James Randi.
James Randi.
Yeah, they sure like to fellate each other - doesn't make their scientific research and discoveries any less valid, though.
Hate to burst your bubble, but materialism is nature. It is animalistic nature to achieve ownership; material possessions are an indication of power. Every single species on the planet has some form of heirarchy, determined by power - either by exchange, consumption or collection of some currency, or by display or threat of force. That is materialism, and that is nature.
Well put
This is one of the most despicable arguments that a defense attorney always puts up to argue FOR criminal. I'll give you an example: when a criminal becomes "a result of their environment" that means that everyone who's in a worse situation would be a worse criminal right? But that's not true. Sure we are shaped by our environment but human psychology isn't completely manipulated by it. As one prosecutor said in the Dalmer case: Sir, there are millions who are worse off than you are and you expect me to feel sorry for you because ur environment caused your killings? Therefore we are not directly manipulated by our environment this is because we have the intelligence to go against our instincts for progress (or at least what we think is progress).
Yes, we don't have control over our intelligence, but you are not listening when I say that intelligence controls our behavior in ways that will go against our instincts. That's free will. Animals do not have free will because their actions are usually controlled by instinct and emotion. But because we have the ability assess the situation and act according to what we think is best not how we feel this is free will. This is a direct result of our intelligence because we are so developed mentally compared to other animals. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about free will unless a being that cannot understand the concept of responsibility and choices actually starts to act against basic tendencies of that being. Read a psychology textbook, the organic mind is not just some simple machine that follows a simple program. Our mind mechanism is dictated by many things but these are only tendencies (such as you egotistical ideals that you are actually supernatural.) But reason, which in itself is also a mechanism but is also a variable, can counter that mainly because our minds are developed to have the capacity of reason. This is hardly supernatural and as I've stated earlier it WILL be supernatural if a being that cannot understand the concept of choices and responsibility starts acting out of it's own tendencies when there's no evidence physically that it can (Which is obviously not us).
Please read my post, I'm blue in the face (no pun intended :tilt
repeating this over and over again. If you have an argument addressing it please ADDRESS IT DIRECTLY.Nice one Liz.
I dig your frustration. Just because so-called "materialists" believe we're evolved animals and not divinely blessed god-pets, many religionists take this as some kind of admission that we're mere slaves to our biochemistry and try to use it as a weapon in debates. As I see it, "free will" is just a convenient linguistic term to describe the ability to make an informed decision within the limits of nature (i.e. an ape can't simply choose to instantly be able to speak Dog, breathe underwater or fly to Mars unassisted) or their learned personal moral values (i.e. I won't kill you because I don't think it's right, not because of "thou shalt not..." carved in stone). Humans have evolved this ability to make informed decisions to a higher degree than their fellow creatures because of our greater ability to receive, analyse and act upon information. There's nothing to suggest we are the pinnacle of Earthly evolution either, we could merely be a sub-branch of an evolutionary path that could deviate and follow many, many tangents for another billion years or so until our beloved sun goes nova and vaporises this planet. That may sound awfully fatalistic and even nihilistic but I think it's completely awesome, and I only wish I could depend on an afterlife because watching a sun implode in real-time would be the most awesome thing in the universe ever.
But it's no surprise that some religious people have problems surrounding the origin of free will - look at what happened to Adam & Eve when they used theirs and ate the fruit that the talking snake offered them - they got expelled from Paradise & sentenced to death, and (apparently) everyone since then has been born a sinner, destined for hell after a life of murder & rape & depravity unless we accept that God decided to be born, via virgin, as a human and have himself executed to save us all ... from his righteous anger - anger which was brought about by his creation using their god-given free will. If free will is indeed a divine gift, then God, being omni-everything, should have known he was handing his beloved creation the one thing that would damn them all, until such time as he chose to have himself killed to fix it. Why didn't he tell Adam & Eve the power of what he'd given them or what the full consequences of using it would be? Well, perhaps he's not as all-loving and all-forgiving as people think, and merely wanted humanity to be totally dependent on him & his whims forever. Sounds more like a supergalactic attention-seeking emo kid to me.
I dig your frustration. Just because so-called "materialists" believe we're evolved animals and not divinely blessed god-pets, many religionists take this as some kind of admission that we're mere slaves to our biochemistry and try to use it as a weapon in debates. As I see it, "free will" is just a convenient linguistic term to describe the ability to make an informed decision within the limits of nature (i.e. an ape can't simply choose to instantly be able to speak Dog, breathe underwater or fly to Mars unassisted) or their learned personal moral values (i.e. I won't kill you because I don't think it's right, not because of "thou shalt not..." carved in stone). Humans have evolved this ability to make informed decisions to a higher degree than their fellow creatures because of our greater ability to receive, analyse and act upon information. There's nothing to suggest we are the pinnacle of Earthly evolution either, we could merely be a sub-branch of an evolutionary path that could deviate and follow many, many tangents for another billion years or so until our beloved sun goes nova and vaporises this planet. That may sound awfully fatalistic and even nihilistic but I think it's completely awesome, and I only wish I could depend on an afterlife because watching a sun implode in real-time would be the most awesome thing in the universe ever.
But it's no surprise that some religious people have problems surrounding the origin of free will - look at what happened to Adam & Eve when they used theirs and ate the fruit that the talking snake offered them - they got expelled from Paradise & sentenced to death, and (apparently) everyone since then has been born a sinner, destined for hell after a life of murder & rape & depravity unless we accept that God decided to be born, via virgin, as a human and have himself executed to save us all ... from his righteous anger - anger which was brought about by his creation using their god-given free will. If free will is indeed a divine gift, then God, being omni-everything, should have known he was handing his beloved creation the one thing that would damn them all, until such time as he chose to have himself killed to fix it. Why didn't he tell Adam & Eve the power of what he'd given them or what the full consequences of using it would be? Well, perhaps he's not as all-loving and all-forgiving as people think, and merely wanted humanity to be totally dependent on him & his whims forever. Sounds more like a supergalactic attention-seeking emo kid to me.
sorry to burst your bubble there but for a nova the sun would have to be part of a binary system and unless im horribly wrong its a good bit too small for a supernova
all youd get to see is a red giant which would be a real drag to watch in real time
Fair cop, astronomy's not my strong point. I do believe supernovae can happen with or without a binary system though - ol' man wiki states that one kind occurs when one star of a binary pair accumulates matter from its mate to the extent that its core temperature raises high enough to ignite carbon fusion, while the other kind of supernova happens when an ageing massive star's core ceases to produce energy through fusion and collapses, forming a neutron star or a black hole.
Our sun might not be a supernova candidate but if I had an eternal afterlife to look forward to, I could go find a massive star and watch that implode. Who wouldn't want to spend eternity watching stuff like black holes being born?
Our sun might not be a supernova candidate but if I had an eternal afterlife to look forward to, I could go find a massive star and watch that implode. Who wouldn't want to spend eternity watching stuff like black holes being born?
The funny thing is that even the "believers" with their "supernatural free will" have NO free will at all when put in a real threat to life situation that triggers the fight/flight reaction, just like the rest of us.
Even the most passive non violent of us will use any weapon at hand and do what is takes to stay alive.
Anyone that believe they will NEVER kill no matter what is just fooling themselves. It is why self defense is a valid claim in court to justify killing someone. Sometimes you just have no choice and the courts accept that
Just shows how un-supernatural we are, just animals like the rest of the animal kingdom
Even the most passive non violent of us will use any weapon at hand and do what is takes to stay alive.
Anyone that believe they will NEVER kill no matter what is just fooling themselves. It is why self defense is a valid claim in court to justify killing someone. Sometimes you just have no choice and the courts accept that
Just shows how un-supernatural we are, just animals like the rest of the animal kingdom
The question of whether there is "free will," continues to be debated by philosophers. A significant problem with the debate, is that it is difficult to define quite what is meant by the term "free will."
The nervous system (including the brain) is generally regarded as deterministic (although not necessarily predictable, of course). Its operating structures (neurons) are cells that are specialized for communication, and they simply either produce a communicating effect, or do not (all, or nothing). What causes a neuron to communicate ("fire," eventually ejecting a neurotransmitter chemical from the far-end of its axon fiber), is dependent upon whether it is stimulated or not. What stimulates it, is either a sensory neuron, which responds to some physical condition, or an interneuron in a network (a more complex, and thus intelligent, nervous system is basically characterized by a greater number of interneurons).
The brain consists of a very complicated network of inter-connected neurons. And whether a particular neuron, in the network, "fires," is the result of neurotransmitters binding to it, after having been produced by other neurons connected to it - some neurotransmitters stimulate it to fire, and others inhibit it from firing; the neuron "decides" whether to fire, as a result of evaluating the net effect of stimulus/inhibition acting upon it.
So, this is quite deterministic - assuming that the chemical reactions (and physical, sensory stimuli) that are involved, are deterministic. Since the development of quantum mechanics, this is a more complicated consideration. More to the point, such a description of how the brain operates, does not, in itself, explain consciousness and conscious will.
Neuroscientist John Eccles proposed, not very long ago, that the brain is sort of analogous to a radio receiver - being conscious because of being associated with some sort of transmitting, "spiritual" realm of consciousness, such as has been discussed, here. Others have proposed that consciousness is simply an "emergent property" of the brain, resulting from a sufficient level of complexity - which is to say that the whole is somehow more than merely the sum of its parts. Both explanations beg many other, unanswered questions.
WRT "free will," one philosophical proposal has been that it occurs in the "gray area" of quantum physical phenomena (which is only significant in the very small realm of atoms and their behavior). According to this proposed model, free will is some kind of conscious influence acting to affect the probabilities of particular atomic states; how this occurs, and why any particular choice if it represents "free will," is unanswered, as far as I know.
As a practical matter, free will tends to be regarded simply as an absence of direct, forcible coercion by another person, and an absence of a physical (or mental, although how this might be defined, can complicate the issue) defect that would result in an abnormal functioning of the brain (or mind). It is observable that persons seem typically to be capable of being taught to behave according to moral standards, and it is furthermore presumed that persons are typically capable of autonomously choosing such behaviors, or choosing otherwise. But the practical concern is that immoral behaviors must sometimes be defended against, so that the question is not essentially whether a criminal has, in a deeply philosophical sense, "free will," but instead, what should be done about the fact that he has behaved as a criminal (although one can suppose that the philosophical question is pursued for the sake of informing the answer of what should be done, in this and other circumstances).
As a side note - having now read a little ABOUT "Darwin's Cathedral" (but not the book, itself), it seems that the author's hypothesis is essentially that religion is an "evolutionarily" selective mechanism, whereby populations may enhance their survival by rewarding altruism, despite its seeming irrationality from the perspective of individual propagation of one's genome (the subject is more complicated, of course, and it seems to me that the author may be proposing a more expansive version of the idea of "kin selection," since population members are likely to be genetically related). Such a method of rewarding altruism, would be an alternative to violent coercion by a government or other entity (assuming, of course, that the religion is distinct from the government or other entity, which is often not the case).
Also discussed, in reviews of the book, is the idea that common religious beliefs can engender and maintain trust among community members, and alliance against other, perhaps competing, populations. This still only partially answers my questions about why a particular set of religious beliefs would gain popularity (among persons that would presumably have, already, a somewhat satisfactory - or at least societally useful - set of beliefs of their own), if the new beliefs are seemingly incredible, and becoming an adherent, is recognizably hazardous.
The nervous system (including the brain) is generally regarded as deterministic (although not necessarily predictable, of course). Its operating structures (neurons) are cells that are specialized for communication, and they simply either produce a communicating effect, or do not (all, or nothing). What causes a neuron to communicate ("fire," eventually ejecting a neurotransmitter chemical from the far-end of its axon fiber), is dependent upon whether it is stimulated or not. What stimulates it, is either a sensory neuron, which responds to some physical condition, or an interneuron in a network (a more complex, and thus intelligent, nervous system is basically characterized by a greater number of interneurons).
The brain consists of a very complicated network of inter-connected neurons. And whether a particular neuron, in the network, "fires," is the result of neurotransmitters binding to it, after having been produced by other neurons connected to it - some neurotransmitters stimulate it to fire, and others inhibit it from firing; the neuron "decides" whether to fire, as a result of evaluating the net effect of stimulus/inhibition acting upon it.
So, this is quite deterministic - assuming that the chemical reactions (and physical, sensory stimuli) that are involved, are deterministic. Since the development of quantum mechanics, this is a more complicated consideration. More to the point, such a description of how the brain operates, does not, in itself, explain consciousness and conscious will.
Neuroscientist John Eccles proposed, not very long ago, that the brain is sort of analogous to a radio receiver - being conscious because of being associated with some sort of transmitting, "spiritual" realm of consciousness, such as has been discussed, here. Others have proposed that consciousness is simply an "emergent property" of the brain, resulting from a sufficient level of complexity - which is to say that the whole is somehow more than merely the sum of its parts. Both explanations beg many other, unanswered questions.
WRT "free will," one philosophical proposal has been that it occurs in the "gray area" of quantum physical phenomena (which is only significant in the very small realm of atoms and their behavior). According to this proposed model, free will is some kind of conscious influence acting to affect the probabilities of particular atomic states; how this occurs, and why any particular choice if it represents "free will," is unanswered, as far as I know.
As a practical matter, free will tends to be regarded simply as an absence of direct, forcible coercion by another person, and an absence of a physical (or mental, although how this might be defined, can complicate the issue) defect that would result in an abnormal functioning of the brain (or mind). It is observable that persons seem typically to be capable of being taught to behave according to moral standards, and it is furthermore presumed that persons are typically capable of autonomously choosing such behaviors, or choosing otherwise. But the practical concern is that immoral behaviors must sometimes be defended against, so that the question is not essentially whether a criminal has, in a deeply philosophical sense, "free will," but instead, what should be done about the fact that he has behaved as a criminal (although one can suppose that the philosophical question is pursued for the sake of informing the answer of what should be done, in this and other circumstances).
As a side note - having now read a little ABOUT "Darwin's Cathedral" (but not the book, itself), it seems that the author's hypothesis is essentially that religion is an "evolutionarily" selective mechanism, whereby populations may enhance their survival by rewarding altruism, despite its seeming irrationality from the perspective of individual propagation of one's genome (the subject is more complicated, of course, and it seems to me that the author may be proposing a more expansive version of the idea of "kin selection," since population members are likely to be genetically related). Such a method of rewarding altruism, would be an alternative to violent coercion by a government or other entity (assuming, of course, that the religion is distinct from the government or other entity, which is often not the case).
Also discussed, in reviews of the book, is the idea that common religious beliefs can engender and maintain trust among community members, and alliance against other, perhaps competing, populations. This still only partially answers my questions about why a particular set of religious beliefs would gain popularity (among persons that would presumably have, already, a somewhat satisfactory - or at least societally useful - set of beliefs of their own), if the new beliefs are seemingly incredible, and becoming an adherent, is recognizably hazardous.
Assuming that we say the average population rate is 5% because they had no contraception, the population would be 1189805.62520938, aka 1,189,805, unless my maths are wrong (which they probably are as that number is huge).
I made a quick spreadsheet to do all the work for me, though (in the Zip).
It has seemed to me that a human population could increase very quickly, assuming maybe 20 children per couple (10 female, one offspring a year, starting at maybe 15y/o and continuing for about 20 years, in accordance with a modern expectation of life-expectancy at that time, notwithstanding the Biblical account that people lived to be very old), continuous after the first three couples' first children reached puberty and with no prohibition against interbreeding. I haven't tried to calculate it, rigorously. Multiple births and mortality from disease, violence and death of mother in childbirth, would affect the results. I would suppose that current rates of population increase, are empirical, only.
