• Part V: "I Have a Terrible Feeling of Deja Vu..." January 11 - 7:56 pm

• Part 6 October 13 - 9:36 pm

Oh, man...I remember when I claimed this religion. Talk about being in a bad situation (and no, I'm not saying atheism is bad). But since I'm no true atheist, what sort of afterlife do you claim, if any?

Sweetie Dahlink! You created a post just for me, and whaddaya know I'm the first to post on it! Well, after you that is, my Dearest.

Is atheism considered a religion? Not by me, at least but I'm sure some people do, saying it's a belief system. Actually, as we all know, it's a lack of belief, which, paradoxically, is a belief system. Well, I don't wanna kill any braincells over it, so I'll let my fellow MarkM discuss that, as I'm sure he'll be wont to do.

As y'all know I'm agnostic, so I'm openminded to what happens after we die, and don't claim any particular afterlife. Do we have a soul? What happens to it after the body ceases to function? (Although the world is filled with way too many walking braindeads already, but that's another discussion.) Does it go anywhere and where exactly? See, without one fixed opinion on such things I'm left to wonder about the afterlife, but only sporadically, since I don't waste all of my brainpower worrying about it. I've once said before that I hope we do go to someplace wonderful, but I don't know for sure so again I don't about it.

And, to bring this up again, what about ghosts? Do they exist? If so, are they the lost souls of those who died under the most tragic ways, like suicide, murder, accidental death, and must remain earthbound when or if their deaths are resolved? I love true ghost stories and whether or not they're really true they're great fun to read anyway.

Ah, MJ, you may have really opened up quite a huge can of worms with this one, my Dearest. *S* Actually, I'm kinda surprised that I didn't come up with this post. Or, if I did, then I'd forgotten about it. I dunno, maybe I'm just getting old. Gray hairs're coming in, belly's going out, and all that jazz, don'tcha know. They say something or other's the first thing to go when you get old but I've forgotten what it is.

While on the one hand, I have no beliefs in any
sort of afterlife, I do tend to act (and feel) as if all living things have a soul. I've never put
much thought into what happens after I've shuffled
off this mortal coil. Soul's gotta go somewhere I
suppose. I have no real fear of death, thus no fear of punishment in an afterlife (this one's
hell and punishment enough, thank you!) or any ex-
pectations of a reward in the same. I don't worry
about it. I'll find out soon enough. And if I'm
wrong and there's a god passing judgment on me,
well, to quote Dietrich from "Barney Miller" when
confronted with the same question, "Ooops."

Actually there is faith involed in Atheism. That Human's Reason can explain everything. And that nonthing exists outside the marterial realm. Two pretty big leaps of faith if you ask me.

Faith" is best defined as "belief, regardless of the absence or presence of empirical evidence." Therefore, saying that someone has faith in empiricism misses the point. Empiricism is the process of removing faith from the issue, and instead replacing it with observation. (Empiricism, if you are wondering, is the idea that human reason can explain everything and that nothing exists outside the material realm. Empiricism is what Matt is really arguing about here.)

It is correct, however, that ultimately both faith-based systems of thought and empirically-based systems of thought are ultimately based on unprovable axioms. But there is a world of difference between faith and empricism. Read up on metaphysics for more on these distinctions.

Animals have no souls!!!!! I cna not expect to see any of them in heaven. Animal are not sentinent and can not make desisions based on reason therefor they have no soul. It is a common misconception. Also plants have no souls by the same argument

The atheist Christmas play: "Coincidence on 34th Street".


(O.K. I stole it from Jay Leno)

Vargo, point out to me in the Bible where it says that "Animals have no souls!!!!!" I happen to agree, but try to be a little less vehement. Unless they develop that soul detector (which will probably happen at about the time the sun swells into a red giant), we'll never know for sure. So until then, it's just your belief.

I know everyone's heard this before, but:

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic? He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog.

Animals have no souls? Why not? Why don't plants have souls? Why not all the orders of bacteria and fungus, too? Aren't they alive? Or does a living being have to be able to add 2+2 to get a soul?

Speaking of which...what do souls look like? Are they wispy ghostly imitations of a body? Are they clouds of color? Feelings?

In the absence of empirical evidence, I'm afraid the issue of who and who does not have a soul is just a matter of faith. It won't ever be settled in this forum.

Sorry about that.

"Animals have no souls!!!!! I cna not expect to see any of them in heaven. Animal are not sentinent and can not make desisions based on reason therefor they have no soul. It is a common misconception. Also plants have no souls by the same argument"

That's your opinion. I'm guessing you've not been
around animals too much. Animals make decisions all the time: is this food good to eat? Can I safely cross the street and not get run over? Do I
trust this individual or bite 'im in the ass? Do I
mate with him or wait 'til someone better comes a-
long? If intelligence and decision-making ability
are the hall-marks of having a soul, I know a lot
of people who do not possess one!

That's your religion, too. The Hindus and Native Americans all hold that animals and/or other ob-
jects have souls. Merely because it's not YOUR the
-ology, doesn't make it invalid.

Animals have no souls!!!!! I cna not expect to see any of them in heaven. Animal are not sentinent and can not make desisions based on reason therefor they have no soul. It is a common misconception.
Well, Vargo, I've got news for you: humans are animals! Now, with that established, and by your own judging you have no soul or sentience, correct? Considering your numerous misspellings, I can believe it. Correct them and maybe we'll take you a little more seriously. Or me, at least, as I'm not so presumptuous as to speak for the others.

Actually, Matthew, the joke (which is many years old now) is this: Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist? He doesn't believe in dog.

There was an episode of M*A*S*H in which BJ Hunni-
cutt was talking to a patient in post-op. The
patient had a problem of such a nature that BJ sug
-gested to the patient, "Why don't you talk to our
priest, Father Mulcahy?"
Patient: "I can't, doc, I'm an atheist."
BJ: "Really?"
Patient: "Swear to God!"
That scene still cracks me up.

Who invented the term agnostic and why?


Thomas Huxley, because he got tired of being called an atheist.

Mmm... no, MarkN, I'm pretty sure that that's how I saw the joke. Sides, I think it's funnier that way.

well i will say this. While i dont feel like finding it out right now, it is easier to say that animals have no souls than to sya that they will be going to helll because they can not get salvation. I have a cat 2 dogs and a horse so i am around animals plenty. Mike there is somethingg wrong with your filter system, its okay to say A-ss and not s-tupid hm,,,,

Board note: MikeC has no control over the filtering system. The board belongs to Phil Farrand, Chief Nitpicker and all-around nice guy.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

Animals, If I recall correctly, have spirits, but are still just too dumb to care. Humans couldn't even grasp the Afterlife until 4000 years ago. Work about your own salvation with fear and trembleing, not your dogs. In all problibility they are in Sheol, and will be returned to life for the glory of God on the Final day. Can't prove it by scripture though, well, maybee Ecclesiaties."Man and beast go to the same place"
Humans are animals, but are in the Image of God. That means we have souls. I think, therefore I am.

Strangely enogth there was once a religion called Gnosticism, which belived knowlege brought salvation.

BTW, Hindus are wrong, Native Americans are dead, Any Questions;-).

Dragging us back to the topic of atheism: The Secular Web has a fairly extensive library of writings both modern and not concerning atheism and agnosticism.

Native Americans are not dead. Also, it's a nationality, not a religion. There are many Native American Christians.

I think the filtering system needs reform, and I did ask Phil to allow the word s t u p i d. He asked "Why would it come up in any pleasant conversation?"

Because in addition to it being used as a way to label someone, it's also an adjective. And it's not nearly as weak a term as "dumb."

The only time I seem to use it is when I call something s t u p i d that is actually that, such as saying "Adolf Hitler was s t u p i d for his insane beliefs."

We are having a plesently s-tupid conversation

And we thank you for bringing it to our attention at such a quick rate. We would never have guessed how stupˇd it is to discuss why the word stupˇd has been censored had you not brought it to our immediate attention.

Just a side question: Can a soul feel pain ? I mean, does torturing her make any sense without neurons ?

Electron -

I'd say the answer is no. Pain is a physical reaction to something unpleasant. A spirit, on the other hand, is...well, spiritual. And don't get me started on emotional and psychological trauma either.

::Electron -

I'd say the answer is no. Pain is a physical reaction to something unpleasant. A spirit, on the other hand, is...well, spiritual. And don't get me started on emotional and psychological trauma either.:: M Jenkins

If you believe in the Biblical Hell, the soul as it describes will be in torment in a fire, so I would say that it could possibly feel some kind of pain.

If you believe in the Biblical Hell,

Ah, there's the rub. If you don't believe in the Biblical Hell, then what? And M.Jenkins doesn't.

Aw, man. Scott beat me to it. *LOL*

But it's just as valid. Jwb52z, I don't believe in a Biblical Hell. I'm not Judeo-Christian in any way, shape, or form. I'm Wiccan (a Witch, if you prefer), and I believe in the Summerland as an afterlife.

So my reply stands.

This is what I love about metaphysical concepts. We could go around like this for weeks, and never settle the issue. There is no empirical test that will ever let us know.

In this case, the question is one of dualism. Is there some component of us beyond the physical makeups of our bodies and our minds? And if there is, just how connected is it to us? Is something like "pain" meaningful to something outside the material realm?

Me, I don't believe there is something beyond the physical processes of the body, but I do believe in emergent properties--that is, the idea that the whole is the greater than the sum of its parts. In particular, I think that sentience is an emergent property of our brain's activities. Resolving if I'm even remotely correct is one of the key goals of Artificial Intelligence research. For more on the latter, read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. But be prepared to take your time with it--it's a head-cracker.

If you don't believe in the Biblical Hell, then what? And M.Jenkins doesn't.
And neither do I.

MarkM, I do believe a great title for The Overlord to bestow upon you would be The Empirical Emperor. Whaddaya think? Perhaps if you asked him very nicely.

I am the biological component of the World Domination Team. When the Overlord takes over, I get to co-rule with him. So I don't need a title related to the Puppet Ruling Council, now, do I? But we'll take it under advisement, as it seems appropriate.

Empiricism appeals to me because it is just experience, made systematic. What could be a better basis for understanding than the same tool we've used since day one? As long as we control for our various human biases--both intellectual and emotional--we are harnessing the tool we use best.

I beleve quite assuredly that souls feel pain. Not in our present form, but in our future form when we reach our after life, eather heaven or hell. So its eather joy or suffering your choice.

Assuming, as always, Vargo, that people subscribe to your eschatology.

Eschatology: the doctrine of last things. click here for a complete article about that.

Smarty pants.

Hey, our teechers lurned us puppit philofer guys a lot o' stuff in skool!

Vargo, dear. Your statement didn't quite come out. If a spirit most assuredly feels pain in the afterlife, which consists of a heaven or a hell...what's the difference? I sure wouldn't wanna feel pain in a heaven. And where's the joy come in? Well...unless you're a masochist.

Okay, okay...so I feel the need to needle his statement. My right, since I hold the Scepter.

::Vargo, dear. Your statement didn't quite come out. If a spirit most assuredly feels pain in the afterlife, which consists of a heaven or a hell...what's the difference? I sure wouldn't wanna feel pain in a heaven. And where's the joy come in? Well...unless you're a masochist.:: M. Jenkins

I think that Vargo meant that the soul had the ability to feel pain IF it was sent to Hell, but not Heaven. I'm just guessing though.......

