He said He would RETURN - JESUS CHRIST - Today?

[Louster]

Who Wrote the Bible stuff

Ah, sounds disappointingly hyperbolic. Oh well.

 

[Tom]

my own lol...

You state that people are stupid for believing in an afterlife. You then continue and state that there is no such thing.

So basically, you're saying that faith in an afterlife is silly - but you don't hesitate to place faith in your own beliefs.

The fact is, nobody can conclusively prove it either way. People have been trying for thousands of years, and failed miserably. For the sake of my own sanity, I choose to hope that there is an existence after life, because I can't conceive of their not being one, and I choose to believe that there is a purpose to life that we can't yet comprehend.

 

[Louster]

The only "faith" that disbelieving in the afterlife implies is the faith that someone else's belief may possibly be false. Believing in something "mystical" and by definition unproveable is "faith", but believing that something unproveable is, at the least, completely irrelevant to anything, is not faith at all. In fact, the whole point of religious arguments is that they're completely, comprehensively untestable. Where's the point in that?

Edit: In fact, as you say, the point is in "preserving your sanity", but that doesn't really help with understanding existence.

 

[Louster]

Pardon my complete lack of skills in the english language - what I meant was the reasons provided above for not believing in souls is about as good as anyone could give FOR believing them. I.e. it's all down to what you believe - there's really no evidence for or against.

Incidentally, regarding the Stephen Pinker quote, consider the "insurmountable problem". The "soul" is, by necessity, defined as something completely undetectable, and hence not existing in any "physical" way; it's entirely immaterial; it lacks any physical substance; it, to all intents and purposes, does not exist, as, if it did, it would become a testable hypothesis.

As Pinker says, how, then, does the spook interact with solid matter? To explain the interaction, yet more complicated, unproveable concepts must be created. Basically, it's approaching the question from the wrong direction: creating an answer and then attempting to explain it.

 

[Tom]

Since all existence is experienced through our own perceptions, how can anybody conclusively prove that such things as physicality even exist? For all I know, this entire world could be a figment of my imagination. I may be residing in a large oval blob of strawberry jelly, with plastic sperm swimming gleefully around my 43 foot diameter head.

I can see where this thread will lead tbh. How long before the first "omg religion sucks so many people dead stfu tbh w1n"?

 

[Louster]

The point is that science deals with things as they are, and produces testable conclusions. Questions like "how do we know we really exist" aren't relevant to anything, as they're completely untestable. What you're talking about seems similar to Solipsism. There's really no purpose in considering them. If something happens which perhaps implies that the reality we reside in is false, which can actually be tested and investigated, then it'll be tested and investigated. Saying that "it can't be disproved, so it could be possible" doesn't get anyone anywhere, as you can come up with an infinite number of theories which COULD be true, but, by their definitions, can't be tested.

 

[Louster]

In fact, the ultimate point is that science doesn't rule out the possibility of there being a God, it's just the fact that "God" as an explanation of existence is logically backwards (the conclusion was essentially decided upon (i.e. faith), rather than being led to by evidence) and has no proveable basis in reality. As I said, it makes more sense to believe in testable and (this is important) reproducible things.

 

[Jonaldo]

Maybe God is the living, breathing organism that we all live on? The planet Earth. Kind of fits all the descriptions that it gave life to all and we're all it's children. When we all die we go back to it. It has the power to both protect us or destroy us in huge numbers ( as sadly has recently been proved )

If only it wore a robe and had a long beard eh?

I don't know if it is god but I do believe the Earth is alive and not just a huge lump of rock that we live on. Whether that's stupid of me or not I don't know.

It's hard to disprove it's existence though new direction of discussion anyone?

 

[Munkey]

The gaiea (sp) hypothesis. Its an interesting idea, but I dont think its true. The way we've been brutally destroying earth for the last 100 years alone and our uncontinued rampage upon the environment that has been left basicly unchecked with no reaction convinces me of this.

Its 6am, do exuse.

 

[Bullitt]

On a similar note did anyone watch that "What we still don't know" on channel 4 a while back. It was fascinating stuff all about the randomness of our evolution and our existence. I can't remember exactly what they found but in any case they were always led to the idea that because of certain facts or rules within the universe then feasably there must be a 'designer'. The scientists couldn't handle this and so formulated a theory that we could be within a multiverse (a universe among many)

Which isn't so silly really...at first we thought we were on one continent; we then found we were one among many. Then a planet among many, then a solar system among many, and a galaxy among many...why stop there? The multiverse idea is similar to ideas of parralel universes in that if something 'could have' happened it probably has somewhere. And that one of these was the 'perfect' universe...a utopia if you will. But again it led them to idea that there must be a designer. Which led to all sorts of theories like we're a simulation run on some kind of computer.

Another intersting point it raised was that they found our brains were at itheir optimal sizes for intelligence, any bigger and the distance travelled by information takes longer and the brain 'slows down' so if we want to become smarter/better. Then the next feasable step in our evolution is computer chips...I mean if you made a chip that did all the functions of one section of the human brain, what difference does it make if it's made from silicon or carbon.

Anyhoo, if you can get hold of it - "What we still don't know" - then I suggest you do. It's fascinating stuff and really boggles your mind.

 

[Jonaldo]

The gaiea (sp) hypothesis. Its an interesting idea, but I dont think its true. The way we've been brutally destroying earth for the last 100 years alone and our uncontinued rampage upon the environment that has been left basicly unchecked with no reaction convinces me of this.

Its 6am, do exuse.

Several incurable, fatal diseases/conditions, famines and of course natural disasters that we cannot predict or cope with despite all the technologies in the world. I would say there are definitely reactions trying to curb the population levels.

An old quote:
"To get across the point that the Earth really is alive. If you were to interview a butterfly, standing on the branch of a secoya tree. Now, a butterfly lives only for a few days, and a secoya tree can live for over a thousand years.
If you were to ask the butterfly, 'Do you percieve, the object on which you're standing, as being alive?', the butterfly would say, 'Of course not. I've been here all my life, which is all of five days, and the tree hasn't done a thing'.

Well it's the same problem, with the human being.
If you were to ask a person, perhaps one that's lived for over a hundred years, if they percieve the Earth, which is really five billion years old, as being alive, they'd say, 'Of course not. I've been here my whole life, and it hasn't done a thing'."


edit: Think I'll set that as my sig
edit#2: no I won't it's too long

 

[Stazbumpa]

^ wot he sed made my brain hurt, but it appears to hold water none-the-less.

 

[Louster]

^ wot he sed made my brain hurt, but it appears to hold water none-the-less.

Uhm, not really. First of all, it totally hinges on how you define "life". The conventional definition, as supplied by Wikipedia, clearly discounts "the Earth" as living. It doesn't "grow" in any obvious sense. It doesn't have voluntary motion. Obviously, it doesn't replicate, etc. (There aren't multiple Earths in the solar system.) If the Earth is "alive", at all, it's in a sense that's completely detached from the definition of "life" as it stands, though I'll admit that it's pretty hard to define what "life" is anyhow.

But in any case, there's very little reason to believe that the "responses" you've listed show that "the Earth must be a living organism", at least in terms of having sentience and a will or desire to "survive". Overpopulation, for instance, (as in, there being too many people relative to the amount of resources) exacerbates all sorts of problems, including the ones you've mentioned. And natural disasters happen regardless of population; it's likely just that the ones which are vastly tragic are more memorable. It's similar to the idea of coincidences. Although statistically unlikely, the amount of opportunity that exists for them to happen (in our abstract, "sentient" everyday world) means that they WILL happen, and will stick out hugely compared to the endless amount of time spent without any occuring.

In any case, I'm sure that stuff like earthquakes, being dependent on plate tectonics, would occur on any planet that happened to have a molten core, and tidal waves on any planet that happened to have significant amounts of water (or any liquid, I guess.) Ideas like the Gaia hypothesis don't work unless you invent some mystical, invisible force which renders lumps of rock sentient. True, to progress at all sometimes requires far-fetched ideas which are then borne out my experiment, but I doubt there's any evidence to support the idea that the Earth is alive in any conventional or useful sense. The whole concept suggests, to me, that it was created simply as a way of persuading people to "stop destroying our planet, man." (Which is something that should be done anyhow, if only for purely selfish reasons of self-preservation.)

And the "quote" is pretty meaningless rhetoric. Analogies almost never prove anything.

Edit: uh, "you" in this post refers to Jonaldo rather than Stazbumpa, by the way.

 

[Catsby]

Catsby is the sort of person that thinks in the manner of Louster.

As a matter of current affairs, Catsby has read an article in Nature (or possible Scientific American), where they posed the question "Are Viruses Alive?". Catsby laughed, as the answer is:
"If you define the qualities of life to include those the virus has, then yes"


As far as Catsby is concerned it is all rather simple.
Say Catsby was to create a theory.

Catsby's theory #1 - 1+1=2

Catsby thinks this is a nice theory, although possible not really his own. However, Catsby recognises that it is not complete.

Axion to Catsby's Theory #1 - The number system used is base 10 decimal, with the standard number system.

Otherwise Catsby's theory could say 2+2=1 if the number 2 was actually representing something else.

Catsby suggest that all theories must have axioms, and those axioms can be tested.
Catsby also suggests that metaphysics (which is what is being discussed) is different because it uses axioms that cannot be tested. When Catsby calculates how fast he is going he uses falsifyable axioms.

Catsby does believe that metaphysics stimulates debate, and can be lively. However, he is saddened when people begin to take them too seriously, for neither side will ever be "right".

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Louster: Don't bring up Pinker, the man is a total fucking wanker. Some ok theories but he's an utter prick. I hate him more than anything.

Talking of relevant programs - haven't read the thread in full but did anyone see the program about King Herod, and what he was really like? Turns out almost all evidence points to the fact he was nowhere near as extremist as made out to be in the bible; and it is dubious as to whether or not he ordered mass execution of new born babies.

The more and more we discover about the history, the more and more it looks like an extravagant "sexing up" of real life characters.

 

[Jonaldo]

Teh planet is alive and coming for you next Louster!!1

 

[Catsby]

and it is dubious as to whether or not he ordered mass execution of new born babies.

The more and more we discover about the history, the more and more it looks like an extravagant "sexing up" of real life characters.

For the record, Catsby doesn't find the mass execution of babies sexy at all.

 

[Turamber]

Talking of relevant programs - haven't read the thread in full but did anyone see the program about King Herod, and what he was really like? Turns out almost all evidence points to the fact he was nowhere near as extremist as made out to be in the bible; and it is dubious as to whether or not he ordered mass execution of new born babies.

The more and more we discover about the history, the more and more it looks like an extravagant "sexing up" of real life characters.

Which Herod though? There were a number of the buggers!

Many non-Christians use the New Testament for it's insight on the first century. There are very few records available from that time in the Middle East so it's an invaluable sociological and historical aid ... So I wouldn't be too quick to call foul

In the 19th and early 20th centuries people decried the Bible, saying that Pontius Pilate - a pivotal figure in the Cruficixion account - had never existed, and that the lack of references to him in Roman records of the same time showed he was 'made up' and thus one of the 'many' errors in the Bible.

Then they went and found a huge bloody stone with his name on dating back to the first century, a foundation stone from a huge erection (no laughing in the back please) from those times.

Historians who specialise in Roman history find the issue of names, offices and titles to be a particularly complex one. Yet the writer of the Gospel of Luke invariably uses the correct names, office names and titles when he mentions Roman officials.

 

[old.user4556]

I'm still waiting to be unplugged from the Matrix.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Which Herod though? There were a number of the buggers!

Surprisingly enough, it was the one who was reigning at the time of Jesus' birth.

 

[Louster]

Louster: Don't bring up Pinker, the man is a total fucking wanker. Some ok theories but he's an utter prick. I hate him more than anything.

Heh, really? To be honest, I don't know anything about him beyond his books, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Why the hatred? Honestly curious, here.

 

[Whipped]

Talking of relevant programs - haven't read the thread in full but did anyone see the program about King Herod, and what he was really like? Turns out almost all evidence points to the fact he was nowhere near as extremist as made out to be in the bible; and it is dubious as to whether or not he ordered mass execution of new born babies.

I saw a few little bits of this and found the most distrubing part to be that he had his wife killed and then had her put in a big vat of honey so that he could continue to have marital affairs with her.
Thank God there were no camcorders and Internet in the 1st century

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Heh, really? To be honest, I don't know anything about him beyond his books, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Why the hatred? Honestly curious, here.

He writes like a big flowery gay. His theories are very generalised and have very little to back them up. Instead of getting to the point he'll fuck around and try and show off how clever he is. I don't care how clever he is.

PLUS: LOOK AT HIS HAIR:

 

[Bodhi]

You have all succeeded in making this discussion incredibly boring. I hope you're happy.

 

[rynnor]

One of the many sticking points about belief in an afterlife when you look at it logically is the law of conservation of energy. Nothing in the Universe actually creates energy so where would the energy required to maintain some level of consciousness actually come from and how long would it last...

If nobody believed in an afterlife maybe we would all try a bit more to make this life work...

Personally although I have no problem with peoples individual beliefs I have always distrusted organised religion - particularly hierarchical religions - there are many bad reasons for asserting some kind of superiority over your fellow humans but surely the basic premise of do what I say because a spirit says i'm better than you is a particularly weak one.

If we ever find other intelligent life in the universe when it finds out about what we classify as Religion it will either be horrified or laugh itself silly - or both...

 

[Tom]

If nobody believed in an afterlife, who would give a shit? You'd just end up with more morally vacant people.

And since when did the supernatural have to exist in this universe? What, 'heaven' is somewhere in Ursa Minor?

 

[Tom]

If we ever find other intelligent life in the universe when it finds out about what we classify as Religion it will either be horrified or laugh itself silly - or both...

Or they'll try and convert us to their religion, annihilating us if we don't.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Tom in massive generalisation shocker !

 

[SawTooTH]

Oh to live in this moralistic universe where people get on with each other, love one another etc. Get a better belief system, one that humans can live in.

Personally Im in for a more humanist philosophy where individuals actually take responsibility for their own actions.

I have little time/regard for Goddites of any faction, who's vacuous notion of a hereafter is the product of some fantasy dreamt up by a few deluded & frustrated monks/priests.

 

[Sharma]

I currently have Jesus Christ sat next to me this very minute.


Well, as in a mate who looks the double of him, if there any any recorded picutres that is, ill grab a photo some time.