You deserve thanks for trying, anyway.
You deserve thanks for trying, anyway.
The Buddhist Monk case where a robber tried to rob a Buddhist temple at gunpoint but ended up killing all the monks. The robber entered the temple and tried to make the monks cooperate, but all the monks did was just sit there, ignored him and continue meditating. (Which is not unheard of at all in Asian religion and culture). The monks could have probably survived if they just stopped what they were doing and listened to the robber, but they put their "spiritual" needs (psychology would consider this an self actualized motivation which is the highest in the motivation hierarchy) above their physical needs. Taoists have also been know to follow similar actions. Which is extreme pacifism
Quakers and Amish are the Western world's example
Human intelligence is not simple as to categorized them in hierarchy (which is coincidentally what Maslow did in his phychological theory called "the Maslow hierarchy of needs".) But it is widely recognized that organic minds can overcome physical deficiency and tendencies and Maslow's law, while still important, is only now considered a vague generalization. (Notice, how I say organic and not human. Animals have also, but only on very rare occations, countered their tendencies). But this hardly proves that we are supernatural (in fact, it may prove the opposite in some cases)
Free will (or lack thereof) is not much use in court cases:
Lawyer: Your Honor, you can't sentence my client. His behavior was fully determined by his environment. He has no free will, so he can't be held accountable for his deeds.
Judge: I agree, there is no free will. Therefore, you will understand that I have no choice but to sentence your client to life imprisonment.
How can you determine that an animal has no free will? (Unless you deny an animal free will by definition.) If an animal does not behave as expected, do you take that as evidence of free will, or is it evidence that you haven't fully studied its instincts/conditioning? And if you choose the latter, why can't that be applied to human behavior?
The whole subject of free will is incredibly shaky IMHO. So shaky as to make any discussion of the topic meaningless.
(For those who still want to look at it: Daniel Dennett has written "The evolution of free will", where he argues that the same evolutionary processes that developed bacteria into intelligent mammals can also explain the birth of free will.)
i think watching dinosaurs would cater better to a few childhood dreams
All beliefs are seemingly incredible. When people join a new faith, they merely switch from one set of logic-defying claims to another.
If you have little to lose, a new faith (with promises of brotherly love, heavenly glory and earthly bonuses) may be a risk worth taking. The first ones to embrace a new religion are usually the poor and wretched folks -- rarely the elite.
No no no, you've mistaken exactly what I've meant it's this:
Lawyer: My client cant help it, he has a psychological problem and it took the better of him. He is was not in control and couldn't do anything about it.
or
Lawyer: He was sexually abused my his father and thus he developed psychotic tendencies. He's only a result in his environment he's sentence should be lightened.
While these can be used for sympathy, it wont really do much good to get acquitted (but they still try). But the problem with this theory is within the psychological aspects of it. It is very rare. Seriously much more rare than people think to develop a psychotic disorder. Psychological disorders are not really rare and yes can result in an abnormal environment. But, for that disorder to transform into something psychotic is incredibly rare.
For example, schizophrenia is massively common. There's a good chance that every single person in this forum has meet or seen someone with schizophrenia (if you see a person randomly yelling in the streets then that person may have schizophrenia). But it is very very rare for schizophrenia to develop into something murderous. Sure some do, but in multi million cases, there's only a handful that does. I even befriended a person with schizo in an asylum that I sometime visit to study disorders.
With all of the thousands of Gods and religeons that there has ever been through time, why is there any difference in any existing contemporary religeon? - they will all die out and be replaced by the next God worshipping fad.
Religeons are like pop groups - except on a longer timescale, they all have their high points before they dissapear into history and oblivion to be taken over by a newer more popular pop group or religeon, it seems we are like that as a species, we just need someone or something to worship or adore.
I was brought up as a christian with strong beliefs, - I suppose I still have mostly christian values, then after I started to question my beliefs and from the age of around 11 yrs, I left the shackles behind and now see things as they really are, maybe I still don't like a lot of stuff I see, but at least I know its the truth and can then make my own opinion based on that.
