explain new things by extrapolating from laws we understand. Otherwise, there would be little point to science.

If you have an alternative explanation, and other evidence to support it, and can show that cultural bias is skewing opinion in favor of the big bang theory, please do so. So far, though, you've just provided speculation, double-talk, and random incongruent statements.

Mass is warping it. I don't see what you're getting at here (assuming you are, in fact, getting at something).
Again, then that is just an unexplained quality of mass. The problem does not go away just because you shift where the force is coming from.

We conclude it because that's the most likely explanation, based on the evidence, not because it's what we expect.
You still have not said what it is.

Obviously we can only explain new things by extrapolating from laws we understand. Otherwise, there would be little point to science.
We can form new laws. Ones that are more accurate, that is the point of science.

If you have an alternative explanation, and other evidence to support it, and can show that cultural bias is skewing opinion in favor of the big bang theory, please do so. So far, though, you've just provided speculation, double-talk, and random incongruent statements.
I am saying that YOU, Tudamorf,(considering your general views on religion) want there to be a creation.
Without a shred of proof that there was one.
Now you tell me that you believe there was a creation, because it is the only possibility that makes sense to you. But of course you would say that, you share what I am talking about(the need for some creation).


Let me see if I can explain it a different and simple way.

I say "Everyone(but me and a few other people) have a need for a creation"
You say, "Bogus theory"

I say "There was no creation"
You say "Bogus theory, there was a creation, everyone knows there was a creation"

You can't see this?

I can change the order on that conversation, and it does not change either(well with a minor addition for continuity).

I say "There was no creation"
You say "Bogus theory, there was a creation, everyone knows there was a creation"

I say "Well, it is equally plausible that people innately need a creation"
You say, "Bogus Theory"
I say "Even when you, yourself, have, and require a creation"
You say, "Well of course, everyone knows there was a creation"

Then I say, "See, even you have it"(and think to myself, "and you don't even realize it")




The only proof that there was a Big Bang, the only evidence is that the Universe is expanding. I am sorry, but I able to wrap my mind around an idea that is not intuitive; that is to say, that it has always been expanding and will always expand. For that is just as plausible(to me and a few others) as that it was created(which fits the rest of you all).

Which ends this post, even though the point is circular.

You might as well ask why the universe has any of its apparently fundamental properties, such as why the fine-structure constant has the value that it does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant

ass/energy warps spacetime. Why? That's just one of its properties; I don't think there can be a proper answer as to "why". You might as well ask why there is something rather than nothing.

The only proof that there was a Big Bang, the only evidence is that the Universe is expanding.
/sigh

I've told you in this thread and I've told you in past threads that that is *not* the only evidence which supports the big bang theory. No matter how many times you make the claim you're still dead wrong.

Saying that there is matter(or some thing) over there generating radiation, is not proof of Big Bang.

y "Theory of No Creation" predicts the very same thing.

It even predicts that there are going to be more stuff like that discovered.

When we discover this more stuff, I get to say to you then,,,"See, I told you so, this proves my theory, QED". ha.

y theory predicts ossilating radiations. And single frequency radiations.
Dark matter, cold matter, warm matter, bright matter.
It predicts even the discovery of new forces, maybe we might even evidence Anti-Entropy, one day.

Saying that there is matter(or some thing) over there generating radiation, is not proof of Big Bang.
That's not what the CBR evidence is saying. Heck, even if you ignore the CBR evidence, how does your perpetual-expansion theory address the ratio of heavier/lighter elements we've observed? The big bang theory predicted this quite nicely.

What has your theory predicted?

Of course it's not proof. In science, there can be no proof, only evidence.

However, you need to remember that the theory _predicted_ it (its existence and several properties) before it was observed. Thus it counts as experimental evidence in support of the theory.

I am sorry, but I able to wrap my mind around an idea that is not intuitive; that is to say, that it has always been expanding and will always expand. For that is just as plausible(to me and a few others) as that it was created(which fits the rest of you all).Is there <b>evidence</b> supporting your explanation? There is <b>evidence</b> supporting the popular theory; that's why it's popular.

We're not arguing speculative nonsense like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, where any explanation goes. We're taking the explanation that has the best evidence behind it.

I don't believe there <b>has</b> to be a creation. Neither do all scientists. Just look at string theory's explanation as to the intersection of universe membranes; it's as far removed from the religious concept of creation as you can get.

I'm also not a "believer" in the big bang theory in the sense that I accept it as absolutely true. It's just the current best explanation. I have little doubt that in the future, the explanation will either be refuted, compartmentalized into a special case, or at the very least greatly refined.You still have not said what it is.You may be stuck in some recursive definitional loop, but I'm not. To me, explaining how elements of the Universe interact and why is also an explanation of what the Universe "is".

Because there is nothing supporting that conclusion. Might be a woman. Might be a flying spaghetti monster. Might be the tooth fairy. Might be random occurences beyong what our feeble minds feel like accepting as "likely". Might be a lot of things - but "We do not know" does not translate to "God did it - specifically - YOUR god did it".

But there is something supporting that conclusion. Archeologists can tell (or have a reasoned guess) that a stone has been carved or modified by man, and not by the working of natural forces. If we have an accepted line of scientific inquiry that distinguishes between artificial modification and non-artificial, why is it so difficult to apply it to the universe in which we live?

The reason is simply that it would imply a duty to someone or something that created us. And that is why evolutionistic atheism is more comfortable for some.

At the end of the day, from a strictly scientific standpoint, our short lives here are unaffected by whether the universe was created or not. The sun will rise and set, the earth will orbit and the galaxies rotate, off on their age-long dance. What is affected is our hope beyond death - if there be one.

SNIP

That is only one alternative, the Cosma Shiva Theory. I don't think that is a useful idea. It would not matter to us if it were true. A pulsating Universe of collapse and explosion theory would never, as long as we are humans, do us any good to formulate.

Your 'first cause' is still just a remnant of Genesis. It is a theological notion forced onto science(by theologians). Your imposition of that idea is a ludicrous to me, and if I imposed Gravity onto your God. BTW, how much does your God weigh?

See how absurd that sounds to you?

SNIP

If 82 percent of the worlds population have a 'god gene'. Then looking even at scientific phenomenon has to be filtered through it for those of you who have it. Likewise, it is very likely that people in the scientific community irrationally have to resolve this genetic trigger and trait when formulating and proposing their ideas and theories.

It is like a filter on the lens of a camera. If the photographer knows that the filter is there, he can adjust his settings to overcome it; and take a more accurate picture. If the photographer does not know the filter is there, he is going to believe that the world just really looks like just like what he sees through the lens. He would not know that it really looks different.

Go back and read a chapter or two from anything that Darwin wrote. He talks about God all the time(well wrote about it). His books are written completely acknowledging the existence of God, and the original theories were actually formulated out of that acknowledgment.

OK, how did we get here then? Science can never answer that because we cannot observe and replicate it.

As to how much God weighs, let's assume that we are referring to the Christian God and I will tell you how much God weighs when you tell me how much Jesus weighed.

Darwin's books will invariably refer to God. He was raised in a country where the church was institutionalised, so this should not be surprising.

As for the God gene and its interference or discolouration of a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I can only reply that (i) the existence of a god gene is theoretical and (ii) every scientist will interpret the data to favourably fit their own pet theories. Its just human nature.

Science proceeded fastest in the western world because the judeo-christian worldview assumed a world that was logically ordered and structured and that as created beings we could examine the master's handiwork. Granted, a number of other things needed to come together first - social cohesion, educational facilities, a minimum level of technology etc, but other nations had these institutions as well but never came anywhere near to what the West has achieved from 1800 onwards.

And if you don't believe me you can go to India where the life of a cow is worth more than the life of a man.

If we have an accepted line of scientific inquiry that distinguishes between artificial modification and non-artificial, why is it so difficult to apply it to the universe in which we live?
We have zero knowledge of the properties of this hypothetical creator; without knowing the nature of this creator, I don't see a reasonable way to look for evidence of the creator's actions.

We _do_ have quite a bit of knowledge about humans, on the other hand.

But there is something supporting that conclusion.

Which conclusion are you refering to here? Aidon's?

Archeologists can tell (or have a reasoned guess) that a stone has been carved or modified by man, and not by the working of natural forces. If we have an accepted line of scientific inquiry that distinguishes between artificial modification and non-artificial, why is it so difficult to apply it to the universe in which we live?

Sure, go ahead. Formulate a hypothesis and back it up with evidence. I'm all ears. (Well, technically here on the forum I guess I'm all eyes.)

The reason is simply that it would imply a duty to someone or something that created us. And that is why evolutionistic atheism is more comfortable for some.

Let's cut a deal - I don't tell you how you feel and why you feel that way, and you extend the same curtesey to me.

evolutionistic atheism? That's a new one on me. So if you believe in evolution you're suggesting one is an atheist?

I'm reading a really good book, "The Science of Harry Potter", and it explains superstitious behavior very nicely. Basically our brains are wired for detecting patterns. We're really good at it. So good we find patterns where there really aren't any. For instance we develop superstititions about timed events. You put someone in a room where something good happens every 15 minutes, they start to believe that their actions caused the good thing to happen, so they repeat the action over and over like a ritual. I can definitely see how that tendency translates into ritual behavior about the seasons and food availability. Plus the positive results tend to reinforce the behavior much more than negative results. Before you know it the behavior has spread into a religion.

So does this translate into a God gene? Perhaps. Maybe some people analyze things differently and they come to realize the "good thing" happens or doesn't happen regardless of their input to the "system".

So does this translate into a God gene? Perhaps. Maybe some people analyze things differently and they come to realize the "good thing" happens or doesn't happen regardless of their input to the "system".

I was finally forced into taking this Sociology class for my degree.

At the beginning of the semester I asked two questions(well I have asked a lot of questions) of the 60 odd students who comprised the class makeup.

I asked

Raise your hand if you would date a person who was Black(to the white students) and who was White(to the black students).
Almost all of the class raised their hands.

I then asked

Raise your hand if you would date an atheist.
4 students(including me) raised their hands.

I asked DATE, not breed with.
If for thousands of generations this selection process repeated itself, that is to say that women only bred with males who showed interest in some form of spirituality or god, I think you might just end up with the results of 56 people in a room of 60 who would not date an atheist.

aybe I should re-look up that British god gene thing.

You were - you were using it as if there was no requirements at all, that any statement could be tossed out there and scientifically labelled a "theory". That is incorrect, sir.

If that is what you got, then you misinterprited what I was saying.

The big bang is a theory. Its an accepted theory. Its the consensus. It is our best guess. It is not certain, though.

We have no actual proof that it happened. We infer that it happened because of cosmic background radiation which fits in with some mathematical model somewhere...but we have no proof and in the end there have been many a mathematical models which worked perfectly..and turned out to be erroneous.

That is what I mean by rank mathematical speculation, as it were. That is what I mean by theories.

If I understand what you mean here, yes, that is one possibility--if the cosmological constant is too large:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

If the cosmological constant is too small:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch

If the cosmological constant is "exactly right" then while the universe would expand forever, the rate of expansion over time would approach zero.

Note that all three scenarios should not be taken as scientific theories, but rather as extrapolation of existing theories; the ultimate fate of the universe is the subject of ongoing research and debate.


Consider the infinite series:
S[1] = 1
S[2] = 1.5 = 1 + 1/2
S[3] = 1.75 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4
S[4] = 1.875 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8
etc.
Note that each successive term is larger than the previous one, but we can still set an upper limit on S: no element of S is greater than or equal to 2.

So essentially you're suggesting that the universe is playing the "move half the distance to point B" game? If that is the case, then for all practicality, eventually, sometime some trillions of years in the future, perhaps, the universe will for all intents stop expanding as its expansion is measured in sub atomic spacial increments...which returns to the point of...what is beyond? Vaccuum? Void? Quintessence? Even nothingness is something. What be there? =P

You can conceptualize curved 4-dimensional spacetime as some kind of structure inside a "flat" 5-dimensional embedding space. However, that does not make the embedding space _necessary_--the structure of spacetime can be fully described in terms of measurements within the 4-dimensional structure.

If the first three dimensions are related to space...and the universe exists in four dimensions (space/time), thus the universe has space...where does it have its space? I exist in all four dimensions as well and I certainly take up space.

Again imagine the surface of a sphere, as a 2-dimensional analog to our universe. A hypothetical 3-dimensional space for that surface to exist in gives us a convenient way to describe the surface (as that of a sphere), but that does not necessarily mean that a 3-dimensional space must exist to contain the 2-dimensional surface. The curvature of the surface, and the distances between points on the surface (as measured without leaving the surface), are intrinsic properties that do not require an embedding space.

But, without negative space (to borrow a term from the Arts), how would anyone ever differentiate the positive space, as it were? It makes no sense.

As soon as you attribute speed, velocity, rate of expansion, etc. to the universe it implies there is something in which the universe is moving or expanding. If the universe is all encompassing...it would not expand for it would have no place to expand for it would be everyplace already.


I like the direction the thread has taken. It gives me a use for a philosophy course I took in college, beyond fulfilling humanities requirements (and yes, I got humanities credit for studying this stuff). :P[/QUOTE]

As soon as you attribute speed, velocity, rate of expansion, etc. to the universe it implies there is something in which the universe is moving or expanding. If the universe is all encompassing...it would not expand for it would have no place to expand for it would be everyplace already.

The speed(?) and size of the universe can be measured relative to its component parts, or visa versa. You do not need to look from outside the universe (thankfully) to measure how we are moving in relation to the rest of the universe. I expect we take our measurements relative to our own planet.

The universe can possibly define its own space. There is no evidence to suggest it is displacing or occupying anything. It is quite possible that we will never be able to measure to the very edge of our universe, let alone anything beyond it. It is quite possibly that we will never find anything from beyond the edge of the universe that has any measurable impact inside our universe. The very concept of something being outside our universe could be immaterial or irrelevant, even if it remains intruiging.

To put it another way, if I stood near the edge of the universe and threw a rock "outside" the universe, has the universe expanded to include the rock, is the rock inside another universe, does the rock cease to exist, does the rock exist in its own little universe, or, or .... well any other answers?

which returns to the point of...what is beyond? Vaccuum? Void? Quintessence? Even nothingness is something. What be there? =P
The model that most cosmologists use to help people understand the universe is the surface of a balloon. If the balloon expands all points on the balloon move away from each other but there is no edge. Moving in any direction along the surface for long enough will return you to where you started.

Science can only speculate about things that aren't in our universe because, without being able to interact with things outside the universe, there is no way to apply the scientific method.

So essentially you're suggesting that the universe is playing the "move half the distance to point B" game? If that is the case, then for all practicality, eventually, sometime some trillions of years in the future, perhaps, the universe will for all intents stop expanding as its expansion is measured in sub atomic spacial increments...which returns to the point of...what is beyond? Vaccuum? Void? Quintessence? Even nothingness is something. What be there? =P
I'm not suggesting that it is. I only raised it as a possibility in response to:
If you keep expanding a balloon...eventually it goes pop...
...to point out that it is _possible_ for the universe to expand forever and yet never grow beyond some finite size.

If the first three dimensions are related to space...and the universe exists in four dimensions (space/time), thus the universe has space...where does it have its space? I exist in all four dimensions as well and I certainly take up space.
I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "where does it have its space"?

But, without negative space (to borrow a term from the Arts), how would anyone ever differentiate the positive space, as it were? It makes no sense.
Again I don't understand the question. I have a vague idea of what "negative space" and "positive space" are in art, but I don't see how they apply here.

As soon as you attribute speed, velocity, rate of expansion, etc. to the universe it implies there is something in which the universe is moving or expanding. If the universe is all encompassing...it would not expand for it would have no place to expand for it would be everyplace already.
Not necessarily, and that's the point that I'm trying to get across. The "shape" of the universe is an intrinsic property that can be fully defined without referring to anything "outside" the universe (a higher dimensional embedding space).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties_(philosophy)

Defining the shape (for four-dimensional spacetime) involves this, according to general relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor

As a rough analogy, think of how knowing the second derivative of a real-valued function gives you most of the information about the "shape" of that function:

f''(x) = 12x^2 - 24x
f'(x) = 4x^3 - 12x^2 + (c_1)
f(x) = x^4 - 4x^3 + (c_1)x + (c_2)

If that is what you got, then you misinterprited what I was saying.

I did, yes - from this, which is what I originally quoted and replied to:

There is no evidence behind a great number of scientific theories, especially regarding the universe itself. Its all based on speculative mathematics. That is why they are called theories.

The big bang is a theory. Its an accepted theory. Its the consensus. It is our best guess. It is not certain, though.

We have no actual proof that it happened.

Of course not, there is no such thing as proof in science. There's plenty of evidence that backs the theory up however. If it weren't, it wouldn't be called a theory, but a hypothesis.

That is what I mean by rank mathematical speculation, as it were. That is what I mean by theories.

Aye, theories can be proven wrong. It's one of the base requirements for being a theory (or a hypothesis) in the first place - it has to be possible to disprove it. Statements which cannot, by their nature, be tested and tossed out as incorrect have no place in the natural sciences.

If for thousands of generations this selection process repeated itself, that is to say that women only bred with males who showed interest in some form of spirituality or god, I think you might just end up with the results of 56 people in a room of 60 who would not date an atheist.

Then again, I bet you'd get a totally different reply had you asked the same question in a sociology class in a different culture. If you accept that possibility, it's easy to conclude that your observations are based on culture, not genes. (At least not genes which are present in all humans regardless)

it's easy to conclude that your observations are based on culture, not genes.

Well, it is entirely plausible that the fact that we even have culture is a genetic trait.

If I look at a band of naked African women hunched around bushes and gibber jabbering.

And if I look at 4 women around a table in NYC in a cafe, jibber jabbering.

One you might see on the Discovery Channel, the other in Sex in the City, of course.

One could argue that their culture is entirely different. Another could argue that the process is serving the exact same purpose, and the differences are mere affectations.

82 percent of the population of the planet believes in some form of higher god or goddess(or even human personifications of gods). That is an awful lot of people, who have never met each other, let alone share a culture, and they all have the same trait.

Honestly, I would agree with you completely, if you could provide me with an intact human culture which is honestly atheist(without coercion of course). That is to say, that no members of that group have no spirituality nor belief in a higher power. I have never seen one.

Honestly, I would agree with you completely, if you could provide me with an intact human culture which is honestly atheist(without coercion of course). That is to say, that no members of that group have no spirituality nor belief in a higher power. I have never seen one.

Why on earth would such a culture be needed in order for you to agree with me? Wouldn't it be enough if I asked my sociology class the same two questions and my results were vastly different from yours?

82 percent of the population of the planet believes in some form of higher god or goddess(or even human personifications of gods). That is an awful lot of people, who have never met each other, let alone share a culture, and they all have the same trait.You forget that 60,000 years ago, those people were all living in Africa, and just a few communities ventured out into the rest of the world to populate it. So they <i>did</i> know each other and share a culture.

If those few communities believed in god(s), then it's not surprising that their descendants carried the belief in one way or another.

Had those people been atheists, we'd probably have no concept of god(s) in today's world.

Why on earth would such a culture be needed in order for you to agree with me? Wouldn't it be enough if I asked my sociology class the same two questions and my results were vastly different from yours?

Ask them. Ask all your friends.

I would like to hear the results.

You forget that 60,000 years ago, those people were all living in Africa, and just a few communities ventured out into the rest of the world to populate it. So they <i>did</i> know each other and share a culture.

If those few communities believed in god(s), then it's not surprising that their descendants carried the belief in one way or another.

Had those people been atheists, we'd probably have no concept of god(s) in today's world.

That is my point, even 60,000 years is more than enough time to turn a wolf into a chihuahua.

I am not forgetting anything, 60,000 years is 30,000 generations(more than really, if you consider menstruation occurs at age 13 on average).

That is my point, even 60,000 years is more than enough time to turn a wolf into a chihuahua.So what?I am not forgetting anything, 60,000 years is 30,000 generations(more than really, if you consider menstruation occurs at age 13 on average).So what?

If the small community that founded most of today's humans believed in deities, it's not surprising that that belief was passed on through the generations. It's not as if they had some important reason <i>not</i> to pass it on: it helped control societies, comfort humans' fear of the unknown, and bond people through shared cultural heritage.

Because if a behavior is systemic(or innate), even though entirely complex...

It can be predicted.

Which leads to a myriad of opportunities.

Because if a behavior is systemic(or innate), even though entirely complex...Take a step back. You haven't shown that it <i>is</i> innate.

The only reason children today believe in god(s) is that their parents, peers, and society in general brainwash them to believe in such god(s).

Raise a child in an atheist society, and you'll get an atheist child.

Countries with large percentages of atheists (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html) (e.g., Scandinavian and Asian countries) remain that way, because there is less brainwashing.

As usual, you're so ethnocentric you can't see an inch past your nose. Just because Americans are a bunch of crazed religious zealots doesn't mean all humans are, or are genetically programmed to be.

Well, that makes sense. My ancestors were Scandinavian.





ps. That is a joke, btw.

Ask them. Ask all your friends.

I would like to hear the results.

The question "would you date an atheist?" is just as far-fetched and mind-boggling as "Do you own a gun?" over on our side of the pond :)

What is interesting is when you have a very secular population and then a huge influx of extremely religious people, like the Muslims in Holland. It was all working out pretty well until the Muslims decided to start to murder people that poked at their religion.

Does Norway have much immigration from the Middle East or Africa like other parts of Europe?

What is interesting is when you have a very secular population and then a huge influx of extremely religious people, like the Muslims in Holland. It was all working out pretty well until the Muslims decided to start to murder people that poked at their religion.

Does Norway have much immigration from the Middle East or Africa like other parts of Europe?

Nothing like the old empiralistic nations, for obvious reasons. According to CIA world fact book*, if looking at religion alone (assuming a whole lot when it comes to ethnicity vs religion, but it's the closest I got without more extensive research) it's about 1.8% muslim and 8.1% "other" ("other" being neither christian nor muslim), compared to Holland's 5.5% and 2.4%. Add "muslim" and "other" and you end up around the same for the two nations.

*(pet peeve)The statistics are madly incorrect due to our state church principle, which blatantly assumes that unless you're a member of some other religious community, you're protestant by definition. This is not the fault of the world fact book, but of the way the statistics are gathered locally here in Norway.

(I also doubt you can say that "the muslims in Holland" decided to go on some murderous rampage. At least not with a higher degree of correctness than you if you said that "the christians in the USA" decided to start a lill fire in Waco a few years back.)