no energy can't be created or destroyed, but matter can be made from energy and when destroyed it gives off energy, none is lost in the creation or destruction hence energy can't be created or destroyed
@PMeekums like i said before to our knowledge it cant be created it changes forms...the 4 states of matter 3 existing on this planet and the laws governing them. matter is energy, have you studied science?
@oathme420 I'm guessing by 4 states of matter you mean gas, liquid, solid and plasma, all 4 of which are do exist on earth not 3, and have you studied science? time and time again the idea of something controlling say matter, creation and everything has been proved false, so you can't say "for us to think that there is NOT something else at force here is ludicrius" and then believe yourself a man of science as well.
energy cant be created or destroyed it can only change forms...matter can not be created or destroyed it can only change forms...for us to think that there is NOT something else at force here is ludicrius....simpling saying there are things that happen as a result of natural force that is more than we can comprehend. Look at Royal Rife, and I hope thats the right spelling....life is all about living, survival and the change of energy is a heavy hand to bear, throu any means...
are you joking? what's the purpose of that metronome experiment? it was a metaphorical distraction if anything! entirely driven by crowd expectation, just because the phases crossed doesn't mean it went in sync!
I understand it's a visualization tool, but he should have set it up in the beginning, with 4 metronomes, 1 connected and the other not, and in various times during the presentation check back on them and see if they are in sync or not. And even that is lacking
i would chalange him when he says they dont thnk in a group when there is danger, the way they avoided and went to the periphials. that shit aint random
I've noticed especially after being one of 100s walking down 7th Avenue near Times Square today on a sunny very pleasant day and then one of thousands at rock concert, that individuals tend to enjoy being in masses as long as the collective energy is unified and free of visible predators.
Free energy is finaly here!But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
Synchronicity occurs in all wakes of life. People follow others around them, and in a collective manner move as one order. We can infer that atoms and electrons work in the same way. So is the electron orbit random? If on a grand scale order is reached by a collective of conscious individuals? OMG! I am losing my MIND!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In a way, the explanation is disappointing. It's basically, "it looks like they are behaving as one, but they aren't. They are actually selfish." That's what bugs me about science. It always assumes that the object of study is an automaton, the mindless result of static rules. I'll side with the crazy view!! Psychic birds!
Its not science's fault that this is how nature works,, if it really was the case that they used psychic abilities to "sync", science would support your crazy view :P
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm not so sure. There is alot of bias in science, and there have been credible experiments done which support the existence of psychic phenomena, such as the Ganzfeld experiments. The scientific establishment refuses to accept them based on weaknesses in early versions of the experiments that have since been fixed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Science does assume that those simple rules will mindlessly create that order in a mathematical way. It's the mindless part that I don't like, and that makes the label of "automaton," or self operating machine, appropriate.
If you want to get technical, though, "science" doesn't assume anything, scientists assume all sorts of different things, and I bet that you could find some scientist that will disagree with both of our statements.
The truth is, we don't know what these birds feel or think
I would say that calling us or the birds self operating machines is entirely accurate. The only reason that sounds bad, is because we can't make self-operating machines that equal us or the birds yet.
I feel because my brain, my nervous system, and endocrine system are telling 'me' to do so. I am a machine, and I am the result of my parts and their interactions- obvious I seem more than the sum of parts, but I am not.
And who is the me that is being told this? Does it even exist?
I would say no. This is the entirety of the message of spirituality. When you see that you ARE the parts, and the observing presence, then you know that there are actually no separate parts to sum.
You right, it is the false pretense that we are all individuals. (Selfishness in a way) If we look on a grand scale we are all but one organism under one heaven. And one heaven under one universe.
I assume that your view is a bit more allowing than those supporters of scientism who rated my previous comments down for merely questioning the established Church.
Absurd. The value of the parts of a human are assigned by a human, and the value of a complete human is assigned by a human. Thus, whether or not something is greater than "the sum of its parts" is ultimately an arbitrary human determination -- nature cannot grant meaning or value. If you think you're only worth the carbon in your body, that's your hangup, not a statement of fact, and others can come to other (more reasonable) conclusions.
I think he showed THAT things in nature tend to sync up, but he didn't go into how too much (with the exception of the bridge, but that isn't really related too much to groups of birds).
This is really quite interesting because it sums up to the notion that the universe has a way of working things out. There is a relationship between everything; an interconnectingness. It is also exciting that mathematics and science are discovering such patterns and will enable our civilization to be more harmonious through technology and understanding. One day we will reap the full benefits of what the universe has to offer.
Xtrashed. Indeed you have called me to ask interesting questions. That is the purpose of exchanging view points and thoughts is it not? Learning. It's always a pleasure to have a discussion with someone as articulate and thoughtful as you are. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean there was no value to either of us.
Take a stroll to the library and look at the texts of Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Anselm, John Henry Newman, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Joseph Ratzinger, to name just a handful. Now you might not agree with these books, but I would defy you to call them unsophisticated. Until you have considered these, you don't have a right to bloviate about religion. It's been very interesting discussing this with all of you! I hope I've called you to ask some more questions....GOD BLESS!!
I think the only question that you've called anyone to ask is "How on earth can these people still exist?" and "I wonder how long it will take until we live in a more logical, reasoning, and intelligent society; one that encourages questioning ideas rather than blindly following them just because someone else says that they're true?"
It's better to have doubt to the extraordinary in the presence of what we do not understand than to believe in something where there is most likely nothing.
As an atheist I don't have a response to God Bless but ...
All the best to that which makes you you, including the billions of atoms forged in the cosmos long ago you have on loan from the universe, your past and future genome with it's 4 billion year ancestry here on this lowly planet, your environment as it exists and you share, and your thoughts/emotions from that emerge. Enjoy for as long as you are thusly defined.
.. I just had a delicious slice of pizza for lunch myself.
LOL, I had salsa with chips and a banana today. You?
For me this clip was about emergence. It may seem like group behavior but it's really individual behaviors giving rise to that effect. I too thought the metronomes we're going back out of sync but the point was the physical connection = behavior, like the bridge inducing everybody to walk funny.
That other video with the objects on the hockey table moving about chaotically and replicating was most interesting too. Wow.
So, the predicted impact event can indeed cause a reversal with axis shift (Isaiah 2:18-21) and fulfil this Revelations predictionthat "every mountain and island were moved
from their places"-Rev 6:14. There are many longer Bible references to openings in the sky, and blinding flashes, etc.
Job 38:13 and Isaiah 24:1/20 seems to describe a reversal of polarity with an axis shift, as science confirms has happened in the far past repeatedly. Reversals occur when the EM field strength weakens to critical level. The EM field can be weakened by solar flares, gamma ray bursts, or impact. When a magnet is struck, it briefly loses its'
I love it, you're just picking the parts of Revelations out that seem like they relate to something else that we do know something about but then completely omitting all of the text that talks about dragons having seven heads and other mythical creatures.
You're argument for the existence of god or the legitimacy of the bible is so unbelievably flawed. You can't just pick the parts that you like and not critique the rest of it that doesn't have any physical links.
Revelations is scientifically accurate in describing the effects of a major meteoric hail and impact event, such as in Rev 8 & 18:21; a global quake that collapses all the cities of the world at once (Rev 16:18 & Isaiah 14:16-17), and part of earth scorched (Rev 8), and waves roaring. (Luke 21:25 & Daniel 9:25 and Isaiah 14:23), and skies darkened (Rev 8:12 and Acts 2:20). That alone is reason to believe in Revelations & Daniel.
Isaiah 34:4 describes what can only be black hole type objects in the sky, via gravity pulling in all the host of the heavens, vanishing away. "And the heavens DEPARTED as a scroll when it is rolled together"-Rev 6:14.
One of those extra dimensions is what's called "monopoly field" in physics, also known as the Bermuda trangle effect; whereas things and people can vanish. In Rev 9 and 20, Angels come and go from an extra-dimensional "bottomless pit", which perfectly describes monopoly field effects; but without the crushing melting "singularity" at the bottom of black holes.
Physics has actually confirmed a lot of the Bible. Especially in the book of Daniel and Revelations. String theory physics accepts that there are many extra dimensions, and the math is being worked out to determine exactly how many extra-dimensions there are, though 16 is a popular estimate. In Daniel 5:5, a hand from another dimension writes a riddle on the wall of a king. A "third heaven" is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:2.
String Theory is just that, a theory. You can't use a theory to prove another theory. You're just using carefully selected snippets of biblical text and relating them to things that we only know a tiny bit about. Just because The words "You" and "Idiot" both have the letter "o" in them doesn't mean that they're the same word.
Not to change the subject, but this energy could totally by utilized by just putting some sort of compression generators on the same bridge, which would lower the movement of the bridge to a minimal amount, and give you essentially free energy. I'm sure this has already been said but it's entirely more interesting that pointless slander.
Not a bad idea andrewf. Sorry for the off-topic stuff! I just find it irritating when people say things in public that are completely unjustifiable and can't help myself pointing it out...
But what happens if someone falls down on the bridge? The interviewer was not very good at keeping balance. If people fall down, then the chaos is released in small bits rather than building up towards explosion in the end.
Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion, I agree with ingsocof1984. This video is another spectacular demonstration of how beauty and apparent complexity can emerge from very simple rules.
The Universe every day teaches me God exists. I learn it from seeing how beautiful and vast and ordered and complex everything is, how scientific laws and animals teach man morals by their actions and behaviour, the intelligence and morality and consicence of man, evolution, the big bang, and many more discoveries which science makes every day.
While atheists and theists have their relentless, non-stop discussion ----- out there, this mystery continues to evolve.
Nice video. However, I am very surprised about the story with the London bridge. Effects like this have been experienced long before. The Golden Gate Bridge e.g. had exactly the same problem when it opened to the public.
I just do not understand, that bridge builders did not consider this fact in the year 2000.
Now, wouldn't the point be driven home (convincingly and amazingly) if the audience had began synchronous clapping WITHOUT having been told to do so...
"even though it looks like they are thinking as a group, they're not." -isn't this putting Darwinian theory (which happens to emphasize individual organisms) ahead of empirical observation? What about group selection?
What's observed is the effect that emerges from the behaviour of the individuals. That's not the same thing as observing a group behaviour, is it?
I believe group selection is dead -- replaced by game theory. Altruism or group behaviour being an effect of selfishly co-operating individuals.
Richard Dawkins says that Darwinian selection (the theory) is not selecting the individuals rather it's selecting the individuals' genes. Genotype verses phenotype distinction. Makes sense to me anyway.
"What's observed is the effect that emerges from the behavior of the individuals."
My understanding of the scientific significance of emergent phenomena is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Individual animals band together to avoid predators because they have evolved together. The behavior of groups of related organisms is a factor that nature can select for.
It's my opinion that Dawkins' reductionism of organisms to genes represents old paradigm thinking, popular in the 70s but more recently replaced by developmental systems theory. Further biochemical study of how the genome operates within the cellular matrix has vastly complicated the linear, neo-Darwinist account of protein synthesis that Dawkins based his theory on. Reducing organisms to discrete gene packets mechanically selected by a pregiven environment is no longer a tenable hypothesis.
Darwin's mechanism of natural selection certainly is operating in the biosphere, but I don't think it necessarily holds a central place (and certainly doesn't itself account for all biological diversity) in the multidimensional dynamics involved in the unfolding of life on this planet (or in fact 'as' this planet, if you take the insights of Lovelock and Margulis' Gaia theory seriously).
Again, take Darwin's mechanism out. Do we still have the biosphere? diversity? Don't confuse that as saying the mechanism excludes all other things from going on. Likewise don't confuse whatever else that is going on to be excluding that mechanism.
What I like most about the ideas that are ascribed to Darwin is that those ideas remove the importance of asking and being befuddled by the question "why?" all the time.
Not trying to exclude natural selection, just saying it is not the only process operating. I don't think we can understand evolution without asking why, as at least to my eyes, it represents a purposeful process, a move over billions of years toward greater and greater complexity and consciousness. Natural selection doesn't explain this.
It's not labels being thrown out, but paradigms. DNA is important, but the other aspects you mentioned aren't merely layered on top of it...
...Consciousness, culture, group behavior, etc all have been feeding back into DNA and altering its structure since the beginning. I think what DST is saying that is new is that you can't understand life by looking at DNA molecules in particular, because DNA is always already embedded in an environment and part of a dynamic life process.
You're looking at the apparent direction of it all ... increasing complexity, things emerging, apparent acceleration etc. There doesn't have to be purpose to that for it to be happening. This is what I meant about being befuddled by the question why?
If there is any such thing a reductionism, and I'm not convinced there is. Perhaps it has to do with the willingness to abandon the question of why or purpose and focus on the what and how. Like physics.
I do not think we can gain any understanding of what is 'now' without deeply appreciating where it has already been and where it has the potential to go. What is an atom? We cannot say until we trace its emergence back to the big bang and then see it in light of its participation in the bodies of living, conscious beings (and who knows what atoms may do tomorrow).
How would you explain matter's move toward deeper feeling and higher consciousness if not in teleological terms?
Careful ... the feedback into DNA is not altering DNA structure. Rather the feedback (a.k.a. Natural Selection as understood today thanks to Darwin's start) is altering the frequency of successful DNA in the environment by encoding more and more information about the environment that that DNA exists in. That environment includes whatever is already there, including other DNA and things that have emerged and the processes presently at work.
I don't see DNA as encoding an environment, though that isn't totally inaccurate. The reason I find it lacking is because organisms have from the very beginning been altering their environment, often quite creatively. This is why Gaia theory is so significant. It points to the intimate co-evolution of organism and environment that Darwin's notion of a 'pregiven' environment distorts. There is no pregiven environment. As soon as you have life, it is an organism-environment field that evolves.
Agreed you can't understand life by looking at DNA only ... but whatever you a looking at it has to include DNA. I think we agree on this? What concerns me about DST is that it defines itself by being against neo-darwinism and I don't think that exists anymore than you can find somebody who says they are a religious extremist (poor example because belief is what drives that instead of facts)
When I speak of neo-Darwinism, I am thinking specifically of the perspective of philosophers of biology like Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, and others who think the whole process can be reduced without interesting remainder to genetic mechanisms. I contrast them with thinkers like Gould, Lewontin, Margulis, Varela, Kauffman, Goodwin, etc., who recognize the emergent significance of all the other complexity of the biosphere and who reject the idea it can be accounted for from the bottom up.
A top down description doesn't necessarily involve anything supernatural, but it does stand in opposition to the strict materialist ontology assumed by the neo-Darwinists.
(we do both agree that DNA is highly significant, but I see it as a passive means of memory storage. there are active elements to the organization of life that understanding just this passive molecule tells us nothing about).
Those are extremely interesting and gifted people. We are fortunate to have/had people like that on this planet.
However, for me anyway, I find them hung up on what is ultimately "need to believe in something". I find you, my friend OThouArtThat0, to be the same. You should pursue religion instead of science. And I mean that kindly. Science does not care about why? nearly as much as it cares about what? and how?. If you need why? in order to see beauty then science is not for you
I disagree. Science and religion cannot be at odds if our species hopes to move beyond the 21st century. Science and technology without a spiritual and moral compass will surely destroy us, just as religion that is irrational and fails to base it's claims in experience may do the same.
Science and religion have been at odds and will continue to be. In science, if there is a better theory or better facts the old ones are abandoned (killed on purpose!!). That is not the case in religion where the present theories and facts are almost never abandoned ... by the time Galileo was forgiven humans had landed on the moon and invented the computer.
And thanks to Steve3420 for pointing out that religion does not monopolize "moral compass".
Same for "spituality". I can tell you my "spirituality" machinery works rather damn well without running after beliefs.
BTW we don't see people of science battling it out in Gaza/Israel ... talk about moving beyond the 21st century. How about moving beyond the 16th first huh?
they aren't battling it out by themselves, they're just the warlords giving the farmers the ak 47 with grenade-shooting-ability to kill as many as possible.
Religion is not about theories and facts. It is about symbols and meaning deeper than can be measured empirically. I think Creationists and the Intelligent Design movement are both bad religion and bad science. But if evolution (cosmic and biological) is a teleological process (as the facts suggest), then we cannot gain a full and proper understanding of it without asking why.
Science has done impressive things without getting befuddled by the queston Why? Get by that.
I'm curious to understand you better my friend. What is it you are saying. They can never co-exist because science rejects beliefs and religion rejects proven facts.
Perhaps I'll post a video to explain where I'm coming from. It is difficult to avoid label games using comments. I'm motivated by a desire to integrate all ways of knowing.
Why do atheists continue to propagate this falsity, that religion and science are enemies. This is one of the biggest lies in contemporary thought. I can't remember who is author is of this quote, but nevertheless it is undeniably true.
'Science without philosophy simply makes no sense: it leads to Behaviorism and Nihilism. Philosophy without religion is abstract and bloodless, unable to perform'
Christianity developed the scientific method and laws of evidence.
If my statements are a falsity or lies then please show me the error instead of throwing out labels and rhetoric.
I posted: science rejects beliefs and religion rejects proven facts.
My evidence for this is the Earth is 4 billion years old and revolves around the Sun and the number of religious people that would agree with that is <10%.
Which part of my evidence do you question? The 4 billion year old Earth revolving around the Sun? Or the number of people believing otherwise.
The Church has no problem with the existence of dinosaurs or the age of the Earth. Or Neanderthals for that matter. Of course, I am speaking from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective. The age of the Earth, 4 billion years approx. does not contradict Church teaching or in fact, the Bible.
"the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life....the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago." (International Theological Commission headed by Ratzinger / Benedict, Communion and Stewardship, 2004)
Then why hasn't the Bible been revised? Science has been revised many times and that continues.
One final comment. I am not posting to convince you of anything. Rather I'm responding to my conversation with 0ThouArtThat0 where I recommended to my young friend that perhaps he should pursue religion instead of science. There is a long history of science and religion not being easily reconciled. That includes people like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Darwin and Einstein.
The Bible is not scientific manual that can be changed and updated to suit the current times. The accuracy and relevancy of the Bible remain the same today as when it as written. The Bible is the sole objective source of all the revelation God has given us about Himself and His plan for humanity. Gods Word will never be outdated, superseded, or improved upon. Laws change, cultures change, generations come and go - but the word of God will never be outdated.
God orders you to kill those who work on the sabbath. If God's word is not outdated, why do you not obey him?
xtrashed: Are your parents christian? Were you raised a christian? Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that you believe in the bible?
A lot of people who were raised in different cultures ended up believing just as fervidly in other religions.
What do you think went wrond with their methods for distinguishing truth from falsehoods that your methods guard against?
The Hebrews had just left Egypt and were constantly in danger of slipping back into the idolatry and abominations of Egypt. They were also constantly wanting to go back to Egypt and abandon God completely. These punishments were disciplines, not doctrines. They were instituted for that people in that place and time.
And as for your other question, we were created to seek God, to know him and be known by him. And even among those cultures and people that have not received the fullness of God's revelation, the inborn urge to seek him still exists. Of course, from a God-doesn't-exist standpoint, none of this makes any sense. Devoting precious time, energy and resources on something that does not exist to you, obviously has no survival benefit, and in fact is a survival penalty.
Evidently it is not a survival penalty, otherwise religion would not be a feature of every human society ever. I tend to think it is a side-effect of something else: we are pattern-seeking imaginative creatures, who in the absence of full information often prefer to invent an explanation rather than admit we don't know.
religion fills in the gaps relys on Xenophobia, (abominations of Egypt statement below) passing it on to children too. In religion statements in logic can always be negated by using faith. It's a neat package, self-referenced and circular, nearly impossible to pierce once it's assimulated in the human mind. No doubt religion has been a survival bonus. Not possible to start with a clean slate. Goes for # of limbs and what you're told as a child about the world.
I think you are very wrong! Religion or believing God is not a survival mechanism, or a side effect of society. Atheism is every bit as much based on faith (belief in something not proven). And the common atheist explanation for everything ("I don't know why the universe exists, I just know it isn't God") is simply not logical.
I've had this discussion many times before with believers, but I'll just point out that atheism is not based on faith, it is defined by a lack of it. You do not require any belief to not believe in God or gods! I don't say for sure I know God doesn't exist, I just think the chances are comparable with pixies and invisible pink unicorns. I don't know the universe wasn't created by God, it's just as he almost certainly doesn't exist, he couldn't've created the universe. No faith involved.
I'm not sure about it really, but of course, this is someting that atheists would never admit to! dictionary . com's definition for religion is "4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
....
And according to the 7th Court of Appeals
wnd . com / news / article . asp ? ARTICLE _ ID = 45874
(remove all spaces)
It's kind of funny actually, when an atheist tries to ban religions. We can now say that they are forcing their religion on us. :O
I don't want to ban religion, I just want it to lose its special priviledges, for the idea of faith as a virtue to be abandoned, and for it to be as generally acceptable to criticism religion as it is to criticise any other ideas that people have.
Asking questions in life is important. To investigate our faith is very important. I once heard a great quote, 'If you go to Church it doesn't make you a Christian' , and this is very true.
Being religious,or believing in God is has nothing to do with credulity or superstition. Like science, it is based on evidence, reasoning, and judgment. But its object (God) is not a being in the world; therefore, its methods cannot be those of the ordinary empirical sciences.
Religion is absolutely NOT based on evidence. It's solely based on faith. Faith exists only in the absence of evidence for something that you believe in.
So religion doesn't get questioned at all by its followers? Have you read any serious theology? Have you consulted any serious journal of religion? Some of the sharpest critics of religion I know are religious people.
People who really start to question their faith eventually become atheists or at least agnostic. The other people only half question their faith because they can't ignore evidence but they still want the warm and fuzzy feeling of being loved by something intangible. God is just one of those things that the more that science explains the unknown, the further god gets pushed back into further unknowns.
True Religion, is the cornerstone of Civilisation. One need only to study pagan Rome or the barbarian tribes of ancient times to see what life was like without Religion. In modern times we only need to study the rise of the totalitarian regimes of the 1920's and 1930's, the Marxist states etc. that was today trying to do away with the continuous moral code. True Religion has been the most civilizing thing that the world has known.
Rational societies have been the most civilizing thing, and these are not based on religion because morality does not, and can not come from religion. The Bible is unclear exactly what moral code is to be followed, hence so much disagreement amongst Christians. Therefore the dispute is solved by other some process: rationality, humanity's innate morality and the context of society/community combine to decide which parts or interpretations to follow, codified in the dogma of the various sects.
Rational societies? I am sure I don't have to repeat this but we've seen what happened in the 20th century when there was attempt after attempt to erode religion from society. Millions upon millions of innocent people were slaughtered because of communist regimes, of which atheism was at the core! If we were purely rational, then we would be completely sinless. And why do you jump to the conclusion that to be completely rational, you have an only scientific world-view. That is an absurd belief
Of for god's sake! "Communist regimes, of which atheism was at the core" - friggin' communism was at the core, not atheism! Blind obedience to a semi-divine leader with unquestionable dogma and purges of non-believers was at their core. They were led by meglomaniacs who demanded worship of themselves. Remind you of anything? The enemy is unquestionable dogma and ideology, be it religious or not.
Go and Watch 'The Trouble With atheism Part 6' - 4:15. On Youtube. The Russian Priest (who was once an atheist, lived in Russia during this time, before emigrating). He said himself, 'BEING RELIGIOUS WAS A VIOLATION OF STATE LAWS' . He says this himself, in his own words 'THE PARTY DEMANDED ATHEISM, YOU CAN'T BE A PARTY MEMBER OF ANY RELIGION'. That same secularism exterminated religious people with much cruelty! You can not deny that.
I wouldn't deny that. In Stalinist Russia, religion was a competing belief sytem which undermined the absolute authority of the Party and the Great Leader, and that cannot be tolerated in a totalitarian system. That the regime was not based on a belief in God is no more to the point than the fact that Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches. Perhaps moustaches are to blame for psychotic megolamaniac regimes?
Totalitarian power is the key to these wars. But it is interesting that atheism had to be obligatory during these regimes. If you were religious or wanted to covert over to a religion you were killed....The truth is that some people will always find reasons to kill each other: money, property, fame, wounded pride, hurt feelings, etc. etc.
The examples that you give are just that of people using a particular ideology to enforce laws that they set up. Atheism is nothing more then the lack of theistic belief. It holds no political ties for it is simply the lack of believe.
Atheists reject the logic of faith = true that is followed by theists. That's not say faith = false, it is simply that faith is not always true and therefore faith alone cannot be the basis of understanding. Atheists also find supra-rational, in the guise of a rational arguement, to be supra-misplaced.
Jmdd93, Atheists reject faith in god(s), not "the logic of faith". Faith cannot inherently equal true or false. Faith is simply believing something without supportive tangible, quantifiable, non-personal, and empirical evidence. If there were supporting evidence for an idea then you wouldn't need faith. Again, Atheism is the rejection of faith in god(s)
Atheism is indeed rejection of faith in god(s). Just pointing an atheist gets there by rejecting faith = true, no exceptions. Some theists acknowledge evidence, even point to it themselves. They also acknowledge the circular logic (faith is true because it's true). They claim faith transcends evidence and reason. So that leaves little to discuss in terms of evidence and reason. The danger is mixing this with science, it is no longer the scientific method and cannot be trusted.
Good, I'm glad we agree. I probably should have just said that atheism rejects "theism and all that it implies" in order to blanket the thought more completely.
Circular logic is fun. "Did you know that the water that I drink keeps elephants away? Do you see any elephants around? No, then it must be true."
Indeed dogmatic but people use logic to discuss religion all the time so its important to point out the false/circular logic involved. A religous person gets upset when they are told they cannot use logic in the discussion but they are also the first to abandon it.
That's interesting. Law is very much concerned with a person's rights. Since being an atheist is legal atheists have the same rights as does a religous person. Surely you're not suggesting an atheist should not have the same rights?
The article misses that point entirely. I certainly would not call atheism a religion, especially in this thread! But in the context of law I'd have to agree. Freedom of religion (or the lack thereof) is a right.
Atheism worships Nogod, whose existence it can never prove, and so must be taken on faith alone. It has its own missionaries and its own "saints", Nietzsche, Mencken, etc. To the extent that it is hard atheism, it even has its own principle of infallibility as to the existence of Nogod, though ironically, with respect to morals, it preaches all kinds of relativism.
The idea that you're missing xtrashed is that when you state an argument as true, you have to provide evidence for it's validity. Theism states that there is a god and fervently stands behind that idea. Atheism rejects theism because it cannot provide substantial hard evidence for it's case.
It's like this mathematically. Theism says that there is 1 while Atheism says, how do you know there is 1? An Atheist will not become a Theist until the Theist can prove 1 as true.
Between Theism and Atheism; Theist are saying that God exists and Atheists are saying, how do you know?
Sure, anyone can say that god made the big bang and god is the source of all life. That sounds really nice and all but for god to have created literally everything, there must have been a system before creation as we know it, and before that, and before that. Nothing comes from Anarchy.
Better doubt than believe until there is hard, quantifiable evidence.
The problem with a theory like "God exists and made everything", there needs to be a lot of other supporting ideas behind it. Such as how god and his/her/it's environment functions. In order to justify something like that, you have to continue to add new theories on top of it when the logic of the argument breaks down.
And thus, it's better to doubt and believe nothing than to believe something that cannot be proven.
Conversely, I don't disbelieve in the idea of god, I just doubt it.
Theism makes a LOT of claims for God and have for the last few millennia. The more claims that are made, the more evidence there needs to be.
So when you say things like "the universe fulfills god's design". I have to ask the question, what design, and who defines what this design is exactly?
The last time that I checked, nothing has ever been written directly by a supernatural force; it's always man.
Beyond any personal experiences that you've had regarding god or anything supernatural, what direct evidence makes you believe that there is a god or anything supernatural.
Keep in mind that I sort of like the idea of some sort of uber 1337 programmer god that made everything awesome, but I doubt it, and I'm not going to let a question of "how did all of this get here?" lead me to an answer that has no basis in tangibility.
There is no need to have an elite programmer or God responsible for life, the universe and everything. Darwin showed God is not necessary. Science has piled up mountains of supporting evidence. Time and time again science has diminished God's tangible meaning. While it can't be 100% proved God does not exist, the lack of any credible evidence for God and the overwhelming proven evidence suggesting he does not exist is the reason there is probably no God. Basically proven.
ake a look at the recent work of Antony Flew and the texts of John Polkinghorne, both of whom argue from the complex intelligibility of the world to a creative intelligence. All of science rests upon the assumption that finite being is intelligible. Some creative intelligence must ground that intelligibility.
Atheism does believe in something (the non-existence of God). But the difference is that atheism goes with what is vastly most probable and rational. The score is extremely lopsided. Should any real evidence come along an atheist would switch of course but like you've said it's been a couple thousand years of just the opposite. Indeed an atheist very much doubts god exists.
The theist will use supra-rational and circular logic. Anything can be proven or even dis-proven this way. So there is nothing to ask questions about or discuss rationally. A person either abandons all rational discussion /logic and is religious or they don't and are atheists.
Very well put, but you are only looking at it one way. Atheist also have to disprove 1.
In the scientific community yes you have to prove you're correct(I find it very ironic people want proof for something called faith but I digress) but the community itself also has to prove you are wrong.
With that said thinking objectively you have to be open to all possibilities. Including those considered impossible.
I would admit there is a possibilty for God. But is is almost zero. As close to zero and getting more so over time.
You cannot disprove something. I like the teapot example. If I claim there is a teapot in orbit about mars can you prove there is not? Keep in mind I firmly believe there is a teapot there without having any proof because I don't need proof to believe it. Now I would like you to prove 100% there is not a teapot.
What Darwin didn't realize (and what we know now) is just how machine-like even a single cell is, how delicately and intricately interdependent its elements are. That this construction was not, in some sense, designed or directed by a higher intelligence seems counter-indicated.
"What Darwin didn't realize (and what we know now) is just how machine-like even a single cell is, how delicately and intricately interdependent its elements are. That this construction was not, in some sense, designed or directed by a higher intelligence seems counter-indicated."
lol... wow.
irreducible complexity has been smashed countless times by now...
Islam, Christianity and Judaism. That is for a reason-there is only one truth that hasn't changed; it's men who has. Religion is simply acknowledging the truth, truth that is eternal and sometimes even beyond our own understanding. God wants us to find Him for ourselves and learn of his true teachings, not just to follow any claims of higher power because they're "there", or "all the same".
See, you can't say that you know for sure that "god wants us to find him for ourselves..." You're basing that statement of written word that doesn't have any tangible evidence so how can you possibly say that it's true? You're just guessing and wishful thinking.
You can't even prove god so how are you going to be the one to know exactly what god is thinking without consulting text written by man or other men who are equally unable to provide proof or at the very least, evidence.
"God wants us to find Him for ourselves and learn of his true teachings, not just to follow any claims of higher power because they're "there", or "all the same". "
Take the Big Bang yes scientist can find out what the Universe was like 1 millionth of a second after the big bang, anything before that is pure speculation or guessing.
(btw the bible (in then there was light) and the big bang theory do at its most basic parts sound alike.)
"(btw the bible (in then there was light) and the big bang theory do at its most basic parts sound alike.) "
no they dont...
one says "and then there was light"
the other speaks about the fusion and spread of trillions of molecules and how gravity eventually started to form them together to create large bodies of mass and etc etc etc.
It also has its councils, or synods, the American Atheist Society, the ACLU, part of the scientific community, much of the liberal media and academia, the share of the entertainment industry which routinely mocks and cusses religion.
To see religion as the unique cause of violence is naive in the extreme. And secularism doesn't make people do crazy things? As I said to before, I have absolutely no quarrel with a self-critical attitude on the part of religious people. But I would like secularists and atheists to demonstrate at least as much scepticism about themselves. Atheistic regimes killed over 150 million people during the 20th century alone. They demanded atheism of their members, religious people were killed!
Please consult the similar prophecies of the imminent demise of religion penned by Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Auguste Comte, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Jean-Paul Sartre, Mao Tse-Tung, and Sigmund Freud. They're all gone; religion is still here!
And let me get this straight: you dismiss the beliefs of billions of religious people as "funny" and I'm the one who's arrogant. Perhaps you could read a little more philosophy, theology, and sophisticated biblical criticism before pronouncing all of religion as "funny."
My suspicion is that, like most contemporary atheists, you have no idea what you're criticizing. You have a caricature of religion in your mind, and you delight in taking it apart. Try the real stuff.
You're not arrogant xtrashed, you're one of the billions of silly people who still believe things that there parents told them without actually questioning why they believe it in the first place. One of the billions of silly people who still live in the dark ages of logic and reason.
There sure where a whole lot of people, namely everyone, who believed that the world was flat and at the center of the universe. What does it take to make you understand that you should doubt what you believe.
i really dislike the anthropomorphic hints
mauroprovatos 4 months ago
Amazing!!!!!
sujaysukumar123 4 months ago
Awesome,really nonlinear dynamics is at the heart of natural objects
LordSingularity 8 months ago
@oathme420
no energy can't be created or destroyed, but matter can be made from energy and when destroyed it gives off energy, none is lost in the creation or destruction hence energy can't be created or destroyed
PMeekums 9 months ago 2
@PMeekums like i said before to our knowledge it cant be created it changes forms...the 4 states of matter 3 existing on this planet and the laws governing them. matter is energy, have you studied science?
oathme420 7 months ago
@oathme420 I'm guessing by 4 states of matter you mean gas, liquid, solid and plasma, all 4 of which are do exist on earth not 3, and have you studied science? time and time again the idea of something controlling say matter, creation and everything has been proved false, so you can't say "for us to think that there is NOT something else at force here is ludicrius" and then believe yourself a man of science as well.
PMeekums 6 months ago
This man talking about syncronization wrote the standard text book for chaotic behaviour. Heh.
deadstroke86 10 months ago
energy cant be created or destroyed it can only change forms...matter can not be created or destroyed it can only change forms...for us to think that there is NOT something else at force here is ludicrius....simpling saying there are things that happen as a result of natural force that is more than we can comprehend. Look at Royal Rife, and I hope thats the right spelling....life is all about living, survival and the change of energy is a heavy hand to bear, throu any means...
oathme420 10 months ago
Comment removed
PMeekums 9 months ago
are you joking? what's the purpose of that metronome experiment? it was a metaphorical distraction if anything! entirely driven by crowd expectation, just because the phases crossed doesn't mean it went in sync!
I understand it's a visualization tool, but he should have set it up in the beginning, with 4 metronomes, 1 connected and the other not, and in various times during the presentation check back on them and see if they are in sync or not. And even that is lacking
HolyFictionOrg 1 year ago
i would chalange him when he says they dont thnk in a group when there is danger, the way they avoided and went to the periphials. that shit aint random
sublimeisdope 1 year ago
I've noticed especially after being one of 100s walking down 7th Avenue near Times Square today on a sunny very pleasant day and then one of thousands at rock concert, that individuals tend to enjoy being in masses as long as the collective energy is unified and free of visible predators.
4theloveofgrace 1 year ago
naneedj.infoI am very easygoing and I like nature
surangiable 1 year ago
Free energy is finaly here!But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
ivylsp 1 year ago
his forhead so shiny
leparditas 1 year ago
@leparditas yeah a brilliant mind lol
LucBertolotti 1 year ago
Did this guy write a book because I remember reading stuff like this a few years ago
Fintinobrien 1 year ago
What a fag.
tabber87 1 year ago
Steven made me love Calculus...smile in a maths class hahahaha!
siasabora 1 year ago
I think..that as I get older..I am looking forward to moving on to the next transition so that I no longer have to fight....
WA5CVI 2 years ago
I love my rolex. I certainly recommend anyone looking for a fabulous time piece to think about rolex. You will not be disappointed.
pillowbugg 2 years ago
Comment removed
extramodern 1 year ago
i like the watch commercial as well.
spicyvOHMitsnack 2 years ago
Synchronicity occurs in all wakes of life. People follow others around them, and in a collective manner move as one order. We can infer that atoms and electrons work in the same way. So is the electron orbit random? If on a grand scale order is reached by a collective of conscious individuals? OMG! I am losing my MIND!
Parasome 2 years ago
Hail to the day I loose mine too.
sakurasanmon 2 years ago
Silly walks! X-D
rafaelhsouza 2 years ago
Its called Entrainment. not a new idea.
Zorn101 2 years ago
wow....fascinating..even the watch advertisement ..lol
charlie579 2 years ago
Comment removed
spicyvOHMitsnack 2 years ago
women synchronize their menstrual cycles when in groups also.. but i donno if it has any connection to this, heh :P
Viconiuz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In a way, the explanation is disappointing. It's basically, "it looks like they are behaving as one, but they aren't. They are actually selfish." That's what bugs me about science. It always assumes that the object of study is an automaton, the mindless result of static rules. I'll side with the crazy view!! Psychic birds!
sakurasanmon 2 years ago
Its not science's fault that this is how nature works,, if it really was the case that they used psychic abilities to "sync", science would support your crazy view :P
LuckyChatt 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm not so sure. There is alot of bias in science, and there have been credible experiments done which support the existence of psychic phenomena, such as the Ganzfeld experiments. The scientific establishment refuses to accept them based on weaknesses in early versions of the experiments that have since been fixed.
sakurasanmon 2 years ago
Science doesn't assume automatons. It assumes that simple rules that apply to large groups will tend to create order.
sunrisewalker 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science does assume that those simple rules will mindlessly create that order in a mathematical way. It's the mindless part that I don't like, and that makes the label of "automaton," or self operating machine, appropriate.
If you want to get technical, though, "science" doesn't assume anything, scientists assume all sorts of different things, and I bet that you could find some scientist that will disagree with both of our statements.
The truth is, we don't know what these birds feel or think
sakurasanmon 2 years ago
I would say that calling us or the birds self operating machines is entirely accurate. The only reason that sounds bad, is because we can't make self-operating machines that equal us or the birds yet.
I feel because my brain, my nervous system, and endocrine system are telling 'me' to do so. I am a machine, and I am the result of my parts and their interactions- obvious I seem more than the sum of parts, but I am not.
sunrisewalker 2 years ago
And who is the me that is being told this? Does it even exist?
I would say no. This is the entirety of the message of spirituality. When you see that you ARE the parts, and the observing presence, then you know that there are actually no separate parts to sum.
sakurasanmon 2 years ago
Could you elaborate? I need to know where you're going with this to see if I agree or not.
sunrisewalker 2 years ago
You right, it is the false pretense that we are all individuals. (Selfishness in a way) If we look on a grand scale we are all but one organism under one heaven. And one heaven under one universe.
Parasome 2 years ago
I assume that your view is a bit more allowing than those supporters of scientism who rated my previous comments down for merely questioning the established Church.
sakurasanmon 2 years ago
@sunrisewalker
Absurd. The value of the parts of a human are assigned by a human, and the value of a complete human is assigned by a human. Thus, whether or not something is greater than "the sum of its parts" is ultimately an arbitrary human determination -- nature cannot grant meaning or value. If you think you're only worth the carbon in your body, that's your hangup, not a statement of fact, and others can come to other (more reasonable) conclusions.
Nature doesn't care. It can't.
keserak 11 months ago
Nice Monty Python reference with the Ministry of Silly Walks!
b1heqh54 2 years ago
I think he showed THAT things in nature tend to sync up, but he didn't go into how too much (with the exception of the bridge, but that isn't really related too much to groups of birds).
Cannibalzz 2 years ago
I like that fourth rule, its simple. easy to remember
HuckleberrySlim 2 years ago 6
lmao, i know i'll remember that one when i'm in a flock.
hancho17 2 years ago
lol you just never know :)
HuckleberrySlim 2 years ago
really? religion talk?
shut the fuck up and comment about the guy who made my math book
ekid2k 2 years ago
man what a beautiful rolex...oh yea the lecture was good too
bobojr456 3 years ago
This is really quite interesting because it sums up to the notion that the universe has a way of working things out. There is a relationship between everything; an interconnectingness. It is also exciting that mathematics and science are discovering such patterns and will enable our civilization to be more harmonious through technology and understanding. One day we will reap the full benefits of what the universe has to offer.
ImOnTheTube 3 years ago
I'm not sold - the metronomes were going back out of sync.
spazammm 3 years ago
That's what I was seeing too, he grabbed them up pretty quickly after they synchronized. I think it was just a setup for the last segment.
jbxenia 2 years ago
byee
xtrashed 3 years ago
Xtrashed. Indeed you have called me to ask interesting questions. That is the purpose of exchanging view points and thoughts is it not? Learning. It's always a pleasure to have a discussion with someone as articulate and thoughtful as you are. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean there was no value to either of us.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Take a stroll to the library and look at the texts of Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Anselm, John Henry Newman, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Joseph Ratzinger, to name just a handful. Now you might not agree with these books, but I would defy you to call them unsophisticated. Until you have considered these, you don't have a right to bloviate about religion. It's been very interesting discussing this with all of you! I hope I've called you to ask some more questions....GOD BLESS!!
xtrashed 3 years ago
I think the only question that you've called anyone to ask is "How on earth can these people still exist?" and "I wonder how long it will take until we live in a more logical, reasoning, and intelligent society; one that encourages questioning ideas rather than blindly following them just because someone else says that they're true?"
It's better to have doubt to the extraordinary in the presence of what we do not understand than to believe in something where there is most likely nothing.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
As an atheist I don't have a response to God Bless but ...
All the best to that which makes you you, including the billions of atoms forged in the cosmos long ago you have on loan from the universe, your past and future genome with it's 4 billion year ancestry here on this lowly planet, your environment as it exists and you share, and your thoughts/emotions from that emerge. Enjoy for as long as you are thusly defined.
.. I just had a delicious slice of pizza for lunch myself.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Woah! I just had pizza for lunch too and it was also delicious! Looks like we're syncing up!
Vegas3S 3 years ago
LOL, I had salsa with chips and a banana today. You?
For me this clip was about emergence. It may seem like group behavior but it's really individual behaviors giving rise to that effect. I too thought the metronomes we're going back out of sync but the point was the physical connection = behavior, like the bridge inducing everybody to walk funny.
That other video with the objects on the hockey table moving about chaotically and replicating was most interesting too. Wow.
jmdd93 3 years ago
So, the predicted impact event can indeed cause a reversal with axis shift (Isaiah 2:18-21) and fulfil this Revelations predictionthat "every mountain and island were moved
from their places"-Rev 6:14. There are many longer Bible references to openings in the sky, and blinding flashes, etc.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Job 38:13 and Isaiah 24:1/20 seems to describe a reversal of polarity with an axis shift, as science confirms has happened in the far past repeatedly. Reversals occur when the EM field strength weakens to critical level. The EM field can be weakened by solar flares, gamma ray bursts, or impact. When a magnet is struck, it briefly loses its'
field strength; so with a planet EM field.
xtrashed 3 years ago
I love it, you're just picking the parts of Revelations out that seem like they relate to something else that we do know something about but then completely omitting all of the text that talks about dragons having seven heads and other mythical creatures.
You're argument for the existence of god or the legitimacy of the bible is so unbelievably flawed. You can't just pick the parts that you like and not critique the rest of it that doesn't have any physical links.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
Revelations is scientifically accurate in describing the effects of a major meteoric hail and impact event, such as in Rev 8 & 18:21; a global quake that collapses all the cities of the world at once (Rev 16:18 & Isaiah 14:16-17), and part of earth scorched (Rev 8), and waves roaring. (Luke 21:25 & Daniel 9:25 and Isaiah 14:23), and skies darkened (Rev 8:12 and Acts 2:20). That alone is reason to believe in Revelations & Daniel.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Isaiah 34:4 describes what can only be black hole type objects in the sky, via gravity pulling in all the host of the heavens, vanishing away. "And the heavens DEPARTED as a scroll when it is rolled together"-Rev 6:14.
xtrashed 3 years ago
One of those extra dimensions is what's called "monopoly field" in physics, also known as the Bermuda trangle effect; whereas things and people can vanish. In Rev 9 and 20, Angels come and go from an extra-dimensional "bottomless pit", which perfectly describes monopoly field effects; but without the crushing melting "singularity" at the bottom of black holes.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Physics has actually confirmed a lot of the Bible. Especially in the book of Daniel and Revelations. String theory physics accepts that there are many extra dimensions, and the math is being worked out to determine exactly how many extra-dimensions there are, though 16 is a popular estimate. In Daniel 5:5, a hand from another dimension writes a riddle on the wall of a king. A "third heaven" is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:2.
xtrashed 3 years ago
String Theory is just that, a theory. You can't use a theory to prove another theory. You're just using carefully selected snippets of biblical text and relating them to things that we only know a tiny bit about. Just because The words "You" and "Idiot" both have the letter "o" in them doesn't mean that they're the same word.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
I'm totally using this to teach marching band next year.
scoggles 3 years ago
Not to change the subject, but this energy could totally by utilized by just putting some sort of compression generators on the same bridge, which would lower the movement of the bridge to a minimal amount, and give you essentially free energy. I'm sure this has already been said but it's entirely more interesting that pointless slander.
andrewhfisher 3 years ago
Not a bad idea andrewf. Sorry for the off-topic stuff! I just find it irritating when people say things in public that are completely unjustifiable and can't help myself pointing it out...
Slabbers 3 years ago
But what happens if someone falls down on the bridge? The interviewer was not very good at keeping balance. If people fall down, then the chaos is released in small bits rather than building up towards explosion in the end.
l1hao 3 years ago
Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion, I agree with ingsocof1984. This video is another spectacular demonstration of how beauty and apparent complexity can emerge from very simple rules.
Slabbers 3 years ago
just live in love and light without judgement,replace the judgement with understanding and you will see!!!
JUST LIVE EVERYBODY!!!!
locusmem 3 years ago
A vid on emergent beauty and you have to sully it by going on about a man you can't see behind a curtain that doesn't exist.
Leave it be amazing and wonderful, instead of trying to explain it as your god's parlour trick.
ingsocof1984 3 years ago
The Universe every day teaches me God exists. I learn it from seeing how beautiful and vast and ordered and complex everything is, how scientific laws and animals teach man morals by their actions and behaviour, the intelligence and morality and consicence of man, evolution, the big bang, and many more discoveries which science makes every day.
While atheists and theists have their relentless, non-stop discussion ----- out there, this mystery continues to evolve.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Emergence is cool.
Flyborg 3 years ago
Yeah my poop is sometimes green.
smoke57 3 years ago
do animals in groups really have a better chance against predators? what if predators stalk their prey in groups as well?
loturos 3 years ago
like how baleen whales prey on large schools of squid? well that might be a little separate from his point though.
smashsamus 3 years ago
Nice video. However, I am very surprised about the story with the London bridge. Effects like this have been experienced long before. The Golden Gate Bridge e.g. had exactly the same problem when it opened to the public.
I just do not understand, that bridge builders did not consider this fact in the year 2000.
markus310773 3 years ago
Now, wouldn't the point be driven home (convincingly and amazingly) if the audience had began synchronous clapping WITHOUT having been told to do so...
alexeshed 3 years ago
"even though it looks like they are thinking as a group, they're not." -isn't this putting Darwinian theory (which happens to emphasize individual organisms) ahead of empirical observation? What about group selection?
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
What's observed is the effect that emerges from the behaviour of the individuals. That's not the same thing as observing a group behaviour, is it?
I believe group selection is dead -- replaced by game theory. Altruism or group behaviour being an effect of selfishly co-operating individuals.
Richard Dawkins says that Darwinian selection (the theory) is not selecting the individuals rather it's selecting the individuals' genes. Genotype verses phenotype distinction. Makes sense to me anyway.
jmdd93 3 years ago
"What's observed is the effect that emerges from the behavior of the individuals."
My understanding of the scientific significance of emergent phenomena is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Individual animals band together to avoid predators because they have evolved together. The behavior of groups of related organisms is a factor that nature can select for.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
It's my opinion that Dawkins' reductionism of organisms to genes represents old paradigm thinking, popular in the 70s but more recently replaced by developmental systems theory. Further biochemical study of how the genome operates within the cellular matrix has vastly complicated the linear, neo-Darwinist account of protein synthesis that Dawkins based his theory on. Reducing organisms to discrete gene packets mechanically selected by a pregiven environment is no longer a tenable hypothesis.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Darwin's mechanism of natural selection certainly is operating in the biosphere, but I don't think it necessarily holds a central place (and certainly doesn't itself account for all biological diversity) in the multidimensional dynamics involved in the unfolding of life on this planet (or in fact 'as' this planet, if you take the insights of Lovelock and Margulis' Gaia theory seriously).
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Again, take Darwin's mechanism out. Do we still have the biosphere? diversity? Don't confuse that as saying the mechanism excludes all other things from going on. Likewise don't confuse whatever else that is going on to be excluding that mechanism.
What I like most about the ideas that are ascribed to Darwin is that those ideas remove the importance of asking and being befuddled by the question "why?" all the time.
Gaia is an interesting hypothesis.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Not trying to exclude natural selection, just saying it is not the only process operating. I don't think we can understand evolution without asking why, as at least to my eyes, it represents a purposeful process, a move over billions of years toward greater and greater complexity and consciousness. Natural selection doesn't explain this.
It's not labels being thrown out, but paradigms. DNA is important, but the other aspects you mentioned aren't merely layered on top of it...
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
...Consciousness, culture, group behavior, etc all have been feeding back into DNA and altering its structure since the beginning. I think what DST is saying that is new is that you can't understand life by looking at DNA molecules in particular, because DNA is always already embedded in an environment and part of a dynamic life process.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
You're looking at the apparent direction of it all ... increasing complexity, things emerging, apparent acceleration etc. There doesn't have to be purpose to that for it to be happening. This is what I meant about being befuddled by the question why?
If there is any such thing a reductionism, and I'm not convinced there is. Perhaps it has to do with the willingness to abandon the question of why or purpose and focus on the what and how. Like physics.
jmdd93 3 years ago
I do not think we can gain any understanding of what is 'now' without deeply appreciating where it has already been and where it has the potential to go. What is an atom? We cannot say until we trace its emergence back to the big bang and then see it in light of its participation in the bodies of living, conscious beings (and who knows what atoms may do tomorrow).
How would you explain matter's move toward deeper feeling and higher consciousness if not in teleological terms?
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Careful ... the feedback into DNA is not altering DNA structure. Rather the feedback (a.k.a. Natural Selection as understood today thanks to Darwin's start) is altering the frequency of successful DNA in the environment by encoding more and more information about the environment that that DNA exists in. That environment includes whatever is already there, including other DNA and things that have emerged and the processes presently at work.
It's not layering, it's in concert with.
jmdd93 3 years ago
I don't see DNA as encoding an environment, though that isn't totally inaccurate. The reason I find it lacking is because organisms have from the very beginning been altering their environment, often quite creatively. This is why Gaia theory is so significant. It points to the intimate co-evolution of organism and environment that Darwin's notion of a 'pregiven' environment distorts. There is no pregiven environment. As soon as you have life, it is an organism-environment field that evolves.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Agreed you can't understand life by looking at DNA only ... but whatever you a looking at it has to include DNA. I think we agree on this? What concerns me about DST is that it defines itself by being against neo-darwinism and I don't think that exists anymore than you can find somebody who says they are a religious extremist (poor example because belief is what drives that instead of facts)
jmdd93 3 years ago
When I speak of neo-Darwinism, I am thinking specifically of the perspective of philosophers of biology like Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, and others who think the whole process can be reduced without interesting remainder to genetic mechanisms. I contrast them with thinkers like Gould, Lewontin, Margulis, Varela, Kauffman, Goodwin, etc., who recognize the emergent significance of all the other complexity of the biosphere and who reject the idea it can be accounted for from the bottom up.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
A top down description doesn't necessarily involve anything supernatural, but it does stand in opposition to the strict materialist ontology assumed by the neo-Darwinists.
(we do both agree that DNA is highly significant, but I see it as a passive means of memory storage. there are active elements to the organization of life that understanding just this passive molecule tells us nothing about).
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Those are extremely interesting and gifted people. We are fortunate to have/had people like that on this planet.
However, for me anyway, I find them hung up on what is ultimately "need to believe in something". I find you, my friend OThouArtThat0, to be the same. You should pursue religion instead of science. And I mean that kindly. Science does not care about why? nearly as much as it cares about what? and how?. If you need why? in order to see beauty then science is not for you
jmdd93 3 years ago
I disagree. Science and religion cannot be at odds if our species hopes to move beyond the 21st century. Science and technology without a spiritual and moral compass will surely destroy us, just as religion that is irrational and fails to base it's claims in experience may do the same.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
you don't need religion for a moral compass.
Steve3420 3 years ago
Science and religion have been at odds and will continue to be. In science, if there is a better theory or better facts the old ones are abandoned (killed on purpose!!). That is not the case in religion where the present theories and facts are almost never abandoned ... by the time Galileo was forgiven humans had landed on the moon and invented the computer.
jmdd93 3 years ago
And thanks to Steve3420 for pointing out that religion does not monopolize "moral compass".
Same for "spituality". I can tell you my "spirituality" machinery works rather damn well without running after beliefs.
BTW we don't see people of science battling it out in Gaza/Israel ... talk about moving beyond the 21st century. How about moving beyond the 16th first huh?
jmdd93 3 years ago
they aren't battling it out by themselves, they're just the warlords giving the farmers the ak 47 with grenade-shooting-ability to kill as many as possible.
Kuechenkraft 3 years ago
Religion is not about theories and facts. It is about symbols and meaning deeper than can be measured empirically. I think Creationists and the Intelligent Design movement are both bad religion and bad science. But if evolution (cosmic and biological) is a teleological process (as the facts suggest), then we cannot gain a full and proper understanding of it without asking why.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Science has done impressive things without getting befuddled by the queston Why? Get by that.
I'm curious to understand you better my friend. What is it you are saying. They can never co-exist because science rejects beliefs and religion rejects proven facts.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Perhaps I'll post a video to explain where I'm coming from. It is difficult to avoid label games using comments. I'm motivated by a desire to integrate all ways of knowing.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I'm motivated by food, sex and emotions and right now I want to go watch the rest of football game.
I will at least watch the 1st 20 seconds of your video provided you have you clothes on of course :)
jmdd93 3 years ago
Why do atheists continue to propagate this falsity, that religion and science are enemies. This is one of the biggest lies in contemporary thought. I can't remember who is author is of this quote, but nevertheless it is undeniably true.
'Science without philosophy simply makes no sense: it leads to Behaviorism and Nihilism. Philosophy without religion is abstract and bloodless, unable to perform'
Christianity developed the scientific method and laws of evidence.
xtrashed 3 years ago
If my statements are a falsity or lies then please show me the error instead of throwing out labels and rhetoric.
I posted: science rejects beliefs and religion rejects proven facts.
My evidence for this is the Earth is 4 billion years old and revolves around the Sun and the number of religious people that would agree with that is <10%.
Which part of my evidence do you question? The 4 billion year old Earth revolving around the Sun? Or the number of people believing otherwise.
jmdd93 3 years ago
The Church has no problem with the existence of dinosaurs or the age of the Earth. Or Neanderthals for that matter. Of course, I am speaking from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective. The age of the Earth, 4 billion years approx. does not contradict Church teaching or in fact, the Bible.
xtrashed 3 years ago
"the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life....the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago." (International Theological Commission headed by Ratzinger / Benedict, Communion and Stewardship, 2004)
xtrashed 3 years ago
Then why hasn't the Bible been revised? Science has been revised many times and that continues.
One final comment. I am not posting to convince you of anything. Rather I'm responding to my conversation with 0ThouArtThat0 where I recommended to my young friend that perhaps he should pursue religion instead of science. There is a long history of science and religion not being easily reconciled. That includes people like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Darwin and Einstein.
jmdd93 3 years ago
The Bible is not scientific manual that can be changed and updated to suit the current times. The accuracy and relevancy of the Bible remain the same today as when it as written. The Bible is the sole objective source of all the revelation God has given us about Himself and His plan for humanity. Gods Word will never be outdated, superseded, or improved upon. Laws change, cultures change, generations come and go - but the word of God will never be outdated.
xtrashed 3 years ago
God orders you to kill those who work on the sabbath. If God's word is not outdated, why do you not obey him?
xtrashed: Are your parents christian? Were you raised a christian? Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that you believe in the bible?
A lot of people who were raised in different cultures ended up believing just as fervidly in other religions.
What do you think went wrond with their methods for distinguishing truth from falsehoods that your methods guard against?
Paulginz 3 years ago
The Hebrews had just left Egypt and were constantly in danger of slipping back into the idolatry and abominations of Egypt. They were also constantly wanting to go back to Egypt and abandon God completely. These punishments were disciplines, not doctrines. They were instituted for that people in that place and time.
xtrashed 3 years ago
And as for your other question, we were created to seek God, to know him and be known by him. And even among those cultures and people that have not received the fullness of God's revelation, the inborn urge to seek him still exists. Of course, from a God-doesn't-exist standpoint, none of this makes any sense. Devoting precious time, energy and resources on something that does not exist to you, obviously has no survival benefit, and in fact is a survival penalty.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Evidently it is not a survival penalty, otherwise religion would not be a feature of every human society ever. I tend to think it is a side-effect of something else: we are pattern-seeking imaginative creatures, who in the absence of full information often prefer to invent an explanation rather than admit we don't know.
Slabbers 3 years ago
religion fills in the gaps relys on Xenophobia, (abominations of Egypt statement below) passing it on to children too. In religion statements in logic can always be negated by using faith. It's a neat package, self-referenced and circular, nearly impossible to pierce once it's assimulated in the human mind. No doubt religion has been a survival bonus. Not possible to start with a clean slate. Goes for # of limbs and what you're told as a child about the world.
jmdd93 3 years ago
I think you are very wrong! Religion or believing God is not a survival mechanism, or a side effect of society. Atheism is every bit as much based on faith (belief in something not proven). And the common atheist explanation for everything ("I don't know why the universe exists, I just know it isn't God") is simply not logical.
xtrashed 3 years ago
I've had this discussion many times before with believers, but I'll just point out that atheism is not based on faith, it is defined by a lack of it. You do not require any belief to not believe in God or gods! I don't say for sure I know God doesn't exist, I just think the chances are comparable with pixies and invisible pink unicorns. I don't know the universe wasn't created by God, it's just as he almost certainly doesn't exist, he couldn't've created the universe. No faith involved.
Slabbers 3 years ago
I'm not sure about it really, but of course, this is someting that atheists would never admit to! dictionary . com's definition for religion is "4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
....
And according to the 7th Court of Appeals
wnd . com / news / article . asp ? ARTICLE _ ID = 45874
(remove all spaces)
It's kind of funny actually, when an atheist tries to ban religions. We can now say that they are forcing their religion on us. :O
xtrashed 3 years ago
I don't want to ban religion, I just want it to lose its special priviledges, for the idea of faith as a virtue to be abandoned, and for it to be as generally acceptable to criticism religion as it is to criticise any other ideas that people have.
Slabbers 3 years ago
Asking questions in life is important. To investigate our faith is very important. I once heard a great quote, 'If you go to Church it doesn't make you a Christian' , and this is very true.
Being religious,or believing in God is has nothing to do with credulity or superstition. Like science, it is based on evidence, reasoning, and judgment. But its object (God) is not a being in the world; therefore, its methods cannot be those of the ordinary empirical sciences.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Religion is absolutely NOT based on evidence. It's solely based on faith. Faith exists only in the absence of evidence for something that you believe in.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
So religion doesn't get questioned at all by its followers? Have you read any serious theology? Have you consulted any serious journal of religion? Some of the sharpest critics of religion I know are religious people.
xtrashed 3 years ago
People who really start to question their faith eventually become atheists or at least agnostic. The other people only half question their faith because they can't ignore evidence but they still want the warm and fuzzy feeling of being loved by something intangible. God is just one of those things that the more that science explains the unknown, the further god gets pushed back into further unknowns.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
True Religion, is the cornerstone of Civilisation. One need only to study pagan Rome or the barbarian tribes of ancient times to see what life was like without Religion. In modern times we only need to study the rise of the totalitarian regimes of the 1920's and 1930's, the Marxist states etc. that was today trying to do away with the continuous moral code. True Religion has been the most civilizing thing that the world has known.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Rational societies have been the most civilizing thing, and these are not based on religion because morality does not, and can not come from religion. The Bible is unclear exactly what moral code is to be followed, hence so much disagreement amongst Christians. Therefore the dispute is solved by other some process: rationality, humanity's innate morality and the context of society/community combine to decide which parts or interpretations to follow, codified in the dogma of the various sects.
Slabbers 3 years ago
Rational societies? I am sure I don't have to repeat this but we've seen what happened in the 20th century when there was attempt after attempt to erode religion from society. Millions upon millions of innocent people were slaughtered because of communist regimes, of which atheism was at the core! If we were purely rational, then we would be completely sinless. And why do you jump to the conclusion that to be completely rational, you have an only scientific world-view. That is an absurd belief
xtrashed 3 years ago
Of for god's sake! "Communist regimes, of which atheism was at the core" - friggin' communism was at the core, not atheism! Blind obedience to a semi-divine leader with unquestionable dogma and purges of non-believers was at their core. They were led by meglomaniacs who demanded worship of themselves. Remind you of anything? The enemy is unquestionable dogma and ideology, be it religious or not.
Slabbers 3 years ago
Go and Watch 'The Trouble With atheism Part 6' - 4:15. On Youtube. The Russian Priest (who was once an atheist, lived in Russia during this time, before emigrating). He said himself, 'BEING RELIGIOUS WAS A VIOLATION OF STATE LAWS' . He says this himself, in his own words 'THE PARTY DEMANDED ATHEISM, YOU CAN'T BE A PARTY MEMBER OF ANY RELIGION'. That same secularism exterminated religious people with much cruelty! You can not deny that.
xtrashed 3 years ago
I wouldn't deny that. In Stalinist Russia, religion was a competing belief sytem which undermined the absolute authority of the Party and the Great Leader, and that cannot be tolerated in a totalitarian system. That the regime was not based on a belief in God is no more to the point than the fact that Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches. Perhaps moustaches are to blame for psychotic megolamaniac regimes?
Slabbers 3 years ago
Totalitarian power is the key to these wars. But it is interesting that atheism had to be obligatory during these regimes. If you were religious or wanted to covert over to a religion you were killed....The truth is that some people will always find reasons to kill each other: money, property, fame, wounded pride, hurt feelings, etc. etc.
xtrashed 3 years ago
The examples that you give are just that of people using a particular ideology to enforce laws that they set up. Atheism is nothing more then the lack of theistic belief. It holds no political ties for it is simply the lack of believe.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
Atheists reject the logic of faith = true that is followed by theists. That's not say faith = false, it is simply that faith is not always true and therefore faith alone cannot be the basis of understanding. Atheists also find supra-rational, in the guise of a rational arguement, to be supra-misplaced.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Jmdd93, Atheists reject faith in god(s), not "the logic of faith". Faith cannot inherently equal true or false. Faith is simply believing something without supportive tangible, quantifiable, non-personal, and empirical evidence. If there were supporting evidence for an idea then you wouldn't need faith. Again, Atheism is the rejection of faith in god(s)
Vegas3S 3 years ago
Atheism is indeed rejection of faith in god(s). Just pointing an atheist gets there by rejecting faith = true, no exceptions. Some theists acknowledge evidence, even point to it themselves. They also acknowledge the circular logic (faith is true because it's true). They claim faith transcends evidence and reason. So that leaves little to discuss in terms of evidence and reason. The danger is mixing this with science, it is no longer the scientific method and cannot be trusted.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Good, I'm glad we agree. I probably should have just said that atheism rejects "theism and all that it implies" in order to blanket the thought more completely.
Circular logic is fun. "Did you know that the water that I drink keeps elephants away? Do you see any elephants around? No, then it must be true."
Vegas3S 3 years ago
@jmdd93
No logic in faith.Faith is dogmatic.
RiddickTheKiller 3 years ago
@RiddickTheKiller
Indeed dogmatic but people use logic to discuss religion all the time so its important to point out the false/circular logic involved. A religous person gets upset when they are told they cannot use logic in the discussion but they are also the first to abandon it.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Why are we discussing this?
If atheism is not a religion, then why did this court in America rule it to be a religion?
archives . neuralgourmet . com/2005/08/19/court_rules_atheism_a_religion
?
xtrashed 3 years ago
That's interesting. Law is very much concerned with a person's rights. Since being an atheist is legal atheists have the same rights as does a religous person. Surely you're not suggesting an atheist should not have the same rights?
The article misses that point entirely. I certainly would not call atheism a religion, especially in this thread! But in the context of law I'd have to agree. Freedom of religion (or the lack thereof) is a right.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Atheism is only a religion to the courts, just as jmdd93 put it, because it's about the rights of people.
Atheism is just as much of a religion as mathematics is.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
Atheism worships Nogod, whose existence it can never prove, and so must be taken on faith alone. It has its own missionaries and its own "saints", Nietzsche, Mencken, etc. To the extent that it is hard atheism, it even has its own principle of infallibility as to the existence of Nogod, though ironically, with respect to morals, it preaches all kinds of relativism.
xtrashed 3 years ago
The idea that you're missing xtrashed is that when you state an argument as true, you have to provide evidence for it's validity. Theism states that there is a god and fervently stands behind that idea. Atheism rejects theism because it cannot provide substantial hard evidence for it's case.
It's like this mathematically. Theism says that there is 1 while Atheism says, how do you know there is 1? An Atheist will not become a Theist until the Theist can prove 1 as true.
Simple right?
Vegas3S 3 years ago
To continue my last comment...
Between Theism and Atheism; Theist are saying that God exists and Atheists are saying, how do you know?
Sure, anyone can say that god made the big bang and god is the source of all life. That sounds really nice and all but for god to have created literally everything, there must have been a system before creation as we know it, and before that, and before that. Nothing comes from Anarchy.
Better doubt than believe until there is hard, quantifiable evidence.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
Continuing (Part 2)
The problem with a theory like "God exists and made everything", there needs to be a lot of other supporting ideas behind it. Such as how god and his/her/it's environment functions. In order to justify something like that, you have to continue to add new theories on top of it when the logic of the argument breaks down.
And thus, it's better to doubt and believe nothing than to believe something that cannot be proven.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
Continuing (Part 3)
Conversely, I don't disbelieve in the idea of god, I just doubt it.
Theism makes a LOT of claims for God and have for the last few millennia. The more claims that are made, the more evidence there needs to be.
So when you say things like "the universe fulfills god's design". I have to ask the question, what design, and who defines what this design is exactly?
The last time that I checked, nothing has ever been written directly by a supernatural force; it's always man.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
Continuing (Part 4: Final)
So I ask you this xtrashed.
Beyond any personal experiences that you've had regarding god or anything supernatural, what direct evidence makes you believe that there is a god or anything supernatural.
Keep in mind that I sort of like the idea of some sort of uber 1337 programmer god that made everything awesome, but I doubt it, and I'm not going to let a question of "how did all of this get here?" lead me to an answer that has no basis in tangibility.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
There is no need to have an elite programmer or God responsible for life, the universe and everything. Darwin showed God is not necessary. Science has piled up mountains of supporting evidence. Time and time again science has diminished God's tangible meaning. While it can't be 100% proved God does not exist, the lack of any credible evidence for God and the overwhelming proven evidence suggesting he does not exist is the reason there is probably no God. Basically proven.
jmdd93 3 years ago
ake a look at the recent work of Antony Flew and the texts of John Polkinghorne, both of whom argue from the complex intelligibility of the world to a creative intelligence. All of science rests upon the assumption that finite being is intelligible. Some creative intelligence must ground that intelligibility.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Atheism does believe in something (the non-existence of God). But the difference is that atheism goes with what is vastly most probable and rational. The score is extremely lopsided. Should any real evidence come along an atheist would switch of course but like you've said it's been a couple thousand years of just the opposite. Indeed an atheist very much doubts god exists.
jmdd93 3 years ago
The theist will use supra-rational and circular logic. Anything can be proven or even dis-proven this way. So there is nothing to ask questions about or discuss rationally. A person either abandons all rational discussion /logic and is religious or they don't and are atheists.
jmdd93 3 years ago
Very well put, but you are only looking at it one way. Atheist also have to disprove 1.
In the scientific community yes you have to prove you're correct(I find it very ironic people want proof for something called faith but I digress) but the community itself also has to prove you are wrong.
With that said thinking objectively you have to be open to all possibilities. Including those considered impossible.
djslay34982 3 years ago
I would admit there is a possibilty for God. But is is almost zero. As close to zero and getting more so over time.
You cannot disprove something. I like the teapot example. If I claim there is a teapot in orbit about mars can you prove there is not? Keep in mind I firmly believe there is a teapot there without having any proof because I don't need proof to believe it. Now I would like you to prove 100% there is not a teapot.
jmdd93 3 years ago
What Darwin didn't realize (and what we know now) is just how machine-like even a single cell is, how delicately and intricately interdependent its elements are. That this construction was not, in some sense, designed or directed by a higher intelligence seems counter-indicated.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Just because you cant see the answer behind the mystery doesn't mean the answer automatically points to an intelligent source.
We used to think that there was an intelligent source behind lighting but it turns out that wasn't true either.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
"What Darwin didn't realize (and what we know now) is just how machine-like even a single cell is, how delicately and intricately interdependent its elements are. That this construction was not, in some sense, designed or directed by a higher intelligence seems counter-indicated."
lol... wow.
irreducible complexity has been smashed countless times by now...
lulz
TheGeneral159 3 years ago
Islam, Christianity and Judaism. That is for a reason-there is only one truth that hasn't changed; it's men who has. Religion is simply acknowledging the truth, truth that is eternal and sometimes even beyond our own understanding. God wants us to find Him for ourselves and learn of his true teachings, not just to follow any claims of higher power because they're "there", or "all the same".
xtrashed 3 years ago
See, you can't say that you know for sure that "god wants us to find him for ourselves..." You're basing that statement of written word that doesn't have any tangible evidence so how can you possibly say that it's true? You're just guessing and wishful thinking.
You can't even prove god so how are you going to be the one to know exactly what god is thinking without consulting text written by man or other men who are equally unable to provide proof or at the very least, evidence.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
"God wants us to find Him for ourselves and learn of his true teachings, not just to follow any claims of higher power because they're "there", or "all the same". "
how do you know what god wants?
did he tell you so in your head?
TheGeneral159 3 years ago
I'm so glad there are so many voices of reason in this little mini-debate going on.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
Take the Big Bang yes scientist can find out what the Universe was like 1 millionth of a second after the big bang, anything before that is pure speculation or guessing.
(btw the bible (in then there was light) and the big bang theory do at its most basic parts sound alike.)
djslay34982 3 years ago
umm...
"(btw the bible (in then there was light) and the big bang theory do at its most basic parts sound alike.) "
no they dont...
one says "and then there was light"
the other speaks about the fusion and spread of trillions of molecules and how gravity eventually started to form them together to create large bodies of mass and etc etc etc.
there is a LARGE difference.
TheGeneral159 3 years ago
No you are being an ass.I said the BASIC. The big bang theory says there was light and so does the bible.
djslay34982 3 years ago
It also has its councils, or synods, the American Atheist Society, the ACLU, part of the scientific community, much of the liberal media and academia, the share of the entertainment industry which routinely mocks and cusses religion.
xtrashed 3 years ago
@xtrashed
"the share of the entertainment industry which routinely mocks and cusses religion. "
funny you should say that...
cause christians, muslims, etc., have been killing atheists for millennia.
yet you are upset because religion gets made fun of????
if they dont wanna be made fun of... then they should not believe in funny beliefs.
TheGeneral159 3 years ago
To see religion as the unique cause of violence is naive in the extreme. And secularism doesn't make people do crazy things? As I said to before, I have absolutely no quarrel with a self-critical attitude on the part of religious people. But I would like secularists and atheists to demonstrate at least as much scepticism about themselves. Atheistic regimes killed over 150 million people during the 20th century alone. They demanded atheism of their members, religious people were killed!
xtrashed 3 years ago
Please consult the similar prophecies of the imminent demise of religion penned by Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Auguste Comte, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Jean-Paul Sartre, Mao Tse-Tung, and Sigmund Freud. They're all gone; religion is still here!
xtrashed 3 years ago
And let me get this straight: you dismiss the beliefs of billions of religious people as "funny" and I'm the one who's arrogant. Perhaps you could read a little more philosophy, theology, and sophisticated biblical criticism before pronouncing all of religion as "funny."
My suspicion is that, like most contemporary atheists, you have no idea what you're criticizing. You have a caricature of religion in your mind, and you delight in taking it apart. Try the real stuff.
xtrashed 3 years ago
You're not arrogant xtrashed, you're one of the billions of silly people who still believe things that there parents told them without actually questioning why they believe it in the first place. One of the billions of silly people who still live in the dark ages of logic and reason.
There sure where a whole lot of people, namely everyone, who believed that the world was flat and at the center of the universe. What does it take to make you understand that you should doubt what you believe.
Vegas3S 3 years ago
@xtrashed
"And let me get this straight: you dismiss the beliefs of billions of religious people as "funny" and I'm the one who's arrogant."
appeal to numbers (logical fallacy)
"Perhaps you could read a little more philosophy, theology, and sophisticated biblical criticism before pronouncing all of religion as "funny.""
i disagree, a simple read of the new testament is pretty comical.
"Try the real stuff. "
ok, bring it.
what is this real stuff? AT LAST! someone who has all the answers!
TheGeneral159 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What does that have to do with this video? Why do I always have to see scientific ideas spammed with conversations about religion?
If you don't believe in religion, don't antagonize those that do.
Radjehuty 3 years ago