Hello Tlam strike,

good to read you again :D
you are right, with the crocodiles and dragonflys. Some kind of appearance of life seems to be initially perfect, or better perfectly fitting, so (maybe) no reason for a change. It was always a question how dragonflys, other insects and some giant spiders were able to exist with their spiracle respiration system, which would prevent such a size today. But it is now generally accepted that during the Carbon times the content of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere was much higher than today. After all it was the first time in history that oxygen-producing plants became abundant.

" ... Also if you built a time machine and went back to Big Bang you could claim humans exisisted since the bigining of time. ..."

You have made a point here :up: .
But if, i hope we will not poach around and mess up our future :hmm:

Greetings,
Catfish

GASP!!!!!!

This calls for..... an intervention!!!!!

Dowly.. it is imperitive that you immediately expose yourself to THIS wisdom!
It's not too late!

May you find SLACK

Dowly, you are accused of heresy on three counts: heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action...:four counts. Do you confess?

Otherwise I'd have to call for these lads...they ain't so nice once they have their cushions...
http://www.qrz.com/uploads/post-7-71...nquisition.jpg

Whoa....
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!! :p

Of course not! Their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency-their three weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...their four.....uh, never mind...

Not sure if you adress me and expect any kind of response from me...!?

Regarding the general thread content, I refer to that quote from KoH that I gave, and leave it to that.

And please - stop typing in this light grey text colour and use the default colour that automatically changes when people have a different forum colour layout. You appear as light-grey text on silver background over here - no fun to read that. ;)

These are the fanatics christians grps you want to be weary of. From my preivous post i couldn't remeber the leaders name till now 'Fred Phelps' and his band of followers who protest at dead soldiers funerals.

Fred Phelps' controversial church, Westboro Baptist Church, is using the funerals of US soldiers as a chance to not only protest the Iraq war, but also the Catholic Church.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=2888

I just have finished cleaning my monitor after this:

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5...eistjoexy2.gif

:rotfl:

The Professor and the Christian.

The problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of
his new students to stand.


"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"


"Yes sir," the student says.


"So you believe in God?"


"Absolutely."


"Is God good?"


"Sure! God's good."


"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"


"Yes."


"Are you good or evil?"


"The Bible says I'm evil."


The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a
moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and
you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"


"Yes sir, I would."


"So you're good...!"


"I wouldn't say that."


"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you
could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."


The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't,
does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?"


The student remains silent.


"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water
from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.


"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"


"Er...yes," the student says.


"Is Satan good?"


The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."


"Then where does Satan come from?"


The student falters. "From...God..."


"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil
in this world?"


"Yes, sir."


"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"


"Yes."


"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the
principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."


Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality?
Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"


The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."


"So who created them?"


The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his
question. "Who created them? There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer
breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
"Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus
Christ, son?"


The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."


The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"


"No sir. I've never seen Him."


"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"


"No, sir, I have not."


"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for
that matter?"


"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."


"Yet you still believe in him?"


"Yes."


"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"


"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."


"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."


The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of
his own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"


"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."


"And is there such a thing as cold?"


"Yes, son, there's cold too."


"No sir, there isn't."


The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room
suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.


"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have
anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is
no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing
as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458
degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or
transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see,
sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We
cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is
energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."


Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom,
sounding like a hammer.


"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"


"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it
isn't darkness?"


"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence
of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and
it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the
word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?"


The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will
be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"


"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to
start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."


The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. Flawed? Can
you explain how?"


"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You
argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad
God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something
we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses
electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood
either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of
the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not
the opposite of life, just the absence of it."


"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved
from a monkey?"


"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do."


"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"


The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes
where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.


"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going Endeavour, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a
preacher?"


The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion
has subsided.


"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student,
let me give you an example of what I mean."


The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who
has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.
"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt
the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one
appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,
with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how
can we trust your lectures, sir?"


Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his
face unreadable.


Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess
you'll have to take them on faith."


"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"


Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it
everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is
in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil."


To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God.

