pirana

Depends on the flavor of their religion, the flavor of their science, and how they apply each. I like mine with lettuce and tomato Heinz 57 and french fried potato Big dill pickle and a cold draft beer Days like this (wind chill below 0) remind me of the Caribean, and that I am not there. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Thank you Don! By twisting it around, I was trying to demonstrate that the existence or non-existence of any god is unprovable and therefore lies in faith. The believer has faith that god does exist. The non-believer has faith that god doesn't exist. My next question is, how can anyone prove that God has not revealed himself privately to any individual?). Yes indeed. Same answer. Can not be done. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Please explain that. The atheist refuses to believe that there's a giant spirit in the sky that put his spirit into us [God is love] and draws us to himself, but you can possess a sense of spirituality. Neither one can be proven scientifically. It's actually quite funny that people who claim this spirituality and do every wierd thing from believing in the healing power of a piece of quartz, communing with nature, or thinking that they are one with the universe, hate the idea of a god because he has a few rules that they don't want to obey. That is, they go against one's carnal [a word that only has meaning in the spiritual sense] nature. For that, I; going to point you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism Very good point, and THE critical distinction between spirituality as a whole, and the subset of spirituality known as religion. Religion demands you accept that the spirit was put there by some Diety. It reqiuires ascribing to a higher power. My spirituality is of the Naturalist style. I believe that life has purpose, not because of physical processes that would lumber along thru time whether we knew about them or not, but because of our minds. Mind being a spiritual but natural manifestation of those physical processes. So I consider the mind to be spiritual, but grounded in and emanating from purely physical processes within the human anatomy - no diety required. The up side of this model is that we possess a level of awareness and conscience that sets us free to be wildly creative with almost no bounds for mental growth. The down side is that it allows us to imagine and attach meaning to all kinds of oogie-boogie stuff. (Like pyramids, crystals, astrology, etc). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Since you mentioned it, have you read it? Just a Theory by Moti Ben-Ari. Great read. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Hey yeah i thought it was pretty interesting too when I thought about it. It really explains why people are so desperately clinging to their religion altough it seems pretty obvious that there is no god. No because conversion of matter has logic in it so it was just a theorie. Nothing shaky there. What is FSM? Monogamy has nothing to do with faith but with moral and standards set by society. Everybody can choose to live monogamous or not and it does not contradict any scientific facts so no problem there. Well not to pick at words, but I'm going to anyway, because I think how people apply language to their thoughts is very telling. Use of the word obvious leads me to think you are trying to apply logic or some sort of mechanism of proof. It appears firmly established that proof that God (or any all knowing all seeing all powerful diety) exists or not is outside the bounds of logic. Even that statement is giving too much. (To paraphrase Pauli - It's so far from right, it's not even wrong). It may be obvious to you personally, but that only makes it a belief. To make it obvious to others, via logic or some other tool, you need evidence, observation, repeatable experiments, corroboration, etc. Ain't gonna happen because you are taking scientific thought outside of it's realm. A great example is from a fellow poster on an astronomy board: I've got a pack of invisible elves living in my back yard. Prove me wrong. And of course the FSM. (Check out His Noodlieness at flyingspaghettimonster.com). Fun stuff. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Their failure to continue at the same pace was falling into the dogma of organized religion, which they are still mired in. The Dark Ages were not the result of, nor were they prolonged by any church. If the clergy had not stepped in to fill the vacumn created by the collapse of The Roman Empire, the descent most likely would have been deeper and lasted longer. The Church, from the time the Empire collapsed, began immediately sowing the seeds of organization that led directly to the formation of modern Europe. It just took a long time to come to maturity, not because of the church, but because of the narrow, short, and disorganized vision of most of the leaders of the day. They had to spend a few hundred years playing a financially destructive game of King of the Hill. Generation after generation spent all the resources of their fiefdom conquering the land over the next hill. The Dark Ages were dark mostly as a matter of economic and organizational meltdown and not something spiritual or something the church did. Quite the reverse, as Europe was entering the Dark Ages, the church had already sown the seeds for future organization and growth. You could say they had already become a political entity and were only acting in their own interest. I would agree. Doesn't change the fact that they got the ball rolling. Their enduring grip on our culture is testament to that. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well, sicence is the developement of knowledge based on empirical observation and rational deduction whereas religion is revealed knowledge maintained in spite of empirical observation and rational deduction. It seems to be fairly obvious that if you adhere to one methodology, you'd have a difficult time adhereing to the other one simultaneously. So I guess a scientist should also not believe in something such as having a monogamous relationship, since most evidence seems to indicate that humans are not biologically meant to be monogamous? Science, atheism, spirituality - none of these three things are mutually exclusive. Nor are any of them dependent on each other. A scientist can believe in a diety, with no conflict whatsoever. It is only when you get into the details of certain dogmatic beliefs (which a person does not need to hold in order to believe in a diety) that conflict arises. An atheist can be spiritual. You can believe in the connectness of the human spirit (and beyond) without the aid of organized religion, dieties, and so on. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Not to mention that our concept of laws, as well as a good deal of specific laws (including the whole idea of property rights) has it's founding in early religious thought. They were for a long time THE place to go for education of any kind, including the ability to read and write. And as I mentioned, their civilizing effect. Religion was almost always the first step in getting a barbaric horde to settle down and assimilate, instead of just massacreing everybody and stealing all their goodies. The Bible is quite an impressive book when it comes to convincing stories of how to lead a civilized life amongst fellow men (as long as you do not take it too literally - remember it was written back when the manner of making a point and teaching lessons was just slightly different than it is today). So you've got the schools, the preservation of knowledge, legal code, their being a storehouse of art and literature, teaching lessons for life, their civilizing effect on the barbaric hordes, . . . . . . but WHAT ELSE have the Christians done for us? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Are you referring to the evangelical protestant movement's attacks on teaching science in the classroom or the Church of Rome imprisoning Galileo for his "Devil Glass?" Perhaps you are referring to the 'progress' made during the inquisition or during the witch hunts or the English civil war. The Christian church has been an anchor to human progress since its inception. No, I'm talking a longer view. Much longer. Sure they've had some nasty moments. What group of humans hasn't? But in spite of the fact that they have at times been an obstacle to enlightenment, they have also been at times the only cement holding Western civilization together. Why do you think it is so hard to let go of. Humanity leaned heavily on religious organizations to get thru some dark times, then later says "We are now enlightened, you can go away." Not that easy, not that fast. Over long tracts of time religious beliefs will continue to change, and faith-based thinking will eventually shrink back to the strictly spiritual realm; but if you think just because humans figured out the atom and the solar system that we would overnight throw off over 6000 years of a faith-based and spiritually-centered view of the world, well . . . . obviously it's not happening. You can cherry pick at the nasty things organized religion has done, and because they have been around a good bit, will come up with a bushel of bad behavior. But that is what it is, cherry picking. If you know of enough of those things, then you must have read enough history to know there is much more to the story. Unless you are reading thru some big-time filters. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You're happy to admit an equal possibility of existance for god, allah, invisible pink unicorns and the FSM, then? One of the DJs on the local rock station mentioned the FSM the other day. I had no idea FSMism was spreading so widely. All hail His noodly appendage. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

(In Arnold's Voice): It's naught a theory. It's an idea, or a model, maybe a hypothesis. To be a theory it must be testable, or known to be testable in the future. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Interesting twist on the usual conversation. Tempting a scienctist (or scientific thinker) to step into that goo pit. No scientist worth his weight in salt would claim to be able to do that. Just as no theologian should be using scripture to determine the age of the Universe. The 2 can live in complete harmony as long as they stick to their realms. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The 4 basic human needs: 1 - To survive 2 - To love and be loved 3 - To belong, or to feel important (closely related to but different than #2) 4- To experience stimulus (or variety as the spice of life. You can do all of the above with or without religion. Only #1 is required to simply remain in existence, but all 4 are required to lead an effective life. It's usually very obvious when someone is missing one of them because they compensate incredibly somewhere else; usually resulting in addiction, abuse, or other ineffective behaviors. Interesting mention of the link from needs to religion. Anybody here familiar with the studies indicating genetic predisposition to spiritual beliefs? I must have the atheist gene. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Who? Me? Hard core atheist here, as hard as they come. Though I do not believe in any diety, I do respect other people's religious beliefs - for the most part. As long as they stick to the realm of spiritiuality. The boundary for me is literal interpretation of scripture (of any religion) and the damage it does. Tempering my criticism of organized religions is the role they have played in moving civilization forward. Scientology has never played such a role. The stated goal, from the time it was first conceived, was simply to take people's money. It's all oogie-boogie with no redeeming social qualities. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

How the hell are they going to do that? I can't even keep the wife and kids from fucking with it. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Ah, I think this explains the loss of empire. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

.... and on the same theme (you not getting the inside British stuff) bob is slang for pounds (or is it Guinneys?) in some quarters of UK. When I was there it was quid - I think. And are you telling me a billion there has 3 more zeros than a billion here? Somebody must be fucking with me. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Scientology really has very little to do with religion. It is a financial scam disguised as something spiritual. They have one purpose, to separate converts from their money. Mr Cruise is either unwittingly or intentionally acting as their front man in the scam. What I don't get is that the guy (Hubbard) did exactly what he said he was going to do, and people either don't notice, or don't care. He said he was going to concoct a religion to bilk people of their money - then he did it. It's as bad as people answering ads that say to send $20 for advice on how to make lots of money. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I saw part of the TV show, where people get help from elementary school age kids to questions from 1st thru 5th grade exams - or something like that. I did not like it, because I think it is staged in that they go looking for stupid people. If they grabbed people at random it might come off as more genuine; but they are obviously playing to people's needs to see others making fools of themselves on TV. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous the questions they miss. I could count on one hand how many people I've met that are that dumb, and they seem to find them in droves. So it is either faked, or they prescreen to make sure they get one dufus after another. And I still so not see where I was wrong on the billion. A 1 and 9 zeros. I even thought I might have brain farted and did it on paper. Muttering to self: 1, 2, 3 - that's hundreds; 4, 5, 6 - that's thousands; 7, 8, 9 - that's millions, next place is a billion. Hmmmmm, what am I missing. 1, 2, 3 - that's hundreds; 4, 5, 6 - that's . . . . No, I'm not very busy today. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

But seriously; difficulty with comprehension of scale is relative. If it is a scale a person work's with or thinks about regularly, it's no big deal. Sun to Earth distance in miles is almost 10% of a billion, so a billion starts to become not so difficult to identify with if you happen to even casually think about things astronomical on a regular basis. Even a trillion miles is only about 1/6th of a light year, or about 4% of the distance to the nearest star. On a cosmic scale, that's not even out of the back yard yet. Funny aside - A friend was in a motorcycle accident and took a bad rap on the head. Ended up with some permanent damage that manifested itself in strange ways. One is trouble with scale and units. He gets them completely mixed up, and doesn't know it. So I'm visiting in the Bay area and he's telling me the rules on buildings and ends a sentence with " . . . and that is why they only build them 2" tall." I was doing his taxes and he kept making statements where he was off by an order of magnitude. He was getting a $7K refund on $150K adjusted income and he kept arguing with me that his bottom line should be a $70K refund. I should have let the stubborn shit send it in that way. As for that Katrina lawsuit; I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers right now, but is there that much cash on Earth? I think it would be close, and if so, they are basically suing to own all the money in the world. Funny. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Am too. But honestly, I don't get it. And Bob is the host's name. You see it's a game show thing; the category is Scales & Context (a particularly tough one for those that have problems with things like, . . . scale and context). Anyway, I've just answered to what a billion is, and am asking for the $500 question in the same category. The person I'm asking is the host, Bob. You're turn. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Sort of like a Works Program. Now why aren't we doing that anymore? Instead of free money, you show up at the Works Office and make yourself available to do pretty much whatever reasonable job there is to be done. When the project is over, you get reassigned. Want more money and/or choice of job; then you just go out and get one on your own without going thru the Works Office. I suppose the hairshirts and the ACLU would say that is infringing on people's freedom. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I agree completely, and stop calling me Surley. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I think it would be easier to just not give them the money. Whether you give them the money and let them spend it irresponsibly, or give them the money and tell them how to spend it; it's a nanny state either way. I'm not totally against it, but it should be more like unemployment where you get it for a certain limited period, and then get cut off. Career welfare needs to be stopped. Unless you can prove a significant disability (just not being smart doesn't count) you need to get a job and pay your way. There are lots of jobs out there. Most of them are not very glamorous. So fucking what. If there were not as many people on the welfare rolls, then the government employees that are supposed to run the program might be able to monitor it well enough to curtail abuse. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

A thousand millions. A 1 with 9 zeros after it. Next question please. I'll take Scales & Context for $500 Bob. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley