Athena

1. Truth, and your life depends on knowing the truth. 2. Rejecting Christian mythology does not equal complete denial of God which can be known through math, science and philosophy. 3. Rejection of false beliefs and acceptence of truth works better than holding false beliefs. 4. Again, rejecting Christian mythology does not equal complete denial of an after life. The problem is with the religious mythology. It would be so nice if we recognized God without the mythology. There is no irony in what needimprovement said. The problem is with your reasoning. The athiest argument that morals are simply a matter of choice is ignorance of the meaning of moral. Unfortunately, Christianity is the main reason we have this ignorance. Moral begins a Greek concept meaning to know the law and good manners. To know the law, means to know universal laws. This knowledge began as philosophy and became science. This line of reasoning evolved out of math. The reason for not telling a lie, is because if one is known to be liar, than one is not trusted and this a relationship problem- that is just a matter of cause and effect. A moral is about cause ane effect. The effect of eating an apple pie is not different from the effect of eating cherry pie. This choice is no way equal to a moral choice. A moral chioce is a matter of cause and effect. Telling a lie may seem like the best way to deal with the moment, but the consequences of lying are not good. The Lady of Justice holds a scale, because reality is not as simple as right or wrong, good or evil. There will be times when telling a lie is less hurtful than telling the truth., and also killing one person to save the lives of many, is a difficult moral choice. I regret the problem religion has caused with its division of good and evil, because this is so distructive of better reasoning. A moral choices is a matter of cause and effect, and this is not as simple as right or wrong thinking, or good and evil thinking. Anyway, needimprovement did make a good point. There is an important difference between choosing cherry or apple pie, and choosing to kill someone to save the lives of others. I have been at this for a long time is seems religion is preventing people from grasping morals are a matter of cause and effect, even the athiest have a difficult time grasping the concept, because they are so completely hung up on the idea that God and morals are all about Christianity, instead of about our ability to reason. Moontan man, are you going to argue with me?

Thanks, you pushed me to see if I could find a better site and I hit the same wall- as you said, no one has been able to recreate a working Su Sung clock tower using the technology of his time. http://www.thenagain.../SongClock.html I think I am going to have to look for an easier project. The site I found gives more directions, but they are in Chinese. The barbarians were better at keeping time? Here is a story that suggest they were http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/teaching_Folder/Econ_210a_Fall97/China_technology.html The Chinese presented the barbarian leader a birthday present a day early. Su Sung was honest about this when he reported back to the Empiror and the astromers who made the error were punished.

Thank you, but I can not make out the details from that picture. I assume the main frame is wood, and the water wheel and other pieces appear to be wood. The water wheel appears to have 24 spokes, so I assume it would move one hour at a time, and it turns clockwise. Does that seem right to you? obviously the water goes in the top and collects at the bottom, but was there a system for pumping the water back up? Were they able to control the water pressure and flow? What would be the function of the wheel behind the main water wheel? On the left of the wheel, what is that?

