tar

Inow, I suppose any point that attempts to explain faith in God as a "natural" "social" endeavor, would tend to be moot, if one has already decided that faith in an "unreal" thing is already a sign that your personhood is flawed in some manner (broken). But this is a discussion as to whether or not faith in a supernatural being is to be considered broken, so points leading in the direction of explaining such in a real, actual, verifyable understandable way might be moot for the prosecution, but quite required for the defense. For instance. I have already decided that there is nothing that exists in this universe, this reality, that is supernatural. For me, saying something exists that is supernatural in nature, is a statement initially flawed in its construction. Because you CAN'T have something real that is not real. The only place you can have a supernatural thing, (like an Easter Bunny) is in your imagination. If it existed other than in your imagination, it would not be supernatural, it would be natural, it would be real, it would exist as a real entity that had to fit with everything else, that is real. If this supernatural thing did not have an effect on, and was not affected by, reality, then it would have no claim on any existence in this reality. So to me, the statement that a religious person makes, that God is supernatural, is an admission that God does not "really" exist in the universe, but exists only in the one place supernatural things can actually reside. Our imaginations. With this initial assumption on my part, I take for granted that any explanation of the nature of God, for real, an explanation that would be factual, and true, would be an explanation that parsed the idea into those things that exist outside the head and those things that exist inside the head. Unfortunately I have no way of thinking anything, that is not inside my head. So I have to give the status of my predicament to some other mind, so I can talk the situation over. But we had this communication between minds, way before the scientific method was established as "a better way" to determine fact. We have had language for quite a while. We have had words that express mutual ideas. And one of those words is God. It is not required that the meaning behind the word have an actual body, but it is a handy analogy. The hand of god, the mind of god, god is angry, its up to god and so forth, have meanings that can be mutually understood between two humans...until you actually ask whether or not the hand is manicured, or how many fingers it has, or whether it is attached to an arm, and ask what color the sleeve is and what material its made of. If it is to be an actual term that is understood between two people, the understanding has to be either of a figurative nature, reflecting an actual real condition, or a mutualy agreed upon "supernatural" thing that you will together take as a literal fact. Problem with the second way, is it is only understandable to someone else with the same notion, which makes it very difficult word to use in the presence of someone else, who does not know your lingo. Who is not schooled in your particular agreements as to the nature of this "supernatural" thing. But I do not think having a private language, and private agreements is all that broken or unnatural. Like the border between Canada and the United States, that can be very real to every human on the planet, but COMPLETELY SUPERNATURAL to a fish that swims across the line. Regards, TAR2

Inow, Well, you know me well enough to know that I believe that if you find the Easter Bunny, and think about how and why a conception of the Easter Bunny could exist in your brain, which is evidently just a rather complicated, but standandly arranged bunch of chemical elements, you might indeed find some clues as to where and why other conceptions are possible. And it is certainly complicated. The "ideas" we hold, are usually referenced in some way to our body. This is what makes them "real" to us, perhaps, because we HAVE this body to reference all thoughts to. So my first assumption, is that I exist. My body/brain/heart group exists. I can alway reference things to it, and be substaintially correct. I need no further corroberation from anybody, or any body else. However, I also have learned that there are "other" bod/brain/heart groups that exist. In fact my mother and my father were both body/brain/heart groups, and they brought me into the world, and taught me about it, and protected me from its dangers, and showed me its beauties, and instructed me, as to how to best respect it. And how to properly get along, how to properly live. If religion says "honor your mother and father" I can take that as sound logic, and true and understandable advice. So, is there not a reason to accept that the wisdom of your parents, and the human form that your parents passed on to you, are both valid and evidentially true realities? I don't have to "wait" 'til I Find the equation for "Easter Bunny" to know what one is, and what portions of it must be valid to me, and valid to others. Regards, TAR2

Inow, That is a pretty good discription of what I am doing. However I would cringe a little at the "conflating" which insinuates I am doing something inappropriate. I would prefer some term like "drawing a parallel". Believe it or not, I do know the difference between the idea of an Easter Bunny and the idea of God. It is the talking points of Atheists that make the conflation and always compare the belief in God to the belief in unicorns, and invisible gremlins and the like. There is a BIG difference between the size and nature of the concepts embodied in a God, and the concepts embodied in the Easter Bunny. The Easter Bunny symbolizes the gift of joy, that Jesus gave us, by dying for our sins, maybe, or maybe just a bit of magic, combined with some tasty sweet goodies. God symbolizes "everything" good we know. I have talked with religious people during my life, and argued my points with them, and understood the "ideas" they were expressing. They for the most part, were concerned with the same world I was, and how we should think about it, and each other. The disagreements usually were when they talked of things that were evidently (to me) not likey to work in reality. Like, how can you remember your former life, if your brain was not there to record it? And what, about that "other" body/brain/heart group, makes it you, and not him/her? Or if you go to heaven, but your eyes are in your dead body in a dark coffin, along with the rest of your senses and brain, that would do any noticing or remembering, how could you be experiecing anything at all? Hell, and fire and boiling oil, neither, would have much effect on you without nerves to feel the heat, and without any flesh to burn away. And also the meditators, and the "unity" folk, and the "lose yourself to the silence" folk, and any number of other approaches that tended to negate the importance of the actual living body/heart/brain group, in being the only you, you have. They made no "sense" to me. And still don't. I am an Atheist. I no longer believe there is a consciousness (other than mine and my family's) that is going to keep my soul, while I sleep, and take it, when I die. Not literally. Not with any cause and effect type actual, transformation, that would somehow work, in some knowable fashion. No, I am pretty sure the Easter Bunny magic, and the God magic...are both constructs of the human mind. But they are constructs with reasons, and with explainations. And when understood in this fashion, they become "real" again, but on another level. On a level where I can "conflate" the beliefs of a scientist, with the beliefs of Mohammed, because they are "inspired" by the same reality. The beliefs differ, but the subject is still "me" and the object is still "the universe", and in neither case, is the subject, in actuality "other than" the object. To suggest that you as a scientist can look at the universe, as an "outsider", is just as imaginary as a religious person thinking he/she belongs to the universe, is actual. Regards, TAR2

doG, You missed the point I am driving at. Check out the 99 names for Allah, and tell me only a broken person would believe in any of them. http://muttaqun.com/99names.html And don't misunderstand me. I witnessed the Twin Towers burning, and I am the great Satan in the eyes of many of the believers in Mohammed's Koran. They are my enemy, and I have every reason to tear the book apart, both literally and in valid arguments. Mohammed had no right to usurp the power of people's belief, and equate belief in Allah, with belief in Mohammed, and his commandments. Its down right idiocy, the whole 48 virgin or burn in hell thing, if you do or don't believe in Allah's messenger. Believers and Disbievers, as if we ALL don't believe in these 99 ideals. What I don't believe in is the things Mohammed made up, in Allah's name(s). But the misuse of people's belief in these things is not my point. What I am after, is an understanding of why these 99 things are so powerful, when embodied in Mohammed, as to have a quarter of the population of the planet, reciting his words 3 times a day, and living for the day they will take a pilgramage to Mecca, to circle the stone with other believers, and strive in many ways for the day, that all the world is for Allah. This is proof of God. Beyond any reasonable doubt. But not to be found so much in the sky, but in the hearts and minds of men. I know Inow is looking to understand this usurption that religion does. And I am with him, in the knowledge that the answer lies in how we are put together. Not by any "designer" that can be befriended or wronged, but by evolution, the survival of the organisms that were best arranged to do so. So the answers "have to be" explainable. All the evidence is in the folds of our brains, and the stars in the sky. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, I really liked your #259. And I think some of the answers to the thread question, lie not so much in whether one that believes in god, has any proof of the actual existence of a real "separate enity", that can be backed up by evidence, because God is not that kind of thing, but lie in looking for what God represents in the workings of the quite evidentially provable human brain, consciousness, and "understanding". From the Wiki article on Mathematical Proof. Quite evident that mathematicians are also "broken", that they should believe such a book exists. Where's the "proof"? And after all, everybody already has an "idea" of what this God thing is, that others are misunderstanding so badly. Regards, TAR2

I mean believing in unfalsabiable stuff, is one thing, because you can take it as misappropriately taking ones model of reality as reality, which is in general not completely wrong, since your imagination is real stuff going on in a real head, and generally uses real components of reality in generating any thought at all. But to believe in falsifiable stuff, and have the gaul to use real components of locally accessable, checkable stuff to project your imagination out into this and expect that somehow the world is going to match your image, is completly backward (we usually get our images by allowing our model to match what is evident), and shows neither respect for the world, nor respect for your fellow inhabatants, who can plainly see you are hallucinating. Say Inow, This one is not even in the ballroom, but I was wondering what you thought of the movie "Mary Poppins"? If you saw it, did you identify with any of the characters? Which? Who were the heroes and who were the villians? Has a connection, in that Mr. Banks was initially broken, and was "fixed" by Burt and Marry Poppins with their jumping into chalk pavements, laughing with Uncle Albert on the ceiling, dancing on the rooftops, and his son's wanting to feed the birds. He wound up "fixing" and flying a kite with his family. (and got a promotion) I bring it up, because although I would not like people who think water splashed up to make the craters on the moon to be in charge of everything (or anything that affected me.) Neither would I like a world that would tell me I am not even ALLOWED to pretend to believe in magic, or wonder if there is "real" stuff around that we have not noticed, or have ignored that explains some currently considered "supernatural" things, like ghosts or telepathy. After all, science thought we had things basically figured out and covered, down to the total number of atoms in the universe, till dark matter showed up. How did we miss THAT? Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, I did not know religious people claimed all those ridiculous things. Are these fringe group ideas or mainstream, as far as religions go? Does one have to believe these silly things, inorder to still adhere to the practices of their religion? Thinking like that is certainly one of the reasons I am an atheist. Thanks for reminding me. I have been addressing more subtle inconsistencies, your examples are just down right blatant "brokenness" on the part of those believers. Probably not "free passable". And in general I would say that those individuals have a problem, and do not live up to even my "loose" standards of unbroken human. The reality, imagination discerner in these individuals needs more than a calibration. It needs a complete overhaul. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, My theory, is that religious people are doing the same kind of thing, that scientist do, but don't hold the same criteria for a fact to be a fact, as scientists do. Inow, I don't think it fair to throw out "the universe" and the beauty of the planet, and the wonder of life on this planet, and all sorts of uncontested real stuff, that we all automatically recognize as real, and factual. We don't have to provide evidence of these things, to call them fact, because the manner in which we percieve them as real, is the same exact manner in which all humans, with working equipment, percieve them. I am almost ready to suggest that some of our "thinking" is actually done outside our heads, since we accept the things we hear, and see, and smell and taste and touch, as automatic real facts. Scientifically, we do not yet have the complete description of how this is possible...to reconstruct a tree for instance, out of chemical firings of networks of neurons. We may welll figure it out. But in the mean time, if you sense it, your model of the real world is instantly (or at least really quickly) adjusted to match. We are "in tune" with what is outside our body, in this fashion. And in this fashion, what is outside our bodies IS reality, even though our image of it, scientifically, must be held inside. So what we "believe" to be true, is both actual, and something going on inside our brains. That we can remember something is real, is even another step away from a simple clear cut picture of what is fact and what is image. That we can "imagine" something is real that is not, is yet another fold. That we can dream and fantasize, yet another. So, since we have an ability to do these things, and keep track of which is real, which is fantasy, which is memory, which is dream, and which is inside and which is outside...without applying the scientific method, even if we are a six year old, that never went to school, there is a great deal of reality that is perfectly obvious and accessable with no special training required. And if we are walking in the garden, and see a delicate white flower, that was not there a week before, we can feel it is not only real, but a beautiful wonderful thing, that is, like us, of the universe. If we can't imagine how such a nice thing, could accidently fall into that pattern, from random configurations of hydrogen atoms, we might speculate on some sort of organizing principles, and guess that maybe, just maybe, human beings are not the only part of the universe that knows what its doing. Regards, TAR2 Or we might wonder who thought up hydrogen atoms in the first place.

Inow, The reason that science is the "best" way to determine truth, that we have come up with, is that we have faith in what other people tell us they have witnessed. Sometimes it is with "blind faith" that we accept the findings of others. If we have faith in the witness's integrity, and have faith in their methods, we might not even bother to check it for ourselves, especially if it "fits" nicely into our model of the world, causes no incompatable conclusions, and explains some other things we had questions about. But mostly scientific method works because we are "supposed" to take the findings with as much skeptecism as we can muster, and check if the finding is indeed "real". And here, your integrity, accuracy, and consistency is not only important but absolutely required. If a believer in God, one who knows there is a God, does not fulfill these requirements, in your mind he/she is broken. But only broken, if an adherent to the scienctific method, and only a broken scientist, not nescessarily broken in any other way at all. For you to take your idea of perfection, what you believe to be "true, complete, personness" and measure others against it, is somewhat similar to what people that believe in God do, and somewhat similar to what everybody does, no matter what ideals they hold. You know one should not put ones own ideas in someone else's head and then tell them they are not thinking right. That would not be very scientific. However, this doesn't diminish your arguments a bit, and people that believe in God are broken in the manners you suggest But generally broken, as in insane, brain damaged, or "defective human being", your arguments do not attempt to prove. Unless of course you believe half to three quarters of the population of the planet "are defective human beings" because of their apparent inability to be good scientists. Regards, TAR2

Inow, If there is intuitive morality, then the people that came up with God had it, the people that they taught the "Godly" rules to, had it, and the people that currently believe in the proposed God have it as well. So whatever morality anybody has, has to be a combination of "natural" morality, and "derived" morality, and "learned" morality, and "enforced" morality. And chances are, that logical derivation never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law. And chances are, that evolved neurolgy and the human organism itself, never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law. And chances are, that "learned" morality already has all sources of morality built in, so it cannot be the sole source either. And "enforced" morality is society's way of making agreed upon morality stick, so the moral code was already understood, whether intuited or learned. There seems to be this "society" thing to consider as important as both cause and effect of morality. That we each have an understanding of this Authority to which we must submit our moral dilemmas for resolution. That we can do this, without actually requiring an actual conversation with anybody, but in most cases just have a conversation with that unseen other that embodies our own, and society's values, says to me, that we all have this facility to "imagine" society as a person, who would like or dislike our decisions. We never go to every home and consult with every man woman and child, to find out what society wants or needs. We make our decisions based on a quite "made up" and variously incomplete and incorrect image of aforementioned society, we hold in our heads. We all do that, how could we do it "otherwise". No one, in light of this, should consider their image, the actual thing. No matter how perfectly they think they have modeled reality. Not a scientist. Not a priest. Not a genius nor a fool. To consider people that believe in God broken, you would have to consider yourself fixed. There is probably delusion enough to go around. Regards, TAR2

rigney, I would have to join you in the ignorant camp. I am not prepared to join either the science camp, or the religious camp. I am skeptical of both camps because of my affection for components of each camp that the other camp berides. And I am always looking for ways to make peace between them, probably because I have already had this discussion with myself. many times, and continually. Maybe because I love and repect my Dad, who is rational and non-religious, and loved and respected my Mom, who was a bit quirky and very religious. Both intelligent, both teachers, Psychology and Mathematics respectively. They divorced when I was 18. Couldn't see eye to eye on too many things. Couldn't provide the other with what they needed. So, I guess I am looking for the way to be rational, quirky, religious and non-religious, all at the same time. And I think we can do without Gods as long as we don't throw out the ideals they represent. Because to do without ideals, would leave life...empty of ideals. And that would be a "broken" way of being. And I don't think the only place to come up with a valid Ideal, is in the lab or in the cave. I think its quite appropriate, to make them up, as we go. And to hold on to the ideals that other people come up with, that work for you. Regards, TAR2

Why I sit on the fence, is because I think these imaginary people/places/things we dream up to embody various ideals are important to us, and its how we think about the world. For instance, I believe in the scientific method, and science, and often use the phrase, "we know this", depending almost entirely on my image of this "science" thing to have done the studies and experiments, and found the thing out. There may even be some things I figure science has found out, that actual scientists have not yet found out, or that they have found to not be the case. Because I hold an imaginary image of what science is. It does not really exist as a real single entity anywhere. Same with ideas like humanity, or envisioning a "collective consciousness". There is a mix of real stuff, and imaginary stuff in these ideals. So I sit on the fence a bit when it comes to God, because, although it is imaginary, it after all, is an image of something, and many portions of it are indeed actual. Its when the human characteristics, emotions, specific laws, and any other feature that is obviously "man made" comes in to picture, its pretty easy to figure out that these components must have been added by the human, who is explaining the desires and commandments of his/her imaginary friend. Regards, TAR2

Rigney, God, as is described in the major religions, I believe we will find to be a reflection of the universe, in our selves, that some have mistakenly taken as being an actual person or entity, when in reality, it comes from our imagination. In the same way that we can imagine unseen other real people. That we can converse with others mentally is true. We have an image of every person we know. Their looks, and likes and dislikes, background, ideas, hopes and wishes. We can construct the same, if we wish, to embody good, or to embody evil, but as Inow puts it, it is an imaginary friend (or enemy). No more than that. Regards, TAR2

But, I have noticed that many religions go to great lengths to describe not only a God but the road to him/her/it. As if we are not already in the scheme. Another rider on the God belief, seems to be this promise of an afterlife, if you believe and obey. I think I will go along with Inow, in the thought that this kind of thinking is "broken". Not that it is not an attempt to answer the tough questions, but that in many cases it depreciates the value in this life, the one we all are concurrently living. Since there is no evidence of these various fantasies of 48 virgins, or being reincarnated, or reaching Nirvana, by becoming as unhuman as possible, or burning in hell, or playing a harp in heaven, there seems to be strong reason to find God, however you want to take the idea of a greater reality, present now, for us to know, and share, while we have this opportunity as sentient beings. If life is a gift from god, we should appreciate it. If we earned life on our own, we should appreciate it. Either way, it does seem broken to think you are something other than a human, when there is nothing else a human can be. Anyone not human, reading this, is excused from the tautalogy, you wouldn't know what I meant. So, I will change my stance. People who believe in a made up God are indeed broken. Only people that find God every day, in reality, are sound.

Perhaps, being brought up Christian, and living in a country founded in the belief of such a God, I do, deep down, believe metaphorically in such an entity. And my Atheism is just a stripping away of the "impossible" attributes and characteristics given this entity by others. Perhaps I still have faith in this entity, but worship, in my own private way, my "cleaned up" version, a version unencumbered by the "can't be" characteristics that others attribute to it.

Inow, I am with you, in the solid belief, that the scientific method, serves us well. I am not a "believer" in the God of Moses and the God of Mohammed. And am not sure what I have said, on this or any other thread, that is making you think I believe, on faith, in any particular God at all, outside of thinking of the universe I am in and of, as "one" entity. That I can do this, this thinking of all reality as one thing, is evidence of something though. I give this "ability" or "disability" to every other human, by default, in my muses, and my investigation of the "meaning behind language". I theorize that this is something that humans do. It is quite impossible to do this thing, but we do it, none-the-less. When we do this impossible thing and consider that we "understand" the nature of the entire universe, there must be a bit of mental shorthand involved, and we must be leaving a considerable amount of the universe, out of the conception. If we give other "limited" humans like ourselves, the benefit of the doubt, it probably would not be incorrect to assume that "that which is beyond my understanding" is in most part, the exact same set of stuff that is beyond the understanding of other humans. While there is certainly a large body of information that others know, that I don't, there is even more information available, that has not yet been witnessed and internalized by any human, even with the benefit of wonderful equipment, and careful study. This does not mean "magic" is on the other side, or that there is a big human-like consciousness somewhere that has "ALL of it" in mind. I can believe on faith that there are things going on in the universe, that I will never be informed of. Like what is happening now, on the other side of the Milky Way. That stuff won't be informing minds on Earth of what its doing now, for 100,000 years. So, I put conditions on when another human, who takes "that which is beyond our understanding" on faith, is broken or not. And I suggest that in general, people that live in glass houses, should not throw stones. And I like to take any argument that undermines someone elses "faith", and check if the same argument falsifies my own understanding. What I usually find is that its OK to do it my way, because its my way. And its OK for them to do it their way, as long as it does not get in my way. And I have a theory, that others have a similar perspective. In the video on morals, the "do as little harm as possible" rule seems right. But it is missing an ingredient that I think is important and actual. Do as little harm as possible to me and mine. That is, the family or the pack or the clan, or by extension, the race or species, or country or religion, or philosphy that one is a member of, gets preference over "other thans" when it comes to moral decisions. I have to cause a rat to die, or cause a person to die? Now which will it be.....? I have to cause my daughter to die, or his daughter? My president or his president? A random democrat, or a random republican? A fundamentalist christian, or a fundementalist muslim? ("both", and "I don't care" are not allowable responses) So when you asked me if I rank my faith(whatever in) higher than the faith of another, I would say "yes I do". Regards, TAR2 To go to a "higher" authority on the matter, one would have to postulate such a God, as Moses and Mohammed envisioned.

Inow, Well. I was trying, in my flitting about way, to address the topic. I didn't know I went off topic. The discussion is whether or not people that believe in god are broken. If the God that we are talking about, is the personage we are talking about, who was the main character of the bible and the Koran, as depicted in those books, taken literally, with all the human characteristics bestowed upon him by the prophets and the writers, then yes, I have no problem agreeing that people that believe in this fictional account, are broken. But that is crystal clear to me. What keeps the discussion open in my mind, and what I have been flitting around about, is the fact that many people believe in God. And there are more people that subscribe to some portion or another of some religion or another, than there are people that wholly reject every notion, that any religion has come up with. This leads me to believe that there is meaning to be found in religion. That every religion is telling stories about something. And the lessons we have learned, from such stories are sometimes with value to us, as individuals and as societal groups. It would be possible that even though I see through the impossibities and illogics of religions, that I could also see the truths and the things of value to the believer, that the stories and beliefs bring about. This does not mean that I cannot, on the basis of the stories, come to the same moral place as the believer, without the need for the aforementioned God. But this would make God unrequired. It says nothing against the value of the story, which may indeed still hold some truth, if the known false things, are replaced by known true things. Because, I figure, it is the true things, that the stories are about in the first place. And then a flit to the other side of the ballroom is required. The human mind, containing shadows of what is actual, and knowing these shadows as reality. We as humans, have a clear sense of what is real, and what is imagination. We know when other people are being fooled, or lying, or are ignorant, based on what we know to be true and false. We know when somebody is making something up, that is not real, because it does not fit what we know to be true. We can as well, proceed "as if" something is true, even when we don't know it to be the case for sure, as in expecting someone for dinner. And we can "fool ourselves" and pretend something is true, even though logic and evidence say to the contrary, as in expecting a surprise birthday party. And then there is the whole realm of things that start out not true, but become true, as soon as you bring them into reality, and make them true for others, as in promises, team spirit, the border between the U.S. and Canada, scientific method, religion, morals, and just about everything and anything we do together. Which is why I am "flitting around the ballroom" on this one Inow. God can mean one thing to me, another to a Christian, another to a Jew, and mean nothing to you. But we all inhabit the same planet and we for sure did not put it here. It got here on its own and grew people. Seems like something that needs a good story to explain it. Regards, TAR2 So to answer the "broken" part I would accept that when a story is told and it is demonstrably fictitious, and both the teller and the listener proceed as if it is true, they are living a fantasy, which is allowable, until they think it applies to me, or act like it applies to anybody else without the other person's permission and buy in. At that point, they are indeed broken and in need of repair.

Villian, There you go, using "truth" again, in a way that is not appropriate for the discussion, according to Inow. Foot has those various meanings because we have feet to compare the analogies to. We know when we are using the term as the thing under our leg and we know when we are using it to put our signiture at the bottom of the check or measure the wall by "stepping it off", or using it to "personify"In the foundation of a building. Interesting that Inow takes my arguments as disingenous, when I am actually not trying to pull any wool over anyones eyes but trying to point out ways in which I may be broken, for the same reasons, that cause others to look broken to me. That is to say, that Hitchens, no matter how smart he is, no matter what confidences he has in reality and truth, is not in any better position to determine objectively the difference between right and wrong, than the sage on the mountaintop, or the prophet in the cave. We are all likely to put our own "spin" on it. And my point is, that if you truely remove all spin, remove all references to humans, remove all human beliefs, faiths, confidences, understandings, agreements and images of ideals that people think "actually" exist, you are left with either nothing, or everything, depending of course on the characteristics that you have given to this "objective" viewer. I am taking strongly by the "fact", that whatever I think, whatever facts I hold, whatever conceptions I have of the universe, of the nature of the thoughts of unseen others, or of what is right and wrong, are completely contained as analog representations of something else, within my body/heart/brain. Scientifically speaking, it is rather obvious that my body/heart/brain group is capable of "containing" the entire universe...by analogy. The analogy, the patterns of neuron connections and firings, that represent the outside world, inside, are scientifically knowable. We can "see" thoughts occuring by looking at brain activity through the eyes of special equipment. We could, if not "morally abhorent" dissect a human brain and after many years slice it up and catalog every neuron and its connections and compare the structure to the activities we recorded when we scanned the living brain while it was having certain "thoughts". And in my estimation, the things we will find will prove to us, that thoughts of things bear some certain resemblance, some analogous charateristics, to the things themselves. Given this "fact". That our entire universe exists both outside our brains, and exists "again" within our minds and our "knowledge" of it, it is difficult to say with clarity, when exactly you are referring to something "real", and when you are referring to something that is a human conception of such. Even more difficult, is to imagine what someone else is imagining, and to do this in any manner that is not "infected" by your own knowledge of the world, what "insights" you have had of it, and what you "know" must be the case, and what you "know" cannot be the case. Let me illustrate with my take on thousands of Muslims circling the stone in Mecca. To me, there must be some form of mass hypnosis going on. People repeating memorized verses of the Koran, over and over again in their minds, along with everybody around them...obvious to me that they must be lying to themselves...except they are experiencing something very real and special. A union of their being, with the beings around them, and with the being that is responsible for being. To say that their experience is of something "other than" reality, would be counterfactual. There does not exist anything other than "all of reality". I do however, have a tendency to look more strongly at the defects in the logic of Moslems, then look for rational arguments in their favor, because to some of them, I am the great Satan, and worthy of the Twin Tower punishment. I have no "objective" right to usurp the power and truth of the universe, and call it mine, than they do. But I do have the strong impulse to make my take, the one that holds sway in the real world. Regards, TAR2

Inow, Well thanks for the "what if" game with Hitchens. Less ugly than the first video. And put against the falsities of the question asker, his (Hitchens') take would certainly be the "better" take, in regards to truthfulness, as far as I am concerned. But still, I do not subscribe to Hitchen type Atheism, or if I do, certainly not with the same vitriol, and not with the equating of faith with slavery. Yes, religions are used in this manner. But people's faith is abused by others in other ways that has nothing to do with religion. Take belief in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as are granted, as "god-given" rights to the subscribers to the constitution of the U.S. I am endowed by my creator with these unalienable rights. You can not give them to me, or take them away. No other peoples or powers can either. I already have them, they already belong to me. I believe this to be true. I have faith in the constitution of the U.S. and the people that also hold it to be true and valuable. Yet my faith in this ideal, is used by the Government, according to Hitchens logic to extract a tithe or more from me, force me to serve in an Army that does the bidding of the powerful few, doing harm to others at their command, and in a thousand other demonstrable ways, proscribes how I should live my life to serve "the will of the people". I do not think a man of Hitchens' intelligence would have had much trouble putting together his "slavery" argument, against a "government" if he so had been inclined. Personally, I think it alright to give up some certain autonomous "rights" for the benefit of others, because then 230 million people give up certain of their "rights" for your benefit. I do not consider it slavery. Who and what I grant authority over me to is something which is under my control. (to a certain extent). And much of the "workable" nature of society is due to the non material, non scientifically verifyable, "faith" I have in what is in the hearts and minds of the people around me, and the faith they put in me, to do my part, and fulfill my role, and hold up my end of the bargain. Generally speaking, I would say it is OK to pick out and throw away the badly bruised and moldy and rotten fruit in the basket, without considering the whole basket inediible. And OK to have faith that the fruit indeed will taste sweet, and fill your belly and give you strength. And perfectly logical to thank the strawberry plant for providing you with her/his bounty, if you be so inclined as to do so. Regards, TAR2

Inow, Christopher Hitchens video gave me the creeps. That "people of faith" should be disregarded rather than regarded...without specifying what faith was being talked about. As if ANY faith should be rejected as defective. I think the reason I find this kind of thinking creepy, is that because, in the end, when you discount all faiths and beliefs, there is nothing left to have faith in or believe in. This cannot work. Hence it is a rejection of yourself. Which is quite impossible for any self to do. So where do people like Hitchens find their grounds? In themselves alone, or in the world around them, or both? Perhaps this is a psychological/neurological discussion. In my logic, one cannot discount the rest of the world, and say that only they exist, without thinking that they themselves, magically appeared on the planet. At which point they have absolutely zero right to suggest that anybody who believes in magic, is broken. We know each other a little bit Inow, you and I. From your great "Does Religion Hijack" thread. I am still trying to understand myself, and others, on the basis of scientifically proven things. Our ability to put ourselves in other peoples shoes developed around the age of three or four. Our ability to imagine unseen others. Our evolutionary history, and how many of our "social animal" drives and proclivities are rooted in survival attained characteristics. We are not "other than" human...and that includes the whole shooting match that makes one human. The ignorance, the wisdom, the illogic and the logic. The self, and the group. The subject and the subjected to. The leader and the follower. Shame, pride, conscience, and morals. Without an authority, a clan, a belief in the "spirit" of the group, there would be no right or wrong. If there were such thing as a "perfect" (unbroken) human. It would not be Hitchens. He had divorced himself from humaness, and proclaimed faithless, beliefless existence as the only true reality, thus proclaiming himself and his rationality as a separate, superior ideal...with no feet of clay. Anybody that showed any humaness, was a subject of ridicule. I might not have it broken down correctly, but if you think about a "complete", unbroken person, you would have to account for the Id, Ego and Superego all being present. Symbolically you could take the Id as our animal drives, and historical attachment to evolutionary characteristics, that brought us from element to atom to molecule, to compound to organic compound to protein to...cell....organ...organism. And Ego as the self that moderates and witnesses, and the SuperEgo as the rules and reality of the group, internalized. Not one of the three is worth a whit, without the other two. So none can say, in truth, that they are only one of the three, and the other two are "other than" them. The trinity in Christianity speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Similar to Reality, Man and Belief. So I can not prove the existance of voodoo or telepathy or Gods or magic of any sort at all. But I have ample proof available of Reality, Man and Belief. The word "spirit" was in the Pingry Honor Code. And no magical God is required, in order to have it. If spirit exists and no magic exists, is this proof that God is real? Regards, TAR2 If God is real, and believing in reality is perfectly alright, then no one believing in God should be considered broken.

Zapatos, There seems to me, a way you can take religion, or God for that matter, as a collective ideal that people hold. It is a personal god, in that you hold it alone, and it has no material being, except for ALL material being is of it. But once you recognize that your ideal, and someone elses ideal, consist of the same thing, there is something real and valuable about it. Especially if it makes sense, and works to promote your own survival and the survival of people around you. Regards, TAR The Pingry Honor code was written by Pingry students in the 1920's and adopted by faculty in the thirties. Pingry is now coed, was for boys only when I attended.

Inow, I have no argument, that proves a large white bearded gentleman sits in the clouds, writing names in this or that book. Primarily because such a notion is ridiculus. It can not be a literal fact, because we have been up there, and he was not. However that is not the notion of God that I have entertained in my youth, and it is not the notion of God that I entertain today, as an Atheist. People do seem to look for the hidden powers behind things. Beyond correlation. A causal agent. Seems normal to me. Like everybody does it. Maybe even you. After all you are implying and Imatfaal is implying that faith, or belief in God is "causing" the human race to make bad decisions. That this "belief" itself is the cause of the problems of the world. I might agree in a lot of cases, Twin Towers and Middle East turmoil and book burnings, and creationist's mangling of education and the like. But I was raised Protestant, and went to schools with religious founders. Gave me a moral grounding. Taught me how to properly act toward other people. School I went to, taught me an "Honor Code". Later in life I was surprised at the number of people who lied and cheated and "got over" on other people, and were not only not ashamed, but flauntingly proud about it. Without my upbringing, I might be like those people. How would that help humanity? Regards, TAR2

Inow, I gave you a plus on 86 because I think you are right...and your intent described is indeed the substance of the thread. Why, if one is being honest, would we have the need to fool ourselves, and believe that the fiction of another should become our fact? Any constructed world, formulated in the mind of a human, must, in my estimation, include some bits of real, actual stuff. At least the representation of such. And, as we have seen by looking at history, and the human world around us, we have had, and do have the ability to make fantasies real. Take for instance the border between Canada and the U.S. What is real, scientific fact about that border? It could change with the stroke of a pen a thousand miles away. And "science" is a human construction as well. Rules and formulae, derived from reality, describing in our minds, how reality works, how it fits together...what is likely to happen next...and what has to happen if certian elements are brought together in a certain configuration. I can say, "we have this or that figured out" without actually knowing all the details myself. In fact even the most educated woman, the brightest mind, with access to all the data ever collected, would not know, as my signiture suggests, as much as all of us, put together. Can we "scientifically" say that "science" is real? That it exists without humans having it in mind? Or does it exist because of our historical holding of it, as a true thing, that is bigger than any one human, but that we have together constructed and brought into reality together. Built the universities, named all the peices and parts and forces we have noticed, and described the rules upon which everything fits together, and recorded it all, in conventional language, for others to share and add upon. Not completely broken, to believe in a company, or an institution, or a country, or for that matter, a political party, or a philosophical camp. Things that spring from human imagination, and are brought into reality, and maintained by human agreement. Better certainly, in your mind, and in my mind, to trust the facts about reality that we have together determined to be true, that any person can check out for themselves. We can look up and see the moon, or witness the border control officer at the checkpoint between the U.S. and Canada. But there remains an area of thought that is part real and part fantasy, that can be either brought into view, or dismissed, depending on the human need, and the human convention, and the will of the people involved. The U.S. Federal Reserve can just "say" that it has 300 billion dollars to loan out to banks, at near 0 interest, to bolster up the banks balance sheet...and it happens. Where did that money come from? Who owns it? Its all up to human agreement. Together, we can make these things up, and it becomes real. Not a huge leap to religion. A consensus view of the immense reality we are of and in. A stab at answering the hard questions that occur to us all, about our relationship to the greater reality. Why and how are we here, and why must we die? Perhaps I am broken a bit. A little crazy. To give people, scientist or sage, the benefit of the doubt. But perhaps, its quite alright, and realistic. Regards, TAR2

Snowflake, I like your direction here. Am not myself concerned with whether it is philosophy or neuroscience, or physics we are talking. The more the better actually. Time delay is crucial, in my estimation to understanding this whole picture. What is quite remarkable is the fact that your now and my now, and the now of everybody "currently" on the planet, is the same now. That is, your yesterday is mine as well. As is your tommorrow. We can forgive a few seconds here and there as we could be separated by a maximum of the time it takes light to travel from you to me, and we are rarely going to be more than the diameter of the Earth from each other. On the other hand, trying to figure out the timing of stuff very close to us, is problematic. Because we are working with the time it takes light to travel a meter, or a nanometer, or the distance between two neutrons. Here the nows are passing by, faster than our neural nets can follow, and we can't decide easily, what observer viewpoint to stick with, nor how exactly to model the activity in our heads. As is there an issue with stuff very far away, where light, usually considered near instantaneous, takes minutes and hours and days and years and millions of years, to get from one now to the next. Though we can think of things very far away as happening now, the photons don't get here soon enough for us to "get the feedback" to verify our notion. Which leaves us with some multiple images of the universe. That which we see, now. And that which we will see much later. Not unlikey that some of the problems science has, matching stuff that is happening on scales very smaller and very larger than human type timing, say three seconds or so being our "now" window, are caused by this difficulty in "imagining" the timing involved being a very tiny thing, or being a thing so large, that now can not be reconciled in three seconds. Physiologically, I would imagine that some of the three seconds of now, are so, because it takes some time to notice something, match it up with what has been noticed before, and put together the plan of motor neuron firing that will cause the responses that will set up the next noticing. Little tiny observers, don't have all this complicated stimulus-response architecture to wade through, they have already responded by the time we know they were stimulated, and moved on to observe the next thousand or million things...and we are still figuring out what we just observed, putting ourselves in their shoes, 10 thousand things ago. So yes, I would say that we are local, but we "miss" much of what happens now, on our time scale, because we are not looking, we miss much of what happens on a small scale, because it happens too fast, and we cannot notice what happens now very far away, because we will be dead, by the time it gets here. Regards, TAR2