• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Evolution Happens


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#31 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 October 2002 - 11:37 PM

Habitat and Human Selection

People Take Up Most of the Planet,
U.S. Study Says

Tue Oct 22, 2:29 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Humans take up 83 percent of the Earth's land surface to live on, farm, mine or fish, leaving just a few areas pristine for wildlife, a report issued on Tuesday said.

People also have taken advantage of 98 percent of the land that can be farmed for rice, wheat or corn, said the report, produced by scientists from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Columbia University's Center for International Earth Science Information Network (news - web sites) in New York.

Their map (news - web sites), published on the Internet (news - web sites) at Human Footprint Site, adds together influences from population density, access from roads and waterways, electrical power infrastructure, and the area used by cities and farms.

The few remaining wild areas include the northern forests of Alaska, Canada and Russia; the high plateaus of Tibet and Mongolia; and much of the Amazon River Basin.

"The map of the human footprint is a clear-eyed view of our influence on the Earth," Eric Sanderson, a landscape ecologist for the WCS, who led the report, said in a statement.


"It provides a way to find opportunities to save wildlife and wild lands in pristine areas, and also to understand how conservation in wilderness, countryside, suburbs, and cities are all related."

Environment & Nature
Related News Stories

People Take Up Most of the Planet, U.S. Study Says Reuters (Oct 22, 2002)
Sea Trout Loss Linked to Salmon Farm Parasite National Geographic (Oct 22, 2002)
• Report: Canada Needs Billions for Toxic Clean-Up Reuters (Oct 22, 2002)
Opinion & Editorials
Marine park protects more than penguins - 10/22/2002 - ENN.com Environmental News Network (Oct 22, 2002)
Bring Back Hetch Hetchy? NY Times (registration req'd) (Oct 19, 2002)
The Uninvited Pest NY Times (registration req'd) (Oct 16, 2002)
Feature Articles
In N.Y., Conservation Goes Underwater Washington Post (Oct 22, 2002)

#32 Cyto

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 23 October 2002 - 05:41 AM

Laz: But don't get me wrong I am in no hurry to release my body and even if I become cybernetic to survive I will seek to rebuild the organic base with a better model anyway. I like flesh, I appreciate touch, I enjoy color and fragrance. I simply want to augment and enhance the senses, body, and brain function, not replace them.


Limit: I appreciate human qualities, and would love to live as a human, with several modifications-making the design superior to the previous organism, but not stripping us of our humanity, completely.


:D Sounds good. :D



Humans take up 83 percent of the Earth's land surface to live on, farm, mine or fish, leaving just a few areas pristine for wildlife, a report issued on Tuesday said.


Sounds like a problem.

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#33 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,152 posts
  • 587
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 October 2002 - 05:52 PM

Ok let us take this up:

~17,000 species go extinct each year

why should this be a problem?

why should this be bad?

as long as we keep the few species that are still essential to human survival?


curious caliban

#34 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 26 October 2002 - 03:32 AM

Because despite beliefs to the contrary life is interdependent.

Where would you be without microbes in your body that are a part of your multicellualar symbiotic structure? Consider the life forms that are dying like the old miner's canary, as they go so do we. It isn't just displacement that is killing off species, it is our toxification of the environment, and that is killing and maiming us as well.

Many species we depend on are sensitive to environmental collpase, for example the honey bee. NO bees and we have to do nano, which still isn't online to pollinate all agriculture. Or are you advocating Zamyatin's World?

I am afraid that paving over paradise will bring on the social conflagration sooner anyway. You can count on a tooth and nail struggle to protect the environment if the powers that be get too cavalier and this will trigger massive unrest. Plus it is not pathogens and parasites that tend to die off it is the buffer species that are benign or supportive to us. The ones that act to hold the less common but more dangerous species in check. If we take the environment too far out of wack the likelihood is that it will find a new balance and make us pay for it with a pandemic whiile being overrun by parasites in our cities even worse then now.

This is a short synopsis but I think you can figure out the rest.

#35 Cyto

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 26 October 2002 - 08:08 AM

I understand you point and by all means the part about everything effecting us is true. But, I am looking for lowering dependencies on the enviroment (i.e. making my own food source like the possibilities with Golden Rice combined with hydroponics).

I know that my attempt to become independent from the enviroment will take time with the food and immortality and all but thats whats makes it so fun.

My field that Im looking to get into is Gene Regultion, its to make working with stem cells a lot easier to realize.

The grain is against me and all I can say is "Im working on it."

But hey, im just a student and I have a lot of time to read some more molecular cell B)

If species do start dying out though, I do think it is our duity to collect DNA to oneday "put them back, somewhere."

#36 Cyto

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 26 October 2002 - 08:16 AM

Oh and to add in some humerous religious stuff:

Me: "Evolution can be observed in the lab by growing a mustard weed at 10 degrees above the normal temp that it is used to. This produces altered leaves, altered colors and can gorw hair micro-roots to help trap water thus making it adapt. Could be either bad or good, depends on the eniviroment, but since it was hot chances are it would reatain smaller leaf size and the micro-roots, I dont know about the colors."

Wizrd75: "Why do you say you believe in evolution and only back it up with science?"

Wizrd75: "Your evading."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Yea, I know. Like talking to a peice of drift-wood.

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#37 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 26 October 2002 - 10:39 AM

I still do have a major problem with religion screwing up my chance at immortality.

[/size]
The first Immortals may not threaten God, but we do threaten the church, primarily by questioning its relevance. The main weakness of the churches--beyond the philosophical level of the grade school--is not that they fail to make Heaven and Hell understandable, but that they fail to make sense of the world.

Live Long and Well,
Rev. William Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by belief.
[size=7]


#38 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 26 October 2002 - 10:45 AM

I am not sure that I completely understand your post D-helix. While I say that their are no Catholic, Mormon, or Baptist armies, you are right in the fact that Christians do oppose cloning, and this does interefere a bit with the quest for immortality. I hear you on that point.


[/size]
As a person who could just as easily wipe his ass with the pages of the Bible as read them, attempting to argue against cloning because it's somehow against God's will doesn't hold much sway. I'm sure the same argument was being made when indoor plumbing was introduced to the world or when the electric can opener was invented -- or the can, for that matter. Can't you just hear somebody saying, "If God had wanted food to be in cans, he would have put it there himself." Personally, I think
Bible-thumpers should have to crap in buckets and wipe their asses with tree branches if they want to protest cloning.

Live Long and Well,
Rev. William Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by believe[size=7]


#39 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 26 October 2002 - 10:51 AM

I still do have a major problem with religion screwing up my chance at immortality.  That my sound selfish but, meh.  
I was born as a disposable soma, I will thusly protect the soma.




[/SIZE]
In the past 2000 years the public relations of death, as managed by the theologians of all creeds and every secular orthodoxy, has all but exhausted the ancient excuses of what Unamuno calls "the running away of life like water." Today we are in a race against time, racing our own apocalypse. We are reduced to the simplest of propositions, as a species we will soon solve the problem of death.

The Immortalist theseis is that the time has come for man to get rid of the intimidating gods in his own head, to grow up and out of this cosmic inferiority complex, bring his disguised desire for eternal life into the open and go after what he wants, the only state he will settle for, that is Immortality.

A new act of faith is required of us, a belief that with the technology we will soon have at our disposal, death can eventually be conquered. This faith must not accept as gospel that salvation that belongs to the theists, and our freedom from death will come only by science, not by prayer.

Almost all organized religions offer some sort of afterlife as solace for the necessity of physical death. Most forms of modern Christianity, for example, talk about eternal life only as a heavenly existence. Some of us simply don't buy that pie in the sky bye and bye.

Our hope of immortality does not come from any religion, but clearly all religions come from that hope.

Live Long and Well,
Rev. William Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by believe
[/size][size=7]

#40 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 26 October 2002 - 10:56 AM

Orthodoxy: That peculiar condition where the patient can neither eliminate an old idea nor absorb a new one.


Rev. William Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by believe

#41 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 26 October 2002 - 10:57 AM

Dogma, a lie reiterated and authoritatively injected into the mind of one or more persons who believe that they believe what someone else believes.



Rev. William Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by believe

#42 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 26 October 2002 - 11:05 AM

And plus who here really wants some faithers to see this site and decide to turn it into an AOL Athiest channel, you want to talk about ugly. heh

[/size]

Athiest are first movers in the field of Immortality. Atheist don't make the unconscious decision that we have to die. We don't assume that our fate is ordained by the laws of nature, or the laws of God. Athiest know that living forever is a practical and meaningful goal.


Live Long and Well,
Rev. William Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by believe
[size=7]


#43 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 26 October 2002 - 11:16 AM

So what will happen to religion or more specifically the religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity? These are powerful religions nonetheless with millions of followers for each. However, physical human immortality will completely turn these religions upside-down. The most integral part of all their beliefs centers on life after death. For example, to put Christianity in a nutshell, Jesus Christ has supposedly died and risen from the dead to go up in heaven with the Almighty Father. When people die, God judges them and whoever has faith goes with Jesus Christ in heaven and to those have no faith or are just simply "bad" go to Hell with Satan. Christian beliefs (or all religious beliefs for that matter), to me, are already completely nonsensical and are mostly myth and superstition anyway. But, assuming human immortality is already accomplished, what purpose is there for Christianity or for other religions to continue? "Life after death" is a foundation in which all religions stand on. Without this foundation, Christianity along with the other "powerful" organized religions, will totally fall into shambles. To survive, leaders of the religions would have to rewrite everything (The Bible, Koran, religious commandments and doctrines, etc.) or interpret everything to fit the parameters of human immortality. Doing any of this would be futile since followers of each religion will diminish at a high rate. Soon they will be reduced to nothing more than small cults and eventually will just be remembered as something similar to today’s Greek myths. Thus, physical human immortality will
logically destroy all of religions’ validity and integrity.

With the elimination of religion, a completely new way of thinking will likely to follow. It is difficult to imagine what a world might be like with billions of immortal human beings living on earth (or quite possibly on other planets)! Will people be friendly still? Will the world be a little more hostile to the younger people who are in their nineties? How will a 2000 year old confront a 325 year old? Like a child? Society will indeed change hopefully for the better. Just the idea of immortality gives people the opportunity to free themselves of a deathist mentality which in itself is quite fun and liberating. To the cynics that dismiss my predictions of human immortality and religion’s demise as utter nonsense, just try and foresee how the world will be like a 100 years from now. Remember, advancements in biology and technology are rising exponentially. Next, try and imagine 200 years, than 400, than 800, than finally 1600 years from now. Can religion adapt and play catch up? Will human immortality become at least feasible by then?

Live Long and Well,
Rev. William Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by believe

#44 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 26 October 2002 - 11:18 AM

The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them.

Rev. William Constitution O'Rights
The First Immortal

I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by believe

#45 Cyto

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 26 October 2002 - 06:37 PM

To survive, leaders of the religions would have to rewrite everything (The Bible, Koran, religious commandments and doctrines, etc.) or interpret everything to fit the parameters of human immortality.


I don't doubt this for a second.

#46 Anita

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 December 2002 - 10:37 PM

Religion is what is practiced by individual and cannot be forced into others unless they believe in religion. What I think is that one cannot judge others by his religion like if ur a christain then you always convert other. So now in India there is a huge cry for mass converts who are lured to christainity. If anybody ask us not to do a particular thing then we will be curious to do it. Like wise when we impose a law on banning convertion then there will be secret convertion going on which is now happening in India.

#47 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 23 December 2002 - 03:03 AM

The hierarchy, priests, or rabbi, or holy scripture, defined your right conduct, and so far as the after life was concerned, staying on the good side of God was the only thing that made any difference. This comforting arrangement for poor and mediocre people began to break down in the eighteenth century, and is now practically in shambles. They sing the old songs on cue, but almost no one really believes that goodness will help him continue beyond the grave.

The falling away of orthodoxy became unavoidable when masses of people began to realize that life beyond the grave was no longer being guaranteed. If the churches, synagogues and mosques couldn’t take care of that, they offered little but companionship before extinction. Consequently, those who had time to think beyond food and shelter began to take the drive toward immortality into their own hands. The Devil whispered again: “Ye shall be as gods

#48 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 December 2002 - 01:34 PM

The very concept of a separation of Church and State was as revolutionary in a political sense, if not more so than the idea of Democracy itself.

Democracy was a historical precedent, however vague and distant in Human History or confused in the hearts and minds of idealists, but never in the entire history of humanity had the idea of a State independent of the validation of theocratic authority been realized. The very notion was a common heresy.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"


We established a State independent of any single established religion or doctrine with an intent to remain objective in this regard, granting all citizens the right to practice their beliefs unhindered by state oversight and decree, but also without any one religion to be made "Official" as an institution of State.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


We did not proclaim Independence blithely or lightly, nor with such brazen and wanton disregard for the Rule of Law as to behave as simple hedonists or "libertines", "We the people" attempted to methodically and diligently lay the case for the establishment of a responsive government and system of law and social fabric that would be coherent and transparent to the governed as well as the governing. The delicate balancing of power would come later after long struggle and longer contemplation but the words that followed the above quotes were these:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


And we did... With greater alacrity with simple words, individual purpose, and more precise aim, we proved the ancient adage that words are mightier then the sword. Words alone would not have withstood the test of human mettle but it was the argument made in support of our claim that has withstood the test of time and inspire an Age of Revolution. We demanded a redress of grievance in the court of Public Opinion under the Principle of Common Law as defined not just by custom but of reason. We established that Law is a bottom up phenomenon determined by a freely associating people, not a top down imposition of the of Rule of Kings and Churches. We declared boldly that the idea of a Benevolent Dictatorship is an oxymoron.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


For those of you that still do not recognize this document and the quotes my friend William freely uses it is not a legal document at all. It is not the law of any land, it is the United States Declaration of Independence. It begins thus:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.



These were fighting words, some of the most imaginative and powerful fighting words yet heard in the political arena since the fall of the Roman Republic, but of even greater importance is the fact that they were Uniting Words.

In the above title realize that we were not yet called the United States of America, we were thirteen uniting States of America. Separate City/States and their respective peoples joining in a Union of like intent and common cause with regard to the fundamental principles of governance.

And everyone please take notice that nowhere does it say "One Nation Under God" but instead anticipates Darwin's Laws of Nature, and Nature's God as the source of divinity in each individual, transcendent of the State's or Institutionalized Church's attempt to define and establish said legitimacy for the individual.

The wildfire started upon this distant shore called the New World is one that shall not be extinguished so long as any can learn of its inspiring purpose. Even should this great nation fall, the hope that it has inspired will last so long as humans do, and such concepts shall endure. It is a rational principle that cannot even be extinguished by those that would turn a blind eye to the fact that its substantive message is a banner that has been taken up by Freedom loving peoples everywhere on this Earth, though much to the conspicuous chagrin of those vested interests that have come to rule in the Land where these concepts of Freedom were conceived, fought for, and established.

#49 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 24 December 2002 - 11:11 AM

well..... The bible is certainly of incredible literary importance. I feel toward the bible as I feel toward the legends of king arthur and the stories of the greek gods on mount olympus. It is part of our inherited cultural legacy.
Whether you believe in omniscient creator gods or not, does not change this fact.
I do not think it is worthless in as much as I don't think any book that has shaped the course of history in such dramatic fashion can ever be considered worthless by anyone with a respect for history. Reading and understanding the bible helps us to understand the foundations of western moral thought.
Moses and Jesus are literary characters of unsurpassed significance.

The problem arise when people try use to the stories in this book as a moral compass or even more absurdly, consider it an account of the creation of the universe.

#50 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 25 December 2002 - 12:02 PM

Fruit immortal
While I conceed that the bible is an important literary work, I believe that digging around in ancient holy books in search of metaphysical truths is a useless endeavor that will take us no closer to a longer lives than it took any of our dead ancestors.

Quote
................................................................................
....................
The old Testament proofs Physical Immortality in many scriptures. Jesus proofed the same, he was a Physician, healing many people.Why? because he wanted to save People from physical Death.
................................................................................
.....................

The bible doesn't prove a thing. Assertions are NOT proofs. Claiming outlandishly long life spans for many of its principal characters does not make it true.

'Eating right' and personal spiritual development are NOT the solution to the problem
of limited lifespans

Scientific research is.

