|
|
|
Hi 13 ("I am not a number, I am a free man.." The illogical sequence of belief changes you talk about is exactly the same as mine. Because I'm too tired (or lazy) to type much right now, here's a quote from my Journeys entry: >>>>> The last time I gave satsang to a friend was 1987 - the year I later read Richard Dawkins and took on board the full implications of Darwinian theory … A measure of anger came later, as, over the years, I became far happier without Knowledge than I had been whilst practising. Soon I was an out-and-out sceptic about all so-called spiritual paths, and I recognised the wasted years for what they were. My conviction grew that the whole thing was a sham - a confidence-trick without a con-man - the 'boy-god' being as much a victim as he is propagator of the whole grand delusion. … It is two years since I discovered the ex-premie website. And while it has been over ten since I ditched the guru, I still had unanswered questions. I realised how badly I had missed out on the chance to talk to ex-premies at the time I jumped ship. And ex-premie.org has certainly helped me reframe and understand what it was I had become involved with all those years before, and the psychological needs that attract people to movements like Maharaji's... After all, I had to ditch the bloody Almighty and the whole of the paranormal before the penny finally dropped that Maharaji, too, was a fraud. By the way: you can believe in God and psychic phenomena, too, if you really want to, and still know that Maharaji is a fake... http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/journs/j_nigel.htm (BTW: I no longer see M 'as much a victim as a perpetrator'. It was maybe true once, but he is old enough and ugly enough to be accountable. Maybe I should review and edit the Journey.)
Modified by Nigel at Sun, Jan 08, 2006, 14:03:45
|
|
|
|
I am free to be a number if I want to be, and I'm not afraid to be a dodgy one at that 
Glad to have read your journey - I missed that one somehow when I browsed through them.
Funny that we could be so sceptical, and yet somehow still maintain
our internal altar to M. M didn't fit at all with the rest of my
beliefs. For the most part, I kept M a secret, especially from anyone
that was new to me. When I did occasionally tell someone, it was in the
manner of a confession rather than expounding about a revelation. It
was a long time before I tried to reconcile my conflicting beliefs.
These days, I don't find such conflicts so surprising. There is a
commonly held notion that as we evolve or develop, we understand
reality more accurately. I think this is the case alright
scientifically or technologically, but I don't think our spiritual
beliefs or morals are any more sophisticated or 'accurate'.
Once you ditch God, it isn't hard to do away with any notion of
progress, other than scientific or technological. Unless you assume
we are all created for a purpose and are headed somewhere meaningful,
there is no reason to suppose that our notions of reality are becoming
any more accurate. We all need to understand the basics of the physical
world to get around, but beyond that, I don't think an understanding of
'reality' necessarily gives us a survival advantage. What would give a
survival advantage though is the ability to believe in whatever the
group around us believes in. Our commonly held belief as to what
reality is binds us tightly to the tribe. It doesn't really matter that
our beliefs don't stand up to plain logic, or fit in with others around the world, so long as we feel at home
with our peers...
I hope you can all go along with this, or I might have to bugger off and find another tribe.
|
|
|
|
You say: "I don't think an understanding of
'reality' necessarily gives us a survival advantage. What would give a
survival advantage though is the ability to believe in whatever the
group around us believes in." Nice point.Certainly true for me re cult days. But its that little glyph "reality"- ie the word reality written in quotes, that punctures every logic.. Presumably when in quotes, reality here doesn't include the perception of the reality of being in a group.The terrible dawning of that reality which asks "So am I just a pawn in a game" is a question that must remain unasked at all costs if the game is to continue as it has so far. For me the issue is one of the possibillity or otherwise of human freedom. It still is a good point though imo. Bryn
|
|
|
|
Bryn,
You don't let any details slip by - good man!
I don't know how those quotes around the word 'reality' got there in my previous post - in what I tried to say, there is no reason for them. Consider them my mistake.
What I meant was that I don't think an understanding of reality (beyond the obvious physical stuff we need to know about) necessarily gives us a survival advantage. What counts for more is that someone believes in the same fundamental things that their peers believe. Someone who has a different perspective to us is an outsider. The scientist/philosopher isn't usually as popular or well-paid as the crowd-pleasing celebrity type.
I don't think we are wired to understand reality. I think we are wired to fit in with the rest of the tribe. I think this is why I managed to maintain the highly illogical stance of being a sceptic at the same time as a devotee. Reality didn't come into it. The people I identified with were my foundation. The test I succeded in was fitting in with them. The test I didn't notice that I was failing was that my ideas were contradictory.
If I am right, this is no great revelation - I have changed my peer group is all!
I don't think I am even a pawn in the game. I no longer believe there is a game being played. Lila went out with the rest.
Freedom, Bryn? Freedom to do what? Or freedom from what?
Sorry to sound so negative! I do actually enjoy life a great deal, at least as much as the best of times in the devotee days. The irony is that it seems I am just as happy with very little in the way of ideology, and I consider all this philosophising as nothing more than play. I am happy by nature, and the philosphical context I construct around it seems to matter less and less.
|
|
|
|
I'll have to reply to a few of your points, 13 You said: These days, I don't find such conflicts so surprising. There is a commonly held notion that as we evolve or develop, we understand reality more accurately… That’s popular reading of evolution - at least if you’re talking about increased understanding of the world since homo sapiens arrived – but it is a misreading. Culture and science broaden and deepen as we learn from our ancestors, but genetically (from all I’ve read) we are pretty-well the same as our stone-age ancestors. If you could have frozen a stone age embryo and brought it back to life today, the child would function as well in the modern world as anyone else. What our genes have given us is the mental capacity to learn, as well as the ability to choose what to learn. This doesn’t guarantee our decisions will be wise ones. (Look at the way the Fundamentalists have forced ‘Intelligent Design’ back onto the school curriculum I think this is the case alright scientifically or technologically, but I don't think our spiritual beliefs or morals are any more sophisticated or 'accurate'. I have to disagree about beliefs – at least if you include beliefs about the natural world, which thanks to science are vastly more accurate (ie., testable and reliable) than voodoo and dark-age superstitions. As for morals? – I guess that’s a matter of opinion. Once you ditch God, it isn't hard to do away with any notion of progress, other than scientific or technological. I agree 100% Unless you assume we are all created for a purpose and are headed somewhere meaningful, there is no reason to suppose that our notions of reality are becoming any more accurate. I don’t understand you here. I would say it is precisely because evolution doesn’t propose we are heading somewhere meaningful, that our notions of reality are improving. We all need to understand the basics of the physical world to get around, but beyond that, I don't think an understanding of 'reality' necessarily gives us a survival advantage. What would give a survival advantage though is the ability to believe in whatever the group around us believes in. Our commonly held belief as to what
reality is binds us tightly to the tribe. It doesn't really matter that our beliefs don't stand up to plain logic, or fit in with others around the world, so long as we feel at home with our peers... ‘Our understanding of reality’ is a pretty broad concept – not an either/or thing. Our ancestors would never have learned to use tools or ‘think’ their way out of danger – a capacity not evident in other animals, if our understanding of reality wasn’t adaptive. And surely getting along with the group requires an understanding of reality – or one aspect of it? (And in adaptive terms, logical, considering that being ostracised by the tribal unit was very dangerous indeed, if primate behaviour is anything to by.) But on the other hand, understanding that there are nine planets in the solar system doesn’t confer survival value, but, again, it’s the capacity to grasp important information at critical times, rather than the information itself which is adaptive. I hope you can all go along with this, or I might have to bugger off and find another tribe. Well I’ve agreed where I could – but maybe that’s my way of getting along with the gang. Nige
|
|
|
|
“Culture and science broaden and deepen as we learn from our ancestors, but genetically (from all I’ve read) we are pretty-well the same as our stone-age ancestors. If you could have frozen a stone age embryo and brought it back to life today, the child would function as well in the modern world as anyone else.”
I’ve heard this before, it is very popular with people who like to be a bit primitive in their habits. But it seems to me far more likely that should that stone age embryo be brought to life today it would die very quickly from some sickness. Firstly for no demonstrable reason the idea that a baby that has somehow done a loop that evades all that time in the natural world would be the same as one that arrived by the normal course of events doesn’t sit well with me. It buys into the religious view of babies coming from god as clean slates, blanks awaiting inscribing thereon. Rather than a consequence of what has gone before. And it has been demonstrated that there is a legacy direct from your parent’s experience. Some French scientists were able to show that the ability to produce a particular antibody which developed in a parent due to an illness was subsequently passed on to his child at conception. However I find it easy to accept we still have the same basic equipment and it functions basically the same way. Including our minds. To digress a little, much as I love my mind, and I do, I am one of these people who suspect that maybe overall cats are more intelligent than humans and I come up with phrases like ‘the intelligence of plants’ … I was born into a society that didn’t like to believe that animals had the same emotions as humans. I forget the word but it meant attributing human qualities to animals and was a bad thing to do. Nowadays we have pet psychologists. What if plants do too? It is an idea which persists. Do we know what the biological requirements are to feel emotion? Certainly they get sexy. Anyone who has lived with a tribe of Burrawongs (our native cycad) during mating season can attest to that. Maybe I’m doing whatever that word is to plants, but it seemed to me that the trees had plenty to say as the hot weather continued day after day until their reserves of moisture were depleted and then after a period of sheer happiness when the rain finally came, now washed clean with the air warm and the rain still coming, they have settled into a fugue of pleasure, sucking and sucking to their heart’s content. Bet they’ll bitch if it goes on too long though.
|
|
|
|
>I’ve heard this before, it is very popular with people who like to be a bit primitive in their habits. But it seems to me far more likely that should that stone age embryo be brought to life today it would die very quickly from some sickness.
You’re taking me too literally - Lesley, or maybe I phrased it badly. I wasn’t talking literally about frozen embryos. (And you’re probably right about him/her being susceptible to modern bugs if it had developed that far) It was just a thought experiment, which I’ve heard geneticists use, that if it were possible to fertilise an egg with paleolithic dna, the resulting child would use computers, mobile phones, do well at school, watch the Simpsons etc. >And it has been demonstrated that there is a legacy direct from your parent’s experience. Some French scientists were able to show that the ability to produce a particular antibody which developed in a parent due to an illness was subsequently passed on to his child at conception. That’s a very Lamarkian claim (acquired characteristics being passed on) and it would be controversial if that’s what’s being argued. I’d like to see the research. >However I find it easy to accept we still have the same basic equipment and it functions basically the same way. Including our minds. Agreed, and that’s all I was saying, really – that change since our species evolved has been mostly cultural, apart from superficial adaptations regarding skin colour etc. >What if plants do too? It is an idea which persists. Do we know what the biological requirements are to feel emotion? Plants feeling emotion is a wee bit too Lyall Watson for my stomach. I see no evidence or rational argument for it. There are certainly known brain structures associated with emotion, which not even all creatures have. >Certainly they get sexy. Anyone who has lived with a tribe of Burrawongs (our native cycad) during mating season can attest to that. Maybe I’m doing whatever that word is to plants, but it seemed to me that the trees had plenty to say as the hot weather continued day after day until their reserves of moisture were depleted and then after a period of sheer happiness when the rain finally came, now washed clean with the air warm and the rain still coming, they have settled into a fugue of pleasure, sucking and sucking to their heart’s content. Bet they’ll bitch if it goes on too long though.
Hmm, dunno, but it sounds like you might be projecting your own emotions, here…?
|
|
|
|
I think that's the right name. some professor did an experiment with mice. He chopped off their tails. The fact that they never produced offspring without a tail was the evidence that acquired characteristics could not be passed on at conception.Not a particularly interesting experiment but it gave it's name 'The Wiseman's Barrier' to the concept that nothing that happened to a creature got passed on genetically. This antibody discovery only challenges this in the field of immunology.
But as I understand it the research is accepted by the general scientific commrunity. It was on the evening news. There was an American scientist who had been working on the same thing and he went and joined french one in Paris I think it was, don't remember the names involved. The name Lamarck does ring a bell, but I think I read something of his on the internet and thought he was a bit dodgy. There's an idea floating around that the way we reproduce is so successful versus cloning, something hardly any species do any more, because the generational genetic changes two parents make creates a regular challenge to the bugs that want in. I saw some interesting footage of an american scientist messing about with nets and little fish in some desert ponds and his observations supported the idea. I suppose it is possible that that stone age baby's immune system could be so out of fashion, it's back in...none of the bugs remember how to get through. Nonetheless, it now appears that a gene relating to the immune system can and has been observed to cross the wisemans barrier. I'm not one to jump on that and use it as 'evidence' for a whole load of other ideas of what gets passed on though. And I don't know who this Lyall Watson is, but shall google the name..not with much optimism...I know it sounds like I am projecting my own emotions. But then sometimes that can get hard enough to work out between human beings let alone intra species. I thought I was projecting my emotions onto animals, why?, because I was told that was what I was doing. I am quite clear now that animals feel all the same stuff we do, they get jealous, angry, frightened, happy, contented, sad, confused. They love and they hate. Observations of wild animals interacting with eachother with all of that going on does I think take out the notion that it is learnt from humans. When the seed of a strangler fig lodges in the branch of a large tree and takes root it's pretty small, it wouldn't be taking that much from the tree. Over the years it gets bigger and bigger. Until it is a huge imposition. And then an intolerable one. There is no escape for that tree. It feeds the monster that imprisons it. And then it dies. Do I imagine the tree has feelings about it's fate because I have feelings about my fate and cannot imagine how another species might not, or does it feel independently of me. Dunno. And I don't expect to know. I guess it would take a biologist and a botanist or two to start working that one out.
|
|
|
|
Below is Dawkins talking about his new TV series (p40, the Independent "Life & Culture" section, Fri 6th Jan 2006)Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no India partition, no Israel/Palestine war, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland 'Troubles'. Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews - no Jews to persecute indeed, for without religious taboos against marrying out, the Diaspora would long ago have merged into Europe. Hitler invoked "My feelings as a Christian" to justify his anti-Semitism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Nevertheless, most such atrocities are not directly motivated by religion. IRA gunmen didn't kill Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about transubstantiation or such theological niceties. The motive was more likely to be tribal vengeance. One of 'them' killed one of 'us'. 'They' drove 'our' great-grandfathers out of ancestral lands. Grievances are economic and political, not religious; and vendettas stretch "unto the third and forth generation of them that hate me". Quoting Exodus reminds me, incidentally, that humanists prefer Gandhi's version: "An eye for an eye make the whole world blind." But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today's most divisive label of group identity and hostility. If a social engineer set out to devise a system for perpetuating our most vicious enmities, he could find no better formula than sectarian education. The main point of faith schools is that the children of 'our' tribe must be taught 'their own' religion. Since the children of the other tribe are simultaneously being taught the rival religion with, of course, the rival version of the vendetta-riven history, the prognosis is all too predictable. But what can it mean to speak of a child's 'own' religion? Imagine a world in which it was normal to speak of a Keynesian child, a Hayekian child, or a Marxist child. Or imagine a proposal to pour government money into separate primary schools for Labour children, Tory children and LibDem children. Everyone agrees that small children are too young to know whether they are Keynesian or Monetarist, Labour or Tory: too young to bear the burden of heavy parental labels. Why, then, is almost our entire society happy to privilege religion, and slap a label like Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew, on a tiny child? Isn't that a form of mental child abuse? I once made that point in a broadcast debate, with a Roman Catholic spokeswoman. I've forgotten her name, but I think she was some kind of agony aunt, and a stalwart of the Today programme's 'Thought for the Day'. When I said that a primary school child was too young to know whether it was a Catholic child, she bristled: "Just come and talk to some of the children in our local Catholic school! I assure you they know very well that they are Catholic children". I believe it. The Jesuit boast - "Give me the child for his first seven years, and I'll give you the man" is no less sinister for being familiar to the point of cliche. But what if religion is true? Surely sectarian indoctrination wouldn't be child abuse if it saved the child's immortal soul? Despite the smug presumptuousness of that, I can almost sympathise, if you sincerely believe your religion is the absolute truth. Let me, then, be ambitious if not presumptuous, and try to shake your belief. Why do you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your head? Alas, the Yorkshire Ripper's murders were ordered by the perceived voice of Jesus inside his head. The human brain is a consummate hallucinator, and hallucinations are a poor basis for real world beliefs. Or perhaps you believe in God because life would be intolerable without him. That's an even weaker argument. Lots of things are intolerable and it doesn't make them untrue. It may be intolerable that you are starving, but you can't eat a stone by believing - no matter how passionately and sincerely - that it is made of cheese. By far the favourite reason for believing in God is the argument from improbability. Eyes and skeletons, hearts and nerve cells are too improbable to have come about by chance. Man-made machines are improbable too, and designed by engineers for a purpose. Surely any fool can see that eyes and kidneys, wings and blood corpuscles must also be designed for a purpose, by a master Engineer? Well, maybe any fool can see it, but let's stop playing the fool and grow up. It is 146 years since Charles Darwin gave us what is arguably the cleverest idea ever to occur to a human mind. He demonstrated a beautiful, working process whereby natural forces, by gradual degrees and with no deliberate purpose, forge an elegant illusion of design, to almost limitless levels of complexity. I have written books on the subject and obviously can't repeat the whole argument in a short article. Let me give just two guidelines to understanding. First, the commonest fallacy about natural selection is that it is a theory of chance. If it were, it is entirely obvious that it couldn't explain the illusion of design. But natural selection, properly understood, is the antithesis of chance. Second, it is often said that natural selection makes God unnecessary, but leaves his existence an open plausibility. I think we can do better than that. When you think it through, the argument from improbability, which traditionally is deployed in God's favour, turns out to be the strongest argument against him. The beauty of Darwinian evolution is that it explains the very improbable, by gradual degrees. It starts from primeval simplicity (relatively easy to understand) and works up, by plausibly small steps, to complex entities whose genesis, by any non gradual process, would be too improbable for serious contemplation. Design is a real alternative, but only if the designer is himself the product of an escalatory process, such as evolution by natural selection, either on this planet or elsewhere. There may be alien life forms so advanced that we would worship them as gods. But they too must ultimately be explained by gradual escalation. Gods that exist ab initio are ruled out by the argument from improbability, even more surely than are spontaneously erupting eyes or elbow joints. Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."
Professor Dawkins' series looking at religion, is on 9 and 16 January at 8pm on Channel 4
Modified by jonti at Mon, Jan 09, 2006, 08:45:35
|
|
|
|
I noticed letters in the Independent about that article, and since I missed it myself, searched for it on their website - didn't find it.
I hope the moderators don't consider this topic to be off-topic, just part of the creationist/evolution debate. Apart from picking holes in what M says and does, I think it is important to try to see where we went wrong, in the slight hope of not getting fooled again. I find it interesting, trying to fathom why we believe what we believe.
|
|
|
|
... but at least I never claimed to be the Messiah!I share your hopes, and thanks for saying thanks, as it gives me a chance to add some explanation for any readers who find themselves baffled by references to "faith schools" in the article. Here in the UK, "faith" schools are supported by the Government in a way that would be illegal (unconstitutional) in the USA. But at least the state does not so much "establish" a religion as the one to be taught, as subsidise and support a range of religious schools. I went to an Anglican Primary ("Elementary") school; but there are Catholic and Jewish schools as well, that receive money from general taxation. And, if I recall correctly, something like 10% of Britishers are now Muslims, so there is pressure for Islamic schools to be set up. The policy has been less than successful in Northern Ireland yet the present Government is minded to do "more of the same" rather than embrace the USA model. Hence Dawkins strictures against "faith" schools. Jonti
--never a premie
|
|
|
|
10% of Britons are Muslim? 6 million? I think the 2001 census was 1.6 millions Muslims, about 2.7% of the population.And by the way, there already are Muslims schools and have been for some time.Whether backed financially etc in the same way as the others...I think that's what they are pushing for. Fair enough from that angle but the best solution is not to encourage such crap. So, as for Faith schools ...get rid of all of them I say...Christian, Jewish, Muslim ...whatever. It's bad enough parents brainwashing kids and forcing them to believe crap never mind schools doing it too. I agree with Dawkins on this evenings prog...why force belief on young impressionable minds as opposed to encouraging the formation of beliefs from their own assessment of proof, evidences etc. Faith schools....really insidious, IMO. Cheers Dermot Catholic educated through and through Beware!!!
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Jan 09, 2006, 18:22:39
|
|
|
|
I was a bit sceptical about his claim that recent surveys show 40 odd per cent of Americans believe the earth was created just a few thousand years ago. If that is the case, though, then Jesus, Mary and Joseph things are much worse than I thought!!! Went to to do a search on recent surveys but gave up. Can't remember how he phrased it...the electorate?....all adults?....can't remember.
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Jan 09, 2006, 18:21:29
|
|
|
|
40 odd per cent of Americans believe the earth was created just a few thousand years agoI've heard or read that before. It's ironic in a way, because the first person to calculate the age of the earth was actually an American from Iowa, a man called Clair Patterson. It's about 4,500 million years old. Did you enjoy the Pastor. Or did he persuade you there might be something in this reptilian business?
|
|
|
|
Reading about the Dover, Pennsylvania case (Intelligent Design debunked), one of the major news sources reported that 22% of Americans think the rapture's likely coming in the next 50 years and almost as many, 20%, are sure it is!
|
|
|
|
That was so funny, wasn't it? And the Christian guy spouting some pseudo science and Dawkins replying that he didn't know a single evolutionist who subscribed to that so obviously the guy didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And how things turned nasty in the car park and the guy threatening to call the cops. I mean, could there be anyone as inoffensive as Dawkins? Well, apart from his employment of reason instead of mumbo jumbo that is : ) Comedy aside, though, what an eerie undercurrent of blind, vicious, violent " faith" it revealed.
|
|
|
|
One of his renowned teachers had held a certain view of something or other for 15 years or more and had been prominently pushing it. Then an American scientist came over to lecture and proved the theory wrong. Dawkins' teacher went onstage, shook the guys hand, announced he personally had been wrong and thanked the Yank for furthering scientific knowledge. Then Dawkins and others " clapped their hands raw" in appreciation of their teachers commitment to scientific truth regardless of his own personal theories. And the contrast with intransigent blind faith. Anyway, time for bed ....
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Jan 09, 2006, 20:36:13
|
|
|
|
That pastor Haggard guy saying 'You, Sir, are arrogant!' repeatedly, while not letting the mild-mannered Dawkins get a word in anywhere - whilst telling Dawkins he'd been reading the wrong books(!) And then in the car park shouting 'get off my land - how dare you call my children animals..!' Jeez - what about that Jewish guy turned Islamo-fascist and wants holy war with the whole planet.... What is it about some people? Is rationality going to hell in a handcart? I hope it's not as bad as it looks.
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Jan 10, 2006, 05:14:42
|
|
|
|
That pastor Haggard guy saying 'You, Sir, are arrogant!' repeatedly, while not letting the mild-mannered Dawkins get a word in anywhere - whilst telling Dawkins he'd been reading the wrong books(!) And then in the car park shouting 'get off my land - how dare you call my children animals..!' Aw come on ....you gotta laugh. : ) But, like I said, ....the comedy was superficial, the undercurrent was insane. Jeez - what about that Jewish guy turned Islamo-fascist and wants holy war with the whole planet.... Yep, that guy was almost unbelievable...almost.Till you remember he's not a lone voice in the wilderness but standard fare.In fact, the entire Middle East segment of the prog was pretty depressing.Entrenchment beyond redemption it seems ....and the roots? ...faith in God !! hope it's not as bad as it looks. My guess is ....it's worse.
|
|
|
|
But were you watching Dawkins' face when the pastor started ranting at him? He was scared.
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Jan 10, 2006, 16:46:57
|
|
|
|
Yeah, a mixture of fear and surprise ( or shock), I guess. Then again, Dawkins is probably more at home discussing these things in the ivory towers of Oxford and not the home turf of some maniac in the Bible belt : ) So maybe Dawkins comparing the meeting he'd just been to as something akin to a Nuremburg rally set the tone of the exchange but probably wasn't the best trick in his bag : )) Also, later on in the car park, it probably occurred to Dawkins that if the cops had been called the guy calling the cops was the one with power & influence and not Dawkins himself.Most of the cops could well have been at the rally with their family. To tell you the truth, the most disturbing and shocking thing I sensed about the whole thing was the church meeting itself. When the pastor was spouting his old testament crap and then exhorting the faithful to shout out it was true. Then, after a a bit of a lukewarm response, he started to get manic and shouted " It's true ! it's true! It's true! Come on now, let me hear ya...it's true! It's true!" or something along those lines. Then the congregation obliging him and bellowing out " It's true!, it's true!". Not quite the Oxford debating society was it? : )
Modified by Dermot at Tue, Jan 10, 2006, 17:49:31
|
|
|
|
>To tell you the truth, the most disturbing and shocking thing I sensed about the whole thing was the church meeting itself. When the pastor was spouting his old testament crap and then exhorting the faithful to shout out it was true. Then, after a a bit of a lukewarm response, he started to get manic and shouted " It's true ! it's true! It's true! Come on now, let me hear ya...it's true! It's true!" or something along those lines. Then the congregation obliging him and bellowing out " It's true!, it's true!". Like I said - scary!
|
|
|
|
My shiite relatives are wonderful people. Do not discuss global politics with them, unless you want to be dismayed. There is a drumbeat, and yes, it is those great drums of satsang all right, only they are drumming for confrontation. My question, is, well, lets say dawkins is right, ok? Putting him aside, in the world of other ideas, have you heard any that come closest to an alternate view that somewhat reasonably explains this destructive tendency of ours. Even if it is kooky as heck. It does not have to have all its i's dotted, t's crossed,
|
|
|
|
The first was the way in which the Pastor manoeuvred Dawkins so quickly onto his own ground.
By saying that his book the Bible was the product over 1500 years of an enormous number of people who had all agreed, whereas no two scientists in a specialised field will absolutely agree with one another.
And that, consequently, Dawkins must not approach the said religious subject in an arrogant manner. That was a stunner, in that it is so palpably ridiculous, but proved gob-smackingly effective. Dawkins might have replied that this proved the Bible was a product of a wicked intelligent human design, as it was the product of an enormous continual process of deliberate intent to eliminate any form of dissent from the accepted party line. And alluded to the probably thousands of opponents who ended up in forgotten graves, after managing to leave their personal testaments to be discovered in caves just after WW2. However, I don't blame anyone for being semi-terrorised into silence by the big brawny Pastor, if one is a slightly weedy academic. The Pastor then went on to display a stunning ignorance of evolution which Dawkins was unable very well to capitalise on as the situation was never going to be one of rational debate. However, again, there was an irony in the situation in that the Pastor seemed to recognise a certain arrogance within Dawkins which others in their different ways and times have. The theme of the series is (hopefully?) supposed to be about the shortcomings of religion, but concentrates on the narrow idea of blind religious faith versus reason.
It seems to ignore a whole middle ground in which many believing people, or those with some semblance or degree of religious/spiritual feeling, but who attempt to reconcile this with common sense or reason, or even are quite open-minded, are wholly ignored, maybe because they represent a worrying niggling blip in Dawkin’s outlook. Seeing that disturbing triumphalism in the Pastor’s expression when he advised Dawkins against arrogance, I seemed to detect one very worrying reason why so many western people may these days be rushing back, or can be manipulated into, fundamentalist belief. Namely that they are reacting against the sometimes projected but erroneous capability of science to explain all of the mysteries of human existence. Evolution can never prove or disprove the existence of a creator. All it can do is suggest that a creator is unnecessary for the process to take place. Any scientist who tries to conclude anything more is transcending the boundaries of science, and thus (maybe unintentionally) vaguely and indirectly encouraging in the western world the exact fundamentalism which anyone of good sense totally deplores. Like anyone else watching (and I only saw up to the Pastor confrontation), I deplored the crazy primitive violence in evidence. However, the series seems to be diverting away from the real question of how many intelligent people still manage to reconcile reason with a religious or spiritual sense into some forced Dawkins thesis on how anything religious or spiritual by its very nature results in primitivism and mass violence.
Modified by Anthony at Wed, Jan 11, 2006, 12:04:55
|
|
|
|
I think he did acknowledge that there is a whole " middle ground " as you put it.When he began with a general focus on Catholicism and a particular focus on Lourdes, for instance, he did say it wasn't easy to just dismiss the many millions of basically sincere people ( from all religions) and also acknowledged that the solidarity of shared faith created a very powerful comfort and even a feeling of transendence but the point still had to be made that it is,at root, a mass delusion. I mean Lourdes was a great starting point.All Catholics are imbued with sense of the " miraculous " via all kinds of Catholic indoctrinations. As he pointed, though, from 800,000 visitors per year for the last one hundred years there have been 60 odd " miracles". Does that obvious, debunking fact alter peoples view of Lourdes as the Virgin Mary's principal place on earth for miraculous cures? Nope.Neither is there any real proof that the tiny number of " miracles" were actually that. Like he said, no recorded cases of a severed limb regrowing but in every case an alternative and much more likely explanation available ie that the cures were natural, not miraculous.If a whole mass of people, no matter how " moderate" swallow that at the expense of reason then something's wrong somewhere or other, isn't it? Or doesn't it matter? Also, when looking at the roots it's hard to avoid the extremes as a lot can be understood by doing so.His view that, normally, basically good people tend to do basically good things and lead basically good lives and basically bad people tend to basically bad things and lead basically bad lives but religion/ faith ( uniquely, he argues) adds a whole other dimension to everything, makes sense to me. Thus, good people can do bad things for the sake of faith. Now, ok, you could argue that Stalinism, Maoism, Hitlerism, or whatever, is devoid of God. The Old Testament God of the three monotheistic religions, for sure. But I'd throw those ism's into the " faith" camp anyway.Gods on earth and religous faith in them, to boot.Same roots, same exploitation of the masses but different icons. Also, the deluded " moderate" masses are part and parcel of the whole thing, IMO. Easily led because reason is subjugated by blind faith when it comes down to the nitty gritty. Hence a whole history of masochism, sadism, murder, torture and suicide lies at the roots of religious faith.It's pretty much inevitable. Yes, you have a point about the reconciliation of reason with faith but, ultimately, aren't the three main faiths dripping with " primitivism and mass violence"? You've read the "Holy" books haven't you? : ) So when push comes to shove, moderates could and in more cases than we'd be comfortable with, no doubt, would resort to what is clearly at the root of faith.There is no reason at that level just, alas,.. whether you like it or not...primitivism and mass violence. So, finally, not is he only cutting to the chase but also arguing that primitvism is on the rise and enlightened reason now on the decline. Something historic and momentous...happening right now. Look around.Yeah, millions of "moderates" keeping the ships afloat but at the expense of a decline in reasonable civilisation. Sounds dramatic, I know, but I tend to agree with him.
Modified by Dermot at Wed, Jan 11, 2006, 18:27:08
|
|
|
|
Lourdes " cures " I mean. either way,alongside a figure of 80 million odd the point still stands.
|
|
|
|
Can you justify this sentence, for now? >However, again, there was an irony in the situation in that the Pastor seemed to recognise a certain arrogance within Dawkins which others in their different ways and times have. Why do you use 'recognise' (as if tacitly agreeing) rather than 'allege'? Nige
|
|
|
|
was the Pastor arrogantly and aggressively accusing Dawkins of arrogance. That was there for all to see, wasn't it?
|
|
|
|
Sounds like it was a successful show if American tastes are considered. Not having seen the show, would -smug- be a better adjective of Dawkins? If I have smug defined right, Dawkins could afford to have it because he knew his opponent had no capacity to deal with Dawkins at all. Creationists are hopelessly outgunned by Dawkins. So, the attraction would be the theater. Sounds like it was all he could ask for. I know he has too much sense to get a Mullah on the show. But that would certainly get me tuned in if I could see it. Are you sure you see things moving towards religion? How possibly is that evidenced? I read that 9 percent of English go to church at least once a year. Down slope has been the trend, for quite some time. That figure is recent. We just had news articles in the Hartford Connecticut USA paper that churchs in England are being sold at a certain rate and that trend continues. Even pentacostal movements and the like that are -growth- churches are not makeing up for the decline. They are growing, in a declineing pool. In a survey of English religious education students, only a very few years ago, the number that thought jesus was -divine- was 29 percent. The author of the survey mentioned that the number was deceptively high, and not to worry, because based on the students other answers, the 29 figure is actually high. Clearly the survey author was reassureing his presumed academic readers that religous education was working well and getting the result that is actually wanted. Which is, less. As that is one of the goals of the new global citizen effort. Are you possibly wrong to think it is on the rise over there?
|
|
|
|
<i> I know he has too much sense to get a Mullah on the show.</i>
He talked to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. I'd guess that counts?
|
|
|
|
Did he record that Mufti discussion? He would not I believe feel as free pushing buttons of a Mullah on tv. There is a saying in Iran. Goes something like this; I have seen the eyes of an ant I have seen the legs of a snake. I have seen the ......................... But I have never seen the mercy of a mullah.
|
|
|
|
I am sure there are humane and wise mullahs, priests, rabbis, gurus and other "holy" whatnots. But I tend to think that suchlike preserve their humanity *despite*, rather than because of their belief.
Those of us from a Christian background may do well to consider whether Judaism or Islam (or Hinduism etc) have ever worked so hard to suppress reason and science as did the Christian church at the time of Galileo. I do not think mainstream Christianity's historical hostility to science and reason is mirrored in mainstream Judaism or Islam.
Dawkins' speciality is, of course, evolution. And it is doubtless a Good Thing that the Catholic Church does *not* try to suppress the teaching of evolutionary science. As far as I am aware, it's not a problem in (for example, the UK's) Jewish or Muslim schools either.
No, the hostility to Evolutionary Theory is a religious objection of Fundamentalist Protestants in particular, because they alone try to take Genesis literally.
The Court's judgement in the recent "Dover School Board" case was that creation science organizations are (Christian) fundamentalist religious entities that consider the introduction of creation science into the public
schools part of their ministry.
Part of *their* ministry. But no part of the ministry of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or for that matter, other Christians.
Modified by jonti at Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 12:05:01
|
|
|
|
Jonti, Is it wrong to think that the main issue for most genesis supporters is that the point is that god made man. My issue is this, is the other issue of genesis correct in some way..............is there a tempter (or?) and in addition, is the genesis issue of you can be like god a reality based struggle. Well, in one sense it is because humans, like rawat, declare themselves god, others claim there is a god however they define him/it, and others claim we ............are like god dummy! You see anyone but other humans around here?.................... So, it is an issue, and a valid issue for public discussion and legal decision because all that is taught in schools these days. The ramifications of your fundamental view of that could (should?) affect the rest of your outlook because it sits in effect, at the base, of our world view. I suppose we can and in effect DO dance all around all those options as we operate in life. However, while some can manage to do interpretive dance freely ignoreing the issue, how they deal with other peoples flaws and troubles in life will or can or perhaps should force them to at least be ticked off that there is ...........something wrong here............ why cant it be better. Why cant this be better, why did they do that? Why did this go wrong, why why why. It is not a small issue, not a fantasy issue, and, does holding one of the above mentioned views offer the most reality based elements. What are those elements, and how come even those that hold this or that view seem unable to represent that view as fixing them.
|
|
|
|
Maybe the 10% figure applies to London?I completely agree that religion is school is unacceptable -- except of course to teach about religions as such. On the other hand, I'd quite like to see my local Steiner school get some taxpayers' money. The teaching is good, and very child-centred, but the teachers are way underpaid.
|
|
|
|
These paragraphs. First, the commonest fallacy about natural selection is that it is a theory of chance. If it were, it is entirely obvious that it couldn't explain the illusion of design. But natural selection, properly understood, is the antithesis of chance. Second, it is often said that natural selection makes God unnecessary, but leaves his existence an open plausibility. I think we can do better than that. When you think it through, the argument from improbability, which traditionally is deployed in God's favour, turns out to be the strongest argument against him. The beauty of Darwinian evolution is that it explains the very improbable, by gradual degrees. It starts from primeval simplicity (relatively easy to understand) and works up, by plausibly small steps, to complex entities whose genesis, by any non gradual process, would be too improbable for serious contemplation. Design is a real alternative, but only if the designer is himself the product of an escalatory process, such as evolution by natural selection, either on this planet or elsewhere. There may be alien life forms so advanced that we would worship them as gods. But they too must ultimately be explained by gradual escalation. Gods that exist ab initio are ruled out by the argument from improbability, even more surely than are spontaneously erupting eyes or elbow joints.
In a nutshell, so well explained. Thanks
T
|
|
|
|
>When you think it through, the argument from improbability, which traditionally is deployed in God's favour, turns out to be the strongest argument against him. Every paragraph neatly crafted. What a great piece of writing. (That I happen to agree with all of it, doesn't come into it, of course...)
|
|
|
|
If we could self perfect, oprah and dr phil would have graduates joining the perfected class on a daily basis. dawkins skips over, his own previous most popular statement, that dna has a very strict rule it follows, it only does things for the reason of survival. When dna was about to do its usual thing, and install instinct into the human, god stepped in and installed human nature, which dna would never give us, and he got himself a way cool game system after a long spell of just watching creatures eat each other. No explanation for our boundries will be forthcoming on his show, and also, no explanation as to why he manages to bother his wife, and coworkers. That damn inperfectability thingee! Gets you somehow. Hell, I know people who have nothing to do each day but spend money. Can they get along with thier family members? No way! Amazing. If consiousness sprang from matter, we should be looking out for animals that have human conciousness same as us, and there will be the new prejudice, specieism. There will have to be therapists for those who find themselves in animal bodies to thier horror. Some prozac for these depressed, mooing, cawing, oinking humans! Are you really going to throw a lobster in boiling water now that you believe there is no -kindness factor which built the instinct/human nature difference. If we could imagine our way into getting along with each other, wouldnt those who have sex with each other be able to claim some percentage of success at attaining the glorious "join us" reality? To me, dawkins has to at least take a stab at our limits to be interesting.
|
|
|
|
'we should be looking out for animals that have human conciousness same as us, and there will be the new prejudice, specieism.'
We already have specieism. That's why you don't recognise that animals too have emotions, use tools, communicate with each other and get depressed. Humans are animals too, and there is no evidence there is any more god in us than them.
|
|
|
|
Well, if conciousness sprang from matter, meaning, if Dawkins is right, then we should not dismiss the woman who claims she talks to animals, and that spiders can be quite articulate. I myself heard her on late night radio. When Mao tse tungue told the chinese one day to kill all the rats, they made quite a dent in the population. If he was a right minded Dawkins Premie, he should have told them to look out for any that showed signs of being outside the instinct box. Why? because just by random chance, some percentage should exhibit signs of deep suicidal disappointment over being trapped in the rat limitation. At least one rat should show signs of drawing humans and cats and dogs and insects on his rat hole walls. One rat, should have been spotted cooking an insect on a stick over a gas pilot light in someones kitchen stove. One rat, should have just broken into interpretive dance in public, throwing care to the winds. Some rat, by sheer random chance, should be easily found because of the wild rat vesion of do-ray-me he sings as musical genius emerges. But, I dont know, like the fact that you cant find a archeology department in the Mormon university and there is no Mormon museum, you cant find Premies of Dawkins starting a movement to look for the emergent human nature signs in instinct creatures. Even the dolphins, they have a bigger brain than us, you dont find them doing interpretive dance moves in a group to alert us that they are pissed about the whole tuna net thing we do to them. I see a boundry line between instinct and human nature. I think it is a kindness! It would be a bitch if I found out I was a, well, a bitch! A female dog. Imagine, just the bark thing, cant itch worth a damn with those legs, except in some spots, even tongue/genital access is of no use, and insinct, wont even allow most dogs from legitimatly hating thier owners. Like down syndrome, instinct keeps the dogs in a happy to see you state even when you certainly dont deserve it, and you cant make the other humans fond of you. We will kill and torture for reasons that dna just wouldnt think of or inspire us to do. Dawkins and creationists deserve each other.
|
|
|
|
If consiousness sprang from matter, we should be looking out for animals that have human conciousness same as usI don't follow this line of reasoning at all, I'm afraid. It seems to me beyond dispute that our experience of consciousness is mediated by what goes on in the brain. There are differences in brain structure and function from species to species, so I'd assume the experience of consciousness would likely vary too. This is not to claim that a functioning brain alone confers consciousness. After all, many brain processes are not accompanied by consciousness. But it's valid to note that what goes on in the brain affects our awareness. And it's valid to ask why some brain processes, but not all, are associated with consciousness. What is this consciousness for (in the material sense of what does it do)? The contrary view, that consciousness is something quite foreign to matter, just doesn't fly. A couple of thousand years of intellectual effort have failed to resolve the obvious contradictions in that view. For if consciousness is not the result of material processes -- then how does a material world affect your mind? Contrariwise, how is it that your immaterial mind can act upon the material world, by moving your body around as your mind intends? (within limits, obviously!). And if that doesn't happen, why do so many people experience the illusion that it does? What's the point of that? So there are real, and, it seems, unresolvable, problems of epistemology involved in the hoary old religious delusion that there is some subtle substance called a soul that *somehow* manages to see and act in the material world, without itself being detectable in any material way. I'm with the Buddhists (and the results so far of science) on this one. Mind and body are one. How that works out is doubtless something of a puzzler. But the point is that science seeks material causes for material phenomena. That's just to say we live in a world where consequences follow antecedents in a reasonably predictable sort of way. So folks will continue to seek a material explanation for the phenemonum of consciousness. To say "it's god/allah/jahweh/maharaji wot dun it" is just to embrace an obvious dead-end of an explanation. A good read to start thinking seriously about this kind of issue is Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.
Modified by jonti at Tue, Jan 10, 2006, 08:19:51
|
|
|
|
How're you doing anyway, Bill?
|
|
|
|
I'll respond to you first St Jim, as you make it easy and dont require me to think first. I read your post down lower. I thought about it later, and I was going to respond by mentioning all the people that gave him money over the years. All of thier inheritances. Lots of folks out there have this burdensome memory of how they gave all thier money to him in addition to thier minds and time and all else. That must be quite a number of folks. Joe gave 30000 that went to pay for the rawats first mazerati. Dont know if you know that. ................ Jimmy, do you realize how much of a global movement the premies of St Dawkins are? Europe, australia, the US, canada, all teach religious education in thier schools. THe UN has its education program funding money tied to religious education. What do they teach? Long answer to that, but the effort is to teach morality education, ethics education. Create the new global citizen. The task of the religious education is to break the kids from all religious thinking of thier parents. Why? one answer is, because they can, using a number of techniques, and another reason is that more and more of academia do not 1) believe in the existance of a god. or if they do, it is the buddhist style oneness thigee but without the notion that you have to do any fancy moral tricks to merge yourself into it. 2) However they view god, they CERTAINLY dont think there is a devil. Not having a devil frees you to recognise that in a devil free environment, you are just dealing with human nature issues that oprah and dr. phil can fix. Or some other similar methodology. Not having a god or devil around of course leaves us with no real basis for any standard but whatever we decide. Now, even if we ALL agree, every dang human, that we are all going to agree one day to =imagine= some perspective as a whole, and we do have that group agreement session, hosted perhaps on global television, will that change reality if reality is that there is a god and a devil? Anyway, the new global citizen effort is in full swing in many countries, and the giddy champion of the -aint the god idea stupid- folks, St. Dawkin, and his premies, are really making a quiet and quite large push to satsang all the kids to make them free of what perhaps is a reality based view. My objection, is that this effort is not out in the open. I filed a complaint against rush limbaugh, he didnt respond. I contacted the fcc, they said they dont take complaints unless they are about obscenity. So I filed a federal court case to make the fcc take civil rights issues. Well, turns out I should have filed it as Me vs fcc, The court clerks told me to file it as Me vs us attorney general. So, I failed on that technicality. So, I sent the court papers to the 4 FCC commisioners and asked them to review the case (in an edited version) and see if they respond to it so I dont have to bother with filing another court case. If you want a peek into my bizarre mind further, I can email you the court case. .....................................................
|
|
|
|
So right now, I'm sitting in my Vancouver hotel room putting finishing touches on my closing argument tomorrow. I'm completely stoked on this case and hopefully things will come together next week when the jury gets the case. Meanwhile, PBS is in the background talking about the Jews and the bible and you're here with me, forcing me to heet you with stick!
Bill, Bill, Bill, why do you do this to yourself? You just know that you're going to be chased this way and that for comparing Dawkins to a cult leader and people who agree with him cult members. Come now. Please, my friend, you can do better than that. Dawkins asserts arguments which some, like me for instance, agree with. After being in a cult yourself, Bill (no I'm not talking about your Jesus thing -- ) can't you tell the difference? Anyway, you seem oblivious to all the interesting explanations evolution offers for morality as an evolved trait or syndrome, if you will. Is that just being willful, Bill? Billful pehaps? But if you like I'd be happy to read your court papers. You know .... jimheller@shaw.ca">jimheller@shaw.ca
|
|
|
|
People like Dawkins, believe it or not, rarely get mainstream air time in the UK so it was refreshing to have something of his to comment on.Of course a scientific slant and/or an atheistic slant ( they don't automatically go together)isn't stifled or marginalised, just that the " faith" slant gets a bit more of the cake than is really due. Of course, Dawkins himself, per se, is wholly irrelevant but it's his rational sceintific bent that's the important thing. When anything of import goes on in the world, especially in the " moral" realm ....Bishops, Mullahs, Cardinals and Rabbi's etc troop out in front of the cameras to let us all know the " truth".As if they are the " authority" on such matters!!!!!! Ok, I'm all for democracy, and all that, but occasionally it's good for more than the minorities to have their say.Unlike the US , here in the UK genuinely committed people of faith ARE a minority but you wouldn't know it from the air time they get. Why, just the other day the head of the British Muslim Council used the public airwaves to let us all know that homosexuals are a " sickness" in society and basically just a health risk and shouldn't be tolerated in society.Of course, he represents a body of people comprising 2 or 3 per cent of the UK population . I'm all for free speech but peddlers of unscientific, fairy tale bullshit and dubious moral dictats aren't the only ones with a point of view. Hence the current discussion on the recent Dawkins programme. Simple, see ?
Modified by Dermot at Thu, Jan 12, 2006, 09:06:16
|
|
|
|
Greetings Dermot, excuse my flippant perhaps sentences! Just trying to provide some oppositional banter, even though I have not gotten Jim the duck wet once with my raining on the dawkins thread parade. I think I may seem hard only because if Jim is in the thread, I can blast all I want, and I know I wont alter him in the least! To the non Jim person, I may seem too fresh. I know some guys like the Muslim man you mentioned (could just as easily been so called christian pat robertson) decide what "society" should tolerate. I think it is the media that decides to amplify all those guys that are to blame. Hell, we say sentences all day long, why amplify the ones like him? The media always presents folks and thier sentences and I usually avoid media, and come here so I can purposefully choose to read YOUR sentences! And for years! How about that!
|
|
|
|
Greetings Dermot, excuse my flippant perhaps sentences! Just trying to provide some oppositional banter, even though I have not gotten Jim the duck wet once with my raining on the dawkins thread parade. I think I may seem hard only because if Jim is in the thread, I can blast all I want, and I know I wont alter him in the least! To the non Jim person, I may seem too fresh. I know some guys like the Muslim man you mentioned (could just as easily been so called christian pat robertson) decide what "society" should tolerate. I think it is the media that decides to amplify all those guys that are to blame. Hell, we say sentences all day long, why amplify the ones like him? The media always presents folks and thier sentences and I usually avoid media, and come here so I can purposefully choose to read YOUR sentences! And for years! How about that! I dont think I am wrong about the school stuff however, it is only a matter of time before the dawkins corner of the boxing ring wins the battle by erosion. Unless, well, unless someone just a bit more --how to put it----, would this be too fresh? Maybe not, ok, unless someone more --evolved-- comes along and decides to rearrange the church/state/parental rights legal lines. Love ya dermie! That may or may not be H wordish!
|
|
|
|
Your posts are becoming almost fully decipherable.....and that's just not your style. (())
Modified by Dermot at Thu, Jan 12, 2006, 18:36:01
|
|
|
|
Bill,
Did you know that the so called 'Law' of Gravity is being taught in schools all over the world, and there's no adequate proof that gravity even exists. There's a cult if ever I saw one, just like that farcical evolution crap.
You're on to something there, Bill. 
John.
|
|
|
|
Crikey John! For a moment you had me convinced there, and I started floating out of my chair. Luckily my understanding of physics kicked in and I landed with a thump. I'll feel a lot more secure when they finally work out some kind of proof to all these crazy notions. Scientists eh?
|
|
|
|
LOL I often find myself floating away from my chair these days as well. My solution? Gaffer tape. The latest hypothises on gravity would have us believe that it is due to some warping of the space-time continuum due to the effects of mass. Something akin to having a ball bending a membrane of some kind and matter rolling towards this ball. I mean, what utter nonsense! T
|
|
|
|
Assuming you're right about Lennon, it probably had something to do with having his childhood f**ked up by a drink-driving policeman who ran over his mother and orphaned him when he was still a young kid. And don't get me started on Dawkins, again, Bill (though if you check him out he's had plenty to say about altruism, and how 'selfish' genes don't necessarily result in selfish behaviour.)
Modified by Nigel at Thu, Jan 12, 2006, 12:06:47
|
|
|
|
Dawkins Ki Jai ! Boy, Dawkeinstien sure is optomistic ! I myself cant imagine even one person who, having the selfish -gene-, can manage to accomplish the "not necessarily result in selfish behaviour" result in thier life. If random chance could result in this amazing thing happening to one person, I think you could have the basis for a case that there is no god. If one person managed to not do one thing selfish in thier life, then, we could make a case that perfectability is indeed genetically possible. We could remove gene strands of pesky human behavioural traits that, well, at this moment, there is a heap of dna product on the couch with a TV remote in his hand. Being 13, he is inspired by the reproduction gene, I suppose, to watch a show that has teenage girls walking around talking. They clearly are in a group, discussing the apparently hidieous clothing choices of one girl walking by. HER dna inspired her to dress up to warm her body, and apparently didnt give a hoot about how stripes, checks, and plaids combined as an outfit affected other female dna humans, but perhaps her dna was unconcerned with that, because it is just trying to get her to mate, and the dna knew that the dna provided size D boobs will accomplish the job without needing to worry about visuals covering the boobs. My question to Dawkwinian, is how do you find the gene that causes the girls to have a snit over another girls clothes choices? Where is the envy gene? Say, what if we were able to fix all those genes anyway? Some might say, and I know the forum archives would confirm that many have said.............that Jimmie H needs a genetic fix. Dermot seems to imply that Jimbob's "i love you" has emanated from the gay gene. So I suppose that could be added to the list of James genes that people have concerns about. Dawkins seems to hardly need any help fighting off creationists, and those that come at him from the irreducably complex arguements die on the battlefield from lack of applause from a bored audience. I dismiss Behe, and embrace he-he. Like the pyramid on the back of the dollar bill, with the eye in it symbolizing the understanding requred to finish the pyramid of knowledge, the posmodern tower of babel is crowned with the eye of dawkins. Well, I will grant him that position. Like the eye of Mordor, vulnerable to one big footed clod that finds himself the one to do the simple deed that will take down the whole tower, the postmodern tower is vulnerable to even just one guy who has what it takes, and knows how and where to make the move, that takes down the tower of babel presently being constructed by all the folks trying to make the new global citizen out of the students of the school system, parents have the right to push this effort out of the schools. Let the new global citizen come from the ranks of adults, this mutifaceted effort in the schools is not ok, and someone needs to play Frodo to this.
|
|
|
|
...because your 'free-will' gene is making you
|
|
|
|
Bill, I think you get a bit of a kick out of knowing that no one ever really knows what you're talking about. I'm sure if you were testifying in court, let's say, you'd be much clearer. But that doesn't mean we don't want to understand you. Kind of. I mean I think I want to understand you, Bill. I mean how would I know? The thing that I've always found funny about you is that you were here back when we exes first used to talk about evolution a lot. I think you must have read something by Dawkins. What I do know is that you picked up on DNA somehow and you made it your personal bugaboo. Tell me, what have you actually read about the stuff? Because you sure do talk about it a lot.
|
|
|
|
Well, during those wild and comprehensive discussions in one of the previous golden eras of the forum, I was still tattered but not totally destroyed by exiting Prem Rawats world. Destruction was the name of the game on the forum of course, destruction of whatever might be false. In the battles here between buddhists, new agers, polytheists, articulate premies like Mili, dna materialists, monotheists, christians, and random visionaries like Janet, it was quite a classroom and in my case it was a crucible of sorts. If that is the right word. I knew I had to either have arguements that defeated all these groups, or I had to accept that whichever ones defeated me, would win me over. Which I was open to. Grateful for the class, and the excetionally high caliber of analysis, I think it has provided me (along with the dose of prem rawat world), along with non forum explorations, an odd combination of training and experience that is about to get used in the larger world. Like a chess piece that I view as the pawn character, I see a few moves to take that I am prepareing for. The Rush combat was unexpected, of course it all is, but at this point, if things fall into place along the way, I see a number of moves to make. Things have come my way, and my pockets are not empty. It is not just words and actions, but also things. Whodathunk!
|
|
|
|
Bill, You didn't lose me until the last part of your post this time. I'm amazed. I'm also encouraged in my theory that you really can communicate so that others understand you -- if you really want to. Poetry's fine and all but it takes good, solid prose to have a proper discussion. Having said that, you didn't actually answer my question. Or did you? Are you saying that all you know on this subject is what you've read here? If so, why not do a little reading so you can better understand the scientific viewpoint you currently seem to think is rather stupid and simplistic? Wouldn't that be a reasonable move in this great chessgame of life, etc.?
|
|
|
|
When we were discussing dawkins first on the forum, I read the books he had at the time. Also, he had writings on the internet that might have been the text of speeches he gave, or writen opinions published in media. The key point he had, is that dna does nothing outside of its key role and driving role, which is to survive. Any other angles by him were less important to me. Nowadays, I believe it was his latest book that I read, while there could be another out, I do believe I notice when he writes another because he is within my radar interest. I looked specifically in the latest for comments on dna. Looked in the back for page references on dna, and looked each page up. He avoids the subject these days I believe because he may have realized there is a gap there in his theology. I get no help from him when I try to explain the limitations we are under, in human nature, and human nature itself is so outside of the instinct box, that really, the ball is in his court to explain how dna lost control of the humans. I know folks have seen the gap before me certainly, and have tried to come up with evolutionary psycology. This is where they can spend lifetimes, trying to suppose this or that, while ignoreing my questions like the ones on the rat posted above, or others scattered in the thread, or ones like this, How come no one can go from success to success to success to success in life? In all areas? Why cant a person .......well never mind that direction, how about this, if it is a dna only world, and consiousness sprang from matter, then rawat is the genius and we are not recognising that he is the perfect dna man. Totally self centered, getting support for his desires by just casting an illusion of his importance, which is the perfect reflection of the dna prime directive to survive. Morality? not a factor! That is madness. Fair? ridiculous! To rule and to dominate and succeed, survival of the fittest, to pursue all desires to thier limitless end, till survival is threatened, he is the man of men. He is the example, he is the ultimate ruler. He rules the jungle because he uses what is around him to survive and fulfill the needs he has. Dna says more? Well, I guess it is just a glitch that instead of a hundred cars, he has only dozens, and they are the most costly. It really makes no dna sense that he spend like he does when the impulse is purely survival and greed and excess are like some dna glitch that can derail the dna survival impulse because waste may cause lack. The impulse to preserve what supplies the needs, slaves and money, should be the number one focus of the human dna instinct. KEEP the slaves, KEEP the money and dont waste it on non important features like gold faucets when all the survival wants is water on that plane. Why dna would inspire a guy to fly around talking is beyond me, what would be its message? It is so outside of the dna needs and prime directive box that I cant wait around for evolutionary psycologists to come up with guesses. When they wont even seemingly try. If I lived 900 years, I would have a few centuries to just hang with ideas for the heck of it.Why not? I could spend 200 years just thinking that ants actually rule, and transmit thoughts to humans, and I should collect honey and leave it for the ants. Why not? If I have time to spare. Problem is I have too little time. I had to move on to saying, ok, can I make any sense whatsoever out of actual reading of the difficulties I face, thier style, thier apparent qualities, the behaviour of the folks I have to deal with daily, can I possibly make sense out of the relentless difficulties, history of humans, the apparent craziness laced through religious folks and thier behaviours. Can I self perfect, can I find one person who has, thereby proving that rawat is not completely wrong in a couple key ways that I definately want him to be wrong in. On and on and on. That forum era for me was no picnic. Plus, in my personal life, there were things that were way out of the norm. Really hard, really relentless, really varied. Not that others dont have brands of that stuff, but I feel I am not going out on a limb to say mine were of a style that were deeply challenging and required me to have to decide just who my audience was in life, and my decision that impacted how I responded to that life. Now if the schools teach worldviews, and they do, and also the schools are set up to allow teachers completely free reign to discuss at length, virtually any perspectives relateing to the issue of worldview with no recourse for the parents to take to limit it. Just today, if you go to drudge on the internet, you will see that a teacher told his class to go research porn on the internet and write about the subject and make some perspective. Parents complained, teacher will not be penalized according to the administration. Why? because in the us, canada, england australia, france germany, through the un educational efforts, ect ect, the govt wants free reign to influence the kids as they make the new global citizen Well anyway, this post was just going to be about the dna question. So Ill leave off here.
|
|
|
|
I wonder if you've ever seen a sleeping dog, woofing and twitching its paws in its sleep? It seems to be dreaming, right? And the difference between sleep when you're out cold, and dreaming when you sleep is .... tara! .... yes! some kind of awareness.
And here's a bit of scripture (Ecclesiastes), if you prefer ...
| 18 |
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God
might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are
beasts.
|
| 19 |
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one
thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:
for all is vanity.
|
| 20 |
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
|
| 21 |
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? |
so, God (or at least the author of Ecclesiastes) is with Dawkins on this one.
If I read you rightly, then you accept that blind "animal instinct" could be programmed from dna and natural selection, but do not see how aware "human nature" could arise in the same way?
But what if the problem is deeper than that? After all, there are plenty of indicators that other animals do have some kind of awareness.
To be clear, yes you are right that the existence of awareness in humans, and, indeed, in other animals, is not explained by evolution (not yet, anyway). Folk like Roger Penrose think that a good theory of consciousness will "fit only very uncomfortably into our present conventional space-time description."
But not, I hazard, as uncomfortably as do gods and divine intervention of whatever sort
Modified by jonti at Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 03:26:39
|
|
|
|
Greetings Jonti, the qoute I believe would be the son of david, who became king and built the temple and in my opinion, became depressed. I forget his name. However, it is not right to say "son of david" without mentioning some of my beefs about david. Not even mentioning his most well known despicable act, the guy had at least 17 women he had kids by. How he gets credit for writing the psalms is just one of those falsehoods of history. I cannot read Samuel without seeing the brand of madness that comes with playing god like he does. Rawat has shown those qualities also. Samuel picks Saul, then decides to have a snit over Saul not waiting for Samuel to do some ritual. Samuel was self absorbed in his own narcissism, was running late, and Saul had a war to fight, and so Saul did the ritual himself, which was not totally out of line because that ritual was not only done by the high priest. Well, Samuel cant take that the king he appointed would dare wander outside of his "instinctual" perhaps, desire to be all controlling, and goes out and picks a new king. The most you can say about many human situations, biblical or not, is that good can come out of bad. And that brings up another dna issue, why should the good out of bad thing have any kind of track record at all? I agree, it is fine line that dogs walk. While stuck under some limitations, their limitations are the most interesting to explore when looking at the line between dna instinct run creatures, and the human who escaped the dna with the installation of human nature. I am not worried about explorations of the dog/human difference. It does not threaten me as the exporation that will make me find dawkins is right. Dogs are under severe limitations. When someone really does a full analysis, I am comfortable that we will, at best, just have a list of dog exhibited boundries that we can have a website for people to post news about the latest dog story that might push the envelope a notch further. The day we find a human being in an animals body, well that will be the day rawat will be vindicated. If you will bear with me, there is no one in my 3D world that has the interest to have this discussion, or the one that this is merely the introductory page for. To get to the premise that evolution is an arguement that has not won the day yet, has seeable issues, is one step. To get to the point that we admit that various religions have key structural issues that are not a complete fog to us is step 2. My issue, is, are the globalist academic, UN, fix the world, make the new globalist citizen folks, going in the wrong direction. Reasonable people see israel, iran, pakistan/india, religious war history, northern ireland, ect ect ect a thousand times over, and have decided on a road to walk that -deals- with the religious issue. Certainly Dawkins represents the faction that sees no devil factor. I know he also represents that god/shmod group. This faction is quite large, despite Your? mention that in sunny england, the religious side gets media attention. If this faction is correct, then despite lots of illusion, by that I mean, those religious types that flavor the arguement by believeing in god while dismissing the devil factor, then this group is correct in making the new global citizen the way they are attempting to. However, if they are wrong, then the road they walk, the way they are approaching the problem of religion and humans at this time, is going to cause greater harm. This is the issue that consumes me now. So the dna discussion is a must, an absolute must, but I believe it is no longer something that can stand there and declare "excuse me, you have to explain me away first". I have done that. Enough it seems. And you yourself have mentioned the uncomfortable/conciousness admission. I have tried to drop into dna discussions before on the forum in the process of working it out. How to have a discussion about devil factor and legal ramifications if dawkins is standing there saying the issue is dead. The ball is now in his court, and I dont see him hitting it back. So I would like to move to discussing our naughty side.
|
|
|
|
Well, some folks say that dogs, having been bred to be human helpmates and companions, are eerily able to anticipate human intentions. That makes them seem almost human. Human-like or not, it seems likely they have some kind of awareness, for they manifestly have doggie dreams full of running and exitement of various kinds. Presumably involving small furry things.
And indeed, the "rapid eye movement" phase of sleep (from which humans, if woken, will report having been involved in a dream) is found in dogs when their paws twitch and they bark in their sleep. Other animals too, show REM while sleeping.
Of course we cannot get inside anyone else's mind, but it would seem that some of the things we take as indicators of awareness in other humans, like having dreams, can also be found in other animals.
But no, science does not yet have a theory of consciousness. Instead, there's a whole bunch of theories, none of them particularly convincing. I do recommend toiling your way through that "Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness" paper. It is a spendid piece of philosophical analysis which does a grand job of examining the various ideas that have been put forward.
Modified by jonti at Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 05:57:51
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that link Jonti. What a find. One woman I know has 3 dogs. She really gives them attention, and she went to england for 10 days. Dogs went nuts while she was gone. Chewed everything they could. She came back, and one who is the most difficult for her got on the bed with her and put her hand in between the his dog paws and kept her hand tight between his paws and wouldnt let go and then went to sleep. She left her hand there all night. Dogs have stories. Got to go.
|
|
|
|
Modified by jonti at Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 10:47:10
|
|
|
|
Bill, Thanks for that. I'm not sure but I think I have a better understanding of what you're saying. Actually, though, I find your notions of instinct and human nature strange and simplistic in the extreme. Evolution depends on the subtle, rich layering of beneficial traits and complexity slowly arising from simplicity over long periods of time. It's an amazingly elegant and powerful idea but you don't seem to be able to grasp it at all. I don't know, is that a cause or result of being a Christian? Sorry, I have a hard time believing that you've read any number of Dawkins' books and are still so fundamentally lost on what he -- and so many others! -- are actually saying.
|
|
|
|
Well, check out the response to Jonti Jimmie. OK, as you might have guessed from my response somewhere in this thread, I am not really after changeing you. I am not sure I would like to see you agree with me actually! But what I would like, is for you to put the dna issue aside as an arguement in the next discussion. Neither one of us has to capitulate, just agree to assume the dawkins arguement is off the table as a trump card. How could I get you into this next discussion unless I dealt with Dawkins. Perhaps I have enough so that we will look at dawkins as someone at the table who has the ball in his court, and he is not ready to present a response, so he must sit quietly in the courtroom as further issues are discussed. He is no longer the mandatory basis all arguements must rest on. Game?
|
|
|
|
Just this last 10 days, I have been battleing with the 16 year old over the latest teaching/indoctrination that the religious education/morality education/ethics education going on in global schools has inserted into his head. It is about free will. A view on free will is not divorced from a worldview. It is tied. And the school view, the individual teachers view, the curriculum writers view, the academia industry view, comes into play. How you view life effects how you deal with it, and how you respond to it. Irregardless of whatever reality actually is. (by the way, I am not trying to pontificate here, and declare stuff, but discuss stuff). If I am fully convinced about some idea, or partially convinced enough, I will embrace the conclusions the evidence seems to point to or declare. Not that I have to, but that is what we usually do...do a scan of a subject, and vote yes or no. We are quick. Here on the forum, at least in the fire (y? ie?) furnace of ideas that the forum really once was, you would battle someone down to the last comma. If the comma in thier sentence was placed here, it meant one thing, move the comma, and it changes the meaning of the sentence, and you were on it like......well..........like an enthusiest. Leaving metaphorical options of adjectives aside, leaving options others took on the forum to describe that behaviour or yours and ours to the vault of the forum, I say an enthusiest. You of all people here, should find the next subject worthy of your desire to demolish arguement. In Canada, they teach worldviews now in the classroom. They teach religious education, the others I mentioned above, and tell me, even if you agree with part of what they are doing, should the structure, the LEGAL structure, of the free society be what it is at present. Right now, well, let me provide background. Either this place here, consists of a devil and god, or it does not. If it does not include a devil force, then your underlying viewpoint basis, wether you know it or not, wether people know it or not, is dramatically different than those that think there is. Many people in relgions, do not think there is a devil factor. By that, I mean, and actual active working force that has great capacities and an underlying motive or motives. So, I am not talking about supposed religious and non religious people, but drawing the line of distinction where I just did. If you think the reality here includes an active devil force, then............got to go, I continue late.
|
|
|
|
Bill, Just so you know, the verb is "affect" ("effect" is a noun), "argument" has no extra "e" and "irregardless" isn't a real word. "Regardless" is. Anything else? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there is no devil. Anyway, I don't know what you mean by the "latest teaching/indoctrination that the religious education/morality education/ethics education going on in global schools has inserted into his head". Whatever it is, the term "indoctrination" suggests your son is being discouraged from thinking for himself. Is that really the case or are you simply irritated that what your son's learning in school conflicts with your own worldview? There's a big difference, isn't there? BTW, you do know that you never answered my question, don't you? It's hardly a "chess game", as you put it, if you don't play by the rules and, as we all know, the fundamental rule in rational discourse is to be responsive.
Modified by Jim at Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 11:41:18
|
|
|
|
I took 4 bullets, but no direct hits.
The fact that you progressed through this activity without suffering
any direct hits indicates that your beliefs about God are very
consistent.
However, you have bitten a number of bullets, which suggests
that some of your beliefs will be considered strange, incredible or
unpalatable by many people. At the bottom of this page, we have
reproduced the analyses of the bitten bullets.
Related link: God logic test
Modified by hamzen at Mon, Jan 09, 2006, 14:22:40
|
|
|
|
Battleground AnalysisCongratulations!You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground. The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out. A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!
|
|
|
|
And remember who told you about it first yeah
This shit is just breakin and it's gonna be as massive as drum'n'bass, possibly bigger
And it's called Dubstep, an I'm gonna be caning it on the radio show once we're back on air this week, to the point I'll be driving people mad with it
"Inside the walls of Brixton's 3rd Base is where the party happens. Away from the cold of the winter, the bass, the vibes, the smiles and the electric energy fueled 8 hours of skanking, chat, meditation and quite simply put, love in it's purest form. It may sound like hippie bullshit, but all those who were there know what I mean."
And it's at moments like this I am so bloody grateful I'm not a premie anymore, saturday night at this club DMZ, short for Digital Mystikz was the most mind blowing experience I've had out since early drum'n'bass events, and I'm not talking like that shit d'n'b club we went with the shit soundsystem and non existent punters. That Vancouver radio station link I sent you has some of it on there too, so if it hasn't hit your end yet in terms of events, it will soon, and if you want to be there at the start of a scene thats gonna be massive don't even think about it, just go
As they say, meditate on the bass weight
And if you like the link at the bottom check out the mixes here, http://dubstep.blogspot.com/2005/07/mixes.html
especially Youngsta 17/11/05
(who lives just down the road from here, and Matt B knows him, small world or wat
and Scuba's mix from Nov, if you like dip around, though some of the mixes are closer to grime which is a completely different genre and not my cup of tea really except in small doses
Related link: BBC show purely on Dubstep, starts in 1 hour and will be up there all week
|
|
|
|
Yes do! It's fun. But it *only* checks the consistency of one's position (whether it *could* be true; not its actual truth). And how well it checks consistency is rather debateable.Take this response, for one example ...
"you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof" Does this really make sense? I think not. I'd argue that it's wrong to recklessly claim a belief in God. C'mon folks, we're talking Eternal Damnation here! Or a vision of Eternal Paradise that can justify the most hideous of crimes. On the other hand, one can perfectly well demand a lesser standard of proof for more mundane matters. Nothing wrong with that, surely? Such debates are the meat and drink of philosophy. So, take the test. it will at least cause you consciously to assess your belief system. And that has to be a Good Thing.
Modified by jonti at Mon, Jan 09, 2006, 17:58:28
|
|
|
|
Nobody has addressed why we have a god spot in the brain in this thread, just wondering if other than the obvious evolutionary speculations about its value anyone has seen something more detailed written about its possible evolutionary value.
|
|
|
|
don't know the reason for the God Spot, but I have read what suppresses it - fluoride. It makes sheep of us all. Karen
|
|
|
|
Excuse my ignorance, but what God Spot?rgj
|
|
|
|
Here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrainqa.shtml
and link below
Related link: Info here
|
|
|
|
http://www.rense.com/general45/bll.htm While stimulants might improve outward symptoms, though, research now indicates that within the right brain, most notably within the right temporal lobe and hippocampus regions, there exists an extremely unusual area of neuroreceptors and transmitters. It is this area of the brain that is believed to be the connection between the human individual and the still unexplained realm of the mystical and the divine - the realm of divinely perceived Light. For this reason, this area of the brain is now being referred to by some researchers as the "God Spot"- what might be our most important connection of all. Despite the fact that this extraordinary realm of Light is largely bypassed as noncritical by the majority of researchers, many individuals have now described numerous, similar experiences with the Light, indicating such experience is not as uncommon as orthodox science has assumed. In examining some of the oldest texts in human history, it is apparent that interactions with Beings of Light have, since the earliest of times, been the most cherished and desired of all human experiences. Writings from ancient Egypt describe journeys into the Light and contact with beings and messengers. "Manna," was the expression voiced by startled Egyptians on seeing the living entities emerging from the light. "Manna," meant, "what is this?" (clip) Given the existing reports of this substance's (flouride) presence within the brain - including its effects on the right temporal lobe, hippocampus and the pineal gland - perhaps it should come as no wonder that a growing number of people, children in particular, are now behaving strangely, unpredictably, and sometimes very badly while also noting gross memory impairment after ingesting or absorbing this substance (flouride). (clip) Fluoride can now be suspected in a host of illnesses including GERD, gum disease, bone problems, diabetes, thyroid malfunction and mental impairment. As stated earlier, a significant number of the health and mental problems in the US are more pronounced in boys. Because tryptophan, serotonin and the melatonin formed in the pineal gland are specifically associated with behavior (both aggressive and nonaggressive), with mood, sleep, appetite control, mucosal function of the gastrointestinal tract, regulation of cells and a host of other functions of the body, it appears that something is disturbing the proper functioning of the messengers, thus resulting in outward signs of disease and behavioral problems. (93, 94, 95) Additionally, fluoride has now been found to accumulate in extremely high concentrations within the pineal gland where melatonin is formed. This observation was made during postmortem examinations by researcher Jennifer Luke, DDS, PhD. A known neurotoxin, fluoride has also been shown to cause nerve cell degeneration, resulting in an outright disruption of motor coordination. It has also been shown to inhibit and interfere with the production of insulin, interfere with thyroid function and to directly affect thought process. (96, 97, 98, 99, 100) (clip) The outward signs, however, are but the symptoms, the end results - the effects. Having found the effect, one must look at the smallest of the small details to find the cause. There in the small details, in the nucleus of the symphony where the divine is meant to sing, something else is, instead, lying: Fluoride has now also been identified as interfering with G-protein messages. A messenger of utter falsehood, fluoride both activates and inhibits cellular activity. (101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106) It appeared rather quietly and without fanfare, almost as background noise that was unnoticeable against the din of debate on municipal fluoridation. It might have been missed entirely if it weren't for the fact that I was focusing on the growing list of behavioral problems in children, and wondering each step of the way if the children's problems might possibly be tied into an epidemic of epidemics caused by fluoride.
|
|
|
|
Rense is appalling and his site just drips with virulent paranoid, dumbass conspiracy theories, not the least of which is that the Jews are behind it all. His website is basically vomit.
|
|
|
|
This morning I received thrilling news: a joke I wrote more than 20
years ago has been voted the funniest religious joke of all time! In
case you've missed it, here it is:
Once I saw this guy on a
bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves
me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said,
"Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I
said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too!
Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I
said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal
Baptist?"
Article continues
He said, "Northern Conservative
Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes
Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said,
"Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern
Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern
Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said,
"Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I
said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
|
|
|
|
My favourite god joke is: Jesus goes into the inn, puts three nails on the counter and says 'can you put me up for the night?'
|
|
|
|
I saw Emo say the joke on tv, I thought it was ingenious. I congradulate Ham man for coming up with it. Amazing work!
|
|
|
