Susan's Place Transgender Resources

  Hello.^_^
    Awhile ago I met a man who was so religious he wouldn't accept anything that could be disproved by science and God and basically had took the readings of the creation of the earth word by word from the bible and says it was made in 6 days and evolution was a bunch of crap. Well I believe in God and reasonable science so I asked him how long would 6 days take?And He answered 24x6=144 hours.
    I then asked him why did he discredit evolution when there's so many facts that point out it happened? He then just said if it only took 6 days all that stuff wouldn't have been necessary. I then asked him by which days would God choose to fallow? He kind of looked at me puzzled and said the regular days. I then said since God created the whole universe and each planet varies in size that they would have either longer or shorter.
   He was surprised and said he never really thought of that before and told me to explain in more detail as we continued our friendly debate. I also told him if you want to get real technical we could use our galaxy as a clock. We have galactic equinoxes every 5,000 years or so and the planets are all aligned. If we use earth's style of clock we would have 24 equinoxes in a day so that'd be about 120,000 years and if you times that by six it's 720,000 years. in that amount of time evolution could have happened since he's God and is eternal I wouldn't see him having to rush things right away just start with an idea and work out the kinks.
    Also the last time we saw God in action was a few thousand years ago and suddenly seemed to stop coming by. Maybe we are on his day off and he will soon be back to work eventually and that might be the cause of all the people not believing in him because his scedule and day lasts a lot longer than ours do.
   The man seemed intrigued with this idea and said he was glad to meet some one with a belief in science and not trying to disprove God's existance and seemed refreshing than the whole God doesn't exist routine. We ended up deciding that both topics had points of their one and we ended our debate by deciding it is better to live how you believe and not to condone others and left with a friendly hand shake.
   I had fun talking to some one and seeing their point of view and discussing our different opinions. So here's the question do you follow a little of both or do you fallow only one of these and what are your thoughts and ideas? ^_^

I don't know anyone in science who is attempting to disprove g*ds existence, though I don't know of anyone in science who believes that particular version either.  Science works to prove, rather than disprove, and its proofs are open to all.  Don't like gravity?  Fine, find a way to prove its something else.  Its just that the proof has to be something that anyone, in anyplace, could work (more or less).  If you take that line In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  G*d is creating day and night not just on earth, but throughout the entire universe, so that 24 hour day is by no means uniform, for example, what about planets that exist around a binary star?

Nor is evolution contrary to religion, even Christianity.  John Paul embraced it in 1996, which reaffirmed the position taken in the 1950s.  I went to Catholic School, and was taught Darwin, perhaps somewhat grudgingly, but taught it nonetheless.

Just yesterday...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26747166/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26747166/)

Quote from: tekla on September 18, 2008, 10:46:36 AMScience works to prove, rather than disprove, and its proofs are open to all.

It's sort of the other way around: Science only "proves" anything by failing to disprove it after many serious attempts; also it implicitly favors simple descriptions. So the real question is: "Don't like gravity? Fine. Come up with an experiment that the current theory cannot explain, and come up with the simplest theory that accounts for that failure." It turns out, lots of people are trying to do just that.

Whenever I come across new-earthers, I wonder what part of "Lorentz invariance" they don't understand. Oh, yeah. All of it. Beliveing in galilean space and time (whether 6000 or 13.8 billion years old) is as utterly ridiculous as believing in a flat earth. It might be a good very local approximation, but that's just not the geometry that exists in this universe.

I don't know what universe your friend lives in, Sherue, but I live in a Friedman-Robertson-Walker universe, with a local Kerr geometry (albeit one with such a low angular velocity that you can use the Schwarzschild geometry most of the time). ;D :P [/geek]

But there are some things science just doesn't explain. Most scientists either ignore these things altogether, or seek some sort of religion to deal with them. But fundamentalism just doesn't cut it. You can't make yourself believe something that you know is false.

I was just stating an idea not a belief we really don't know how the earth was created just several ideas. I was just trying to merge religious beliefs with a idea with science. I know it probrobly isn't true but we can't disprove it. I was just letting him question how long God would consider a day. But in the end I really don't know.

Hi there,

I'd like to apoligize if it sounded like I was criticizing you -- or anyone else, including your fundamentalist friend. I was just sharing my personal thoughts on the matter, from my own experience. I wouldn't try to cram general relativity down the throat of a new-earther -- I think the approach you took is a lot more likely to generate a good conversation, and it sounds like it did. Yours is a very insightful way of getting to the heart of the issue in an accessible manner. But since I know a good deal about physics, these contradictions that I see as more important immediately come to my mind.

Cheers,

~Alyssa

"Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up "

There is a difference between God as a divine providence and the dogma of religion.

i think that faith in religion is irrelevant if selfless in nature and altruistic, however faith in science can be very consequential, especially if the science is flawed. take for example if we are wrong about global warming. how is introducing a carbon tax which will cut into the family budget on an already strained economy less detrimental than thinking that maybe there is life after death?

believing in religion or science shouldn't have to be contradictory. long gone are the days when religion was an oppressive regime, where the elite scorned the poor into repenting for sins the elite would indiscriminately commit. 

nowadays though, science has taken the foreground, and i see equally as damaging rhetoric coming from science as in the days long gone. it has everything to do with there being a dogma that prevents free thought as religion did once upon a time. for all the clever people out there, science can also repress if it discourages free thought.  take for example [again] having a different notion to global warming. in my field of work, you are crucified. so in this regard i can't say one is any more enlightened that the other although religion nowadays should be more of a personal pursuit, and not a repressive ordeal as in ages past.

Quote from: Natasha on September 22, 2008, 02:21:35 AM
take for example [again] having a different notion to global warming. in my field of work, you are crucified. so in this regard i can't say one is any more enlightened that the other although religion nowadays should be more of a personal pursuit, and not a repressive ordeal as in ages past.

You work in a field?   ???

actually, I don't believe anything anyone says on either side. "There are no truths outside the gates of Eden"   I think Bob Dylan said that.

"I don't think we're in Eden anymore."  - I said that.

"Arf!" - Toto said that.

Quotehowever faith in science can be very consequential,

Science never claimed to be absolute truth as religion has. Science can only show proof of probability. Science is always changing as more evidence is uncovered. Marketing and religion have used the guise of science to manipulate people. Just as politicians have presented a one sided case and not give all the evidence. That is not science but rather faulty logic Gore included.

Scientists are people like everyone else, and have their own biases.  That doesn't mean that science is to blame.

Since science is all about putting ideas to the test, bias & dogmatism are anti-scientific.

Quote from: Natasha on September 22, 2008, 02:21:35 AM
i think that faith in religion is irrelevant if selfless in nature and altruistic, however faith in science can be very consequential, especially if the science is flawed. take for example if we are wrong about global warming. how is introducing a carbon tax which will cut into the family budget on an already strained economy less detrimental than thinking that maybe there is life after death?

believing in religion or science shouldn't have to be contradictory. long gone are the days when religion was an oppressive regime, where the elite scorned the poor into repenting for sins the elite would indiscriminately commit. 

nowadays though, science has taken the foreground, and i see equally as damaging rhetoric coming from science as in the days long gone. it has everything to do with there being a dogma that prevents free thought as religion did once upon a time. for all the clever people out there, science can also repress if it discourages free thought.  take for example [again] having a different notion to global warming. in my field of work, you are crucified. so in this regard i can't say one is any more enlightened that the other although religion nowadays should be more of a personal pursuit, and not a repressive ordeal as in ages past.

I for one don't think we should have a carbon tax for global warming because we had a similar weather scare a couple decades ago called global cooling. Once I found out about that and nothing happened I'm kind of skeptical about global warming.

Once I found out about that and nothing happened I'm kind of skeptical about...

Pretty much my notion about g*d too.

Quote from: Sherue on September 22, 2008, 01:01:14 PM
I for one don't think we should have a carbon tax for global warming because we had a similar weather scare a couple decades ago called global cooling. Once I found out about that and nothing happened I'm kind of skeptical about global warming.

Ditto.  Doubleplus ditto when I look at the three P's who benefit from the global warming "crisis": pundits, politicians, and plutocrats.

Regardless of whether the science behind global warming is faulty, like it was with Global Cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling), the changes and awareness being brought about as a result of the possibility are leading to people living greener lives, reducing their carbon footprint, conserving energy and thinking about different energy sources, recycling more and shifting the focus away from fossil fuels... which is better for the environment whether it will have any effect on climate shift or not.

It's possible to reduce carbon use, and carbon emmissions... and so avoid paying a lot of carbon tax. Granted it may be a stick rather than carrot approach... but the alternative is to say "Here are some incentives for living cleaner lives, we urge you to take them up", to which the response is "Well that's nice and all, but we're happy as we are, thank you. Look at the size of my SUV!"

How long do you keep trying to urge change through reward when no one gives a damn about it as long as the standard of their life doesn't get any more detrimental?

*sigh*

Anyway, that's another topic, and might be worthy of a seperate thread. :)

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.  There are serious problems associated with the climate that have been ongoing for well into a decade now.  There is a lot of debate as to these problems being 'natural' or 'man-made.'  A prudent person would look at the scope of the change and think, well, just in case it's number two, we might want to try to change things.  Just in case.

Quotea result of the possibility are leading to people living greener lives, reducing their carbon footprint, conserving energy and thinking about different energy sources, recycling more and shifting the focus away from fossil fuels... which is better for the environment whether it will have any effect on climate shift or not.

