All Comments (116)

The situation is normal, F'ed up beyond any possibility of recognition. Ordinarily one might say that, "what we have here is a failure to communicate." That expression must have a flip side like, "what we have here is excessive communication."

Peace never happens until all those willing to kill to get "what they want" are killed. Notice that rule also applies to when the "bad guys" win as well as when the "good guys" win. Of course the winners get to write the history books so the "good guys" haved always prevailed in the end.

When "what they want" is justified by supernatural beings the supernatural beings must be killed else there will never be peace. This is the normal case. All conflicts are actually between Gods and not people. Gods are powerless beings that must have people just to do something as simple as breathe. Peace always comes when people take their Gods out of their iron lungs and let them die.

Jehovah and Allah both claim rights to Palestine. Surely we can go to the court house and simply see which one's name in on the deed. That's way too easy. Now go to your neutral iron lungs and come out fightin. Marquis of Queensbury rules now mind you.

No one under the influence of any God has had a rational thought yet. The law of averages favors it happening while the odds remain the same, zero.

Gerry

You say:

"(I) do not follow any cult, neither fits nor misfits. I just try to lead a life filled with love, curiosity, excitement, honesty and responsibility."

You forgot to mention “and humility”.

AH,

I can do very well without any condescending prayers for my salvation. Salvation from what, btw?

It is typical for your ilk to regard everybody as stupid who asks for evidence. The less palpable, the less really honestly deduced an argument, the more "truth" your like finds in it, projecting your own doubts and ignorance into non-reason. It then usually results in hatred: Nobody likes somebody who takes away his favorite toy. So I hope you don't have to explode holding back on civility.

To "go astray" from your herd of sheep cannot even be regarded as a big intellectual effort: It is as necessary for me as breathing.

And I am glad that I don't depend, neither mentally nor, "thank god", physically, on the sheep dogs who have wielded their tyranny over the "faithful" masses for already much too much time in history.

I do not follow any cult, neither fits nor misfits. I just try to lead a life filled with love, curiosity, excitement, honesty and responsibility.

Gerry:
You say
"Believers REGARD atheists as uncivil." True believers consider your like as 'gone astray' and pray for your salvation.The rest of us who can see further than their noses and yet not members of any organized religion consider your cult of misfits as stupid. This is as civil as I can withstand under the circumstances.

Victoria:

You say: “in my spiritual path, when something made no logical or rational sense (and many value judgements are not so black and white)
i rejected it and moved on”.

Really! And you still call yourself a Believer (in Islam). What is rational about facing one given direction in prayers. Isn’t your Allah everywhere? What is so rational about facing a stone five times a day . What is so rational about revolving around a cubical structure and kissing a bunch of pebbles imbedded in the structure, and believe that is enough to erase a lifelong list of sins? It is much easier to find the rational in your religion than the irrational , because there is hardly anything in it you could call rational . Every page of your Quran assaults and does extreme violence to reason and rationality. If it is true what you alleged above shouldn’t you just move on and on and on and out of that cult of death you call religion? May Allah grant you wisdom and peace.

Believers REGARD atheists as uncivil. We APPEAR uncivil to the believers by the mere fact that we are atheists. Believers don't MAKE us uncivil. That is what I said, if you would read my last post again. No atheist (nobody, in fact) has ever called me uncivil.

I didn't say I was not given a chance to BE respectful, as you choose to misquote, but to APPEAR respectful from the perspective of a group of religious human beings. Your posts? QED.

dont be sorry for your misperceptions of how you imagine "all' believers react-

no one can force one to be uncivil-

it is irresponsible to say you arent given a chance to be respectful-

just be it-

be sorry for your own words- not for the actions(real or projected) of others

Gravitation is also a theory. A falling object accelerates by 9,5 m/sec. But its a theory, nobody knows exactly why. It becomes very practical, however, if someone jumps out of the window from the 10th floor.

Otherwise, Victoria, calm down. Any argument used by an atheist will be and always has been felt as an offense, as an insult to a believer. So, I don't have a chance to appear "civil" from your viewpoint. I am sorry for this.

besides, what's the big deal? you just got it backwards, that's all. is that what science is offering?
this is the narrow scope i was observing before, and a good example-

when a religious or scienitfically inclined person makes a mistake- instead of just saying 'oops' and moving on- they attmept to incorporate that mistake into further reasoning-

it makes no logical sense to me-
i my spiritual path, when something made no logical or rational sense (and many value judgements are not so black and white)
i rejected it and moved on.

i dontpoint out the lack of fossil record or physical evidence to support some evolutionary claims-
its a theory- so, as a theory it is unproven as yet.

the same with religion- when science makes a concerted effort to disprove the existence of god- i'll listen if the research is compelling enough-

but since it hasn't made that effort, it's all subjective opinion and conjecture at this point-

we are all human beings- we have that in common-
we are not really wired so differently- some are kind of dense- some are insightful or sharp-

it doesnt mean the dense or dull minded ones have no other value- these are intangibles-

scientifically inclined seem more intent on proving their own rightness, and sacrificing civility gladly -

it's hard to learn while being smugly dismissed from such a superficial judgement.

what kind of response do you give gerry?
that you are not responsible for your easily overlooked and simple mistake?
and the fault is my own "fuzzy" logic?

it's become a slippy and silly exchange-
ok gerry- youre right about everything.

does that make you satisfied?

personally, i'd rather learn a little myself, and grow in the process, and be wrong sometimes.

im getting somewhat bored with the lack of respect people show to each other in here-

but science is not an item gerry-
sceince is the basis of technology(which can be considered an item) but can still exist without it- (can technology exist without science?)

besides, youre kind of sliding into the area of a discussion in which you are receiving respect, but giving some derision in return.

without mutual respect, is there any point to communicating?

Victoria,

my subtle dyslexic projection is: Two items can be separated or they cannot be separated. Not a really big heap of logic.

But of course, it takes a considerable amount of fuzzy logic to belief in the supernatural and still perceive nature with our senses and our minds without having dyslexic difficulties with incongruous fields.

hi gerry- you got it backwards-
i said the opposite -

gerry- "It escapes me that you say technology can be separated from science but science cannot be separated from technology"

well, it should escape you- as it is not what i said-

i said- " i find it difficult to separate technology from science- but science can certainly be separated from technology-

see? now what subtle dyslexic projection was that, anyway?

possibly my ramblings steer so clear of the pure clean streets of logic so often that your brain automatically substituted that for what you imagined i must have meant-

and no gerry- you know i wasnt comparing my beliefs to a product- or a wok-
actually i was repsonding to tonio and chris responding to jihadist who was-
o never mind.
so congratulations are not in order-

but im keeping them anyway
no takebacksies!

Victoria,

There is a slight difference between fact and opinion. 2+2=4. That is a fact (at least, that is my opinion, lol!). Mohamed flew into the sky (where exactly?) on a winged horse (Greek Pegasus) - that is an opinion at best, and such an improbable one that it has to be put into the drawer of metaphors, myths, fairy tales, superstitions, fraudulent brain washing - in that order (similar to the analogous Christian stories - it is the same drawer).

It escapes me that you say technology can be separated from science but science cannot be separated from technology - are we just singing songs or please our rhetoric musculature or what?

Nice to hear, and congrats, that you regard belief as a "product" comparable to woks, depending on the rules of the ever changing market. That is what I always have felt. Hence it is completely exchangeable, like the fad of someone who prefers Mercedes to BMW, to start at a rather high level, lol! I trade my eternal truth for your eternal truth. That is what it all amounts to.

THAT WAS VICTORIA

I garnered that Jihadist was commenting upon the fact that while science may make claims to be absolute- it is constantly changing and developing new revisions, some that make obsolete the former technology-

(for gerry- technology is a PRODUCT of scientific exploration- and i find it difficult to separate technology from science- but sciene can certainly be spearated from technology-
she was giving a tangible example- not a definition of science- hence no confusion on my part)

and that we, as the public- have the option to accept or reject what is proffered, be they ideas or products.

and that science has not managed to improve on many things because they are optimal as they are- (like the wok, and ostensibly, belief in the god)

as for any accusation that natural scientists are claiming to explain the nature of human existence- i think that is exactly what chris everett attempted-

well- they can try- or should anyway.
but they are not really exploring that territory of inquiry- or researching that boulevard of ideas (which answers your query on what that meant)

hence, any opinion is just that- an opinion and a premature one until backed with some hard data.

i didn't find any allusion to a non-sectarian advocacy that evolution is anti-religion at all.

having said all that- as an artist-type- i have always greatly admired the tenacity, devotion,concentrated focus required to pursue a scientific vision or truth-

also, as an artist-type, i lament the selling out of scientists and artist alike for deviating from that intitial search for creating harmony and order out of apparent chaos-

they both require a patron who shares their vision to support them- in the seminal stages anyway- to maximize their productive capabilities.

art for art's sake and science fo science's sake say i. (and live it too)

but really, what a gentleman you are tonio-
few people have the presence of mind to apologize in advance if they may have assumed an incorrect thing-(not saying you are incorrect)

real dialogue starts with the realization that we may hold different truths, and repsect that about each other-

for instance, i found chris's contention that his or her truth was the only truth- a bit intransigent-
so that colorsm perception of how i recieve their writing- possibly precluding my appreciation of any points made-
but at least i'm aware of it-

which leads me to appreciate your open-mindedness even more
peace

Victoria, I'm not quite sure what point you were making with your response to me. Would you explain what you mean by "unexplored territory"?

From my standpoint, Jihadist appeared to accuse natural science proponents of claiming that this type of science could explain the nature of human existence. Further, Jihadist appeared to fault natural science itself for its silence on that topic. In other words, he?/she? appeared to be making a nonsectarian version of the creationist claim that evolution is anti-religion. If that was not the intention, I apologize.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Hmmm, you say you have a low opinion about superstition but by a major tenet of Islam, you are required to believe in "pretty/ugly wingie, talking fictional/superstition thingies aka angels and devils. So why are you still a Muslim??????

hi chris and all-

well, i'm a believer in ALLAH (the god) so clearly my position is from that perspective-
it's a given, just as yours is from the scientific perspective-
fine for you, fine for me-
you stated-
"Again with the strawman that science claims to have all the answers!"

can we assume that science does not have all the answers then?

we can even hypothesize that some day science WILL have all the answers- but there is no hard evidence for it.

can science then, logically admit that there are areas it is not knowledgeable about?

it seems it would have to.

is there room for god and the practice of god consciousness allowed in science?

there is ample room for science in religion (islam, anyway)

in this respect- religion seems to (ideally) be broader in it's scope- and encourages a wider mind to grasp that which cannot be seen or sensed with the physical known 5.

i can understand, respect, and even faciliate your adherence to science, it would be helpful, but not necessary to have it reciprocated.

im afraid i left mid-thought and came back a few hours later- so i hope this isn't too disjointed.

tonio- you are stating that natural science explains the why of emotions, (although i am not satsified that it has, but we'll accept that premise for the time being)but natural science cannot explain its, nature. (the whys being more in the category of conjecture and philosophy- and the nature - actually is in the direct realm of natural science).

but we'll go with it for now-

i don't believe jihadist (or myself) are faulting proponents of natural science for not addressing these issues.

that is the point.

since it is unexplored territory- and has not been sufficiently explored-
it is an unknown from that perspective, and from a purely logical view- hasn't yet earned the right to have an opinion, good or bad about value judgements on the nature of love, or anger, or god either.

i can critique any subject- but it does not mean that my critique has any weight- and so it is with science in relation to fields it has no research invested.

i'm not sure if one can say emotions don't "exist" in the physical world- certainly their manifestations are identifiable (even chemically) and i contend that lends credence towards their existence.

back to chris's statement-
""Positive Psychology... This field is founded on the belief that people want to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives, to cultivate what is best within themselves, and to enhance their experiences of love, work, and play."

well, as chris states- (i'm not sure if chris is a he or a she)
it is based upon a belief-

and an incorrect one-
if it stated that SOME people want positivity- (again, by the criterion demanded of religion- that it be measurable etc- this seems incongruous as it doesn't meet it's own scientific criteria)

the premise it is built upon simply doesn't apply to all people-
would that it did- but it doesn't.

so there must be a deeper reason for our existence, beyond the measuring of what is tangible-

chris also contends that religion results in ignorance and dissonance- (besides the "palliative" observation-)

interesting, on the one hand- the superior scientific remedy offered seems to me to be a pallaitive-

in the search for personal happiness- it seems in real life a purely selfish endeavor-
to attmept to modify it or validate it but claiming that later (when this desirable state is achieved) somehow it will trickle down to benefit all of society seems wishful thinking to me-

as soon as the lid of the psyche is lifted and explored all of the traits of our human weaknesses that are impediments to that ethereal 'happiness' come pouring out-

i really find it diffcult to imagine that even one person has managed to find such absolute fulfillment- let alone 2 or enough to create a societal benefit-

on the other hand, we have flashes of remarkable consciousnesses that have graced our planet in the form of prophets-

and they actually HAVE influenced entire societies, and millions after their departure.

in very real and substantial benefits-

since chris has only hypothesized what their conclusion may NOT be- (to submit to god) we have no idea what their conclusion actually IS- so it is, well- inconclusive.

so- chris contends that we faithful live in a state of ignorant and dissonance.

characterized by our blind clinging to superstition-

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

just for the record-
this mentality is disallowed in islam-

i personally have the same low opinion of superstition, and realize its futility and negative impact as you do chris-

maybe - in your own care for your mind- you could explore a bit of the 'exotic' possibilites

i find that a strange reference- but i think we've all been through the mundane- and are striving toward a more substantial raison d'etre

but you to yours, and me to mine- lets try and treat each other with respect
peace

Chris; you say
“In the case of your assertion that you've seen ghosts on several occasions, including group sightings, well, that doesn't convince me”.
Fair enough. I did not expect you or anyone else to use only my experience to make a definitive judgment but to have my experience as a stimulus to prod those who want to know to search for hard core evidence: evidence that would stand up to rigorous scientific standards.
I went beyond my personal experience and checked out the literature on scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts, and found plenty of good scientific evidences. Researchers about this phenomenon are highly trained scientists working in renowned universities who used the latest of scientific instruments including infrared cameras ,EMF and heat detectors etc in their research. They proved there are ghosts. When the ghost is seen by more than one person and its image was imprinted on a film or video tape you and those others who sing in your choir could not tell me with a straight face that it is a “phantom, a perception or a trick of the mind. To have a critical mind is one thing but to have a closed mind is another. For the benefit and also the entertainment of the gang I am listing a number of links that relate to our subject. By the way, why is the idea of an entity that is not continually visible seems to be threatening to those who pretend to be scientists and to know more than the rest of us?
www.theshadowlands.net/ghost
www.theshadowlands.net/ghost
www.zerotime.com/ghosts
www.zerotime.com/ghosts
www.ghoststudy.com/new6/new/gettysburg13.htm

Some people doesn't understand the concept of a argument. It's too complex for her to ponder.

"* Is science is more important that social science in understanding human behaviors, actions, needs, wants?

* Do science really have all the solutions answers for man with all his emotions - rage, anger, love, hate, greed, generousity etc?"

Jihadist, those emotions do not exist in the physical universe. Natural science explains why we have emotions. But no one here is claiming that natural science can explain the nature of our emotions or how they relate to the nature of human existence. Are you faulting natural science for not addressing those issues?

Jihadist,

You say "Is science is more important that social science in understanding human behaviors, actions, needs, wants?"

Why do you not include social science in science generally? Although social science is "soft" and often filled with unsubstantiated nonsense (e.g. social Darwinism & eugenics, Communism, etc.), there is much about social dynamics that is amenable to disciplined scientific inquiry. One thing I've heard about recently is Positive Psychology which, as I understand it, is an attempt to rigorously apply scientific discipline to the question of how to maximize happiness. A U. Penn website I Googled explains it thus:

"Positive Psychology is the scientific study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive... This field is founded on the belief that people want to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives, to cultivate what is best within themselves, and to enhance their experiences of love, work, and play. Positive Psychology has three central concerns: positive emotions, positive individual traits, and positive institutions. Understanding positive emotions entails the study of contentment with the past, happiness in the present, and hope for the future. Understanding positive individual traits consists of the study of the strengths and virtues, such as the capacity for love and work, courage, compassion, resilience, creativity, curiosity, integrity, self-knowledge, moderation, self-control, and wisdom. Understanding positive institutions entails the study of the strengths that foster better communities, such as justice, responsibility, civility, parenting, nurturance, work ethic, leadership, teamwork, purpose, and tolerance."

This sounds pretty good to me, and I doubt their conclusions will be to "Submit to God," "Obey His commandments," or "Give your money to the Church."

You say "Do science really have all the solutions answers for man with all his emotions - rage, anger, love, hate, greed, generousity etc?"

Again with the strawman that science claims to have all the answers! Superstitions may have a palliative effect for the suffering or a moderating effect for the unruly, but their fruit is ultimately ignorance and dissonance, and cripple human growth. All virtue you ascribe to superstitious religions like Islam would be more honestly, directly, and permamently attained without superstition.

Observer,

You make a good point about observation (your field of expertise, I presume). It seems like a gray area between "hard" observations that are reproducible, recordable, measurable, etc, and group observations of something that is fleeting and gone. My tendency is still to categorize the assertion into assertions of that type, and then ask whether there's any compelling reason to preferentially entertain that belief relative to the others in the bin. I would also consider my policy towards the bin as a whole.

In the case of your assertion that you've seen gosts on several occasions, including group sightings, well, that doesn't convince me. I've heard that kind of thing about all the beliefs I've listed before (bigfoot, etc). Countless millions know Jesus personally. Different countless millions know Buddha nature. Krisha. Allah. Yeweh. Some know they've lived previous lives and will live additional lives in the future. Others are Heaven bound. They all know it. They've all seen it.

If I had your kind of experience, I would voraciously read the SKEPTICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL literature on ghosts and make sure I understood the potential for MUNDANE explanations. Not until Ihad exhausted all mundane explanations would I even begin to entertain exotic ones.

Care of the mind is our greatest responsibility.

Observer writes: "TJ did not deny the ghost’s existence but could not explain it."

Careful. I made no comment on its existence. I only claim the perception, and not that what I perceived was actually there. Big difference.

J,

you confound science with technology to make a cheap point. Pretty embarrassing.

Nice comparison of god and wok. Kudos to your growing realism.

Angela,

"...just as Christ loved the church"? Christ didn't love the church. He didn't even know the church. The church was invented 300 years later and installed by emperor Theodosius at the end of the 4th century. Eternal truth?

"ghosts"

All you can say that somebody says he has seen ghosts. W.Y.S.I.W.Y.G.: You can't rely on your senses, and, of course, science is aware of this! Science is not "relying on your senses", as is erroneously propagated by most of the science haters. Traffic accident witnesses are almost worthless: They have "seen" or "heard" this or that, and then their brains have processed it according to their prejudices. Reality is something else.

I believe the ghost seers, they may be 100% honest, just like those accident witnesses. The FACT of their perception may be complete reality, "truth", the OBJECT of their perception being a phantom.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihandist,

No need to organize a letter writing campaign, the flaws of Christianity are sufficient to down size and "pink slip" the Pope and his all-male guilt trippers and "sin listers".

The flaws of Islam will be equally as effective in downsizing and "pink slipping" the all-male ayatollas, imams and clerics.

Why is it you forget these flaws so quickly??

Once again:

1. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

2. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

3. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven,warmongering, hallucinating Arab who also had embellishing/ hallucinating/ plagiarizing, scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Jihadist
You of all people , a Mecca stone worshipper, use an atheist (CNL) to dish all this Muslim venom on the head of a major Christian denomination. People of your cult never forgot the belated effort of this Pope's predecessors to save the Christian world from being overrun by the barbarian hordes. Thank your Allah that neither I nor anyone who feels lke me, are in his shoes since we will have made those Crusade ventures look like kids play.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Pope Benedict 16 is visiting the US from 15 April 2008. For a week methinks.

Great opportunity for you to organise a letter or petition by the Jesus Seminarians, Crossanized Christians, Cathololics/Christians of Reality for an intra-faith dialogue.

And oh, don't forget to ask the Pope on the new seven sins. Why so many sins from the Original Seven Deadly Sins with now an additional seven?

So now, with the holy virtues of chastity (to be chaste in words), abstinence (to abstain from calling anyone who quoted the holy books as thumpers), temperance (to refrain from cut and paste), diligence (in getting all the signatures of the Jesus Seminarians), patience (to reword their turgid and convulated theological prose), kindness (to accept with grace if the Pope says he will not consider the proposals as heretical and blasphemous) and humility (to know that not all the people agree with the voted on conclusions of the Jesus Seminarians)

Now get going an organise a joint letter for a dialogue between the Vatican and Jesus Seminarians. If Muslim scholars/ulema can do it, so can the Crossanized Christians/Catholics of Reality of the world.

Yeah well, life is a distaff dog and so am I.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Social Science (sociology, politics, history, anthropology, geography, psychology) would immediately identify the flaws into today's society especially the flaws in religion. It would not identify the flaws in electronics. And the first day notes in every Social Studies class are? You guessed it, the first four flaws of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Hello Chris Everett,

You stated to Observer: "As a scientifically-minded person (and a scientist), I rely on science to keep my belief structure "clean" and free of superstition. The way I see it, if anything can be called "true," it is emperical observations of nature, i.e. the events that happen in the real world."

There is science. There is social science.

* Is science is more important that social science in understanding human behaviors, actions, needs, wants?

* Do science really have all the solutions answers for man with all his emotions - rage, anger, love, hate, greed, generousity etc?

Newton's Third Law :

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Evidently true in physics/science.

Base on empirical observations of man and and events happening in the real world, can we revise Newton's Third Law in social science as follows:

"For every action, there may be no and opposite reaction, or there may be an unproportionate and opposite reaction."

I have an averse and illogical reaction against the promoters of Blu Rays and HD DVDs as that would mean I am supposed to replace my DVDs just because it is the latest, best, coolest thing to have for my viewing pleasure. I can always ignore them and stick to iPods.

In the seventies, there were 8 track tapes, which I have never seen one in real life, apart from cassettes, and now CDs. And the VHS that wiped out the Betamax before DVDs came.

The Betamax, I was told, was better than the VHS, but Sony botched its licensing strategy and consequent marketing in positioning the Betamax as a product for the better informed, er, snotty and snobbish ones.

Science and technology may advance, but the ultimate choice of acceptance is still the marketplace - be it for products or for ideas and still depends on marketing and consumer/public acceptance or rejection.

Of course there are products which can't be improved on easily, including the wok, and beliefs that can't be dispeled off easily, including God.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Chris Everett;
You say "The scientific method is grounded in making sure that our beliefs are based on evidence - evidence that is testified to by a skeptical community of doubters, either by independent experiment or INDEPENDENT OBSERVATION.”
If a number of people of different backgrounds attested to seeing the same ghost, then according to your definition there was a ghost. It is not a speculation. Many such apparitions were sighted and documented by many groups. I saw ghosts a number of times and was not alone. TJ saw a ghost. You did not see one so you call it a speculation at best. TJ did not deny the ghost’s existence but could not explain it. It is the utmost of arrogance to dismiss offhand an experience of so many at different times in different places because we did not share that experience. A true scientist would merely say I did not experience it, and would not belittle those who made the claim. If you truly want to follow the scientific way to experiment about ghosts there are a large number of haunted places in this country you can visit. I believe there is a place called Australia. I have never been there, but some who were there testified to that effect. It is the same thing. I understand something about critical thinking but that should not be stretched to extreme cynicism.
The minute we are convinced of the existence of ghosts a new dimension to reality will be revealed were what now seems mysterious and impossible becomes clear and very possible.

PS: Please do not lump atheists with scientists as if they are one and the same because they are not.

Experience itself (talking about experiencing ghosts) is not the final proof of reality. Read Oliver Sacks, "The man who mistook his wife for a hat". It was his GENUINE experience.

I had a number of experiences of seizures of "deja vue", where every detail of what happens right now is experienced as a sequence of remembered events. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, where the brain erroneously performs a sort of "short circuit", where actual events appear as reminiscences. It could be labeled as "supernatural" (since actually impossible), and it was as real for me as the keys of my keyboard, but I know, of course, that it was an error in my brain. I made it up. Dreams also appear, mostly, as a given reality. But they are only dreams.

And inmates of insane asylums (a friend of mine was a director of such an institution) picture a reality of fairy tales which, for them, are above any doubt: They experience them as their truth. That does not morph them into reality.

Spiderman's religion, in addition, can only be lived through hatred against anybody who does not follow him into his particular cave. And that makes it dangerous. If you follow Luther's statement that reason is of Satan, you leave the realm of reality. Anything goes. His superstition, together with an extremely sloppy way of thinking ("intelligent, design" haha!) makes me feel happy that I am not exposed to his neighborhood. These were the mindsets that burned the witches. I would not survive, if he had his way. The tortured witches confessed to their torturers the most colorful details of their intercourse with the devil. The torturers, who never met the devil, were happy to be able to perceive such truth. These are the thoughts that come to mind reading spider's emanations.

Sloppiness of thinking: "God" can light a fire (my future abode), since he created the earth. I can light a fire, too. So, I am god.

No spiderman, I don't intend to be your neighbor in your heaven, if that mental abyss is what you have to offer up there.

All religions are made up by humans, for better or worse.

Fair enough. We're in agreement.

"I completely discount any idea or possibility of the 'supernatural'. It's an oxymoron."

I was using the word as shorthand for any claims or concepts about things that humans allegedly cannot perceive with their senses. I'm not talking about natural phenomena like black holes, which we can perceive through their effects. I was making the same general point as Chris, which is that any such claims or concepts are speculation.

Actually Tonio, I don't agree 100%. I completely discount any idea or possibility of the 'supernatural'. It's an oxymoron.

Observer,

As a scientifically-minded person (and a scientist), I rely on science to keep my belief structure "clean" and free of superstition. The way I see it, if anything can be called "true," it is emperical observations of nature, i.e. the events that happen in the real world. The scientific method is grounded in making sure that our beliefs are based on evidence - evidence that is testified to by a skeptical community of doubters, either by independent experiment or independent observation. This produces the "cleanest" and "truest" belief system possible.

The question of the COMPLETENESS of a given belief system is another matter altogether, and contrary to religious characterizations of atheists and scientists, we DON'T assert that nothing exists except that which has been scientifically verified. Instead, we recognize the possibility of aspects of reality that are as yet undiscovered - in fact, the history of science is PRECISELY the discovery of such phenomena and the development of explanatory theories of them.

But when someone makes a claim about reality that has no basis in verified evidence, a scientifically-minded person has no recourse but to put that assertion in the same bin as all assertions of that type - bigfoot, alien abductions, ghosts, telepathy, telekinesis, astrology, miracles, Bible stories, etc. When you look at these beliefs as a group, you find them to be somewhat contradictory and incoherent. You find that, unlike scientists, their proponents are making no disciplined effort to objectively verify the truth of the claims, even when the claims are testable (as is the case with astrology).

All in all, it seems self-evident that the source of these kinds of beliefs is not nature, but man's imagination. Some of them (Bible, astrology) are culturally-inherited myths that are handed down from antiquity. Some (ghosts, alien abductions) are interpretations of anomalous experiences - interpretations that are made within the cultural traditions of the experiencer. In fact, there is a body of literature examining supernatural and paranormal claims, and rather than finding uniform testimony of like experineces, researchers find culturally-specific testimony that, taken together, argues AGAINST any independent reality.

So the stance of most atheists and scientists is this: the things I assert as true are ONLY the things that are SCIENTIFICALLY true. Other assertions are to be accepted as SPECULATION. To conflate the two is to be SUPERSTITIOUS and to lose the "clean" basis underpinning belief itself. Once that happens, the Pandora's box of incoherent nonsense is open and reality itself is lost.

I know this may seem frustrating in light of a personal experience such as the one you interpret as "ghost". The antidote for this is an appreciation of (and in fact, a reveling in) mystery. As Einstein said, his religion consisted solely of the "cosmic religious feeling" he felt when contemplating the deep mystery of nature - a mystery he dedicated his entire life to exploring. Had he settled for superstition instead of scientific inquiry, the entire human race would be all the poorer today.

I agree 100% Tonio.

To clarify, my "personal experiences" comment was directed specifically at experiences that people label as supernatural.

The experience that Patel describes is probably very common in America, since the Colorado Springs type of extremist seems to dominate the public discourse about Christianity. This site is one of the few places where I've found Christian commentators who aren't fundamentalists or Biblical literalists.

TJ and Observer, the issue is not the possibility of the supernatural, which I acknowledge. The issue is that personal experiences do not qualify as scientific proof because of their falsifiability. The burden of proof is on any claim that supernatural beings or phenomena exist. That's not necessarily a large issue with ghosts. But religions present their supernatural beings as authority figures or moral agents, and that type of claim demands a very high standard of proof.

Observer:

I don't mean to sound as if i doubt your experience with the ghost. Regardless of whether the ghost itself was real not or, your experiencing it was real (in the sense that it caused you emotion). I was not there and so do not believe I can comment on the circumstances.

However, I would classify your ghost as something 'not yet explained by scientific conventions' and NOT as something 'supernatural'.

Observer:

There is a difference between experiencing and believing and the scientific method. The reason some of us, even if we had seen and experienced the presence of a ghost still would not believe in 'god' because what we describe as experience is flimsy at best.

There are plenty of documented cases in which a woman has sworn to and been fully convinced that a certain person is the one who raped her, yet DNA evidence has shown that the man is innocent.

The mind is a strange organ and I admit we do not fully understand it, but we know enough about it to realize that what we see is not always how things happened. Our minds can trick us sometimes, which is all the more reason to focus on the scientific method and not rely just on experience.

I agree Observer, but my point is that seeing a ghost isn't a valid reason to conclude that there is a supreme deity. It's not even a valid reason to conclude that such things as 'souls' actually exist. The only thing that you can conclude from it is that there is still mystery in the world. If you are as familiar with science as you present yourself to be, you would expect exactly that to be the case.

I'm an atheist by the way.

TJ:

You say "The fact that science can't yet explain it doesn't invalidate the scientific method."
That is not the point. The point is that you and I have experienced a ghost. I could not demonstrate this experience by means of the scientific method to any one at any time. That does not negate or cancel the experience.If we can get the agnostics and atheists to admit that much we would have achieved for them more than a lifetime of experiences had.

Reasonable (?),

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Also, there is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors. See also Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

Observer, I've seen a ghost. I can't explain it with any certainty. But the fact that I can't explain it with any certainty doesn't mean that I'm willing to surrender my incredulity. The fact that science can't yet explain it doesn't invalidate the scientific method.

You're going to lot of work when you could just say "I believe in a god that lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge".

Outlawtorn103,

There's no way to reach Scrotuman2. He's totally impervious to reason. He just spews his hatred, presents his ignorant nonsense, and declares victory. To be honest, I think he's a mental case that does this as a pathetic attempt to get some attention. He never interacts with anyone here on a human level; nobody respects him; he never contributes to anyone else's ideas or develops his own based on any feedback. In essence, he's like the "humanoids" he seems to think you design for a living. Only his humanoid form has no moving parts; it's solid concrete.

I think I have every right to comment on "god's design" of man even though I lack the ability to 'design' a man myself. - the same way a child can comment on a math-genuis's advanced calculus problem if the child sees that somewhere in the genius's calculations he wrote down 1+1=3. The child may not understand most of it, but he realizes that which he can understand doesn't make sense.

designing man is difficult, so much needs to connect. designing 'god' is the easy part. just say, 'He's perfect. I can't see, smell, or taste him and neither can you. he's just there. Now, no one ask any other questions.'

guess that's why man hasn't designed man yet, but we nailed 'god' a long time ago.

So called liberated:

why do you keep quoting people from the Jesus Seminar ? What is to say that their speculative nonsense is factual?

Jesus illiterate? Did he not read from scrolls to his own people in Nazareth? I suppose that you reject that also.

Your liberation comes in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

It is your choice- believe in the creator or in the doubters on this forum or the liars in the Jesus forum.

Confront the truth, my friend, and true love(this is what Angela speaks of)

What motivates you to speak the way you do about Jesus, Abraham, Calvin, Luther? Does it make you feel better about your rejection of God?

Atheist bunch:
One of you said:"The earth and life on earth are NOT separate scenarios that were made to be perfectly balanced and THEN placed together."

The 23 constants were what "formed” the Universe. Life on earth required more than a planet. A planet of the earth size would have a gravitational force that would make its atmosphere thick with poisonous gases such as ammonia and methane. Furthermore for life to be established and to develop the earth needs to be seeded with heavy elements; iron and heavier. Also the earth needed to be shielded from the harmful ultraviolet radiation of the sun. That is why not too many planets have life on them. God solved this problem with one stroke. He slammed a planet the size of Mars into this earth. The core of this planet seeded the surface of Earth with the needed heavy elements, and at the same time blasted away the thick poisonous atmosphere. Part of the resulting dust coalesced to form the receding moon. Atheists see in all of this one coincidence after another. Einstein sees a collection of laws whom he calls God. I see a vital force that drive those laws and is independent of them.
The leaders among the Atheists claim the probability of existence and nonexistence is 50% ( an odd of I in 2). Lets tip it for them. The thinking among the Atheists never experienced a ghost otherwise they would not be so sure that what exists is the physical world ONLY. Many people believe in a transcendent spirit by faith. I am too cynical and critical to be among them. Yet I was fortunate to experience ghosts on a number of occasions all but on was with a group of people who saw and heard what I saw and heard. From what I saw,read and heard I am not the only one with such experiences. For those nonbelievers who have never had such an experience I hope they do see at least one ghost of the nasty persuasion to drive the fear of God in them and to enrich their life experiences. These (spiritual) experiences means to me that there is a dimension other than the physical one. I could not explain these apparitions(dimension) by the scientific method. Until someone explain it to my satisfaction that they are simply a figment of my imagination, or help in totally cancelling those experiences I shall maintain that neither Dawkins nor Harris nor any other Atheist know about everything that is out there. To me believing in a super spirit is a minor step forward from my spiritual experiences but to an Atheist it is knell toll of their premise “if I do not experience it is not there”. Few years ago every one and his dog made such a claim, but when radio and then TV came to be, you do not hear that claim anymore except among the agnostics and atheists.

Spittleman2,

Once again your arguments are as iron clad as your mind. I see no way that my arguments might ever sway you. Your logic has opened a door to my imagination. Knowing that intelligent design is bunk implies hatred of intelligence and design! Religious logic at work. Impressive. I guess that means I hate flying and saucers. Loch Ness and monsters. Palms and readings. Bulls and feathers.

What impresses me the most is that you have been able to develop your own brand of science so different from the science of the entire world's community of scientists. Your understanding of e