StrontiDog

Sorry, been a Boy Scout. They never so much as insinuate that any of the dogma is of human invention. It is proposed as Truth. Self-evident Truth, at that. Not that different from the Hitler Youth, really. Just a different message. Respectfully, for all the BSA folks out there, Bill Wolfe

pioneer, Atheist Religion? Once again. . .prove it! Is nonbelief in Odin a religion? Do you suscribe to this religion? I think you may. So, are you an aOdinist? Is THIS your religion? Really? Bill Wolfe

Though I agree with everything said along these lines, how does this differ from the Boy Scouts, or the Moose Lodge, or the Grand Poo-baa of the Fraternal Order of The Lodge? These are all social groups, but none of them seem to rely upon the existence of some magical--spiritual--being. (Being?) As a socially cohesive force, religion is great. It binds a society in ways that are difficult (Impossible?) to quantify. And do NOT doubt the survival power of a society, from an evolutionary standpoint, anyway. A strong society means survival of the species. We could do a whole new thread on this, but I doubt that the cohesiveness of the society could be anit-evolutionary. But are these irrational (Zeus Rules!) mindsets the only possible social glue? I think not. As an example--and I hate to use this, but I have to--look at the Nazis. Look at what these relatively normal folks did in the name of Der Führer . This was--at least--the equal to religion, and yet it wasn't really based on anything that wasn't 'scientific', or at least rational. These concepts provided a social glue (Aryans are the apex of the biological order,) that cannot be dismissed. Though inaccurate, it was rational. Rational within the framework of the ideology that has been presented, means a lot. So what Religion offers, is a sense of PLACE, in the Universe. It's important to a significant fraction of the population. As an atheist, a scientist, and a member of the human race (no other, just that one), I understand how insignificant my whole life feels when taken within the Grand Scheme of Things. It's a hard thing to contemplate. But I bet many of us feel this way. My scientific background demands that I accept it. That doesn't mean that I like it. Lots of people go with what makes them feel significant. I don't feel that way, but I understand it. Just things to think about. Bill Wolfe

Well said, pioneer. As humans, we can imagine anything from FTL travel to the Hollow Earth. That doesn't make it real, and it doesn't make it false. Though I'm pretty sure that Hollow Earth has been sufficiently debunked. Every Christian I know will agree that Zeus is imaginary. (Though it's tempting to sacrifice a goat to him. Just to see if he shows up. . .after all, it's been a while.) Odin, Osiris, all of them are in the same boat as far as the people of faith, are concerned. The only difference I can see between a theist and an atheist is that one deity. Just one. The rest are obviously imaginary. Imagination is a wonderful thing. I can see all sorts of evolutionary pluses to a species being able to imagine what it cannot observe or directly sense. If religion is the price we pay for this ability, it's probably worth it. Survival is important. Without it, we’re dodos. Bill Wolfe

I gotta ask this, though I really hate to do so. . . How in the world does anyone have cells from their own umbilical cord frozen? Did she make this decision when she was a newborn? (Hey you. . .Nurse! Save that, will 'ya? I might need it later.) Don't know about you folks, but by the time I could: A--afford it B--understand what it was all about My own umbilical was 20-30 years in the trash. Perhaps my parents could have made this decision, but I don't see how anyone else could. Enquiring minds. . . Bill Wolfe

In many ways, I agree. But what about the pen? How could it possibly not exist? For me, of course, the idiot who actually tasted the ink. I believe that the things we truly Know (note the Capital K?), are very few and far between. And we misuse the word, quite a bit. I mean, just like the speed of light. Unless you've measured it, with instruments that you've calibrated, yourself. etc., do you really Know it, or are you just pretty dang sure that someone would have called 'Them' on it, were it not true? You're taking that number, on faith. And at the risk of being repetitive, you're probably right. But it is POSSIBLE that you are wrong. It is not possible if you truly Knew something. And I didn't say that knowledge destroys faith, I submit that these are two separate concepts of existence (or Truth, if you will). Once you Know something to be true, you cannot go back to simply believing it to be true. And I think they may be mutually exclusive. Since this is the Philosophy/Religion Forum, if God came up to you and introduced Himself--doing whatever He'd have to do to convince you that He was who He claimed, your Faith would be obviated, but not destroyed. You would now Know that God was real, even if you still couldn't quite figure out what He is. Your concept of God would be fundamentally different than that of someone who never had the 'meeting' that you did. They can't be the same. So if Folks claim they Know that God is real, do they have no faith? Which may well put them in the same boat as many of us are? Throw this at some of your religious friends and family and watch the fireworks get cranked-up. It's a hoot. Bill Wolfe

Agreed. I've read jryan's stuff, too. But isn't the difference between an atheist and a Christian. . .that one excludes only one more belief system from the 'you're all wrong' scenario? That's hardly any, once you account for all the belief systems out there. . . . That fits the 'almost' category, for me. The Christian (in the generic) says. . . 'You're all wrong, except me (mine?).' We both say the same thing, without that last little caveat. I love this thread. Bill Wolfe Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I challenge this statement. I'm an atheist, but I have an 'internal' moral code that I would put up against any Christian (with the possible exception of Mother Theresa, what a cool chick!) that I've ever met. I bet there are others out there who might just have a moral code that equals that of any 'Christians.' My problem isn't with Christ, but His fan club annoys the 'heck' out of me.' Bill Wolfe.

Allright, irrational. . .maybe. . .but because I haven't tried this experiment, perhaps it's not idiotic. It sounds like your son does not accept anything that doesn't seem to work. Can anybody else say they've tried this experiment and found it to be false? If it really does work--and you'd have to try it to say it doesn't--does that mean it's real? Sorry, can't bring myself to do it. Any takers? Bill Wolfe

I probably would (and this is the Philosophy Forum). Because I don't belive in God. These kids should have a little doubt. . .but that's just personal preference. In so many words. . .no. I can see a real difference between 'how' and 'why.' Maybe it's just me. It's a little off subject, but I really believe that spiritualism--even if I don't buy into it--has value. And if we, as scientists, forget that people are looking for answers to important questions. . . that may not actually have answers, we will loose this fight. I guess my whole point is that science can only answer questions that have actual answers. We need religion, faith, spiritualism, to answer the rest. These answers don't have to be true, they just have to suffice. Because if there are no answers, there are no wrong answers. And the questions will be asked. It's just human nature. If, as a scientist, you don't have an answer. . .don't try to supply one. Let the fuzzy folks do it. That's what they're best at. We--by definition--are not up to the task. Agree, disagree? New thread? Bill Wolfe

Gee Whiz, Sammy, your mommy died saving you because when somebody's lungs fill with water, there isn't enough oxygen in it for hemoglobin molecules to become tetraoxygenated before they are swept away by the last of her heartbeats. So her brain is under oxygenated, and it shuts down. Or how about: Well Sammy, progeny are more important than the parents, because they haven't yet had children of their own and your genes, combined with somebody else's, might be the big next step in evolution. As true as these are, they don't answer the question. The first is a pretty good answer to 'how', and the second--I would bet--was not on mommy's mind when she was willing to sacrifice her own life to try and save her child. And game theory, really?, for a kid who has just lost his/her mother? Religion may be able to supply an answer, but I still say that science can't. Because there may be no answer. Science can answer a lot of questions, but--in general--it's lousy at 'why' questions. You can ask why the sky is blue, and science can help someone supply an answer about 'how' light is diffracted, therefore the wavelengths that we call 'blue' are dominant, but that isn't really the question, now is it? The question was 'why.' And in all honesty, how isn't the same as why. Not usually, anyway. Science is good for how, what, when, where, how much, and very often--nope. Don't get me wrong, I love science, but it doesn't asnwer all the questions that people ask, and it isn't supposed to. I still haven't seen an answer to: And I doubt I will. It's not a hard question to answer, but science just ain't up to the task. Even a comforting lie (ie: God wanted her in Heaven.) is better than nothing. Bill Wolfe