The fallacy is only looking at carbon or the climate or one effect. Everything is interconnected recycling also uses water, energy, and other resources. The total results might be even worse. The main political propaganda is just this type of promotion. Lobbyists  push the technologies that benefit those who they represent, even if the end result is worse for the majority. I could say lets reduce the world's population. That would save a lot of carbon emissions but not everyone would benefit the same way. If the solutions simple it usually is not correct or moral.

There's prudence, and then there's irrational terror.  The uproar over anthropogenic global warming has all the signs of a moral panic:

• the sudden onset*
• the media hype
• the outlandish claims unbacked by evidence
• the conflicting, incoherent, or biased testimonials by media-selected "experts"
• the designated enemy
• the vilification of dissenters
• the frantic pleas for intervention

We can't just give into every panic that comes down the pipes.  Even if there's some truth to AGW, the popular reaction isn't helping, and government reactions are too horrible to contemplate.  I'm half-convinced that if states begin heavily intervening in an attempts to curb carbon emissions, we'll be back in caves within a century - after tyranny, warfare, genocide, famine, and ecological destruction on a biblical scale.  Think about the sorts of nations that have thrown the weight of their governments behind popular interpretations of scientific theories, with no room for dissent.

* Although AGW has been simmering on the back burner for a long time, it's very suddenly become fashionable.

Well its not new.  Or at least to some.  The studied began in the fifties, and results started to trickle in the sixties.  That's its news to you, does not make it new.

It's not news to me.  I know that the idea of AGW has been around a long time, and I noted as much in my post.  It's the popular conception of it that I'm concerned with.  It's like HIV/AIDS - It's a horrible disease, but popular fears of it made people with AIDS into modern-day lepers, without helping anyone.  If we start rampaging around, enforcing naive but popular ideas for living "green", we're going to cause more trouble than we solve.

Take the idea of "Buy only locally grown produce".  If that gains traction, you can expect movement away from factory farms, which eliminates the economy of scale and lowers farming efficiency.  Overall expenditures on fuels, fertilizer, and other farm necessities will increase, diverting resources from other areas of production and raising prices.  More arable land will need to be devoted to farming to produce the same amount as before, with consequent ecological damage and increase in land prices.  Traffic on local roads will increase as food, fuel, and machinery shipments become more frequent.  Local & state taxes/tolls will increase to pay for road maintenance.  Carbon output may actually increase over the previous situation.  This sort of idea is a middle-class indulgence, not a policy prescription for "green living".

And a day is also 794 243 384 928 000 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom at 0K.

Thus spake science.

Posted on: September 22, 2008, 05:51:30 PM

---

And an hour in church is also like a thousand years.

Thus spake the lord thy god when s/he said:

Thou must not try to reason a person out of a belief that they got into from an irrational stance in the first place.  For such only serves to amuse the lord thy god.

Nope, science and religion don't mix.  That is, you can't hold both a scientific and a religious explanation for the same phenomenon without feeling cognitive dissonance.

cognitive dissonance

Is the human condition.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

~Albert Einstein.

Fish without Bicycles are just fish without Bicycles also.

tekla

Quote from: tekla on September 22, 2008, 05:08:53 PM
cognitive dissonance

Is the human condition.

So is thirst - and when either happens, we act to resolve it.

Quote from: Leiandra on September 22, 2008, 05:11:26 PM
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

~Albert Einstein.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

- Albert Einstein, letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

You are right it is all in the details. No doubt local produce is not as efficient as mass produced. There are more factors than price as you know. Grass feed cows take a lot longer to add weight so they must cost more and require more labor and time. Would you rather have a 50" TV made by slaves in China or a steak free of hormones and antibiotics with less fat? Each person has to look at their moral values to choose and then vote with their dollar.

What good is a fish without a bicycle, tekla?  I mean, come on!

Posted on: September 22, 2008, 06:23:21 PM

---

Quote from: lisagurl on September 22, 2008, 05:23:01 PM
You are right it is all in the details. No doubt local produce is not as efficient as mass produced. There are more factors than price as you know. Grass feed cows take a lot longer to add weight so they must cost more and require more labor and time. Would you rather have a 50" TV made by slaves in China or a steak free of hormones and antibiotics with less fat? Each person has to look at their moral values to choose and then vote with their dollar.

Exactly.  For my part, I'm voting for the factory-farmed, hormonally-charged, slop-inflated cows, until a viable large-scale alternative comes around.  Viable meaning cheaper.

Nor do I watch TV - I'm afraid I might catch sight of Bill O'Reilly, and be out the cost of a new TV.

And I'll keep the fat, too.  I've lost 40 lb on a bastardized version of Atkins, and it's been a struggle to find meat with a decent fat content.

QuoteViable meaning cheaper.

Then those are your values. For my own life I prefer things money can not buy.

Yeah, its absurd, so too is people who don't think two very different thoughts at the same time.  Really.  Golly gosh, that's what keep me going and getting out of be each day.  Sure, I could be doing the same suck ass rock band (My Chemical Romance) that is just like every other suck ass rock band (See: Panic! At the Disco) who know less about those instruments they play then I know about being a Georgia Redneck, but alas and alack, its going to be My Chemical Romance anyway ain't it?  (file:  My Chemical Romance under:  Bands That Wear Their Girlfriends Pants To Play In)

But hey, it might be Zappa plays Zappa, and once a year, it is.

Quote from: tekla on September 22, 2008, 05:32:23 PM
Yeah, its absurd, so too is people who don't think two very different thoughts at the same time.  Really.  Golly gosh, that's what keep me going and getting out of be each day.  Sure, I could be doing the same suck ass rock band (My Chemical Romance) that is just like every other suck ass rock band (See: Panic! At the Disco) who know less about those instruments they play then I know about being a Georgia Redneck, but alas and alack, its going to be My Chemical Romance anyway ain't it?  (file:  My Chemical Romance under:  Bands That Wear Their Girlfriends Pants To Play In)

But hey, it might be Zappa plays Zappa, and once a year, it is.

Where are you getting the idea I said it was absurd, or wrong?  It's a basic and widely accepted theory of human psychology.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 22, 2008, 05:29:57 PM

QuoteViable meaning cheaper.

Then those are your values. For my own life I prefer things money can not buy.

That's a little unfair.

Would you have me indulge in premium products produced in such a way that they can never be provided in quantity enough to replace the standard good?  You'd want me to squander that extra wealth to indulge my own selfish desire for an unusually "pure" or morally "correct" product, when the money could be put to some more productive use, like growing a company, developing a new substitute, donating to charity, buying pristine land to preserve it, or even saving for my retirement?

Do you buy fair-trade coffee?  Organic produce?  Antibiotic-free meat?  One of these is a scam - do you know which?  Are you so sure you're making good decisions with your money?

Quote from: tekla on September 22, 2008, 01:04:59 PM
Once I found out about that and nothing happened I'm kind of skeptical about...

Pretty much my notion about g*d too.

same for me but with sex. 

QuoteAre you so sure you're making good decisions with your money?

Not 100% I do read the signs and do research. No I do not buy coffee. Organic does not mean without slaves or chemicals, the USDA has approved the use of that word to accommodate almost everything.  But I do buy grass fed beef and chicken but less than once a month. Locally catfish is a staple. We make our own bread to avoid corn syrup and cook all meals from scratch never eat at restaurants. Buy nothing made in China and use less than a tank of gas a month. You can not live entirely free from the corruption but you can make a difference.

I also send plenty of letters to Government and corporations asking them to clean up their acts. I do spend lots of time in the library.

Quotecan never be provided in quantity enough to replace the standard good?

Americans do not need 90% of what they buy. Check out the land fills a quality product does not need to be replaced. It should last a lifetime.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 22, 2008, 05:29:57 PM

QuoteViable meaning cheaper.

Then those are your values. For my own life I prefer things money can not buy.

well, money can't buy my love, so, uh... where does that leave us?   ???  Should I be expecting flowers? heh

Quotewell, money can't buy my love

I did not say everything. You probably have a hard time giving it away.

Thanks for spilling that secret. Now I have to find new lies to tell people about me.

I'm all into free trade sex, it's like free trade coffee, but without the buzz, but a lot more mess.  Is that the same thing?

Cognitive dissonance is vastly over rated as a mental corrective for illogical beliefs and the behavior they produce. It's based on the false premise that cognition is a greater force in the human mind than emotion.

If those who cling to irrational beliefs ever change their behavior it is because of reality dissonance biting them in the ass. Not because they couldn't handle the "terrible pain" of holding beliefs that obviously did not conform to reality.

People use reason to justify their irrational beliefs, not to examine them.

Just a few scary thoughts that seemed to be lacking in this thread.  :D

Cognitive dissonance is vastly over rated as a mental corrective for illogical beliefs

See:  Republican Party of the United States of America.


People use reason to justify their irrational beliefs, not to examine them.

See:  Republican Party of the United States of America

Quote from: lisagurl on September 22, 2008, 08:39:54 PM
We make our own bread to avoid corn syrup

Neat.  I hate how they use corn syrup as a substitute for sugar everywhere in the states.  It's a stupid legacy of WWII, compounded by corporate welfare.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 22, 2008, 08:39:54 PM
Organic does not mean without slaves or chemicals, the USDA has approved the use of that word to accommodate almost everything.

Yep, and people buy into it nevertheless.  That's my biggest reason for opposing "trust me" government regulation - it's corruptible, corrupt, and corrupting.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 22, 2008, 08:39:54 PM
Buy nothing made in China and use less than a tank of gas a month.

Why shouldn't I buy anything made in China?  Are the Chinese evil?  Are all their products of demonstrably lower quality?  Are they all slaves?  I don't understand - I thought I was doing good by supporting the economic and social liberalization of a country that 'till recently had known nothing but tyranny and stagnation.  Should they go back to communism?  I could boycott the entire country, but that hasn't worked very well against Cuba or Iran, from my perspective.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 22, 2008, 08:39:54 PM

Quotecan never be provided in quantity enough to replace the standard good?

