End times?

[nPeace]

It does indeed. But perhaps it also depends upon how much one is dependent upon others or some particular doctrine. I try to live as to neither.

I hear people say this all the time, but again, they are pointing fingers at others, and not themselves, without realizing that the same applies to them... in that, the person they think is "dependent upon others or some particular doctrine", is actually not, and thinks that the person who is claiming that they "try to live as to neither" is only fooling themselves, because the indeed are "dependent upon others or some particular doctrine"... but denying it... in some cases, without realizing that they are not actually being honest.

How does that happen? Think of the man that smokes cigars, and lives immorally, and all the while he is telling himself and others, that he is not influenced or affected by others.
Then years later, when he "comes to his senses" - realizes that he was actually fooling himself, he admits that.
You know how that works, I hope.
Deep down he knew, but it was masked by 1) not giving it serious thought (dismissing it); 2) convincing himself otherwise (denying it).

That's reality, is it not, Mock Turtle?
You'll probably say, "Not me. The other person."
That's reality too. The question is, how can we tell? The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes. So let's eat.

Can you prove that you are not influenced by anyone, or anything?

I think it is a natural affect of being an intelligent creature. We might not have survived and evolved as we did without such a need within us.

I suppose you also believe intelligence evolve too.

I took the time to do a little research for us.
So let's look at our notes from here.

The evolution of human intelligence is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the origin of language.

The origin of language (spoken and signed, as well as language-related technological systems such as writing), its relationship with human evolution, and its consequences have been subjects of study for centuries. Scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological evidence, contemporary language diversity, studies of language acquisition, and comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among animals (particularly other primates). Many argue that the origins of language probably relate closely to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the facts and implications of this connection.

Simple? Evidently not.
These hypotheses - and there are many - however, relates to humans, but what is the origin of intelligence, since humans are not considered the only intelligent life forms? Or are they?

The Origin of Intelligence
Michio Kaku: In the entire universe the two greatest scientific mysteries are first of all the origin of the universe itself. And second of all the origin of intelligence. Believe it or not, sitting on our shoulders is the most complex object that Mother Nature has created in the known universe. [] You have to go at least 24 trillion miles to the nearest star to find a planet that may have life and may have intelligence. And yet our brain only consumes about 20-30 watts of power and yet it performs calculations better than any large supercomputer. So it’s a mystery. How is the brain wired up? And if we can figure that out what can we do with it to enhance our mental capabilities.

I laughed through this entire article... not at Mr. Kaku, of course, just at us humans.

There’ve been about 20,000 or so papers written about consciousness and no consensus. Never in the history of science have so many people devoted so much time to produce so little.​

Simple? Not at all.
How does believing in these various ideas cause fewer issues though?

Just to get an idea of you thinking... Would you tend to agree with what this scientist thinks?

Let's take a look at simple.
Language and intelligence originated from man's creator, who gave man a mouth to speak, and a complex brain from which to understand and reason, as well as ...not to mention... function.

That's quite simple. You disagree of course, but why?
Would you say one is weighing all the evidence impartially, if they were to rule out the influence of any force outside the physical realm as the origin of the universe and mankind? What accounts for the obvious existence of orderly, purposeful design in creation?

Isn't it more logical to conclude that the universe and intelligent life is the product of a deliberate intellectual act from an intelligent source?
For example ...
When you look at this...

It's not hard to accept that these rocks - minus the road, and rails - at high altitudes got there naturally... or as a cause of natural occurances, but if someone argues that the road and bridge, are there, through natural processes, one would certainly think they are 'mad'... well mentally unfit.

Does it seem reasonable to think that man evolved from natural processes?

Even today, we know that mutations that cause a change, even as slight as this, does not cause generation down the line, to become ... what?
Would something like this

ever become something like a lizard?
Can you show any case where a "beneficial" mutation actually was "duplicated" into becoming a "perfectly" functioning different organism, through the process of natural selection?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I hear people say this all the time, but again, they are pointing fingers at others, and not themselves, without realizing that the same applies to them... in that, the person they think is "dependent upon others or some particular doctrine", is actually not, and thinks that the person who is claiming that they "try to live as to neither" is only fooling themselves, because the indeed are "dependent upon others or some particular doctrine"... but denying it... in some cases, without realizing that they are not actually being honest.

How does that happen? Think of the man that smokes cigars, and lives immorally, and all the while he is telling himself and others, that he is not influenced or affected by others.
Then years later, when he "comes to his senses" - realizes that he was actually fooling himself, he admits that.
You know how that works, I hope.
Deep down he knew, but it was masked by 1) not giving it serious thought (dismissing it); 2) convincing himself otherwise (denying it).

That's reality, is it not, Mock Turtle?
You'll probably say, "Not me. The other person."
That's reality too. The question is, how can we tell? The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes. So let's eat.

Can you prove that you are not influenced by anyone, or anything?

Well I suppose I meant here that I will take into account what others say and might accept such but that will not necessarily mean they rise in importance as to any other thing. For example, I read quite a lot of Tolstoy when younger - the non-fiction - and was quite taken by it, but at the same time I knew he had a religious 'moment' and became quite religious as a result. I can accept much of what he wrote (long gone now) but his religious beliefs didn't impact me - much like many others who perhaps come to similar views for whatever reasons. C S Lewis comes to mind but I've not read anything by him apart from seeing productions of his well known work. So I try to take whatever I read as being on its own, and try to disregard that it might come from someone I do admire as to their general work. I had already made my mind up by then as to religious beliefs even if I still had much to learn as to all the varieties available.

As to doctrine, well the nearest I have is in Socialism, but that is rather loose.

I suppose you also believe intelligence evolve too.

Well I can't see intelligence suddenly appearing - as a blessing from God, for example - so it must have evolved, like all other things associated with humans and all life. Given the time it has taken since we split from other species, there has been plenty of time for intelligence to evolve.

I took the time to do a little research for us.
So let's look at our notes from here.

The evolution of human intelligence is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the origin of language.

The origin of language (spoken and signed, as well as language-related technological systems such as writing), its relationship with human evolution, and its consequences have been subjects of study for centuries. Scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological evidence, contemporary language diversity, studies of language acquisition, and comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among animals (particularly other primates). Many argue that the origins of language probably relate closely to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the facts and implications of this connection.

Simple? Evidently not.
These hypotheses - and there are many - however, relates to humans, but what is the origin of intelligence, since humans are not considered the only intelligent life forms? Or are they?

See later (as to simple), but evolution is particularly the best answer when many other animal species do show intelligence.

The Origin of Intelligence
Michio Kaku: In the entire universe the two greatest scientific mysteries are first of all the origin of the universe itself. And second of all the origin of intelligence. Believe it or not, sitting on our shoulders is the most complex object that Mother Nature has created in the known universe. [] You have to go at least 24 trillion miles to the nearest star to find a planet that may have life and may have intelligence. And yet our brain only consumes about 20-30 watts of power and yet it performs calculations better than any large supercomputer. So it’s a mystery. How is the brain wired up? And if we can figure that out what can we do with it to enhance our mental capabilities.

I laughed through this entire article... not at Mr. Kaku, of course, just at us humans.

There’ve been about 20,000 or so papers written about consciousness and no consensus. Never in the history of science have so many people devoted so much time to produce so little.​

Simple? Not at all.
How does believing in these various ideas cause fewer issues though?

Just to get an idea of you thinking... Would you tend to agree with what this scientist thinks?

Just one scientist. I don't know how we became more intelligent, but I would perhaps suggest it was a combination of so many different qualities and abilities that helped us become so, together perhaps with climate change forcing us in some way too - ice ages and such.

Let's take a look at simple.
Language and intelligence originated from man's creator, who gave man a mouth to speak, and a complex brain from which to understand and reason, as well as ...not to mention... function.

That's quite simple. You disagree of course, but why?

Well many other creatures have some of the attributes we have - and fit into their particular environment quite well - perhaps something changed so as to force us in some way - to go extinct or to become cleverer. Fortunately we did the latter.

Would you say one is weighing all the evidence impartially, if they were to rule out the influence of any force outside the physical realm as the origin of the universe and mankind? What accounts for the obvious existence of orderly, purposeful design in creation?

Isn't it more logical to conclude that the universe and intelligent life is the product of a deliberate intellectual act from an intelligent source?
For example ...
When you look at this...

It's not hard to accept that these rocks - minus the road, and rails - at high altitudes got there naturally... or as a cause of natural occurances, but if someone argues that the road and bridge, are there, through natural processes, one would certainly think they are 'mad'... well mentally unfit.

Does it seem reasonable to think that man evolved from natural processes?

I think there is a fallacy lurking in there somewhere

.

Even today, we know that mutations that cause a change, even as slight as this, does not cause generation down the line, to become ... what?
Would something like this

ever become something like a lizard?
Can you show any case where a "beneficial" mutation actually was "duplicated" into becoming a "perfectly" functioning different organism, through the process of natural selection?

I think you misinterpreted my use of simple here. I meant that life without religious belief - as everyday existence - is often simpler, with fewer issues arising, and not that the development and evolution of life was simple. In that I think that religions - often unevidenced - often cause more problems than they seemingly solve.

I mean, I could point to the Taliban as an example of a belief system ensconced so far into the past that it is simply not viable for half the population - the females. Or the practice of circumcision. Few who have no religion would likely do it. Or attitudes to the LGBTQ+ 'community', where it is probably the religious who have the larger issues with such.

I don't expect every person to be their own scientist, but the whole basis of science is that many of the different fields within science tend to support whatever hypothesis or theory that might be the best explanation given the current state of knowledge. Otherwise the theory or whatever wouldn't last long. Evolution has been around long enough to have survived mostly intact. The alternative? To believe one or more ancient texts, and perhaps contradicting each other, and purporting to be the truth? An easy choice for me. I don't expect science to be 100% correct as to explanations, but it is a far more reliable means of looking at the world than much else in my view.

 

[nPeace]

Doesn't imply much else though, in my view. And the corollary to this might show that in our attempts to know so much we make many mistakes as to finding reasons for all sorts of things - hence religions.

Yes. Religion came about because man does recognize his need for 'worship'. In other words, he does realize that within him, there is that 'spiritual need' - a need for more than physical things.
However, that need has an origin as well.
Scientists don't know that either, but again, it's simply explained with God in the picture.

Why does man have a sense of justice; a need for love; a quest for wisdom...?
If evolution was responsible, there is no reason why they should exist in all intelligent beings.

Difficult to remember back so far basically, but I know that my interests did seem more directed towards science and all the associated areas like psychology. Not been disappointed so far.

My need, like most others, is just in wanting answers to the many questions that arise from our actual ability to question things. Any beliefs I might have will arise from the answers I tend to get and to accept. As I have no doubt mentioned more than once, my initial doubts as to religious beliefs being true (any one out of the many) came from learning of the very existence of so many different religious beliefs, and the spectrum of such looking more like an exploration of this area than any one of them being true, even if numbers involved might favour one or two as to popularity. One soon gets over such issues as to popularity after some basic learning with regards to logic, fallacies, and all the rest.

I can certainly relate to the confusion religion causes. However, that is easily understood, when one considers how people choose one thing over another.

Say for example, I was rich... a billionaire.
I don't like going to the sea to bathe, because 1) there are people I will see there, whom I don't like, and don't want to be around, or 2) for one reason, or other, I just don't like sea water.
What would I do?

I will make my own 'sea', where I don't have to see certain people... I can be with whom I want, and my sea can be the way I like it.

The only thing is, I now have to clean my pool. It's easier to get contaminated from pathogens. I don't get the benefits of the natural saline, and the therapeutic benefits.

This illustrates religion... why so many, and why they all differ. More importantly, why the different religions do not excuse rejection of all.
The sea is still the real thing, regardless of how many 'seas' men make.

The many religions people make or choose for their own liking, do not replace true worship, or real 'religion'.
2Timothy 4:3

Pure worship - like the sea - did not come about, after man. It existed before, so it is not a product of man - his invention. That's false religion, or religion - a form of worship.
Again, the creator is the source of pure worship, and that's why it benefits those who join it. John 13:35; Isaiah 2:2-4

Simple. Fewer issues.
Which government has ever united people of different races, backgrounds, or cultures, in love, internationally?
None, but one. God's kingdom - government.

The nations stole Isaiah's quote, but none of them has been able to accomplish it.

Except one nation. The nation under God's government.
1 Peter 2:9
Would you not agree that people loving each other, and not warring against each other, is a great accomplishment?

Like many no doubt, I will respect the views of those who I consider to be intellectually my equal or better - with many being the latter of course - but also, like many, I will not be influenced by the larger majority who I know will be doing less thinking than myself. Plus all the rest as to any education they might have had or not had. Just a fact of life.

You might say that unless I have studied some particular scripture - where such might have come from learned individuals or even some divine source - then I cannot say I have been honest in appraising what others believe and have only been selective - choosing the scientific path, for example. But equally, how many believers have studied more than their own faith to any depth? For me, such is too much of a task, especially when so much more needs to be understood.

Ah. So you admit that you are not being reasonable, but you justify that by pointing fingers.

It may surprise you to know that the true believers - more than 90% have studied more than their own faith to the greatest depth.
Would you like proof?
I'll give you at least two.
Google "Mankind's search for God", and "The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking".

If you need more, just let me know.
I can let you hear from scientists who study more than you do, and explain why they accept that life was created.

I'd rather not use the word 'evil' at all. I prefer to look at human behaviour as part of our inheritance from the past - our more 'animal nature'. And you'll either agree that we have a long history as to such - from 300,000 years ago perhaps but where there was no exact point when we suddenly became 'human' - or you'll have the view that 'humans' were created by God (as something separate from all other life). If the latter, we will not have much to discuss, since I don't believe this.

That's good. Let's discuss it then.

All I'm saying is that we humans, as individuals, all tend to be different in so many ways, with a spectrum of such for each of these different ways, such that we cannot pronounce as to some being evil when whatever they are as individuals or perhaps have suffered might just be some extreme end of any spectrum. Combinations of whatever traits we have often set people up to be towards the 'evil' end of the spectrum, and this is often added to by all sorts of mental health issues. Plus the treatment people get within society often contributes.

So how can we be judgmental and condemning so often when often people are simply expressing what they born with or develop over time? The 'evil' concept to me is just not a useful one.

Don't people disagree with the idea, that people are "born that way," and isn't it the case, there is no consensus on that... not that popular opinion matters, anyhow.

I could point out the many who have done horrible deeds when young but who have gone on to live apparently decent lives, whilst others haven't. The difference so often - the former had anonymity and managed to get over whatever they did whilst the latter perhaps never did. All were labelled as evil at the time though.

So there is such a thing as "horrible things" - evil... or have I misunderstood. Can you clarify please?

I find people are generally happier whe people do not do horrible things.

Abuse

Rape

Burglary

...and the list goes on.
Do you find that to be the case as well?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes. Religion came about because man does recognize his need for 'worship'. In other words, he does realize that within him, there is that 'spiritual need' - a need for more than physical things.
However, that need has an origin as well.
Scientists don't know that either, but again, it's simply explained with God in the picture.

Well it is one explanation but not the only one. Some believe in the many gods theory rather than a single God. And I'm still doubtful as to any needs of humans directly corresponding with this need to worship some God. I can understand the need to understand so many things, and perhaps for meaning in life, but such need not be attached to some God - in my view at least.

It is obviously a very convenient explanation as to why we have what we have, but perhaps some of us are just not so satisfied, and indeed do not feel such needs. Perhaps some of us are almost content (can't say content because having no answers is not truly being content) to not have such beliefs. And if so many weren't educated/indoctrinated into a religious belief in the first place, or via their culture, perhaps we might see a difference in numbers here.

Why does man have a sense of justice; a need for love; a quest for wisdom...?
If evolution was responsible, there is no reason why they should exist in all intelligent beings.

I think much of this will just evolve from our forming groups and subsequent social behaviour, and we certainly do have a leg start on most other life as to intelligence, but I think it is so many other things, that have all come together, so as to give us this advantage and not to other life. One only needs look at the numbers of creatures that have similar hands to us, from those the size of a mouse to our cousins the other primates, to see that many other things would have to change for them to acquire greater intelligence. Why would they need greater intelligence when they fit in the niche they have made?

I can certainly relate to the confusion religion causes. However, that is easily understood, when one considers how people choose one thing over another.

Say for example, I was rich... a billionaire.
I don't like going to the sea to battle, because 1) there are people I will see there, whom I don't like, and don't want to be around, or 2) for one reason, or other, I just don't like sea water.
What would I do?

I will make my own 'sea', where I don't have to see certain people... I can be with whom I want, and my sea can be the way I like it.

The only thing is, I now have to clean my pool. It's easier to get contaminated from pathogens. I don't get the benefits of the natural saline, and the therapeutic benefits.

This illustrates religion... why so many, and why they all differ. More importantly, why the different religions do not excuse rejection of all.
The sea is still the real thing, regardless of how many 'seas' men make.

The many religions people make or choose for their own liking, do not replace true worship, or real 'religion'.
2Timothy 4:3

Pure worship - like the sea - did not come about, after man. It existed before, so it is not a product of man - his invention. That's false religion, or religion - a form of worship.
Again, the creator is the source of pure worship, and that's why it benefits those who join it. John 13:35; Isaiah 2:2-4

Simple. Fewer issues.
Which government has ever united people of different races, backgrounds, or cultures, in love, internationally?
None, but one. God's kingdom - government.

The nations stole Isaiah's quote, but none of them has been able to accomplish it.

Except one nation. The nation under God's government.
1 Peter 2:9
Would you not agree that people loving each other, and not warring against each other, is a great accomplishment?

The amount of conflict between the various faiths, and as to which continues without an end in sight, still tells me more about religious beliefs being a more normal natural phenomenon than actually coming from God, even where one God is involved.

Ah. So you admit that you are not being reasonable, but you justify that by pointing fingers.

I'm being reasonable in that I try to look at the larger picture - placing all religious beliefs into some framework so as to understand them. To me, they are simply explorations of the spectrum of available beliefs concerning such an area. These beliefs too have evolved just as we humans have, in that they all came from earlier and more primitive beliefs - giving agency to thunder, lightning, etc., for example. And as we became more sophisticated so did the beliefs. It is quite natural that many beliefs would evolve to settle on a single God - since it probably makes more sense than most other such beliefs - but that hardly means it is in fact true.

For me, it is the lack of evidence plus the damage they have caused (will still cause) and the fact that many can live quite well without such beliefs as to why I don't believe and don't feel such a need.

It may surprise you to know that the true believers - more than 90% have studied more than their own faith to the greatest depth.
Would you like proof?
I'll give you at least two.
Google "Mankind's search for God", and "The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking".

If you need more, just let me know.
I can let you hear from scientists who study more than you do, and explain why they accept that life was created.

Worldwide, I doubt that is true as to all religious beliefs being studied to the same depth - which is what I might have to do if I was fair to all religions.

(As to the concept of 'evil')
That's good. Let's discuss it then.


Don't people disagree with the idea, that people are "born that way," and isn't it the case, there is no consensus on that... not that popular opinion matters, anyhow.


So there is such a thing as "horrible things" - evil... or have I misunderstood. Can you clarify please?

What I mean is that people do often do things that are considered to be evil, or the worst form of bad behaviour that one could do, but that there is usually a path leading to such behaviour - caused by so many things no doubt - and that they themselves are not the 'evil' that is often designated by some religious beliefs. So it is the actions rather than the individual that can be evil, even if I would rather not use the term at all. Given that some people seemingly do overcome their 'evil' nature, but where in fact it is their actions or behaviour that they have resolved. And this makes more sense to me than the use of the term 'evil', as used by religions, since it often leaves no place for the 'evil' one to go - or make any progress. It's like, we can rehabilitate some but not the 'evil ones', and which, for me, is a rather defeatist attitude and not even moral, given that 'we' are condemning some to exclusion by doing so.

I find people are generally happier when people do not do horrible things.

Abuse

Rape

Burglary

...and the list goes on.
Do you find that to be the case as well?

Horrible behaviour is possibly mankind's most consistent trait - but fortunately most are not so infected. All the above are behaviours, and an end result of some process - whatever that might be. At some point the links in the chain that formed to make such possible could have been broken. Why weren't they? But labelling someone evil will probably never stop anyone from committing such acts.

 

[rational experiences]

Men just humans who think. Said God will destroy you in the end. Whether you are a good human or evil thinker. By your own mind and choice...what you choose as evil human known thinking.

Man was given the knowledge of what is good as a man and what is evil as a man.

So family mainly innocent ask. Why should I die because my brother who knows good from evil. Decides to practice by want any choice evil?

So we pray.

We pray for answers. Everywhere in every country. The same motivation. Innocent humanity family...mutual.

We live knowning our parentage first was innocent. As evil of man was chosen by knowledge of it only.

United family motivation their prayer.

Together gives us human answers for our life saving. Aren't wrong. It's consensus.

So I gained family visions. Victimisation I could not assist. I was angered at the Inhumanity historic of groups of just human men. Choices only.

Outright liars.

Agreed by human action to be a liar.

So I knew humans before me knew the same advice. Brought about human rights by implementing the human legal system.

And removed that identification ownership control away from science and religious science the medical Branch.

Electricity. Direct into the machine. Taken direct only out of earths mass direct for and purpose of invention only.

Human living naturally healer observed. Psychic medical reckoning a human's body malfunction. Meditative body assessment produces advice of the dysfunction. Medical applied out of nature garden or mineral type. Remedies. Psychic human innate conscious first position.

Scientist owns applies chooses weirder mannerisms by their human choice only. Says brain activity is explained as electrical. By science only word use. I want. Not what is.

And it's not electricity that kills burns biology.

My choice of words is bio chemical causes in an organic living owned holy life status. One and holy as already existing as one. Body type. Brain body activity.

Not notified if not human living.

The difference between telling the truth or existing as a coercive destroyer of life.

Just humans. Bad human chosen behaviour. Taught sophists contrivance was word use only by their choice.

Science is a secondary position to natural lifes first legal position.

Once legally it was stated with God. As the testimonial life attacked hurt was against human sciences.

Why the legal system was implemented to state equality is by governing only.

 

[nPeace]

Well I suppose I meant here that I will take into account what others say and might accept such but that will not necessarily mean they rise in importance as to any other thing. For example, I read quite a lot of Tolstoy when younger - the non-fiction - and was quite taken by it, but at the same time I knew he had a religious 'moment' and became quite religious as a result. I can accept much of what he wrote (long gone now) but his religious beliefs didn't impact me - much like many others who perhaps come to similar views for whatever reasons. C S Lewis comes to mind but I've not read anything by him apart from seeing productions of his well known work. So I try to take whatever I read as being on its own, and try to disregard that it might come from someone I do admire as to their general work. I had already made my mind up by then as to religious beliefs even if I still had much to learn as to all the varieties available.

As to doctrine, well the nearest I have is in Socialism, but that is rather loose.

I understand that people form their own "philosophies". After all, we are human beings, not animals, as some would have us believe.
We are different to animals, as we are not driven by instinct, but rather, we analyze, rationalize, and personalize. In other words, we make choices based on what we take in through our various senses - whether those choices are based on personal desire, or not... as is the case with the Christian.
I mean, would you want someone to throw you in an enclosure with hungry lions, or burn you on a stake, on a slow fire, from your feet up?
The choice to follow faith, is not based on a personal desire, but rather, on an informed choice to do what we know is right - to follow and stick to the way of truth.

Of course, you know... I'm sure you won't deny... Some people... Actually, many people, choose to do what they prefer to. Not because it's right, but because it feels good. They know within themselves, it's wrong, and has consequences.
For example, a man will sneak into another man's house, to have intercourse with the man's wife, because he wants to satisfy his desire. He would make excuses as to why he is right, and convince himself of that too.

Similarly, many religious people do the same. They abandon truth, to follow their own way... their own philosophy... for their own desires.
So, you would agree, we can be influenced by others - the world around us; what we take in through our senses - and we form our own philosophies... our own ideas. Agreed?

Well I can't see intelligence suddenly appearing - as a blessing from God, for example - so it must have evolved, like all other things associated with humans and all life. Given the time it has taken since we split from other species, there has been plenty of time for intelligence to evolve.

As a blessing from God? How does that work?
How about as part of your brain which was obviously designed.
If you can believe that blind undirected processes created the brain, why is it hard to accept that an intelligent agent designed the brain, which acts as the motherboard of the body?

Your computer has a motherboard, of course. Try taking out the motherboard. Now examine it closely. What do you see?

Do you think those hundreds, or thousands of connectors are all correctly placed?
I'm sure you agree, that if they were not, we would not have anything called a computer.

Now take out your brain Examine it closely,

What more can I say.
If I did not have a brain, I would not be mind boggled at trying to fathom, how one can believe that the motherboard requires an intelligent designer, but the brain does not.
Notice, I said intelligent. Natural selection isn't.

See later (as to simple), but evolution is particularly the best answer when many other animal species do show intelligence.

Why is evolution the best explanation?
How can something that has no foundation; no basis; no origin; no get-go; no starting point, be the best explanation?

Just one scientist. I don't know how we became more intelligent, but I would perhaps suggest it was a combination of so many different qualities and abilities that helped us become so, together perhaps with climate change forcing us in some way too - ice ages and such.

If an unintelligent entity is bludgeoned with extreme and unexpected circumstances, I see extinction, before 1 million years.
There is no possible way for survival, unless evolution on that scale can occur, in "a blink of an eye", and that's not science.
Creatures adapt. We see that, but major changes... never happened... not in a million years.
So I think you have some explaining to do.

Well many other creatures have some of the attributes we have - and fit into their particular environment quite well - perhaps something changed so as to force us in some way - to go extinct or to become cleverer. Fortunately we did the latter.

A miracle.
You seem to have read my thoughts, since I was thinking about that recently.
They say...
'We can't explain why "the universe is fine-tuned for life" - why there is no anti-mater; how inflation started, increased in speed, and then slowed, but that's what must have happened, because we are here... we were lucky "nature got it right".
"We don't know that the early earth was oxygen laden, but it must have been for life to begin, because we are here."

Then they say, 'We don't believe in miracles." ...but they keep creating them Mock Turtle, and then believing in them.
They might as well believe in God since they already believe in things the cannot see, have never seen, cannot prove, and do not know actually was.

I think there is a fallacy lurking in there somewhere

Well come on. Don't just keep it to yourself. Let's hear it. We are discussing it, aren't we?

I think you misinterpreted my use of simple here. I meant that life without religious belief - as everyday existence - is often simpler, with fewer issues arising, and not that the development and evolution of life was simple. In that I think that religions - often unevidenced - often cause more problems than they seemingly solve.

Thanks for clarifying.
You must really be reading my mind.
Feel free to comment in this thread.
What do you mean by "religions - often unevidenced"?

I mean, I could point to the Taliban as an example of a belief system ensconced so far into the past that it is simply not viable for half the population - the females. Or the practice of circumcision. Few who have no religion would likely do it. Or attitudes to the LGBTQ+ 'community', where it is probably the religious who have the larger issues with such.

I can understand that.
I think some people who are in religious groups are quite lost, because either they don't let go of their own ideas, or they don't understand, or don't want to, or...
You understand.

Remember though... there is only one sea. Pointing to a swimming pool, and telling me, that means the sea must be no different than the swimming pool does not make sense, does it?

I don't expect every person to be their own scientist, but the whole basis of science is that many of the different fields within science tend to support whatever hypothesis or theory that might be the best explanation given the current state of knowledge. Otherwise the theory or whatever wouldn't last long.

Not exactly, Mock Turtle.
When I have the time, I will search for the article, that showed theory that were around for a long time (Speaking under correction, I think one lasted more than 100 years) before being "sacked". This, although there were contending 'theories', and differing views. All the fields of study did not agree, and in some cases there were based on limited study.

Evolution has been around long enough to have survived mostly intact. The alternative? To believe one or more ancient texts, and perhaps contradicting each other, and purporting to be the truth? An easy choice for me. I don't expect science to be 100% correct as to explanations, but it is a far more reliable means of looking at the world than much else in my view.

Well, that's your view, which is different to many other views, but I don't want our discussion to be about my view, your view.
I hope to discuss why your view has any basis against another view, and what reasonable basis you have for rejecting the other view.
I hope we can discuss that.

I want to apologize for the long delays in my responses, and I have to respond to your other post, some time later.
I've been quite busy, and I have a meeting to attend in a few minutes, and a program to view for most of the day, but I look forward to our conversation. Later.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I understand that people form their own "philosophies". After all, we are human beings, not animals, as some would have us believe.
We are different to animals, as we are not driven by instinct, but rather, we analyze, rationalize, and personalize. In other words, we make choices based on what we take in through our various senses - whether those choices are based on personal desire, or not... as is the case with the Christian.

Well we are still animals, despite claims otherwise, and having as many instincts as so many other animals have, but no doubt different in many ways because of the environment in which we live and our needs as opposed to those of other animals. We might use reason much of the time but we are often irrational much of the time also. From the evidence I've come across, it seems religious beliefs of whatever sort are more likely to be based on feelings than thought. Many are seemingly content with this and many not so much.

The choice to follow faith, is not based on a personal desire, but rather, on an informed choice to do what we know is right - to follow and stick to the way of truth.

If so, why wouldn't all choose the same religious belief? What makes your religion more correct than others when it is more likely that you have grown up with such (even as to education or culture) or that it appeals to you.

Of course, you know... I'm sure you won't deny... Some people... Actually, many people, choose to do what they prefer to. Not because it's right, but because it feels good. They know within themselves, it's wrong, and has consequences.

Similarly, many religious people do the same. They abandon truth, to follow their own way... their own philosophy... for their own desires.
So, you would agree, we can be influenced by others - the world around us; what we take in through our senses - and we form our own philosophies... our own ideas. Agreed?

Well I believe it is our duty - to oneself at least - to get as accurate information as one can and to be as impartial as to deciding any truth relevant to such. I think some knowledge as to mathematics, statistics, and probability helps here, along with some decent knowledge of science. And these should come before deciding whether any particular religious belief has any truth - as to any factual origins rather than essential truths concerning humankind. Many seem to try to fit science into their particular religious belief, which to me is a forlorn hope, especially when they discard any aspect of science without a proper understanding of such.

(Referring to intelligence not being a blessing from God)
As a blessing from God? How does that work?

It doesn't. Which is what I said - that intelligence, like language, and probably consciousness, are as much evolved characteristics as so many of the other things that we accept as being natural for humans.

How about as part of your brain which was obviously designed.
If you can believe that blind undirected processes created the brain, why is it hard to accept that an intelligent agent designed the brain, which acts as the motherboard of the body?

Well apart from the long time period over which humans have developed, and as to which all sorts of characteristics could have developed, what makes it more obvious for me is that intelligence is common in other animal species too. What we know now is sufficient to recognise this but we are still in the early stages of understanding exactly how other animals use their intelligence. The fact that many hardly recognise this intelligence in other species mostly comes from the fact that they are trying to measure this by human intelligence. A decent study of animal behaviour and intelligence might help many to understand how we are not so different in many ways. The fact that we can bond with so many different species should make some question the human/animal gap if they believe in such.

Your computer has a motherboard, of course. Try taking out the motherboard. Now examine it closely. What do you see?
Now take out your brain Examine it closely,

Well, computers too evolved from very basic beginnings - using valves even before transistors were invented - so I think your argument is on shaky ground here, even if the comparison was valid - which it isn't - given that our brains would have looked very different millions of years ago - so aligning more with evolution than by design.

I mean, how can you explain the rather large time period over which all life has developed other than refuting such? Where was the design from God when there was a sufficient time period for our brains to develop? It just makes little sense. And seemingly is why so many are prepared to throw out evolution - because it is the better explanation rather than 'God did it'.

Have you actually read On the Origin of Species by Darwin. I have (long ago), and I have followed much of the progress since. If anything has come to replace the best explanation so far as to why we have so many different species, including humans, I have not come across it yet. Not one that has affected the vast majority of scientists at least, and who I trust will have rather superior knowledge than myself.

If an unintelligent entity is bludgeoned with extreme and unexpected circumstances, I see extinction, before 1 million years.
There is no possible way for survival, unless evolution on that scale can occur, in "a blink of an eye", and that's not science.
Creatures adapt. We see that, but major changes... never happened... not in a million years.
So I think you have some explaining to do.

Well I think the verdict is out as to what caused us to become more intelligent. It could be many things, but the development of language or our sociability are two main ones - perhaps more likely the latter, given that many other social animal species also show intelligence.

A miracle.
You seem to have read my thoughts, since I was thinking about that recently.
They say...
'We can't explain why "the universe is fine-tuned for life" - why there is no anti-matter; how inflation started, increased in speed, and then slowed, but that's what must have happened, because we are here... we were lucky "nature got it right".
"We don't know that the early earth was oxygen laden, but it must have been for life to begin, because we are here."

Then they say, 'We don't believe in miracles." ...but they keep creating them Mock Turtle, and then believing in them.
They might as well believe in God since they already believe in things the cannot see, have never seen, cannot prove, and do not know actually was.

I'm of an age not to be bothering so much with such things now. It's like going over old ground with a less capable mind. So I'm sure you will understand as to why I will not want to get into detailed discussion over much of this. Even if some things have changed over the decades, the basics of the time period and as to evolution being the best explanation still remain.

(As to something having the appearance of design)
Well come on. Don't just keep it to yourself. Let's hear it. We are discussing it, aren't we?

I have a quite unique rock I found in a cave many decades ago (below). It looks like it was turned on a lathe - looking like a typical depiction of a rather fat flying saucer. It in fact was produced by erosion over a long period of time by fluctuating water flow within a cave passage. Such a simple deception unless one knew where it came from. The fact that something looks to be designed is not reason enough to assume it was.

[GALLERY=media, 8491]P4190210 - Copy by Mock Turtle posted Apr 19, 2018 at 7:31 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8492]P4190212 - Copy by Mock Turtle posted Apr 19, 2018 at 7:31 PM[/GALLERY]

What do you mean by "religions - often unevidenced"?

Mostly, religions rely on some particular religious text, with the veracity and provenance of such texts being important and often crucial to any basis for the religion. The fact that we have so many, and not all agreeing - would be pointless having so many different ones if they all agreed - might to some, like me, be sufficient to question any as to being evidenced. Apart from the fact that one has to place much trust as to any authenticity in ancient writings when we know that we can hardly trust much of the information we have today, and that they knew a lot less when such texts were written.

You can trust that such texts came from some divine source but you are basically taking such on trust. Not warranted in my view, since to me and many others, they all seem more like the products of humans. Especially when one must consider all the other religious beliefs. It makes more sense to view the many religions as simply evolving within human societies than to come up with an explanation as to why we have so many - like the Baha'i faith apparently does.

Not exactly, Mock Turtle.
When I have the time, I will search for the article, that showed theory that were around for a long time (Speaking under correction, I think one lasted more than 100 years) before being "sacked". This, although there were contending 'theories', and differing views. All the fields of study did not agree, and in some cases there were based on limited study.

What I meant here is that if the theory was not viable, one of the sciences might make it quite obvious. I'm not disputing that theories and explanations change over time, given that science is essentially the process at arriving more closely to the truth but might never reach such - given our actual knowledge updates regularly. The mere existence of Quantum Physics is why I am an agnostic, given it is still not fully understood. But even if there was some divine creative source, I still would have doubts as to religious beliefs, given the variety and all the trouble they have caused and still are causing.

Well, that's your view, which is different to many other views, but I don't want our discussion to be about my view, your view.
I hope to discuss why your view has any basis against another view, and what reasonable basis you have for rejecting the other view.
I hope we can discuss that.

I want to apologize for the long delays in my responses, and I have to respond to your other post, some time later.
I've been quite busy, and I have a meeting to attend in a few minutes, and a program to view for most of the day, but I look forward to our conversation. Later.

As I mentioned, I'm old enough to not want to go searching for evidence so as to back up any case I might want to make, given this has evolved over decades and my faculties and interest have waned somewhat over the years. Trying to prove myself right or as to anything being right is not for me now, so I hope you will understand this.

I can accept that many will have a religious belief but discussing such so as to come away with anything of value is hardly possible when we often don't agree on the very basics. Which is why I don't tend to discuss or argue over religious topics.

 

[rational experiences]

A basic human truth.

Destroy any machine you human designed and built control.

Exact human advice for inhumane human liars.

You see natural life itself.... over which you human own no control.

Is your egotist human lying man human history as agreed human man brothers. As self destructive behaviour.

By human mind thinking changed when you controlled a human controlled unnatural communications machines position.

No human. No machine either is exact answer.

No human. Answered by human thinker by. Would be to Stop human sex. Every human living would then age and die. Naturally.

Every other type of body you talked about as a human would exist without you. A human.

You aren't any God youre just a human egotist.

Exact human told human advice to an honest human thinker. To think only.

Honest means you don't lie about a natural human life's natural earth position.

 

[nPeace]

Well it is one explanation but not the only one. Some believe in the many gods theory rather than a single God. And I'm still doubtful as to any needs of humans directly corresponding with this need to worship some God. I can understand the need to understand so many things, and perhaps for meaning in life, but such need not be attached to some God - in my view at least.

It is obviously a very convenient explanation as to why we have what we have, but perhaps some of us are just not so satisfied, and indeed do not feel such needs. Perhaps some of us are almost content (can't say content because having no answers is not truly being content) to not have such beliefs. And if so many weren't educated/indoctrinated into a religious belief in the first place, or via their culture, perhaps we might see a difference in numbers here.

Fundamental laws or truths do not rely on us... I'm sure you know this, Mock Turtle. We rely on them.
Why do people think that God is something man came up with, as though God depends on us? I don't understand it. It's weird to me... but then again, I understand the reason. If I am in a room filled with thick smoke, it's hard to see my own feet.

I understand the thick gloom and darkness overwhelming this world. People can't see what is clear to those who escaped this darkness.
However, I am sure you would think there are scales on my eyes, preventing me from seeing - aka indoctrinated - can't think straight - irrational, but who is really blind - irrational - indoctrinated?

There is a reason why the true meaning of life eludes the world of mankind alienated from God, and why those connected to God find it.
It would take quite a bit of writing, to list the contrasts, but at the end of that writing, I believe you will be of the same mind, so I don't think it's necessary.

I think much of this will just evolve from our forming groups and subsequent social behaviour, and we certainly do have a leg start on most other life as to intelligence, but I think it is so many other things, that have all come together, so as to give us this advantage and not to other life. One only needs look at the numbers of creatures that have similar hands to us, from those the size of a mouse to our cousins the other primates, to see that many other things would have to change for them to acquire greater intelligence. Why would they need greater intelligence when they fit in the niche they have made?

Evidently the way some are looking at things is quite different to how many others are seeing things.
Have you ever seen an animal scratching itself?

For the vast majority it goes like this...

Not this.

Now can you make a list of animals that scratch with actually habds. How many can you come up with?
Those "hands" are in the eye of the beholder, or the lens one chooses to look through.
Untill we are willing to change our lens, we will always see things differently, and sadly, we are not willing, so we will have our eyes opened... a rude awakening, they say.

The amount of conflict between the various faiths, and as to which continues without an end in sight, still tells me more about religious beliefs being a more normal natural phenomenon than actually coming from God, even where one God is involved.

Lens again.
When one understands the nature of man which is so evident for all to see, they see something different.
Man usually lie, deny, and decry truth for their own desires, will, preference. Of course there will be thousands of ways to contradict truth.
Doesn't make truth void. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
So it's hard to see why some can't see that... if I didn't understand why they might not.

I'm being reasonable in that I try to look at the larger picture - placing all religious beliefs into some framework so as to understand them. To me, they are simply explorations of the spectrum of available beliefs concerning such an area. These beliefs too have evolved just as we humans have, in that they all came from earlier and more primitive beliefs - giving agency to thunder, lightning, etc., for example. And as we became more sophisticated so did the beliefs. It is quite natural that many beliefs would evolve to settle on a single God - since it probably makes more sense than most other such beliefs - but that hardly means it is in fact true.

I can certainly agree that they all came from "earlier and more primitive beliefs". That's obvious, as religion is the oldest and most closely related interest" of man.

However, the lightning, thunder, idea, is merely a belief based on ignorance - both to those who are religious, and non-religious.

It is no different in the scientific community. Some do come up with bizarre concepts to explain phenomenon, but that doesn't mean that all science is based on bizarre concepts.

For me, it is the lack of evidence plus the damage they have caused (will still cause) and the fact that many can live quite well without such beliefs as to why I don't believe and don't feel such a need.

I see evidence, and as far as good religion causing damage, I see none.
Instead, I see people rejoicing because of being freed in so many ways, from a long list of things that has the world gripped by the throat, and they are choking.

Anyone who cannot see the difference, is obviously blind, wouldn't you agree?

Good religion has freed people from those, and more.
Bad religion yes, of course... and what else would we expect, does cause damage, but what does that have to do with good religion.

Putting good and bad together doesn't seem to be reasonable.
Whatever happened to "A good tree produces good fruit. A rotten tree produces worthless fruit."?
Why would anyone want to ignore that basic truth, unless for their own convenience.

Worldwide, I doubt that is true as to all religious beliefs being studied to the same depth - which is what I might have to do if I was fair to all religions.

Are you relying on your feelings, or have you investigated?
I would investigate what someone is telling me, rather than deny it to be true, on nothing more than my feelings.

In other words, if you told me Atheists and Agnostics are openminded, I would not doubt you, just because I have a preconceived idea to the contrary.
I would want to investigate whether that were true, or not.
I found it to be true, because some have been willing to investigate what you doubt to be true, and found that it is indeed true.

What I mean is that people do often do things that are considered to be evil, or the worst form of bad behaviour that one could do, but that there is usually a path leading to such behaviour - caused by so many things no doubt - and that they themselves are not the 'evil' that is often designated by some religious beliefs. So it is the actions rather than the individual that can be evil, even if I would rather not use the term at all. Given that some people seemingly do overcome their 'evil' nature, but where in fact it is their actions or behaviour that they have resolved. And this makes more sense to me than the use of the term 'evil', as used by religions, since it often leaves no place for the 'evil' one to go - or make any progress. It's like, we can rehabilitate some but not the 'evil ones', and which, for me, is a rather defeatist attitude and not even moral, given that 'we' are condemning some to exclusion by doing so.

I agree with this. Good religion teaches this also.
However, a person who embraces evil, is evil, whether we deny it or not.
We define things. I'm sure you do too. Fat is fat... isn't it? It is not fat relative to our view, is it?
We teach children the difference between fat and thin; short and tall... Why not evil and good?

Horrible behaviour is possibly mankind's most consistent trait - but fortunately most are not so infected. All the above are behaviours, and an end result of some process - whatever that might be. At some point the links in the chain that formed to make such possible could have been broken. Why weren't they? But labelling someone evil will probably never stop anyone from committing such acts.

Hmm.
How were we "infected" with "horrible behavior"?
How might "the links in the chain" have been broken?

 

[nPeace]

Well we are still animals, despite claims otherwise, and having as many instincts as so many other animals have, but no doubt different in many ways because of the environment in which we live and our needs as opposed to those of other animals. We might use reason much of the time but we are often irrational much of the time also.

...but we are not evil, despite claims otherwise?

From the evidence I've come across, it seems religious beliefs of whatever sort are more likely to be based on feelings than thought. Many are seemingly content with this and many not so much.

More likely?
That reminds me of people who say, you are more likely to be like your dad.
Doesn't apply to everyone does it, and it's nothing more than a presupposition, which doesn't really mean anything much, by way of truth.
So why hold on to presuppositions. Why not get to know the facts, which would take you beyond preconceived notions? Isn't that what open-mindedness involves?

If so, why wouldn't all choose the same religious belief?

How many people do you think will always put the plastic bottle they drank from, in a garbage bin, rather than throw it along the street?
Wouldn't the law have to make them do it... using cameras, heavy fines, or other strict measures?
Everyone chooses to accept or reject truth or faith. It's not forced on anyone.

What makes your religion more correct than others when it is more likely that you have grown up with such (even as to education or culture) or that it appeals to you.

What made Jesus and his followers correct? It had nothing to do with being raised in the way, nor it appealing to them.
True religion has not changed.

Jesus and his disciples went against everything that appeals to our nature - family, friends, wealth, a comfortable life, popularity, "freedom"... you name it.
They were willing to be beaten, imprisoned, and even killed.
Who does that because it appeals to them?

Well I believe it is our duty - to oneself at least - to get as accurate information as one can and to be as impartial as to deciding any truth relevant to such.

I totally agree.

I think some knowledge as to mathematics, statistics, and probability helps here, along with some decent knowledge of science. And these should come before deciding whether any particular religious belief has any truth - as to any factual origins rather than essential truths concerning humankind. Many seem to try to fit science into their particular religious belief, which to me is a forlorn hope, especially when they discard any aspect of science without a proper understanding of such.

I disagree there, because science is not the only path to truth. It's not even a path to truth, as it proves nothing, and only seeks to understand the physical world... much of which it doesn't even understand.

Religion has been around for centuries before science, and it is by means of religion, that people have gained much knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.
Much of history is credited to religion.

I think the problem some people have, is they don't want to accept the idea that religion is in any way right, because of various reasons.
One is, based on what they have experienced.
For example, a man may remember his father beating his mother, while chanting how God loves his actions.
Another might remember "men of the cloth" torturing "heritics" to death.
Then there are those who, like one young man told me, he loves to ... do the things God hates. In other words, he don't like the "don't" word, and God uses it too much.

It doesn't. Which is what I said - that intelligence, like language, and probably consciousness, are as much evolved characteristics as so many of the other things that we accept as being natural for humans.
Well apart from the long time period over which humans have developed, and as to which all sorts of characteristics could have developed, what makes it more obvious for me is that intelligence is common in other animal species too. What we know now is sufficient to recognise this but we are still in the early stages of understanding exactly how other animals use their intelligence. The fact that many hardly recognise this intelligence in other species mostly comes from the fact that they are trying to measure this by human intelligence. A decent study of animal behaviour and intelligence might help many to understand how we are not so different in many ways. The fact that we can bond with so many different species should make some question the human/animal gap if they believe in such.

...

Well, computers too evolved from very basic beginnings - using valves even before transistors were invented - so I think your argument is on shaky ground here, even if the comparison was valid - which it isn't - given that our brains would have looked very different millions of years ago - so aligning more with evolution than by design.

Our brains did not look very different millions of years ago.
You obviously believe they did though. Why, may I ask?

I mean, how can you explain the rather large time period over which all life has developed other than refuting such?

Your own science books say that that idea cannot be proven... only believed. So there is nothing to refute.
It's simply one belief against another.

Where was the design from God when there was a sufficient time period for our brains to develop?

What do you mean by for our brains to develop? What did they develop from?

It just makes little sense. And seemingly is why so many are prepared to throw out evolution - because it is the better explanation rather than 'God did it'.

I think you meant to say 'why so many are not prepared to throw out evolution'.
It's because many believe it.
I don't think the reason many are not throwing out the Trinity is because it makes more sense. Do you think so?

Have you actually read On the Origin of Species by Darwin. I have (long ago), and I have followed much of the progress since. If anything has come to replace the best explanation so far as to why we have so many different species, including humans, I have not come across it yet. Not one that has affected the vast majority of scientists at least, and who I trust will have rather superior knowledge than myself.

Argumentum ad populum

 

[nPeace]

Well I think the verdict is out as to what caused us to become more intelligent. It could be many things, but the development of language or our sociability are two main ones - perhaps more likely the latter, given that many other social animal species also show intelligence.

I'm of an age not to be bothering so much with such things now. It's like going over old ground with a less capable mind. So I'm sure you will understand as to why I will not want to get into detailed discussion over much of this. Even if some things have changed over the decades, the basics of the time period and as to evolution being the best explanation still remain.

Because you are old?
You know what they say about old... 'stuck in their beliefs'.

I have a quite unique rock I found in a cave many decades ago (below). It looks like it was turned on a lathe - looking like a typical depiction of a rather fat flying saucer. It in fact was produced by erosion over a long period of time by fluctuating water flow within a cave passage. Such a simple deception unless one knew where it came from. The fact that something looks to be designed is not reason enough to assume it was.

[GALLERY=media, 8491]P4190210 - Copy by Mock Turtle posted Apr 19, 2018 at 7:31 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8492]P4190212 - Copy by Mock Turtle posted Apr 19, 2018 at 7:31 PM[/GALLERY]

I think you missed the understanding of design in its context. Not sure if this will help.
Using a piece rock sculpted to an arrow head, and comparing that to house constructed of hewn stones, has vast differences.
One requires the stones to be systematically placed together. They must be placed based on a set of instructions, or blueprint. They are placed in that specific way to reach an intended goal.
I may chip each stone differently, and one may not be able to tell if they were intentionally chipped or naturally.
Not so the house.

If I took each of your stones, and glued them together, to form a bowl, you would not question whether it was designed or not.
So, I find this use of simple structures to compare with obviously complex structures, equipment to building a strawman argument. Looking for something easy to knock down.... but that's far from what I am referring to.

Mostly, religions rely on some particular religious text, with the veracity and provenance of such texts being important and often crucial to any basis for the religion. The fact that we have so many, and not all agreeing - would be pointless having so many different ones if they all agreed - might to some, like me, be sufficient to question any as to being evidenced. Apart from the fact that one has to place much trust as to any authenticity in ancient writings when we know that we can hardly trust much of the information we have today, and that they knew a lot less when such texts were written.

Why don't we reason that way when it comes to money?
How many counterfeit bills are out there? Yet, the real money still is legit.

You can trust that such texts came from some divine source but you are basically taking such on trust. Not warranted in my view, since to me and many others, they all seem more like the products of humans. Especially when one must consider all the other religious beliefs. It makes more sense to view the many religions as simply evolving within human societies than to come up with an explanation as to why we have so many - like the Baha'i faith apparently does.

I don't think you have investigated.
For one thing, the Bible is unique in several ways.
For another, there is both internal and external evidence for the Bible being of a divine source.
So there is rational basis for trust.
If someone told me something 95 times, and what they said, checked out 95 time, why should I not trust the other 5 things I can't yet check?

What I meant here is that if the theory was not viable, one of the sciences might make it quite obvious. I'm not disputing that theories and explanations change over time, given that science is essentially the process at arriving more closely to the truth but might never reach such - given our actual knowledge updates regularly. The mere existence of Quantum Physics is why I am an agnostic, given it is still not fully understood. But even if there was some divine creative source, I still would have doubts as to religious beliefs, given the variety and all the trouble they have caused and still are causing.

As I mentioned, I'm old enough to not want to go searching for evidence so as to back up any case I might want to make, given this has evolved over decades and my faculties and interest have waned somewhat over the years. Trying to prove myself right or as to anything being right is not for me now, so I hope you will understand this.

I understand.

I can accept that many will have a religious belief but discussing such so as to come away with anything of value is hardly possible when we often don't agree on the very basics. Which is why I don't tend to discuss or argue over religious topics.

There are many people who had (Note... had. They no longer do) strong opinions against God and the Bible. Some were Atheists. Some argued.
What I found commendable about those individuals, is their open-mindedness, and willingness to investigate... in other words, examine what was being presented to them.
They did not close books on the topic. They were opened.

Are you? Surely, you are not too old for that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Fundamental laws or truths do not rely on us... I'm sure you know this, Mock Turtle. We rely on them.
Why do people think that God is something man came up with, as though God depends on us? I don't understand it. It's weird to me... but then again, I understand the reason. If I am in a room filled with thick smoke, it's hard to see my own feet.

Why, because we didn't start with such a belief - as you seem to agree here about earlier beliefs - and as I mentioned, most likely just an evolution of ideas and thinking that is as natural as evolution is in our physical and mental natures. And we still don't have a consensus on a single God.

I can certainly agree that they all came from "earlier and more primitive beliefs". That's obvious, as religion is the oldest and most closely related interest" of man.

However, the lightning, thunder, idea, is merely a belief based on ignorance - both to those who are religious, and non-religious.

It is no different in the scientific community. Some do come up with bizarre concepts to explain phenomenon, but that doesn't mean that all science is based on bizarre concepts.

Except that what you see all around you and use every day is witness to the fact that science in general works very well. Religions on the other hand are still warring with each other - because they are stuck in the past where they originated all too often. Hence why so many with religious beliefs seem to be at war with science when it fails to support whatever religious doctrine is espoused.

I see evidence, and as far as good religion causing damage, I see none.
Instead, I see people rejoicing because of being freed in so many ways, from a long list of things that has the world gripped by the throat, and they are choking.

Good religion has freed people from those, and more.
Bad religion yes, of course... and what else would we expect, does cause damage, but what does that have to do with good religion.

Bad religion being - that which is not yours? Well guess what, this is what someone of another religion might feel too. Religions have always enslaved people - to fixed beliefs mostly - and where some are rather more difficult to change than others. And all the things you quoted as being bad seem to happen across religions, and hence just being an aspect of human nature. Since when did any religion purge such behaviour from its religious followers?

 

[rational experiences]

Ask did science machine practice exist for a long time?...humans to get energy by making mass converted and forced alight consumed.... practiced?

No. For years science ending time...energy alight as then consumed wasn't practiced.

Oh. But you stated predicted end of times anyway?

You know no time in a future as you burnt light out!

Yes he said. Earth above us was still burning out natural light mass. It wasn't going to stop till 2012.

I know said the human scientist I caused it.

Where were you getting light from scientist? To end time.

Oh the ground mass body entombed as dead mass he says. I brought it back alive and sacrificed it.

So he knew what it meant...to end time.

What are you doing now then brother scientist?

I've got machines removing time again consuming light bodies.

Oh what's happening above then?

The same he says.

Okay what happens now... then?

Oh I've said you'll all get sacrificed bodily. Then probably it will re snap freeze water again. Just like I knew I caused before. It's why my scientists memory says I recreated the saviour myself...ice.

Oh thanks human brother for pretending you're God.

 

[Mock Turtle]

...but we are not evil, despite claims otherwise?