At the risk of being pendantic, we're mostly saprophytes, rather than parasites, with the exception of lawyers, of course. Bill Wolfe

I'm a little uncomfortable with the word 'meant.' It implies some type of plan or direction. Evolve is used as a verb, but it isn't really any kind of action. Since for most of human and protohuman history, we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, I doubt very seriously that any significant portion of the population survived as long as we do, today. How could they possibly, when any infection or broken bone would either kill you, or slow your whole group down? I included that link mostly for the table, which listed life expectancy by era, starting with the upper paleolithic. I think the kicker in that one statement you quoted is 'Sometimes.' The gist of the article still supports the fact that more of us are living longer due to the benefits of civilization and technology. Bill Wolfe

I submit that it is literally impossible to answer that question using any science. I am prepared to be wrong, of course. Perhaps some of the social sciences may offer some suggestions, but plenty of 'mommies' just grab for the nearest tree branch and do not do this, so the question is why did 'my' mommy do this. Please just tell me how--what branch of science, what possible research or experimental data could possibly answer this question. I'm not interested in the answer, I want to know how it could be done. I'm really interested. Science does not provide us a means answer to all questions. Some are very simply beyond the perview of scientific inquiry. (Trust me on this, I'm a scientist.) Bill Wolfe

I propose that the simple definition of Faith is: Belief without knowledge. Assumption 1: It is impossible to have faith in that which is known to be true. Assumption 2: It is equally impossible to be wrong about something that is known to be true. Discussion: Many people of all Faiths, claim that they Know that God, or Allah, or Karma, or (insert Deity or deities of your choice) exists. So if they truly Know, does that mean they do not have Faith? The Difference between Faith and Knowledge, an example you can reproduce at home: I can see a pen sitting next to my keyboard. I just picked it up, I can feel it, hear it (it clicks), I can actually smell the ink at the tip and I just literally tasted the ink. I just wrote “This pen is real” on a sticky pad (which I can both see and feel the indentations on the paper.) I am convinced that this pen is real, it exists. I have KNOWLEDGE of the existence of this pen. I cannot be wrong about this thing’s reality. It is impossible that it does not exist. But that only works for me. You may believe in the existence of this pen, it’s certainly a reasonable claim. But you do not Know that it exists. If you do believe in it, you are taking it on Faith. You could be wrong. I could be lying, delusional or just trying to make a point. You could certainly argue that I have Faith that my senses are not deceiving me, and I will grant you that one. But I still call my concept of the existence of this pen: Knowledge. I cannot have the same concept of its existence as someone who simply believes my account. I invite any and all comments on this subject, but would especially appreciate specific, simple scenarios where something that is KNOWN, by the definition I provided, would not be true. Examples of Faith that turned out to be true would be of no value. Most of the things we accept on Faith are, in fact, true. I would ask that we exclude hallucinations, intentional tricks or insanity from the definition of Knowledge. I’m sure some people have entire conversations with the space monkeys who live in their toasters, but for these purposes, I would ask that were the Knowledgeable Party to produce the pen (or a space monkey, for that matter), you’d be able to agree—with some experimentation—that it was as real as the claimant Knows it to be. At which point, you would no longer have whatever level of Faith you had, because you too, would then Know. Enjoy! Bill Wolfe

Largely, yes. It is correct. Though no individual ever evolves, the human species might. Just something to keep in mind, but it's important. A species can remain unchanged for millions of years if its current genetic diversity is sufficient for viability within its niche of the ecosphere. This too, IS evolution. Change doesn't seem to have to occur unless there is some environmental pressure to do so. At which point the species either changes, or becomes extinct. Remember the Coelacanth, which was thought to have been extinct for millions of years. . .until somebody caught one and brought it to the attention of the world. It's what folks mean when they say science is falsifiable. It can be proven false, and it's surely one of science's greatest strengths. Bill Wolfe

I consider it a given, that one person could have both spiritual (religious) questions and scientific questions at the same time. My Religion tool is shiny, almost pristine. I don't need a God, I don't particularly want a God, and have my own moral index from a 'I don't want to hurt anyone who doesn't try to hurt me.' perspective. If religion works to answer the 'Why did mommy die saving me?' question, I say. . .no harm done. There is probably no more real answer than: "She cared about your life more than she cared about her own. And she'd do it again in a heartbeat." I've got kids (and grandchildren), and I understand that statement without question. If Religion answers it as: 'It's part of God's plan." or even "She's in heaven with the Angels." I don't care. If it brings peace, it's fine. It's done the one good thing that religion has ever done. . .explain the unexplainable. So it doesn't matter which tool saves more people. The same person can use one to feel better, while they use the other to build a better dam. I agree that you get more bang for your buck with science, but the two are separate, should be separate, and any attempt to mix them is one of those BIG MISTAKES. And it's happening way too much. Bill Wolfe

If questioning the precept that 'nature' ever compensates for anything offended you, I apologize, truly. But semantics means The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form. And I really don't get the gist of what you were saying. Because I don't think 'Nature' does anything of the kind. It's a broad reference. If a planet killer asteroid wipes-out all life on this planet as you read this, that would be 'Nature', to me. I opined that the trait you're discussing is probably evolutionarily neutral, at best. It's part of the answer to your question, anyway. No harm intended. Bill Wolfe

Soooo. . .pioneer, You're saying that the Godless Religion Of Electronic Idol Worship is the RIGHT religion, and that you'll fight this upcoming merger between Christianity and the secular to your last breath? I agree with the last part, but not so sure about the first. I'll have to attend a few GROEIW services, maybe learn a little about their dogma. Bill Wolfe

In general, the more diverse the gene pool, the more likely a species is to survive in harsh conditions. By allowing significant portions of the population to survive and breed, which would not have done so in the past, humanity is getting more diverse, not less. The effect of technology and lifespan on our species, in general, is not well understood from an evolutionary perspective. We only have one test case, and the experiment just started. I would offer that without human interference, dogs would not have nearly the genetic diversity that they now have. Perhaps some environmental factor could wipe-out all dog breeds larger than a Chihuahua, and then the entire canine species would be small, annoying and yappy. . .but it would still exist. Without this diversity, they'd go the way of the dodo. I doubt there were any wild dogs that small before domestication and selective breeding (a kind of Eugenics, when you think about it). Besides, too few humans doesn’t seem to be a problem, does it? Bill Wolfe

From an evolutionary standpoint, by the time these effects become noticeable, the individual is usually out of the gene pool. We're basically designed (by evolution) to die somewhere in our 30's to very early 40's. This is still the case in some 'Third World' countries. That age frame gives us time to breed and raise some progeny, then exit stage left so we don't compete with our own offspring for limited resources. Until relatively recently, with the advent of medicines, germ theory and dentistry, most people did just that. The very phrase 'nature's way of compensating' is a little anthropomorphic. There is no evidence that 'nature' gives a flip whether entire species are wiped out, let alone the quality of life for aging individuals, past their breeding age. Bill Wolfe

Interesting. But what if the same person asks all four questions? It's not like there's a limit. And I'm not sure there even is a choice--even for an individual--as to what questions we have. Sometimes, they just show up. Science is unlikely to provide an answer to "Why am I here?" And religion ain't too likely to answer "How can I build a better dam?" That there is more than one tool in the toolbox, was one of the points I was trying to make. Bill Wolfe

I would posit that both religion and science are tools, invented by humans to perform a function. Science is the tool by which we try to understand and manipulate the physical universe. Religion is the tool we invented to explain things that we can sometimes feel (or think we can, anyway), but not quantitatively measure. Humans are curious critters, if we can think of a question, we'll try to find an answer. The dam breaks, mommy drowns saving your life. You can use the tool of science to try and answer the questions: What caused the dam to break? How can I build a better one to make sure that this doesn't happen again? You might fail, by the way, but it's the tool to use to answer these questions. You can use religion to answer the questions: Why did this happen to Mommy? Why did I live and she die? Again, you might fail, but I don't think science is the right tool to use to answer such questions. Religion can sometimes provide an answer that gives some sense of peace. This is valuable and should not be discounted. Since there may be no answer, it may be that whatever ever answer works, must suffice. Both tools are useful, both sometimes very good for the job they used for. But don't forget, that I can use the same hammer that was used to build the gas chambers at Treblinka to build a hospital for sick children. It's all in the hand that wields it. I can also use a saw to pound in a nail. It might work, but it's messy. I can cut a board with a hammer, too, but it's really loud, and never straight. This is what happens when we try to use the wrong tool for the job. You get an outcome, but it is flawed. Both science and religion have been wielded well, poorly, and with horrific consequences. They are different tools, designed for different purposes. They should stay that way. Bill Wolfe

Two very good points, waitforufo. The whole 'may be innocent' argument is very strong. Death is pretty permanent, and can't be redressed. I really wish I trusted our court system (notice that's not a 'Justice System.') to only charge and convict the guilty. DNA evidence has been a real eye opener. It adds to the validity of the conundrum. One point that I haven't seen addressed so far, is the question of what the whole legal system is actually supposed to do? I would posit that it is supposed to protect the citizens who live under these laws, from those who prey upon them. There are certain crimes, and certain levels of crime where the only protection is to take the predator out of the picture, forever. No amount of rehabilitation or remorse on the part of the predator will suffice for you to want this predator in your neighborhood. A humane death does the same thing as life behind bars, but it's cheaper, and more sure. Predators can continue to prey on others who are behind bars, and that's another place where the 'may be innocent' argument gives me pause. When we're sure. . .really sure. . .kill them. Not as punishment, but as protection from the threat they have proven themselves to pose. Sometimes, something nasty crawls out from under your sink and you just step on it. You're not angry, you're not trying to punish it, you just can't afford to have it around, it's a danger to you and your family. Same principle, as far as I can tell. Bill Wolfe

I think your instructor meant to say 'Element' instead of atom. One very common element in the earth's crust is Thorium. With 90 protons, it's atomic number is 90. The Element should therefore have an atomic weight somewhere around 180, but if you look it up, you'll find it a tad over 232. This is because 'elemental' Thorium does not exist, and has probably never been produced. 232Th is listed as 100% abundant, there are only 29 isotopes of Thorium that have ever been identified, and all 28 others make up less than one percent of the Thorium on the planet. Very basically, for the heavier elements. You need extra neutrons in there to keep the protons from repelling each other due to their same charge. For 232Th, this means there are 52 extra neutrons in the nucleus to keep it stable. And with a radioactive half-life of around 14 billion years, that ain't bad. The 'lightest' Thorium isotope ever identified , is 210Th, with a half-life of 9 milliseconds. If you're studying geology, you're going to see a lot of Thorium, just about everywhere you look. It's all 232Th, and it's more radioactive than you might think. A chunk of pure Thorium has a respectable dose rate, and will emit alpha particles, as well. It may be natural, but it’s got some punch to it. Handle with care. Bill Wolfe

The video is the kicker. It proves everything. It proves that this fellow was not hallucinating, was not having a vivid dream, wasn't suffering from a post-hypnotic suggestion from CIA interrogators. He was, in fact, lying. Poorly. And oh yeah, how did he say he got back? Bill Wolfe