Do You Believe In GOD

[Tarbaby]

Possibly the 75% of the universe that is dark matter is where the souls of mankind   are. stored.  sort of like a cosmic Dropbox.

[b_dubb]

No, I mean it gets dangerous when it becomes an expression of politics. Loving thy neighbor seems to go really wrong when a crusade is called and self-proclaimed atheists were some of the biggest murderers of the 20th century. It had nothing to do with religious or atheist ideology, and simply boiled down to politics. That said, I don't really see atheism as any different these days. It's become militant, pushy, fossilized because it became political. I mean really, this thread is a thinly veiled political thread involving all us usual suspects doing the same thing we do in the politics section holding the same sorts of positions and having the same fight. I mean how disturbing is that if you take a step back and look at it?

That's some pretty disturbing shit. But if we had prayer in school everything would be okay. *** sigh ***

[UnscreenedCaller]

For a while in my twenties, I would make a point to jerk off onto the bible whenever I stayed at a hotel. Someday, millennia after the apocalypse, after humanity has rebuilt, someone will find one of those bibles and through DNA testing, determine that I was the author.

a. It all comes down to how well you wear a toga and b. or what if you end up in a 52nd century zoo of some sort of cloned ancient DNA and all you are given is a tent, a coat of many colors, a couple of shekels and a pair of sandals?

[Kelt]

75% of the content does not equate to 75% of the misunderstanding. Dark Matter is no biggie and neither is dark energy because many theories already exist as to their nature. They are testable.

That's true, it might equate to 1% of the misunderstanding, then again it might equate to 99% of the misunderstanding.

I don't believe in terms like western centric. I believe in good ideas and stability, and China has had plenty of upheavals over the last 2200 years including multiple political upheavals and Mongol and Manchurian invasions that occupied and neutered the place for centuries.

Oh I do, I absolutely do. As far as China being invaded is concerned, the Chinese had a habit of absorbing invaders into their own culture, rather than, say, the results of a Norman invasion of England which saw the virtual eradication of the previous Saxon culture. But when any smart Mongol invades a nation of cities and wealth he's going to adopt the trappings of wealth rather than burn it to the ground in its entirety and go live in a goat tent.

They've also bought into some really shitty ideas. To this day they hobble their economy with communism; a last holdout of a failed western idea that they didn't invent but accepted for some bizarre reason.

It wasn't a bizarre reason though, the Communist faction won their Civil War.  To the victor goes the political system. That's about as straightforward as things get, really.

As far as the middle east, well, that went to shit when the eastern Roman/Byzantine empire no longer had the resources of the western half to fight the Persians decisively, so a bunch of religious extremists started taking over. Sort of like ISIS, actually.  The western world is the most superior set of ideas that the world currently has, and yet we celebrate the primitives for no good reason other than political correctness instead of calling them a pack of idiots. The middle east especially, I mean, do you as an atheist really respect Islam?

I don't see how my thoughts regarding Islam are of any real importance in this particular exchange.

Bah. Your computer requires on the upper average 120 watts to function. The brain uses less than 20. The brain is ridiculously efficient. That it weighs five pounds makes it even more amazing for what it does. Double the size of that mofo and stick 40 watts to that bitch and let's see what we get.

As a major organ, the brain uses an enormous amount of energy. I don't think there's any portion of the human body where the tissue requires so much energy to maintain function.  And the bigger it gets, artificially or naturally, the more energy will be required to power it.

Why would it have a capacity for growth and processing? Evolutionary history is progressive, never regressive. Why would there be a limit?

That's precisely what I said. But there could be a limit because biology.  There may simply be biological, ethical or practical limits.

I'd buy that if we weren't able to apply and use Quantum theory and relativity. We do. So where are the unknowns that confound us to the point that we can't come up with a theory to test? We're doing fine so far.

You're assuming that current 'exotic' physics are the at the apex of potentiality. I'd caution against that line of thought. A succession of physicists have had those particular chips pissed on.

Yeah, but the Voynich manuscript may have been intended to by gobbledegook crap. We don't know, but there's no indication that the guy was doing anything other than being crazy and doodling.

It may have been gobbledegook crap, it may have been a personal and unique code, it may have been some kind of extreme dialect. It may be the secret to life or a recipe for better muffins. The point being without that frame of reference it's hard to imagine how a supercomputer of whatever capacity, or a genetically enhanced human mind, is going to figure it out. If it doesn't follow established or recognised patterns then it becomes near impossible, possibly impossible, to decipher. The point being that if Rongorong, Voynichese, or High Elven can't be decoded... given they follow recognisable and simple symbolism, what's going to happen when we're attempting to understand something so alien and incomprehensible that we just have no means of measuring or understanding anything about it? 

Time is a function of the universe whose behavior is predicted by relativity. Other than that, you're telling me that we figured out time but might not be able to figure out time. Time is an aspect of space-time, and can be experimentally shown to be so. It's already been done.

To a degree we can measure and understand. In four dimensions. What creates time? Where does time go?  Does time run out, literally? Do we understand the origin of 'time', and can we create time in a laboratory? How does time react in 11 dimensions?  Being able to measure something, and have it react in a predictable way doesn't confer mastery.

I don't think that's correct. That's saying that you have to fly the plane first so you can know that it can't fly. That just needlessly kills test pilots.

We can theorise all we want, and we can be absolutely sure we know how and why something behaves the way it does, but until you get it in the air you don't know if it's going to fall apart or smash into a barn. Check out THIS crazy nut with the wings and the moustache... what a nut... 


http://youtu.be/FBN3xfGrx_U


The thing is this... I doubt there will ever come a point in time, between right now and the end of the Universe(s), where humankind's biomechanical superbeing overlord descendants will be sitting on their thumbs going... "Well, yeah, that's pretty much every single thing figured out now. Anything good on TV?"

Cash is king, give me enough and I'll get your ass a tail muafucka. Has to be profitable though, know what I'm sayin' G? (Been watching the new season of Trailer Park Boys and have been driving my girlfriend nuts acting like J-Roc all day just to piss her off).

I have no concerns. I'm a dolphin, largest penis to species ratio known.

I just figure if I'm going to manipulate my body I deserve a tail.

[Kelt]

Possibly the 75% of the universe that is dark matter is where the souls of mankind   are. stored.  sort of like a cosmic Dropbox.

Dropbox, the answer to, "Where's the worst possible place to accidentally drag and drop porn on a network?"

[zeebo]

...I do like Buddhism. My experience with meditation is far more meaningful and enlightening than any religious practice....

Although I'm a borderline athiest, I do tend to click with alot of Buddhist teachings.  My understanding is that when it came to the existence of God, the Buddha wasn't particularly interested in the question.  Instead traditional Buddhism seems more of a philosophical dogma, about how to cope with life here on earth (and any future lives as well.)   

[pyewacket]

Although I'm a borderline athiest, I do tend to click with alot of Buddhist teachings.  My understanding is that when it came to the existence of God, the Buddha wasn't particularly interested in the question.  Instead traditional Buddhism seems more of a philosophical dogma, about how to cope with life here on earth (and any future lives as well.)

Buddhism makes sense to me. I don't bother with the forum I used to visit because too many of the Buddhists there were arguing about dogma and it was beginning to resemble the religious groups. I guess I didn't expect that. 

Fr. Anthony de Mello, an Indian Jesuit priest, was a very interesting spiritual teacher. He was influenced by the teachings of St. Ignatius and it was a good bridge from Catholicism to Buddhism. He was a big thorn in the side of the Vatican. Gotta admire those rebels.

I especially enjoy Zen stories. There is a movie called Zen Noir that you might enjoy. I had to watch it twice to catch all the messages.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407337/


Zen Noir Feature Trailer

[zeebo]

...I especially enjoy Zen stories. There is a movie called Zen Noir that you might enjoy. I had to watch it twice to catch all the messages.....

Cool thanks for the tip, that looks cool, will check it out.

Btw, here's my fave Zen story, you've probably heard it, but here it is anyway ....

A student is looking for his teacher, following his trail though the woods.  Eventually he comes upon a river.  He sees his teacher sitting on the opposite bank, but sees no bridge, no way to cross over the deep water. 

So he cups his hands to his mouth, and shouts "Master, how do I get to the other side of the river?"  The teacher gives him a puzzled look, and after a moment shouts back "You already are on the other side of the river!"

[pyewacket]

Cool thanks for the tip, that looks cool, will check it out.

Btw, here's my fave Zen story, you've probably heard it, but here it is anyway ....

A tudent is looking for his teacher, following his trail though the woods.  Eventually he comes upon a river.  He sees his teacher sitting on the opposite bank, but sees no bridge, no way to cross over the deep water. 

So he cups his hands to his mouth, and shouts "Master, how do I get to the other side of the river?"  The teacher gives him a puzzled look, and after a moment shouts back "You already are on the other side of the river!"

I hope you enjoy the movie. Thanks for sharing that story. I've heard that Zen teachers can be really off the wall. There's a rather long Zen story that's one of my favorites, but I lost my file copy. I'll try to locate it and post it for you- it's a bit long but it's kinda Georgish. 

[pyewacket]

I found it! The Cucumber Sage enjoy! 

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Stories/The%20Cucumber%20Sage/The%20Cucumber%20Sage.htm

[FightTheFuture]

I don't know if you haven't been reading my posts and are ignoring them, or if you haven't been, but I'll repeat it: the resurrection myth is something that was attributed to every significant religious figure in ancient times, as well as many of the other characteristics attributed to Jesus.  One of the apostles ginned up a story about the Jesus being whisked off to Egypt to escape Herod's attempts to kill the rumoured baby messiah.  That story is almost certainly 100% horseshit.  Herod's life was well documented, and there is no reference to this action of his anywhere besides the apostles, nor is there any historical or even oral tradition reference to that slaughter, even though it would have been a major traumatic event that surely would have shown up in someone's accounting.  So why was it written?  Because it mirrored the experience of Moses, and the propagandists wanted to portray Jesus as the next Jewish leader who would come out of Egypt and restore the Kingdom of God (which was Israel, by the way, NOT some place in heaven).  All of the apostles were written after the destruction of the Second Temple and the diaspora of the Jews.  Jesus was made out to be (a) the figure who would restore Israel, and (b) had to be powerful enough to bust a cap in the Roman army.  He HAD to be portrayed as god-like for anyone to believe he had the power to overcome the might of the Roman Empire, so he was given the traditional god-like attributes, including resurrection.

Again, your problem is ignorance.  Paul NEVER told such a story.  It was an invention of the apostle Luke, a presumed follower of Paul who had his nose firmly buried in Paul's ass crack.  As for Paul, he declared himself a disciple, and not just any disciple, but the primary disciple, replacing Peter.  As part of that power grab, he had to claim that he was the last person to see Jesus, and of course hear the last word from Jesus, to make himself credible.  Paul was given a pants-down spanking by James the Just (brother of Jesus) and others in Jerusalem and forced to participate in an offering ritual to show repentance.  He only escaped being murdered in Jerusalem by turning himself over to the Romans, which hardly endeared him to the real disciples, because, you know.

The origin of Paul's message, his teachings and his practices are so much at odds with those of Jesus as found in the gospels that they could reasonably be considered to be talking about two different religious philosophies.  Things like the communion, predestination, the gospel as grace, morality as life in the Spirit, original sin, and faith (not good deeds) being the ticket to salvation originated with Paul, not Jesus.  Further complicating the matter is that half of the letters bearing Paul's name (which are now known as chapters in the new testament) are works written by others after his death.

I don't see the significance of him "believing" that Jesus appeared to him.  Is his belief supposed to be objective evidence of something?  There were no witnesses and no evidence, so it's his word.  Why would he lie?  Because he was taking on a lucrative position as self-appointed head of the Jesus franchise.  He didn't perform "dedicated service" to Jesus' teachings.  He saw an opportunity to bring the Jesus version of Judaism to the non-Jewish, western world and to shape that religion into a form that he liked, and he took it.  There was no "Christian" (non-Jewish) version of the religion of Jesus before Paul came around.

I don't have time to look it up, but what you are describing sounds like Paul's account of his trip as written in Galatians.  Is Paul's self-serving account of his trip supposed to be evidence of something?  I don't recall anything in Galatians about him being anointed as a disciple.  He simply met with two of the disciples (NOT Peter, you are wrong about that, he met with SIMON PETER, not a disciple).  Okay, so he met a couple of disciples.  Big deal.  In Galatians he actually makes a point of swearing before God that he's telling the truth about his account of the trip.  Why did he need to do that, if he was being recognized as one of the Twelve, or had any stature whatsoever at that point?

He met with two of them.  So what?

So we have a third-hand account that some people claim to have seen Jesus.  So what?  Lots of people claim to have been abducted by aliens or other such self-serving bullshit.

Look, you`re certainly entitled to believe whatever you choose. But there are certain facts that are pretty much universally accepted. Virtually EVERY modern day scholar (I am guessing...maybe 3500, that I am aware of), skeptics, agnostics, atheists and all, fully concede the conversion of the Apostle Paul. Equally important, it`s a matter of historical record that Paul persecuted Christians without an ounce of remorse. So, why would he just suddenly decide to be a Christian? And then go meet Peter (btw, I think you incorrectly noted that disciple Peter was a different person from Simon-Peter. They, of course, are one and the same) and James, whom he must have known were fully committed to spreading the Gospel? That would have been a bit awkward had Paul been a fraud.

Additionally, everyone accepts 1 Corinthians 15 as authentic Pauline writing (I only use facts that are accepted by even the skeptics of the scholarly world). IN 1 Cor. 15 we find Paul saying: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance [a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scripture

He`s passing on to them just as he received it. Guess from whom he received it? So, we can say Paul had a pretty clear way forward in his mind. We see this, of course, in his works. And, of course, I`m not disputing there are "forgeries" pretending to be Paul`s writings. Not everything attributed to him (some 14 books, if I`m not mistaken) is authentic, which is why I typically stick with the writings which are universally accepted as authentic Pauline. Hard to see how or why Paul made it all up.

Look, bottomline is, we know to a reasonable degree of historical accuracy that several things happened:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested, but still pretty much accepted by 70-80% of modern day scholars).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem at great peril to their lives.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was the family skeptic, as we know).
12. Paul was converted to the faith.



And the rest of your post, I can`t even remember, but I promise I`ll address it when I have time. i`m so not keen on these thousand(s) of word(s) posts.

I think you mentioned something about similar stories of resurrection in antiquity? Which if the case, is completely untrue.


Have a nice day...i`ll be doing yard work. Yes! :

[Camazotz Automat]

DigiPig could very well experience an aneurysm at this juncture.

[Corona Kitty]

I battle over this in my head daily.

[Mr. Fidget]

   My father was a graduate of Central Bible Institute. He could speak eloquently to every part of the Bible. He was a minister for part of his life, and he shared some of his knowledge with me, to the degree I could comprehend it.
   While in his final days he said a few things I'll share with you folks here. This will be my first, and last, post in this thread.
   Firstly he said: It is exponentially more important to "know God" than to "believe in God." Secondly: When my brother (who is currently an evangelist) came to "minister" to Dad, he would hold up his hand and say "Keep it simple. Something like God is love." Thirdly: He said "Most people will never know true faith, the kind of faith we had when you were six. We were hitchhiking in the rain, at an intersection, and we were willing to go in any direction." And finally he said: "The modern ministry currently has a five step plan: #1) Come in, #2) Sit down, #3) Shut up, #4) Put some money in the offering plate, & #5) Come back next week, and bring a friend!"

You may (should you care too) keep arguing now.


mf

[pyewacket]

   My father was a graduate of Central Bible Institute. He could speak eloquently to every part of the Bible. He was a minister for part of his life, and he shared some of his knowledge with me, to the degree I could comprehend it.
   While in his final days he said a few things I'll share with you folks here. This will be my first, and last, post in this thread.
   Firstly he said: It is exponentially more important to "know God" than to "believe in God." Secondly: When my brother (who is currently an evangelist) came to "minister" to Dad, he would hold up his hand and say "Keep it simple. Something like God is love." Thirdly: He said "Most people will never know true faith, the kind of faith we had when you were six. We were hitchhiking in the rain, at an intersection, and we were willing to go in any direction." And finally he said: "The modern ministry currently has a five step plan: #1) Come in, #2) Sit down, #3) Shut up, #4) Put some money in the offering plate, & #5) Come back next week, and bring a friend!"

You may (should you care too) keep arguing now.


mf

Sounds like your father was a remarkable man.

[area51drone]

I think you mentioned something about similar stories of resurrection in antiquity? Which if the case, is completely untrue.

FTF, even if you believe all this stuff is literally true, and you discount that it could possibly be made up by the disciples or others and ignore the reality that this is a common thread regardless of the details, how do you know that Jesus even died for sure?  Even in modern day medicine, there are instances where people appear to be dead, yet wake up in the morgue.   How do you know that wasn't the case?  What makes you believe he is a god?   Please do not say faith.

And why are you ignoring the remainder of the bible which says that your god killed children, tortured Job, lets millions of people live for eternity in burning in the lake of fire?

[SciFiAuthor]

That's some pretty disturbing shit. But if we had prayer in school everything would be okay. *** sigh ***

No, it wouldn't be ok. It would just be more right-left political bullshit. A lot of people are out to offend people's Christian sensibilities these days because Christian sensibilities offend people's political sensibilities and vice versa. The religion question is often just a little game the politics people play, rather than a meaningful discourse about the existence or inexistence of God/s/esses.

[FightTheFuture]

FTF, even if you believe all this stuff is literally true, and you discount that it could possibly be made up by the disciples or others and ignore the reality that this is a common thread regardless of the details, how do you know that Jesus even died for sure?  Even in modern day medicine, there are instances where people appear to be dead, yet wake up in the morgue.   How do you know that wasn't the case?  What makes you believe he is a god?   Please do not say faith.

And why are you ignoring the remainder of the bible which says that your god killed children, tortured Job, lets millions of people live for eternity in burning in the lake of fire?

You`re arguing things that are not in dispute. It`s not just that I believe that the Disciples didn`t make it all up, it`s virtually every scholar in the world. Jesus was crucified; that is also a given. He was buried -- another conceded fact. All conceded to, by even the most steadfast atheist scholars!

I never use an argument built upon the work of only true believers. If anything, I lean heavily in favor of the atheist and agnostic scholars` opinions. For instance, one of my absolute favorite scholars, and one of the truly brilliant ones, is Bart Ehrman, a stone cold atheist. He concedes all the facts I listed. However, his hypothesis regarding the Disciples is they are experiencing hallucinations. In my opinion, as well as thousands of other scholars, that`s pretty thin ice. But, you`re free to believe whatever suits you. Just another reason why this wonderful country is so magnificent.

I promise you, I will never "ram my religion down your throat". In fact, I have been EXTREMELY reluctant to even discuss it on this forum, because whenever it`s brought up, it`s open season with the sophomoric insults. The Childish pictures start popping up, and it just goes downhill from there. Don`t get me wrong; I couldn`t possibly care any less what anybody on here believes. I was asked -- in not such a civil manner -- to express my opinions. I have done that.

God day.

[SciFiAuthor]

That's true, it might equate to 1% of the misunderstanding, then again it might equate to 99% of the misunderstanding.

It could, but at the moment it just seems to be some weakly interacting particle that only makes itself known through gravity, not all that different from other weakly interacting particles like neutrinos. But, yes, there is a chance it's something much more. Will that be incomprehensible? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical.

Oh I do, I absolutely do. As far as China being invaded is concerned, the Chinese had a habit of absorbing invaders into their own culture, rather than, say, the results of a Norman invasion of England which saw the virtual eradication of the previous Saxon culture. But when any smart Mongol invades a nation of cities and wealth he's going to adopt the trappings of wealth rather than burn it to the ground in its entirety and go live in a goat tent.

It wasn't a bizarre reason though, the Communist faction won their Civil War.  To the victor goes the political system. That's about as straightforward as things get, really

China does like to absorb things, sorta. They've absorbed western culture so effectively that their entire native culture has changed fundamentally in just a hundred years. In the 19th century they were isolationist and anti-western to the point of being ready to overthrow their own native idea of imperial god-king government over the issue--a Manchurian god-king system that never absorbed into their culture despite being in power for hundreds of years. Nah, nah, nah Hans, I'm Manchurian and your son of heaven you defeated bitches! They eventually did overthrow him because he wouldn't absorb, and they now follow a form of government invented by a couple of Germans pushed by a guy that thought Chinese culture was so flawed that it needed a cultural revolution to get rid of those pesky eastern centric ideas that held them back for thousands of years, and also that pesky Romano-Greek idea of republican democracy that had tried to take over in the power vacuum created when the emperor was tossed. All that's left now is the eastern centric cultural practice of hunting sharks to extinction for a crappy-tasting soup that one eats to feel rich because it used to exclusively be eaten by the emperor and eating rhino horns because it's baselessly suggested to help with erectile dysfunction. China is a deeply flawed, heavily western-impacted schizophrenic culture that ceased being eastern in 1912 that now does nothing but further adopt more western ideas, such as capitalism. It's actually becoming more American than America currently is, as far as raw capitalism is concerned. Good for them, western ideas are superior.

I don't see how my thoughts regarding Islam are of any real importance in this particular exchange.

Just probing, I often find that atheists get weak on Islam and put the kid gloves on when talking about it and get all touchy-feely and multicultural. Buddhism seems to get a pass too, despite being a complete load of bullshit like Christianity. I've always wondered why, is it simply looking to avoid Iranian death fatwas or something political? Not all atheists do this of course, just a ton of them.

As a major organ, the brain uses an enormous amount of energy. I don't think there's any portion of the human body where the tissue requires so much energy to maintain function.  And the bigger it gets, artificially or naturally, the more energy will be required to power it.

It does, but as a whole it's far less than a light bulb needs. We're very energy efficient, something that we should probably look into actually to make our technology more energy efficient. We can power a superior augmented human, I'm not worried about that. Where I would get worried is in heat dissipation, that's not so easy to fix when you create a superior human that creates more heat than a natural one yet is still the same size and radiating surface area. We'd have to put heat sinks on their backs or something, like the plates on a stegosaurus's spine.

That's precisely what I said. But there could be a limit because biology.  There may simply be biological, ethical or practical limits.

Well, the biological limits I think would be heat dissipation as I said, you can't really make X amount of water radiate more heat than it does. But there are ways to work around that. As far as ethics, there will be huge controversy and debate as there as there always is, and it will be on both sides of the aisle. Is it ethical to make a mentally-challenged person intelligent? Is it unethical not to do so? Practicality, well, that comes down to what you want to do and how difficult this stuff will be to make work, we don't know that part yet. But we also have billions of years for technological development ahead of us if we don't nuke ourselves or get hit by an asteroid in the meantime.

You're assuming that current 'exotic' physics are the at the apex of potentiality. I'd caution against that line of thought. A succession of physicists have had those particular chips pissed on.

Oh there could be future exotic physics, and current exotic physics could be wrong. However, I think we're a lot further with physics than you might think. I think our understanding is more advanced than not, so from here on out there will be fewer and fewer surprises and more and more predictability. Well, granted, finding out the universe is a computer simulation would be a hell of a surprise, but past that I think it will get increasingly quantifiable. That's all it's done for hundreds of years now.
 

It may have been gobbledegook crap, it may have been a personal and unique code, it may have been some kind of extreme dialect. It may be the secret to life or a recipe for better muffins. The point being without that frame of reference it's hard to imagine how a supercomputer of whatever capacity, or a genetically enhanced human mind, is going to figure it out. If it doesn't follow established or recognised patterns then it becomes near impossible, possibly impossible, to decipher. The point being that if Rongorong, Voynichese, or High Elven can't be decoded... given they follow recognisable and simple symbolism, what's going to happen when we're attempting to understand something so alien and incomprehensible that we just have no means of measuring or understanding anything about it?

I don't know, I mean, things have a mystique about them when we don't understand them. But once we do, it loses its magic. I think things like Voynichese would have certain patterns and aspects that, if it is a language, it will conform. This is actually something that's been tested, human language always follows the same 45 degree slope when phonetic frequency occurrence is plotted. When you do that for dolphins, you find the same 45 degree slope, even though you have no reference from which to understand dolphin.

http://www.space.com/12811-dolphin-intelligence-search-extraterrestrial-life.html

Therefore you can at least identify something as gobbledegook or a language and start trying to figure it out from there. Humans are clever little fuckers, they can figure things out in very out-of-the-box ways.

To a degree we can measure and understand. In four dimensions. What creates time? Where does time go?  Does time run out, literally? Do we understand the origin of 'time', and can we create time in a laboratory? How does time react in 11 dimensions?  Being able to measure something, and have it react in a predictable way doesn't confer mastery.

Time is an intangible, so you can't really create it. But you can make it run faster or slower in a laboratory if you put the lab on a space ship moving at high velocity. That said, all you need is a theory that correctly predicts the behavior of time, such as some variants of string theory, and then build your simulation on that and see if it predicts correctly. That might be the reason on creates a universe simulation, to figure out how time works. If it does predict correctly, then chances are you have a correct model of the universe. 

We can theorise all we want, and we can be absolutely sure we know how and why something behaves the way it does, but until you get it in the air you don't know if it's going to fall apart or smash into a barn. Check out THIS crazy nut with the wings and the moustache... what a nut...

Link didn't come through for me, lay it on me again. I'm especially excited about the prospect of some crazy person with wings and a moustache, so don't leave me hanging. 

The thing is this... I doubt there will ever come a point in time, between right now and the end of the Universe(s), where humankind's biomechanical superbeing overlord descendants will be sitting on their thumbs going... "Well, yeah, that's pretty much every single thing figured out now. Anything good on TV?"

They'd probably just realize that the key to happiness is creating a better universe in a virtual world and then spend their entire life (immortality?) inside a paradise of their own virtual making. In other words, they will go to heaven. 

I just figure if I'm going to manipulate my body I deserve a tail.

Jesus, just get a tattoo man. Alright, what kind of tail do you want? Just something to wag, or do you want a prehensile one that you can hold things with? There would be a difference, there's a lot more muscles involved with those prehensile bastards.

[Lt.Uhura]

And why are you ignoring the remainder of the bible which says that your god killed children, tortured Job, lets millions of people live for eternity in burning in the lake of fire?

I see threats like burning in hell for eternity as classic mind control techniques widely used by humans, and not unique to Christianity.  Similarly, slaves were (are) threatened with similar tales of the horrific consequences they might suffer should they escape.  Even children at play who warn, "If you don't give me that ball I won't be your friend!", are practicing their little human mind-fucks on one another in bid to assert their power and gain control...benign survival techniques, unless the quest for power becomes pathological.

In its entirety the Bible's abundant metaphors are obtuse and contradictory, and the few moral lessons useful in today's society are universal themes common across other belief parables, similar to Aesop's Fables for example.

As a child I was brought up in a Christian church whose strict dogma ultimately led me to a healthy moral compass by negative example. 

[pyewacket]

There is a thin line between religion and cult- sometimes it's so blurred , it disappears.

http://www.culteducation.com/warningsigns.html

By Rick Ross, Expert Consultant and Intervention Specialist


Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

    Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
    No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
    No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
    Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
    There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
    Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
    There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
    Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
    The group/leader is always right.
    The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

    Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
    Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
    Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
    Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
    Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
    Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
    A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
    Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
    Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
    Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

Ten signs of a safe group/leader.

    A safe group/leader will answer your questions without becoming judgmental and punitive.
    A safe group/leader will disclose information such as finances and often offer an independently audited financial statement regarding budget and expenses. Safe groups and leaders will tell you more than you want to know.
    A safe group/leader is often democratic, sharing decision making and encouraging accountability and oversight.
    A safe group/leader may have disgruntled former followers, but will not vilify, excommunicate and forbid others from associating with them.
    A safe group/leader will not have a paper trail of overwhelmingly negative records, books, articles and statements about them.
    A safe group/leader will encourage family communication, community interaction and existing friendships and not feel threatened.
    A safe group/leader will recognize reasonable boundaries and limitations when dealing with others.
    A safe group/leader will encourage critical thinking, individual autonomy and feelings of self-esteem.
    A safe group/leader will admit failings and mistakes and accept constructive criticism and advice.
    A safe group/leader will not be the only source of knowledge and learning excluding everyone else, but value dialogue and the free exchange of ideas.

[Tarbaby]

I just don't see why someone would set their sights on a tail when they could try for wings.

[Catsmile]

Bart D. Ehrman

Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teenager. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and also textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

A stone cold atheist, indeed.
Twisted facts to suit a narrative, or mistake?
How many other mistakes as facts could there be?
Trying to be factual... sophomoric and childish.

Some more to ponder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god

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


If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?

[Catsmile]

Bart Ehrman is one of the -- if not the -- foremost scholars on the resurrection. He's also an agnostic. Even he concedes the empty tomb. His explanation just gets a little lost in the weeds after that. I think I will go with a more logical conclusion.

if you want to see an interesting debate, I suggest people Google YouTube video of Gary Habermas debating Bart Ehrman.

But you knew that Bart Ehrman is agnostic, or you did in April... so ummm okay.

[Kelt]

Crazy moustache winged parachute nut guy demonstrates the unique importance of field testing one's theory.

For about 1:17 seconds you'll be all like... "Dude, that's totally a bad idea, dude. Don't do it, man. Don't.... HOLY SHIT, DUDE!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U


http://youtu.be/FBN3xfGrx_U

[b_dubb]

No, it wouldn't be ok. It would just be more right-left political bullshit. A lot of people are out to offend people's Christian sensibilities these days because Christian sensibilities offend people's political sensibilities and vice versa. The religion question is often just a little game the politics people play, rather than a meaningful discourse about the existence or inexistence of God/s/esses.

Dude I WAS being sarcastic. I'm troubled that anyone could think I was being sincere about prayer in school.

[zeebo]

... Firstly he said: It is exponentially more important to "know God" than to "believe in God." ...

I like this, especially since "knowing God" can mean different things to differnt people - i.e. it's not necessarily dogmatic. 

Perhaps one can have the experience in different places/ways, e.g. a religious building, in nature, looking at the stars, falling in love, having a child, during meditation/prayer, or through music, poetry, or art.  Good one, Mr. F. 

[SciFiAuthor]

Crazy moustache winged parachute nut guy demonstrates the unique importance of field testing one's theory.

For about 1:17 seconds you'll be all like... "Dude, that's totally a bad idea, dude. Don't do it, man. Don't.... HOLY SHIT, DUDE!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U


http://youtu.be/FBN3xfGrx_U

Holy crap. Yeah, I think some experimenting was in order instead of just going for it. But, at least whoever brought the tape measure for the hole was thinking ahead.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I just don't see why someone would set their sights on a tail when they could try for wings.

Because the chances of inflicting catastrophic damage is better at the tail.  Even if you don't bring down the plane immediately, you can remove its ability to maneuver and hit a desired target.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Twisted facts to suit a narrative, or mistake?

Not a mistake.  Lying, misrepresentation, moving the goalposts, changing the subject, straw man arguments, and on and on are all part of his debate tactics.  So is claiming that he's really not interested in the topic and was only forced to talk about it since...uh, five months ago.  And when he really gets cornered, saying that his opponent is "obsessed" with the topic and he has to go barbeque or weed his garden.

Religious nuts have penis envy that they don't have any substantial facts or logic to give their beliefs credibility.  So they throw all sorts of horseshit "facts" out there and BELIEVE them to be true, no matter how many times they've been debunked.

Also, this:

I think you mentioned something about similar stories of resurrection in antiquity? Which if the case, is completely untrue.

The other hundred times that a religious figure was claimed to have been resurrected (and born to a virgin on Dec. 25 etc etc etc) was bullshit, but the 101st time, with Jesus, THAT one was genuine and not at ALL a copy of previous claims.  No, sir!  Jesus suffering fuck that is some EPIC denial.