Not for me - given that I don't think evil is a useful concept, especially in the way that it is used by the religious most often. Praying for redemption and to become a better person is less likely to do so than understanding why someone has committed some bad behaviour and to enact something that does change them. Evil is more like a life sentence or execution condemnation, hence why it is not useful, given that change seems impossible but actually might be possible. And perhaps it is easier for the religious to accept - since they are so keen to follow rules and commandments - but not so useful in reality where we are all mostly flawed human beings.

I disagree there, because science is not the only path to truth. It's not even a path to truth, as it proves nothing, and only seeks to understand the physical world... much of which it doesn't even understand.

I didn't say science was a path to truth, but that what it shows us tends towards reality, and if one dismisses much of science then one is on the wrong road. Such things as how we are related to other life, how we have evolved, the age of the Earth and the universe, etc., all have good evidence so as to be believable as to being what actually happened. This is why I'm not so keen to discuss with you (and others) when they can't even accept what even the larger numbers of the religious also accept - as to science mostly reflecting reality - and as to why I'm too old to want to bother educating others when it is their responsibility to do so. If you prefer to believe some religious explanation why would anyone deny you of this?

I think the problem some people have, is they don't want to accept the idea that religion is in any way right, because of various reasons.

Well many religions might be right as to aspects of human nature - just as anyone who has keen observation might do so, and which can be seen in recorded literature over the ages. But, since we have so many different religious beliefs, and all not agreeing, we must conclude that they all cannot be correct, and perhaps none are. Given the option of choosing one is perhaps not so good when they appear much the same, behave much the same, and tend to have the same life histories - besides all the conflicts that have ensued from them.

Our brains did not look very different millions of years ago.
You obviously believe they did though. Why, may I ask?

If one looks at the skulls of our ancestors going back through time, the evidence we have (inadequate as it is given the understandable shortage of specimens) tends to show the shape has changed along with the size, such that this should be reflected in what the skull encased - the brain - and hence it is likely that the various bits of the brain have evolved as much as other parts of our bodies.

(As to the long time period over which humans have developed)
Your own science books say that that idea cannot be proven... only believed. So there is nothing to refute.
It's simply one belief against another.

Hardly, since as I mentioned earlier no doubt, all the various branches of science do not dispute this and in general support this as being true. If any part of science did show an anomaly then it would have appeared like a sore thumb by now. You will find very few scientists who disagree about the timescales of the universe, the Earth forming, life forming, and the evolution of the human species.

What do you mean by for our brains to develop? What did they develop from?

Earlier forms of such.

I think you meant to say 'why so many are not prepared to throw out evolution'.
It's because many believe it.
I don't think the reason many are not throwing out the Trinity is because it makes more sense. Do you think so?

No, I meant that is why many can't believe in evolution because they prefer to believe 'God did it'. For some that is, given that many with religious beliefs - perhaps the majority too - can actually accept most of science but still retain their beliefs in God. Given that they no doubt will just point to God influencing evolution or whatever - rather than the direct acting as some, like yourself, seem to prefer to believe - because it was written in the Bible perhaps and this must be taken literally.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Because you are old?
You know what they say about old... 'stuck in their beliefs'.

I think it is called wisdom - knowing when not to argue - when the other side has a set of beliefs not amenable to change. And if there is no common ground - as in our case - it is mostly pointless.

I don't think you have investigated.

Like you have investigated science?

There are many people who had (Note... had. They no longer do) strong opinions against God and the Bible. Some were Atheists. Some argued.
What I found commendable about those individuals, is their open-mindedness, and willingness to investigate... in other words, examine what was being presented to them.
They did not close books on the topic. They were opened.

Are you? Surely, you are not too old for that.

I'm too old to want to go back over so much material that has passed through my life. I have not changed my views basically since I was a youth, and have not come across anything so as to even nudge me in some particular direction, even though I have looked at much of the religious spectrum. Nothing in the paranormal either has ever crossed my path over my life to cause any changes either. The same can be said as to my own experiences, and even though I have learnt a lot, nothing here has altered my basic views as to religions and such.

As per so many threads on RF - not sure what might actually effect change when there is more to shift in knowledge and less to do this with. Given I am not the type to 'have faith' and accept written religious material as being factual. As mentioned earlier, I think it tends to be those more intellectually inclined who will not be religious, and the evidence seems to show this, whilst those who are religious are either more intuitive or feeling oriented. I think we should just accept such.

And such might explain the difference, or some of this, as to why females tend to be more religious than males:

Why Are Women More Religious Than Men? | Psychology Today

 

[exchemist]

...but we are not evil, despite claims otherwise?


More likely?
That reminds me of people who say, you are more likely to be like your dad.
Doesn't apply to everyone does it, and it's nothing more than a presupposition, which doesn't really mean anything much, by way of truth.
So why hold on to presuppositions. Why not get to know the facts, which would take you beyond preconceived notions? Isn't that what open-mindedness involves?


How many people do you think will always put the plastic bottle they drank from, in a garbage bin, rather than throw it along the street?
Wouldn't the law have to make them do it... using cameras, heavy fines, or other strict measures?
Everyone chooses to accept or reject truth or faith. It's not forced on anyone.


What made Jesus and his followers correct? It had nothing to do with being raised in the way, nor it appealing to them.
True religion has not changed.

Jesus and his disciples went against everything that appeals to our nature - family, friends, wealth, a comfortable life, popularity, "freedom"... you name it.
They were willing to be beaten, imprisoned, and even killed.
Who does that because it appeals to them?


I totally agree.


I disagree there, because science is not the only path to truth. It's not even a path to truth, as it proves nothing, and only seeks to understand the physical world... much of which it doesn't even understand.

Religion has been around for centuries before science, and it is by means of religion, that people have gained much knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.
Much of history is credited to religion.

I think the problem some people have, is they don't want to accept the idea that religion is in any way right, because of various reasons.
One is, based on what they have experienced.
For example, a man may remember his father beating his mother, while chanting how God loves his actions.
Another might remember "men of the cloth" torturing "heritics" to death.
Then there are those who, like one young man told me, he loves to ... do the things God hates. In other words, he don't like the "don't" word, and God uses it too much.


...


Our brains did not look very different millions of years ago.
You obviously believe they did though. Why, may I ask?


Your own science books say that that idea cannot be proven... only believed. So there is nothing to refute.
It's simply one belief against another.


What do you mean by for our brains to develop? What did they develop from?


I think you meant to say 'why so many are not prepared to throw out evolution'.
It's because many believe it.
I don't think the reason many are not throwing out the Trinity is because it makes more sense. Do you think so?


Argumentum ad populum

Invoking argumentum ad populum is a bit specious.

The reasoning is "I trust the experts". That is what we all do when we have not the time or expertise to examine an issue for ourselves and form our own conclusion. If we did not do this, we could not function at all.

 

[rational experiences]

The theist mind today theories no light terms as his science mentality.

A huge warning sign.

Biology lives warm blooded by atmospheric light conditions. Balances between burning light existing saviour ice melt sacrifice body.

Life biology is first place.

Not occult science that after nuclear human theories say I now believe AI alien is a part of God in science of God energy mass destroyed.

So you ask the theist. Is energy mass cosmic owned ...is it meant to be destroyed by humans.

A question he doesn't ask himself so family has to.

Your thesis your intent your lack of honesty to end created creation. Human men. No light by intention end of time humans claim is alight.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Invoking argumentum ad populum is a bit specious.

The reasoning is "I trust the experts". That is what we all do when we have not the time or expertise to examine an issue for ourselves and form our own conclusion. If we did not do this, we could not function at all.

Yeah, I didn't really bother with that one. I guess his 'expert' is 'the Bible'.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah, I didn't really bother with that one. I guess his 'expert' is 'the Bible'.

Yeah I know. These people tend to trot out faux-intellectual debating "fallacies" at the drop of a hat, usually mis-applying them.

 

[syo]

Are there Hindus who don't accept Kalki?

No. At least, not me.