Not the opinion of a guy in a dress who believes in fairies and thinks he can tell me what to think and say and how to behave.
I have love and respect for anyone that deserves it - I have no respect for any religeon as I regard all religeon as brainwashing - how else can it be described?
I hate Tony Blair for his faith school policy and can see nothing but trouble in the future as these children grow up without respect for others and their point of view - I know this from my own experience.
Children should not be seperated from each other and told that "their way is the right way" and everyone else is wrong.
They should be encouraged to play and learn with and from each other as it was when I was a child.
OK we had Catholic schools when I was a kid, but even then as a kid I remember the "us and them" attitude and as a kid I fell into line with those that felt this way - as kids do.
I wish there was a God - but I know there isn't, and the God I would prefer would be a far better entity than we have on offer from almost any of contemporary offerings.
They all want to get their hands on the kids as soon as possible to further infect the next generation with something that I consider a mind virus, which goes on and on to infect any other mind it comes into contact with.
We are all born as Athiest, like it or not!!!,
you would not know anything about any god were it not for the minds that are already infected, - spreading the form of belief that happens to be in the religeous group that your parents belong to.
If you were born in a different part of the world - you would have a different belief, so what makes you think that yours is the right one?
Religeons are like pop groups - except on a longer timescale, they all have their high points before they dissapear into history and oblivion to be taken over by a newer more popular pop group or religeon, it seems we are like that as a species, we just need someone or something to worship or adore.
I was brought up as a christian with strong beliefs, - I suppose I still have mostly christian values, then after I started to question my beliefs and from the age of around 11 yrs, I left the shackles behind and now see things as they really are, maybe I still don't like a lot of stuff I see, but at least I know its the truth and can then make my own opinion based on that.
Not the opinion of a guy in a dress who believes in fairies and thinks he can tell me what to think and say and how to behave.
I have love and respect for anyone that deserves it - I have no respect for any religeon as I regard all religeon as brainwashing - how else can it be described?
I hate Tony Blair for his faith school policy and can see nothing but trouble in the future as these children grow up without respect for others and their point of view - I know this from my own experience.
Children should not be seperated from each other and told that "their way is the right way" and everyone else is wrong.
They should be encouraged to play and learn with and from each other as it was when I was a child.
OK we had Catholic schools when I was a kid, but even then as a kid I remember the "us and them" attitude and as a kid I fell into line with those that felt this way - as kids do.
I wish there was a God - but I know there isn't, and the God I would prefer would be a far better entity than we have on offer from almost any of contemporary offerings.
They all want to get their hands on the kids as soon as possible to further infect the next generation with something that I consider a mind virus, which goes on and on to infect any other mind it comes into contact with.
We are all born as Athiest, like it or not!!!,
you would not know anything about any god were it not for the minds that are already infected, - spreading the form of belief that happens to be in the religeous group that your parents belong to.
If you were born in a different part of the world - you would have a different belief, so what makes you think that yours is the right one?
Thanks for that Jak. Although all i get in the spreadsheet is the above information and a flower
It does seem a really high figure, especially when we factor in all the problems mentioned by David below. But for the sake of argument lets take that figure as approximate.
As you say it's a very very difficult figure to calculate, but, population growth rates usually factor in all of the problems you mention.
However, we thankfully have a starting point on how to calculate this number. The bible gives us a few clues on how to begin.
The bible claims that Noah's 3 sons lived for an average of 500yrs each. It also tells us that collectively they fathered 16 sons during their life. Lets double that to include unmentioned daughters. So in a 500yr time period they collectively fathered 32 children. I'm absolutely hopeless at maths, but i make that out to be about 5, 6 or maybe 7% annual growth rate. So maybe Jak wasn't too far off in his assumption. And, i think it's not unreasonable to say that the offspring of Noah's sons would have kept at roughly the same growth rate.
