zapatos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

My bad. Are people who override the natural will to survive for love of dedication the the job/mission also not rational or reasonable human beings? Would the medical authorities legitimately label them mentally disturbed as having a mental disorder? Or is it only people who do so for faith?

One of the things doG said was that "it could be legitimately labeled as a mental disorder". That sounds like his position may have have the support of some portion of the medical establishment. If that were true I'd be interested in what they had to say. There are also plenty of examples of people making conscious decision to die for the benefit of others. Secret Service agents will take a bullet for the President. Soldiers will lay on a grenade to protect their friends or ensure the success of a mission. Parents running into a burning house to save a child. And of course suicide bombers because they believe it is the will of God. In all these cases people's faith or love or dedication are overriding the natural will to survive. Are people who override the natural will to survive for love of dedication the the job/mission also not rational or reasonable human beings? Would the medical authorities legitimately label them mentally disturbed? Or is it only people who do so for faith?

Potentially anyone who is affected by it. Specifically: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/kiribati/9127576/Entire-nation-of-Kiribati-to-be-relocated-over-rising-sea-level-threat.html

You did not directly answer my question but instead asked me three questions in return, so I'll try to infer your position. Are you saying that it is not personal opinion, and that there is no supporting evidence, due to the fact that it is obvious to any reasonable person?

Is this a personal opinion or do you have anything to support this assertion?

Try Googling 'whole body donation programs'. A lot of information comes up.

'M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. And, finally, here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and to hopefully spark some sort of controversy, which, it seems, is the only way, these days, to get the jaded, video-sated public off their fucking arses and back in the sodding cinema. Family entertainment? Bollocks. What they want is filth: people doing things to each other with chainsaws during tupperware parties, babysitters being stabbed with knitting needles by gay presidential candidates, vigilante groups strangling chickens, armed bands of theatre critics exterminating mutant goats. Where's the fun in pictures? Oh, well, there we are. Here's the theme music. Goodnight.' MPython

My experience has been that most anything that is brand new looks good. It is only after wear and tear that the differences in quality show up. I think you'll be just as successful with an inexpensive suit as an expensive one.

Nevermind.

A few cultures have moral problems with drinking blood but I don't find the moral or practical barriers obvious. I would have no problem with it. Very little animal blood is wasted when it is practical to use it. I've had blood sausage and would not recommend it to anyone. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1739-safe-to-drink-blood.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pudding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_product

Yes, millions of lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria Although currently due to a great effort the number of malaria deaths is down to about 655,000 per year. That is over 2% of all deaths woldwide per year. http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/index.html Since malaria is a mosquito-borne infectious disease, I think it is safe to say that eradicating mosquitos will save millions of lives. No I don't think we should wipe out the human race, even if it would save many living things.

What do you mean by the hijacking art by religion? Is it the use of art by religion, or are you talking about something else?

You should reread the thread to see what everyone has said.

That's a good question, and since that level of evidence doesn't do it for me it is hard to say. The only thing that comes readily to mind is confirmation bias. If I already believe, I would probably give extra weight to those things that seemed to fit my view. Another great question. Indoctrination maybe? If I'm told all my life that no evidence is necessary, will I jump at even the smallest bit of evidence, not matter how tenuous? I agree that the word 'broken' is a poor choice. I would imagine people who 'believe' fall on a continuum. There may actually be some who are broken, but I expect a large group would be those who don't have the training and experience to overcome the first 18 years of religious training. Also some who are very comfortable with their belief and see no need to question it. And just like some people were made to be salesmen or engineeers, some people were made to be religious. Of course there are also those who have the training and background for logical and critical thought, who have thought deeply about God, and have concluded that belief is God is correct. I would never pass judgement on them. I might not agree with them, but if they put in the effort, then the belief they come up with is fine with me. I know I find it offensive when some religious person tells me I am going to hell. As I read what Wikipedia had to say it sounded to me like technically it was evidence. Whether it actually leads to a valid defense of God is another matter. Evidence is whatever you use to support your position. After review it may be rejected as insufficient or even unrelated to the position it is purported to support. A scientist can do experiments, collect data, and use it as evidence to support the idea that he was able to create cold fusion. Whether cold fusion is ultimately accepted or rejected, what he supplied was his evidence. Even if he is the only one who thought it constituted evidence in the first place. A prosecutor will present evidence of someone's guilt. Even if the person is found not guilty, what the prosecutor has is still evidence. It could be weak, insufficient, or flat out wrong. But it did not stop being evidence. When I say there is evidence of God, I am making no judgement on its veracity. I am not trying to get anyone to accept it as valid. I am just saying that testimonials, artifacts, personal experiences, etc. that people use to support the belief in God, is by definition, evidence.