Americans do not need 90% of what they buy. Check out the land fills a quality product does not need to be replaced. It should last a lifetime.

Two issues with this one... first, I wasn't referring to the "durable goods" sort of product, but the idea of all people replacing their consumption of something like... ordinary beef, with ultra-deluxe corn-fed free-range no-hormone beef, or something similar.  It's just not possible.  They can't produce enough.  If it's morally right to support the expensive high-end beef producers, and wrong to support the factory farmers, than a lot of people are going to have to give up eating beef in order to do what's right.  The demand would drive the price up to astronomical levels, with no relief in sight.  All the techniques for making production more efficient would be what drove people away in the first place.  Lots of people would be out a staple food, and the economy as a whole would be out a large amount of productivity.

What needs to be done is pretty simple - the more socially responsible producer needs to come up with some other way to produce, and undercut the mainstream.  Until they do that, it can't be anything more than an indulgence.

Second, the idea that durable goods should last of a lifetime isn't just uneconomical and unrealistic, but ecologically destructive.  If refrigerators made before Energy Star and the switchover from Freon were still around, we'd be a lot worse off.  What if all the cars made without emission control systems were still on the roads?  How high would the price of oil be if lots of older juice-hogging appliances were still plugged into the electrical grid?  Could we have anything like digital radio and TV broadcasts, and cell networks, and wireless Ethernet, if older radio devices and unshielded appliances were still blaring all over the radio spectrum?  I'm convinced that the damage to the ecosystem and our level of technological progress would both have been worse off without the high rate of obsolecence.

Quote from: tekla on September 22, 2008, 09:46:58 PM
Cognitive dissonance is vastly over rated as a mental corrective for illogical beliefs

See:  Republican Party of the United States of America.


People use reason to justify their irrational beliefs, not to examine them.

See:  Republican Party of the United States of America

I used to have no doubts about that (the irrationality of the right wing). But, I'm afraid irrational beliefs have little to do with right/left politics or right/left ideology. IMO they do have a lot to do, however, with the emotional strength that those beliefs are held to be absolute and true - on either the right or the left.

Quote from: Margaret Ann on September 22, 2008, 09:35:36 PM
Cognitive dissonance is vastly over rated as a mental corrective for illogical beliefs and the behavior they produce. It's based on the false premise that cognition is a greater force in the human mind than emotion.

If those who cling to irrational beliefs ever change their behavior it is because of reality dissonance biting them in the ass. Not because they couldn't handle the "terrible pain" of holding beliefs that obviously did not conform to reality.

People use reason to justify their irrational beliefs, not to examine them.

Just a few scary thoughts that seemed to be lacking in this thread.  :D

Cognitive dissonance isn't about an idea clashing with reality, but with another idea.  One, both, or neither of the ideas may be based on reality, but that doesn't matter in the abstract.  Take the Arian Heresy, for example.  You can't believe in both Trinitarianism and Arianism simultaneously, not without severe cognitive dissonance.  Ultimately, you've got to reconcile the beliefs somehow.  And neither of them has anything to do with reality :).

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 22, 2008, 09:48:27 PM
Two issues with this one... first, I wasn't referring to the "durable goods" sort of product, but the idea of all people replacing their consumption of something like... ordinary beef, with ultra-deluxe corn-fed free-range no-hormone beef, or something similar.

Just a quick comment. Feeding corn to beef is the problem. Cattle evolved to eat prairie range grass. Corn makes them sick which means they need lots of drugs to counteract that effect. Corn is heavily subsidized and has been since WWII. Cattle producers can't feed them anything else and make the same profit - even factoring in the cost of the drugs. They're stuck on corn. We and the cattle are too.

Noted, and it shows what I know about the details.  However, the argument still stands.

Yeah the dems are just as bad, just not as worse.

Right-wing economic ideology is really cool, but nobody on the right seems to believe it.  It's just surreal.

EDIT: Not all of it is cool.  Just the laissez-faire parts.

Posted on: September 22, 2008, 11:13:43 PM

---

This happens to every thread I post in, eventually.  It turns into some sort of economic or political discussion.  It's not just me, is it?  Did I start this?  I can't remember.

Posted on: September 22, 2008, 11:19:43 PM

---

No, it was Sherue.  Whew!

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 22, 2008, 10:00:30 PM

Quote from: Margaret Ann on September 22, 2008, 09:35:36 PM
Cognitive dissonance is vastly over rated as a mental corrective for illogical beliefs and the behavior they produce. It's based on the false premise that cognition is a greater force in the human mind than emotion.

If those who cling to irrational beliefs ever change their behavior it is because of reality dissonance biting them in the ass. Not because they couldn't handle the "terrible pain" of holding beliefs that obviously did not conform to reality.

People use reason to justify their irrational beliefs, not to examine them.

Just a few scary thoughts that seemed to be lacking in this thread.  :D

Cognitive dissonance isn't about an idea clashing with reality, but with another idea.  One, both, or neither of the ideas may be based on reality, but that doesn't matter in the abstract.  Take the Arian Heresy, for example.  You can't believe in both Trinitarianism and Arianism simultaneously, not without severe cognitive dissonance.  Ultimately, you've got to reconcile the beliefs somehow.  And neither of them has anything to do with reality :).

Not at all. There are millions of people in the world, even in the advanced Western world, who profess a belief in god but live quite depraved lives according to those standards, just for one example. They are perfectly happy to pull out their god-belief when it comes to telling others how to live their lives. But, I seldom see any of them complaining of some discomfort from the difference between what they profess to belief and how they actually live - until they get caught soliciting a prostitute or in bed with a young boy.

I'd say that reconciling Arianism and Trinitarianism in a single mind would be child's play for someone who would benefit sufficiently from doing so. Beliefs are fueled by emotion, not reason. Make the emotional reward big enough and people will believe any crazy thing - or any crazy combination of things - you can imagine. Like for example, there are many folks in this country today who believe that lowering taxes will increase government revenue - and yet they also believe basic arithmetic, like 3-1=2. If there's a big enough emotional payoff they'll use reason to convince themselves (and us) that both can be true at the same time.

One reason for this is that reality is complex. Real systems, like the US economy is complex enough that virtually any scenario can be proposed and justified with reason. Listen to any conservative talking head discuss fiscal policy. Interestingly, their reason always seems to support lower taxes for the wealthy. Strange that.   

Margi  8)

Posted on: September 22, 2008, 08:24:46 PM

---

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 22, 2008, 10:03:20 PM
Noted, and it shows what I know about the details.  However, the argument still stands.

Yeah, your point stands. I just wanted to throw that in.  :)

At the risk of making a fool of myself here, I'm going to defend the Laffer curve.  Although right-wingers and supply-siders have all sorts of policy prescriptions based off of it, the idea is sound at its core.  Simply put, on a graph of long-run tax revenue vs the average tax rate, your absolute maximum of revenue isn't found at 100% taxation - that shuts down the economy.  It's somewhere between 0% and 100%, which means it's possible to be in a situation where you can take in more money by lowering taxes.  Really, if you accept that 100% isn't optimal, you already believe in the Laffer curve.

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 22, 2008, 10:35:02 PM
At the risk of making a fool of myself here, I'm going to defend the Laffer curve.  Although right-wingers and supply-siders have all sorts of policy prescriptions based off of it, the idea is sound at its core.  Simply put, on a graph of long-run tax revenue vs the average tax rate, your absolute maximum of revenue isn't found at 100% taxation - that shuts down the economy.  It's somewhere between 0% and 100%, which means it's possible to be in a situation where you can take in more money by lowering taxes.  Really, if you accept that 100% isn't optimal, you already believe in the Laffer curve.

Noted, and it shows what I know about the details.  However, the argument still stands.  ;)

I couldn't resist that one. However, it is true that wherever we are on the curve the RW prescription is always to move in the direction of lower taxes on the rich.

The Republicans think that the tax bracket for the wealthy is always on the right side of the maximum.  Maybe they have a retinal curvature.

The Democrats seem to think the graph should average out to a 50% tax rate, with -100% for the first half, and +150% for the second.

Edit: Math, my oldest foe... we meet again.  That should be 75%.

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 22, 2008, 10:37:54 PM
The Republicans think that the tax bracket for the wealthy is always on the right side of the maximum.  Maybe they have a retinal curvature.

The Democrats seem to think the graph should average out to a 50% tax rate, with -100% for the first half, and +150% for the second.

Good one. Being in the first half, maybe that's why I usually vote Dem.  :eusa_dance:

Added: Thanks for the good discussion. I'm off to bed to read a new Amazon delivery. I'll check back tomorrow.

Cheers, Margi

Maybe we can eat the rich when we run out of food >:-).

They don't taste very good.  Too many preservatives, and the limo deal is hard to crunch around too.

The reasons not to buy products from China is because they do not provide the same standards we require here. Air, land and water pollution. Unsafe working conditions, slave wages, contaminated products, corruption, trade imbalance, no human rights, we are hypocrites if we demand good conditions for our own people but think that other people of the world are of less value. Not to mention the inefficient transportation energy use. We also are creating a competitor for energy which has drained our economy.

Corn feed beef is one of the major contributors to heart disease, we need to consume less of it. The digital revolution has done very little to improve the quality of life. It has created a monster of stress, energizing the the consumer mentality to make more and enjoy it less. Humans used to entertain each other, now they are lonely zombies watching flickering lights.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 23, 2008, 10:38:04 AM
The reasons not to buy products from China is because they do not provide the same standards we require here. Air, land and water pollution. Unsafe working conditions, slave wages, contaminated products, corruption, trade imbalance, no human rights, we are hypocrites if we demand good conditions for our own people but think that other people of the world are of less value. Not to mention the inefficient transportation energy use. We also are creating a competitor for energy which has drained our economy.

If these workers have it so bad, why should I boycott them?  Are these heartless employers going to keep paying their employees when their products aren't selling?  Also, why do you assume that it's realistic for China to suddenly adopt standards of quality and safety that took more than a hundred years to manifest in America, and which were driven by economic progress rather than me-too legislation?  If you don't believe me, check the statistics on child labor in America, and look at when it became illegal.

China isn't to blame for our problems.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 23, 2008, 10:38:04 AM
The digital revolution has done very little to improve the quality of life. It has created a monster of stress, energizing the the consumer mentality to make more and enjoy it less. Humans used to entertain each other, now they are lonely zombies watching flickering lights.

Tell that to people who are only alive through the marvels of modern technology.  Tell it to the people with pacemakers, or artificial hearts, or the people in electric wheelchairs.  Tell it to those whose lives were saved by CTs or MRIs, or remote arthroscopic surgery, or just the sheer abundance of info at their doctor's fingertips.  Tell it to political dissidents living under hostile regimes.  Tell it to marginalized groups with no other effective means of protest.  Tell it to people who've looked up long-lost friends and relatives.

Tell it to people who've married their Internet sweetheart.

That's just the smallest molecule on the tip of one end of the digital iceberg.  Microprocessors are everywhere.  You know Intel, the PC chip manufacturer?  The things we usually think of as computers (PCs) are small potatoes to them.  More than 90% of their products go into things you'd never think of - microwaves, coffee makers, cars, alarm systems, climate control systems, industrial robotics, etc, etc.  What's truly amazing is that people who have lived without these things were the ones who created them.

QuoteMicroprocessors are everywhere.

We did fine with out them.

Quoteremote arthroscopic surgery

A sham for doctors to make money. My knee healed fine without the surgery that the doctor wanted to do.

QuoteTell that to people who are only alive through the marvels of modern technology.

With a poor quality of life that many want to end sooner.

QuoteAre these heartless employers going to keep paying their employees

The employees will go back to the farms and have less kids. They may even start a revolution and improve China just as it took place here.

QuoteChina isn't to blame for our problems.

They are the blame for their problems which we are willing to take advantage of. So in a few years those poor people will be mad at us and create problems for us. Our problems come form the propaganda of marketing the consumer mentality and education controlled by the same ideas.

QuoteTell it to people who've married their Internet sweetheart

People are having trouble making their own alfa brain waves as the TV and Internet have them addicted to beta waves which does not allow them to focus long enough to enjoy life.

QuoteTell it to marginalized groups with no other effective means of protest

Does no one know how to write a letter?

We can do just about everything possible now without spending a large fraction of life with machines and have a better quality of life. It is just that people forgot how and are victims of marketing.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 23, 2008, 03:01:40 PM

QuoteTell it to marginalized groups with no other effective means of protest

Does no one know how to write a letter?

"Yes, let's use the government postal service to express our opposition to our tyrannical government.  While we're at it, let's run anti-establishment ads in the state-run news!   They'll never suspect!"

Quote from: lisagurl on September 23, 2008, 03:01:40 PM

QuoteMicroprocessors are everywhere.

We did fine with out them.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 23, 2008, 03:01:40 PM

QuoteTell that to people who are only alive through the marvels of modern technology.

With a poor quality of life that many want to end sooner.

I'll let you in on a secret... I'd have died in the womb without ultrasound, and I don't feel like my life is less worth living because of it.  I would not have been fine without the microprocessor that made the ultrasound unit possible.  I think you're taking a lot for granted.

**Go back to the horse and buggy age!!** But even then the budding Industrial Revolution had already begun to rear its ugly head.The horse and buggy age they had what is called the "buddy system", like everyone in the neighborhood worked together to help one another.  The many vagrants during the Great Depression were offered free room and board in exchange for providing farm labor for the farmer. "I'll help you build your barn if you help me build my barn," and "I'll lend you my wheelbarrow if you can lend me your shovel."

The advent of the steam locomotive and the internal combustion engine provided more power for the growth of industry.  One train could haul more freight, meats, and groceries, and other consumer goods than 20 freight wagons or stage coaches, and in a lot less time.

Ah then here comes the good old Model T Ford, the wonderful machine to move peeps around the country a good deal faster than the horse and buggy and with more flexibility than the train. The steam locomotive  along with the automobile were both a product of the Industrial Revolution. More and more machinery was invented and produced, swamping the technological industry like it had taken place almost overnight.

We just went along with the then-current technology until modern machinery sneaked-up behind us overnight and kicked us in the britches or bloomers, whichever you prefer. Almost overnight we  became dependent on technology in order to survive. Even if we were to try to go back to living like back in the horse and buggy days the biggest problem is that the necessities of life as well as its comforts are technology-based. In order to survive it would kill to a greater degree the life style we have grown accustomed to. Without it most of those mega farms out there and much of the industry in the big cities would also die for shortage of employees working for them and this, too, would become to be a thing of the past, history, kaput, dust and disarray. This sudden halt in the production of consumer goods would kill off about a third of humanity in the process. Are we ready for that? Will you be one of the survivors? Hmmmmmm, starting to sound like something out of the Bible, isn't it?

It will be like dying of asphyxiation or dying of lack of air.

The only thing that could fix anything is a change in the system which would also not happen without change pain of one type or another, and even then end up with about the same total of deaths.

Cindy   

QuoteI think you're taking a lot for granted.

It is all the people taking antidepressants that are not taking it seriously.

The horse and buggy is technology too.  So is the plow, and the sharpened stick, i.e. spear.  Technology is part of the human ecosystem, just as the hive is part of the honeybee's.  Unless you're living as a naked, nomadic gatherer, you depend on technology to survive.  Why is this something that needs fixing?  Should we fix the hive-building of bees, or the tunneling of gophers, or the spinning of spiders?

Posted on: September 23, 2008, 10:41:41 PM

---

Quote from: lisagurl on September 23, 2008, 07:33:30 PM

QuoteI think you're taking a lot for granted.

It is all the people taking antidepressants that are not taking it seriously.

What's wrong with antidepressants?  Is it a problem with the specific drugs?  The rate at which they're prescribed?  The unknown harm they might do?  Something else?  Or is it simple opposition to the entire idea of depression as a medical condition?  If so, I hope it's not because you think it's just a corrupt, modern development.  Melancholia as a disease has been understood since ancient times, and self-medication with drugs & booze has been around even longer.

Edit:  The deadly sin of sloth, as originally construed, was nothing other than depression.

Quote from: cindybc on September 23, 2008, 04:12:25 PM
The only thing that could fix anything is a change in the system which would also not happen without change pain of one type or another, and even then end up with about the same total of deaths.

Cindy   

The number of humans alive at any one time generally continues to grow but no matter how many of us are about, eventually the number of deaths will always equal exactly the number of births that preceded them.

The part of that statement before the comma could change.   8)

Hi Margaret Ann, hon. I agree with your post and instead of fix I should have stuck with the word **change like I did in a couple of other places in that paragraph. But

QuoteThe only thing that could possibly [change] anything is a change in the system which would also not happen without pain of one type or another, and even then end up with about the same total of deaths

I am only guessing as to how many would die if the lights were to go out in modern world, *period.* I mentioned a change in the system as a possibilety because any other type of system devised by man during the history of man rising from the stone age up till to the present day has failed miserably. OK I won't take this any further it would require several more posts to elaborate on this type of possible turn of events for mankind good or bad.

Hi Nephie, mankind being clever and  resilient in survival, I beleive there will be plenty enough left over to make new little humans to replace the loss of their predecessors.

Cindy

Scenario 1:

Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school��
parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his��
car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down,�FBI�called, Jack hauled off to jail��
and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for��
traumatized students and teachers.


Scenario 2:

Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end��
up buddies.
2007 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny��
and Mark. They are both charged them with assault and both expelled��
even though Johnny started it.


Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good��
paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and��
does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He��
is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state��
because Jeffrey has a disability.


Scenario 4:

Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a��
whipping with his belt.

1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to��
college and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to��
foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist convinces
Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad��
goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.


Scenario 5:

Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug��
violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario 6:

Pedro fails�high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear��
nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for��
graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the��
state school system and Pedro's English teacher.� English is then��
banned from�core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but��
ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario 7:

Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the�Fourth of July, puts��
them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2007- ATF,�Homeland Security�and the FBI are all called. Johnny is��
charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents --��
and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are��
confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a�terror watch list�and is��
never allowed to fly again.

�


Scenario 8:

Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is��
found crying by his teacher, Mary.� Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job.��
She faces 3 years in State Prison.� Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Quote from: cindybc on September 24, 2008, 03:08:51 AM
I am only guessing as to how many would die if the lights were to go out in modern world, *period.* I mentioned a change in the system as a possibilety because any other type of system devised by man during the history of man rising from the stone age up till to the present day has failed miserably.

BTW - I am delighted to find that this forum has a philosophy zone and I am delighted to read your ideas here and anyone else's too because I love this stuff. When I discuss ideas at this level, either reading them or writing them, I see some truth and some room for disagreement in every one. And I also understand that anyone's view of these things is just a matter of perspective. My comments will tend to be in the nature of tossing some additional thoughts into the campfire. I'll almost never post a comment, especially in this zone, to assert that I am right about something or that someone else is wrong. My posts do tend to be more contrasting than agreeable just because that's more fun.

I wish there was an emoticon for, "There's truth to what you say but have you looked at it this way, yet?"

I'm not pandering either - I just don't think these are things that anyone can / should think they are right about and others wrong.


That said, now, how do you define fail? You seem to say that like it's so obvious that it needs no explanation.

Cheers, Margi   (Some emoticons don't work for me. Is that a browser thing?)

Colonies of organisms die out all the time, and we can talk about specific ones as having failed, but how can you go on to say that their system has failed?  What's the standard for success, eternal life & growth?

Quote from: lisagurl on September 24, 2008, 09:18:48 AM
<sagas of terror and stupidity>

I mentioned somewhere else how today's Americans are focused on imagined terrors, false guilt, self-loathing, and existential angst, all while the rest of the world is progressing.  Our time in the sun is over.

apparently, it turns out that science is religion to some people. No one in particular. I'm making a general statement.

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 24, 2008, 11:22:51 AM
I mentioned somewhere else how today's Americans are focused on imagined terrors, false guilt, self-loathing, and existential angst, all while the rest of the world is progressing.  Our time in the sun is over.

This too will pass. Our place as the world's most arrogant ->-bleeped-<-s will again be secure.  :laugh:

Quote from: Rebis on September 24, 2008, 11:23:16 AM
apparently, it turns out that science is religion to some people. No one in particular. I'm making a general statement.

I find your statement to be non-falsifiable, and thus sinful, as it is written in the Gospel of Popper.  I damn your protons to entropic dissolution at the end of time, unless you repent your wicked ways!

Well, it'll happen anyway, but you'll feel better about it if you confess.

Quote from: Rebis on September 24, 2008, 11:23:16 AM
apparently, it turns out that science is religion to some people. No one in particular. I'm making a general statement.

All belief systems are religious in nature - that is, beliefs are always held because they make the person feel good.

Some people feel good when their minds hold beliefs that are edited to better conform to reality. For others that's not so important.

Everybody feels good when their beliefs conform to their society - because that earns them acceptance.

That's why religious believers of similar flavors hang out together - and scientists do the same.

For most people, social acceptance is far more important than rationality. That means that the good feelings that come from social acceptance are generally far more powerful in the mind than whatever good feelings come from being a rational person.

Another way to say that is that for any scientific discipline there are continuous debates within it that redefine the knowledge in that field and factions that support the different views - views that most non-scientists don't understand anyway. So, there's not much available in the way of good feelings that come from belief systems that are constantly undergoing revisions and are subject to an indifferent objective reality.

But, irrational belief systems are protected in our culture and questioning them is seen as boorish or impolite. You can always find plenty of fellow believers that will tell you what a wonderful person you are for believing the same BS as they do.

Just some thoughts to throw on the fire.

Margi

Quote from: Margaret Ann on September 24, 2008, 12:06:39 PM
All belief systems are religious in nature - that is, beliefs are always held because they make the person feel good.

The psychological egoism angle, eh?  I agree, except for the use of the term "religion" - it's ambiguous and confusing in this context.

Quote from: Margaret Ann on September 24, 2008, 12:06:39 PM
There's not much available in the way of good feelings that come from belief systems that are constantly undergoing revisions and are subject to an indifferent objective reality.

You're wrong - Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation loves me!

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 24, 2008, 12:37:22 PM

Quote from: Margaret Ann on September 24, 2008, 12:06:39 PM
All belief systems are religious in nature - that is, beliefs are always held because they make the person feel good.

The psychological egoism angle, eh? I agree, except for the use of the term "religion" - it's ambiguous and confusing in this context.

I didn't say religion, I said religious - meaning sharing some of the characteristics, not necessarily the same thing, and being purposefully non-specific, hardly qualifies as ambiguous or confusing. I think you're reaching too far for a criticism here.

What do find wrong with the substance of my statement?

Re: psychological egoism. Some people call it psychological egoism. I call it how the human brain works.

Added: If you disagree with this, tell me one belief that you hold that makes you feel worse than you would if you adopted a more comfortable version in its place.

PSS: I wasn't sure what part you agreed with or not so maybe my post is irrelevant. From reading your other posts I think we share some ways of looking at things.

Cheers, Margi

Gah, meant to write "religious".  I'm just quibbling about the connotations of religion, specifically because it's often seen as being immune to evidence.  I believe in science because it often leads to more satisfactory outcomes for me, and I'd give it up if I could be proven wrong.  I just don't see how you could do that and not invalidate your own argument, though.  While that might seem like immunity to evidence, it's more about self-contradiction.

And yes, I believe that humans are egoistic creatures.

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 24, 2008, 01:49:45 PM
Gah, meant to write "religious".  I just disagree based on the popular understanding of religion.  You're right about it, though.  And yes, I believe that humans are egoistic creatures.

Cool!

What's your avatar? It makes me think of bundles of neurons. Of course, one could interpret my avatar the same way.

Margi

It's actually a somewhat abstract rendering of vines and flowers.  It's not even my usual, but I think I'll keep it.

Quote from: Nephie the Tree-Hugger on September 24, 2008, 01:55:51 PM
It's actually a somewhat abstract rendering of vines and flowers.  It's not even my usual, but I think I'll keep it.

[D] Oh, I'll twine with my mingles and [A7] waving black [D] hair
With the roses so red and the [A7] lilies so [D] fair
And the myrtle so [D7] bright with the [G] emerald [D] hue
The pale and the leader and [A7] eyes look like [D] blue.


Another great Carter family song.

Hi Margaret Ann, Yes there is an alternative to everything in this reality, much depends on the choices we make on this very second will determine what will take place tomorrow although there may be a lot of road blocks between point A, where you start and point B, end of destination, but not the end of the concept. **The prophesies are not written in stone**  The flow of events in this world is like a stream, fluid and can be diverted by simply building a dam to block it's path and redirect in toward another destination.

I love a good debate hon. ;D<---- There's the smiley I use the most because maybe that's the mood I'm in most time. Happy and I love life but it don't mean I am unflappable, I am only a human waiting for the aliens to come and abduct her. "Now where are them dang aliens?" Hee, hee, hee." Now there is something you don't see very often, a philosopher with a sense of humor.

Cindy

Quote from: cindybc on September 26, 2008, 03:12:28 PM
Now there is something you don't see very often, a philosopher with a sense of humor.

Cindy

I never thought much about that but it certainly seems to be true - you being the exception, of course. OTOH there are many good humorists with a fine sense of philosophy. In fact, I'd say that's what makes the good ones good. It looks like the universe does have a bias.

Cheers, Margi   :laugh:

Oh but a realy good philosopher can suddenly make a left turn in the middle of their narrative on how to care for your pet critter and the rock it lives under, and then take for instance if it be that the listener is you and your attention is suddenly blind sided  by the philosopher, then the joke is certainly on you for not paying attention, see? Then this would also be true as potential proposition if you are not paying attention and you miss the philosophers caution sign, you know, the big yellow one with the big black arrow pointing to the right. Now that is what you call deception to the nth degree which can, in reality, end you and your brand new Mercedes in the middle of a swamp.

Have you often wondered why so many can't see what's right in the front of their nose? Well some will argue that the obvious is always transparent. Boy no wonder so many people walk into sliding glass doors. There is no problems with the the concept that there is a door there, but someones peanut sized brain is considerably lacking in foresight  to see past the end of their nose see. Well maybe if they wore their glasses. "Hee, hee, hee." I love riddles too. All home grown too, I couldn't remember a set joke if my holly socks depended on it.

Cindy

Quote from: cindybc on September 26, 2008, 08:33:50 PM
Oh but a realy good philosopher can suddenly make a left turn in the middle of their narrative on how to care for your pet critter and the rock it lives under, and then take for instance if it be that the listener is you and your attention is suddenly blind sided  by the philosopher, then the joke is certainly on you for not paying attention, see? Then this would also be true as potential proposition if you are not paying attention and you miss the philosophers caution sign, you know, the big yellow one with the big black arrow pointing to the right. Now that is what you call deception to the nth degree which can, in reality, end you and your brand new Mercedes in the middle of a swamp.

Have you often wondered why so many can't see what's right in the front of their nose? Well some will argue that the obvious is always transparent. Boy no wonder so many people walk into sliding glass doors. There is no problems with the the concept that there is a door there, but someones peanut sized brain is considerably lacking in foresight  to see past the end of their nose see. Well maybe if they wore their glasses. "Hee, hee, hee." I love riddles too. All home grown too, I couldn't remember a set joke if my holly socks depended on it.

Cindy

And then there's Will Rogers. And how about Lenny Bruce although he was more sardonic than funny.

Margi

Quote from: Nephie on September 24, 2008, 11:55:51 AM

Quote from: Rebis on September 24, 2008, 11:23:16 AM
apparently, it turns out that science is religion to some people. No one in particular. I'm making a general statement.

I find your statement to be non-falsifiable, and thus sinful, as it is written in the Gospel of Popper.  I damn your protons to entropic dissolution at the end of time, unless you repent your wicked ways!

Well, it'll happen anyway, but you'll feel better about it if you confess.

I'll never confess!  Newton lover.   ;)

I think evolution is a wonderful testament to God's power. Think about it for a second. If you're going to create a universe would you:
a. Create a universe that required your constant attention for anything to happened, and needed a tune up every few years, or:
b. Create a complex system that was self-sustaining and allowed life to flourish on it's own.

It would seem that a more accomplished God would create a more perfect system, one that didn't break down every few thousand miles...
And an all powerful, all knowing God. Phew, all creation would sign for centuries about the glory of what His hands had made!

If there is a God, he probably created the universe out of boredom, without knowing how it was going to turn out.  All the emergent behavior must be really fascinating when seen from God's perspective.

Well I had Jack Benny for my dad and Lucille Ball for my mom. "hee, hee ,hee". But  truly though, when you have two unemployed comedians for parents and a sister who was a speed boat maniac, what do you expect their kid to turn out like.  ;D

Cindy

Quote from: Nephie on September 29, 2008, 11:18:57 PM
If there is a God, he probably created the universe out of boredom, without knowing how it was going to turn out.  All the emergent behavior must be really fascinating when seen from God's perspective.

I dunno, maybe this God just wasn't paying attention.

God: 'What did you do this time, Jesus?'

JC: 'I... uh... made an unimaginably powerful singularity destined to explode and create a rapidly expanding universe.'

God: 'Now why, in the name of Uriel's underpants, did you do that?'

JC: 'Because you've been moping around here for all eternity and you looked really bored... so I thought it might be nice if you had a universe of followers to be the supreme deity over and have them worship you and fear you and praise you... and all that cool stuff!'

God: 'Okay, well I'll deal with that in a minute. But how did you do it? Your matter manipulation teacher says you're going to get an F in her class.'

JC: 'Oh... well... I pushed a button on the grill.'

God: 'The one marked 'time'?'

JC: 'Yup. I set it to eternity.'

God: 'Kids, I don't know why I bother sometimes.'

JC: 'Did I do wrong?'

God: *sigh*

JC: 'Pop?'

God: 'All I said was "Get the Father a bun and some holy toast"'

Hi Nephie, your description on how God created the universe reminded me of a Walt Disney cartoon when Micky Mouse was dressed in wizards robes, even remember all the little stars in his robes, as he waved his magic wand around there were all these buckets of water with an army of mops carrying them into the basement of a castle and in the end there was a tempest and great waves and swells smashed all about, Mickey swimming for dear life trying to stay afloat, total chaos you know. But then the universe turned out to be all in harmony. Like the calm water after the storm with Micky still wearing his wizards robes, sitting in a wooden tub floating gently on a calm moonlight sea.

Well one good analogy deserves a companion. ;D

Cindy

Science is open to new ideas, religion is not.  That and its a lot easier to fleece fools with religion than with science.

QuoteThat and its a lot easier to fleece fools with religion than with science.

Over the years there have been many to put their lives for religion. You can look at a martyr as a fool for dieing for someone convincing them of a thing that does not exist or in the modern world the reason can be good or ridiculous but the fact that they spent there life for a inner goal might make them something.

Posted on: October 01, 2008, 03:36:42 pm

---

There is also pseudo science that religion calls creationism or look how the drug companies us ghost writers to write there studies for drug trails. Then there is the spiritual placebo effect.

Evolution is pseudoscience too, for a great many people. This, of course, is not a failing of the theory of evolution, but of the miserable state of education.

Relative ease of the methods aside, more people are "fleeced" today with (pseudo)science than (pseudo)religion, though religion has made a comeback.

Lyssa, you have no idea how much money and time is offered up to those televangelists and radio-evangelists because you don't give them your time. OTH, most things we read show "NEW AND AMAZING BREAST BREAST HAIR GROWTH. FREE SAMPLE. ONLY $599.95 FOR THREE MONTHS SUPPLY!!" ads in Science and Discovery and Nature. :)

Nikki

I was going to stay out of this and I really tried.  Science vs. Religion? That old thing again?  I'm perhaps the only person on here with degrees in both fields.  I'll just give you my take.

Science is what one can observe, measure, and repeat predictably.  Then and only then can valid conclusions be drawn from the data.

In my day I have done a lot of research into this including geochemistry (the study of the origin of the elements) and my specialty was paleontology.  I have done radiometric dating of the compounds in samples and I know the strengths and the real problems with that method.  I have spent years looking at how science can inform my own theory of the origin of the universe.

BUT:
Who among us was here when the universe was created?  Were we here to record it, to measure it?  Could we do it again?  Of course not.  Therefore, any theories about the origin of the universe, no matter how well informed, are at best either philosophy or religion, or both.  They are not and cannot be considered science.

Look at how our "understanding" has changed completely more than once in the last century.  I, for one, do not wish to change my theology to fit whatever scientific theory happens to be in vogue at the moment.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Hi Kristi hon, wow, I agree with you but for a different reason. I love discussing these kind of subjects  but either people don't understand what I am saying or ignoring my posts.  You needn't change any of your theories for any one else's. Theories are exactly what they are. Propositions on how certain thing behave. It is only a theory unless the results are consistent or repeated predictably like you have said. But then with only a small % of any scientific propositions are rock solid constant.

Theories of the universe are exactly that, theories made by the many as in expressing their feelings and ideas on how it may have all come about. Interesting I think, even though you will find as many varied theories as there are people thinking them.  I believe it can be interesting, well anyway better then watching TV.... hmmmmm unless your interested in politics.

OK now you may tell me to go blow it in the wind if you wish.

Cindy

Quote from: Kristi on October 02, 2008, 09:42:41 PM
Who among us was here when the universe was created?

I was. I am Star Stuff. I was a part of that event. I just don't recall it.

QuoteWho among us was here when the universe was created?  Were we here to record it, to measure it?  Could we do it again?

CERN will get us ever closer to that moment.

I enjoy tossing this stuff around to much to quit.
OK unless already proven, one can re-write theories many different ways.

In the beginning *all that is* was in the premordial soup, or the super hot material that came forth from the big bang. Everything we see in the universe today and all that is in the air, on the surface and bellow the surface of our mother earth and all other planets in the universe as well whether life bearing or not is irrelevant. All was formed from this premordial soup, or to be more precise, within a very dense and massive ever expanding ball of superheated matter and energy. So in a matter of speaking we were there at the birth of the universe, the essence that would someday form a homicide thinking sentient intelligent being in the flesh from the spirit or essence.

I'm not a scientist I just read a lot of books and what ever information on just about anything I can get my hands on. I consider myself a tinkerer and inquisitive girl, is all. Cindy wearing a white frock, her hair done up in a bun, wearing owl glasses bows respectfully before her Bunsen burner.

Cindy

Quotesuperheated matter and energy

What about the anti matter, dark matter and God particles? They create matter. It is not that there are answers, just questions. Not to mention the 11 dimensions that we have not been able to be measured yet. I would suspect much more that we do not know.

QuoteOK unless already proven,

As we learn new facts the old proved ones now have more questions challenging that proof.

Science = beneficial = good
Religion = harmful = bad

Hi lisagurl, nice to see you and right on hon. What you listed and whatever other particles, masses and forms of energy, some with a powerful enough gravitational pull, such as super massive black holes that can actually warp or bend space and time as well as the dark energy and anti gravity as you mentioned possibly many other as yet undetected anomalies and enumerable other  energy sources existing of moving in and out of this time and space reality as well as through all dimensions, like cosmic phantoms in a fluid like space in all dimensions.  ;D

Cindy

I don't have a problem reconciling science and religion.

When you get down to it, both depend upon faith.  Religion starts with faith.  Science requires faith that there is order in the universe, even in supposed chaos.

Problems occur when either side gets to thinking that 'We are right and you are wrong.'


Posted on: October 13, 2008, 01:54:55 pm

---

Quote from: Katie Leah on September 22, 2008, 03:07:12 PM
Take the idea of "Buy only locally grown produce".  If that gains traction, you can expect movement away from factory farms, which eliminates the economy of scale and lowers farming efficiency.  Overall expenditures on fuels, fertilizer, and other farm necessities will increase, diverting resources from other areas of production and raising prices.  More arable land will need to be devoted to farming to produce the same amount as before, with consequent ecological damage and increase in land prices.  Traffic on local roads will increase as food, fuel, and machinery shipments become more frequent.  Local & state taxes/tolls will increase to pay for road maintenance.  Carbon output may actually increase over the previous situation.  This sort of idea is a middle-class indulgence, not a policy prescription for "green living".

Unless you are in a place like California, with several climate zones in a relatively short distance, it will be unlikely that one will buy only local produce.  People would have to give up too many things in order to do so.

Now they might stick to buying local produce that can be grown locally as opposed to stuff grown on the other side of the world or on factory farms in places like California.  And if they have a bit of space available, they might try growing some of the produce on their own, using high yield techniques that favor hand treatment to high tech, high chemical handling.

I do wonder about the efficiency differences between local produce farms and factory farms.  Ignoring such things as quality differences, does a factory farm produce enough per acre to make up for the energy costs it takes to ship the stuff?

For that matter, would a well managed local farm that compensates for ecological damage and the overhead that goes into farming and delivery be worse or better than a factory farm that has larger transportation costs?

We're dealing with a spectrum that has well run factory farms being better than badly run local farms as well as well run local farms being better than the average factory farms.  To make an intelligent decision either way, we would need to come up with a full range of attributes on the advantages of either setup and measure each item.

That would make the decision based on science rather than faith.

Quote from: Rowan_Danielle on October 13, 2008, 01:54:55 PM
I don't have a problem reconciling science and religion.

When you get down to it, both depend upon faith.  Religion starts with faith.  Science requires faith that there is order in the universe, even in supposed chaos.

Problems occur when either side gets to thinking that 'We are right and you are wrong.'

Well, no. Science requires only a belief that nature is organized by natural laws and that those laws are accessible to humans who seek them out. If you want to call that faith you can, but it is a belief that can be falsified by one example that it is wrong. All scientific theories are contingent on new evidence to the contrary. That never ends. There is no time period after which a scientific theory can be said to be "true" and unfalsifiable.

It's important to understand the philosophical difference. Scientists observe nature and then propose theories (generalizations) about those observations. If they hold up to scrutiny and testing over time and never are disproved then scientists believe they have discovered a generalization that can be used to predict the behavior of natural systems - which can be very useful like in preventing disease or improving the standard and quality of life.

A law or theory in science simply means that no-one has proven it wrong - yet. Science makes no predictions that it will never happen and in fact, much science tries to prove existing scientific theories and hypotheses wrong. Science can not prove that any scientific theory is correct and does not try to do so - although that will be the practical result of repeated testing that fails to prove it wrong as well as using it successfully over time to predict the behavior of natural systems. It can't fail once - ever.

However, if a religionist says that a supernatural being created the universe and everything in it - then the scientist would ask for evidence. Lacking that evidence she would conclude that the theory is not based in fact and is therefore not useful in predicting the behavior of natural systems - like the universe and everything in it. So far, the religionists have provided no independently verifiable evidence for their theory. Scientists still don't say however, that the theory of supernatural creation is wrong - just that the probabality of it being correct is so low that it has no value as a tool of prediction.

So, science never says it's theories are right and religious theories are wrong. It says "where's the evidence?". Those who claim to know God should be so humble.

Those who claim to know God should be so humble.

True that.  Also true, they almost never are.

Humility is a very misunderstood word. If one was to put the word humility beside the word humble, it may help one to see what this shunned and misunderstood word truly means. With humility one will find a means of forgiving oneself, as well as forgiving others.

Humility is not allowing oneself to lie in the mud and to be trampled by the world.  It is nothing of the sort.  Humility is what allows one to look at another's misfortune and not wonder how or why it happened. It *is* what allows us to render help without judgment.

It is the opposite of pride.  Pride is not to be confused with a healthy self-image.  With pride one looks down their nose at others who have less than they do.  It sees the poor, the broke, the broken, and those in need as a "them and me" situation.

Pride takes all of the credit for every little thing a person does.  Humility says that they were grateful for being a part of a team, or giving credit to the One Who Is All for successes as well as to the people who might have blazed the trail to one's personal success.

Humility knows that if one shines with any sort of light of achievement, it is a reflected light, not from the inside.

Humility has nothing to do with religion, it an inner thing to help you to find peace within.

Cindy

Every time someone says something in earshot of me that reveals to me that they are religious, all I hear is, "You're going to Hell."

we're all going to hell. Just ask the conductor of this train.

We all experience our own personal varying levels of hell as we go through life. It is a learning and growing cycle that refines us to the best us we can be as we learn form the school of life.

It is those who will not learn from their turbulent existence that will end up getting caught  up in the loop of their own karma. From how science sees it it is said that for every action you get an equal and opposite reaction. For Karma it is what ever one puts out to universe will be an exact in full return.

If we can manifest our own hell, why not our own heaven?

Hi  Rebis hon, I travel by bus.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa191%2Fcynthiag932%2FGertrude.jpg&hash=f4f98d5ad093b17999006515b59af43a03d06786)

Cindy

They let you on the bus with all that stardust stuff?

Sure, didn't you know that the intergalactic Greyhound bus allows us to take our bags of magical fairy star dust with us to terraform dead worlds and also collect extracted teeth from under little children's pillows and replace them with a silver coin? Those bags are just as necessary as our magic wands, even if mine is slightly bent it still works. sweets, "hee, hee, hee." Sometimes I wonder if it's only you and Pica Pica that truly understand this chick with the sparklies and the bent magic wand.  ;D

Cindy 

I tend to keep my hand in the middle of debates, but for once I just want to say something on this hand. Challenge everything, I am a woman of science, not religion, and though I do believe in some form of a higher power notifiable Karma I do however challenge the idea of it. I pursue to understand the very idea of freedom itself and thus understand myself more. However I do strong think that a god existing is highly unlikely I do not rule it out. If I would to ever meet this god/goddess I would want to know the meaning behind if anything my own existence.

Hi Carolyn Honey, Debate makes for some good cerebral gymnastics. Keeps the mold from growing at the terminals around neural synapses.  ;D

As for Karma I believe we all get back what we send out in equal proportion. if not sooner, then later, still that is the law of returns, what goes around comes around and that law appears to have worked quite well for as long as I can remember.

Like the saying goes, the moment you stop beating yourself on the head with that hammer the sooner the lumps will heal and go away. To do the same thing in the same way twice and to expect different results is insanity, "seeeee!" "hee, hee, hee." Yea I'm a friend of Bill's. I use to like the grass to as well at one time, and not the type to lay on in the front yard either. "Sheeeeesh!" I would be ashamed to call myself an old hippie if that weren't the case. Although that don't mean all Hippies smoked the grass, "seeeee!" ;D

Truly though, I'm only tuggin on your sock my friend. From the experience of working with different folks through the years as a social worker I can only sum this post up by saying that there are as many different ways of believing in some type of higher power and those who serve it as there are people, so I ain't about to place judgment on any one particular belief systems or individual beliefs. I believe I am going to find the need to light a whole lot more candles during what's left of my life before I can even "think!" of putting those judges robes on.

May God Bless

Cindy

Quote from: cindybc on October 15, 2008, 03:00:30 AM

As for Karma I believe we all get back what we send out in equal proportion. if not sooner, then later, still that is the law of returns, what goes around comes around and that law appears to have worked quite well for as long as I can remember.

OK, how did that law work out for the thousands of babies, infants and children who died horrible deaths in that tsunami in Indonesia? Or, how about anyone who lived a basically decent life (most folks I assume) and who spends weeks or months in pain dieing of cancer that slowly destroys their organs while they watch it happening from their drugged out stupor? Did they all do something really bad in life and only the God of karma truly knows what they did and how to mete out justice?

I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend, but the whole karma thing just seems like a version of "I really want there to be a higher power in the universe so this will all make sense and seem fair, so maybe I'll go with the Karma thing if I don't think too much about how illogical it really is".

Quote from: Margaret Ann on October 15, 2008, 03:36:33 AM

Quote from: cindybc on October 15, 2008, 03:00:30 AM

As for Karma I believe we all get back what we send out in equal proportion. if not sooner, then later, still that is the law of returns, what goes around comes around and that law appears to have worked quite well for as long as I can remember.

OK, how did that law work out for the thousands of babies, infants and children who died horrible deaths in that tsunami in Indonesia? Or, how about anyone who lived a basically decent life (most folks I assume) and who spends weeks or months in pain dieing of cancer that slowly destroys their organs while they watch it happening from their drugged out stupor? Did they all do something really bad in life and only the God of karma truly knows what they did and how to mete out justice?

I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend, but the whole karma thing just seems like a version of "I really want there to be a higher power in the universe so this will all make sense and seem fair, so maybe I'll go with the Karma thing if I don't think too much about how illogical it really is".

I agree with you Margaret.  I think people use this term to prevent themselves and those they know from doing bad to others because it might come back to them.  In that way, I suppose it is a good thing.  But logically speaking, it doesn't make sense.  I've known some pretty awful people, and they've never got anything back for their rotten behaviour towards others.  There are children born who live short miserable lives, what have they done to deserve that kind of life?  Yes, when we scrutinize what karma really means and superstitions in general, they don't hold water.

Hi  Margaret, honey I didn't mean to upset anyone, and I did say that there are about as many different beliefs as there are people believing them, and I did say I wouldn't want to be the judge of whose right or wrong in any given questionable situation. The only point I was inferring to was, who is the one to judge whose right or wrong.

As for the Karma there is equal good as there is bad that comes back from karma, again depending on which one it one chooses, you are the master of your own choices/destiny. Unless this certain individual  gets run over by a bus crossing the street. It could still be said that this individual made that choice to cross the street at the wrong time thus this individuals chips were simply called in. Geeee I mean which came first here, the egg or the chicken? Sooner or later there comes a time for everyone to punch out their clocks, I don't know the reason nor do I have the answer for that anymore then anyone else on the surface of this planet does, end of discussion.

Maybe if one could travel back in time to the Garden of Eden and ask Adam and Eve before they got their ever lovin butts kicked out the Garden. 

As for all those babies, mommies, daddies, and what ever other innocent life forms like, animals, you know, the ones with 4 legs, wings and fins, and the plant life.  Some make it to safety sensing what's coming ahead of time but not all of the critters do, like what about domestic animals? It's the same statistics in wars as well. I wonder if anyone else ever given thought about this other innocent life? Who is to know huh, there are probably others aware of this, but I guess they don't talk about it because their afraid they'll get ridiculed because they might think it to trivial.

And again who has the authority to sit in judgment as to who and what is to be obliterated and killed in such disasters? Man made disasters, like wars, are just irresponsible, greedy, power hungry, selfish, tin god atitudes who care less about the lesser life forms animals, plants, peasants, beggars, slaves, and any of the lower cast, all inclusive, use them, then blow them up pee brain mentalety when their usefulness has expired. **stupidity** "BIG TIME!"

Like earthquakes we are told are caused by the earths crust, tectonic plates, moving one under the other. Volcanoes are caused by the built up pressure of the earth magma below the crust which gets to great and wells up through old fissures in a dormant volcano. Hurricanes happen because of convection currents of warm air created from the surface of the warm waters of the ocean creating an updraft to displace the cooler upper air which creates a spiraling mass of powerful air currents. Thunderstorms, floods, tornadoes are all natural occurrences that can be predicted to a certain degree, but can also get totally out of control within just minutes of their birth.

Natural disaters have nothing to do with karma, just unpredictable natural occurrences. Now I am a we bit shaky and truly I get some what skittish and nervous around the subject of God and why would this God allow such things to happen. But then again the black, and white, negative and positive, the dualities of nature there is for every action in all of the elements in the universe there is an equal and opposite reaction, but then there is also an equal synchronous reaction to every action.

A star system in a galaxy goes nova and that galaxy is turned into a huge cloud of nebula gas. In that nebula gas you will find new stars being formed within this dense cloud, and soon the cloud dissipates, revealing a newly born galaxy shining brightly in the universe once again. Things die and things are reborn, it appears to be as close to a perfect order of recycling as there can possibly be in this observable universe. Why not people as well, or any other living thing containing the spark of life, the soul if we may. The soul is eternal, how many life time memories can there be stored in a soul?

Anyway, just some ideas which again makes about as much sense as how ever many other people that dream them up.  As good a theory as any until someone comes up with another one.

Cindy   

Posted on: October 15, 2008, 05:33:50 am

---

Who puts those children through that kind of misery hon? I been a social worker for a good many years and I have seen both children and grown up people living on the streets in just awful of a condition as any 3rd world country. Have you slept under make shift lean to made out of blankets? Have you had to use card board boxes for a padding to sleep on? Have you seen people only in their mid twenties to mid thirties with half their teeth missing because of crystal meths.

On the subject of drugs, who is it that places the god forsaken crap in their hands? Who then in turn will sell themselves to keep up the habit. Have you ever worked with mental health recipients? Have you ever worked with recovering alcoholics and addicts? Have you yourself lives on the street? During my stay on the streets, I sat right along side my sisters and brothers and I drank rot gut, cheep liquor and nearly died if it hadn't been for some kind folks helping me. Have you ever been raped? I have. Have you ever lived on an Indian reservation? For five years I was a nanny for nearly every kid on the res. I also had 11 children in my care through the years before and after. You wanna know about children hon? you are very welcome to visit granny Cindy here. 

May God Bless.

Cindy

As for Karma and dead babies or bad people who prosper, I think the reasoning is that Karma carries over from one life to the next.  Someone told me the Tao belief is that you consciously choose each life, knowing the whole path ahead of time, in order to learn some kind of lesson that will bring you one step closer to enlightenment.  Sort of like downloading a set of operating system files onto your cosmic computer to get your Godhood interface booted up.  Sounds to me like a bunch of wishful thinking.

QuoteSounds to me like a bunch of wishful thinking.

To make it a mathematical law is wishful thinking. However spreading good will does sometimes grease the slides and help bring returns. As in any business the customer is always right. Treat people with respect and many times they return the favor. This is not a law just common sense. It rarely is equal, but does put a person at ease and makes living with one's self more enjoyable.

Quote from: lisagurl on October 15, 2008, 10:40:16 AM

QuoteSounds to me like a bunch of wishful thinking.

To make it a mathematical law is wishful thinking. However spreading good will does sometimes grease the slides and help bring returns. As in any business the customer is always right. Treat people with respect and many times they return the favor. This is not a law just common sense. It rarely is equal, but does put a person at ease and makes living with one's self more enjoyable.

OK Lisagirl and Glenda. That all makes sense to me. I also believe that it is better to respect others and treat them kindly - and generally others do respond in kind. But not always. In fact, good people can experience terrible tragedy, cruelty and betrayal in their life through no fault of their own. Saying that the books get balanced in the next life is like saying nothing at all - first because there is no evidence for an afterlife. But here's the kicker. According to the theory of Karma anything that happens to anyone, no matter how terrible is justified - can be described as a payback for some previous life's actions. In otherwords, I can be as cruel to anyone as I wish and I can just say they deserve it because of something they did in their previous life.

As far as I can see, life is generally better and happier when I treat others with kindness and that's why I do it. But, for much of life's twists and turns, the only rules that apply are:

a) ->-bleeped-<- happens

b) when you least expect it, expect it

Cheers

Leaving Karma out of it because it appears that this word leaves a sour taste in peoples mouths let us just say as I have said before that much of, well my life anyway the end result was brought about by the decisions I mad today, good, bad." All the things I experienced it was me and no one else who made all the wrong decisions in order to get there. It was my own nieve and unexperienced dumb decisions that got me where I went. I am thank full that I was smart enough to make some right decisions to get my ever lovin butt out of those situations.

Yes unfortunately, that is life and it is entirely possible that it could happen that now that I have found some peace and happiness in my life, in accepting who I am, and having made the decision to work with the very people who I was once a part of their comunity. I must say life is good and I deserve it. But it don't mean that the possibilety I may not step out the door and get run over by that city bus. How ironic life is huh? After life? No, there is no 100% proof that there is another existence after we leave here, but I would sooner like to think that there is, and I will leave it at that.

Y'all have a wonderful day.

Cindy

Quote from: cindybc on October 15, 2008, 12:23:18 PM
Leaving Karma out of it because it appears that this word leaves a sour taste in peoples mouths let us just say as I have said before that much of, well my life anyway the end result was brought about by the decisions I mad today, good, bad." All the things I experienced it was me and no one else who made all the wrong decisions in order to get there. It was my own nieve and unexperienced dumb decisions that got me where I went. I am thank full that I was smart enough to make some right decisions to get my ever lovin butt out of those situations.

Yes unfortunately, that is life and it is entirely possible that it could happen that now that I have found some peace and happiness in my life, in accepting who I am, and having made the decision to work with the very people who I was once a part of their comunity. I must say life is good and I deserve it. But it don't mean that the possibilety I may not step out the door and get run over by that city bus. How ironic life is huh? After life? No, there is no 100% proof that there is another existence after we leave here, but I would sooner like to think that there is, and I will leave it at that.

Y'all have a wonderful day.

Cindy

Cindy, you are obviously a good and kind person. Just from reading a few of your comments I find I admire you on many levels. Just because we see "Karma" differently doesn't make you any less a good person in my opinion.  I see Karma more as an interesting topic for discussion than as something I have a strong need to refute. It's more like astrology to me. There are some seriously destructive ideas out there. I don't think "Karma" is one of them - at least as it is interpreted by most westerners.

Cheers, Margi

Okay, since I'm not much into the huge depths of philosophy vs. religion, I've got to put my two bits on the table and move on.

1) To me, science is man's argument with himself.  Science is a man-made study because (dare I throw religion into this...) man, since the early days, has tried to be all powerful.  And science, given the evidence over the past two centuries, has become man's closest thing to being like God, in the philisophical sense.

2) That being said, I've found it quite disturbing that a majority of the world's greatest philosophers, were atheists.  Again, I'm not poking around with religion, but it's still something I find interesting.

Okay, y'all, I'm done. 

Quote from: Margaret Ann on October 15, 2008, 11:54:11 AM

Quote from: lisagurl on October 15, 2008, 10:40:16 AM

QuoteSounds to me like a bunch of wishful thinking.

To make it a mathematical law is wishful thinking. However spreading good will does sometimes grease the slides and help bring returns. As in any business the customer is always right. Treat people with respect and many times they return the favor. This is not a law just common sense. It rarely is equal, but does put a person at ease and makes living with one's self more enjoyable.

OK Lisagirl and Glenda. That all makes sense to me. I also believe that it is better to respect others and treat them kindly - and generally others do respond in kind. But not always. In fact, good people can experience terrible tragedy, cruelty and betrayal in their life through no fault of their own. Saying that the books get balanced in the next life is like saying nothing at all - first because there is no evidence for an afterlife. But here's the kicker. According to the theory of Karma anything that happens to anyone, no matter how terrible is justified - can be described as a payback for some previous life's actions. In otherwords, I can be as cruel to anyone as I wish and I can just say they deserve it because of something they did in their previous life.

As far as I can see, life is generally better and happier when I treat others with kindness and that's why I do it. But, for much of life's twists and turns, the only rules that apply are:

a) ->-bleeped-<- happens

b) when you least expect it, expect it

Cheers

Karma is more like trying to expunge bad debt.  If you go around doing bad to others on the theory they deserve it, then you are building up bad karma that you will have to expunge in the next life.  But you argument does apply to Tao, I think.  With Tao, a violent criminal rapist can reason they needed to be that to get to the next level, and their victims needed to be victims for teir own good, so it is all ok.  That's pretty sick.

Hi Margaret Ann. Cindy extends her two hands before her side by side, bows slightly eyes closed  as a polite gesture and says softly, "tank you."   ;D Yea I didn't come here to make any enemies, to burdensome and stressful on my poor aging noives. Anyway, sometime I may take the time to go into detail as to how I see karma or the law of returns as it might be called by some.

Carma or the law of returns  are not intelligent acts born from an outside force, we create it ourselves. Also funny how people will jump to conclusion, that first of, that these occurences have to be of a negative nature. But one can just as easily create a positive end result for themselves just as easily and equally as a negative result manifested by their own doings. So basically one can create their own hell  or their own heaven right here on Earth, in this life time. But then this is my own observation from personal experiences in my past and not necessarily anyone else's. I will leave this subject lie where it is, as is.

As for religion and science, what if we were to somehow coalesce the many different fields of science, religions, spirituality, quantum physics and metaphysics  at some point in the future, like joining all of the energy points of the nature of all things in this reality as we know it and along with all in the universe, like a very large spiral galaxy. I mean, like "wow!!!"  What would we have? Going past the point of all knowledge presently recorded in all the books in all the libraries in the world what would we discover? Awakening into complete awareness of all life sources as one.

But the problem is we can't bridge that gap without first building a bridge, The psychic conjunction of all minds.

I pray I didn't loose you hon, I appear to do that from time to time. I get a mite caried away. I pray I didn't loose anyone else on this thread either as far that goes. If anyone wants to ask any questions, "please!" feel free to do so.

Cindy