Hey, Mark- I thought one of the main tenets of Bhuddism is the belief in reincarnation.
?

I'm not sure how much of an actual Buddhist I really am any more, AG. I believe that the actions we take in this life affect the world around us and hence affect us back again, but mystical notions such as "reincarnation" and "karma" are losing their appeal to me. It might be best to describe me as a "philosophical Buddhist"--one who embraces much of the philosophy of Buddhism without it's mystical trappings.

That said, I'm undecided on many of these issues. There is no real empirical disproof of reincarnation, but you can't make the argument from ignorance that because it hasn't been proved wrong, it must therefore be right. I am ruminating on the issue.

Only time will tell.

actually i meant that in hell you feel pain and in heeaven you get pleasure. sorry about the mixup

You're right...I know better than to pin you down on that front. You explained yourself clearly to me (on that point, at least ha ha) longggggg ago
when we were still wondering what the heck was in the water in Ashland?!?
Anyway, let me know how it works out...unless of course, I return as a cat and you return as a vicious evil weeny-dog.

*I'm tired, but I can't go to bed 'cause I'm taking the ASVAB today. Damnitall.*

So Vargo (and Jwb52z)...what about masochists? Where do they go? ;)

::So Vargo (and Jwb52z)...what about masochists? Where do they go? ;):: M. Jenkins

Things like masochism are of a worldly nature. Once you are no longer your physical self, you no longer have those human desires and drives because you are no longer human.

What exactly is a masochism, like a person who likes pain. First of al you have to be slightly off base to cut your self and stuff. If i wanted to be offensive i could say they were possesed by a demon. But i am not sure how many things are caused by demon possesion. But i am not to judge, the bible doesn't say anything about them.

What exactly is a masochism, like a person who likes pain. First of all you have to be slightly off base to cut your self and stuff. If i wanted to be offensive i could say they were possesed by a demon. But i am not sure how many things are caused by demon possesion. But i am not to judge, the bible doesn't say anything about them.

Sorry about the double post

the bible doesn't say anything about them.

Would you mean demons, or masochists? If it's demons, funny you should ask...

Deuteronomy 32:17
Matthew 11:18
Luke 7:33

If my Bible's puny little concordance can dig up these three examples, there have got to be more.

I don't know about actual demonic posession today, but I do have a friend whose dad is an Episcopal priest and he *has* performed exorcisms. Whether they were actual demons or not I couldn't say.

I believe he meant masochists, such as Jack Nicholson's character in "Little Shop of Horrors".

MY PERSONAL FUN FOR TODAY: Mention Jack Nicholson in every post!

Masochism is a fetish, which implies that it's considered a deviation, possibly a weakness or illness in the moral character, much like other preoccupations, obsessions, addictions, etc.
sounds like it goes in the "sin" bin, to me.

New topic: What are angels? Not the obvious answer, "Messengers from way up high with white fluffy wings." Nor the other one, "My friend Angel," or "It's my nickname."

How are angels viewed by the different religions? And this includes atheism (where's Brian Webber?).

Atheism is not a religion, as it does not rely on faith. [Begin repeat] Faith is defined as "belief regardless of empirical evidence" [End repeat], and atheism denies things outside of empirical evidence, and therefore requires no faith.

That said, as a "philosophical Buddhist" (practically an atheist standpoint, as I demand emprical evidence for practically everything nowadays), I do not believe in Angels. My previous prayer ritual included a prayer to the "Guardian Forces of the Universe," but what those are, I dunno.

The word angel means messenger. Angels are messengers of God. And no, they aren't cute, chubby babies. They are awesome, powerful warriors. That they said, "fear not" almost everytime they showed up is pretty indicative of their mighty appearances.

I agree with amy on that one, angels are bad dudes. Mark morgan, i am not going to fight with you again on the topic. Look up faith and science. Science implies that it can be repeted. Evolution can't and we have no records that are reliable. End of my rant, back to you

And here I always thought that evolution could be recreated...but we wouldn't be around to see the end results. Hunh.

Hey, Morgan, I could argue that atheism is indeed a religion, as it relies on the faith that there is no higher being, nothing that's generally associated with "real" religions. Then Amy could go and give an atheist proof of her god, and that atheist could still disbelieve in Christian beliefs. Because, by said atheist's standards, that might not be proof enough.

Angels-Messengers of God.

Archangels: either an angel with an important message, or Micheal(Who can compare with God?) the Captian of heaven. They were considered the intercessors between God and Man.

Sehpihim: warrior angels. have 6 wings, four to cover faces and feet, two to fly.

Cherubum: NOT baby angels. fantasistic beings. The Prophet Ezikiel saw one in a vision called Ezikiel's Wheel.

Powers: Nations Guardian angels.

Guardian Angels: Implied concept of Angels watching and protecting every human.

Sons of God: beings mentioned once in Genesis. Obsolete concept(Explain latter)
they begat the "Giants"(Nilpheam) a race of superhumans, that is mostly spectulation. Some theories have fallen angels, Aliens, kings who claimed divine descent. (see chapter precedding flood) Probelry remanents from pagan beliefs. but this more demonlogy

I agree with Vargo and Amy. Angels in the Old Testament are actually similar to the Mafia's "buttonmen", believe it or not.

MJ, you're saying that atheists have faith that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God? Because the empirical evidence is either there, or it's not, and it takes no faith to examine it.

Faith and empiricism are ultimately unprovable in any higher sense of the word, as there will never be an absolute proof that either world-view is more correct by some sort of Platonic standard. However, we might judge them by usefulness, and see how useful one worldview or the other is. Since atheism does not rely on anything outside the realm of experience, it would seem to be useful as long as we continue to live in a world defined by experiences. Which is my world, even if it is not yours. . . .

Oh bother, Morgan. I had to read your question five times, and I got a headache. And I still need to go to work, too. Grrr...

Let's see if I can clarify a bit. If you and I were in a park, and Vargo came over with a rock in his hand, he could say, "This is a rock," and we would agree. If you and he were in a park, and I walked over with a stick, I could say, "This is a wand," and I would prolly get a disagreement. To Vargo and to you, it would be a stick, nothing more, nothing less. To me, it would be a wand, because it would be what I used to channel the energies I had. Were I to explain it to you and Vargo, there may be a "Now I see," sort of reaction, but you wouldn't truly believe it was a wand. To you, it'd still be a stick.

Same deal here: If Amy went to an atheist with a rose, she could say, "This is a rose," and not get an argument. If she had the Bible in hand, and said, "This is the Holy Ghost," well, the atheist might think Amy's gone off the deep end. Or s/he might simply say, "That's a book." To Amy, the Bible might indeed be the Holy Ghost, and that's all the proof she needs. The atheist would disbelieve her until she gave her/him proof that s/he would consider irrefutable.

I think I'm rambling. I'm going to work now...(did that make ANY sense?)

Hrrumph. Whether it is a book or not is not a question of faith, but of evidence. Does the empirical evidence support that what Amy is holding is a book? We might examine it, see if it meets the definition of book, riffle its pages to confirm they actually exist. We would use our senses to confirm that there is actually a book in Amy's hand.

Tell me: what senses or what physical tests would you use to confirm or deny the existence of the Holy Spirit in the Bible? The lack of empirical evidence for the Holy Spirit means that its presence is a subjective one of faith. The presence of the physical object defined as "book" can be tested by our senses, and by the tools we have developed to increase the range of those senses.

Faith is a belief without regard to empirical evidence. Atheism holds no beliefs that I am aware of that are not subject to some sort of empirical test.

I'm really mixing atheism and agnosticism here. Atheism, by one definition I have read (there are probably more) is a worldview without theological constructs. I suppose different people pick up this worldview for various reasons. Agnosticism, as little as I know about it, it the particular belief that religious arguments without empirical evidence may be true, or they may not be true, so judgement is suspended.

Neither Atheism nor Agnosticism require faith.

In your wand and stick story, I would accept that the stick is also a wand unless you then claimed you could cause observable changes to the world with it. Then I would demand empirical evidence. I have no faith in your wand. I also have no faith in empirical evidence, because there is evidence that empiricism is useful in exploring the world. For example, the empirical process resulted in the medical technology that saved my nephew's life when he was born prematurely. I'd say that means empiricism is useful.

If you could point your wand at my nephew, I would not take it on faith that he would be healed; I would want some sort of empirical testing to verify the effect before trusting his life to your wand.

What you are really arguing is that both religious beliefs and other beliefs are based fundamentally on some worldview, and we will never establish that one is more "true" than another. That being the case, I think we should judge worldviews on how useful they are, and how and in what way they better our lives.

Empiricism is very useful. It made the widget that I type this on. Could you develop a spell to send your text from your computer to mine? Empiricism did. I find that a very useful thing. But then, I have way too much time on my hands...

Just for the record, we have left the shores of reason and entered the deep waters of philosophy. If it makes little sense, it's because we are no longer in the world of concrete identifiers (you can point at a rock and say "rock") and entered the world of strictly mental constructs (what do you point at and say "that is a worldview"?)

Y'know, I may have to do a bit more thinking at work tonight. Just overseeing trainees anyway. But I did do some thinking, and I realised that my current examples aren't very good. I don't know if this is any better, but it's worth a try.

Pesti walks up to me in NYC with some guy. "Hey, Jenkins, this here is Moses." I think nothing of the name, since I've heard of people being named Moses these days. Pesti continues. "And this is the same Moses that received the Ten Commandments." Now that catches my attention, and I study Pesti's friend. To me, he's either a joker, delusional, or Pesti needs to be committed to the asylum. "Prove it," I reply. So Moses starts giving off long narrations of how, when, where, he received the Commandments, and soon the three of us are surrounded by a bunch of people who believe him. He's been in the news a lot lately, as a prophet to the return of Jesus. Me, I've been too busy working at my hellhole of a job to notice.

Now, I can see that this guy is standing in front of me. I can even accept that his name is Moses. But this is where I see it as boiling down to faith: Do I choose to take a leap of faith and believe that this guy is really some ancient Christian archetype? Or do I look at Pesti and Moses like they're a couple of maroons who should go leap in front of the subway?

Ok, I know that didn't make any sense. But, 'cause I'm hoping to cause a temporary nanobot shutdown (so I can beat Morgan with the Sceptre, if nothing else), I won't erase it. Just keep trying to make heads or tails of this; I dare you!

But when I was thinking of this last night, I realised just how skeptical humans are. I mean, if Jesus showed up at someone's doorstep tonight and announced who he was, what would the most likely reaction be? "Yeah, right. Go away, you drunken wastrel." Slam the door shut. So why do we have religions and beliefs in things which can't be readily proven, when all that would happen (if the real thing ever came along) would be a demand for proof? Does this idea (not question) make sense?

And many thanks to the characters in my stories. You'll be the first ones to get autographed copies.

Has anyone ever read Deepak Chopra's "Lords of Light"? Good book.

The 'bots aren't confused by petty human philosophical discussions. Ask them to remember a simple e-mail address for you, though. . . .

How does it take faith to demand empirical evidence that this is the historical Moses? That is the distinction I draw: athiesm takes no faith, because it is grounded only in ideas that are subject to empirical evidence. Religious beliefs take faith, as there are many things in any religion that do not demand empirical evidence to believe.

Your examples continue to show that faith is one world view, and empiricism is another. But faith is not the criteria all of us use for deciding on worldviews; some of us demand that our worldview be useful in explaining and predicting the world of experience. Can you predict when a miracle will occur? No. Can you predict the path of the Mars Global Surveyor accurately enough to get it into orbit around the planet? Yes. Very useful.

A miracle will occur after I get some sleep. And can make sense of this. 'Cause I honestly have no idea of what I'm saying: I'm arguing for the hell of it.

'Night night...

Mark, Bhuddists DO believe in a sort of angel, don't they? I can't remember what it was called, but Patrick gave me that card with some sort of guardian spirit to protect me while fighting the fires in 96...I thought you told me his name.

I'm not sure what I believe, but I like the idea of having the attention of beings from other dimensions that I can't see...but then look what happened to Whitley Strieber.

Which brings about this question: How do you tell if you're looking at an angel, or a demon? Or a ghost? An alien? a hyperdimensional non-corporeal
subconscious construct? or if you just ate a funny brownie?

My favorite angels are the ones in the Wim Wenders Movies, "Wings of Desire" and "Far Away, So Close". Those are some cool dudes. especially Peter Falk.

Can you predict the path of the Mars Global Surveyor accurately enough to get it into orbit around the planet? Yes. Very useful.

But not the path of the Mars Climate Observer.

Not much to add to y'all's current discourse. I've moved and no longer have ready access to a computer as I once did. I'm at the my nearest Dallas Public Library to make this
post. Of course, no one may care or have noticed that
I've been gone for over a week...

One thing I will say, though it's an old, old topic by now, I believe souls do experience pain in the here and now. We've all heard the phrase
"sickness of the soul" haven't we? I think it has
to do with feeling a depression or hatred that's
beyond merely being emotional or mental.

"Native Americans are dead". A. If you believe that, Pesti, might I suggest you visit New Mexico,
Arizona or Oklahoma? B. I'm part Cherokee. Despite
white Europeans best efforts, Matt, Native Americans do still exist. Lord knows they tried.

AllegraG: Yeah. I mentioned that above, but I'm sure it got buried in all the semi-coherent philosophical debating. My prayer ritual used to include a prayer to the "guardian forces of the universe." I no longer hold the view that such things exist, until some sort of empirical evidence shows up.

Interesting that we mention proofs, since in Math class at this time, that's what we're studying--algebraic proofs. Y'know, something like "This rectangle's corners are the same angle--prove it."

Grrr...

Have fun with that. I took a math minor in college; "Tonight's homework, do nine proofs." My head still hurts.

That degree of proof, Mike, are what science never claims to attain. But we can get pretty darn close. . . .

Oh, ****. Proofs. I just had a test, five problems and two bonuses out of twenty-four were proofs. (It helped that the teacher had taken a couple of them straight off the homework, so I just remembered the steps.) I hate proofs. Specifically, I hate doing the proofs we did, whcih all related to triangles in some way. I can never remember what combination of congruent angles and sides means that the triangles are congruent and which aren't. All I ever remembered was, if you use the backwards form of "SSA" to prove that two triangles were congruent, then you are one.

*Blinks.* Hey, wasn't this supposed to be about religion?

Now that I'm properly awake, I went back over some of the posts from before Morgan and I had our mini-debate. And I noticed one thing. And all it does anymore is just amuse me. Well, most of what Pesti says just amuses me anymore. But there was one thing in particular. Where he said this, specifically:

---

Quote:

Probelry remanents from pagan beliefs. but this more demonlogy

---

Proofs are veryy very evil. Thats all i ahve to say right now, schools out.

I read what you wrote, MM, but I wasn't sure what you meant. So why was your practice such a great thing then and now it's not? Are you still Bhuddist? It sounds like you're shedding it like an old skin. If you still consider yourself Bhuddist, what exactly have you kept?
Just wondering. I've been totally confused about the matter and have kept my mouth shut, in the interest of having some manners. As for me, you
know how whacked my beliefs are. Have no idea what I'm going to tell them to stamp on my new dog tags. You can't even get "non-denominational Christian" any more. isn't that weird?

So far, I'm at "I believe the actions I take have long-term effects on my world (not just my part of it), and I have to live in this world, so in that way I believe in the principle of cause and effect." I also believe the solutions to most problems follow the middle path, although that takes more explanation than there is room for here. It doesn't mean "safe and easy" but instead means viewing things as not always specific, integer choices but as fuzzy sets.

But, no, I no longer believe that sitting for any length of time chanting particular syllables in front of a scoll will have any effect on the universe beyond its obvious value as a tool for self-examination and autohypnosis. In this way, I am like an atheist--mystical notions are no longer part of my worldview. If I want change, I will seek it in actions, not mystical prayer practices.

That should really go under "Our Beliefs," but I'm wondering now if I'm not really an atheist that follows some Buddhist philosophies. Does that description match anyone else's opinion of atheism?

Proofs are not evil. I was a math major... Of course, I just hope you aren't given an undecidable proposition to prove :-P (see Science Nightstand II for a discussion of Godel and undecidability).

Spelling Police - Buddhist, AllegraG (no flame intended).

Proofs areevil. I am a musician, not a mathematician. Therefore I have very little use for proving that angle ABD is congruent to angle OFR. They take too much time to do and, to me, serve very little purpose outside of a math class. I don't mind if you like doing then, but then you start reminding me of my dad, which is really not the best thing to be reminded of...

*ramble, ramble, ramble*

The skill of learning to think everything through step by step, making sure that each link in that process is well thought out and that no steps are left out, will serve you very well, Matthew. I use that skill every time I post in this topic. The skills you are learning are the basis for all formal problem-solving techniques. They are also hell-on-wheels skills for writing anything that tries to convince anybody else of anything.

After you've mastered the basics, you will discover that the flashes of insight you can now achieve were well worth it. You may never again find yourself having to force yourself to work through all the steps of this intellectual process, but it will sit there, in your brain, churning out insight and good thinking at every turn.

And for the record, I hated having to do all those proofs every night.

Well then. I hereby decree that nobody shall ever remember things fondly or mention good attributes of them even though they may be a: good for you or b: not so bad after all. The experience is still pretty bad.

And as long as I'm dreaming of being Overlord, I'd like a pony.

Besides, there's got to be some less painful way of teaching this stuff!

Darn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a mathematician!

Thanks, ScottN, I'm surprised Mark didn't mention my spelling mistake. No flame Grokked.
Matthew P,
Music and mathematics are, unfortunately, linked.
To cause some serious groaning, "I feel your pain!!!"

Been away for awhile, but I'm back where I belong. ON A COMPUTER!!!!

Angels, someone asked? I define angel as someone who performs random acts of kindness.

::Atheism is not a religion, as it does not rely on faith. [Begin repeat] Faith is defined as "belief regardless of empirical evidence" [End repeat], and atheism denies things outside of empirical evidence, and therefore requires no faith.:: Mark Morgan

Wouldn't it require faith to believe that the only things that exist or are real are what you can see or sense with your body or instruments you create?

No, because that judgement is based on the empirical evidence. It is a self-closing loop of sorts: empirical standards of evidence cause us to choose empirical standards of evidence. Faith causes us to choose the standards of faith. If there is empirical evidence to support your faith, and that is the deciding factor in you choosing it, you have moved out of faith into empiricism.

Another way of putting this is you don't have faith that your senses are showing you the correct world. Your whole lifetime of experience backs you up. An angry dog bites you, it hurts. That is an experience. In the future, when you encounter an angry dog, you can take it on faith that this one won't bite you, or you can go by experience and avoid the dog. In the long term, the latter will serve you better.

It relies on nothing more than experience to say that if you don't experience it, it didn't happen. Meaning experience that comes through your senses or through the tools that you use to extend those senses. It takes no faith to accept that your experience is a good guide. Is there something out there that you can't see, smell, touch, or detect in any way? How could you know? You can't experience it. There could be an infinite number of things out there that it is impossible for your senses and your tools to ever detect.

But if it is forever invisible to you, of what value is it? When God acts in the physical realm, that is an empirical event. It takes no faith to see that a miracle has occured, assuming you are there to detect it and record it with your instruments when it happens. And, further, that the only explanation was that it was a unrepeated violation of physical laws. Faith ignores the presence of evidence. But atheism has evidence that evidence is of value--your whole lifetime.

Now, if you, personally, embrace empiricism because you have been told to, and the evidence in favor or against it is irrelevant, then you are practicing the "faith" of empiricism. But the minute you go looking for evidence that empiricism is of value, wherever that path may lead, then you are using empiricism to judge empiricism.

Bah! Philosophy makes my concrete-operative controls go offline.

::Could you develop a spell to send your text from your computer to mine? Empiricism did.:: Mark Morgan

I know you didn't mean it this way, but you have constructed these thoughts in such a way to appear to say that empiricism includes creating spells.

::some of us demand that our worldview be useful in explaining and predicting the world of experience:: Mark Morgan

I wasn't aware that any religion tried to explain "the world of experience" as it is now in our daily lives.

::hyperdimensional non-corporeal
subconscious construct?:: AllegraG

Methinks someone has been playing around with the Nitpicker Technobabble Generator.

::Proofs areevil. I am a musician, not a mathematician. Therefore I have very little use for proving that angle ABD is congruent to angle OFR. They take too much time to do and, to me, serve very little purpose outside of a math class. I don't mind if you like doing then, but then you start reminding me of my dad, which is really not the best thing to be reminded of...:: Matthew Patterson

Don't musicians have to be good at math since music is based in mathematics?

::No, because that judgement is based on the empirical evidence. It is a self-closing loop of sorts: empirical standards of evidence cause us to choose empirical standards of evidence. Faith causes us to choose the standards of faith. If there is empirical evidence to support your faith, and that is the deciding factor in you choosing it, you have moved out of faith into empiricism.:: Mark Morgan

My question to you is then, "What do you have left when there is no empirical evidence, BUT faith?"

::It relies on nothing more than experience to say that if you don't experience it, it didn't happen. Meaning experience that comes through your senses or through the tools that you use to extend those senses. It takes no faith to accept that your experience is a good guide. Is there something out there that you can't see, smell, touch, or detect in any way? How could you know? You can't experience it. There could be an infinite number of things out there that it is impossible for your senses and your tools to ever detect.:: Mark Morgan

I am not the type of person who would say, "I didn't sense it so it must not exist."

::Now, if you, personally, embrace empiricism because you have been told to, and the evidence in favor or against it is irrelevant, then you are practicing the "faith" of empiricism. But the minute you go looking for evidence that empiricism is of value, wherever that path may lead, then you are using empiricism to judge empiricism.::

Isn't that "circular" reasoning? LOL

Oh, very much so. All worldviews are ultimately unprovable in any higher sense of the word. You can't really use empiricism to prove the truth of empricism, and you can't use faith to prove the value of faith. But you use faith to judge what to believe on faith, as much as you might use empiricism to judge what to believe on the evidence. But that's different from ever establishing one as absolutely true or not. Me, I go by the "Which one is more useful." I find empricism useful, and faith without worrying about evidence not very useful. Others make other choices.

"What do you have left when there is no empirical evidence, BUT faith?" An event or object that you can only claim exists or existed, and that's the end of it. People will then judge the veracity based on you, and you alone. That is the only standard that can be applied, in the absence of any empirical evidence.

I, on the other hand, am willing to admit there are things we can't detect yet. But if something does not interact in some fashion with the world of experience, it might as well not exist. An invisible, undetectable flying dragon in my garage that cannot touch anything or move anything or interact with anything and which cannot ever be detected by me or anybody else, ever, is functionally equivalent to no dragon at all.

Matthew P, Music and mathematics are, unfortunately, linked.

Oh, I know that. That still does not rob me of the right to protest being forced forced to do hideously complex problems that most people won't have to do again. I can count. I can keep time. I have learned various and sundry tricks for estimating time signatures. (60 bpm: look at the second hand on a watch. 120: 8th notes at 60. 30: half notes at 60. 90: quarter note triplets at 60. 180: 8th note triplets at 60. In some ways, it reminds me of having to construct various angle measures using a compass and straightedge.)

Don't musicians have to be good at math since music is based in mathematics?

Yes, in certain ways. Not the ways I am protesting. It's hard for me to put into words. A musical note is, basically, a certain number of vibrations per second. A typical tuning note of A is 440 hertz. If I cared to, I could figure out how much the frequency increases between whole and half steps, and then play the appropriate frequencey changes in sequence and then get a scale. Doubling or halving the frequencies would give me the same note in a different octave. Music and mathematics are inextricably linked, but not music and "Given that angle C is congruent to angle F, and that segment AC is congruent to segment EF, prove that triangle ABC is congruent to triangle DEF." (That may or may not be provable, or even drawable, I just plugged in random letters.)

Matthew, You'd be surprised what actually turns out to be useful in some context. See my comments over on the Science Nightstand (II?) about the Banach-Tarski Theorems.

Mark, you might want to give Mr. Sagan credit for his invisible dragon.

Man, all this talk about music being mathematical, and just after I've seen the Voyager ep, Virtuoso, and the fact that I'm lousy with math after a certain point, well, it all just makes my head spin! Of course, I find it fascinating that music is basically math equations, or full of 'em at least. I guess I kinda sensed that before but not being musically inclined in the least in any way whatsoever, I've never thought of it, really. I guess it's cuz of my lack of musical talent that I'm fascinated by those who are so greatly inclined, be they musicians, songwriters and/or singers. I did once try the trombone in 5th grade, but not by my choice. The elementary school music teacher had my class learn something or other, with us kids playing different instruments that were suitable to us. Since I had long arms at only 11, I was one of three boys chosen for trombone. How well did I do? Pretty lousy, especially during the recital we later put on, and I'd hoped no one noticed then.

Mark, you might want to give Mr. Sagan credit for his invisible dragon. Yes! Sorry I forgot. In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan used the invisible dragon that no one can detect to describe alien abduction stories. Go out and buy that book immediately. It will teach you more critical thinking skills than five years in public schools.

Ain't nothin' wrong with public schools. I went to them for most of my life and have no complaints. Neiter did the taxpayers where I lived, which is what counts.

In my real life, I work in the public schools, although I'm on a sort of sabbatical this year. I like public schools for the most part. But I see utterly zero evidence that they teach critical thinking skills. By that I mean analyzing the logic of arguments, understanding the views of the other side, analyzing statistics, and generally detecting baloney.

It should be a core skill: reading, writing, 'rithmetic, and 'ritical thinking.

Depends... Down in the trenches, I suspect that most of the teachers want to help the kids learn, except for those few - and I had a class with one of them - who just want to put in their time before retirement...

The problem with the public schools is that they are spending way too much money on bureaucracy and other things (can you say $170Million for a high school sitting on a toxic waste dump before they abandoned the project), and waste too much time and policy on stooopid stuff like social promotion (what fool thought that one up? "Oh no, little Johnny will be scarred for life because he had to take 2nd grade over again!", never mind the fact that Johnny will be scarred for life because he can't read...) etc etc etc.

And now there's those people who want the SAT's abolished/renormalized because it "discriminates" against those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I'm not 7 feet. I want professional basketball to lower the hoop to 6 feet so I can dunk. I can't run a 4 minute mile, so I want the mile run renomed to 880 yards so I can run a 4 minute mile. Life is not fair. Equality of opportunity means exactly that. Everyone has an equal chance. It doesn't guarantee an equal result.

Thanks for letting me rant off topic...

Ummm just incidentally, 880 yards is just over half a mile.

Mark, it depends where you are. What state are you working in? Not all places are created equal, and all the information that I have suggests that the Texas public schools are just as good as any private school you'd find in, say, the state of Louisiana. (And they do it without uniforms, d*****!)

Oregon. And I'm willing to base my generalizations on the amount of sheer nonsense our society tolerates, endorses, and even pays money for. The Face on Mars was patently absurd from the get-go; for all I know, Hoagland is still pimping it on Art Bell (although I understand he's also big on the new movie Mission to Mars.) People pay feng shui practitioners cash money to make sure the chi in the house is properly balanced! Spend that money on a dinner out.

My favorite is the current testing process for new medication: label it as "natural," make no medical claims, put it on the grocer's shelf, and let millions of people run an uncontrolled large-scale test of the product. Maybe melonin is harmless, maybe it's not, but people take random amounts and the manufacturers hope nobody dies before they can escape with the money.

Rant, rant, rant; nothing that hasn't been said before by smarter people than me, and at length. Go read Sagan's book. It'll do you good.

To bring it back somewhat on topic, I am glad to have a worldview that demands empirical evidence. I'm not paying those feng shui people any money until they can prove they're worth more than a regular decorator. My money is worth a little empirical evidence, don't you think.

Here endeth the rant.

Which all goes to support my central idea about life: People are idiots.

I see your point, though. And if I ever get out from this mountain of work, I will read Sagan's book. Right now, there are several volumes of Irish history larger than the Christian Bible that are demanding my attention. Sigh...

Ummm just incidentally, 880 yards is just over half a mile.

I was well aware of that, and incidentally, 880 yards is EXACTLY half a mile. Why do you think I picked that number?

Which all goes to support my central idea about life: People are idiots. There are some days, Matt. . .

Sagan's book begins with the story of a cab driver he met, who was dying to learn about things, to understand things, to analyze things, but no one had ever taught him how. Instead, science has abandoned his inquisitive mind to the New Age drivel we now labor under. Perhaps not all idiots, but certainly on the road if we don't stop the downhill slide and really get these skills to people. It's that important.

When Mark N. said he's fascinated by music and musicians (yes, I'm paraphrasing) because he feels he does not posess that talent to an appreciable degree, I realized that I feel the same way about math. (Duh, huh.) The main talents I innately posess all center around music, and I am not, nor have I ever been, proficient in mathematics. Not for the lack of trying. I have felt intellectually inadequate to a big degree, for most of my life, because of this. It's only been since I have been an adult, that I've realized that math isn't necessarily the refuge of the superintelligent, and that I must approach numbers in a creative way, in order to absorb any of their value (pun intended). I'm feverish and delirious right now, so Mark M, please advise the overlord that the hot water bottle of the first advisor has been re-enstated for temporary duty.
Oh yeah-Atheism. "no-theism". sounds boring.

Yet, I am not bored. Perhaps I've found an acceptable substitute for mysticism in my daydreams. Or in my increasing fervor to understand the world as it is, as opposed to what we would like it to be.

I will make the appropriate adjustments to the Puppet Ruling Council document in the morning.

About the only musical talent (for lack of a better term) I have is being able to keep a decent beat with some songs, but only sometimes.

Hi I wanted to get back to the original thread of Atheism here. Atheism does not equal empiricism, although some people do use empiricism as a reason for (lack of) belief. As an athiest myself, I have to admit that empiricism is only part of why I choose athiesm. After all, empirical evidence only leads me to believe that god is not a required part of understanding the universe. I could still speculate either way, even while maintaining the idea that it makes no difference in practical terms whether god exists or not.
But I'm very strongly on the Atheist side, to the point of evangalizing Atheism (I know, I know, don't flame! I never push it down people's throats, but if anyone asks or is curious about my beliefs I give them an earfull). To me Atheism is about faith...in myself! I'll rant about that later, if anyone cares and wants me to. But the main point I wanted to make is that, for me, Atheism is a faith. Empiricism provides support, but is not itself the whole story.

Okay, I'll bite. Define "faith in oneself." Besides the obivous.

I'll bang on this one a little and see how it holds up. What is atheism? According to this entry in the Skeptic's Dictionary, an atheist must believe that people invented God, not God invented people. I'll use that definition from now on and not rely so heavily on empiricism. However, you are correct that the statement "there is no God" is not necessarily an empirical statement. It is a conceptual one. But is it one of faith? Would you continue to not believe in God in face of the empirical evidence? I wouldn't. If there were empirical evidence of God, I would accept His existence. Would you?

Why did you choose to become an atheist? Just for the heck of it? What makes you decide that the world lacks a God? I would argue that it is not faith that makes on not believe in the existence of God. I follow Robert Carrol (from his Skeptic's Dictionary entry on faith) in this:

---

Quote:

Finally, the claim 'everything evolved from natural processes' is not necessarily an act of faith. If the only alternatives are that everything evolved from either supernatural or natural forces, and one is unconvinced by the arguments and evidence presented by those who believe in supernatural forces, then logically, the only reasonable belief is that everything evolved from natural forces. Only if the evidence supporting a supernatural being were superior or equal to the evidence and arguments against such a belief, would belief that everything evolved from natural forces be a matter of faith.

---

---

Quote:

Those of us who are atheists, and believe that everything evolved from natural forces, nearly universally maintain that theists and supernaturalists have a very weak case for their belief, weaker even than the case for Bigfoot, Nessie or Santa Claus. Thus, our disbelief is not an act of faith, and therefore, not non-rational as are those of theists and Christian apologists.

---

I think that maybe that makes you an agnostic, Mark. Someone who doesn't claim to have the answers.

I dunno, Scott. I have what I believe is one answer: if you didn't experience it with your senses, it didn't happen. (With the usual disclaimers about accepting others' reports if they could be reasonably repeated; and expanding our collective senses using tools of various sorts and by measuring the impact of things on the physical universe by inference as opposed to direct observation.)

I've run into an excellent essay by Theodore Drange that defines the three this way (I'm paraphrasing wildly):
1. A theist says the sentence "God exists" is true.
2. An atheist says the sentence "God exists" is false.
3. An agnostic says the truth or falsehood of the sentence "God exists" is cannot be decided because there is a lack of evidence either way.

I am 2. I think those who believe the sentence is true have not met the burden of proof, while those who favor a naturalistic explanation have. So, I believe that the sentence "God exists" is false. The evidence has led me to that conclusion. Since I'm decided (although the evidence could change my mind), I am currently an atheist who follows some Buddhist philosophical principles.

The idea that "you let the evidence decide" is an insufficient definition of "agnostic" is explored in depth in that essay. If you do read that essay, I would classify myself as a methodological atheist according to its taxa. Apparently, Craig would classify himself as either a mystical atheists or a faith atheist. Ah, the joys of philosophical nitpicking! Certainly makes this discussion seem more appropriate for this board, doesn't it?

(An aside.) Man, I love the Internet. Could I ever have followed up so quick on this if I had to go to the library? There are some things books are best for--I love books--but this instant knowledge retrieval is magnificent.

Although I call myself agnostic, I'm rather atheistic towards others' theistic beliefs, in that I refuse to believe someone else's personal belief, faith, concept, idea, or interpretation of any supreme being that I believe they falsely think truly exists without the absolute proof of said being. As I've said before (and repeat for those newbies here who haven't read any or all of my past posts on this subject), we're fallible, gullible beings, with a tendency to believe anything we wish for whatever reason, and thus are bound to make mistakes, and I realize (yes, realize) that religion is the worst thing humankind has ever created.

Anyone opposing my views are welcome to voice theirs but if there's any intention of converting me, or at least convincing me that you think you're right when I know you're wrong, well, fuhgeddaboudit. No, I'm not looking to be flamed for seeming like I think I'm better than those with theistic beliefs, cuz I'm not. No one's any better than anyone else just cuz they do or don't have theistic beliefs. I'm just stating my opinion, as usual.

I'm not sure I require absolute proof, but I do require that if you make a claim you are then the one who must provide evidence for that claim. I find lots of evidence for a naturalistic explanation of the universe, and zero evidence for a theistic explanation. Others may differ in their reasoning for being an atheist, of course.

I realize (yes, realize) that religion is the worst thing humankind has ever created.

Since I don't want to get into this again (we've done quite enough over on Positive Aspects of Reigion), let me just say no.

Barney the Dinosaur.

Hydrogen bombs.

Child-proof medicine caps.

The double-posting on the Discus system.

Windows 98.

These are all far worse than any religion, and the only good thing about them is that they can't last forever.

I have to second Matthew. And add more:

Pokemon.

Power Rangers.

Chauvinism.

Bias.

Prejudice.

Unfounded fears.

Insensitivity to others' beliefs. *Begin sarcastic tone* Not that anyone here practices that, of course. *End sarcastic tone*

And the thing that's much worse than any religion by far - stupidity.

Mark dear - What the heck did your first sentence say? I got lost somewhere in the convoluted twists and turns of falsely being true and truly being false.

Ok Matthew, since you bit... "faith in oneself" as I believe is actually an extension of the obvious meaning. Many theists, especially Christian evangalizers I've met, say that without god their life would be meaningless and empty, and that they need god to give them the strength to make it through the adversity of life. I specifically believe that is false. I know (as a statement of faith only) that I have within me all the strength and power I need to make it though my days and lead a meaningfull, fullfilling life. When things are going badly for me, I know that with time and persistance, I will be able to pick up the pieces and turn things around (or at least make the best of the situation). Granted my conviction is supported by the evidence that I've done so in the past, but that's not really proof that I'll be able to do so in the future. I just really at my core believe that I'm able to face anything, or at least go down fighting, without help from higher powers.
To me, saying we need god is an insult to the human spirit. Its saying that we are not good enough, and that we will always eventually fail. It says we only have lasted this long through undeserved charity of higher beings.
Mark, to answer you, given evidence I would probably admit the existance of god. It would take a lot to sway me, I'd be looking for alternative ways to explain the evidence, but me faith is not absolute, eventually I would give in. I would still assert (on faith) that we don't need god, my story would be altered to "God created us with everything we need to face life on our own." Which makes us like god's grown-up children, he gave us all we need, and set us free to make our own lives.

Many theists, especially Christian evangalizers I've met, say that without god their life would be meaningless and empty, and that they need god to give them the strength to make it through the adversity of life.

Well, I see nothing wrong with the first part of that statement. However, I also find the second part, for the most fault, false. I know that there are very few things I cannot handle on my own. And yet, the wonderful thing is, because of God, I need not be alone if help is necessary. I'm capable of handling most situations by myself, but I'm not too proud to admit that I need help and ask for it, should the need arise.

This post, v2.0:

Many theists, especially Christian evangalizers I've met, say that without god their life would be meaningless and empty, and that they need god to give them the strength to make it through the adversity of life.

Well, I see nothing wrong with the first part of that statement. However, I also find the second part, partly, false. I know that there are very few things I cannot handle on my own. I don't believe thta I need divine assistance in order to make it through every second of every day. And yet, the wonderful thing is, because of God, I need not be alone if help is necessary. I'm capable of handling most situations by myself, but I'm not too proud to admit that I need help and ask for it, should the need arise.

I agree with the first part of this statement--Without God, my life would be "happy" in a worldly sense, but certainly not fulfilled or with the joy that I now experience. I believe that I do need God to make it through each day, as He does so much every day that it is impossible to ignore.

Craig: if there was evidence to contradict your faith in yourself--that is, if there was evidence that at some point you couldn't handle a situation yourself, but would need at least the help of another human, would you continue to believe in yourself despite this clear evidence to the contrary? Yes, and you are acting only on faith. No, and you are acting on both faith and on the basis of the evidence, not on "faith alone." It is not an act of faith to say, "I know my strengths because of my experience being myself, and therefore I believe based on that evidence that in the future I will continue to do so."

It is faith, however, if you say "I don't care about the evidence, whether it supports my belief in myself or refutes my belief in myself, because I will always believe this as a tenet of my personal worldview, regardless." In other words, if the evidence is not relevent because you have faith, and your faith will win out over the evidence, then you are acting on faith. If it is at least possible that you will allow the evidence to change your mind, then you are not acting on faith alone.

I believe in myself, but not based on faith, but on the evidence. I hold forth the possibilty that there will be situations I will need help with. I just don't require that such help be God. Other humans are quite sufficient. I went through a fairly major disaster in the not-too distant past, and while I acted beyond even my own conception of my personal emotional reserves, I doubt I would have recovered without the strong support of my family. At no time did I turn to God to help, or even to my Buddhist beliefs. (No, AllegraG, I didn't, despite my claims that I did. More details in person.) I do not believe in myself based on faith and faith alone, because I hold out the possibility that I won't be able to handle a situation on my own, and will need the help of other humans.

Yep, that should clear everything right up. We can finish discussing anything anymore, that was so clear. Sure we should.

Addendum: click here for at least one atheist's description of how life can be meaningful without resorting to religion to fill it. After I have a chance to think about it for a while, I may post a similar statement where you all can find it.

M. Jenkins. Since I am perfict, I will ignore your insults.:-)

I was saying the orgins of the "Sons of God" were pagan and the subject was demonlogy, not angelogy.

Yes I am aware native americans are still alive and I've "dated" people who were part Cherokee, but if their gods were alive they would have defended them. The Jews survied 3000 years of suffering and pesecution and have always stood at the graves of their oppressers. This is because of their covenate with God.

Besides Pascal's Gamble, science based on Objective universe requires a creator, or it would be impossable for a objective universe to exist. Clockmaker's anology
Clocks- clockmakers
Universe- God.

Since I am perfict

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Can I make one small correction to a mistake I've seen here? The word is covenant, not covenate.

If an objective universe requires a creator, as a clock requires a clockmaker, then it follows that an objective God requires a creator, as a clock requires a clockmaker.

Or, a clock is designed. The however, assumes the universe is designed, so must need a designer. This is begging the question. It also ignores the fact that many things are very badly designed--who put the receptors in our eyes backwards and upside down? Paley's argument that the universe is like a clock assumes that the universe is like a clock, without giving us any reason to follow that assumption.

I love the Skeptic's Dictionary. Didn't have to go more than three clicks for that one.

Darnit, forgot the most important link! Click here for a complete description of why the argument from design doesn't hold.

Well Mark, much as I hate to admit it, I do have evidence to the contrary. I have had to rely on other humans in the past. But I look at those setbacks and say "well that experience made me stronger, and next time I will be better able to face such situation on my own (or at least with less help)." And in the grander scheme of things, I know empirically that humans will eventually 'lose' to death, and our indominable will eventually fails us. And yet (and this does rattle me a bit that I'm 'faithfull') I still feel that I (or at least humans collectively) will eventually beat every challenge that we face and move on to face the next hurdle. And that even our 'failures' will actually lead us in further advances even if only by inspiring others to do better.

My analysis of the design argument is that it is a very weak inductive argument. Some orderly things like watches and city streets have a designer, so the argument says this implies that all orderly things, like seasons and crystals, must have a designer. But its pretty weak since only a tiny fraction of orderly things, those built be humans, have obvious designers. The vast majority of order was either spontanious or god designed, with no evidence either way. BTW, do beaver dams and termite mounds count? Are beavers and termites 'designers' or do there constructs fall under 'god-designed' order? Even if you count all animal 'designs', living creature designed things are far outnumbered in the cosmos by order with no definate designer.

::If an objective universe requires a creator, as a clock requires a clockmaker, then it follows that an objective God requires a creator, as a clock requires a clockmaker.:: Mark Morgan

Why would the ultimate creator need a creator since the creator of everything was always there?

As my math teacher says, you assume too much. You assume a clock needs a clockmaker. Fine--you can objectively look at the evidence that a clock would not exist without a clockmaker. However, does the clockmaker require a clockmaker-clockmaker? I choose to believe he does--God. This cannot be proven as the clock/clockmaker problem however, as you cannot remove God from the person/God situation.

No, I don't. I do not assume anything. In particular, until I receive evidence that the universe is designed, I don't think it was. In fact much of nature shows that if it was designed, it was designed by an incompetent. The receptors in my eyes are upside down and backwards, and because of this I have a hole in my sight (the blind spot) that my brain has to work around. What incompetent can't come up with a better design for humans than the knee or the lower back? The back can't even take standing up for great lengths of time!

If you believe in God, it seems to me the better argument is that you have faith, that God is not subject to empirical proof or disproof. Not the logically flawed argument that the universe is designed and thus requires a designer. The clockmaker argument assumes the universe is like a clock--that it was designed. What is the evidence for this? I see a cobbled together universe of contingency and downright nastiness. The universe may have a designer, but the nature of a universe does not lead one to assume it must have been designed.

Jwb52z: If you can assume the creator was always there, I can assume the universe was always there. In fact, there are many opinions of the nature of the early universe (before the Planck time, when the fundamental nature of spacetime first came into being), and all of them are based on the notion that the very concepts of "before" and "after" did not exist in the early universe. Further, before there was a universe, there was no time. So it is meaningless to talk about "when" the universe was created--there was no time before time began.

It is difficult to think that there was nothing before the universe started because before the universe started there was no time or space to observe things from, but there you are. The notion of "before" the universe is meaningless, because time did not exist before the universe existed and therefore the universe has existed for all time and did not need a moment of creation. A moment is a measure of time.

The universe did not begin before it existed. But once it existed, then it became meaningful to talk about "after" the start of the universe. It is just meaningless to talk about "before" the universe. Counter-intuitive, but there youa re.

::No, I don't. I do not assume anything. In particular, until I receive evidence that the universe is designed, I don't think it was. In fact much of nature shows that if it was designed, it was designed by an incompetent. The receptors in my eyes are upside down and backwards, and because of this I have a hole in my sight (the blind spot) that my brain has to work around. What incompetent can't come up with a better design for humans than the knee or the lower back? The back can't even take standing up for great lengths of time!:: Mark Morgan

Why do you assume that the universe would have to have been designed by an incompetent just because you think you would know better how to make it? Do you think we should all have been made perfectly with no faults?

::Jwb52z: If you can assume the creator was always there, I can assume the universe was always there. In fact, there are many opinions of the nature of the early universe (before the Planck time, when the fundamental nature of spacetime first came into being), and all of them are based on the notion that the very concepts of "before" and "after" did not exist in the early universe. Further, before there was a universe, there was no time. So it is meaningless to talk about "when" the universe was created--there was no time before time began.:: Mark Morgan

Although I wouldn't agree that the Universe itself was always in existence, the rest of what you say here I would have to say that would have to be true.

Jwb52z: the short version is, if you are going to say the universe must have been designed, I am going to counter-argue that it can't have been, because certainly God can design as well as a mere human can. A clock shows clear evidence of design only if you evaluate it using human standards of good design. The universe is not as well designed as a clock, so the analogy falls apart at that step. Perhaps God had His reasons for making the universe this way, but you cannot prove His existence by this faulty analogy.

The long version:

The argument from design can only work if you assume the universe shows clear evidence of design. I, a mere human, can design a better universe than the one we live in. Or, to be more exact, any competent engineer could redesign the knee or the back better than what we have. The clock is obviously engineered. The human back shows no clear engineering. This demolishes the logical construct "the universe shows engineering, so it must have an engineer." No, it shows evidence that at least some of it is not engineered at all. So you can't have the conclusion, because the premise is false.

To lay it out more clearly, the argument from design is:
A. The universe must have been designed.
B. A designed object must have a designer.
Therefore, the universe must have a designer.

I say, the the knee or the back falsifies A. They do not show any evidence of having been designed. Therefore, A is false, and the whole argument is therefore invalid.

Other things that I see as invalidating A include babies born without brains, human beings who are able to survive without any brain activity, and random destruction of men, women, and children by plague, disease, famine, and natural disaster. These examples say to me that you cannot assume the universe is designed. And without that assumption, the argument from design doesn't hold.

Please note that this is a disproof of just the logic of the argument from design. It does not serve as a disproof of God, because I still hold that in essence the existence or non existence of God is not subject to disproof.

I do not follow the argument from ignorance, either, that because it has not been disproved, it must therefore be consider proved.

MJ, sorry for the confusion. I know what I want to say doesn't always come across as I'd like it to so I'll try to clarify my point for you, but, as I tend to ramble, please bear with me.

I'm agnostic and openminded, so I, without proof either way, neither affirm nor deny the true existence of any supreme beings that we have no way yet of knowing the existence of.

I'm atheistic only towards anybody else's own personal belief, for the simple reason that it is one's own personal belief, and for whatever reason they choose to believe as they do. In other words, your god is your god, not the rest of the world's. Ever have someone argue "Well, my god this..." or "Well, my god that..." Well, they're just talking about their own personal god, not one that the entire world (or the vast majority of, at least) believes in.

Now, since we're gullible, fallible people, we'll create, or not, gods and demons and stories that too easily explain things away, or to give us reasons to do certain things in the name of. (Need I mention what? I hardly think so.) We're a very naive species, for all our intelligence, and I think that anyone with a theistic belief is wrong for the fact that: 1.) they have no proof that their deity exists, 2.) they'll never have the proof, and 3.) they've made up their god for their own personal reasons. They may not realize that they did, nor would they likely admit to doing so, either. Thus, since it's a god within their own minds, and not mine, then I refuse to believe in their god. Did god create man or did man create god? Well, obviously the latter.

Now, having said all that, I'll add this (I think I have somewhere else before but I can't recall where at the moment), and I hope this won't confuse you anymore than my last post did. I don't doubt that the concept of believing in a supreme being is wrong, cuz by golly the believer could be right in that respect. It's just what and how one believes, and how they may use that against others and/or for their own personal gains that I've got the problem with. Does anyone get that? (MarkM, put down your hand. *S*)

I hope this helps clarify my point for you, but I'm not always good at putting things exactly as I'd like to, like MarkM does so well.

BTW, MarkM, time is a human (or Andorian, Klingon, Vulcan, Romulan, Ferengi, etc.) concept and really doesn't exist at all. Not physically, at least.

Why would the ultimate creator need a creator since the creator of everything was always there?
And how can there always be a creator without something or someone else to create them first? Who created the creator? How can one exist without first being created? Therein lies the paradox. Believe what you will but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

Time, for physicists, is a fundamental property of the universe. How we measure that time is a human concept, but the arrow of time is a property of nature.

ScottN probably knows more details than I do about the exact scientific definition of time, but time is something scientists discuss as the fundamental aspect of the universe. Einstein's gave an operational definition of time as that which we measure with a clock. Not surprisingly, a complete disucssion of "time" from a scientific standpoint is A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. In fact, four-dimensional spacetime was and was one of the key elements of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

The human, subjective part is how we define units of time. But time is there, just the same way space is there whether we measure it in feet, meters, or globnicks. The early universe, before the Planck Time, the nature of the fundamental universe was different, and probably time (particularly causality, the idea of before and after) was meaningless. Further, before the universe there was no time, so it is meaningless to talk about "before" the universe because the concept is undefined. In that manner, the universe always existed because there was no time before the universe existed.

Addendum: MarkN, I got it. Your core argument in many ways is the same as mine: there is no empirical evidence for God. In fact, some elements of God's nature are not subject to empirical investigation, ever, even in theory. This leads you to the conclusion that God must be a purely mental construct with no existence outside the mind of the believer.

By the way, by Drange's definitions, you are an atheist because you would say the statement "God exists" is false. An agnostic would say "You cannot determine yet if God exists or not." You, on the other hand, have decided He doesn't exist. Because you're willing to listen to opposing arguments doesn't necessarily make you an agnostic, just an open-minded atheist who bases his atheism (no God) on the evidence. I like Drange's taxa, can't you tell?

But we are not trying to detremine the nature of the clockmaker. We are just trying to prove he exists. The universe is simply too complex to have grown by itself. The Big Bang vs. Enthropy alone proves intelegent design(i.e. How can the universe evole from lesser forms into higher forms when the second law of Thermodynamics demands it should fallen apart) and life must come from life(Pasture's flasks are still bacteria free.) is a second proof for inteelegent design. Thus the universe had to be designed by an intellegence.

What of nature of that being is not cosmic order, that's religion, that's cosmic purpose. Science is not equipped to deal with purpose or find purpose. It's trying to eat soup with a fork. The nature, orgins, and intent of the Creator are not subject to science nor can they answer it. That is religion.

The universe is simply too complex to have grown by itself. By that logic God, being even more complex, also requires a creator.

Your logic about evolutionary theory is fallacious as well. Check out this discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; further, see this FAQ about abiogenesis and this other FAQ about abiogenesis. I've discussed it in some detail over in the appropriate thread, as well. Spontaneous creation of complex organisms by natural processes is falsified by Pasture's experiment, but the step by step development of more complex life from simple molecules was not. As a side note, you should be aware that despite what the Kansas School Board apparently thinks, Big Bang cosmology is a separate issue from evolutionary theory, and one is not dependent on the other.

I can find my purpose in life without resorting to religious or supernatural beliefs. My purpose is to make the world a better place for myself and everybody else than it was before I got here. But why type when I can link to an essay that explores the issue in greater depth than there is room here to cover? Science,Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. Another related essay is Death and The Meaning of Life

We must find a personal meaning in life whether there is a God or not.

We are not discussing here scientific disproof, but instead the logic of the philosophical argument from design. That said, I do agree with your last line. But if it isn't even in principle subject to empirical investigation, I choose to not believe in it. I suppose I will just have to accept the infinite variety and beauty of the universe of experience.

Addendum: the second law of thermodynamics does not falsify Big Bang cosmology, either, because that principle did not apply to the early universe. In fact, the time before the Planck Time is by definition a time before the laws of nature took their established forms.

The universe shows signs of being badly designed? Sounds like "monday-morning quarterbacking" to me...

Hey, no more than claiming you know that it was designed. How could you know what good universal design is any more than I know what bad design is? Neither of us is God. If I can't say, "It was badly designed and so needs no designer," then you can't say, "It shows clear evidence of design" because you don't know, either. If you can apply some kind of design standard, so can I. And that's what the clock argument assumes--that we can conclude that universe was designed, using some standard of what "designed" means to come to that conclusion.

Pesti: To paraphrase you, "if Native Americans'
gods were alive, why didn't their gods defend them?" How many Hebrews and Christians have been murdered?
Why didn't god defend them? And for the record, from what little I know of Native American religion, there is/was one god - the Great Spirit.
There are other mythological creatures. Owl, coyote, Grandmother spider, but they are not, to
the best of my knowledge deities. Incidentally, the modern Indians have combined aspects of Chrisitianity with the old religion.

Now, since we're gullible, fallible people, we'll create, or not, gods and demons and stories that too easily explain things away, or to give us reasons to do certain things in the name of. (Need I mention what? I hardly think so.) We're a very naive species, for all our intelligence, and I think that anyone with a theistic belief is wrong for the fact that: 1.) they have no proof that their deity exists, 2.) they'll never have the proof, and 3.) they've made up their god for their own personal reasons. They may not realize that they did, nor would they likely admit to doing so, either. Thus, since it's a god within their own minds, and not mine, then I refuse to believe in their god. Did god create man or did man create god? Well, obviously the latter.

Did anyone ever tell you you were a cynic, Mark?

I'll grant that you're prolly talking about Christianity (based on previous arguments). Might I suggest a wider scope of religious studies? Wicca, as I've previously stated, does not create gods or demons or stories for the sake of explaining away anything. Nor does a Wiccan go around and decapitate people in the name of the Goddess. (By the Maiden, I feel like I'm preaching.) Wiccans do things or they don't. It is believed that whatever a person does, good or bad, will be returned to him/her thrice over. Which would encourage good deeds and discourage bad deeds.

There is proof that the Earth Mother and Skyfather exists. Look around; go take a walk in a park. Nature is the domain of the Horn'd Consort. Life and death is the domain of the Triple Lady.

So, by your three points, I return to thee:
1) I have my proof.
2) My proof exists.
3) Is it necessary to believe in a feminine and masculine aspect of this whole world? Prolly not. It simply makes it easier for me to believe in, as a religious person.

Did I go with atheism/agnosticism for a while? Believe it. But I found that I needed a higher power I could believe in, and I found it in the form of the Lady and her Consort. It makes the most sense to me, it's similar to Shintoism, and it's not entirely male dominated.

No one is asking you to believe in anyone else's god. In fact, I bet I don't believe in the same gods as another Wiccan. Sure, there is a universal view of deities within each religious boundaries, but no two people will believe in the exact same one. Pesti might see his god as a gentle and kind soul. Vargo might see his as wrathful brimstone type. It's the same deity. Not the same view of the deity.

By the way, you should watch "Contact" with Jodie Foster. If you haven't already. 'Cuz you remind me of Mr Kitz (James Woods).

Thus ends my lecture. Time to wonder where the Dunce is.

...you are an atheist because you would say the statement "God exists" is false. An agnostic would say "You cannot determine yet if God exists or not." You, on the other hand, have decided He
doesn't exist. Because you're willing to listen to opposing arguments doesn't necessarily make you an agnostic, just an open-minded atheist who bases his atheism (no God) on the evidence.

Hooboy! Ok, MarkM, now I'll try to explain to you why I'm really an agnostic and not a full atheist. I don't say the statement, "God exists," is false. I'd say, "I don't believe that your personal god exists." There's a difference. I don't doubt the existence of any supreme beings without proof, or lack thereof, first, so yes, I'd need some evidence. Therefore, I haven't decided god exists, or not. I just don't believe in any one person's interpretation, concept, view and so on of their own particular god, so in that respect am I atheistic, but not towards the true existence of any actual gods, just towards an individual's personal believe in such, ok? There's a difference. And I'll have to read up on this Drange fella to know more about him and his opinions. Then I'll know what you're talking about on him.

Did anyone ever tell you you were a cynic, Mark?
I honestly don't remember, MJ, but it's true, I am. I've seen Contact. Twice. I even have the book but haven't read it yet.

Yes, I do generally talk mostly about christianity and its various offshoots and I didn't mean to lump Wicca in with my argument, so I apologize for that. I never believed that Wiccans did any of the evil things the ignorant, fearful christians of days of yore punished them for, nor did I ever think Wiccans still do those things. If there are any bad Wiccans they're certainly and no doubt in the minority, and like you said, they'll get back threefold (maybe moreso?) what they've doled out. I believe in that concept cuz if a person isn't punished for their bad deeds by someone else (cops, lawyers, judges, jealous husband, angered father or mother, etc.) in their lifetime, then they'll probably be punished in some way we'll never know about in the afterlife. What it is, I don't know but it's something at least worth considering.

Now, for those who'd ask me how can I deny god but not an afterlife, I'd say easy. I'm openminded about it as well. I don't think we know for a fact what happens to us after death until we do die. Do our souls stay earthbound or go to some heavenly place? Who knows? It's nice to think of going to a peaceful place but we'll just have to find out when that time comes. For those who believe in the soul, do you believe in ghosts, too? Yes, I've brought it up before but hardly anyone seems to comment on it. If you believe in ghosts, then why do you think so many of them are earthbound? Why don't they go to heaven or hell or purgatory instead? Or is being earthbound purgatory or hell for them?

MJ, I know no one's asking me to believe in their god, thankfully. If they did they'd get an earful, believe me. There are those who'd instantly judge me for my views without wanting to otherwise get to know me further just cuz to them I'm evil or misguided in my views or else they're just afraid of people with open minds and differing views from their own. They're the ones I'd rather avoid for the most part. And yes, I was talking about the universal belief in the same basic god, but with each individual having his or her own particular concept of such. No matter how closely any two people believe in the same god, still they each have their own personal god that's ever so slightly different than the other's. That's why people say they have a personal relationship with god, cuz they do. With their own personal god.

MarkN: Here's the essay in question. Drange also talks about how "I am an atheist" applies to one definition of God at a time. The Secular Web Library has a whole bunch of essays exploring this subject, and others of interest to critical thinkers.

You are certainly agnostic with respect to the afterlife.

MarkN: Here's the essay in question. Drange also talks about how "I am an atheist" applies to one definition of God at a time. The Secular Web Library has a whole bunch of essays exploring this subject, and others of interest to critical thinkers.

You are certainly agnostic with respect to the afterlife.

If God created us in his image, than God is one sick ••••. His all-powerful mind is so twisted it makes Marilyn Manson look like Pavarotti.

MikeC: Be a good lad and delete my duplicate post. Anon's little troll also seems to cross the boundaries of Phil's policies on this place. Thanks.

'Cuz you remind me of Mr Kitz (James Woods).

Really? I'm reminded more of Ellie Arroway. Of couse, I've only ever read the book, which I understand is substantially different from the movie. From what i heard, I think the book is supposed to be better.

Books are always better than the movies based on them. You can create your own inner movie when reading, but unfortunately I often tend to forget what I've read as soon as I've read it so I have to go over the last few sentences sometimes. Then I'll recall what's just been read.

MarkM, thanks for the links. They've been bookmarked for later reading.

An interesting book with empiracle evidence about the historical Jesus is called, "The Case For Christ," by Lee Straub.
Lee Straub was a reporter who did a good deal of work reporting court proceedings. An athiest, he became interesting in finding out if there were any evidence for or against the existance and works of Christ. It's actually a fairly easy and quick read.

Lee Strobel.

Wonderful. Another book my local library doesn't have. I suppose I'll have to see if it's lurking around Barnes and Noble.

What I'm most curious about is the claim (over at the description at Amazon) that they were able to establish that Jesus meets the "profile" for God, and what evidence outside the Bible leads them to this.

I will also be very interested in seeing what evidence is presented outside the Bible or other strictly religious sources to support the existence of Christ. Is the evidence strong, or circumstantial? I mean, no one argues that Herod didn't exist, but just because he does isn't proof that Christ also existed, in the absence of records of his existence.

And, last, how he managed to navigate the contradictions and uncertainties in the not-always-clear Biblical stories. For starters, there never was a census during Biblical times that required people to go to their birthplaces to be counted.

If I can find a darn copy of the book, I'll see what evidence is presented and how. But these objections are the ones the book would need to overcome. Particularly that one about profiling God, as that's an extraordinary claim if I ever heard one, assuming I even understand what that is supposed to mean.

Vargo: I just now caught your comment that animals aren't sentient.

Sentience means self-awareness. A sentient being knows it exists, knows its alive. You can't tell me that my cats don't know they're alive. Not only do they know, I think animals are the only ones in heaven (if it exists) because animals don't use religion as an exucse to be really crappy to each other. They don't kill each other based on different fur color, they don't hunt for sport, they don't molest, or rape.

Cats and Dogs and Pigs are OUR superiors. Not the other way around.

"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than the dolphins because he had achieved so much- wars, the wheel, New York, and so on- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But converseley, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man- for precisely the same reasons."

- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 23.

You might as well have said that. And, I thought that sentience, at least as Trek defined it, involved self-awareness, intelligence, and consciousness? Wouldn't we have to judge the animals by all three of these standards?

They don't kill each other based on different fur color, they don't hunt for sport, they don't molest, or rape.

Well, neither do I. By that logic, I shouldn't go to heaven just because certain members of my species do these things. And what of those animal species that consume their own young?

Actually, I think what Vargo said was animals don't have souls. That is a separate question from what defines sentience. I have never been particularly thrilled by any definition of sentience I've read, and I don't think we'll ever understand it until we encounter another sentient species. Unless the dolphins are sentient, and we can't recognize it, in which case we are even worse off for a definition that even I think.

Animals do all those things you mention, Brian, if we interpret them in terms of self-awareness of their acts. The difference between killing to eat and killing for sport is the interpretation of the motivation behind the act, not the act itself. So by definition animals do not do those things exactly because they are not sentient.

The mystical concept of the soul and its ultimate fate is separate from the empirical concept of sentience.

I think animals do have selfawareness, but perhaps it's in a way that we've no way of knowing of yet. I dunno, I could be wrong. It's just an idea, but one I don't think should be discounted just yet.

Maybe it's Morgan who reminds me of Kitz, then. 'Course, I never read the book. Can't find it. Saw the movie. Thought it was horribly miscast.

Yes, Mark, hate to break your heart: You're a cynic. That's okay, though...so am I. And I'll try to remember that Wicca is excluded from your tarbrush of religions.

Btw, a note of interest to me: Crisa has a friend who found out I am Wiccan. His first reaction was that was interesting, since he thinks it's an interesting religion and may convert over anyway. First person I ever heard of outside of Wicca that didn't call me a cat-sacrificing blood-drinking demon-chanting satanist. Destined for the bowels of hell. Hmmm...

There was a show on our local PBS station a couple of weeks ago about animal sentience & emotions. The scientists were trying to determine if animals are self aware. They left pieces of mirrors near a group of baboons and, separately, a group of chimps. The baboons kept looking for the baboon on the other side of the mirror (not self-aware). The chimps, however, looked in the mirrors to groom themselves. One scientist put something on the head of one of the chimps while the chimp wasn't looking in the mirror. When the chimp looked in the mirror, he saw it & took it off his head.

So self awareness looks to be present in at least some animals. There were a lot of other good questions discussed on the show. Wish I had taped it.

::It is believed that whatever a person does, good or bad, will be returned to him/her thrice over. Which would encourage good deeds and discourage bad deeds.:: M Jenkins

I wonder why you aren't amazingly wealthy, as you are very friendly, although I don't know you personally.

::For starters, there never was a census during Biblical times that required people to go to their birthplaces to be counted.:: Mark Morgan

What about payment of Taxes?

I'll have to find my attribution for that claim, as I've lost it somewhere.

Another example would be the star of Bethlehem. What interpretation does Strobel follow? Was the star a miracle? Then my standards of evidence would be extraordinarily high--"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."~Hume's maxim.

If not, which celestial event (there are several candidates) does he claim as the one reported in the Bible? Or does he ignore the issue altogether?

That's the sort of question I'd be interested in seeing what he does with. It's also the thing that makes me very skeptical he has found hard, impartial, non-religious empirical answers. But I could be wrong.

Assuming I could find the bloody thing.

P.S. MJ, why you think I remind you of the evil, manipulative Senator Kitz, I don't know. Ovelord who?

(I'm more the Dr. Arroway type--"Let's see what's out there!")

Yes, MJ, I know I'm a cynic. I just meant that I don't remember exactly if anyone else has ever accused me of it. I'm sure someone or other has. I just don't remember is all.

First person I ever heard of outside of Wicca that didn't call me a cat-sacrificing blood-drinking demon-chanting satanist.
Um, Dearest. The first? What about me? I've never once said anything against Wicca to you, and in fact have supported you in it from the start. Now I feel so unloved and ignored all of a sudden, and by the one I've got a huge crush on, well, it just hurts so much. *pout* I think I'll go and cry now. Oh, wait. Not yet. I've got one more thing to attend to first.

Ovelord who?

HA! You've misspelled a word, Mark! And thus, by the power bestowed upon me as the Great and Powerful Spellchecker, it is hereby on my authority that I sentence you to spend a day in The First Level of Hell. It could've been shorter had you been new to these boards but since you're not and should know better your punishment is more severe. Hey, I don't make the rules... Oh, yeah, that's right. I do, hee hee! Anyway, enjoy your stay.

Ok, MJ, now I'll go and cry.

No, I make the rules, sorry about that. The Overlord gives you a title, I can take it right back. And my spelling is whatever I decree it to be, what with the Overlord and I being the real power and all that. . .

MJ, if memory serves I've never called you a Satanist. Deluded foolish biological female, but not Satanist. How could I fault you for worshipping something you don't believe in?

The real reason for this post: I'm not sure, Brian, that it's accurate to say "sentience" is the same as "self-awareness." My suspicion is that it is more complex than that, but I haven't read anything recently on the topic. I bet it's related to the strong AI problem, which is far to complex to go in here. I recommend The Emperor's New Mind and its sequel Shadows of the Mind, both by Roger Penrose, as general introductions to the strong AI problem, although I disagree with Penrose's conclusions. When he tries to make a quantum mechanical argument against computer sentience, he leaves his field and pretty much falls in a ditch.

A minor tack-on: Crisa's friend is the first person that I can have potential face to face contact with who hasn't called me a cat sacrificing blood drinking demon chanting satanist. Apologies to Mark and Morgan: Don't think we'll be meeting face to face anytime in the near future.

The reason that this is so fascinating is that two of the mentors I work with both gave me odd looks when they inquired about my religion. One doesn't believe me. One thinks its interesting (now that I explained it). Crisa's significant other thinks I'm in a phase. And she's going to arrange a meeting between this guy and me so that I can be a teacher of sorts to him. Or so she says...

Jwb - What does being wealthy have to do with being friendly? I'm kinda lost here...

Ok, let's try it this way: You say I'm very friendly. Because of the Rule of Three, I, in turn, should have lots of friends. Which I'd like to say I do. That's how it works - I do one good thing, it's given back thrice over. I do one bad thing, it's given back thrice over.

In terms of the souls of plants and animals, there is a line of thought that would argue that they have souls, just on a different level from humans.
This is all from memory of a class long past so bear with me.
Vegetative soul was plants, and endowed life, basic functioning and reaction to stimuli.

The brute soul was that of animals, and incorporated the Vegetative as well as feelings, some limited thought, some self awareness, instinct, etc.

The rational soul was that of humans, and incorporated the Vegetative and brute, as well as adding intelligence, and consciousness.

I have no real point with this post, I just thought I'd toss it out.

::Jwb - What does being wealthy have to do with being friendly? I'm kinda lost here...:: M Jenkins

Ok, the rule of three says that however you treat people will come back to you 3 times, the way I understand it. I just figure that wealth and good fortune would be a consequence of treating people properly under this idea. Maybe I'm wrong.....

Matt as the Cloneslayer died in battle with the evil Seth in England. So the reign of the Supermatts begins now. I'm Erimatticater. This will carry on until enogth comic books are sold.

Nativity Census: The accuracy of the Infantcy narratives is questionable, but not by much. It happened close to a century beforehand. Both of them were written last in the gospels and have completely diffent stories. The non catonical gospels record his childhood in great detail, But Luke and Matthew stick to the Basics. The Census is actualy off. It's belived Luke combined several events that happened 70 years earlyier. The Star of Betheham is a bit more complex. The Star was an astrological formation healding the birth of the Messiah, Only Zoroastrians were stargazing and reconed it from ancient texts. You all need Bibles with better footnotes. Go to the Liberary and get The Jerusulum Bible.

M. Jenkins- Actuaaly God is both a stern judge and a loving father. Technically you do worship Satan. You worship the Mother Goddess, who in Phonetica was know as Astret, who was the wife of Baal who became Baalzelbub who is identified with Satan by Jesus himself. Who knows Kevin Bacon.

Soul's in Animals: This is what Paul spoke of to Timothy, more Myths and family trees. What ever the answer bears little effect on us. Spectualting on this will bear as much fruit as spectulating on Cain's wife, The Sons of God and the gods who man is a little less than.

The non catonical gospels record his childhood in great detail, But Luke and Matthew stick to the Basics. Source? What records, by who? Religious or secular?

The Physics of Christmas (which is has a large bibliography of primary sources) lists several candidate events that the magi might have interpreted as an astrological sign that the new Messiah was to arrive. Settling on one is no easy matter.

And, Matt, are you really saying that an event that was not recorded until a century later isn't up for great debate? And if you're referring to the distance between the events in the Gospels and the time they were written down, even the skeptical sources I've seen say it's more like 40 years, not a century.

Which is all beside my original point, actually. Lee Strobel, in his summary on Amazon, claims to have hard evidence that the Biblical story of Jesus is correct. It converted him from atheism to Christianity. I cite these issues as the sort of thing that make me very skeptical that he's accomplished such a thing, particularly where so many others have tried and been less successful. If I were a cynic, I might mention that his wife converted to Christianity before him, and that might have played a small role in his conversion.

Or he might have been a dogmatic atheist who didn't question his own values enough, and so they were vulnerable to sophisticated arguments from the authorities he interviewed. Myself, having examined at least some arguments for and against the existence of God, I am prepared to cast a pretty critical eye at both sides of the issue. I might be better prepared than he was. For that matter, so would the majority of you.

Or maybe he really does make an overwhelmingly convincing empirical or historical argument. I won't know until I read it, assuming there is any chance I can examine a copy that I don't have to buy first.

Technically you do worship Satan

Excuse me while I put on an asbestos suit... I *REALLY* don't want to be around when the flamethrowers go on for *THAT* one!

Technically, the Christians decided anyone else's belief system comes from Satan, as they are like anyone else and absolutely must have everything their way.

See? I can twist complicated issues into simple black and white as well as anybody else. In reality, Jenkins does not worship Satan, as that is a Christian concept that her beliefs don't encompass. Unless you ignore intent completely. Is it worshipping Satan when you are doing something completely different than worshipping Satan? I say, it's the intent behind the act and the results of those intention one should be judged on, not the arbitrary decision to judge something evil because it's outside your religious beliefs.

As an atheist, I don't believe in God, but I don't automatically assume that those who disagree with me are bad people or doing bad things. What are their actions? That's my final, and only, criteria for judgement. The kind, helpful wolf is more my friend that the manipulative, cruel sheep.

Point to Ponder: Why is the wolf being "kind" and "helpful"? The better to eat you up, my boy... (hmm...that was an interesting way to kill a metaphor)

Technically you do worship Satan

Red alert! All firefighting crews to their stations! Run for the hills!

Addendum: I have become more and more convinced that either

1. Matt Pesti doesn't care about backing anything he says up, or
2. He is deliberately trolling.

In either case, trolls feed on flames and after that little number over on another board, where he attacked MarkN for no good reason, I have decided his trolls will be met by reason, calm, and rationalism.

Trolls hate that.

In this case, the evidence is that Christians demonized the gods of others. So, technically, they are insulting Lucifer and profaning his name, therefore sinning against him. If you follow Matt's logic.

I don't. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you are automatically the enemy of my beliefs. As an atheist who follows Buddhist philosophies, I instead think things of faith are not subject to these sorts of judgement. All faiths are equal, since none rely on empirical evidence. However, it is useful to examine a faith to see what parts hold up under philosophical scrutiny, and which don't.

For example, the idea that those who don't worship your god, automatically worship the enemy of your god, is based on the idea that there is no black and white in this matter. It seems more reasonable to me to say that the only claim you can make is that the person who doesn't worship your god doesn't worship your god. In the absence of other evidence, you cannot conclude from that alone that the person is automatically serving evil ends. You must judge the person by his or her actions and intentions. If they are a good person, and don't follow your god, they are still a good person. How could you say a person who is good serves evil, just because they don't follow your beliefs?

So, technically, MJ doesn't serve Satan, as she is doing nothing to promote His works or spread evil in the world. At least, as far as I know.

Of course, in my opinion, none of you serve anything because there is no reason to believe in the existence of God, Lucifer, the Enlightened Buddha, or Discordia. There is no empirical evidence for God's existence; philosophically I have seen no convincing arguments to add God to the naturalistic explanation of reality; and psychologically, I can make just as much meaning in my life as any religious person. God is an unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses.

the Enlightened Buddha

I thought there were records of Buddha's existence.

Buddha's, I think so; his professed Enlightenment, not that I know of.

*LOL* Scott and Matthew, you may come out of hiding. While I have every intent of slaying the dragon of Pesti, I shan't let the flames harm either of you. 'Sides, I like Morgan's idea of really getting Pesti teed off.

Pesti - And that particular civilisation is but ONE pantheon within the whole of Wicca. But, as usual, I find that you are being narrowminded and parochial about the whole issue. Satan, and the concept of Satan, is your guy. Keep him yours. You'll only get laughed at by those who don't believe in him. Especially when he doesn't exist within the confines of Wicca. I mean, I could always say that as a Christian, your only purpose in life is to incite mass hysteria and panic in the general populace by giving wrong information - a practice that serves only to make Christianity all the more desirable.

News for you: Christianity is becoming all the less desirable to me. Maybe you care, maybe you don't. Maybe you have five legs, maybe we'll dance the tango in three years. Who knows? Further, who really gives a ****? I don't. I'm happy with Wicca, with my role in Wicca, and I really don't care whether you're happy that I'm happy. If you do, kindly start respecting my choices. If you don't, well...not much I can do. 'Cept maybe to mark you as an ignorant savage child who needs to be turned over someone's knee and spanked a few hundred times.

This is getting tiring. I'm starting to think Pesti either is just itching for a flame war, or he's madly infatuated with me. The latter would explain why he's constantly trying to "save" me. Hmmm...hey MarkN, you just may have a rival.

(Looky, Mike! I censored my own word! Aintcha proud of me?)

::If they are a good person, and don't follow your god, they are still a good person. How could you say a person who is good serves evil, just because they don't follow your beliefs?:: Mark Morgan

I assume that he gets it from the Bible since that's what it apparently says. If you're not for God, you're against him even if you're not a psychopathic murderer or the like.

::'Cept maybe to mark you as an ignorant savage child who needs to be turned over someone's knee and spanked a few hundred times.:: M Jenkins

Now this would be an interesting board discussion in the religous section. Most people these days say that spanking is child abuse......I myself, do not.

Jwb - Most people are also crazy. Or maybe they're afraid of the CPS.

hey MarkN, you just may have a rival.
Nahh! He's not worth your love, time or attention so I'd just have to kill him before he'd even know what hit him.

As for the CPS, well, they're about as arbitrary as the censorware used on these boards. Frinstance, if your child falls down and gets a bruise on his arm, someone else might see that and wrongly assume you've been abusing your child so they'd call CPS on you and they'd take your child away, leaving you to look forward to having a long, drawnout legal battle to get your kid back. Conversely, if you sexually abuse your kid for years and even if the signs are there and someone calls CPS, they'll say, "Oh no! We can't do a thing about that." Pretty skewed of them, don'tcha think? You get punished for not abusing your child, but you're not if you do. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

First of all, what Vargie said was animals don't
have souls, because they aren't sentient and don't make decisions.

Christians have an unfortunate tendency to believe
if something doesn't glorify or serve or worship
or otherwise acknowledge their version of god as
the supreme being and savior of your soul, you are
"of the devil" and going straight to hell (do not
pass go or collect $200). I know first hand about
that from both having a dad who's a preacher and
tried being a Christian for awhile. I became very
disenchanted with the religion mostly because of
its practitioners. (Not to mention a growing dis-
belief in the god of the Bible.)

There was an article yesterday, in the Da.M.N. paper(The Dallas Morning News) about a couple over in Weatherford, TX who lost their daughter to the CPS. From all indications (as I understood the article) that the girl was lying about the abuse because she was embarrassed by her parents' simple lifestyle and she wanted a scholarship given to foster children. Thank whatever passes for god I don't have kids!

Now to check out Chapter Two.