So, for the sake of argument, lets say the worlds population according to biblical reasoning was around 1.2million at the time the Tower of Babel was built. Over in Egypt at this time, we know from their records they were well into their 6th Dynasty. We also know that they had their own unique language, religion and culture. We also know they had a population of approximately 2million, probably more. We also know that over in China the Xai Dynasty was in full flow. They too had their own unique language, religion and culture. We also know they had a population of approximately 2million, maybe less.
We also know, via the biblical account that a group of people tried to build a large tower in ancient Iraq, i.e the Tower of Babel. We know that during this build God got miffed and separated them into 70 different nations, all with their own unique language. (this is another huge topic, too big to mention here) Anyway, by the testamony of the bible itself, there were at least 70 people in this part of the world too. However, lets be realistic about these numbers.These people obviously wanted the tower to be the biggest, tallest structure ever built. So, they'd be competing against the Great Pyramids of Giza (built before the flood). These pyramids took several decades and over 30,000 highly skilled craftsmen to build. Add in all the back-up social infrastructure to support them, feed them etc, maybe an extra 70,000 women and children (pure guess) would be needed. So that's about 100,000 people needed just to build the tower.
So, this puts the worlds population totals to a very credible figure of well over 4million. And thats only taking into account 3 relatively small areas of the world.
Then we have to factor in that humans tend to be territorial, i.e they tend (on mass) to stay in the same places. So, do we now assume that only a small percentage of the flood survivors offspring ventured out as far as Egypt and and China. If so, then how much a percentage would 4million immigrants be out of the 'home nation' ? 10%, 25, 50 ? All that does is bump the global figures up even higher.
There's only two possible conclusions we can make of this. Either god gave these people supernatural powers to go at it like bunnies, and our best 'guesstimates' on re-population growth rates are way off. Or, the flood simply didn't happen.
A small but important question that started my own questioning process, many years ago. As a kid, I thought to myself: "if some little kid in a village in Africa hasn't heard of Jesus, is he going to hell? If so, why would god set it up so that innocent kids could end up in hell through no fault of their own? If god wanted everyone to know his words and love him and be with him in heaven, why did he only appear to a bunch of shepherds in the desert thousands of years ago and give them all different messages?" and it went on from there.
Mazz, good work on the calculations - you went to more effort than the writers of the bible did, clearly. If people kept relying on "biblical reasoning" as you put it (the supreme oxymoron) and never actually investigated the world for themselves, we'd still believe that pi was exactly 3 (!), goats mating in the presence of stripes would produce striped baby goats and the earth was the centre of the universe, all surrounded by tiny stars hung up like christmas ornaments
Leaving aside the mythology, even as a reference book the bible provides more information about the ignorance of bronze-age shepherds than the actualities of the world. One would think a book inspired by the universe's creator would be a little more accurate in describing that creation.That would so rule. I'd have to spend a little while inventing a time machine though.
it is for small values of pi and large values of 3
although in the worlds last christian theocracy they seem to think its 3.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
i always figured if there is an afterlife it would have to necessarily be outside of this universes space time and thus not influenced by it which means you wouldnt need one
also luckily time machines tend to be invented simultaneously in all times
If you'd permit me, I'd like to quote myself from post 68 of this very thread.
Permisson granted retroactively.
Fair point! If I had to exist for eternity I'd be very disappointed if that existence wasn't in at least four dimensions. If I woke up in heaven and found I couldn't go back and make dinosaur home movies, I'd ask for the manager and demand to be reincarnated immediately.
Fair point! If I had to exist for eternity I'd be very disappointed if that existence wasn't in at least four dimensions. If I woke up in heaven and found I couldn't go back and make dinosaur home movies, I'd ask for the manager and demand to be reincarnated immediately.
what makes you think youll wake up in heaven? you being an atheist and all that
Just because I'm a non-believing rationalist, doesn't mean I'm not open to being proven wrong - and if I did turn out to be wrong I wouldn't be waking up anywhere near heaven
My Moment Of Clarity - Religious Debate
(295 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG