2 days ago NASA posted a very interesting media advisory for a press announcement clicky (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html) due for 2pm EST tomorrow. It will also be streamed live on the internet. The most interesting part:

"an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life"

Here (http://gizmodo.com/5702124/did-nasa-discover-life-on-one-of-saturns-moons) is an article with some mild speculation which interestingly details the roles of the participants.

OK so my thread title may be a big over dramatic (got you to look eh?) obviously they will not be announcing they have found little/big, green/blue/pink or polka dot creatures but (going on past records) more likely the possibility of life or maybe, just maybe the seeds of the most primitive life (bacteria possibly?) on Titan.

Whatever it is though the most interesting thing about this for me is that a one of my favourite Sci-Fi books Titan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28Stephen_Baxter_novel%29) by Stephen Baxter explores the possibilities that life on Titan may actually exist albeit not as we know it. Won't say any more about the book to avoid spoilers if anyone decides to read it but some of his ideas have already been borne out by the Cassini probe. ;)

Well lets wait and see might be an anti-climax but I'll sure be watching with great interest.

interesting story Minkey. Another interesting thing about NASA's desires is that some of their probes are already outside of our galaxy, or close. I think I read on their website that they will be able to receive radio signals from their satellites for another 20 or so years. If I remember right, by that time those distant probes will be closer to the next star than they will be to our own Sun. That's unreal!

interesting story Minkey. Another interesting thing about NASA's desires is that some of their probes are already outside of our galaxy, or close. I think I read on their website that they will be able to receive radio signals from their satellites for another 20 or so years. If I remember right, by that time those distant probes will be closer to the next star than they will be to our own Sun. That's unreal!

How long do you think it will take for those radio signals to reach us at that point? That's crazy!

How long do you think it will take for those radio signals to reach us at that point? That's crazy!

probably longer than the earth will be around. :D

Do any of you follow the research that's going on with the center of the galaxy right now? There's a super massive black hole in the center. They've already confirmed almost 100%.

I think it would be a far more important announcement that they found intellegent life on Earth.

(c'mon, you knew this one was coming).

Radio signals travel at the speed of light. I don't believe any probes have even reached one light year from Earth as of yet. The nearest star is how many light years from Earth?
The thought that a man-made object is anywhere near INTERGALLACTIC space is to laugh at. The Voyagers that were launched in the 1970s are only now venturing into inter-stellar space.

Radio signals travel at the speed of light. I don't believe any probes have even reached one light year from Earth as of yet.

No where near in fact just looked it up Voyager 1 is approx 17,400,000,000 km away from Earth - seems like a long way? not in light years, that's 0.0018 light years :eek:

The nearest star is how many light years from Earth?

Alpha Centauri system - again I looked this up the nearest star (discounting the Sun of course) is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away, that's 39,735,067,984,839 km away give or take a few km :p

Does anyone really care? What will it achieve?

Wouldn't the billions be better spent elsewhere? Like New Orleans? Or is that still a no-go area for politicians.

D

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

More speculation:

One of the four participants in NASA's press conference tomorrow is NASA astrobiology research fellow Felisa Wolfe-Simon, who has spent two years researching Yosemite Park's Mono Lake, which has one of the highest natural concentrations of arsenic of any site in the world

Like New Orleans? Or is that still a no-go area for politicians.

D

Any area that is poor is off limits to them Dave. Assuming you're at least a little bit aged, you should know that by now. Lesson of life that's easy to learn. :rolleyes:

Very very interesting from what I understand (and I need to do more research) but the key point is that they have discovered a microbe that can 'substitute' one element for another. In this case arsenic for phosphorus, so what's the big deal about that, well it was believed that there are 4 major common elements required for the formation of life as we know it carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen though 2 further 'minor' elements are also required to being crucial in the formation of DNA and RNA – phosphorus (in particular) and sulphur.

This microbe does not require phosphorus as it can substitute arsenic with phosphorus in the formation of DNA – this is unique and goes against all other forms of life on Earth.

So what impact could this have?, what benefits can it potentially bring? Well 2 things spring to mind:

1. (lets get the ET one out the way first) – It means life can potentially exist in different environments not just those that have the previously agreed fundamental building blocks of life present. It essentially give us an much larger chance of finding life elsewhere in the universe as it's now not restricted to a 'New Earth'.

2. A microbe that can substitute on element for another !!! well this could open up huge possibilities, I'm only an interested amateur but imagine if we could understand how this works, imagine if we could we find other microbes or organisms that do the same thing with different elements erm that’s a form of alchemy!!

I'm glad I did not reply to Davep until this was broadcast, honestly the situation in New Orleans was/is (excuse my ignorance) pathetic and yes there should be more help given to them but this type of science is one that can fundamentally change preconceived ideas and open up new possibilities and ultimately benefit everyone (yes albeit in the long term).

You never know something like this could save the lives of the entire human race, ok that may be a bit far (certainly atm) but it would be ill conceived to dismiss this type of science as a waste. It could pave the way for cheap biofuels, renewable energy, elimination of certain pollutants etc. who knows!

If we never ventured out of the cave would we still be there now?

As a New Orleans native who endured Katrina and her aftermath, I have as much of an axe to grind as any other citizen. However, ...

Spending billions ANYWHERE is good as long as it is SPENT and not dropped into a low-interest venue that doesn't contribute to a bank's lending margin. Money spent is money in circulation. When we talk of space research, let me assure you, we don't send ONE DOLLAR out into space. We sent aluminum, plastic, copper, etc. that was turned into an electrical circuit board by someone who got paid a salary to assemble it. And the raw materials were mined by folks who drew a salary to do so. It was designed by engineers who were paid a salary... you get the idea. We don't shoot money into space. What we shoot into space was the result of spending money.

Now, if you want to talk about benefits to New Orleans, the thing that really hurt was when the NASA shuttle program reached the point where they no longer needed external fuel tanks. Because those were made in New Orleans, and that represented salaries and money in circulation in OUR area. Hell's Bells, if someone said they wanted to restart the shuttle and make a gazillion more fuel tanks that get shot off into space, I'd be all for it because of the jobs - and salaries - that would be generated.

Does anyone really care? What will it achieve?

Wouldn't the billions be better spent elsewhere? Like New Orleans? Or is that still a no-go area for politicians.

D
No actually not. NASA has one of the highest secondary pay offs of any government spending.

You're cell phone and yous GPS, to name but a sprinkling, can directly or indirectly trace their roots to space exploration.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
.

Actually do the math. It has been expanding faster than the speed of light.

I have a idea how.

Actually do the math. It has been expanding faster than the speed of light.

I have a idea how.

I thought that was only possible in worm holes

Actually do the math. It has been expanding faster than the speed of light.

I have a idea how.

No its not. The universe is expanding, albeit at some value lower than c. If it were expanding faster than c, then we would not see any stars in the sky at all, because the universe is expanding faster than the light from those stars.

Note- when you say the universe is expanding, don't think about different objects moving apart. Its not that objects are moving, its that the space between them is actually growing. If you put two dots on a balloon and then blow up the balloon, the dots wont be moving apart from each other, but the space will certainly grow. This is what the universe does. What is most interesting about all this is that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. So what is pulling on the universe? We don't know.

No its not. The universe is expanding, albeit at some value lower than c. If it were expanding faster than c, then we would not see any stars in the sky at all, because the universe is expanding faster than the light from those stars.

Note- when you say the universe is expanding, don't think about different objects moving apart. Its not that objects are moving, its that the space between them is actually growing. If you put two dots on a balloon and then blow up the balloon, the dots wont be moving apart from each other, but the space will certainly grow. This is what the universe does. What is most interesting about all this is that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. So what is pulling on the universe? We don't know.

Well, the balloon analogy is not a very good one. Most (but of course not all) cosmologists now agree that the universe is not a sphere but is "flat" (albeit with a curvature). The objects are moving apart (which is what causes the space between them to grow) much as the ripples on the surface of a pond move apart after a stone is dropped in the water. Of course, that is a generalization. Many objects are moving towards each other, even colliding.

If it were expanding faster than c, then we would not see any stars in the sky at all, because the universe is expanding faster than the light from those stars.I think I second that.

So what is pulling on the universe? We don't know.The next one over. :D

Chipper,

I don't think scientists can figure out the Universe because it is supposed to be a mystery. It is the heavens, which were created by God. It is supposed to be a mystery, and unpredictable.

Chipper,

I don't think scientists can figure out the Universe because it is supposed to be a mystery. It is the heavens, which were created by God. It is supposed to be a mystery, and unpredictable.

I am sorry to say but that is the same attitude that was used against Galileo. I am of the opinion that if God made something, HE has callenged us to use the gifts HE gave us to figure it all out.

The universe is expanding because everything is attached to those "strings" I keep hearing about and those strings are pulling everything apart. Yeah, that's the ticket. See how easy that was?

The universe is expanding because everything is attached to those "strings" I keep hearing about and those strings are pulling everything apart. Yeah, that's the ticket. See how easy that was?

are those like the strings that are pulled in the office?

are those like the strings that are pulled in the office?

I don't know. You will have to ask someone well acquainted with String Theory.

Chipper,

I don't think scientists can figure out the Universe because it is supposed to be a mystery. It is the heavens, which were created by God.

Or at least that's how the fairy tale goes. There is no proof.

D

Or at least that's how the fairy tale goes. There is no proof.

D

faith is the other side of proof. Belief doesn't require proof.

And I think, as the world gets more and more difficult, we're going to see more and more people use the excuse of "there is no proof" as a reason not to believe in God.

Not saying you do Dave, but your statement reminded me of what I think.

faith is the other side of proof. Belief doesn't require proof.

Faith is to proof as the square root of negative one is to the natural numbers. Complex numbers can provide a framework to manipulate mathematical representations of physical phenomenon through an imaginary component.

However an abstract tool does not make the the imaginary component real. The maths of String Theory appear to match the observations but do not constitute a proof. The theory has been repeatedly modified to match the reality because in Science observation trumps theory.

Here the analogy with faith collapses. When confronted with disparity between theory and reality, faith upholds the abstraction and denies the observation.

And I think, as the world gets more and more difficult, we're going to see more and more people use the excuse of "there is no proof" as a reason not to believe in God.

There is no need for an "excuse" not to believe in God. There is no "reason" to believe in God. The God hypothesis does not endure in the face of reason.

Faith is to proof as the square root of negative one is to the natural numbers. Complex numbers can provide a framework to manipulate mathematical representations of physical phenomenon through an imaginary component.

However an abstract tool does not make the the imaginary component real. The maths of String Theory appear to match the observations but do not constitute a proof. The theory has been repeatedly modified to match the reality because in Science observation trumps theory.

Here the analogy with faith collapses. When confronted with disparity between theory and reality, faith upholds the abstraction and denies the observation.



There is no need for an "excuse" not to believe in God. There is no "reason" to believe in God. The God hypothesis does not endure in the face of reason.

Faith ^ 4 is to proof - as i ^ 4 is to natural numbers?

You are being deliberately difficult there Paul.

The point is that both faith and imaginary numbers are construct that can be used to manipulate our understanding of real phenomenon but in no way does this make either of them real in themselves.

You are being deliberately difficult there Paul.

The point is that both faith and imaginary numbers are construct that can be used to manipulate our understanding of real phenomenon but in no way does this make either of them real in themselves.


So faith is like imaginary numbers?

The point is that both faith and imaginary numbers are construct that can be used to manipulate our understanding of real phenomenon but in no way does this make either of them real in themselves.

/sigh

The modification of string theory to account for new phenomenon illustrates how all that we can currently explain are bound by these rules of "imaginary numbers". Whether you or I relate to them as "real" is neither here nor there to their persistence.

Abstractions are built on constants and can be refactored due to the all-encompassing nature of these constants. These constants and all the buildings, medicine and weaponry that have been designed atop of them don't give a fig whether you believe them to be real or not.

They pervade from the abstract into reality. Your version of reality has no impact on that whatsoever. Your analogy is just absurd.

Do you guys ever feel like you're having the same exact conversation over and over? People who believe in an all-powerful god have shut their minds to other answers. They don't want other answers, for they feel (i.e., they have faith) that they have already found them.

And there is no way to convince them otherwise. You can educate, you can demonstrate, you can question, but an adult mind that has truly accepted that there is an all-powerful god that can see/hear/know everything that they do and will smite them/send them to hell/whatever other terrifying thing if they don't comply is not ready to leave religion behind. They need it, it is their crutch.

Kind of like the Matrix. Most people were content to live in the world of make-believe, they were not ready to be unplugged and pulled into the real world.

Ignorance is bliss and all that.

There is no need for an "excuse" not to believe in God. There is no "reason" to believe in God. The God hypothesis does not endure in the face of reason.

right there is the difference between a scientist and a believer. to each his own. as I said before, we'll see more and more rationalizing about why God doesn't exist as the world goes on.

Good grief! Did I start this with my mention of the String Theory? I shoulda said "ropes". Yeah, that's what I meant. Ropes! The universe is being pulled apart by ropes. No God needed but if there is one, then I am sure He is helping pull.

that's one LONGGGGGGGGG rope. I wonder what's keeping it taught. :confused:

that's one LONGGGGGGGGG rope. I wonder what's keeping it taught. :confused:

It's the Rope Theory. You know the old saying... give a universe (or a deity) enough rope...

give a universe (or a deity) enough rope...

and it'll split into parellel's??????
:D:D

The belief in God (or non belief) is best demonstrated in a scene from the Peter O'Toole film "Creator".

O'Toole is a scientist you has been assigned the task of acquiring grants for the various science dept. of the University where he teaches.
He begins his presentation to the grant givers by saying that the University is on the edge of a major breakthrough in the field of Molecular Biology, and that God is prepared to give them the answers they seek in exchange for $12 Million.

It's much funnier the way he says it but then he's a trained actor.:D

And there is no way to convince them otherwise. You can educate, you can demonstrate, you can question, but an adult mind that has truly accepted that there is an all-powerful god that can see/hear/know everything that they do and will smite them/send them to hell/whatever other terrifying thing if they don't comply is not ready to leave religion behind. They need it, it is their crutch.



Your inability to "convince" is because you lack good solid ammunition.

I think it is the atheist who needs the crutch or if you like takes a pre determined locked in position. In my experience people who have at least a reasonable education and who believe "something is out there" do so because it is the most logical explanation up to this point.

The atheist does not need "the crutch" (virtually an anagram of "the church"). We have real legs. The faithful tore off their legs in order that the crutches become an integral part of their lives.

However do not mistake that an atheist necessarily believes in the absence of spirit and automatically accept the notion that all of reality is mechanistic in the prevailing scientific tradition.

Spirituality is not the foundation of existence but the next step from consciousness.

The Creator hypothesis is superfluous and unsupported by observation. The faithful have it all backwards, got stuck on dogma and are thus incapable of enlightenment. This is what makes them so dangerous.

The atheist does not need "the crutch" (virtually an anagram of "the church"). We have real legs. The faithful tore off their legs in order that the crutches become an integral part of their lives.

However do not mistake that an atheist necessarily believes in the absence of spirit and automatically accept the notion that all of reality is mechanistic in the prevailing scientific tradition.

Spirituality is not the foundation of existence but the next step from consciousness.

The Creator hypothesis is superfluous and unsupported by observation. The faithful have it all backwards, got stuck on dogma and are thus incapable of enlightenment. This is what makes them so dangerous.

To be honest in most parts of the world - when you walk down the street its not the god fearing folk, that I would tend to feel may endanger you?

Is it?

The atheist does not need "the crutch" (virtually an anagram of "the church"). We have real legs. The faithful tore off their legs in order that the crutches become an integral part of their lives.

However do not mistake that an atheist necessarily believes in the absence of spirit and automatically accept the notion that all of reality is mechanistic in the prevailing scientific tradition.

Spirituality is not the foundation of existence but the next step from consciousness.

The Creator hypothesis is superfluous and unsupported by observation. The faithful have it all backwards, got stuck on dogma and are thus incapable of enlightenment. This is what makes them so dangerous.

Atheists seem to always assume that anyone who is not an atheist is a religious type creationist. Not so.

To be honest in most parts of the world - when you walk down the street its not the god fearing folk, that I would tend to feel may endanger you?

Is it?

Generations of children around the world who were physically, mentallly, emotionally and sexually abused by preists would disagree.

If it takes a fear of God to keep them in line then I certainly would not trust them either. The religious are particularly adept at twisting their perspective to justify whatever they feel compelled to do.

Your inability to "convince" is because you lack good solid ammunition.


But, to the truly faithful, there is no good ammunition. The truly faithful are supposed to believe in god above all else. If evidence were to appear, then god put that evidence there to test the faithful. There is no argument that can convince the truly faithful.


I think it is the atheist who needs the crutch or if you like takes a pre determined locked in position.


I like to think of myself as a religious independent who caucuses with the atheists, agnostics, humanists, secularists, etc. In my experience, none of these people have a locked in position other than logic. If a magical being were to descend to the earth, the above groups wouldn't disbelieve in it. They'd change their position quite quickly; because their position is based on what is logical and reasonable.


In my experience people who have at least a reasonable education and who believe "something is out there" do so because it is the most logical explanation up to this point.

I suppose it depends on how you define "something is out there". Could something be random chance? Other intelligent life? Or, by "something is out there" do you mean an all-powerful creator?

The first 2, I'd agree with your statement. The last is only considered a reasonable explanation due to brainwashing and indoctrination.

I suppose it depends on how you define "something is out there". Could something be random chance? Other intelligent life? Or, by "something is out there" do you mean an all-powerful creator?

The first 2, I'd agree with your statement. The last is only considered a reasonable explanation due to brainwashing and indoctrination.

"Something out there" can be whatever you like but "it or they" can play with a set of cards we will never have.

There are two possible scenarios. Firsty, I think any reasonable person will agree with the idea that there must be zillions of earth like planets in the universe. We have all seen the sort of numbers, that is, if only .00001% of the stars have planets then there will be a zillion earth type planets or whatever.

Scenario 1: Earth is the only one of the zillion planets with intelligent life like us and the others have never had such life. With that scenario I think the logical outcome would be head to the church and grab a bible:D To go the other way and say it was just chance that there was one in a zillion would be taking the faith of atheism to levels not even imagined by a religious fundamentalist:D

Scenario 2: If there a zillions of planets then there must be life that is so far advanced compared to us that for practical purposes it is god like as in can bend the natural laws, make new laws etc.

In the case of either scenario the answers are not and will not be available to us and because either scenario means a "god like" form of life.

Scenario 1: Earth is the only one of the zillion planets with intelligent life like us and the others have never had such life. With that scenario I think the logical outcome would be head to the church and grab a bible:D To go the other way and say it was just chance that there was one in a zillion would be taking the faith of atheism to levels not even imagined by a religious fundamentalist:D


I think that there is definitely life on other planets. Intelligent life? Most likely. However, even if there isn't (or we just never see it), that doesn't make religion more reasonable. Religion has been wrong on so many things, that even if they got 1 right (which I don't think they did), it doesn't suddenly make them correct.


Scenario 2: If there a zillions of planets then there must be life that is so far advanced compared to us that for practical purposes it is god like as in can bend the natural laws, make new laws etc.


I would hazard a guess that there is intelligent life out there somewhere that is far more advanced than us. As far as bending/making new laws, who knows? Would it be magic, though? As in, by thy will, it be done? I can't imagine so. It would be able to be logically explained once you understood it (and if you had the capacity to understand it).


In the case of either scenario the answers are not and will not be available to us and because either scenario means a "god like" form of life.

I disagree here. The bottom line is that no one really knows what is out there. Some people are ok with that, excited about learning more about the universe, etc. Other people are not ok with that, and thus choose to believe a story that explains everything that we have no way of knowing. Furthermore, some of these people try to force everyone else to believe in their fairy tale.

We cannot control what people think, and everyone should be free to believe what they want. But their beliefs should be kept at home.

I think that there is definitely life on other planets. Intelligent life? Most likely. However, even if there isn't (or we just never see it), that doesn't make religion more reasonable. Religion has been wrong on so many things, that even if they got 1 right (which I don't think they did), it doesn't suddenly make them correct.

Religion is not the issue. Religion is just one outcome or belief. For example i believe " there is something out there" but I am not religious in any way.


I would hazard a guess that there is intelligent life out there somewhere that is far more advanced than us. As far as bending/making new laws, who knows? Would it be magic, though? As in, by thy will, it be done? I can't imagine so. It would be able to be logically explained once you understood it (and if you had the capacity to understand it).

But if "they" can bend natural laws or make their own laws then we can't understand. If its a hot summer day in Sydney and I decide to water the garden then the result is a contradictions to millions and millions of years of instinct to the little lizards and insects in the garden. Maybe after I water the garden I make a rockery and so a new structure appears in their environment.


I disagree here. The bottom line is that no one really knows what is out there.

But surely it is logical that there will be a zillion suitable planets. It is also logical to assume (if we leave a god out of the equation) that life will find some way to start and then there will be evolution. Thus it is logical to work on the basis that there will be othe life forms in the universe that are so way advanced compared to us it would be us compared to a monkey or perhaps even the ant.

Of course the logic would fall down if life can't start up on its own. Then of course we are back at the scenario we are the only ones and that becomes bible country.

But either way we finsih with "something out there"

For me it is quite simple and clear. Logically there must be "something out there".

I disagree here. The bottom line is that no one really knows what is out there. Some people are ok with that, excited about learning more about the universe, etc. Other people are not ok with that, and thus choose to believe a story that explains everything that we have no way of knowing.

I resent this (kind of) I am always amazed about what we are learning about the universe and our earth. I have friends (who are Christians) who work for NASA or their contractors because they love space, and the knowledge to be gained by exploration. So just because you think our beliefs are wacked out, don't assume that we don't value knowledge and learning because that is just not true.

Religion is not the issue. Religion is just one outcome or belief. For example i believe " there is something out there" but I am not religious in any way.


Yeah, but this line: "With that scenario I think the logical outcome would be head to the church and grab a bible:D"

While I realize that you're joking (and I even chuckled), that is the mindset of many people. Since there is currently no explanation for some things, then religion must automatically be correct. I'm quick to point out a false conclusion to this.


For me it is quite simple and clear. Logically there must be "something out there".

Well, I agree, something is out there. But the terminology you're using is confusing because people often conflate it with religion or an all-powerful god.

Your "there must be something out there" is the same as my "We don't know".


So just because you think our beliefs are wacked out, don't assume that we don't value knowledge and learning because that is just not true.


You (and your friends) may value knowledge and learning, but it is not the same as scientific knowlege and learning. Scientific learning starts with a hypothesis "I think this is correct". Then they go off and try to test against that hypothesis. They learn if their hypothesis is correct.

Someone who is a true believer (or whacked out, as you point out :p), starts with the statement (note: not a hypothesis) of "The bible/my religion/my religious figurehead holds the answers, lets see how I can find ways to further reinforce what it/it/s/he says". Contradictory learning/knowledge is either thrown out, minimized, or disregarded.

For example, people could teach a religious person how things that are claimed to have happened in the bible could not possibly happen. But the true believer will refuse to accept that answer. Therefore, did they really learn anything? If you only look for answers that reinforce what your view is, do you really ever learn anything?

You (and your friends) may value knowledge and learning, but it is not the same as scientific knowlege and learning. Scientific learning starts with a hypothesis "I think this is correct". Then they go off and try to test against that hypothesis. They learn if their hypothesis is correct.

Someone who is a true believer (or whacked out, as you point out :p), starts with the statement (note: not a hypothesis) of "The bible/my religion/my religious figurehead holds the answers, lets see how I can find ways to further reinforce what it/it/s/he says". Contradictory learning/knowledge is either thrown out, minimized, or disregarded.

For example, people could teach a religious person how things that are claimed to have happened in the bible could not possibly happen. But the true believer will refuse to accept that answer. Therefore, did they really learn anything? If you only look for answers that reinforce what your view is, do you really ever learn anything?

You know, I can't really respond to that, I myself am no scientist, but my thirst for learning is there, and reading what's going on like the article/blog that Minkey posted. All I can say is that my friends that I speak of have gotten degrees from reputable universities that claim they know what they are doing and how to do it according to what everyone else says is the right way. They have also gotten jobs based on the same, if they were truly as ignorant as you seem to be saying ("Therefore did they really learn anything?") You can say all you want that what we do is to look for answers that reinforce what we believe, but you do the same. You can claim to be unbiased in your view toward research, the world, or the universe, but I think everyone has a bias, therefore from your perspective things seem to disprove God, and from mine the same research and findings prove to me the opposite. As far as "learning anything" goes, that's pretty arrogant of you to say that because we don't come to the same conclusion we never really learn anything, I know just as well as you do that the world is round, and that the universe is expanding and that there are planets out there that are/were capable of holding life, I was intrigued when Pluto was demoted. What about all the people who believe in Darwinian evolution even though Darwin himself admitted his evidence was super shaky/non-existant in the end. There are a lot of people out there believing it even though current findings (non-Christian scientists will admit this too) that disprove it. But I recognize that that (your view of how Christians behave and think that is) is your opinion. In the end, as you pointed out earlier in the thread, it's the same conversation that has been had before..... Round and round we go.... (Tevin Campbell song comes to mind :p) Anyways, I could go on and on (Some probably think that I already have too much), but if you apologize for calling me ignorant then we can call it pax....:D (I know you didn't actually use that term)

They have also gotten jobs based on the same, if they were truly as ignorant as you seem to be saying ("Therefore did they really learn anything?") You can say all you want that what we do is to look for answers that reinforce what we believe, but you do the same.


The difference, to me, is that I go in with an open mind. I don't really know much about quantum physics, molecular pathology, or genetics. However, when I read about them, I learn new things, and then I hyopthesis further, read more, learn more things.

What I know about these topics changes as I learn more; gain more knowlege. I don't have to try to fit what I am learning to a pre-determined end point. True believers will be limited in their learning because what they learn must conform to what they've been told (religiously). Otherwise, they wouldn't be a true believer.


You can claim to be unbiased in your view toward research, the world, or the universe, but I think everyone has a bias, therefore from your perspective things seem to disprove God, and from mine the same research and findings prove to me the opposite.


I would never claim to be unbiased, as you said, everyone is. But a bias is different than religion. I may have a bias towards a certain product, but if research proves that that product is inferior, I would abandon my bias. Since religion can never be disproven, a true believer will not do the same. Thus their learning/knowledge is constrained.


As far as "learning anything" goes, that's pretty arrogant of you to say that because we don't come to the same conclusion we never really learn anything, I know just as well as you do that the world is round, and that the universe is expanding and that there are planets out there that are/were capable of holding life, I was intrigued when Pluto was demoted.


Actually, the learning anything question was to ask you how you determine what learning is. To me, having a set-in-stone end point seriously limits learning. That's my opinion, it may be arrogant, but that's it.

As far as the world being round, why do you think so? Because science has determined so? If science says one thing, and religion another, a true believer will always choose to accept what their religion says.


Anyways, I could go on and on (Some probably think that I already have too much), but if you apologize for calling me ignorant then we can call it pax....:D (I know you didn't actually use that term)

Yeah, I didn't use that term, I would be very careful not to. I can't offer an apology on this one because it seems that you're taking offense to my opinon, and since my opinion hasn't changed, it would be a hollow apology. And I'm not in the habit of making those.

I can, however, say that any opinions I have expressed here have been in a knowingly impossible attempt to get "the other side" to see/understand my side. Any negative feelings derived from reading such opinions are a by-product of the message, not the intent.

Yeah, I didn't use that term, I would be very careful not to. I can't offer an apology on this one because it seems that you're taking offense to my opinon, and since my opinion hasn't changed, it would be a hollow apology. And I'm not in the habit of making those.

I can, however, say that any opinions I have expressed here have been in a knowingly impossible attempt to get "the other side" to see/understand my side. Any negative feelings derived from reading such opinions are a by-product of the message, not the intent.

I am not really offended, I was joking with my request for an apology. I am not going to take the time to respond to all of your points (though I certainly have opinions on them) because a) I know we will not reach an agreement and b) I just don't have the time or energy right now. It would be so much easier to sit across from you in a coffee shop and have this same conversation, tones of voice would be more apparent for one thing. I think it would be a much different thing. The conversations I have had with you have been anything but offensive. Suffice it to say, I understand your viewpoint and why you think the way you do about religion and religious people, and that's OK.....

and to get back on topic and original thread intent, I really did enjoy reading the link, and would seriously think it cool if life were ever found on other planets, it certainly seems plausible. As far as how my opinion (not all Christians) goes, I only know what the Bible says, and it says nothing one way or the other about it, of course if there was proven to be life on other planets I would believe it, how could I not? Some great Christian writers have entertained thoughts of there being other worlds. (One of which I am going to see the movie of tonight, YAY!, (The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, CoN, by CS Lewis.) It's facinating to think about, and I would be interested to hear more about what they discover or don't discover, though I probably won't remember to Google it.... :)

I've read this whole thread, and would like to ask a few questions.

First: Can anyone point out to me an example of science disproving the bible?

I won't take "There's no way in hell person x could have lived that long." as an answer, unless you have proof that they infact, did not live as long as the bible states.

Second: How is science any different when done by someone religious vs someone not?

Both form hypothesis, both run tests to determine if said hypothesis is correct. Both are vulnerable to skewing said tests to make their hypothesis the correct answer.

In all honesty, science is just as deluded as religion when it comes to known/unknown.

Think about it, until very recently, science said "You need these things for life" right up until they found something that didn't fit their mold of what was needed for life.

Third: Where did I miss the quantum physics discussion in the bible? Or molecular pathology?

Those would have been killer to read!

XKCD Cartoon (http://xkcd.com/829/)

See Attached cartoon. Need to hover with the mouse pointer on the XKCD website to see the "secret" text!

XKCD Cartoon (http://xkcd.com/829/)

See Attached cartoon. Need to hover with the mouse pointer on the XKCD website to see the "secret" text!

Awww, thwarted by sonic wall...... :(

The difference, to me, is that I go in with an open mind. I don't really know much about quantum physics, molecular pathology, or genetics. However, when I read about them, I learn new things, and then I hyopthesis further, read more, learn more things.

Adam,

A mistake you are making is assuming religion or even a general belief in some higher power (that one is my belief) is the starting point. That is just not the case for everyone. However, I would agree with that it is the case for many people.

As a side note Werner von Braun became a born again Christian. It is quite common for highly educated people to take on board some form of religion when they have have had great achievements. It also common for people who are highly educated who have attempted to climb the mountain but failed.

In virtually every case these people "arrived" at a religious or spiritual situation based on their experiences.

The director of Emergeny Medicine in one of Sydney's major hospitals became religious to the point that he runs Bible classes from his home. I did his all his insurance for life, disability and trauma cover several years ago and I asked him what brought him to that point in religion and his answer was "when you do this job you can only arrive at one conclusion"

Adam,

A mistake you are making is assuming religion or even a general belief in some higher power (that one is my belief) is the starting point. That is just not the case for everyone.


Its not the starting point, its the end point. If you have a general belief in some higher power, but your beliefs are not codified, then you're probably still open to factual evidence.

Some people believe that if they are good to others, others will be good to them. Its sort of a positive life outlook, but there's nothing really set in stone.

Religions that spell out that x happened by y, and then z happened by y, when x, y, and z all defy logic, stifle learning.

My point was that if, in your mind, the end point is set in stone, you will not accept evidence that does not agree with your end point.

Example: I'm non religious. But if some larger than life guy floated down from the clouds, cured the sick, rose the dead, and declared he was the Christian God, I would believe him. It would be illogical to do other wise.

For my counterpart (the true believer), there is no such evidence that would ever shake them. They have closed their minds to the possibility of anything other than what they have been indoctrinated with.


It is quite common for highly educated people to take on board some form of religion when they have have had great achievements. It also common for people who are highly educated who have attempted to climb the mountain but failed.


The terminology you use is very ambiguous. When you say it is "common for highly educated people to take on board some form of religion" do you mean common as in a high % of people? Common as in it isn't unheard of?

Most of the studies and polls that I have seen show a relationship between higher levels of education and lower levels of religion.

There was a study here in America where they compared the levels of religion to education. The bible belt, which is very religious as its name indicates, had the lowest levels of education as compared to other states.

If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd love to read it.

Adam,

Religious/spiritual is common as in lots of people with high education but in combination with very high achievers. However, in my experience high education people who have what they consider a lower income will in general be atheists and usually to the political left.

I have had an interest for a long time in the different types of people who fall into each category and as you would imagine when you discuss insurance along with death and/or disability it is good ground for the discussion to arise:)

The "group" where religion seems to be most common are those who are self employed and have tried to move mountains, they have actively gone out to try and sell their business services etc. In Australia religion/spiritual is common with the private practice medical specialist and atheism would be very rare. On the other hand with the staff specialist (hospital employee) atheism is very common.

Earlier this year the Australian Atheist Foundation had their big seminar and Dawkins was the lead speaker. The other speakers read like a roll call for Australia's left wing academics.:D

I get the feeling that atheism is also a default position. By that I mean the person who is an atheist has as their starting point (with all subject matter, not just religion) that proof is needed before acting on something.

Adam,

Religious/spiritual is common as in lots of people with high education but in combination with very high achievers.


Once again, I'd disagree, and the research I see points to the opposite. Here are few links:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://aysps.gsu.edu/econ/files/ECON_SustersicRebecca_Evolution_summer07.pdf

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-vs-bibles-explanation-human-origins.aspx


I found these with 5 minutes of research. If you could supply some sources that indicate otherwise, I would be genuinely interested in reading them. Otherwise, I have to assume you're just using anecdotal evidence to come to your conclusions.


However, in my experience high education people who have what they consider a lower income will in general be atheists and usually to the political left.


This sounds like your subjective interpretation of why the studies/research reinforce my point.


I get the feeling that atheism is also a default position. By that I mean the person who is an atheist has as their starting point (with all subject matter, not just religion) that proof is needed before acting on something.

I would agree with you. And furthermore, I think that's a good thing. Why take an important action when you're not sure what will happen?

I would agree with you. And furthermore, I think that's a good thing. Why take an important action when you're not sure what will happen?

Because that is how great things and/or very big money is made.

As a side note I stipulated high education and/or spiritual came when the person had climbed or attempted to climb the big mountain. Lots of rocket scientists were in NASA when project Apollo was happening but like all things only a few get to the very top and in that case it was Werner von Braun. I also said hospital employeed medical specialists were atheists but the big income private practice blokes tended as group to religion/spiritual. The latter group are like Wener Von Braun, that is, only a very small percentage of the group. I would be prepared to bet that the vast majority of rocket scientists with project Apollo would have been atheists.

As a total group, I agree 100% with you that people with high education tend to atheism and if not atheism some will be deists.

Otherwise, I have to assume you're just using anecdotal evidence to come to your conclusions.

Firstly I don't base what I say on what someone has told me.

Secondly, my conclusions are not based on a small sampling. In addition I am more than capable of picking where "results" would be pushed one way or the other because of other circumstances.

Thus I don't think what I am saying is based on anecdotal evidence.

As a by the way, many years ago ( I think it was in Finland) a group of men age 65 who had never smoked and never had a heart attack were compared to another group of men who were also 65 and had never had a heart attack BUT who had been smokers all their life.

5 years later the group who had never smoked had the most number of men who had a heart attack after age 65. So on the surface it looks like smoking prevents heart attacks in men aged 65. Of course the reason for the result was any smoker who was predisposed to a heart attack would have had one before age 65 and so would not have been in the group that were smokers.

I only mention that study to illustrate I am well aware of how results can give the wrong picture.

Because that is how great things and/or very big money is made.


That's true, with big risk can come big reward.


As a total group, I agree 100% with you that people with high education tend to atheism and if not atheism some will be deists.

It appears we are at a conclusion then. Its been enjoyable debating with you. :)

That's true, with big risk can come big reward.



It appears we are at a conclusion then. Its been enjoyable debating with you. :)

Yes got there:)

Actually your line in fact sums up the basis issue of the two sides


Why take an important action when you're not sure what will happen?


We come at things from opposide sides and so travel on different journeys and those different routes we travel produce different experiences. The two sides also buy products/services in a different way. Thus my interest in atheist and religious/spiritual extends to my pocket and thus I need more than anecdotal evidence:D

Yes got there:)

Actually your line in fact sums up the basis issue of the two sides



We come at things from opposide sides and so travel on different journeys and those different routes we travel produce different experiences. The two sides also buy products/services in a different way. Thus my interest in atheist and religious/spiritual extends to my pocket and thus I need more than anecdotal evidence:D



Even more claptrap:rolleyes:

Even more claptrap:rolleyes:

Why do you continue to persist reading what you don't like? It must be very difficult not only reading what you think is a load of shit but then having to post about it.

Example: I'm non religious. But if some larger than life guy floated down from the clouds, cured the sick, rose the dead, and declared he was the Christian God, I would believe him. It would be illogical to do other wise.

Here's what I don't get, Christ did that, though the opposite direction, he cured the sick, declared he was God, rose from the dead and then went up into the clouds.... You don't believe Him, so why would you believe it the other way around (And all this was witnessed by many people).

But..... given time, you might get to see Him descend from the clouds in His second coming....

Here's what I don't get, Christ did that, though the opposite direction, he cured the sick, declared he was God, rose from the dead and then went up into the clouds.... You don't believe Him, so why would you believe it the other way around (And all this was witnessed by many people).

But..... given time, you might get to see Him descend from the clouds in His second coming....

Ummm.... it is mentioned in ONE book so how can you say it was witnessed by many people. If I write here "the moon turned green with yellow stripes last night and it was witnessed by many people." that does not make it a fact. All writings about the origins of Christianity date from the second century or later. That makes them not much more than hearsay. Show me proof that is contemporary with the event, not a decade, not a hundred years later.

Ummm.... it is mentioned in ONE book so how can you say it was witnessed by many people. If I write here "the moon turned green with yellow stripes last night and it was witnessed by many people." that does not make it a fact. All writings about the origins of Christianity date from the second century or later. That makes them not much more than hearsay. Show me proof that is contemporary with the event, not a decade, not a hundred years later.


Ummmm - It is mentioned in SEVERAL historical documents/letters which were COMPILED into one book..... And as you already know, I can't PROVE anything to you, as others have mentioned, belief is by faith.... And the books were written by the witnesses themselves (The apostles), and Paul who was struck blind by God Himself and made to turn 180 degrees from persecuting Christians to being one of the biggest contributors (by the way of letters to the various churches). They were all contemporaries. But in order to trust Paul you would have to believe his conversion story, which again would require faith. I don't think that if Christ had come even 100 years ago where there were people still living who had witnessed it, if you hadn't seen it with your own eyes you would not have believed, you would have come up with some other excuse just like people did in Christ's day. Come up with any excuse you want, my point was merely to point out that Adam probably wouldn't believe it regardless. I agree with what everyone says here about Christianity in that it requires faith to believe, in this case seeing is not believing. I disagree with the conversations here in that to call us close-minded, and not willing to learn or research science and come to accurate conclusions because of our religious predispositions is just plain incorrect.

Ummmm - It is mentioned in SEVERAL historical documents/letters which were COMPILED into one book..... And as you already know, I can't PROVE anything to you, as others have mentioned, belief is by faith.... And the books were written by the witnesses themselves (The apostles), and Paul who was struck blind by God Himself and made to turn 180 degrees from persecuting Christians to being one of the biggest contributors (by the way of letters to the various churches). They were all contemporaries. But in order to trust Paul you would have to believe his conversion story, which again would require faith. I don't think that if Christ had come even 100 years ago where there were people still living who had witnessed it, if you hadn't seen it with your own eyes you would not have believed, you would have come up with some other excuse just like people did in Christ's day. Come up with any excuse you want, my point was merely to point out that Adam probably wouldn't believe it regardless. I agree with what everyone says here about Christianity in that it requires faith to believe, in this case seeing is not believing. I disagree with the conversations here in that to call us close-minded, and not willing to learn or research science and come to accurate conclusions because of our religious predispositions is just plain incorrect.

Nope. The New Testament is attributed to those authors. The earliest known manuscript are fragments of John's writings, called the the John Ryland's manuscript (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52), was written circa 125 AD. Most of the known manuscripts of the New Testament date from about the 10th Century. Hardly eye witness accounts.

I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian and believed that the Bible was the infallible Word of God. But after much research, I realized that there are just way too many inconsistencies (including in those very "eye-witness" accounts you tout so highly) to lend any credence to the infallibility of the Bible. Much more research and application of sound logic and critical thinking have left me agnostic with athiestic leanings.

Far me it from me to tell you that you should believe as I do. But then, I reserve the right to my own beliefs without proselytes condemning me and loudly proclaiming my doom.

Nope. The New Testament is attributed to those authors. The earliest known manuscript are fragments of John's writings, called the the John Ryland's manuscript (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52), was written circa 125 AD. Most of the known manuscripts of the New Testament date from about the 10th Century. Hardly eye witness accounts.

I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian and believed that the Bible was the infallible Word of God. But after much research, I realized that there are just way too many inconsistencies (including in those very "eye-witness" accounts you tout so highly) to lend any credence to the infallibility of the Bible. Much more research and application of sound logic and critical thinking have left me agnostic with athiestic leanings.

Far me it from me to tell you that you should believe as I do. But then, I reserve the right to my own beliefs without proselytes condemning me and loudly proclaiming my doom.

I wasn't condmning you. I have already said that it was by faith that belief comes, as well you know. And I do believe they were eye-witness accounts. There are a lot of books that I will never see the originals of that I trust are written by the authors that everyone claims they are written by. But these things are neither here nor there, I am not trying to convince you to believe, you have heard the claims and it is your own decision to believe them or not, which you have done, it is not my job to convert you or anyone else.

But, if you are interested, or anyone else for that matter, I found this link (http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Are_There_Early_Eyewitness_Accounts_of_Jesus) that has some interesting information in it. I also looked at your link, and I certainly don't dispute the information it contains, I believe it agrees with the link I've posted, and with the things I have been taught about it at church. I am not sure what the purpose of this particular conversation is? If it is to say that they "have been attributed" as opposed to "written by" OK, point made. This leads you to say the Bible isn't true, OK. This leads you to not believe in God, OK.... What does that have to do with what I orignally said to Adam? I wasn't trying to prove anything to him or to you for that matter. I found Adam's statement interesting in light of what is actually claimed about Christ, believed by people to be true or not.

Ummm.... it is mentioned in ONE book so how can you say it was witnessed by many people. If I write here "the moon turned green with yellow stripes last night and it was witnessed by many people." that does not make it a fact. All writings about the origins of Christianity date from the second century or later. That makes them not much more than hearsay. Show me proof that is contemporary with the event, not a decade, not a hundred years later.

In my opinion there are two ways to look at that situation.

1) What was written was all bullshit and just an attempt to get a movement going. However, if that was the case then why was the Jesus bloke picked to be the centre of it all.

Or

2) Must have been some big stuff happened for someone to start writing about it a couple of hundred years later.

And if it was hearsay that does not mean the basic story is wrong.

Critics of the Bible often say that the people of those times would have been impressed if someone struck match. That is true. But that begs the question of why through all those Old Testament years has the basic story been the one that kept going.

I think the Bible at the very least is true to the extent that there was some heavy horsepower about the place, big enough horsepower for the story to keep going. Since people of those times were so easy to impress then one would expect the Bible to be just one of hundreds of such books.

Consider books today on something like diet/health. There are 100s of them. However if one had it right then 100s would not be heard of.

Like any history the inaccuracies would be high and the sory would be shaped. Until recent years The Little Big Horn was Custer' Last Stand and it has often been said his wife promoted that theme. Then when artifacts were uncovered it appears Custer and his men either froze on the spot or ran for their lives. However, the basis story is unchaned, that is, Custer and his men were masscred by a big collection of Indians.

I followed dinosaurs with geat interest all my life and that stuff is very fluid. We have gone from them being just like reptiles of today to being birds and now they are not birds but both from a common ancestor. But like Custer and The Little Big Horn, the basis are unchanged, that is. if you travel back a 100 million years the animals on average size would be much bigger thand today and very reptile like to look at.

Personally I find it impossible to believe a fairy tale can be supported by so many, all the Christians and Islamers and the Jews and for thousands of years. And the support is not limited to the totally uneducated, just the opposite.

Lastly, if the Bible was all fairy tales one would expect a counter Bible to have a come along for the ride.

And the support is not limited to the totally uneducated, just the opposite.
The opposite would be that support was limited totally to the educated. This is even farther from the truth.

The opposite would be that support was limited totally to the educated. This is even farther from the truth.

Is there anything you can think of where support is limited to the educated.

Is there anything you can think of where support is limited to the educated.
No, but that wasn't my reason for posting.

Nice try Mike, but I'm not getting back into the whole circular argument again. I stayed out of it pretty well this time round ;)

If it'll help things to chug along, let's pretend I said 'atheism'.:D

If it'll help things to chug along, let's pretend I said 'atheism'.:D

No good. I could put you on the Australian guns/hunting forum with some atheists but the best ones are on the Australian Atheist Foundation forum. Apart from low brain power (not all of them of course:eek:) they are also into the moon landing being a hoax:D

One day I asked one of them if he didn't think it was strange if the moon landing was a hoax that they would stretch things a bit by following with Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as opposed to calling it quits at Apollo 11.:)

But I will grant you the average IQ on the atheist side is much higher but the low and high number are the same on either side.

Why do you continue to persist reading what you don't like? It must be very difficult not only reading what you think is a load of shit but then having to post about it.
The same reason you continue to post it:p

One day I asked one of them if he didn't think it was strange if the moon landing was a hoax that they would stretch things a bit by following with Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as opposed to calling it quits at Apollo 11.:)
That's an easy one - they were cheap to fake and companies generally milk a sequel idea until they run it into the ground.

They did one and it was popular. This means they already have the sets, props, etc. stored in the warehouse and re-useable. Doctor the faked footage of the spaceship taking off, to show varying weather, etc. and Bob's your uncle.

You can then divert the funds that were supposedly spent on 12 - 17 into investigating those dead aliens they've got stored up.

It's all about finance.;)

Edit: Why did the word 'companies' turned into an ad link after I typed it?

Critics of the Bible often say that the people of those times would have been impressed if someone struck match. That is true. But that begs the question of why through all those Old Testament years has the basic story been the one that kept going.

The bible survives as "credible" because of the clever use of "The New Covenant". Now God is no longer solely for the Israelites but for all and you don't have to be pious to receive the benefits just sign on the dotted line that you believe in the figurehead.

The New Covenant borrows from ancient religions, (sacrifice, returning deities in human form etc etc) and polishes them up for modern times. There are numerous events that are cleverly echoed between the two testaments

The bible persists because of a single human desire. Instant gratification. All you have to do is ignore the inconsistency between God's outlook between the two testaments. Old = Striking down all enemies of God's people to the extent that He sent a curse to kill Egyptian children, New = King Herod (Man) attempting to strike down God and matching the same imagery in his attempt to do so. Man has taken on God's wrath now and it's condemned.

There wasn't the technology to make a burning bush talk, so the solution was to just make God's mouthpiece a human. Combine that with all gentiles now invited to the party with the promise of instant gratification and clever poetic imagery that echoed the old religions but adapted to modern times (no child sacrifice required), you have the necessary ingredients for a "movement".

Remember this all sprung from a highly charged political context. Romans oppressing the Jews, the Jews looking for prophecies to be fulfilled. Even Jesus' birth is written in the context of a Roman census process. All quite deliberate to evoke anger against the current authority.

My apologies to all Christians, no disrespect intended. It's just that it's all too poetic to be real.

No good. I could put you on the Australian guns/hunting forum with some atheists but the best ones are on the Australian Atheist Foundation forum. Apart from low brain power (not all of them of course:eek:) they are also into the moon landing being a hoax:D

One day I asked one of them if he didn't think it was strange if the moon landing was a hoax that they would stretch things a bit by following with Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as opposed to calling it quits at Apollo 11.:)

But I will grant you the average IQ on the atheist side is much higher but the low and high number are the same on either side.

Of course the moon landing was a hoax! Everyone knows the moon is made of green cheese and all they supposedly brought back was rocks.

My apologies to all Christians, no disrespect intended. It's just that it's all too poetic to be real.

Awwwww, somebody's getting smited :eek:

Just don't stand too close to me when the lightning hits you.

Once again, I'd disagree, and the research I see points to the opposite. Here are few links:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://aysps.gsu.edu/econ/files/ECON_SustersicRebecca_Evolution_summer07.pdf

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-vs-bibles-explanation-human-origins.aspx


I found these with 5 minutes of research. If you could supply some sources that indicate otherwise, I would be genuinely interested in reading them. Otherwise, I have to assume you're just using anecdotal evidence to come to your conclusions.




Since Mike is in Oz

http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=141


On the original 3 stats - I dont think there any surprise that as someone is exposed to science that an anti science belief in God diminishes.

Just like someones exposure to religion, reduces their belief in science to answer all questions.

Almost by definition science can't answer religious questions, nor religion scientific ones.


Does one of the stats bascially say Americans are more stupid than the average?
As tempting as that is to believe, I think the truth is somewhat more complicated.

Since Mike is in Oz

Does one of the stats bascially say Americans are more stupid than the average?
As tempting as that is to believe, I think the truth is somewhat more complicated.

Anti-American jibes here get tiresome.

Awwwww, somebody's getting smited :eek:

Just don't stand too close to me when the lightning hits you.

Not to worry, all that's done away with, with the New Testament. We have to wait for the afterlife for our comeuppance.

At least the Iranians take the moral responsibility for their barbarism when they stone people to death and don't pass it on to some ethereal aspect to do the dirty work for them. Now I'm sounding bitter...best stop. ;)

Anti-American jibes here get tiresome.

So do anti theist ones based upon the same data?

... if the Bible was all fairy tales one would expect a counter Bible to have a come along for the ride.

Something like the the Quran perhaps? Or the Torah.

Maybe even the Book of Mormon with the Israelites finding their Promised Land in Utah all revealed by a golden plate translated courtesy of a special rock hidden in a hat?

Then there is Ron L Hubbard and our alien God-being origins manifested as humanity via a volcanic eruption after removing part of our DNA.

Or the hundreds of thousands of Hindu Gods?

Norse gods, Greek gods, Inca gods.

Then we have the like of Ghengis Kahn, Napoleon and countless others who saw themslelves as Gods on Earth.

Jimmy Jones, David Koresh and Jessa O'My Heart.

History is littered with dozens of ridicuous delusional figures from Abraham (AKA Abram, Ibrahim or whatever variant is applied by your cult of choice) each claiming to either be manifestations of or having special connection to all knowing deities. The concept shared by all is one of setting themselves beyond any possibility of objective analysis.

Here revealed is the central flaw in religious philosophy. Once a belief reaches the status of a faith it becomes an impediment to enlightenment in any sense.

Or do you mean an anti-Bible? Until relatively recently publishing anything that disagreed with the Bible was punishable by death. To this day criticism of its Islamic analog is a certain path to a death sentence in many parts of the world.

Either way your defence of the lack of a counter-document is utterly baseless.

Something like the the Quran perhaps? Or the Torah.



They along with the Bible are Abrahamic religions.

You headline choice only confirmed what I was saying.

You headline choice only confirmed what I was saying.

Hardly surprising as a response from someone who chooses to accept the musings of stone age goat herders as being beyond question.

It is quite incredible what some will accept as confirmation of their delusions.

Hardly surprising as a response from someone who chooses to accept the musings of stone age goat herders as being beyond question.

It is quite incredible what some will accept as confirmation of their delusions.

Point to one post I made that would support that. What I have said is I think the basic story is correct....read what I posted.

You came up with no Bible counter, at least of similar standing and in fact jumped straight into the other two Abrahamic religions as your "Bible counter":D Almost like you are believer in disguise.:)

They along with the Bible are Abrahamic religions.

You headline choice only confirmed what I was saying.

Then try the Ahura Vesta, The Analects, THe Vedas, Bahgavad Ghita, the Tao Te Ching. All are "Holy Books", many predating biblical scriptures and none are Abrahamic. There are more as well. None are "Anti-Biblical", all are just as devoutly regarded as the Bible.

Which one(s) are right? wrong? none of the above?

Then try the Ahura Vesta, The Analects, THe Vedas, Bahgavad Ghita, the Tao Te Ching. All are "Holy Books", many predating biblical scriptures and none are Abrahamic. There are more as well. None are "Anti-Biblical", all are just as devoutly regarded as the Bible.

Which one(s) are right? wrong? none of the above?

The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way;The names that can be named are not unvarying names.It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind

Here's what I don't get, Christ did that, though the opposite direction, he cured the sick, declared he was God, rose from the dead and then went up into the clouds.... You don't believe Him, so why would you believe it the other way around (And all this was witnessed by many people).


Honestly, its because I don't believe that actually happened. Essentially, you're told not to question the bible, so you accept what is in it really happened. I've looked at a lot of people's research into the bible and how it could not possibly be accurate.

I seem to remember reading just recently about a priest who was on TV. He was asked if Jesus' resurrection was accurate or more of an analogy. He said that people felt the presence of Jesus after he had been killed, so they described it as him coming back to life. But he never physically came back to life.

And, I get what you're saying as well. You're saying that I wouldn't accept it unless I experienced it first hand. But that's not true; I accept a lot of things that I have never experienced first hand. I accept that the world is not flat, even though I have only been in a relatively small part of the world. I accept that there are astroids floating around in space, even though I have never seen them myself.

These things are put forward as theories, and then hotly debated. Eventually something becomes the accepted answer because no one can prove it wrong. I think that is a good process, and I accept the information that comes forth from it (for the most part).


But..... given time, you might get to see Him descend from the clouds in His second coming....

You may not have intended it so, but that statement comes of as fearmongering. That has often been a tactic of religions: Believe what I tell you to believe or terrible things will happen. It rings hollow to me.

There are a ton of religions out there, each has their own little factoids and special things that people are supposed to practice. You've mentioned in an earlier thread that you believe all other religions are wrong and your's is correct. So you obviously do not fear anything these other religions warn you of. Its the same for me.


Lastly, if the Bible was all fairy tales one would expect a counter Bible to have a come along for the ride.


That's an interesting theory. Do you mean a document that details all the ways that the bible is inaccurate? Or a different bible, or what?

When I read counter-bible, the first thing I thought of was:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:U_SNCKHLGlRkYM: (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo51/CaRnAgE865/Satanic-bible.jpg&imgrefurl=http://s361.photobucket.com/albums/oo51/CaRnAgE865/%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3DSatanic-bible.jpg%26newest%3D1&usg=__-6JNwEp6vFzloDkn5IloSGImOvw=&h=605&w=428&sz=25&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=U_SNCKHLGlRkYM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsatanic%2Bbible%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dac tive%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1)

It was written by a religious guy who saw the worst of people on the weekend and the best of them on Sundays. He grew sick and tired of the religion and so he started his own. Pretty interesting read until he starts talking about how to cast spells :p.

I have come to believe that most "modern" religions, especially Abrahamic ones, are simply a case of the downtrodden and oppressed, bereft of the ability to better their poor miserable existence, had to cling to the fact that they would triumph in the end and that those who maltreated them would finally get their comeuppance. Not in this world, of course, but the next. It made their lot more bearable.

As (I think it was Stalin) said, religion is the opiate of the people.

I have come to believe that most "modern" religions, especially Abrahamic ones, are simply a case of the downtrodden and oppressed, bereft of the ability to better their poor miserable existence, had to cling to the fact that they would triumph in the end and that those who maltreated them would finally get their comeuppance. Not in this world, of course, but the next. It made their lot more bearable.


I would agree. A sense of hope.


As (I think it was Stalin) said, religion is the opiate of the people.

Actually, that was Marx.

Honestly, its because I don't believe that actually happened. Essentially, you're told not to question the bible, so you accept what is in it really happened. I've looked at a lot of people's research into the bible and how it could not possibly be accurate.

I seem to remember reading just recently about a priest who was on TV. He was asked if Jesus' resurrection was accurate or more of an analogy. He said that people felt the presence of Jesus after he had been killed, so they described it as him coming back to life. But he never physically came back to life.

And, I get what you're saying as well. You're saying that I wouldn't accept it unless I experienced it first hand. But that's not true; I accept a lot of things that I have never experienced first hand. I accept that the world is not flat, even though I have only been in a relatively small part of the world. I accept that there are astroids floating around in space, even though I have never seen them myself.

These things are put forward as theories, and then hotly debated. Eventually something becomes the accepted answer because no one can prove it wrong. I think that is a good process, and I accept the information that comes forth from it (for the most part).

OK. :)


You may not have intended it so, but that statement comes of as fearmongering. That has often been a tactic of religions: Believe what I tell you to believe or terrible things will happen. It rings hollow to me.

There are a ton of religions out there, each has their own little factoids and special things that people are supposed to practice. You've mentioned in an earlier thread that you believe all other religions are wrong and your's is correct. So you obviously do not fear anything these other religions warn you of. Its the same for me.

Hmmm, fearmongering.... obviously not what I meant. But, the premise of Christianity is what it is, so you can interpret it any way you want. I will find joy when that event happens, you may not. If you don't believe it will happen, well then you have nothing to worry about and you're OK.

Adam,

Using diet as an example there is the low carbohydrate and high carbohydrate.

The Atkins Diet
The Pritikin Diet

So we have one diet promoting meat as the main part of the diet and the other is avoiding meat and other animal based foods

I just picked those two as they kicked off in earlier days. The follower of each is completely aware of the other.

OK. :)

Hmmm, fearmongering.... obviously not what I meant. But, the premise of Christianity is what it is, so you can interpret it any way you want. I will find joy when that event happens, you may not. If you don't believe it will happen, well then you have nothing to worry about and you're OK.

While growing up my mother was a devout Baptist and reminded us almost daily that the "signs and portents" pointed to Christ's imminent return. The preacher from the pulpit preached hellfire and damnation and of course that "God is love", seeing no contradiction at all in a deity who was so egotistical that if you did not worship him and praise his name, you were doomed to infinite torture. Of course, a central theme of the preacher as well was that we should look to the sky for the immediate return of Christ with fear and trembling. We will ignore the fact for the moment that these "signs and potents" of the "final days" have always been with us.

But virtually every elderly Christian that I have known, including my mother who is facing her mortality in a very real way at the age of 87 (with severe COPD), when the last years of their lives were upon them were increasingly axnious about death and expressed a great desire to remain here in this life. So tell me, if the afterlife is so great, why would not a true Christian eagerly approach their death with joy? Indeed, why would they take any measure at all to extend what is obviously a lesser existence here in the "pre-afterlife"?

So tell me, if the afterlife is so great, why would not a true Christian eagerly approach their death with joy? Indeed, why would they take any measure at all to extend what is obviously a lesser existence here in the "pre-afterlife"?

That is the same question I have asked a few born again Christians. Asked in a slightly different way such as...if you wife was in hospital with a serious problem why would you pray for her survival etc....

I just picked those two as they kicked off in earlier days. The follower of each is completely aware of the other.

That makes sense. The image I linked is pretty close then. It essentially preaches that you are your own god. You're responsible for yourself. If you want to go out and sleep with a ton of women, that's your choice, and there should be no shame or guilt associated with it (or a woman with men). And if you choose not to at all, that is completely ok as well, as long as you recognize that it is your choice and does not make you better than others who choose differently.

It is much more selfish and self-serving, which is anti-Christianity in some ways.


Indeed, why would they take any measure at all to extend what is obviously a lesser existence here in the "pre-afterlife"?


I always wondered the same thing. I actually knew of one family who celebrated when their young son died. They had a party instead of a funeral; their being so happy that their son was now in heaven. This was like 40+ years ago when this happened, but even then everyone thought they were looney tunes.

In my experience with religious people, most are good people. They want to believe so badly, but deep down they know that most of the stuff is illogical. But they want to believe so badly that they will one day be reunited with their loved ones, and live eternally in an afterlife, that they keep on hoping.

That little sliver of hope is important to them, and if it helps them be a better person here on Earth, I don't think it is hurting anyone. For them, religion is useful. As it is for the people who would otherwise be criminals except that they fear the wrath of god. It is useful to control them.

The people who try to force others to believe how they do, or condemn others for not following their religion are the ones that need to be tossed into the crazy houses.

While growing up my mother was a devout Baptist and reminded us almost daily that the "signs and portents" pointed to Christ's imminent return. The preacher from the pulpit preached hellfire and damnation and of course that "God is love", seeing no contradiction at all in a deity who was so egotistical that if you did not worship him and praise his name, you were doomed to infinite torture. Of course, a central theme of the preacher as well was that we should look to the sky for the immediate return of Christ with fear and trembling. We will ignore the fact for the moment that these "signs and potents" of the "final days" have always been with us.

But virtually every elderly Christian that I have known, including my mother who is facing her mortality in a very real way at the age of 87 (with severe COPD), when the last years of their lives were upon them were increasingly axnious about death and expressed a great desire to remain here in this life. So tell me, if the afterlife is so great, why would not a true Christian eagerly approach their death with joy? Indeed, why would they take any measure at all to extend what is obviously a lesser existence here in the "pre-afterlife"?

Well, I don't exactly know the answer for sure, but I can guess.... I sure don't want to die, but know that I will. Just my opinion, but I can surmise that it is because we are human. Simple as that, we were created here, and though we know what awaits us, it is hard for our minds to grasp so our fears linger. I think the thing that marks us as Christians is not that we do not fear death, but that we have courage and strength to overcome our fear in the knowledge of what awaits us. And for the Christian there is the added bonus of being able to overcome because God gives us strength.

As far as wanting to extend life, the same reason. But in addition to that as Paul said that the longer we are here on earth we are able to tell more people about Christ in the hopes that more people will turn to Him and be spared (Please don't retort "You're fearmongering" this is what Christianity is) Something like "to die is Christ but to live is gain", what do we gain? Glory for God, Mercy and salvation for others. My grandparents, both devout Christians, are getting up and years and suffer through many illnesses and through much pain, and they too doubt and fear death. They still love God and seek to serve Him, and openly talk to God and to me about their fears and doubts. Sometimes they get angry with God or are confused by the things He allows, especially when my cousin's son was killed a month or two ago (he was only 18). The reality of Heaven or Hell or the eternal life promised by God doesn't change however, and they don't lose their salvation by doubting or by having fear, God knows our pain, fear and doubts. But He is greater than those things.

Glory for God
But don't you think it even a little bit queer that this almighty deity created mankind just to glorify himself and to be able to have an eternity with billions of his created beings gathered around praising him? And if I (or you) don't think it is really a heavenly idea to spend an enternity praising this deity then he gets miffed and sends you to an eternity of torture? And why would I (or you) even want to spend an infinity "praising His holy name:? Seems a bit childish for such an almighty being, doesn't it?

But don't you think it even a little bit queer that this almighty deity created mankind just to glorify himself and to be able to have an eternity with billions of his created beings gathered around praising him? And if I (or you) don't think it is really a heavenly idea to spend an enternity praising this deity then he gets miffed and sends you to an eternity of torture? And why would I (or you) even want to spend an infinity "praising His holy name:? Seems a bit childish for such an almighty being, doesn't it?

I want to praise God because I love Him...... You, as a former Christian, surely know how I would answer these questions, I am sure my answer is no different from any other Christian.

What I have said is I think the basic story is correct.

Which parts of the basic story are correct?

One thing I wondered is why a guy who could walk across water and bring the dead back to life didn't just float away when they tried to capture him. Or make the nails bend when they tried to drive them through him.

And when he brought himself back to life why did he leave the holes insead of healing the wounds?

The whole story is inane and could only be believed by those who completely suspend any consideration of their own credulity.

I want to praise God because I love Him......

An excellent essay on the nature of Christian love for God.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/relationship.html

(Please don't retort "You're fearmongering" this is what Christianity is)

That is probably why the % of Christians in America keeps falling through the years. I know what Christianity is. You're expected to spread your belief and "save" others. But in order to do that you'd have to ask them to turn a blind eye to logic and facts and accept a story. That's a large pill to swallow.

Also, it seems that line has struck a chord with you. I get the feeling that you don't think your religion uses fear in its proselytizing. I'm sure I can't convince you otherwise, but the simple later addition of Hell to the religion, which most historians attribute its description to Dante's Inferno should serve as an eye-opener.

I mean, Hell is this vaguely bad place, then an author comes along and writes all these gruesome details of what Hell is like, and suddenly priests start using his descriptons in their sermons.

That would be like if Stephen King wrote a book now about Hell, and in a few years his vision was the standard concept of Hell. That would have to make you wonder to the infallibility of the text & message.

Edit:

An excellent essay on the nature of Christian love for God.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/relationship.html

An interesting read. I saw a lot of parallels with my own thoughts, especially here:


How can this insidious condition be cured? The most important thing to keep in mind is that getting angry at the victim of an abusive relationship, demanding that they recognize the wrongs being done to them and "snap out of it", does no good. As maddening as it may seem to watch a fellow human being live in thrall to an abuser, even to turn against people who try to help, it must be remembered that it is not their fault; they are only doing what they believe they must do to survive...

That is probably why the % of Christians in America keeps falling through the years. I know what Christianity is. You're expected to spread your belief and "save" others. But in order to do that you'd have to ask them to turn a blind eye to logic and facts and accept a story. That's a large pill to swallow.

Also, it seems that line has struck a chord with you. I get the feeling that you don't think your religion uses fear in its proselytizing.

Well, God is certainly someone to fear, anyone who has all that power and might would be. And hell is certainly something to fear. But fear is not why I chose to serve Him, and not why most of the people I know chose to, nor is that what most of the people I talk to in person ask about when we talk about God. Most Christians recognize the sin in their lives, and know that God cannot be in the presence of sin, Christ provided a way for us to become sinless so that we can be in His presence. (Hence why He didn't have angels wisk Him away, which is similar to what Satan tempted Him to do in the desert.) So though God is to be feared, He is also a God who loves people so much that He provided a way to avoid the consequences of sin. It's God's love for me that Caused me to love Him. Their is the reality of Hell, but that is not the end of the story. And I have never used Hell as a persuasive measure, not in the way you mean it anyways. And yes it has struck a chord with me because I know it to be untrue. Perhaps there are Christians who do, or periods of time where fearmongering was the way, but Christ teaches to love others, to share the truth. And also that it is not our job to save people. I have said that in the past to, I am not here to "save" you, I am only here to share the truth. You can believe or not believe and it doesn't effect me one bit.

Edit: I didn't mean we become sinless now..... that was a mispeak. When God looks at a Christian now He sees Christ's righteousness, not our own. But, when we are in heaven we will be sinless.

Which parts of the basic story are correct?

One thing I wondered is why a guy who could walk across water and bring the dead back to life didn't just float away when they tried to capture him. Or make the nails bend when they tried to drive them through him.

And when he brought himself back to life why did he leave the holes insead of healing the wounds?

The whole story is inane and could only be believed by those who completely suspend any consideration of their own credulity.

You are getting yourself confused and tying yourself up around the Jesus stuff.

Don't you remember I said "Abrahamic religions".

I have come to believe that most "modern" religions, especially Abrahamic ones, are simply a case of the downtrodden and oppressed, bereft of the ability to better their poor miserable existence, had to cling to the fact that they would triumph in the end and that those who maltreated them would finally get their comeuppance. Not in this world, of course, but the next. It made their lot more bearable.

As (I think it was Stalin) said, religion is the opiate of the people.

I have several private practice medical specialists clients who are at the "born again" level of religion. Incomes range from $1 million to over $5 million. What do you think makes these people take on the religion at such a fundamentalist level. My own view is they simply "see something" which I can't see.

But these are hardly the oppressed etc:D

Well, God is certainly someone to fear, anyone who has all that power and might would be. And hell is certainly something to fear.


Its only something to fear if you allow yourself to be afraid of it. It would be fear of a thought. And, isn't Satan supposed to be the one you fear? Out of curiosity, who do you fear more, your God or Satan?


But fear is not why I chose to serve Him, and not why most of the people I know chose to, nor is that what most of the people I talk to in person ask about when we talk about God.


I believe you. You seem to be more than just a run-of-the-mill religious person. I don't want to use the word "extreme" because that has negative connotation, but I'd say you're definitely more dedicated to your religion than most.


It's God's love for me that Caused me to love Him.


But, be honest with yourself. When you were born, you had no idea what god's love was. You didn't know what god was. You didn't understand the concept of religions, etc.

Someone had to instruct you in these ways. Unless you're one of the rare people who picked up religion as an adult, your choice to be religious is largely dependent upon your parents/caretakers having chosen to introduce you to the religion.


And yes it has struck a chord with me because I know it to be untrue. Perhaps there are Christians who do, or periods of time where fearmongering was the way, but Christ teaches to love others, to share the truth.


Surely you've heard the oft-uttered phrase "If I am wrong, nothing happens. But if you're wrong..." I've known several women who had their babies baptised "just in case". Or had a priest at a funeral "just in case". They don't necessarily believe in it, but there is still some fear that that they might be wrong, and how terrible that would be if they were. Fear is the most effective recruiting tool of Christianity.


And also that it is not our job to save people. I have said that in the past to, I am not here to "save" you, I am only here to share the truth. You can believe or not believe and it doesn't effect me one bit.


Ok, let me ask this. I'm a non-believer. In your religion, that means I go to hell, right? (this changes based on which branch of Christianity you adhere to).

Let's assume that's the case. So, if by your sharing the word of god with me causes me to open my eyes, embrace the bible, etc, etc, and I become a Christian, now I will no longer go to hell, right?

If that's the case, then, regardless of the words you use, you're trying to save people by sharing with them.

Its only something to fear if you allow yourself to be afraid of it. It would be fear of a thought. And, isn't Satan supposed to be the one you fear? Out of curiosity, who do you fear more, your God or Satan?

I fear God more, He is the one who has power over me (or at least I should. :) ) Satan has no power over me so I am not supposed to fear him. But the fear I have for God is not something that makes me afraid of Him, if that makes any kind of sense. I know God's character, and that He is loving and merciful. But I should never approach Him without forgetting who He is, so fear in that kind of way.


I believe you. You seem to be more than just a run-of-the-mill religious person. I don't want to use the word "extreme" because that has negative connotation, but I'd say you're definitely more dedicated to your religion than most.

Thank you.


But, be honest with yourself. When you were born, you had no idea what god's love was. You didn't know what god was. You didn't understand the concept of religions, etc.

Someone had to instruct you in these ways. Unless you're one of the rare people who picked up religion as an adult, your choice to be religious is largely dependent upon your parents/caretakers having chosen to introduce you to the religion.

I agree with you, unless I had been taught I wouldn't know, but that doesn't make it any less true. But once I did hear I had a choice of whether or not to believe.

Even now, though I was saved as a child, if I wanted I could go do whatever I wanted and not believe in God (and there have been times I wish I could have, and people who do that all the time) but in my heart I know the truth, so I could never really turn away. It's more than a mind issue, it's written on my heart as well, just as I know who I am I know that God is real, and that the Bible is true.

Surely you've heard the oft-uttered phrase "If I am wrong, nothing happens. But if you're wrong..." I've known several women who had their babies baptised "just in case". Or had a priest at a funeral "just in case". They don't necessarily believe in it, but there is still some fear that that they might be wrong, and how terrible that would be if they were. Fear is the most effective recruiting tool of Christianity.

Unfortunately with God there is no "just in case," God knows your heart. And it is not a matter of doing the right thing that saves you, but recognizing your sin, recognizing the separation it causes, recognizing that Jesus has provided a way to rectify the situation by leading a sinless life and allowing Himself to be sacrificed for us and defeating death, and believing that He is who He said He was. My Baptism did not save me, My actions did not save me, nor do current good deeds save me or bad deeds make me lose my salvation.

The statement you mentioned used I think is valid, but not really the point. People use that because as humans we are prideful, and we want to win. But when pride is put aside, if a person truly believes the tenants of Christianity, they should feel sadness more than smugness. So that statement has always rang hollow and uncaring in my ears.



Ok, let me ask this. I'm a non-believer. In your religion, that means I go to hell, right? (this changes based on which branch of Christianity you adhere to).

Let's assume that's the case. So, if by your sharing the word of god with me causes me to open my eyes, embrace the bible, etc, etc, and I become a Christian, now I will no longer go to hell, right?

If that's the case, then, regardless of the words you use, you're trying to save people by sharing with them.

Yeah, but if you choose not to believe, it's no skin off my back (I mean it has no lasting effect on my life, though as previously mentioned above I might feel sad). Also, As much as I tell you I have no power to save, that power belongs to God and God alone. So I can't stress about it too much, or try to "scare" you into believing. That is trying to take matters into my own hand. All I can do is present the truth.

I agree with you, unless I had been taught I wouldn't know, but that doesn't make it any less true. But once I did hear I had a choice of whether or not to believe.


But, a couple of things. Sure, you could at anytime change your mind and choose not to believe in god anymore. But the fact that it was introduced to you at a young age as "the truth" is very powerful. It is very difficult to turn away from those things learned at a young age. Psychologists and psychiatrists make the largest portion of their income dealing from these very issues.

Second question, you've agreed above that if you don't believe in god, you'll be punished (go to hell, or whatever). What if you're never exposed to the knowledge of god? What if you live in a place where no one is a Christian? Are all of those people SOL or do they get some kind of get-out-of-hell-free-card since they had no chance to choose to worship?


My Baptism did not save me.


Ok, but if you had never been baptised, doesn't that mean that you were never cleansed of original sin and thus cannot go to heaven? So while it may not be only the baptism needed in order get in, it is one of the requirements.

This is what I mean by fear. The church spreads this message that unbaptised babies go to limbo instead of heaven. Parents that are religious adopt this practice. Parents who are slightly religious may not believe it actually means anything, but they will follow through with it out of fear. Fear that they may be wrong. Regardless of if they are right or wrong, they are motivated by fear.


The statement you mentioned used I think is valid, but not really the point. People use that because as humans we are prideful, and we want to win. But when pride is put aside, if a person truly believes the tenants of Christianity, they should feel sadness more than smugness. So that statement has always rang hollow and uncaring in my ears.


I would agree that it is hollow and uncaring, which I think says more about the believer and reinforces my point about it being driven by fear. The people that use phrases like this aren't true believers. They use the religion as a sort of insurance policy against hell.

Now, I get what you're saying. It won't help them in the end because god knows all. But where did the people learn this? I would suggest that it is part of the church's message. It is something they spread and reinforce to drive recruitment and keep their coffers filled.


Yeah, but if you choose not to believe, it's no skin off my back (I mean it has no lasting effect on my life, though as previously mentioned above I might feel sad). Also, As much as I tell you I have no power to save, that power belongs to God and God alone. So I can't stress about it too much, or try to "scare" you into believing. That is trying to take matters into my own hand. All I can do is present the truth.

As far as I know, you as an individual are not out and about holding signs saying "Repent! The end is nigh!" Or other such fear-based recruitment tactics. But organized religion does just that. In other words, you may not try to "scare" people into believing, but it is a tactic used by organized religion. That is what I was trying to show.

It has been my experience in my long life that Christians are no better or worse than anyone else. I would bet that if you could take a statistical sample of professed Christians (or of any sub-set such as "Born Again Believers", "Evangelicals", etc) and measure then against society as a whole, you would find the same "sins", good things, etc. If someone is truly following the Christian tenets, if someone was truly "born-again", if they were truly "Christian" in its real meaning ("Christ-like") then there would be an obvious difference in the manner, their actions, and their lives (other than what comes out of their mouths). You should be able to tell a Christian from an non-Christian by their lives. I don't think you can.

But, a couple of things. Sure, you could at anytime change your mind and choose not to believe in god anymore. But the fact that it was introduced to you at a young age as "the truth" is very powerful. It is very difficult to turn away from those things learned at a young age. Psychologists and psychiatrists make the largest portion of their income dealing from these very issues.

How do you deal with people who come to Christ as an adult? It happens all the time. And I also know people who grew up as Christians and once they left their parents home turned away from it...

Second question, you've agreed above that if you don't believe in god, you'll be punished (go to hell, or whatever). What if you're never exposed to the knowledge of god? What if you live in a place where no one is a Christian? Are all of those people SOL or do they get some kind of get-out-of-hell-free-card since they had no chance to choose to worship?

To be blunt, yes they are SOL. That is why it is so important for Christians to go and tell others about Christ. I have heard from missionaries of people in foreign countries who have come up to them and said basically "I have been seeking God and have prayed for answers, I have been waiting for you". So God sent someone so they would hear. Part of my belief, and not all Christians believe this, is that a person cannot choose God unless He chooses them first. I believe this because the Bible tells us we are dead in our sins. Which to me means that we cannot choose life, only that God can choose to give us life (Or make us reborn, whichever way you prefer). And as a Christian I have no idea who God will call to Him or who He want so it is not up to me to decide who I will tell and who I won't. The only thing that constrains me in this area are legalities (Not at work unless I know the person well and it comes up in conversation, or if I have a relationship with someone.) I wouldn't just go up to a random person or hang out on a street corner shouting that everyone is going to hell or anything like that.



Ok, but if you had never been baptised, doesn't that mean that you were never cleansed of original sin and thus cannot go to heaven? So while it may not be only the baptism needed in order get in, it is one of the requirements.

Baptism doesn't clean me of my sin, Christ Cleanses me of my sin. baptism is just a public profession of faith that the aforementioned event has occurred. And we abide by it because we were told to be obedient to be obedient to Christ, and as Christ followed obedience to His Father, we do the same. Obedience to Christ comes out of our love fore Him, and if we fail we are forgiven, we cannot lead perfect lives while we still have these sinful bodies, but now we can choose not to sin. The only requirement to get into heaven (be with God) is to believe in Christ, nothing else, not Baptism, not good works, you don't have to be perfect.

This is what I mean by fear. The church spreads this message that unbaptised babies go to limbo instead of heaven. Parents that are religious adopt this practice. Parents who are slightly religious may not believe it actually means anything, but they will follow through with it out of fear. Fear that they may be wrong. Regardless of if they are right or wrong, they are motivated by fear.

The Catholic Church talks about limbo, not all Christians. And I do believe babies go to Heaven, The Psalms (most attributed to King David) talk about how When David's son died he spoke of seeing him again someday in Heaven.

I would agree that it is hollow and uncaring, which I think says more about the believer and reinforces my point about it being driven by fear. The people that use phrases like this aren't true believers. They use the religion as a sort of insurance policy against hell.

They might be true believers (I can't really judge one way or the other), but they are still sinful, and thus will make mistakes.... How I talk with people now is very different from how I would have approached someone when I was 18 years old. That kind of thing involves spiritual maturity as well as physical.

Now, I get what you're saying. It won't help them in the end because god knows all. But where did the people learn this? I would suggest that it is part of the church's message. It is something they spread and reinforce to drive recruitment and keep their coffers filled.

I am not sure what you are asking here? What won't help who in the end? As far as where anything cam from, you know the Christian answer to that too, I am sure. The Bible which is divinely inspired by God.

As far as I know, you as an individual are not out and about holding signs saying "Repent! The end is nigh!" Or other such fear-based recruitment tactics. But organized religion does just that. In other words, you may not try to "scare" people into believing, but it is a tactic used by organized religion. That is what I was trying to show.

OK, some organizations do, I don't deny. But it goes against what Christ would have us do, I believe. We are all sinners and though that doesn't excuse the behavior I think it helps explain it a bit. People/organizations that do that will not be very effective and usually make people more bitter. Which is certainly not what a Christian's goal should be.

It has been my experience in my long life that Christians are no better or worse than anyone else. I would bet that if you could take a statistical sample of professed Christians (or of any sub-set such as "Born Again Believers", "Evangelicals", etc) and measure then against society as a whole, you would find the same "sins", good things, etc. If someone is truly following the Christian tenets, if someone was truly "born-again", if they were truly "Christian" in its real meaning ("Christ-like") then there would be an obvious difference in the manner, their actions, and their lives (other than what comes out of their mouths). You should be able to tell a Christian from an non-Christian by their lives. I don't think you can.

I agree that we are no worse or no better than anyone else. I agree that you SHOULD be able to tell a Christian by their lives. However, We still sin. And there is still good in the world that everyone is capable of. That is why deeds and works don't save or damn someone. Only belief in Christ.

How do you deal with people who come to Christ as an adult? It happens all the time. And I also know people who grew up as Christians and once they left their parents home turned away from it...


In explaining these things, I'm talking about trends. It would simplistic to say that every Christian is brainwashed as a youth and that is why they are Christians as adults. We know that is not true. However, you can detect patterns with research. Research indicates that if you're exposed (some would say indoctrinated) towards a religion as a youth, you're far more likely to follow that religion as an adult.

Adults who choose religion on their own are expressing their freedom of religion.


The only thing that constrains me in this area are legalities (Not at work unless I know the person well and it comes up in conversation, or if I have a relationship with someone.) I wouldn't just go up to a random person or hang out on a street corner shouting that everyone is going to hell or anything like that.


But, if you truly believe that non-believers go to hell, why should legalities stop you from trying to convince them? Legalities would be of this short, mortal life. We're talking about a person's eternal salvation. I would think that would be more important than following the law.


I am not sure what you are asking here? What won't help who in the end?


The point I was trying to make was that if a person simply believes in god because they fear death, but is really not a Christian, then god would see through that facade. They wouldn't be rewarded with entrance into heaven simply because they pretended to be a Christian.

But the church (i.e. organized religion) benefits even from its fake followers.


OK, some organizations do, I don't deny. But it goes against what Christ would have us do, I believe.

That's in the vein of the Ghandi quote: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."


As I've said in threads passed, I enjoy learning about religions and I find them fascinating from an academic standpoint. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that people still believe in them though.

To me there are mounds and mounds of evidence against the possibility of a god as proclaimed in the old or new testament.

The pros and cons of religion can be debated, but in my opinion there are far more cons. If their were no churches, and people kept their religions at home, I think we'd all be a lot happier and more successful.

No good. I could put you on the Australian guns/hunting forum with some atheists but the best ones are on the Australian Atheist Foundation forum. Apart from low brain power (not all of them of course:eek:) they are also into the moon landing being a hoax:D

One day I asked one of them if he didn't think it was strange if the moon landing was a hoax that they would stretch things a bit by following with Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as opposed to calling it quits at Apollo 11.:)

But I will grant you the average IQ on the atheist side is much higher but the low and high number are the same on either side.
Mike, I have come over from the Atheist Foundation of Australia's forums, just to ask where one of our posters has claimed the moon landing is a hoax, apart from one poster "asking", by way of a joke).

I think your username on our forums may have been MikeM. A user by that name was expelled for circular reasoning, unsupportable claims, and general unpleasantness.

It has been my experience in my long life that Christians are no better or worse than anyone else. I would bet that if you could take a statistical sample of professed Christians (or of any sub-set such as "Born Again Believers", "Evangelicals", etc) and measure then against society as a whole, you would find the same "sins", good things, etc. If someone is truly following the Christian tenets, if someone was truly "born-again", if they were truly "Christian" in its real meaning ("Christ-like") then there would be an obvious difference in the manner, their actions, and their lives (other than what comes out of their mouths). You should be able to tell a Christian from an non-Christian by their lives. I don't think you can.

There is no difference because the Christianity part pf religion is man made.

Let me use Access as an analogy. You and I are both given an .mdb file with a table, the same table. The "truth" I see in the spiritual is the counterpart of that table. The table on its own doesn't mean much to most people so we add our queries, VBA, forms etc. and our results are very different but the that table is still the same.

Mike, I have come over from the Atheist Foundation of Australia's forums, just to ask where one of our posters has claimed the moon landing is a hoax, apart from one poster "asking", by way of a joke).

I think your username on our forums may have been MikeM. A user by that name was expelled for circular reasoning, unsupportable claims, and general unpleasantness.

That's me:D

Actually I thought most of tis type of discussion was in the general joke area.:D

Welcome aboard.

There is no difference because the Christianity part pf religion is man made.

Let me use Access as an analogy. You and I are both given an .mdb file with a table, the same table. The "truth" I see in the spiritual is the counterpart of that table. The table on its own doesn't mean much to most people so we add our queries, VBA, forms etc. and our results are very different but the that table is still the same.

what a bunch of BS.

what happens if the developer made the table appear simply out of his love and passion for access? :cool:

so you're saying that people created God because life meant nothing to them otherwise, right?

does that mean that your son or daughter was conceived because otherwise, life would mean nothing to you? :rolleyes:

Let me use Access as an analogy. You and I are both given an .mdb file with a table, the same table. The "truth" I see in the spiritual is the counterpart of that table. The table on its own doesn't mean much to most people so we add our queries, VBA, forms etc. and our results are very different but the that table is still the same.

And just like Access, those tables get corrupted if users share the same files. Every user should have an independent front end. The front ends used by the church seem to be quite corrupt through extensive reworking of the code.

The data inconsistencies also suggest the backend tables were not properly normalized either. However I think the real problem is with the ODBC (Occulted Deity Bullshit Connectivity) system which never worked well.

Versioning has also been a major nightmare. The God Object in the beta release (codename Hebrew) was fairly consistent when released as Bible 1.0 but it seems quite incompatible with Bible 2.0 causing a great deal of confusion particularly over the Jesus plugin.

The competition (also based on the original Abraham Operating System) show a lot of similarity with the original Bible release.

Numerous other Abraham based startups have failed to obtain significant market share as it is widely recognised the problems are deeply embeded in the Abraham code itself. A considerable section of users have converted over to Buddha in the search for greater stability.

what a bunch of BS.

what happens if the developer made the table appear simply out of his love and passion for access? :cool:

so you're saying that people created God because life meant nothing to them otherwise, right?

does that mean that your son or daughter was conceived because otherwise, life would mean nothing to you? :rolleyes:

No, what I am saying is Christianity in all its versions and Islam are a long way down the track from the "original" and are man made and so all of them a very different and can be shot to pieces.

Numerous other Abraham based startups have failed to obtain significant market share as it is widely recognised the problems are deeply embeded in the Abraham code itself. A considerable section of users have converted over to Buddha in the search for greater stability.
LOL. oops! did I say that?


No, what I am saying is Christianity in all its versions and Islam are a long way down the track from the "original" and are man made and so all of them a very different and can be shot to pieces.
so can Access. there are so many holes in microsoft software, that we should think about switching to Abraham code!

The front ends used by the church seem to be quite corrupt through extensive reworking of the code.



And that is the reason why the atheism Vs supernatural discussion gets nowhere when discussed at the Christianity or Islam end of things.

so you're saying that people created God because life meant nothing to them otherwise, right?

does that mean that your son or daughter was conceived because otherwise, life would mean nothing to you? :rolleyes:

Mankind has always needed something to worship/blame/hope for so it does invent gods and then religions, usually they are designed by man who want power and control over others, especially women.

Nature has designed all living things with the urge to procreate.

Brian

And that is the reason why the atheism Vs supernatural discussion gets nowhere when discussed at the Christianity or Islam end of things.

Mike, I agree. That question asks to judge two faces of the same coin.

However I don't understand your position. To me Abraham was a delusional schitzophrenic yet you seem to think he was onto something.

Do not assume that atheism precludes spirituality.

Religion is Man's way of protecting himself from spritual experience.

Mankind has always needed something to worship/blame/hope for so it does invent gods and then religions, usually they are designed by man who want power and control over others, especially women.

Nature has designed all living things with the urge to procreate.

Brian
True. Also there's the explanation angle. Not knowing how/why things happen is unnerving to some and unacceptable to many. When we (i.e. people in general) knew less about everything, this was far more commonplace.

Why do eclipses occur? No idea about the Earth moving through space, etc. but some would have been desperate for an explanation.

Easiest answer: Say a magical being did it.
How did he do it?
In a way you can't possibly understand.
Why?
It's not for you to question and you woulnd't understand anyway.
What else will he do?
Luckily, we have this guy here who can hear him speak and will tell us if we just do what he wants.
Hey presto, you've got yourself a religion.

Fortunately or not, as we understand more, we tend to place less blind faith in things. People today seem far more willing to put their trust in the idea that some things just haven't been explained yet than in the fact everything can already be explained and it can all ultimately be traced back to magic. Yes, many people still attend churches, but it would seem rather implausible to claim that, as a percentage of the world population (especialy in developed countries), there are as many religious believers today as there were even 100 years ago.

Many parts of the Bible and Koran are very similar yet the people who believe in one or the other reject many of the conclusions in the other. For example Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God while Muslims believe he was a prophet preparing the way for Mohammed. Both beliefs are sincerely held but are clearly contradictory. They both can't be right but they both could be wrong. This suggests to me that religion is a manmade attempt to explain what is currently unknown.

This suggests to me that religion is a manmade attempt to explain what is currently unknown.

100% spot on.

And atheists debating their cause on the basis of Jesus true/false are barking up the wrong tree. And Jesus "believers" are up that wrong tree:D

But I did just try and extend my faith to gravity means the universe creates itself from nothing. Strike me dead, what a leap of faith....in fact I could not make the leap.:eek:

Mike, I have come over from the Atheist Foundation of Australia's forums, just to ask where one of our posters has claimed the moon landing is a hoax, apart from one poster "asking", by way of a joke).

I think your username on our forums may have been MikeM. A user by that name was expelled for circular reasoning, unsupportable claims, and general unpleasantness.

My second response to you. It seems like you are just a temporary blow hard. One post and you are destroyed.

I re registered on the Australian Atheist Foundation forum http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/

and completely open. I registered as AtheistPower and on my post (on the MIkeM thread) said I was MikeM. Invited you and others onto this forum.

But I was then banned by Personal Message:D I won't embarrass you by posting "davo" message. As you know he is only a very young bloke.

But as I said in my previous response....Welcome Aboard...obviously a little bit harder here because you can't delete, edit etc.

On this site, believers of a supernatural and atheists are all on the same level.

But we both know you picked that up and hence were good for only one post.....but your post was obviously to get discussion going.....Or was it just to show off on the Atheist forium, among the kids

You have no conviction. But I guess it is hard to have conviction on what you don't believe:D

Mike, I agree. That question asks to judge two faces of the same coin.



Do not assume that atheism precludes spirituality.



It will for the true atheist.

But I have yet to meet a true atheist. Lots of agnostics.....and let's be honest here.....atheism and religion are both faith based....unless of course you have some science up your sleeve:D and so I would say most thinking people would be agnostic.

Of course there are people where "atheism" is a "statement". Like the fellow that posted above and reference to myself and the Atheist Fondation Australia. I am giving him another opportunity to get past one post:D

Mike
Could I ask you not to keep using the F.... word, it may be ok in Oz but is generally not used in mixed society in Britain and I would hate to see you banned again.

Brian

Mike
Could I ask you not to keep using the F.... word, it may be ok in Oz but is generally not used in mixed society in Britain and I would hate to see you banned again.

Brian

Brian,

I think I got them. Used "destroyed" and "strike"

As in "you are destroyed" and "strike me dead"

One post and you are destroyed.

Strike me dead, what a leap of faith....in fact I could not make the leap.

How is that?

Mike

LOL

just don't want people taking offense rather than debating, you guys are causing us enough problems in Perth.

Brian

LOL

just don't want people taking offense rather than debating, you guys are causing us enough problems in Perth.

Brian

We are just problem makers:D

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/ashes-twists-turns-give-new-life-to-test-cricket-20101218-191f2.html

Mike

I really don't think people are nearly as logical as they think they are.

I think we are incredibly influenced by the society in which we live and the way we are brought up to the point that we often don't register our bias at all.

I think it is human nature to try to strengthen your spirit to help you get through bad times and everyone generally wants to be strong or find ways of strengthening themselves.

I think the vast majority of people really do want to be special or to be treated with respect and in some way individually.

I think everyone has amazing amounts of imagination often unused.

I suggest that these factors could make people very susceptable to believe things they are told especially when it would appear to convey advantage and strength of character to them and their nearest and dearest for little cost.

It will for the true atheist.

Mike you clearly misundestand the meaning of atheism. The opposite of atheisim is theism which is the belief in at least one deity. Spirtuality does not have to involve a deity at all.

Spirituality is about having concepts of existence beyond our immediate physical and intellectual relationships with our surroundings. I find it in music and love. I experience it in the appreciation of how I came to have this opportunity of life and how I can influence reality.

However, like so many of the best things in life, the church has attempted to assume total control of spiritual experience and corrupt its beauty.

They build huge resonant buildings where people sing together to experience the same spirituality I have when I sing with my friends. Then they preach that these feelings are originate with their deity and are only available through devotion to dogma of the church.

The reinvent love as something that is only pure in a very limited circumstance and define any deviation from that narrow definition as evil.

What they cannot control they denounce. Those churches that could not manage to take over song and dance denounced it. They protray sex as a base animal instinct and attach it to shame and guilt.

They redefine the beauty of nature and the fascinating intricacy that manifested it as a conscious construct by a remarkably anthropomorphic god and in doing so separate us from nature.

Theist philosophy is the quite the opposite of spirituality.

[/color][/b]

Mike you clearly misundestand the meaning of atheism. The opposite of atheisim is theism which is the belief in at least one deity. Spirtuality does not have to involve a deity at all.



I was thinking of spirituality in terms of mental telepathy, which I believe in 100% but atheist will not agree.

In short, we have "spirituality" on a different page. However, I can see from your perspective of "spirituality" there is no conflict with atheism and I would agree.

But in general I think atheism is more than just 'theism" with an "a' added:)

I was thinking of spirituality in terms of mental telepathy, which I believe in 100% but atheist will not agree.

You still don't understand. There is nothing about telepathic communication that requires belief in a deity. It is possible that such a phenomonon does exist but as yet the mechanism involved has not been found.

Do you think God sits there at the exchange plugging leads when connections are requested?:D

You still don't understand. There is nothing about telepathic communication that requires belief in a deity. It is possible that such a phenomonon does exist but as yet the mechanism involved has not been found.

Do you think God sits there at the exchange plugging leads when connections are requested?:D

Agree completely. However, it is laughed at by atheists and with the standard "do you have documented proof etc. and etc."

God is not sitting there at the exchange:D. But God is a specific god who is unlikely to exist. Actually the vast majority of atheists I have met are really agnostic and their atheism is only at the God level = Christianity, Bible, Islam and so on.

Agree completely. However, it is laughed at by atheists and with the standard "do you have documented proof etc. and etc."

My scepticism about telepathy has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any deity. I have found that many of my agnostic and religous friends also do not think that telepathy exists so I fail to understand the point you are making. Perhaps you could explain it more fully?

When I see a convincing demonstration of telepathy I will check it out.

I was going to make a similar point to Rabbie yesterday but I couldn't be bothered. Mike chastised us for what he perceives as confusing a belief in the existence of a deity with the accptance of Jesus and Mohammed but can't seem to separate issues such as telepathy from the deity debate.

I think Mike used the term Atheist to mean "anyone who disagrees with me about anything".

I only mentioned telepathy when Galaxiom spoke about spirituality.

But for a lot of people that experience it, telepathy (or whatever you want to call it) will be seen as a manifestation that there is "something out there" and so it does have a connection with atheism/theism.

Personally, I am a 100% believer that telepathy happens and the degree to which it happens varies greatly from person to person.

Mike chastised us for what he perceives as confusing a belief in the existence of a deity with the accptance of Jesus and Mohammed .



Not correct. What I have said is debating whether there is a supernatural or supernaturals does not hinge on whether Jesus or whichever church etc is false. With the exception of the "born agains" think most people who are religious to some degree accept and would even advocate that churches and their teachings are man made.

The majority of atheists I have met believe Jesus existed but of course do not believe Jesus was anymore than a man.

But for a lot of people that experience it, telepathy (or whatever you want to call it) will be seen as a manifestation that there is "something out there" and so it does have a connection with atheism/theism.

One may personally choose to connect telepathy to theist philosophy but that does not make it a theistic phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/wiki/Deity) exists.[1] (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1025572#cite_note-0)[2] (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1025572#cite_note-1) In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/wiki/Monotheism) God (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/wiki/God) and God's relationship to the universe (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/wiki/Universe).[3] (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1025572#cite_note-2)

Throughout history, theists have connected concepts of a deity to vast numbers of diverse phenomena. However as science progressed they have been forced to relinquish these connections in favour of rational explanations based on physical reality.

Ignoring the debate on wheteher it is likely to exist or not, if telepathy is shown to be true then I have no doubt that a rational explanation would eventually be found that was based on new extensions to physical and biological processes.

There is no need for a deity.

One may personally choose to connect telepathy to theist philosophy but that does not make it a theistic phenomenon.

Agree.

I think one of the reasons and maybe the main reason for the connection is the result of telepathy so often coming in the form of a helping hand at just the right time.
.



Ignoring the debate on wheteher it is likely to exist or not, if telepathy is shown to be true then I have no doubt that a rational explanation would eventually be found that was based on new extensions to physical and biological processes.

There is no need for a deity.

I vary a great deal on this, just depends on the day:D

My gut feeling is there is something above us but it is not the all powerful and all knowing etc. But as I said I vary with this from time to time.

But what I know for sure as in 100% is there can be something I am doing or thinking about right now that will cause another person to do something and of course the reverse applies.

The majority of atheists I have met believe Jesus existed but of course do not believe Jesus was anymore than a man.

Yeah, its totally different here in the USA. There's basically three groups of religious people here.

1.) Wackos. These are usually people 60+, or people in religious cults, etc. They are very extreme in their beliefs, and don't care what anyone else thinks. Their minds are made up and they won't have it any other way.

2.) Average religious person. The largest group, these people you would probably never know were religious unless you directly asked them. They might wear a cross from time to time, but they don't preach about it. Most of these people are religious because their parents raised them that way, but they don't really know their religion in-depth. They know some of the religious rites/customs of their branch, but may not know the purpose of them.

3.) CEO Christians. AKA: "Christmas and Easter Only". They only go to church on Christmas and Easter. They don't believe in the bible as being anything more than fables intended to teach values, and usually are younger (I'd guess 35 and younger).

I've met many people that fall into these groups. I work with a few 2's, have several friends that are 3's, and avoid the 1's at all costs :p.


But what I know for sure as in 100% is there can be something I am doing or thinking about right now that will cause another person to do something and of course the reverse applies.


I like to call those "coincidences".

I think that there are some things that at times may appear to be extra-sensory or magical, but the human brain is a powerful thing. We don't even know everything it is capable of yet.

I remember when my Grandmother was really sick. I had a dream one day about her and the number 3 was very prominent. I told my mother about it, and I said she was going to die in 3 days. Told most of my family about it. Sure enough, she died 3 days later.

Does it mean anything? Nothing other than a strange thing that happened.

Yeah, its totally different here in the USA. There's basically three groups of religious people here.

1.) Wackos. These are usually people 60+, or people in religious cults, etc. They are very extreme in their beliefs, and don't care what anyone else thinks. Their minds are made up and they won't have it any other way.

2.) Average religious person. The largest group, these people you would probably never know were religious unless you directly asked them. They might wear a cross from time to time, but they don't preach about it. Most of these people are religious because their parents raised them that way, but they don't really know their religion in-depth. They know some of the religious rites/customs of their branch, but may not know the purpose of them.

3.) CEO Christians. AKA: "Christmas and Easter Only". They only go to church on Christmas and Easter. They don't believe in the bible as being anything more than fables intended to teach values, and usually are younger (I'd guess 35 and younger).



Same in Australia.



I like to call those "coincidences".



No way for me and many others

But for you the frequency is so small that I would agree it is coincidence for you.

1.) Wackos. These are usually people 60+, or people in religious cults, etc. They are very extreme in their beliefs, and don't care what anyone else thinks. Their minds are made up and they won't have it any other way.


Adam,

Just as a side note, that profile is also given to atheists, except age group is different.

But no surprise as both extemes have enormous faith.

Just as a side note, that profile is also given to atheists, except age group is different.


That profile is only given to atheists by hardline Christians. The difference between the two groups is that atheists pride themselves on logic & science. They don't disbelieve on faith. If there was actual, factual evidence that a particular religion was correct, atheists would embrace it.

Not so for extreme religious people. They are taught that there is this all-powerful deity that controls all aspects of life. Any evidence that could be shown to them could be a test by said deity. They are instructed to blindly follow. There is even a story in their religious text where their all-powerful deity requests of one of his followers to sacrifice his own son to show his devotion. Blind acceptance above all else is the way of the religion.


But no surprise as both extemes have enormous faith.

Only when you play with semantics. Find me one atheist, non-believer, agnostic, whatever that will say that if he is shown actual, factual proof, that he will still reject that a religion is correct. If you find one, then I'll believe that there is some secret sect out there of atheists that are blindly devoted to non-belief.

Good luck with that.

Only when you play with semantics. Find me one atheist, non-believer, agnostic, whatever that will say that if he is shown actual, factual proof, that he will still reject that a religion is correct. If you find one, then I'll believe that there is some secret sect out there of atheists that are blindly devoted to non-belief.

Good luck with that.

Agnostic is as far removed from an atheist as he/she is from a "born again"

Agnostic is as far removed from an atheist as he/she is from a "born again"

I don't think so.

Atheist = There is no god
Agnostic = I don't know/don't care
Believer = There is a god
Extremist = There is a god, the god I worship, everyone else is wrong and should be made to believe the way I believe.

I would think agnostics are more comfortable around nonbelievers than believers. Believers are always trying to convert them and tell them how to live their lives. Us nonbelievers are just glad for their company :)

I don't think so.

Atheist = There is no god
Agnostic = I don't know/don't care
Believer = There is a god
Extremist = There is a god, the god I worship, everyone else is wrong and should be made to believe the way I believe.

I would think agnostics are more comfortable around nonbelievers than believers. Believers are always trying to convert them and tell them how to live their lives. Us nonbelievers are just glad for their company :)

As usual - the only banging on around here is atheist.

1) Atheist = There is no god


2) Agnostic = I don't know/don't care


3) Believer = There is a god

Position 1 and 3 are faith based and position 2 lacks the faith to take a firm position.

Adam, what sicence knowedge/proof do you have that puts you in position 1. I assume you have proof:D Of course you don't and so your position is the same in principle as number 3.

Extremist = There is a god, the god I worship, everyone else is wrong and should be made to believe the way I believe.

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread over the weekend, but wanted to pose a question to you. You call this kind of person an extremist, but let me ask you this...... If a person REALLY believes in their God (And I am not just talking Christians, but anybody) why wouldn't they think theirs was the only one that was right..... If they give in and say someone else could be right, then they must not really believe in their God, and all their faith (whichever one it is) is for nothing. So why is this kind of person an extremist? I would view an extremist who is one who interprets his/her religion (or commitment to it) as authorizing extremist actions like violence or some such, so much so that it goes against even the mainstream of that paricular religion/faith.

Position 1 and 3 are faith based and position 2 lacks the faith to take a firm position.


That's where we get back to semantics. You're using the term "faith" to apply to non-religious concepts. You might say "I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow." And while you can say that, it isn't the same thing as saying "I have faith that a god exists".

For the first, this is something that happens everyday. It is based upon the scientific method, observance, etc. It is therefore, not "faith".

So no, position 1 does not require faith. I don't believe in leprechauns. But that doesn't mean I have faith that leprechauns do not exist. If you use the terms in that way, they essentially lose their meaning.


Adam, what sicence knowedge/proof do you have that puts you in position 1. I assume you have proof:D Of course you don't and so your position is the same in principle as number 3.

Ah, the old disprove a negative. Again, when you misuse terms, it makes your whole argument fall apart.

If I don't have proof of something/evidence/etc of something, I don't accept it. Since it is impossible to disprove a negative, your way of thinking would mean I'd have to attribute equal amounts of plausibility to any concept that cannot be disproven.

Example: I am god. Can you prove that I am not? Of course not. Do you believe me? Probably not. But under your way of thinking, since you can't prove it, its falls to "faith". False conclusion.


So why is this kind of person an extremist? I would view an extremist who is one who interprets his/her religion (or commitment to it) as authorizing extremist actions like violence or some such, so much so that it goes against even the mainstream of that paricular religion/faith.


I would probably call that kind of person a radical. I don't know any radicals in my personal life.

An extremist to me is someone who tries to put their views on other people, but not in a violent way. One example would be "Values Voters". If a candidate says they support a woman's right to choose, this person would automatically not vote for them, regardless of what else they stood for.

Another example would be those Westboro people. From what I know of them, they don't physically hurt anyone, but they perform extremist actions (picketing soldier's funerals, for example).

Again, the average everyday religious person is religious because they want to be. They don't try to push their religious views on others. An extremist does, which is what differentiates them from an average religious person in my mind.

Agree.

I think one of the reasons and maybe the main reason for the connection is the result of telepathy so often coming in the form of a helping hand at just the right time.As usual you seem to use words in a different sense to the rest of us. I have always understood telepathy to be communcation between 1 mind and another at a distance other than through known senses. This definition is confirmed by The Oxford English Dictionary. No mention of helping hands at just the right time.

If Telepathy exists then I am sure it will be through some mechanism analogous to radio waves and not to some supernatural switchboard operator

If Telepathy exists then I am sure it will be through some mechanism analogous to radio waves and not to some supernatural switchboard operator
Telepathy does exist. Ask any kid who is about to do something their parents won't approve of.

Telepathy does exist. Ask any kid who is about to do something their parents won't approve of.
You may call it telepathy - I call it parents who know their kids :D

As usual you seem to use words in a different sense to the rest of us. I have always understood telepathy to be communcation between 1 mind and another at a distance other than through known senses. This definition is confirmed by The Oxford English Dictionary. No mention of helping hands at just the right time.



I did say earlier "telepathy or whatever"

The "helping hand" is coming as a result of the communication.

I don't think telepathy is limited to 1 mind and another.

Adam,

It is really very simple.

You don't believe a god or gods or supernaturals exist. And because you can't prove it that confirms "your opinion" is a belief and for you (like the fundamentalist) that belief transfers to a statement of fact.

I don't believe that elves, fairies, or Father Christmas exist, but hey I can't prove it so I guess I have a belief (faith) after all.

Brian

You don't believe a god or gods or supernaturals exist. And because you can't prove it that confirms "your opinion" is a belief and for you (like the fundamentalist) that belief transfers to a statement of fact.

Let me ask you this. Would you prefer to have a doctor that believed he could perform surgery upon you based on his faith in his religion (whatever that happens to be), or one who had earned a medical degree from a reputable medical school?

My opinion is that since I don't have anything with which to base the 1st doctor's skills off of, the second would be more likely to perform a successful surgery.

My guess is that you'll scoff at this example as being ridiculous. However, maybe you'll see the comparison. 1 thing is based completely on faith, another is based on facts. That's why I, as a nonbeliever, would be more willing to trust the 2nd doctor.

And I'd be willing to bet the fundamentalist would prefer the second doctor as well.


I don't believe that elves, fairies, or Father Christmas exist, but hey I can't prove it so I guess I have a belief (faith) after all.


That seemed to me the argument he was raising as well. Glad it wasn't just me. I think I'm starting to see what that one guy meant when he said:


I think your username on our forums may have been MikeM. A user by that name was expelled for circular reasoning, unsupportable claims...

Let me ask you this. Would you prefer to have a doctor that believed he could perform surgery upon you based on his faith in his religion (whatever that happens to be), or one who had earned a medical degree from a reputable medical school?



The doctor who earned his qualifications etc


My opinion is that since I don't have anything with which to base the 1st doctor's skills off of, the second would be more likely to perform a successful surgery.



My guess is that you'll scoff at this example as being ridiculous. However, maybe you'll see the comparison. 1 thing is based completely on faith, another is based on facts. That's why I, as a nonbeliever, would be more willing to trust the 2nd doctor.

And I'd be willing to bet the fundamentalist would prefer the second doctor as well.



Agree

Adam,

What are some of the facts that you have that result in you knowing there is no form of superantural or supernaturals. I assume the other atheists have the same facts.

"Atheists accept only facts" That is from the Australian Atheist Foundation website.

Adam,

What are some of the facts that you have that result in you knowing there is no form of superantural or supernaturals. I assume the other atheists have the same facts.


You keep coming from the wrong angle. See, you can't prove a negative, it is impossible. For example, you can't prove that elves don't exist. You can scour the world for them, and not find any, but does that prove they don't exist? Of course not.

Your line of questioning starts off with a premise, which is that supernaturals exist. Then you ask me to prove you wrong. But, as I mentioned, it is not possible. The way the scientific method works, is you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what you assert. If you want to assert that supernaturals or a god exists, the onus is on you to do so.

I've seen no solid evidence of supernaturals. I've seen no evidence that a god exists. In fact, I've seen evidence that leads me to the contrary.

So, while I can't prove to you that these don't exist, not being able to disprove their existence doesn't, in my mind, suddenly make them more reasonable.

You may see, in your daily life, non-scientific evidence (or what you think is scientific evidence) that backs up your thoughts or beliefs in a god, but so far no one has been able to prove that.


"Atheists accept only facts" That is from the Australian Atheist Foundation website.

Obviously I cannot speak for them. I don't put myself into one category either (atheist versus. secularist versus. humanist, etc). I simply consider myself in the umbrella of non-believers.

Adam,

If someone leaves Australia and arrives in America I can prove no god was involved.

You prove something or someone does not exist or was not involved by showing or demonstrating.

Let me ask you a question. Are you 100% convinced that there has never been any form of supernatural or some being or beings that exist at a level above us etc. Or is your atheism more a statment of position you like to adopt.

If someone leaves Australia and arrives in America I can prove no god was involved.


How? Explain to me how you prove it.


You prove something or someone does not exist or was not involved by showing or demonstrating.


But if someone has unlimited powers, could they not make you see something they want you to see? And if so, how would you ever really know?

Example: Some religious people think the world is only 6000 years old. They reject carbon dating. I've heard it explained as god put bones on the earth and made them appear to be older than 6000 years old to test our faith.

Tell me how you prove these people wrong, because I've tried, and have always gotten the same answer.


Let me ask you a question. Are you 100% convinced that there has never been any form of supernatural or some being or beings that exist at a level above us etc. Or is your atheism more a statment of position you like to adopt.

No, I'm not 100% convinced of that, but it is all based on how you word the question. A "being that exists at a level above us" could be interpreted in far too many ways for me to give you a solid answer based on that.

I'm 100% sure that there is not a god as laid out in the bible. What that means is that after looking at all of the evidence I have before me, I see no logical way such a thing could possibly exist. Therefore, I'm sure.

If the evidence changes, what I am sure of would change.

How? Explain to me how you prove it.



You can see them catch the plane. You could travel with them. Thus it is easy to prove that a god was not what got them from Australia to America




Some religious people think the world is only 6000 years old. They reject carbon dating. I've heard it explained as god put bones on the earth and made them appear to be older than 6000 years old to test our faith.

Tell me how you prove these people wrong, because I've tried, and have always gotten the same answer.



That goes with Adam and Eve who as you know appeared as adults. By the way it is not carbon dating for the real old stuff like dinosaurs etc.

You can't disprove that claim. However, disproving a god or God at the kick off point will knock that claim over. The way to disprove a god or God was involved is the same deal as the trip from Austalia to America.

Atheists often claim we are not born "religious" However, I think it becomes a default position. Its a bit like evolution in the sense that it is easy to see the relationship between different animals so then the gaps are filled in.




No, I'm not 100% convinced of that, but it is all based on how you word the question. A "being that exists at a level above us" could be interpreted in far too many ways for me to give you a solid answer based on that.



Is it possible that there is a being or beings that are well above us or maybe in the past.



I'm 100% sure that there is not a god as laid out in the bible. What that means is that after looking at all of the evidence I have before me, I see no logical way such a thing could possibly exist. Therefore, I'm sure.



I think the Bible has a basis in truth but like other stuff from the long distant past only the general theme will be correct. What I am trying to say is that things happened and the Bible was a response.

Do you believe the earth is the only place in the universe with life like us?

You can see them catch the plane. You could travel with them. Thus it is easy to prove that a god was not what got them from Australia to America

Ah.... but that does not mean a God was not involved.

Planes only fly because the invisible hand of God reaches down from the sky and lifts them up. Everyone knows that a 150 tonne machine cannot possibly get leave the ground.

And why does God do this? Because passengers on the plane sit there praying "God, I hope this thing gets of the ground." Always has been since the Wright Brothers made up the prayer when first got one off to take off.

Anyone who disagrees and is just a faithful to the mystical cult of aerodynamics. You cannot prove that I am wrong.

Sound silly. Well it is no sillier than the idea that it takes faith to disbelieve the idea that God assembled the Universe and everything in it when the maths can be done to show how the think can do it without any supernatural help at all.

Ah.... but that does not mean a God was not involved.

Planes only fly because the invisible hand of God reaches down from the sky and lifts them up. Everyone knows that a 150 tonne machine cannot possibly get leave the ground.

And why does God do this? Because passengers on the plane sit there praying "God, I hope this thing gets of the ground." Always has been since the Wright Brothers made up the prayer when first got one off to take off.

Anyone who disagrees and is just a faithful to the mystical cult of aerodynamics. You cannot prove that I am wrong.



But the plane trip can be repeated at will. If you turn the engines off it will come back to ground every time.

[/quote]

Sound silly. Well it is no sillier than the idea that it takes faith to disbelieve the idea that God assembled the Universe and everything in it when the maths can be done to show how the think can do it without any supernatural help at all.[/quote]

So the answer has been found:D

They don't even know how life started.

They don't even know how life started.

The evidence is mounting for it having started in mineral structures in alkaline vents spouting from fissures in olivine bed rock on the ocean floor.

The structures are similar in scale to biological cells and the chemical processes involved are identical to those in the most fundamental metabolic steps common to absolutely every form of life ever observed on the planet.

The evidence is mounting for it having started in mineral structures in alkaline vents spouting from fissures in olivine bed rock on the ocean floor.

The structures are similar in scale to biological cells and the chemical processes involved are identical to those in the most fundamental metabolic steps common to absolutely every form of life ever observed on the planet.

Do you believe they have the answer, that is, this is not a dead end.

Do you believe they have the answer, that is, this is not a dead end.

Though I am very optimistic that they are on the money with this one it may not be THE exact answer. However I have no doubt it will be something very similar.

The divide between minerals which replicate crystal structures and what we think of as life is a very fuzzy line. I have no problem accepting this was the path that led to life. It makes complete sense.

You can see them catch the plane. You could travel with them. Thus it is easy to prove that a god was not what got them from Australia to America


Galaxiom said pretty much what I was going to regarding this. When you're dealing with people who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who is apparently mischievious, its hard to rule anything out.


You can't disprove that claim. However, disproving a god or God at the kick off point will knock that claim over. The way to disprove a god or God was involved is the same deal as the trip from Austalia to America.


Proof is only proof when people are using some reasonable system to measure it. As the studies/polls I linked earlier showed, and you agreed, the majority of educated people tend to be nonbelievers. This proves to me that education and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The more educated people get, the less religious they tend to be.

Other people could look at the same exact studies/polls and draw completely different conclusions, thus it doesn't prove anything to them. In fact, if they refuse to question their own beliefs/facts, then they won't accept any proof.


Atheists often claim we are not born "religious" However, I think it becomes a default position. Its a bit like evolution in the sense that it is easy to see the relationship between different animals so then the gaps are filled in.


You say easy, I say simplistic. The fact that there have been thousands of different religions throughout history, all which were based around what a society treasured/feared, tells me that religion is a man-made concept.

It would have to either be ignorance or arrogance to think that you've stumbled upon the 1 correct religion and the thousands of other ones were wrong. Which is why, once again, religion and education are at opposite ends. If you actually studied the evidence behind the major religions, you can see where they borrowed from previous religions.


Is it possible that there is a being or beings that are well above us or maybe in the past.


That's still not clear enough. You're going to have to explictly define "well above us". Is it possible that there is alien life out in the universe somewhere that can do things we cannot? I'd wager so. Do I think they use magic to do it? No.


I think the Bible has a basis in truth but like other stuff from the long distant past only the general theme will be correct. What I am trying to say is that things happened and the Bible was a response.


If you get your hands on an original copy of the bible, before it was translated several times and edited on whim, then you could probably find some kernels of truth from a historical perspective.


Do you believe the earth is the only place in the universe with life like us?

I think the odds are against that. With so vast a universe/galaxy, I think it would definitely be plausible that there is intelligent life on another planet somewhere.

Proof is only proof when people are using some reasonable system to measure it. As the studies/polls I linked earlier showed, and you agreed, the majority of educated people tend to be nonbelievers. This proves to me that education and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The more educated people get, the less religious they tend to be.

Other people could look at the same exact studies/polls and draw completely different conclusions, thus it doesn't prove anything to them. In fact, if they refuse to question their own beliefs/facts, then they won't accept any proof.




Your still ignoring the stats I posted that should in your mind "prove" the exact opposite?

And your pretending to be open minded, and others not.

If you cherry pick - you can "prove" whatever you like. This seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from educated too, I wouldn't call you religious however.

It is this kind of circular arguing which leads most scientific organisations to stay well clear of the subject.

As Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and to my mind neither side are able to rule out the others arguments. My default is that a lack of evidence is not evidence others draw other conclusions from that position.

Getting us back to the topic it is my understanding that after some funding Govt and Nasa shied away from SETI and are now coming at reseach into extra terrestrial life from an entirely more appropriate angle and it appears that they are making steady progress.

It would appear
Basic organisms can survive exposure to space and even re-entry
It looks as if some kind of energy gradient is required but that the banding is much larger than previously expected.
That life may be able to construct itself from the most prevalent elements in an environment and need not be solely carbon based.

My cursory reading of the release referred to in the opening topic was that arsenic had been found to have been substituted for another chemical within a living organism which improves the evidence for non carbon based life forms which will inevitably massively increase the likelihood of extra terrrestrial basic life.

If life is all pervasive throughout the Universe at a basic level. The chances of intelligent life are statistically much higher although as stated by the above poster our best calculations still suggest there is only maybe one intelligent life per galaxy. Lots if you count the galaxies but considering our technology completly out of our grasp.

Maybe one day we'll reach them but it would seem far far in our future.

As Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and to my mind neither side are able to rule out the others arguments. My default is that a lack of evidence is not evidence others draw other conclusions from that position.


Many claims have been made throughout history. The Egyptians believed that their pharohs were demi-gods, or gods themselves. We cannot prove that they were wrong, but does that mean we must consider it a reasonable possbility? I think that's the crux of the argument.


It would appear
Basic organisms can survive exposure to space and even re-entry


I forget the name of it, but I recall watching a special about an organism (I want to say it was called "bear" something. It could survive outer space.


If life is all pervasive throughout the Universe at a basic level. The chances of intelligent life are statistically much higher although as stated by the above poster our best calculations still suggest there is only maybe one intelligent life per galaxy. Lots if you count the galaxies but considering our technology completly out of our grasp.


Now, here is the question that ties back into religion. If there is other intelligent life out there, does that invalidate any part of a religion? The Christians believe god made man in his image. Would these other intelligent life forms be less important?

What I think would be the greatest sense of irony would be for another intelligent life form to reach us and they happened to be incredibly religious. Their religion of course would declare how they are the creator's choosen people, etc.

But, as you mentioned, we're likely far away from being able to interact with other intelligent life forms. By the time our technology has progressed to the point where it would be more likely, religion will probably only be taught in history class.

EDIT:


I prefer the Stargate SG-1 take on Egyptian gods....... :eek: (Just a bit of levity)


:p I never watched the series much, but I really liked the Stargate movie that kicked it off. That series had quite the strong following.

Many claims have been made throughout history. The Egyptians believed that their pharohs were demi-gods, or gods themselves. We cannot prove that they were wrong, but does that mean we must consider it a reasonable possbility? I think that's the crux of the argument.

I prefer the Stargate SG-1 take on Egyptian gods....... :eek: (Just a bit of levity)

I think the Bible has a basis in truth but like other stuff from the long distant past only the general theme will be correct. What I am trying to say is that things happened and the Bible was a response.

I could list a huge amount of literary works that deliberately ground their storyline on top of a real context. It is a deliberate technique to make their own work of fiction seem more real.

Harry Potter > Private School > Quidditch matches. The private school acts as a bridge to transport you more smoothly to the land of fantasy.

If you think that there must be some divine truth to the Bible because of it's historical setting then I'm afraid you're just being fooled by this technique.

Let me ask you a question. Are you 100% convinced that there has never been any form of supernatural or some being or beings that exist at a level above us etc. Or is your atheism more a statment of position you like to adopt.
To answer your question I would say that it is likely there are more technically advanced beings than us somewhere in the universe. But I am sure that they are not supernatural. To our ancestors 200 years ago it would have seemed supernatural that we can watch sporting events in Australia while sitting in our homes in Europe. We all know now that this is not supernatural.

To our ancestors 200 years ago it would have seemed supernatural that we can watch sporting events in Australia while sitting in our homes in Europe. We all know now that this is not supernatural.

This is precisely why I don't understand the standpoint that religion is unfathomably illogical. It's actually very logical if you think about it.

I'll explain.

The human mind demands answers to what it doesn't understand. This is it's natural state. It's why good magicians are so fascinating. How did he do that? The mind MUST know how that tiger disappeared.

In absence of knowledge of modern science the mind naturally forms it's own conclusions to fill the gap. To avoid the chaos of not understanding how something works.

It doesn't actually mean the sun is being driven across the sky by a god in a chariot but in absence of technology there is nothing illogical about the step taken to adopt this belief. The alternative is a chaotic world where fantastically structured events occur for no reason.

People who scoff at the religious (not you) as uneducated irk me for this reason. They enjoy the luxury of what we know today and ignore the context of the role that religion played. It's a natural step of the mind to rationalize the unfathomable structure of what it perceives.

Though I am very optimistic that they are on the money with this one it may not be THE exact answer. However I have no doubt it will be something very similar.

The divide between minerals which replicate crystal structures and what we think of as life is a very fuzzy line. I have no problem accepting this was the path that led to life. It makes complete sense.

Interesting. I was searching the internet a couple of weeks ago on the subject.

I have often thought if the conditions for life existed then it would commence.

[quote]

Proof is only proof when people are using some reasonable system to measure it. As the studies/polls I linked earlier showed, and you agreed, the majority of educated people tend to be nonbelievers. This proves to me that education and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The more educated people get, the less religious they tend to be.



That is 100% certain for "religion" but not so sure with atheism Vs "something out there" I think the percentage of the population that is true atheist is quite low.



You say easy, I say simplistic. The fact that there have been thousands of different religions throughout history, all which were based around what a society treasured/feared, tells me that religion is a man-made concept.



"religion" is a different matter to "something out there". Religions are the man made manifestation of the "something out there". There are even heaps of versions of the same basic religion, Christianity being a good example.




That's still not clear enough. You're going to have to explictly define "well above us". Is it possible that there is alien life out in the universe somewhere that can do things we cannot? I'd wager so. Do I think they use magic to do it? No.



Do you think the speed of light can be exceeded?

To a chemist in 1800 a nuclear reaction would have been superanatural.

Can a very advances species bend or change the laws of nature.





If you get your hands on an original copy of the bible, before it was translated several times and edited on whim, then you could probably find some kernels of truth from a historical perspective.


I think the odds are against that. With so vast a universe/galaxy, I think it would definitely be plausible that there is intelligent life on another planet somewhere.

And who knows, that form of life could have been responsible for the Bible. By that, i don't mean writing the Bible but causing events that led to the Bible being written.

And no, i am not referring to The Chaiots of the Gods. That was full of holes.

If life is all pervasive throughout the Universe at a basic level. The chances of intelligent life are statistically much higher although as stated by the above poster our best calculations still suggest there is only maybe one intelligent life per galaxy. Lots if you count the galaxies but considering our technology completly out of our grasp.

Maybe one day we'll reach them but it would seem far far in our future.

If it turns out to be only one per galaxy then I am grabbing the Bible and going to church to do my confession.:D

Maybe there is one God per galaxy?

I could list a huge amount of literary works that deliberately ground their storyline on top of a real context. It is a deliberate technique to make their own work of fiction seem more real.

Harry Potter > Private School > Quidditch matches. The private school acts as a bridge to transport you more smoothly to the land of fantasy.

If you think that there must be some divine truth to the Bible because of it's historical setting then I'm afraid you're just being fooled by this technique.

No technique to what I am referring to, just poor detail or detail lost.

As I have posted before, the dinosaurs are a good example. I have followed that subject with great interest all of my life and it changes all the time. But is is reasonable to say if we could go back a 100 million years then the animals we would see would be very reptile looking and with a much larger average size than todays animals. Just the othe day I posted an article from Science Daily where the new thinking is certain small theropods descended from birds, which is the exact opposite of what we have had in the last 30 years or so. But if that is true it does not change the basics of the land a 100 million years ago being rules by reptile like animals.

To answer your question I would say that it is likely there are more technically advanced beings than us somewhere in the universe. But I am sure that they are not supernatural. To our ancestors 200 years ago it would have seemed supernatural that we can watch sporting events in Australia while sitting in our homes in Europe. We all know now that this is not supernatural.

Same response as I posted to Adam.

Dan-Cat, Thank you for your response. To me you have give a very good explantion of why humans have devised religion as a way of explaining that which we cannot at present explain. However this does not make me accept the idea of a supernatural god.

To clarify my position as regards religion I was brought up as a Christian and I agree with those teachings about loving your neighbour. The stumbling block for me is what I call the divine bit. I cannot believe in a supernatural deity without seeing any evidence at all for this.

No technique to what I am referring to, just poor detail or detail lost.

As I have posted before, the dinosaurs are a good example. I have followed that subject with great interest all of my life and it changes all the time. But is is reasonable to say if we could go back a 100 million years then the animals we would see would be very reptile looking and with a much larger average size than todays animals.
That's what I would expect as the dinosaur period still had 35 million years to go

This is precisely why I don't understand the standpoint that religion is unfathomably illogical. It's actually very logical if you think about it.

I'll explain.

The human mind demands answers to what it doesn't understand. This is it's natural state. It's why good magicians are so fascinating. How did he do that? The mind MUST know how that tiger disappeared.

And which is why the "something out there" is our default position as opposed to atheists who say religion only exists because a child is taught.

In absence of knowledge of modern science the mind naturally forms it's own conclusions to fill the gap. To avoid the chaos of not understanding how something works.



Agree.




It doesn't actually mean the sun is being driven across the sky by a god in a chariot but in absence of technology there is nothing illogical about the step taken to adopt this belief. The alternative is a chaotic world where fantastically structured events occur for no reason.

Agree.



People who scoff at the religious (not you) as uneducated irk me for this reason. They enjoy the luxury of what we know today and ignore the context of the role that religion played. It's a natural step of the mind to rationalize the unfathomable structure of what it perceives.



And at the moment a supernatural or supernaturals is the only answer to how all this started.

That "supernatural" might also be a set of laws that will never be available to us.

Consider a group of aliens arrive on earth not long after man has wiped himself out. These aliens are missing the sense of sight and have never had the sense of sight. Just imagine all the weird ideas they would come up with the explain "glass inserts" in the middle of steel and/or concrete or computer monitors. However, if they suddencly gained the sense of sight then the whole mystery would fall into place.

To clarify my position as regards religion I was brought up as a Christian and I agree with those teachings about loving your neighbour. The stumbling block for me is what I call the divine bit. I cannot believe in a supernatural deity without seeing any evidence at all for this.

I guess it comes down to what each of accept as evidence.

For me, one part of the evidence (or at least a strong suggestion) is just the fact that the earth is the right distance from the sun, the right size etc. and etc., you have heard all of them before.:)

The chances of a solar system forming in this way must be incredible odds, I magine a 1 followed by lots and lots of noughts.

I guess it comes down to what each of accept as evidence.


Exactly. I think that is it.


For me, one part of the evidence (or at least a strong suggestion) is just the fact that the earth is the right distance from the sun, the right size etc. and etc., you have heard all of them before.:)


But, odds are irrelevant after the fact. Its like if I win the lottery, then claim I was never destined to live a simple life. I'm an elite person who deserves all the best things life has to offer. My evidence? The fact that I won the lottery. Its a form of circular reasoning.

Or, in another way, it would be like saying "Of all the planets in this galaxy, what are the odds I'd end up born on Earth?" Well, if Earth was the only planet in the galaxy capable of supporting life, the odds are 1 to 1.

And at the moment a supernatural or supernaturals is the only answer to how all this started.


I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

The logic is flawed.

Its like children believing in Santa. The evidence with which they are presented supports their belief taking into consideration their understanding of the world at a particular point in time. As they grow older and understand the world better they understand the inconsistencies and see how it is actually built on dozens of mistruths and fables.

Just because you cannot comprehend any other explanation does not make your explanation the truth.

Again I say

A lack of evidence is not proof of a theory.

No technique to what I am referring to, just poor detail or detail lost.

I think you'll find the Bible to be incredibly detailed, down to the name and number of how many apostles there were. This is what happens when a story is written to make it more believable.

But if that is true it does not change the basics of the land a 100 million years ago being rules by reptile like animals.

and the basics for the myriad of religions is the human mind's reaction to the inexplicable. The notion of the supernatural which is then embellished by skilled writers who borrow from and add to previous lyrical devices.

If you want to argue that an idiosyncrasy of the human mind is good grounding for the existence of the supernatural then I wish you good luck with that.

And which is why the "something out there" is our default position as opposed to atheists who say religion only exists because a child is taught.

Yes. I don't think you can put down the mind's demands for instant conclusions to nurture. The fascination over a magician's slight of hand isn't taught.


And at the moment a supernatural or supernaturals is the only answer to how all this started.

I understand what you are saying but our mind's "stop-gap" reaction doesn't bear much relevance to what actually is.

I think you'll find the Bible to be incredibly detailed, down to the name and number of how many apostles there were. This is what happens when a story is written to make it more believable.



Perhaps I should have said "accuracy of details"

There is enough detailed literature on dinosaurs but the details lack accuracy. But whether birds and dinosaurs are related or whether dinosaurs are warm or cold blooded etc. and etc. and etc. and etc. any reasonable person would say none of those "details" will mean there were not large reptile like animals walking about the place.



This is what happens when a story is written to make it more believable.



But if it was written in a way just to make it believable then why all the contradictions. Why so many parts of the book indicate a god of limited power and knowledge.

However this does not make me accept the idea of a supernatural god.

It wasn't meant to. It was an attempt to reject the claims of some that the adoption of theism is an absurdity.

Non-believers are always keen contributors to these kind of discussions. Why? Because their minds demand answers too and the rejection of theism is simply part of their process of elimination in their search for them.

But, odds are irrelevant after the fact. Its like if I win the lottery, then claim I was never destined to live a simple life. I'm an elite person who deserves all the best things life has to offer. My evidence? The fact that I won the lottery. Its a form of circular reasoning.

Or, in another way, it would be like saying "Of all the planets in this galaxy, what are the odds I'd end up born on Earth?" Well, if Earth was the only planet in the galaxy capable of supporting life, the odds are 1 to 1.

I can't think of the name but there is a theory that covers that. Along the lines if it did not happen then we would not be here to observe.

But lets come from another angle. Someone post on the Access forum:

1) They just started learning Access a couple of weeks ago

2) Their post indicates a lot more, a real lot more knowledge than would be gained in two weeks.

Do assume they are someone with a super special gift for Access that worked 24 hours non stop for the 2 weeks OR do assume their post was written by someone else or the are lying about only starting 2 weeks ago.

The odds of the first scenario being the case is extremely remote, millions to one, so it is not the assumption you work on.

Back to the mother earth. The way i see it there are 3 basic ways we came to be here

1) Pure chance. Can't see it. Just too many things have to come together.

2) Some being or beings at work

3) Something with laws within the universe of which we have no idea.

2 and 3 would be the locgical choices and who knows, maybe 2 and 3 are related to each other.

I could see "chance" if there were thousands of planets in the solar system with a rock like structure (as opposed to the gas planets like Jupiter) and one every few million miles apart in their orbit.

I understand what you are saying but our mind's "stop-gap" reaction doesn't bear much relevance to what actually is.

Agree.

However, atheism is an unatural position which is why I say mots atheists have that as a preferred public position.

Any by atheism I mean....no form of supernaturals, superior beings etc and etc. many atheists are not true atheists as they are only eliminating the Bible and similar.

We should have all this solved by Christmas day. I had better get Stephen Hawking's email address so I can send him the solution:D

But if it was written in a way just to make it believable then why all the contradictions. Why so many parts of the book indicate a god of limited power and knowledge.

It's been rehashed many times to suit it's current audience but it hasn't been completely rewritten out of "reverence" from the preceding original. This explains the combination of contradictions and lyrical detail (eg. five fishes and two loaves)

Did you know that the King James version used the term "hell" for three different words from the text it was translated from? A deliberate political attempt to fabricate a singular concept that was never actually written about whilst "holding" to the original text.

Exactly. I think that is it.



But, odds are irrelevant after the fact. Its like if I win the lottery, then claim I was never destined to live a simple life. I'm an elite person who deserves all the best things life has to offer. My evidence? The fact that I won the lottery. Its a form of circular reasoning.

Or, in another way, it would be like saying "Of all the planets in this galaxy, what are the odds I'd end up born on Earth?" Well, if Earth was the only planet in the galaxy capable of supporting life, the odds are 1 to 1.


No, the odds are 1 in 1 because if youu had not been born on Earth, then "you" would not have been "you". Just as the odds of you having been born of your mother and father, as opposed to having been born of another set, are 1 in 1 since genetics play an absolute role in your conception and a large role in everything else you are.

It's been rehashed many times to suit it's current audience but it hasn't been completely rewritten out of "reverence" from the preceding original. This explains the combination of contradictions and lyrical detail (eg. five fishes and two loaves)

Did you know that the King James version used the term "hell" for three different words from the text it was translated from? A deliberate political attempt to fabricate a singular concept that was never actually written about whilst "holding" to the original text.

Or to point out another, did Judas hang himself of dash his bowels out with a sword? It all depends on which text you are reading at the time.

Did you know that the King James version used the term "hell" for three different words from the text it was translated from? A deliberate political attempt to fabricate a singular concept that was never actually written about whilst "holding" to the original text.

I have never studied the book that closely. I am aware that there can be different translations for words and phrases in the book.

One part of the book that has interested me is book of Job and reference to what some say is an elephant and a crodile but the description does not match. The bit about "a tail like a cedar" does not go with elephant but I remember reading that the translation to get to "cedar" was a bit of a variable.

I have always been interested in people such as medical specialists that can be religious right up to and including the 'born again" level. My only "answer" is they see something I don't see. Much the same as I see "telepathy or whatever" as sure as the sun rose this morning in Australia.

I am not sure about the US or UK but in Australia the medical specialist would have the highest level of tertiary education of anyone. First up he has about 7 years for his MBBS which allows him to be a GP then another 7 to 9 years (that is 99% of them) to get to Fellow of Royal Australian College of "fill in the gap"

However, I have never come across a "staff specialist" that is any more than "something out there" and most are closer to atheist or atheist. My only answer to that is the private practice bloke has to climb some extra high mountains and maybe that journey causes him to develop a faith.

Or to point out another, did Judas hang himself of dash his bowels out with a sword? It all depends on which text you are reading at the time.

But is the basic story right and just the method open to debate or translation.

No, the odds are 1 in 1 because if youu had not been born on Earth, then "you" would not have been "you". Just as the odds of you having been born of your mother and father, as opposed to having been born of another set, are 1 in 1 since genetics play an absolute role in your conception and a large role in everything else you are.

Try another way.

If another solar system is discovered tomorrow what are the odds that there will be a planet like earth, that is, the right size, distance from its sun etc.

But is the basic story right and just the method open to debate or translation.

I have no idea. I was not there nor have I found any independent corraborating evidence.

The Judas story reminds me of when I first started questioning the Christian beliefs. I was sitting in church listening to a Baptist preacher give a sermon. He stated that people can prove anything they want from the Bible if they take pieces out of context. He used as an example the verse that says that Judas went out and hanged himself, coupled with another verse elsewhere that says "Go thou, and do likewise" ,"proving" that the Bible condones suicide. His point was to be very careful not to take things out of context. Very good advice indeed! But then I started listening to his sermons and realizing that is exactly what he and all the other preachers I heard were doing - taking small passages and "proving" their religious points from them.

Now, by that time I had read the Bible from cover to cover quite a few times with the blinders on that had been provided from my upbringing as a Southern Baptist. But the next time I read it as if it were the first time I had ever seen it or heard of it. The problems with the two different Gods, purported to be the same one, of the old and new testaments, the lack of cohesiveness of the Gospels, the sheer fantasies of Isaiah and John the Revelator, and so much more jumped out at me and slapped me in the face. It was still years before I was ready to accept for myself that the Bible was a compilation of folk tales instead of the Absolutely Accurate and Unalterable Word of God. It took even more years before I became what I am now... a true agnostic. I don't believe in the God of either bible. I don't know if there is anything like a supreme being or beings. I reserve my judgement on that because there are just so many things unknowable at this point, such as the origin of the universe, where did that "origin" come from, etc. I have an open mind but a skeptical one that does not accept any of man's present religions as fact.

Try another way.

If another solar system is discovered tomorrow what are the odds that there will be a planet like earth, that is, the right size, distance from its sun etc.

The chances are 100% that it would be the same (but close to 0% chance that we could discover it tomorrow) since by it's very definition there is only one solar system, that is the one we live in, since Sol is the name of our sun (star). Another planetary system around another star would bear another name.

The Judas story reminds me of when I first started questioning the Christian beliefs. I was sitting in church listening to a Baptist preacher give a sermon. He stated that people can prove anything they want from the Bible if they take pieces out of context. He used as an example the verse that says that Judas went out and hanged himself, coupled with another verse elsewhere that says "Go thou, and do likewise" ,"proving" that the Bible condones suicide. His point was to be very careful not to take things out of context. Very good advice indeed! But then I started listening to his sermons and realizing that is exactly what he and all the other preachers I heard were doing - taking small passages and "proving" their religious points from them

I have seen similar with "born agains" I know.

I seem to remember that someone who is the real Jesus follower has a duty to spread the word. Is that correct?

I have seen similar with "born agains" I know.

I seem to remember that someone who is the real Jesus follower has a duty to spread the word. Is that correct?
You bet. Jesus's supposed last word on Earth was "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." which true proselytes take as the mandate to "save" everyone. Been there, done that. I was a true "Jesus Freak" in the 70's so I know. I wonder why they leave out the "every creature" part and don't preach to cows and bedbugs...

The chances are 100% that it would be the same (but close to 0% chance that we could discover it tomorrow) since by it's very definition there is only one solar system, that is the one we live in, since Sol is the name of our sun (star). Another planetary system around another star would bear another name.

Lets not worry about what it is called.

We will assume tomorrow there are 100 systems discovered whereby planets orbit a star.

1) How much money would you bet that 1 of the 100 has a planet with a setup like earth, that is, where life as we know could happily exist

2) How much money would you bet that none of the 100 systems have a setup like earth etc.

You bet. Jesus's supposed last word on Earth was "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." which true proselytes take as the mandate to "save" everyone. Been there, done that. I was a true "Jesus Freak" in the 70's so I know. I wonder why they leave out the "every creature" part and don't preach to cows and bedbugs...

I sold insurance for most of life, up until a couple of years ago. The medical specialists and dentists that I know (insurance clients) who are 'born agains" were extremely keen to convert me from a believer in telepathy type matters and "something out there" to the born again. They figured an insurance salesman was ideal for the job.:)

The one part of the "born again" where I have never got a reasonable answer from these blokes is...God knew before I was born whether I would go to Hell or Heaven...so if I can change the outcome then He was not all knowing....

So why do anything about it. :eek:

but assuming for the exercise that the Bible is basically accurate, to me it portrays a god of limited power and knowledge.

One hundred planetary systems is not a statistically significant sample in a universe with in the order of 10^22 stars. The odds of there being only one with a planetary system including a rocky planet like Earth are vanishinly small.

The latest theories of the nature of reality suggest there may be more universes than the number of stars in our own.

An once again. The odds of life being observed by life only on a planet where life is possible are 1:1.

I sold insurance for most of life, up until a couple of years ago. The medical specialists and dentists that I know (insurance clients) who are 'born agains" were extremely keen to convert me from a believer in telepathy type matters and "something out there" to the born again. They figured an insurance salesman was ideal for the job.:)

The one part of the "born again" where I have never got a reasonable answer from these blokes is...God knew before I was born whether I would go to Hell or Heaven...so if I can change the outcome then He was not all knowing....

So why do anything about it. :eek:

but assuming for the exercise that the Bible is basically accurate, to me it portrays a god of limited power and knowledge.

Yes, "Free-will" vs "Predestination" has always been a sticking point in Christianity. Whole sects have been and are based on it. Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower) are predestinationists.

Here is a question for the Christians reading this: Do you believe you are going to heaven when you die?

One hundred planetary systems is not a statistically significant sample in a universe with in the order of 10^22 stars. The odds of there being only one with a planetary system including a rocky planet like Earth are vanishinly small.

The latest theories of the nature of reality suggest there may be more universes than the number of stars in our own.

An once again. The odds of life being observed by life only on a planet where life is possible are 1:1.

1:1 is after the event

It is harder being an atheist than I ever imagined

Yes, "Free-will" vs "Predestination" has always been a sticking point in Christianity. Whole sects have been and are based on it. Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower) are predestinationists.

With an all knowing God there can only be "Predestination"

Whoever, whatever.....that moves to a different position can only be because "it/he/she is not all knowing.

One hundred planetary systems is not a statistically significant sample in a universe with in the order of 10^22 stars. The odds of there being only one with a planetary system including a rocky planet like Earth are vanishinly small.



Is that a mathematical way of saying Fuck All

We need to to get the numbers correct.

How are the numbers for all of the galaxies.

Still seems to come up with Fuck All

In short......no one will bet on finding "an earth"

Case closed:D

1:1 is after the event.

Exactly. The observation of life only happens after the event by living creatures. There are no non-lifeforms observing our existence or their own non-existence. That is why the observer always finds itself in a place that lets life exist regardless of how uniely their origin might be.

In short......no one will bet on finding "an earth".

Given the distances to even the nearest stars in our own galaxy and the immense diffence in size between a star and planets it is truly remarkable that any have been found at all.

There is obviously no chance of finding any planets around 99.999999999999999 percent of stars in the Universe and even less of finding small rocky ones.

However an intelligent lifeform on one of those other maybe millions of Earth-like planets would be just as aware of their own existence as we are here. And like us here they would have no way of seeing the other planets that support life.

Not being able to see the other "Earths" does not mean they don't exist. It certainly does not mean that we exist only through the intervention of "something out there".

Exactly. The observation of life only happens after the event by living creatures. There are no non-lifeforms observing our existence or their own non-existence. That is why the observer always finds itself in a place that lets life exist regardless of how uniely their origin might be.

The 1:1 after the event is like.....God works in mysterious ways....:D

Do you actually believe what you typed? :D

Read it back to yourself:)



Given the distances to even the nearest stars in our own galaxy and the immense diffence in size between a star and planets it is truly remarkable that any have been found at all.

So that would mean there are millions of planets?





There is obviously no chance of finding any planets around 99.999999999999999 percent of stars in the Universe and even less of finding small rocky ones.



Why do you give up on science so easily.

You appear to be saying that current technology is here for all time.

You have accepted the speed of light is a barrier...forever..?


However an intelligent lifeform on one of those other maybe millions of Earth-like planets would be just as aware of their own existence as we are here. And like us here they would have no way of seeing the other planets that support life.



How do you know?

You definitely are locked into the speed of light barrier.

There will be no adventurous science coming from you. But that is understandable as the atheist need facts:)

Do you actually believe what you typed? :D

Believe is maybe not the best word - using scietific method - any position is your best conclusion based on the information. Galaxioms reading and knowledge suggest this so it is his conclusion at this point in time.


So that would mean there are millions of planets?

Yes


Why do you give up on science so easily.

You appear to be saying that current technology is here for all time.

You have accepted the speed of light is a barrier...forever..?

I see nothing in what G wrote that indicates that he has given up on science quite the reverse. As for the speed of light being a barrier. He only says that because some very intelligent people have figured it out. Maybe its not correct but a lot of devices are built on principles that require it to be a constant. Suggests that its correct.


There will be no adventurous science coming from you. But that is understandable as the atheist need facts:)

Theoretical physics concerning the speed of light is one of man's greatest achievements which has taken 2,000 years to develop. Einstein certainly didn't reach it by jumping to conclusions and I would suggest you would be well advised to do the same.

It was also not accepted until proven by experimental and factual evidence.

Science requires an incredible amount of imagination - for the best part of 1900 years the majority of people didn't event think to imagine there might be an upper limit - that we lived in a universe that was so unbelievably large or that there could be things like electricity devices that fly through the air or that anything other than humans would be able to add numbers together.

The starting point of science can be the questionning of existing principles but it rarely involves throwing out what appears to be fundamental principles proven by the application of widescale technology.

Well said Lightwave.

Those of us who actually understand the nature and significance of the speed of light realise it isn't just a speed like a bullet or a space ship. It can't even be considered in terms of a barrier because it is a fundamental characteristic of SpaceTime. Anyone who thinks of it as a barrier doesn't even have a clue.

Indeed c is the ONLY speed in our Universe. "Stationary" objects move continuously at the speed of light in the direction of time. Any motion through space is subtracted from this speed through time.

It is not even complicated or adventurous to understand this. Pythagoras had the required maths. I think it was Einstein who said that the ultimate truth will be so simple it could be understood by a child.

But those with preconceived agenda about there being "something out there" are unlikely to ever have the capacity to grasp the truth.

I have been an amateur theoretical physicist for over three decades and I assure you it is far more adventurous a sphere of thinking than those who consider the musings of stone age goat herders are still at the cutting edge.

Posted by Pauldohert but apparently deleted. I pasted this from the email alert.

Why are atheists on these boards so dissmissive of religion - when someone like Einstein clearly was not?
http://einsteinandreligion.com/

Because science is not a personality cult.

Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics yet it is the most successful theory of all time (right up there with Darwin's Evolution). As much respect as he gets for Relativity it does not transfer to other fields.

Religion is based on "prophets", anointed leaders and unquestioned dogma. The prophets and anointed leaders can be shows to be bigots, (and often pedophiles).

In science nothing and nobody is beyond critique. If it doens't fit the observation the reputation of those who back it means nothing.

As cool as some of the ideas attributed to Jesus may be he is reported as backing the hideous Old Testament. Those who follow "the ways of the Lord" are zombies, constantly vulnerable to being conducted by the high preists of doctrine to engage in the worst of human degeneration. Personality cults are objectively flawed.

IT shows massive arrogance and ignorance to me.
I can see the answer coming back - that organised religion, in a hard coded format wasn't anywhere near Einsteins thing either. We know that, and to be honest I reckon most religious folk, dont operate on that level either. Its just that's easy introducation for the 6 years olds, or a framework to start from/
So why do atheists here insist on debating on the six year old religiuos story telling religion stuff, but also then dismiss all other religiuos beleif, as the fumblings of the uneducated?

Religion is enhanced by the age of the story. The older it is and the more often it is repeated the more reliable it is considered. Observations of reality do not even rate and any conflict is ignored.

In contrast a scientific theory that conlicts with observation must be immediately abandonned or reconstructed. This reconstruction is not the weakness as accused by the religious but science's central strength.

Only an idiot would expect the 3000 year old story to be more reliable.

Posted by Pauldohert but apparently deleted. I pasted this from the email alert.



Because science is not a personality cult.

Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics yet it is the most successful theory of all time (right up there with Darwin's Evolution). As much respect as he gets for Relativity it does not transfer to other fields.

Religion is based on "prophets", anointed leaders and unquestioned dogma. The prophets and anointed leaders can be shows to be bigots, (and often pedophiles).

In science nothing and nobody is beyond critique. If it doens't fit the observation the reputation of those who back it means nothing.

As cool as some of the ideas attributed to Jesus may be he is reported as backing the hideous Old Testament. Those who follow "the ways of the Lord" are zombies, constantly vulnerable to being conducted by the high preists of doctrine to engage in the worst of human degeneration. Personality cults are objectively flawed.



Religion is enhanced by the age of the story. The older it is and the more often it is repeated the more reliable it is considered. Observations of reality do not even rate and any conflict is ignored.

In contrast a scientific theory that conlicts with observation must be immediately abandonned or reconstructed. This reconstruction is not the weakness as accused by the religious but science's central strength.

Only an idiot would expect the 3000 year old story to be more reliable.

I started a new thread - and with respect - you didn't begin to answer my question, just roled on with the usual incredibly simplified and polemic organised religion stuff again.

I started a new thread - and with respect - you didn't begin to answer my question, just roled on with the usual incredibly simplified and polemic organised religion stuff again.

Rubbish. You asked why atheists dismiss religion when someone like Einstein was a believer.

Originally Posted by GalaxiomAtHome http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1026324#post1026324)
Because science is not a personality cult.

Rubbish. You asked why atheists dismiss religion when someone like Einstein was a believer.

Originally Posted by GalaxiomAtHome http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1026324#post1026324)
Because science is not a personality cult.

A simple reading of what I posted and the links and its very obvious thats not what I asked or said.

As usual you have simplified it, so you can give a simplistic answer. Why you feel the need to deal with it so simplistically is the question, when someone like Einstein is nowhere near as simplistic or dismissive?

You are repeating the observed behaviour though, which prompted the question in the first place.

You seemed to have just tried a little dismissing of Einstein as an educational lightweight also?

Well said Lightwave.

Those of us who actually understand the nature and significance of the speed of light realise it isn't just a speed like a bullet or a space ship. It can't even be considered in terms of a barrier because it is a fundamental characteristic of SpaceTime. Anyone who thinks of it as a barrier doesn't even have a clue.



But isn't it a barrier in the sense that the speed of light can't be reached because the body would become infinitetely heavy and thus require an infinite force.

In the past if you presented to a scientist the idea that the mass would be less after a reaction, would he have said that is impossible.

The 1:1 after the event is like.....God works in mysterious ways....:D


No, its not. Reread what he wrote. Then think about it. Then reread it again.

Odds are determined by taking the possibility in question dividied by all possibilities. The odds for rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die are 1 in 6, for example.

Now, if you ask a question like "What are odds of rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die on a planet where dice have never existed", then odds are 0. The planet where dice do not exist would not be included in the calculation.

In contrast a scientific theory that conlicts with observation must be immediately abandonned or reconstructed. This reconstruction is not the weakness as accused by the religious but science's central strength.

Only an idiot would expect the 3000 year old story to be more reliable.

It is a weakness within the debate.

History shows that "definite" statements of the day have to be changed at a later date.

Are you prepared to state now.....that the speed of light will never be exceeded. And just to be clear, if an object is 10 light years from earth will ever a point come where that distance can be covered in less than 10 years.

No, its not. Reread what he wrote. Then think about it. Then reread it again.

Odds are determined by taking the possibility in question dividied by all possibilities. The odds for rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die are 1 in 6, for example.

Now, if you ask a question like "What are odds of rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die on a planet where dice have never existed", then odds are 0. The planet where dice do not exist would not be included in the calculation.

Let's try again.

We will assume methods of observation improve so it can be clearly established what any planets were like that were found orbiting a star. It would not be long before betting agencies offered bets on finding an earth like planet and odds would be given and you can bet the odds would be enormous.:)

It is a weakness within the debate.


Could you explain why? I would think the fact that science is willing to change as the facts change would be a strength. Its what makes it logical, and easy for anyone to follow.

Science basically says: "These are things we know. We know them because we can prove them."

Religion says: "These are the things we know. We know them because this book written 1800+ years ago says so."

Something out there says: "Uh, there's something out there."

Edit:


I guess it comes down to what each of accept as evidence.

For me, one part of the evidence (or at least a strong suggestion) is just the fact that the earth is the right distance from the sun, the right size etc. and etc., you have heard all of them before.:)

The chances of a solar system forming in this way must be incredible odds, I magine a 1 followed by lots and lots of noughts.


So, what you accept as evidence is the fact that we're here in the first place. That's what I am referring to above.


The likelihood of there being another planet capable of sustaining life is high IMO. But the fact that we happen to be on one does not mean we drew the "planet capable of sustaining life" lottery ticket, which is what you seem to be implying.

Here is a question for the Christians reading this: Do you believe you are going to heaven when you die?

I am Christian by birth/school but not a practicing one.

I am inclined to think once we die that is the end of the deal. I am fairly conviced that there is some force or something/being/beings above us but they don't have the horsepower to pull off the life after death for us, at least on a bulk deal:) Its like we are dealing with the branch manager only.

At the same time I don't think we are the same as the other animals on earth.

Could you explain why? I would think the fact that science is willing to change as the facts change would be a strength. Its what makes it logical, and easy for anyone to follow.



Its a weakness in the debate because the science changes. In other words you might state you are an atheist based on certain science but yo basis could be changed if the science changes.

[/quote]
So, what you accept as evidence is the fact that we're here in the first place. That's what I am referring to above.

The likelihood of there being another planet capable of sustaining life is high IMO. But the fact that we happen to be on one does not mean we drew the "planet capable of sustaining life" lottery ticket, which is what you seem to be implying.[/quote]

No, I am saying the odds of another earth like planet being "out there" are low in the extreme.

To come at it another way do you agree we are here for one of two reasons

1) Intervention by some supernatural/being/beings or intelligent design if you like.

2) By chance

Its a weakness in the debate because the science changes. In other words you might state you are an atheist based on certain science but yo basis could be changed if the science changes.


That's what makes it a strength. Its scary that you think it a weakness to admit you're wrong when you're proven wrong.


No, I am saying the odds of another earth like planet being "out there" are low in the extreme.


I won't use the word "odds" because I don't think you still understand the meaning. The likelihood of there being another planet somewhere in outer space capable of sustaining life is high to me.



To come at it another way do you agree we are here for one of two reasons

1) Intervention by some supernatural/being/beings or intelligent design if you like.

2) By chance

I'd say 2, by chance.

That's what makes it a strength. Its scary that you think it a weakness to admit you're wrong when you're proven wrong.



Not at all. It's a weakness for the debate on that side. You are standing on shifting sand. Admitting some science is wrong and a new plan is released is of course a strength of science but because the science is not static then basing the debate on some science is standing on shifting sand.



I won't use the word "odds" because I don't think you still understand the meaning. The likelihood of there being another planet somewhere in outer space capable of sustaining life is high to me.




I'd say 2, by chance.

"Odds" are only a way of putting a number on chance.

If I said to you "what are the chances that life exists on Mars" surely you might say either

1) No chance or
2) Extremely low or
3) etc and up the scale

Would you agree that NASA won't spend money looking for any signs of life on Mercury or Jupiter. We know they won't spend the money because the odds of some form of life being there are about as close to zero as you get. However they will try with Mars because the "odds" are seen as at least reasonable.

Let's say a new star/planet system is formed tomorrow. Then how high or low are the chances that there will be a planet like earth formed in the process.

Not at all. It's a weakness for the debate on that side. You are standing on shifting sand. Admitting some science is wrong and a new plan is released is of course a strength of science but because the science is not static then basing the debate on some science is standing on shifting sand.


What would you consider static, then? There have been a ton of religions, so is religion static? Is the bible static? There's an Old and New Testament, so I'd guess not. Is "there's something out there" static? I suppose it could be since it is incredibly vague and there are no specifics to it.

But is that then a strength? That would be like attributing strength to a fortune teller who gives overly-generic "predicitions" that could be correct when interpreted under a certain light.

Science never claims to have all the answers, so I wouldn't think it would be a weakness in a debate.


"Odds" are only a way of putting a number on chance.

If I said to you "what are the chances that life exists on Mars" surely you might say either

1) No chance or
2) Extremely low or
3) etc and up the scale


I might say one of those. Could you tell me the odds, then? (I noticed you changed to the word "chances" now).


Would you agree that NASA won't spend money looking for any signs of life on Mercury or Jupiter. We know they won't spend the money because the odds of some form of life being there are about as close to zero as you get. However they will try with Mars because the "odds" are seen as at least reasonable.


You're using the word "odds" in a slang sort of way. Odds are based on probability. Generally, you have to know all the information about a situtation before you can calculate the odds.

Example, you can calculate the odds of hitting the lottery (1 in 100,000,000). Because you can be that precise, the word "odds" carries more meaning to it then say, the word chance or likelihood.

What would you consider static, then? There have been a ton of religions, so is religion static? Is the bible static? There's an Old and New Testament, so I'd guess not. Is "there's something out there" static? I suppose it could be since it is incredibly vague and there are no specifics to it.



There are a couple of points you are forgetting.

Firstly, the "religions" are just man made manifestations of a belief in "something must be out there". You could think of the religions being like what we would make in Access. Even if you and I were given the same instructions as to what was required we would go about making the program differently but Access would be the foundation.

The debate we are having on this thread is not whether Jesus pulled off a few miracles or whether Christianity is correct or Islam or the Catholic church etc. Pauldohert has basically outlined that in the thread he started.

Secondly, the argument from the atheist side is science based and with the associated claim it is fact based. Therein lies the problem because the science is changing. I know it is very hard for an atheist to be hypothetical but just for this exercies.....let's assume the dating methods used turn out to be wrong, very wrong. Then immediately any atheist using dating to support and argument has had the floor pulled from under him


I might say one of those. Could you tell me the odds, then? (I noticed you changed to the word "chances" now).



I had to since you seem to have trouble with "odds"




You're using the word "odds" in a slang sort of way. Odds are based on probability. Generally, you have to know all the information about a situtation before you can calculate the odds.

Example, you can calculate the odds of hitting the lottery (1 in 100,000,000). Because you can be that precise, the word "odds" carries more meaning to it then say, the word chance or likelihood.



But you don't need exact numbers to know if the "odds/chances" are very low or very high etc.

Take two examples and using the 100 metre sprint for men. If you are attempting to pick the winner from an Olympic final then as you say yo would need as much data as possible...current form, weather and whatever else.

But let's say I have been allowed to enter the race. All you need to know is I am 62 and thus the odds/chances of me winning are virtually zero. On the other hand the odds/chances of me running last are virtually 100%. About the only thing that would cause an upset is for some reason none of the rest of the field could finish the race or alternatively they were all disqualied.

Let me go just a bit further.

Would you agree if either none of the rest of the field finished the race or they were all disqualified then something strange has happened. Why strange. Because the odds/chances of the rest of the field not finishing or all being disqualifed is virtually 0%. In fact the odds/chances are so low that initially it would be discounted and officials would look for something more than odds/chance. Perhaps there was betting on the race and odds on me were 10,000 to 1 and so possible monetary reasons are why none of the others finished the race or were all disqualified.

And so it is with the formation of the earth and its life. The odds/chances of a star/planet system forming whereby an "earth" is formed is remote in the extreme, just like none of the other runners finishing the race or all being disqualified. The people like me with the "something must there" view are like the racing officials that don't simply accept that chance meant all the other runners did not finish or were disqualified. On the other hand, the view from your side is...it was simply chance the other runners did not finish or were all disqualified and so let's just move on.

Firstly, the "religions" are just man made manifestations of a belief in "something must be out there". You could think of the religions being like what we would make in Access. Even if you and I were given the same instructions as to what was required we would go about making the program differently but Access would be the foundation.


I'm not sure how that ties in with something being static or not? In your analogy, is Access the static?


Secondly, the argument from the atheist side is science based and with the associated claim it is fact based.


Its not a claim that it is fact-based. Science is fact-based. I think what you're getting caught up on is that facts can change.


Therein lies the problem because the science is changing. I know it is very hard for an atheist to be hypothetical but just for this exercies.....let's assume the dating methods used turn out to be wrong, very wrong. Then immediately any atheist using dating to support and argument has had the floor pulled from under him


I have no problem working with hypothetical situations. How has the floor been pulled out from under them? In that they had been wrong? If so, it seems like the ideal situation is absolute certainty? You'll only find such claims in religion.


But you don't need exact numbers to know if the "odds/chances" are very low or very high etc.


Again, you're conflating chances to mean the same thing as odds. I'm probably not explaining myself very well.

If you're stricken with cancer, and you ask the doctor what your chance of survival is, and he says "Poor", that's a world of difference from him telling you that your ODDS of survival are 1 in 500.

The first statement is not a scientific statement. It is not fact-based. It is the doctor's guess based on his experience. If he tells you your ODDS, then that is based on science. Facts. Likely, he has seen thousands of patients with your same situation and only 1 in 500 survive.

I'm bypassing the rest of your post (as in, I read it, but am not responding) because I think the part that has been confusing here as been over the terminology. When you're saying ODDs I think you mean something different than the textbook definition.

And so it is with the formation of the earth and its life. The odds/chances of a star/planet system forming whereby an "earth" is formed is remote in the extreme, just like none of the other runners finishing the race or all being disqualified. The people like me with the "something must there" view are like the racing officials that don't simply accept that chance meant all the other runners did not finish or were disqualified. On the other hand, the view from your side is...it was simply chance the other runners did not finish or were all disqualified and so let's just move on.

Great example Mike

What the racing officials should do is get in touch with a statistician who would promptly say that this is an example of a binomial distribution.

A binomial distribution is a statistical distribution giving the probability of obtaining a certain number of successes in a certain number of independent trials with the same probablilty of success in each case.

Given enough 62 year olds entering enough races eventually this situation will occur. In fact given enough 62 year olds in enough races those 62 year olds will come in every given position multiple times.

Given that we have had lots and lots of sports events you might have expected this kind of thing to happened before ...

I give you Winter Olympics 2002 Steve Bradbury

Australia's first ever Winter Olympic gold, also the first such medal won by a competitor from any Southern Hemisphere country, was won by Steven Bradbury in the 1000m short track speed skating. Well off the pace of the medal favourites, Bradbury was positioned at the rear in the semifinal, only to see his competitors crash into each other, allowing him through to the final. Again well off the pace in the final all four other competitors crashed out at the final corner, leaving a shocked Bradbury to take the gold medal.

Now is this because there an outside influence or is it because there's a lot more randomness to speed skating than first thought. The important thing is that the chance of it happening is not nil and therefore given enough races it will happen.

In your standard races the probabilities are small of this happening and similarly at the moment we don't know what the probablity of finding even basic life. We exepect that it is not null but we don't know this NASAs announcement increases the size of that basic probabilty and therefore improves the chances of intelligent life occurring spontaneously.

Especially given some of the numbers we think we know. We think we know for instance that the number of stars and the size of the universe approaches or could be infinite. Infinity multiplied by any number or any fraction of a number is infinity.

Therefore the chance of finding someone like us must be 100% and we are not unique.

The Maths works???

Adam,

"Odds" being used as it used in general conversation. In fact I just sent an email to someone that I doing some Access work for and I said the odds of it running by tomorrow are very good.

I will rewrite the last part for you of my last post for you.

But you don't need exact numbers to know if the chances are very low or very high etc.

Take two examples and using the 100 metre sprint for men. If you are attempting to pick the winner from an Olympic final then as you say you would need as much data as possible...current form, weather and whatever else.

But let's say I have been allowed to enter the race. All you need to know is I am 62 and thus the chances of me winning are virtually zero. On the other hand the chances of me running last are virtually 100%. About the only thing that would cause an upset is for some reason none of the rest of the field could finish the race or alternatively they were all disqualied.

Let me go just a bit further.

Would you agree if either none of the rest of the field finished the race or they were all disqualified then something strange has happened. Why strange. Because the odds/chances of the rest of the field not finishing or all being disqualifed is virtually 0%. In fact the chances are so low that initially it would be discounted and officials would look for something more than chance. Perhaps there was betting on the race and odds on me were 10,000 to 1 and so possible monetary reasons are why none of the others finished the race or were all disqualified.

And so it is with the formation of the earth and its life. The chances of a star/planet system forming whereby an "earth" is formed is remote in the extreme, just like none of the other runners finishing the race or all being disqualified. The people like me with the "something must there" view are like the racing officials that don't simply accept that chance meant all the other runners did not finish or were disqualified. On the other hand, the view from your side is...it was simply chance the other runners did not finish or were all disqualified and so let's just move on.

Great example Mike


Given enough 62 year olds entering enough races eventually this situation will occur. In fact given enough 62 year olds in enough races those 62 year olds will come in every given position multiple times.



I did not say a 62 old would be in every race:)

[qote]
What we do know is that the number of stars and the size of the universe is to our knowledge infinite.

[/quote]

That is know for a fact?

I did not say a 62 old would be in every race:)

[qote]
What we do know is that the number of stars and the size of the universe is to our knowledge infinite.



That is know for a fact?[/QUOTE]

Good point mike more like it

It is not a known fact but there are stars in every direction so many we can't count. In fact not just stars there are so many Galaxies we can't count them.

And we're pretty good at counting.

I'm not sure how that ties in with something being static or not? In your analogy, is Access the static?



Yes. And as is required for an atheist....the version does not change, no update and it does not become corrupt etc.




Its not a claim that it is fact-based. Science is fact-based. I think what you're getting caught up on is that facts can change.



Atheists always claim to deal with facts but the facts are changing and thus the basis for your argument "today" will change.

Lightwave has just posted the number of stars is infinite. I don't think that was the accepted number in the past.



I have no problem working with hypothetical situations. How has the floor been pulled out from under them? In that they had been wrong? If so, it seems like the ideal situation is absolute certainty? You'll only find such claims in religion.



If you base an argument on certain data or facts and the data/facts are changed then your argument has gone, the floor has been pulled from under you.


Again, you're conflating chances to mean the same thing as odds. I'm probably not explaining myself very well.

If you're stricken with cancer, and you ask the doctor what your chance of survival is, and he says "Poor", that's a world of difference from him telling you that your ODDS of survival are 1 in 500.



Agree. But he might say your odds of survival are low or poor.



The first statement is not a scientific statement. It is not fact-based. It is the doctor's guess based on his experience. If he tells you your ODDS, then that is based on science. Facts. Likely, he has seen thousands of patients with your same situation and only 1 in 500 survive.



His first statement is a basic estimate and because there are so many variables he will probably never say something like 1 in 500.

But even if he quotes 1 in 500 and has 1 million cases to draw upon the 1 in 500 is a prediction for the future and subject to changes in medical technology, new drugs and so and so might be very inaccurate.

So he ends saying the odds or chances of survival are low or poor.

That is know for a fact?



It is not a known fact but there are stars in every direction so many we can't count. In fact not just stars there are so many Galaxies we can't count them.

And we're pretty good at counting.[/quote]

Is correct to say that if there are an infinite number of stars then there must be an infinite number of galaxies.

Is the infinite number of stars as your post indicates, that is, based on observation as opposed to some mathematical method.

Is correct to say that if there are an infinite number of stars then there must be an infinite number of galaxies.

I think that's a correct assumption.


Is the infinite number of stars as your post indicates, that is, based on observation as opposed to some mathematical method.

My understanding of the material is that this is based on observation.

I should qualify this they don't have the facility at present to count all the galaxies but my understanding is that they are having a go at it. There is also problems with the counting method which are theoretical. As far as they can tell the universe is a little over 14 billion years old. If everything was created at once as they believe there has only been 14 billion years in which light has had time to reach us. Therefore from our perspective the universe appears 28 billion light years across. It could be much bigger than that however because they consider light to be a constant we can only see light 14 billion light years out. Any amount of telescope power won't help that it will always be a limit.

So I guess technically it may one day be possible to count all the stars. At the moment I don't think its even been done for the Milky way let alone for the Universe. Even if they had a computer which could do the counting they could come up with a finite number which would still not represent the correct figure because it is theorised that it is impossible to see anything outside of our bubble. Not because it doesn't exist but because the light just hasn't got to us yet.

Lightwave,

The few times I have read about star counting it has been on the basis of the number of stars in an "area" and strength of light and so on and then mutiplying, that is, same as you might do if wanted to count the grains of sand on the beach. get the area and depth of the beach and then count the grains in a small tin.

With the size or width of the universe that we can see would that also be distorted for its measurement because so many stars would be dead. How long do they last, 10 billion years?

To me we are missing something. It would be like in 1800 some aliens are on earth detonating nuclear bombs about the place. The scientists and explosive experts of the day would be simply bashing their heads against the wall trying to figure out what was happening. Without the nuclear energy knowledge every theory or idea they could come up with would not even be close.

The odds/chances of a star/planet system forming whereby an "earth" is formed is remote in the extreme, just like none of the other runners finishing the race or all being disqualified.

Wrong. It is like a race where each competitor has a separate finish line that is so remote from all other competitor's finish lines that they cannot see if anyone even made it to the others lines.

The officials at our finish also ran the whole way with our competitor and have no contact with any other officials.

A conclusion that no other runners completed the race because we have not seen anyone else finish is absurd.

Wrong. It is like a race where each competitor has a separate finish line that is so remote from all other competitor's finish lines that they cannot see if anyone even made it to the others lines.

The officials at our finish also ran the whole way with our competitor and have no contact with any other officials.

A conclusion that no other runners completed the race because we have not seen anyone else finish is absurd.

Is it true that new stars form? If a new star is forming do you rate the chances of an earth like planet forming as very low, very high or perhaps unlikely in the extreme.

Or if like, in our Milky Way how do rate the chances of another earth like planet existing.

And from a previous post are you prepared to state the speed of light will never be exceeded. In othe words if the distance between the earth and a star is 10 light years will a journey always require 10 years or more.

As a side note, lets pretend you are living on another earth 10 light years away and I want to pass a message onto you. If we both approach each other at 3/4s the speed of light then do we meet in the middle in less than 10 years.

Is it true that new stars form?

Yes. The bright blue stars are hot new ones.

If a new star is forming do you rate the chances of an earth like planet forming as very low, very high or perhaps unlikely in the extreme.

Depends on the definition of Earth-like but probably very low. It would have to be from a cloud of dust and gas that had already been involved in a supernova. Something like the chance of winning a lottery. Maybe 1 in 100 million for a single star formation event.

Or if like, in our Milky Way how do rate the chances of another earth like planet existing.

At those odds we would only have in the order of 3000 in the Milky Way.

And from a previous post are you prepared to state the speed of light will never be exceeded.

Yep.

In othe words if the distance between the earth and a star is 10 light years will a journey always require 10 years or more.

Depends on who has the clock. At speeds approaching the speed of light it will take much less than ten years for the traveller because the distance gets less due to relativistic foreshortening of space. But for a stationary observer it will never be less than ten years.

If we both approach each other at 3/4s the speed of light then do we meet in the middle in less than 10 years.

With each of us doing 3/4 of light speed we would meet in the middle after three years and four months by our clocks.

Observers back home will see we met at six years and eight months.
(They are smart enough to allow for the five years it takes the light to get to them when they see it eleven years and eight months after we left.)

Now assuming we can turn around instantaneously and continue at 3/4 x c it will take another three years and four months to get home.

When we get there 13 years and four months will have passed for them but only six years and eight months for us.

Depends on the definition of Earth-like but probably very low. It would have to be from a cloud of dust and gas that had already been involved in a supernova. Something like the chance of winning a lottery. Maybe 1 in 100 million for a single star formation event.



At those odds we would only have in the order of 3000 in the Milky Way.



I have been doing a fair bit of internet searching on it and when you factor in the chances of life being there is get very remote.

What do you think of the The Fermi paradox.





Yep.



Is never being able to exceed light speed a generally accepted situation?


Depends on who has the clock. At speeds approaching the speed of light it will take much less than ten years for the traveller because the distance gets less due to relativistic foreshortening of space. But for a stationary observer it will never be less than ten years.



With each of us doing 3/4 of light speed we would meet in the middle after three years and four months by our clocks.

Observers back home will see we met at six years and eight months.
(They are smart enough to allow for the five years it takes the light to get to them when they see it eleven years and eight months after we left.)

Now assuming we can turn around instantaneously and continue at 3/4 x c it will take another three years and four months to get home.

When we get there 13 years and four months will have passed for them but only six years and eight months for us.



So I could pass a message to you in less than 10 years.

Or if I was doctor who had a miracle drug to cure you and you needed the drug in less than 10 years then I could get the drug to you?

Another question:)

Let's say we have a rod or a bar that is 10 light years long and reached between the two planets.

If I move the bar a foot towards the other planet and just for the exercise we will say it took 1 second, when does the person on the other planet see the bar move? Or if like a string between the two planets and I tug on the string etc

I have been doing a fair bit of internet searching on it and when you factor in the chances of life being there is get very remote.
The probability of life forming given the conditions of early Earth are unknown but estimates continue to move in the direction of more likely. Any of the tiny probabilities involved in forming the right planet at the right distance from the right star and the right chemicals getting together are overwhelmed by the immensity of the Universe.

If the chances were one in a billion billion there would still be thousands of places with life.
What do you think of the The Fermi paradox.
Fermi didn't grasp the immense distances between stars. The Milky Way is a billion, billion kilometres across. Even if there are other advanced tecnological civilisations in the Milky Way right now, the most likely distance between us and them will be very large and well beyond contact let alone visits. We would have to be very lucky to have one within a contactable distance.

At such distances a signal beam would have to be precisely focussed and aimed to be strong to reach us. If they scanned their heavens with the beam covering an area the size of our orbit around the sun for one second it would still take millions of years to cover the whole area andwe could easily miss it or dismis it as a glitch in the equipment.

Much of the Milky Way is obscured by dust and even a very powerful beam could not reach us.
Is never being able to exceed light speed a generally accepted situation?
Yes, because as I explained earlier it is not so much a speed in the ordinary sense but a fundamental property of SpaceTime. Realise that high speed not only changes time but distance and mass of the moving object.

To reach relativistic speeds requires not only supplying a source of classical kinetic energy (1/2.M.V^2) but also a Relativistic component. An object with a non-zero rest mass will have infinite mass at the speed of light. Consequently it is impossible for any mass to ever reach that speed.

The protons in the LHC accelerator at CERN are the equivalent of the amount of hydrogen gas occupying the volume of a fine grain of sand at normal temperatue and pressure. At full power these protons have the kinetic energy of a TVG train travelling at over 220 Km/hour.
So I could pass a message to you in less than 10 years. Or if I was doctor who had a miracle drug to cure you and you needed the drug in less than 10 years then I could get the drug to you?
Yes, I was moving at relativistic speed and we use my clock to measure the time.