I am wanting the details for constructing "Su Sung's clock tower". Ideally the details would be good enough for me to reconstruct the tower. This was a mechanism for measuring time, using dripping water, but also had an observation tower and model of the heavens. Of course such a creation would involve knowledge of math, so whatever is known of the math used at the time would be appreciated. Is there a relationship between Su Sung's clock tower and the Mayan calander, other than a shared interest in the moverments of heaven? I have read, the Chinese I Ching fits perfectly in the middle of the Mayan matrix, and can be used for showing the location of 52 energy points recongized in the pressure point message technique of Jin Shin Jyutsu, so there appears to be a math connection between China and Mayan. I am pretty open to whatever information might be contributed to understanding the ancient consciousness on astrontogy, math and measuring time.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your question. I will use the invasion of Iraq to explain the difference. The neo cons planned the military domination of the mid east long before 9/11 happened, and were so proud of what they were doing they created a web site explaining it to everyone. The web site was called the New Century American Project. These facts lead to conspiracy theory about the neo cons actually being behind 9/11 to justify the military action they wanted to take. There is no doubt the congress and press were malnipulated and for sure words like "Shock and Awe" and "Power and Glory" were geared for the Christian Right. What we see unfolding is Straus political theory, approving of decieving the public to achieve the desired ends, and military theory, that if the enemy is hit hard and fast enough, the enemy will cower and military victory is almost instanteous. Actually we can blame the colleges for this war, because that is where the theories are learned. Moving along, the difference is looking at this differently. What I said here is believing people can be completely immoral if it is justified in the end. That is thinking "we can get away with it". But we all subject to reason/God and can not get away with anything. We can start with, trying to decieve people leads to mistrust. Keeping taxes low and pushing the cost of war onto future generations is just pushing a growing problem into the future, and it also deceptive because stupid citizens are thinking they are getting something for nothing. Today they have the money for their pleasures, but their children will not. That is immoral! The US kept the world calm with its history of not making a first strike and that was ruined when the first strike was made. The US acted against the judgment of the U.N. and the consequences of this are not good. The US devastated the lives of Iraqis and it will take them generations of recover. Muslim women fled with their children into surround countries where they had no means of providing for themselves and their children other than prostitution, so their lives are ruined. The killing and devastion of lives is justified how? The moral difference here is the focus on the consequences of the action. To me the action looks like one of the top 10 immoral actions of the decade. All of this is wrapped up in my understanding of God. I don't see a God ruling by whim, rewarding some and punishing some, depending on if He is pleased or not, but as the sum total of the whole. The wrong we do on this planet is not isolated somewhere on the other side of the planet, but is like peeing in our own swimming pool. I think the difference is a consciousness difference and this becomes a difference of conscience. Lets go to Latin language for our understanding. Science- comes from the Latin for "know". Con- comes from the Latin word for "opposing reason". I gave you God as "opposing reason" and you have given me much more than you can know by standing you grounds and demaning answers. You force me to think about what I think and be more sure of the meaning behind words. I am experiencing the happiness of which Cicero and Jefferson wrote, when they wrote of the pursuit of the happiness. This too is God, the joy of learning and understanding. This is not limited to intellect, but is also about the heart and spirit. It is wholistic. I can not know God which is far more than I can comprehend, but I can know my joy and infer something about God. Bush acted without opposing reason, and that is immoral or ungodly. It is like jamming the parachut in the bag, because one is in a hurry to parachut out of a plane. It does not work well, because it goes against the Laws of Nature. Meaning, unless the parachut is packed right, it is not going to unfold the way it needs to unfold. This is the difference between being moral or immoral. It is a matter of kowing cause and effect and making the right choice, taking the correct action. We are all subject to reason. That is being subject to God. Bush's desires were not compatible with the universe. We do not hold that Satan rules the universe, because in Greek logic, if a force is destructive, in the end, all that is left is evil force which then has to destroy itself. The Golden Mean is also about this experience of God. Infact it is prehaps even easier to see God through math, because than we can't argue, "no, Bush was a very smart man who did the right things, and it isn't his fault things didn't go as well as he expected". Like if someone jams the parachut in the bag, it isn't his fault when it doesn't unfold. With math, when you add things up you don't get different answers. You don't work the math problem and know you have not resolved the problem, and act as though you have the right answer. With math we can see the forces of nature at work, and that is knowing something of God. The Greeks came to God through math and logic. Science most certianly does not have to be amoral. It is smart, but unwise people who make it so. We can use math and science to know God, but our materialistic language creates a blind spot, and that results in a culture pitted against wisedom. I think prehaps to realize an animated reality, requires a different language or better understanding of the Latin root of our words. How can we discuss God with a materialist language that lacks spirit, animation?

Moonman, I just googled the differences between the Neandertral brain and our brians a couple of days ago. The different shapes of the brains, suggest different mental abilities as well. But this agrument isn't going to go far without an understanding of concrete thinking verses abstract thinking. Not even by age 12 are humans good at abstract thinking. This area of the brain is not fully developed in humans until about age 25. It is unlikely Neanderthals were abstract thinkers, and for sure a horse is not. I am providing a link for those who are curious about the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking. http://medical-dicti...ncrete+thinking A Neanderthal would probably notice the missing apples becuase this is a concrete thinking.. However, the Neanderthal is unlkely to have had a notion of naegatives, which an abstract thought.

The mathematical Golden Mean is not meaningless, but fundamental to everything I have said, as is logos. There is a relationship between the Golden Mean and the universal awareness of do unto others as you would have them do to you, and it is futile to continue this discussion if you contine to ignore information. God back and read the link about the Golden Mean. Understanding logos is also essential to understanding Greek philosophy and you clearly are not working with a good understanding of logos, or you would not make the arguments you are making. Why would you think anyone would mean everything is good, if some good comes from it? Not even the Hebrews thought good and evil were separated. Not until Zoroastrianism did people think in this duelistic way, and this made Christianity very different from Judiism. But thank you for raising my awareness of how determental duelistic thinking is to good reasoning. Let us discuss Latin language and the meaning of "ignorant". The meaning of the word "ignore" comes from a combination of Latin words; The frist part of the word means "not" and the second means "knowing". So ignore is "not knowing". There is no shame in not knowing something. It is how we handle our ignorance that matters. If we seek information all goes well. If chose to ignore infromation there can not be good outcome. The suffice "ance" means a state of being. We protect our state of being ignorant when we ignore informationand there is an old saying, "do not argue with ". There is a huge difference between people knowing the limits of their knowing and seeking information, and someone who is protecting him/her self by denying what is not known, and therefore, maintaing a state of gnorance. This is the cause of sin, and no good can come from it? It is the darkness, and the light can not pentrated and closed mind. Bad things can grow in the darkness. Immorality comes from the darkness, and therefore, seeking enlightenment is the pursuit of happiness, of which Jefferson writes in the US Declaration of Indepence. You argued we can not discuss God without religion I googled Greek philosophy and God there are seveal pages of links. We can discuss God without religion and understanding sacred math is a path to this other understanding of God.

I am sorry you feel insulted, but I can not understand if you are literate in Greek philoosphy, why we seem to disagree so much, nor why you say God in necesarily religion, when God is subject of Greek philosophy? I would never argue the ends justifies the means. I have said, a moral is a matter of cause and effect. How do you get I am saying the ends justifies the means? In the story of "The Little Red Hen" she asks all her friends to help in the process of growing wheat, milling it and making bread, and no one helps her. Because no one helped her, she didn't share her bread. The moral is, if you want a share of the bread, you need to share the work. In the story of "The Fox and Grapes" the fox has to jump to reach the reach the grapes, and after a few jumps he gives up. The moral is, if you give up you won't get what you want. The story of "The Little that Could" the little train has a hard time getting over the hill, but it doesn't give up and makes it all the way. Mythology is full of these stories. People around the world used them to teach their young morals. In the bible we call these stories parables. This is not an argument that the ends justifies the means. It all says, if you do this, you can expect that. This is so because the universe is ordered and when we understand that order, we can make good decisons and avoid trouble. So if you are in a flood and want to avoid illness, do not drink the water all around you, unless you have away of purifying it. Saying prayers, burning candles or sacrificing animals will not make polluted water safe to drink. This is not about a God judging you or his willingness to help some people and not others. It is about cause and effect, okay? Our moral choices are based on understanding cause and effect. Reading a book about a punishing God and demons, is not the best way to understand why everyone is getting sick and how to prevent that. Moral, learn how things really work. I am talking Cicero here, and he predates Christianity and certianly was not a Jew. This is also how to know of God. Although we do not directly experience God, we can study nature and infer something about God. This understanding goes with democracy which is rule by reason and lifts us to the highest morality. It does make it possible to avoid evil and to make life better. Please check the Golden Mean as I am quite sure the concept comes from math, and was Christianized. http://www.halexandria.org/dward102.htm

Yesterday, there were 16 apples on my tree, today there are only 14, giving me a negative of 2 apples. I do not create this fact, but can precieve it because I can compare what was so yesterday with what is so today. The means, we do not create the negative, but can precieve it, and give it a word representing the reality, and with the word, we can have abstract thoughts about its meaning. It is questionable if the Neanderthal could do this kind of higher thinking. This mental abilty being what makes us like the gods and separates us for the animal kingdom. However, if we are seniors, maybe it is just a faulty memory of 16 apples. What do you imagine? Hum, how different is memory from imagination? To hold an idea that is not manifested truth at this monent in time. But I am sure yesterday there were 16 apples, so there must be a negative 2 and I know I did not create this. Marat, I love your terminology and I hope someday I can speak your language fluently without giving it a thought. However, because I am not there yet, I must ask, are saying there is no such thing as reality? I am sure someone took two of my apples. Now you make me question my sanity.

You are disagreeing with me, evidently because you are not literate in ancient philosophy. This is so exciting, and you are such a good thinker and arguer, I hope to catch you up in this excitement. To begin with, we should all study math! The best or human thought comes out of mathematical and scientific thinking. One of the most well known moral concepts is the Golden Mean, right? It is pretty futile googling the Golden Mean, because Christians seem to dominate the definition of the Golden Mean and creidt Jesus for giving it to us. Someone who is better informed also gives credit to Confuius. People around the world, from the most primitive times, have concluded it is a good idea to not do to someone else what you would not have done to you. It is possible that we survived, and the Neanderthal did not, because we had the better reasoning capabilities for understanding such things as how the Golden Mean works, however, science has proven even primates operate with at least some understanding of the principle. The moral of the Golden Mean is not so because a god said it is so. All gods are subject to reason. It is so because it is so, if we realize it or not. The book "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer argues much of our morality is coded in our genes, however, not until the human brain did a species question the morality and covert what is insinctive known through experience into abstract thinking. The moral of the Golden Mean is self effident. When Jefferson wrote of God and morals, he wrote of what is self evident. Jefferson was literate in Greek and Roman classics. Before Christianity, the Greeks were arguing philosophically and about God, and math played a very important part in this trend of thinking. Isn't that exciting? With the concept of the Golden Mean, we should have the concept of the Golden Triangle. In the center of the Golden Triangle is calm. Our minds are always chattering, and through medication we can still our minds, and then think more clearly. Paradoxially, the center of the vortex spins faster, hince clear thinking. There is so much I want to say about science and morals, but I need someone interacting with me to get the thoughts out. And I need to make my post smaller.

This site has something interesting to say about the possibility the modern humans are the cause of the extinction of others http://blogs.nationa...eanderthal.html Evidentaly having a smaller brain could have been an advantage. Neanderthals may have matured more slowly, being older when they started repoducing and living longer than modern humans. Our small brain is an indication we may have reproduced faster. It is believed both Neanderthal and modern humans had a common ancestor with a large brain. However, looking at the pictures of the Neanderthal skull and modern human skull, I am wondering if the brains developed differently. It seems to me the back of Neanderthal skull is larger but perhaps of the frontal area of the modern human brain is larger? This site discribes what is thought to be differences in the brains. http://neurophilosop...2006/08/07/499/ The ability to think is not just about brain size, but also which areas of the brain are developed.

Ringer We need to debate this, because it is about understanding God. If you are using a lawn mower and the grass gets stuck in the blade, and you neglect to turn it off before sticking your hand in to pull out the grass, what will happen? Is the result of the consequences changed by your knowledge or lack or knowledge? No it is not. Only if we do not take the action can you prevent the blades from cutting our hand. We choose to do the right thing, because we understand the consequences of action will be what it will be. It is when we act in ignorance that we do wrong. We can think of 9/11 and attacking Iraq like Pandora opening the box. Do you know the story of Pandora and the box? A God gave man fire knowing Zues did not want man to have the technology of fire. Zues was afraid, with the technology of fire, man would learn all other technologies and then forget the gods. He could not take the knowledge away from man, once he had it, but he created the first woman and gave her the first man, and a wedding gift. That wedding gift was a box with all the miseries. When Pandora opened it, out flew all the miseries, It is these miseries that have slowed us down, extending the time it has taken us to believe we are so smart we don't need the gods. Okay, when Bin Laden sent planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which is the military force behind the World Trade Organization, on the 11 th day of the 9 th month, he was attacking the US by the New World Order, and 911 is our code for an emergancy. This act was a message to the world, sent with good intensions. However, the consequences of this act was not what he wanted. Just like stinking your hand in the mower blades, would done with good intentions, but get undesired consequences. The Neo Con's had planned the military take over of the middle east long before 9/11 and they made this public on the Internet at the sight for the New Century American project. This was taking what Reagan started, when he lied to us about needing to conserve oil a step futher. The Neo Cons had good intentions too, and did not expect the consequences of "Shock and Awe" and their "Power and Glory" to come out so badly. If an act is moral or not, does not depend on our knowledge. However, if we have a higher spiritual morality we do not make these mistakes. All the religions teach, don't do something to someone that you do not want done to you. That is not a complex idea. Even young children can understand it. Still we might make mistakes, such as forgetting to turn off the lawn mower before pulling out the grass, but are less apt to hurt someone else. It takes science to know what deforestation does and what poluting rivers does. Priimitive people understood the rules of the game, without advanced science, but it was through the process of observation and thinking things that some of them knew if they damaged their environment they would hurt themselves. The people on Easter Island, fgiured this out too late and faced a mass die off. As some ancients figured out, we do better when we understand the Laws of Nature. For ancient Greeks.meant to know the law and good manners. That law is universeal law, not man made laws which vary from culture to culture. This is to know God. Cicero believed when we all knew the Laws and built our governing laws upon them, we would have peace and the world would be a better place. I'm out of time, but Ringer this thread is in a philosophy forum, because God is a philosophical consideration, not limited to religion.

Wow Lemur, I see I seriously need to up date my vocabulary. It is so frustrating to have a thought and not the right words to express it. I thought I was doing well when I came across term "legal positivism", but I remained frustrated in making the threat of "legal positivism" and why we must have a concept of God, clear. You did a beautiful job of explaining this. How do we do this? You are using very sophisticated words and they do express the concept very well, but this is so far from bible stories which are more appealing to less educated person. How might we bridge this intellectual gap? Speaking in parables gets human interest, but the bible is tied to an unbeleiveable God, so many are rejecting bible, and are not learning some necessary concepts that are expressed well in the bible. I am referring to the concepts that kept us free and made it possible for someone to make a mistake and get a new start without being marginalized as we are marginalizing people today. Without the bible, we are nurturing political and social tyranny, but religion has shot itself in the foot. By forgetting the bible says we can not know God, and deifying Jesus, giving people a believable, human God, tied to superstitious notions, they have recreated an unbelievable God. Now we are forced to believe an unbeleivable God, or deny any concept of God at all. In fact, some forums, prohibit the use of the word "God" as I use the word, so the discussion can never advance beyond, "There is no such thing as God". I have been banned for using the word "God" as a reality, and not just my personal belief. We are so trapped by the belief of a false God, it seems futile to move a discussion outside of the trap. These well meaning folks are making the same mistake of preventing freedom of thought and speech as the church made when it was peurscuting heritics. This forum is proving superior to others for allowing this discussion, and I am extremely thankful to you Lemur for taking this discussion to the political level that is so important.

Ringer, you are still imposing religion on the notion of God. Unless you are able to stop doing this, it is futile to continue. Bees are so far from the nature of dogs, primates and humans, I have a problem in understanding the good of your argument. Different species have different natures, and the nature of bees should not applied to the nature of man. However, I am aware of those who argue in favor of political tyranny, comparing humans to bees. The Laws of Nature are essential of manifestion. They are the reason of all things. Without them, there is no manifestion. A civilization is a human organization. The word civilized to conform to a standard. Individuals who do not conform threaten greater organism and the organism must protect itself from this threat. For this reason, civiliations make it taboo to kill and cannibolize another, unless this action is strictly control by ritual. The uncontrolled individual being a threat to the whole. Laws are about the organization of humans, the manifestion of a civilization. Only when they are compatible with the Laws of Nature will they result in good instead of destruction. As far as I know, humans are the only species that can take thinking to this level. This does not happen naturally, but the human brain must be developed through education to be able to do this. It is understanding there is a higher order, and we are all subject to that order. Since the beginning of philosopher this higher order has been referred to as God. I am concerned that without this concept, it is not what human beings do. When people function with no concept of higher order beyond tangible reality, they can not achieve the human potential, and may even be destructive to the civilization. I am afraid your materialistic education killed your imagination and caused a form of blindness. When a civilization does this to its population, it becomes incapable of creation and begins to atrophy. Civilizations die when they can no longer manage the complex problems emerging from the human organization. Your thinking seems to be limited to tangible reality and this is not the whole of reality. Matters of the spirit are not tangible, and yet they are very powerful. What is your understanding of spirit? "Morale is that high spirited feeling that comes of out believing we are doing the thing. It is the American spirit." "The market is falling because we have trust in our institution." What do those words and the concept of spirit, mean to you? What does "a higher order" mean to you? Sorry, I have run out of time and can not address the rest of you arguments right now. I want to thank for your stimulating contibution.

I love your arguments. Yes, I am saying god is physical laws, the laws of animal/human behavior, and quantum physics. I am also saying we might be God's consciousness, however, I question if we have any more importance than a worm. The question gets really complex with we move into quantum physics and things like String Theory and the posisibility of many dimensions. However, for political reasons, I do not question at all, that this God is important to us. Law without God is the same power law that exist when people live under a theocracy. Both are likely to be tyrannical. Legal positivism and theocracy favor the power of some at the expense of others. Only when we rise above our limited perspective and think of the bigger picture, do we understand democracy correctly. Your next question is helpful to the explanation. You ask "So believing that something is alright with a higher power makes it alright? So bombing the twin towers is alright?" Well let us put this to the test. By the way, we could also ask, "So using weapons of mass destruction, to terrorize people and make them submit, is alright?" Because this military action in Baghdad was planned long before 9/11 and this first strike against a nation that was not involved in 9/11 and was not mobilized for war against, was not justified. We know what happened in Iraq was faulty military theory, because the Iraqis did not respond to this "Shock and Awe" attack as Bush and Cheney had hoped. So moving along to your question. What are the consequences of these actions? Actions are moral if good comes of them. Actions are immoral if bad comes of them. We are talking about the Laws of Nature, about cause and effect right? Keep the bigger view in mind. You can not correctly judge this from your personal point of view, but must try to see these events from a higher perspective. What happened to everyone in involved? (everyone in the world was directly or indirectly involved). What happens over time? (it will be at least 3 generations before those directly effected recover). When looking at the bigger picture, were these acts moral or immoral? Do you a notice a difference in your thinking when you wonder how things might look from a God's perspective, rather than your normal self interested perspective? Not that this God needs us, but we do need him, just a mathematician needs the X factor. God becomes an important thinking tool. You conclude with "Law without god is still law. Law with god tends to represent those who believe in the same god and ignores the will of others." It is for us to understand the Laws of Nature, without that understanding we do not have good laws. Really without an understanding of the Laws of Nature, we don't have the law, but a falsehood. For example, laws supporting slavery violate the Laws of Nature and this violation of the Laws of Nature leads to trouble. I disagree with your conclusiong, because law without God, is a very narrow view and omits too much information and too many possibilities. Law without God holds us down and can be tyrannical. Law with God can raise our human potential and protect us from tyranny. And if you think law with God tends to represent those who believe in a religiously defined God, you have not gotten the concept of God that Greek and Roman philosophers debated, and is what I am writing about. Please, stop giving the Jews, Christians and Moslems that right to define God. They do not have this God given right, and they only have the power to do so if we give it to them. No you have not acted wisely. You have copped out. Only by sharaing your thoughts, can you move this discussion, and your own thinking, forward. I engage in these discussions, because I enjoy thinking about what I think, and other people's points of view are vital to that process. (remember the many Gods) I do not know what I think, until I begin to communicate my thoughts to someones else. When someone communicates back to me, I realize my thinking errors and I gain insights I would not gained without another point of view. I explain this, because I am explaining what makes democracy superior to all human organizations. Religion holds people back and holds them down. Religion can not manifest God, because it prevents enlightenment. As soon as people believe they konw God, they know God not. They hold their limited understanding of God, in place of knowing God. I think it is a Buddhist monk who told a young man, before he could learn anything, he had to let go of what he thinks he knows. To know God, we must let go of what we think God is. Relgions could never do this, because doing so would put an end to the religious organization. Religous organizations are trapped by the laws of organations. Democracy is not. Unfortunately, the openness of decomcracy can also be its down fall. Only when there is education for democracy in the classroom is it protected, and we stopped doing this when we replaced liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, and started thinking of our children as products for industry. This is the Military Industrial Complex of which past president Eisenhower spoke. Or what we once called this the New World Order, and defended our democacy against it. Religion compliments the Military Industrial Complex, and both destroy democracy. Personally, because democracy goes with enlightenment, and is complimented by science, I think it is the way of God. I also know enough to know there is so much more to know that I what I can learn a life time. There is no way I could possibly engage in all the discussions in these forums, because some of them use language that is foriegn to me. My goodness there is so much I do not know. Socrates is known for saying soemthing like "The one thing I know for sure is I do not know". So now how can I possible tell you what is true of God? Come on, let us be reasonable. Religion is not how to know God. Making the comtemplation of God taboo, is closing the door on what we might know. That is like refusing to use the X factor. Bottom line is, unless you are willing to do the thinking, and to share your thoughts, you are not engaged in this discussion and the process of searching for God/truth. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this.

How would anyone know if God says it is alright to kill? It appears to me you are thinking of a Zues like God. The understanding of God I am using is nothing like Zeus or the God of Abraham. I thought I made that clear? I thought I made it very clear there is no God to please or displease, or make things right by saying so. The problem here is lack of knowledge of Greek philosophy so there is a failure to understand what I am saying. I said, the Greek philosophers concluded even the God's are subject to reason. We are speaking of the organizational force of the unviverse as God. We can not please it or please it, but only discover the laws and live in harmony with them or not. If we jump off the the top of a 10 story building and hit concrete, the impact is deadly, and prayers or burning of candles or animal sacrifices will change this. Now if we figure out a large kite and gust of wind can have a different result, one can safely soaring to the ground, we knows God law and we do not die. Has nothing to do with the whims of a God or a God's judgement, but is all about our knowledge of the law. What notion of god should we use to protect our liberty? How about a notion about ourselves? We can discover God's laws, that is what science does, but we can never be too sure of ourselves and what we think we know. We do not directly experience God, so we can not know his will. We experience God made manifest and we experience this through our senses and our senses are limited. We can lack vital peices of information or be decieved. So if a king orders a man be killed and left to rot in the feild, the sister can argue there is a higher power. This is vital to our liberty. God, the X factor , the higher power is, vital to our liberty. The concept of legal positivism is most important to this discussion. With the discovery of technology, legal positivism became very popular. NAZI Germany made it unpopular but the US has adopted the German model of education for technology and positivism. This is posible because we are unaware of all of it. Only a few well educated people who run for public office and take positions of power have a good understanding of this and the rest of us are easiiy lead. Effectively we are what we defended our democracy against. This link gives us awareness of law without God, and it does completely crush individual liberty and power. Now the sister can no longer argue, before kings sisters buried their brothers, because this does not matter. Legal positivism manifest tyranny. We have gone from understanding going by the letter of the law is tyranny, to believing being technologically correct is the end all. This brings justice with no compassion or wisdom, and that is not my idea of just. It is kind of like the legal system is a dead body, no longer the living spirit of the word. From here we can even imagine this dead body is an evil spirit that does have the power to spread death and kill a nation. http://plato.stanfor...gal-positivism/ That would be a wise choice if the reasoning I present is over your head, and you are unprepared to engage in this discussion. Heaven knowns, many discussions in these forums are over my head and I stay out of them. However, the political importance of this reasoning is not something people in a democracy should ignore, so I hope you continue to give some thought to these concepts, and come back with better reasoning. Yes, and Socrates was ordered to recant what he was saying and to remain silent or to drink the hemlock. Thank you for bringing this power struggle into the light. I hope everyone knows, Socrates chose to drink the hemlocik. This act is perhaps on of the known acts of defiance and fight for freedom of speech. You bring up an important point. At no time in history did all people agree. Within our cultures are many coexisting concepts. Democracy is a concept that is still evolving and it is tied to the Laws of Nature. Positivism which was manifest in NAZI Germany, is the emeny of democracy, and this is why I write. I use the name Athena because I favor the Laws and Nature and Nature's God. I very much aprecated your contribution Marat. This moves the discussion forward. How do we know the Laws of Nature and Nature's God? Why should we care? Everyone was ruling with a notion of God, and the belief that their leaders had a special relationship with God, except the Hellenist. Their education was not religious education, but became focused on political education preparing civic leaders. In contrast is Judism and the religious education of every other nation at the time. Jesus and Christianity did not orginate the concept of equality. The Hellenist who had control of Jersalem for awhile, had god's who were different but equal. They were not masters and servants but brothers and sisters, and democracy is an imitation of them. This reasoning impragnated Judism giving birth to Christianity. Yes, the Greeks had slaves and so did the US. Democracy is an ideology of relationships is different from a heirarchy dependent on heridity. The God of Abraham religions place much importance on heridity. That is what makes the arguments of John Locke about the Laws of Nature so important to moving us closer to democracy. He tells us, by the Laws of Nature we have rights. The bible tells us Jews can own slaves, and a slave honors God by being a good slave. The bible would have us believe, it is the will of God that makes some masters and others servants. Positivism isn't backed by the power of God, but neither does it give us the power of nature and human rights. Both religion and positivism serve power. It is the Laws of Nature and Nature's God that protect our individiual power and liberty. We have to understand Cicero to bridge between the philosophical concept of democracy as it originated from a belief in many god's to the democracy of the US. Cicero was a Roman stateseman who studied in Athenas, and centuries later, was one of the most read authors, bringing us to the democracy of the US. He makes it clear, if we do wrong bad things will happen. That is why bad things are are wrong thing to do. If in a game of poker you make a bad bet, you loose. If we polute rivers and deforest the land, we create problems. If we invade a country unprepared and loose control of the situation, bad things happen. These are Laws of Nataure. Verses thinking we are God favorite people so we will win wars, is as good as carrying a lucky rabits foot. WE CHOOSE TO DO RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THINGS WILL COME OUT GOOD. The moral is, if you make a bad decision, things will come out bad, and if you chose right, things will come out good. Morale is that high spirited feeling that comes out of being moral, and is the Spirit of America. Now how do we determine right?

Part of the problem is our words, or my failure to figue out the right wording. What does the word reason mean to you? If I say, there is a reason droplets of water fall from the sky and this is God. How do understand what I have said?

I have experienced some people are excessively resistant to the word "God". Not only do they try to end all discussions of God with the insistance that God does not exist, but they are intolerant of anyone using the word "God". This has terrible political ramifications and it is my intention to prove that. In general, civilized people favor rule by law. I recently learned of a sect of Hindus who practice cannibolism and are tolerated India, because they are eating only dead bodies cermated in the open or left in the river. This is perhaps more freedom than most of are comfortable with. At least some ecologist might object to leaving our dead bodies in the river. But exactly what do we mean by rule by law? Organized religion will tell you it is essential to know and obey God's laws. Okay, and how do we know God's laws? I have absolturely objection to the notion that we must obey God's laws. It is how we come to know God's laws that I question. Personally, I believe accepting an ancient tribal notion of God, and excluding all others, is wishful thinking lacking in critical thinking. Wanting to believe in a Zues like God, who has favorites, and does things by whim, depending on if he is pleased or not, is like wanting to believe in Santa Claus. This is not the philosophical understanding of God that evolved through Athens philosophers. This philoosphical God does not rule by whim. If we are punished or rewarded, depends 100% on our own knowlegde and judgment. We can not change the outcome of our actions, by buring candles or scarificing animals, or paying to God that even if we eat the whole pie, we will not get fat. God just does not work that way. In sharp contrast to the God of Abraham is Hellenism. Before Rome attempted to extreminate the Christians, at least one Greek leader attempted to exterminate the Jews and their superstitous notions. At this time, the Greeks did not have an argument with the notion of one God, because their understanding of God had advanced to accepting this reality. Rather it was a matter of who got to define God, and Hellenist did not like the Jewish understanding of God. Like this one dude ordered circumsized babies be killed and hung around their mother's necks, and then the mother was to be killed, for no reason other than objection to the Jewish understanding of God and wanting to rid the the region of those who clung to the God of Abraham. This resulted in the Macabee rebelliong, but that is getting off track. The root of Greek consciousness is of a family of gods and goddesses. Truly, humanity would not have advanced intellectually, without all these gods and goddesses. Each god and goddess is a concept, and by having them interact, our human intellect was rapidly advanced. The same as today, one science advances another. Greek mythology is the language of civilization, and Rome imitated it for the purpose of creating Rome. That is we create civilizations, we manifest them, through our consciousness. At the height of Athens power and glory, the philosophers asked, "how do the Gods resolve their differences". They concluded, reason is the controlling force of the universe, and even the Gods themselves are subject to this reason. That is, rule by law is understanding the reason behind the universe. Not a God like Zeus, but the force that is above even Zeus. Now how do we know this law? We know it by studying nature. That is, we come to know how the universe works by studying it and studying human nature, and then we do what scientist do. We use our words to define the laws. Then we argue with each other, until we have a consensus that the law is the true and good. However, things do not stop here, because we continue looking for more information and hold the right and duty to argue for a change in the law, if new information reveals the change necessary. In the beginning of the US, it was asked, to whom does God give His authority? The argeed answer is, everyone. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson writes of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. We could just as easily call our Declaration of Independence a Declaration of Responsbility, because it holds each one of us responsible for our institutions and laws. Now, from the times of ancient Athens this God trumps even the power of kings. So a king orders a man slain and that his body rot in fields, but his sister buries him. The angry king ask her why she dare ignore is commendment, knowing the penalty of violating his order is death, and she aruges, even before kings, sisters buried their brothers. That is, there is law greater the law of kings. THIS IS POLITICALLY, VITALLY IMPORTANT, BUT WE HAVE BECOME TECNOLOGICAL CORRECT AND FORGOTTEN THIS LITTLE PIECE OF THE MEANING OF RULE BY LAW. Atheist and all those who are completely intolerant of any notion of God, are condemning us to a new tyranny. The tyranny of an all power human bureaucracy and technological correctness. Rule by man's law exclusively, threatens to totally crush our individual liberty and power. Only by maintinaing a notion of God can we protect our liberty.

Whoo folks, see if you can get a copy of Professor Satyan L. Devadoss's lectures on "The Shape of Nature". His passion for math makes his DVD's inspirational. He can speak for several hours about knots and it is this mathematical knowledge of knots, that helps us understand mutations. With an understanding of genes and the math of knots, we can understand evolution and discuss this reality without the value judgment argument you all are having. I can not believe you are arguing over the use of the terms link and transition. Like what is the big difference between those terms, and who gives a rats ass? What thie discovery of different human species, does to our consciousness is far more important than if we are looking for a missing link or a transition. Actually in math it would be a transition. This information is as dynamic as discovering the earth circles the sun, instead of the other way around. That science was a terrible blow to religion. Today, if all humanity came from Adam and Eve, what was the DNA of Adam and Eve? How does this work mathematically? Now that is a discussion worth having. What happens to religion if science proves, as it did with the orbits of the planets, that Adam and Eve looked nothing like our pictures of them in Eden, but had natural fur coats that they could not take off. That would be awful! Than the figs leaves covering them would look totally rediculous and we would to rethink the whole story.

AzurePheonix, maybe we should we have a system for clarifying who is a scientist who sits with the gods and who is not. I am just a mortal, and for most of my life the term missing link was used to mean the species that is the transition from animal to human. Science has come a long ways since I was in high school. Give me some time to catch up, okay? Here is another recent find of a species that could be a transition to the naked ape (humans). http://www.guardian....-human-ancestor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moontan man, this is getting off topic, but you know it is my favorite subject. Athena had power because of her relationship with Zues. Without him, we may have never heard anything about her. Now back on subject. This thread comes up on google search so I want to add some information for people looking for informtion. These links are useful http://courses.washington.edu/archyaec/archy401/Naumann.pdf http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2010/10/archaeometry-determina http://books.google.com/books?id=MjoqRQE_xBYC&pg=PA7&lpg=P A hint for someone looking for simular information, use the word "rock" instead of stone for google searches. Rock art is a well established field of study. Secondly, if you google using the word "stone" you get information about kidney stones instead of rocks. Now my friend assures me he has contacted all the proper authorities and even has turned to the local police hoping they have equipment to better study the painted rocks. He has identyied something like 14 sites in his town, and is driving around town studying the rocks people have in their yards, and is telling them what they have dug out of their yards. Can you believe people had a rock carved into a nesting duck sitting in their front yard and had no clue it was an ancient artifact. They just assumed nature had made an interesting rock. I advised him to turn to the media and take some of the stuff to the schools, and explain it to the children. If he becomes a crusader and recruits the whole town into the crusade, we might have a major break through in knowing our ancient history. My Internet friend is the first to realize the town sits on a site and he is doing what he can to save it. Children have often been the first to make such discoveries. It was a young girl who discovered the rock art in the caves of France. If in the classroom they learn what they find may be valuable to our knowledge of history, and my friend collects this information, he may save this history. He needs to prove the town sits on a valuable site, before the authorities will be sufficiently motivated to take action, and even then their hands will be tied, because it is all private property.

Thanks, but the friend is just someone I know through a history forum and he is on the other side of the US. The find is all his. I am just trying to get information that he has requested, and thought you all were the best people I know for scince information. I don't fancy myself as a goddess. I just use the name to make a statement about what I believe is important. However, something I like about the Greek gods is they are not perfect.

Thank you Michel, it is all in knowing how to ask to the right question, right? Now I will return to the history forum where I am more comfortable, and pass the information on.

A human finger bone was found in an Siberian cave, well known for its Neanderthal remains, only this finger's DNA is not Neanderthal. This human may have been in Siberia long before Neantherthal. Perhaps we should be looking for the missing link, some place besides Africa? There appears to be agreement we came out of Africa, but our understanding of that migration is changing. http://www.nature.co...ll/464472a.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you fellows. I had the same reaction when my friend told me of his find. The problem is, there is already a city built over the site, and the rocks are coming out of people's back yards or the construction site. Only my friend is aware of the potential value, and he told one neighbor who took the rocks in her yard inside when he explained they could have value. He is a historian and knows something about this stuff, but not the science of it. Any way, I sent him the information for reporting the site to his state, and warned him to check the legality of taking rocks. He is having trouble with his camera but will start taking pictures as soon as possible. I also told him to map every rock, because the location of one thing to another is important. But can you imagine the damage that can be done with bulldozers and other heavy machinery. Ouch! This is priavte property not federal land, and that makes stopping the construction more difficult.