Oh, ok. In post #253 I mentioned examples of anecdotal and personal experiences that to some people would be viewed as evidence of the existence of God. While John did not seem to think much of the examples, he did say in post #257 that "The third type (personal experience) is evidence, but not from anyone else's point of view." That prompted my comment that we agreed at least on that small point.

Can you be more specific? I've just spent several posts explaining my positioin on 'evidence'. Can you tell me which parts you have a problem with?

Ok, good. I am glad to see we can agree that there is evidence of God for some people, no matter how weak and pathetic you may find it to be. My second point was that different people will view evidence different ways. For example, the prosecutor presents evidence of a crime and we have a hung jury. (Can't decide) A second jury decides he is guilty (believes the evidence). A retrial then finds the person not guilty (didn't believe the evidence). I don't find any of the jurors to be necessarily broken (although they may be). They were not there, they do not know for sure, but based on the evidence they see, their background/personality/education/experiences, they make a call. They know they can be wrong, but they are doing the best they can. In a similar way people are looking at what is by definition unscientific evidence of God, and based on their background/personality/education/experiences, they make a call. Most know they can be wrong but this is the best they can come up with. I don't see either group to be necessarily broken, because they are basing the call on what they know. Scientists are more likely to be atheist I believe, because on average they have a better education, better training in logic, better understanding of things that might seem supernatural to the uninformed. There are probably many scientists who became atheists at around the time of their education. I imagine many people who are theists would become atheists if given the same rigorous training and education you find with scientists. Those theists aren't broken now and fixed after the education. They are less educated now and more educated after the education.

I assume you mean no negative consequences? If so, then yes, do it and save millions of lives. If you meant no consequeces at all, then why bother?

You believe the evidence is nonsensical. Someone else believes it to be good evidence. Why do you think that the right to decide which it is, belongs to you? One scientist believes he has evidence supporting his position. Another scientist believes the evidence he is presenting is nonsensical and not even remotely useful. Does that mean the first scientist doesn't really have evidence at all? Or that it is really nonsensical and not remotely useful, just because the second scientist said so? Should the first scientist stop believing he is on to something and stop doing research? You are not being asked to accept faith alone as sufficient for belief in Gods. You are being asked to accept that reasonable people coming to a conclusion other than the one you hold are not necessarily broken.

I disagree. If my body is giving out, my heart and kidneys failing, transplanting my brain into another body will save my life. My sentience, mind, soul, whatever you want to call it, is in my brain. Therefore the transplant will save my life.

From your link, types of evidence include: Anecdotal evidence Intuition Personal experience Scientific evidence Testimonial Examples of evidence of God for all but scientific: Anecdotal - A person who prays for a cure and their disease goes into remission Intuition - There must be something that created the universe based on my understanding of cause and effect, conservation of energy, etc. Personal Experience - I had a near death experience. Testimonial - Declarations from the Pope when speaking ex cathedra. In a similar way, example of evidence of extraterrestrials include: Anecdotal - Crop circles Intuition - The Drake equation. As big as the universe is and with the number of planets in the goldilocks zone, there must be other life out there. Personal Experience - I saw a blue and green light hover over me, then fly off into the distance. Testimonial - The Disclosure Project These are all evidence of God and aliens. You may find that they are not sufficient to justify the claim of the existence, or you may feel they in no way support the proposition, but they are evidence nonetheless. Evidence is often wrong, misleading, insufficient, questionable, etc. That does not stop it from being evidence.

Back to this point. I guess overall your point strengthens your claim and weakens mine. I now feel it is reasonable that more people belong in the 'broken' column than I would first have thought. I still do not believe, however, that all theists belong in the broken column. One of the problems with calling people broken with such a broad brush as 'those who believe in God' is that there are so many things that could have led them to that position. For example: Eighteen year old kid, just finished 12 years of religious school, religious services every Sunday, everybody he knows shares his religion, his parents are wonderful people who are quite devout, has had years of discussions on 'The Truth'. Hasn't really gotten out in the world. No one questions their religion. Doesn't start college until next fall. We also don't know what he's seen, heard, experienced, etc. To me that kid would not be considered broken. He is basing his belief on everything around him and so far it all confirms what he believes. My previous belief in God was that he was not personal, not the God of any of the major religions, but simply started the universe and then backed away. I based this on the amazing complexity of the universe, that the universe even existed, that laws of physics existed. I knew I could be wrong, but it seemed more likely to me that I was right. Looking back at me at that time, in no way would I say I was broken. I think we are talking about two different things. You seem to be talking about 'acceptable' evidence while I am talking about 'any' evidence. And the reason I do not talk about 'acceptable' evidence is as I've explained; we each have to make our own decisions on what is acceptable. For example, when CSI:Miami examines a crime scene, they collect all the cigarette butts, heel prints, hairs and fibers in the apartment. All of this stuff is what I think of as evidence. It may turn out to be crap, or circumstantial, or 'good but not enough', but it is still evidence. Then someone looks at all the evidence and decides if the evidence is of sufficient quantity and quality to support their belief in what happened there. That is why I think of the bible, for example, as evidence. It talks about God, was written near the time of Jesus, mentions places that really exist, people that really exist, etc. Now this may turn out to be crap or 'not good enough', but it is still evidence. For me it is not enough. But for someone else it may be. And as I've said I don't think any person can tell another what level of evidence should be acceptable for them. You should believe whatever your mind leads you to. Don't let me tell you what you should believe. Then again, don't tell me what I should believe. After I have decided to believe in God, whether or not I try to push my beliefs on others has nothing to do with what made me believe in God in the first place. I believe this is moot. Again, here is part of the problem. It is more than simply its existence. It is based on my understanding of cause and effect, my philosophy, my lack of another explanation, my life experiences, etc. It is not evidence to you. I fully accept that. But depending on how you look at it, and in what context, and based on education and experiences, someone else may find it to be evidence. The wave patterns on the detector at the LHC is evidence of high technology to me. Nothing else. To someone else it may be evidence of the Higgs Boson. But then we have different backgrounds that led us to how to view that evidence. The evidence in the OJ Simpson case was air tight as far as I was concerned. But the jury, based on their experiences, education, etc., believed the evidence either did not point to OJ, or was insufficient.

Ok, once again we are at the point where I've made an honest attempt to discuss my position and you dismiss it out of hand. This style of conversation is not my cup of tea. Rather than exchange a string of smart ass comments before moving on, I think I'll save some time and move on now. Edit: Ok, I'm going to back off of my first impression and assume you are not just dismissing my position out of hand but are making an attempt to understand my point of view. As it is getting late here I'll get back to this later. I wanted to make sure I got this edit in before I lost the ability to do the edit.

Well, that's one way to go. On the other hand, you are the one who said a brain transplant can't be done. It seems reasonable therefore that you should back up your claim rather than make me do it. Either that or don't make the claim in the first place.