God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that
comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no
light."


The professor sat down.

Hello,,
Kiwi this is a very good text :lol:

However can you tell me why a scientist should be completely unable to believe in a higher being, if not in the special God, Allah, Buddah or whatever that is brought to us by human (sic) institutions like the church ?

- You are a geologist ?
Yes
- So what are you looking for ?
I am looking for the remnants of an animal that became extinct a long time ago.
- Hmm, how old ?
We currently think this must have been around 460 million years ago.
- So you do not believe in God, atheist.


Greetings,
Catfish


P.S. seems this thread has developed into something else :hmm:

Karl Popper was one who explicitly showed that the correctness of scientific theories never can be proven, and that scientific research data never should be understood as being evidence. Thus, sciences never are an argument for or against theistic deities, and in the end: miracles as well.

But to argue that something like evolution as a theoretic construct (more it is not and never has been!) does not exist and thus, claims of religion necessarily must be true, is not less absurd like saying scientific theories could be proven. Evolution and religion: it is no "either this or that" case. It is two different things, and any attempt to make conclusions on the one by thinking about the other, is comparing apples with oranges.
Considering that there are millions of variables that need to stay in a fragile balance in order to enable this spectacle we call life on planet earth, it is hard to imagine that it is by random, by cosmic trial and error over 13 billion years. To argue there was a big bang, raises serious problems. What was before Big Bang? And if there was nothing before, how could come something from nothing? What and how triggered the starting event of Big Bang? Why is there something at all today, instead of simply "nothing"? Also, the concept of an expanding universe raises problems: those questions about Big Bang with only minor adjustments could be asked regarding the universe as well, and if it is expanding, it is limited in size, so the question is: what is beyond it's borders? How can there be something beyond it's borders, if the universe includes all? And if there is nothing beyond - how could the universe being just limited then? It all just makes no sense for a reasonable mind, and lets you run into logical contradiction neither science nor religion can solve.

We even have no reason to think of the world being existent in the form we usually, during our everday-life, think that it is, with houses and roads and meadows and forest and other people and a blue sky. Neither sight nor sound, neither smell nor taste nor fingertips give us any evidence at all that things are what they form up as images in our mind. Our senses just function in the way they were meant to do, they react with electric potentials and chemical reactions when chemical agents, physical pressures, waves and photons hit according receptors, they translates these into certain cascades of electric pulses running into our brain, and inside our brain "something" all of a sudden decides to turn electricity that is pulsating in changing frequencies and jumps from one neuron to another by exchange of chemical agents, into forms and images, smells and tastes, and inside our brain it all is put into relation to each other (and the very same inputs can very well lead to very different ways of establishing these mutual relations between signals, which is obvious in case of mental illness, but also happens regarding the differences between cultural and social environments), and we do not just "perceive" things (well, it should be clear now that we NEVER perceive things and cannot even say that things are there), and even more: we attach meaning and sense to them. All this our brain does, it all exists in our brains only. Not to mention philosophy and gods and religion, Big Bang and extending universes. Its all just in our brain. It all comes down to what we call "mind".

Cognito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am. That"we" exist, is beyond doubt for us: we know it, we are aware of us, we thing, we see, we have memories, we have sympathies and antipathies, and although all atoms in our body have been exchanged with new ones from the environment in which we live every six years, and although in a material understanding after 6 years we literally are no longer the person we used to be, we still know beyond doubt: "this is me, this is what I am, this is what I see as my personality and persona history, this is what links my present to my far away childhood".

Neurologists say they are able to locate certain brain areas that show typical activity patterns when man does something like deep meditation, or a believer has something that is called an experience of God. They try to link all other qualities of mind to certain brain activities, arguing that with the brain dyeing, everything is over, and that scientific concepts are just patterns in the brain as well as are any conceptions and imagined realisations of gods and deities. Memories, just twenty years ago being focused on as being stored in chemical molecules, today are mostly seen as changes in the hard-wiring of brain's neurons, while others claim memories are affecting all the brain's structure and are present in all the brain like the smallest detail of the complete pictures is present in both the complete hologram as in the smallest quantity of the hologram as well. All that is nice and well, but it is just mind playing with itself, like is philosophy as well. Because you could ask a neurologist the same questions about big Bang and universe and still will not get any reasonable answer from him. Neurologists, in their effort to create artificial intelligence by creating copies of the brain's complexity, a simulation of the brain so to speak, do not seem to realise that by their work, which I do not want to minimise at all, they only realise the mechanics and ways of functioning of the brain - but that they do not explain how mind emerges from neurons firing, and they have even less an answer to the question: why? They cannot explain what mind is, and will never be able, necessarily, for they actually only deal with what I would call the condensate of mind. I call it that because in the end not only are all images of reality and world just inside our mind, or b rain, as I said above, but our understanding of brain itself: also is just an image in our minds. Brain and mind to certain degrees correlate - but obviously the one includes the other, mind includes brain, and not th eother way around: brain does include cognitions and perception processing, memory storage, intellectual activity: but brain does not include this certain something that points, shows and leads beyond it.

Recently I had an unpleasant discussion on these things and the question of free will. Neurologists today say there is no free will , because they are able to show that the decision process that leads to a given outcome is already activated and came to a result before people become aware of the choice they want to make. They would say: you do not decide but yo get decided and being made to feel you decided yourself. I do not wish to argue from a position of "it cannot be what shall not be", when pointing out that such an understanding means most dramatic consequences for all the world's cultural fundaments of civilisation, because it strips you of all argument for having laws and penalties for not obeying them (because a penalty only makes sense if you have the free choice between good and bad doing), as well as all philosophy and ethics that implies free will and free choice, and base on both. I spare me to point at the implications in context with the various religions, of whom only those would make sense anymore that say that "everything is written", "everything is predetermined and man cannot do anything to escape of being doomed in advance". In the end, if this empty void that neurologist's conclusions of "no free will" and "all and everything dying with our brain" would create, could lead to to the greatest nihilistic, depressed breakdown in man's history, and could mean very well the end of history, the breakdown of civilisation, ratio and reason, and turning life on earth into a meaningless existence in a fatalistic hell-hole ruled by anarchy and the law of the strongest. Because, if I may lend that phrase, "God is dead". In fact i would say: "meaning is dead, life makes no sense anymore". Because as a ex-psychologist I know some things on man for sure, and one of these is this: man needs to have a meaning in life in order to be survivable, and if there is no meaning, he will invent and self-construct a meaning in which to believe. Or in the words of KZ-survivor and psychotherapist and founder of Logo therapy and existence analysis Victor Frankl: "Man does not want to be happy. He wants a reason to be happy." You do not need to make people happy. All you need is showing them a reason to be, and they will become happy all by themselves. That the neurological nihilism glooming at the horizon creates existential problems form man, sciences have realised by themselves already: that's why they have build new creative disciplines like neuro-theology (no joke).

On a side-line one can also ask: when neurologists say they will be able one day to create intelligence, and if the network of data processing is only complex enough this intelligence eventually will become aware of itself and that way: alive, well, then the question can be asked: is this possible or reasonable to assume? Can the copy serve the same that the original did: will the simulation of reality be able to become reality itself? I don't go deeper into it, but I see this question again leading to a mind that goes much beyond just brain functions. All the universe in one mind only? Actually I think: it could be. actually as I see it would say: there is just one mind anyway, and like all is linked to everything, there cannot be different types and kinds of mind. This is where some religions maybe would start to translate it into "universal spirit". But the religion's language is not my language.

But this depressing perspective does not really bother me, since I can see and understand the serious holes in neurologists' concept of future things to come. It is not that they are wrong in what they say, it is that they are not complete. take the result of god-experiences being linked to activity in certain brain areas. You can even stimulate these areas, and trigger that experience.but it is a physical correlate only, and the correlate feeding back on the source. both ways are like a two-dimensional shadow being thrown by a three-dimensional object. That's why I use to say the brain does not create mind, but mind creates a brain. In the end, neurologists today say that all we consider to be our "self", of what we think "this is me", is linked to brain activities of this and that kind, and if the brain is no more, there is neither "me" nor "self". but that is an old hat, and you can find it being described in the most complex system of a psychological system that I know of and that beats Western models hands down: the teachings of the five skhandas, five categories of "existential factors" of different material density, whose interaction and endless flowing creates the image, or may I say: illusion of what we call "ego", and what Buddhism refers to as "wrong/untrue self", or atman. There is more, there is mind that I referred to in my introduction above, and that is hard if not impossible to being pointed at precisely, and that you can only refer to by describing what it NOT is. It is the meaning shimmering through between the lines of illusive reality. It is what tipped an image with its finger, smiling, and turned that image into a brain that gave order and structure to all cosmos: one way of order, one kind of structure. You can see it shimmering through in the image of a mirror held up by mind by which it looks at it's own face, and sees that it is you. You can see it shimmering through in the questions about Big Bang and universe I asked. You can see it shimmering through when meditating and stepping back from yourself and your knowledge of a certain brain area being active now - and then stepping back from this stepping back.

But you cannot see it shimmering through when forgetting yourself and not even wanting to look at the shimmer - but you can become the shimmer itself. If you prefer a more theistic language: leave all your idols and understandings of God behind, for there is no other God than the God you turn out to be yourself. You are He, and you are not the smallest bit different from Him. So, whether God is a tyrant or a loving being, is decided by you and your deeds, and what you do to others, you do to yourself. Heaven and hell do exist for sure, but they are no locations, and no times, but they exist as states of a calm or a disturbed mind. The kingdom of heaven is not here, and you cannot find it there, for it is a kingdom of your heart. why needing to believe in a Jesus or refer to a Buddha? You have all you need and all there is all inside of you. Carrying the picture of two long rotten corpses with you - what's the use of this?

God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church Catfish. That's like saying daytime is brought to us by the weatherman.

One day it's "love everyone else as you love yourself!" like that jesus guy was supposed to have said, the next day its this. But then you get the impression that some of the christian fanatics over there actually think women are supposed to be locked up in the kitchen when not giving birth. These peoples statements are in my opinion nothing short of a nazi-level, and should be considered the same by the law, and punished as such.

Seriously, if there was an almighty good god which could create his most perfect image of himself, would those creatures be it? They are the opposite of the purely good, all-loving father they speak so well about.

But then of course this religon was made up for one sole purpoise: control of people.

Cheers.

Living beings defend themselves against parasites and diseases. Nothing strange about that, is it? Otherwise they would not survive, right?

Our democratic sociaty is a living being.

Faschists, communists, religous fanatics, etc: they look different sometimes but in the end they are all the same. They all leech on our socity, taking full advantage of all the benefits of democracy (freedom of speech, being safe, etc), while in the end they all strive towards the same goal: to destroy it. They are in the end all the same - parasites. Democracies needs tools to defend themselves against these kind of threats. Here we have some, but that only seems to include against right-wing extremists. We need tools to defend it against all other aswell. I don't care if their agenda is against jews, black, capitalists, white, women, older, children, homosexuals - in any way they discriminate some group and is trying the ruin the very basic fundament of democracy in some way - our equal worth.

We need tools to defend it before it's too late. Look at WWII. If Churchill had a chance to make things different, I'm sure war would be declared on Germany in 1938 - or much rather something done earlier to prevent it all toghether. If people knew how it would end up, the thought of Europe teaming up and intervining in the russian revolution to save people isn't far of either.

But this should of course not be mixed up with invading some little country somewhere far away á la USA for whatever reason. Democracy here needs to be defended from extremists here before things go bad - it's not the same as projecting capitalist agenda anywhere in the world in the name of "security" or "democracy".

In its early days it might have been something diferent, but thats what it has become over the centuries.
Anyway I stick all religious fanatics in the same pot, doesnt mater to me one bit if its christian fanatism, muslim fanatism etc.