#51 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 25 December 2002 - 05:28 PM

Hamurabi wasn't even the first Lawgiver though he credits himself as such and Hebrew migrant workers learned their script from the Arameans. The bible is as valid as Homer at giving the aetiological background of the encryption of oral and legendary histories. But hear me well, Homer is more objective, and that includes the mention of Olympian demigods that were aledged transhumans of their time.

Heroes, and miracles have equal validity and serve both as social paradigms and phenomenological descriptions. But as we learn how the mirrors and smoke are placed the method of the miracle is made transparent and Dad is caught playing a Santa. Much of belief is the filling of voids of understanding.

Yes there is fear, yes there is imprinting, but the bottom line basis of belief is the simple filling of blank spaces, the voids of understanding that require a measure of smoke to fill the image. We intuitively substitute what we want to be true for what is not understood and sometimes we are objective enough to learn to always question and test our assumptions. Many times our assumptions are existentially reasonable and sometimes they are culturally biased. Intuition is not science but science can reason through intuition, it is an element of freedom.

The bible has a purpose in history that is more than just a good fairy tale but not much better then a homeric myth around a hot campfire. Gilgamesh and Dionysious are part of the origins of the biblical mythology as much as geology.

Is there a moral to the story?

Of course, that is the point, it is a moralist teaching that has a socially imposed validity, which is not an absolute as much as an obsolete, or at least a relativistic human standard. Many of the ethics of western culture are admirable but please don't take this as an sanction to be sanctimonious about Western belief. The same can be said of Eastern moralist thought by the way.

Can rational belief be taught? (Separate topic but it overlaps)

The methods of reason and good judgement can be taught, but like a horse to water, there is a requisite will to rationally question the judgement of authority that must be a responsible partner in this endeavor, or the seeker of wisdom will forever be thirsty.

Unquestioned belief is the definition of irrational behavior but it is reasonable to hold that there exists an area of phenomenon and thought that is non-rational, as distinguished from irrational, and this is where the confusion begins with believing.

As a behavior it becomes fanaticism when the believer denies truth in favor of reasonable evidence to the contrary. Attitude is the prime determinate with belief, just as verifiable fact is the bottom line for knowledge.

However what then is the "nonrational"?

We are not omniscient so it is irrational to believe that we possess enough factual knowledge Horatio to make all experience fit into our personal epistemological perspectives. Like I try to remind my PC Liberal friends, Truth is not relative, truth is absolute, but our perspective of it is universally relative. The dilemma, my Heisenbergian seekers of God, is that the seeing of the view makes the vista change. We confuse man's Law and Natural Law making the entire process suspect. Much of what is nonrational is simply what as yet we do not understand, nowhere is it believed that it is impossible to come to this understanding, though it is often taboo to try.

Social absolutes are not inherently true and Natural Law is not absolutely understood, but Relativity in Nature is not the problem, Quantum Mechanics provides the antithetical tools to synthesize with. It is that the moral compass of man doesn't follow a divine polar star, just the personal magnetism of charismatic conquerors and any good conqueror feels how the strings are attached to the governed.

It is the victors that write the histories, impose sharia law, and mandate theological principles. Through most of history we have been dominated by Theocratic Governance; it is time for a change, the old ways have reached their limits of usefulness if we are to achieve honest governance and an Age of Reason.

#52 Cyto

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 December 2002 - 10:24 PM

Overview of how stupid the creationist researchers (ID) are

Just scroll down and its the first long post on the page

#53 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 31 December 2002 - 12:07 AM

Pretty funny DH, I like it. I wonder how the Libertarians present take it if they substitute Libertarian for ID? I think it is still funny though and directly related to the issue.

Libertarianism in one lesson

Philosophy
In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.

Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.

We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.

Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.

Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.

Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.

Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.

Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!

Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!

The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.

EXCERPTED FOR REASONS OF LIBERTY.....

Copyright 2002 by Mike Huben ( mhuben@world.std.com ).
This document may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes if it is reproduced in its textual entirety, with this notice intact.

#54 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 31 December 2002 - 01:21 AM

By the way DH I especially lked these two passages: ;)

Absolutely everything wrong in society is caused by dogmatic Darwinian atheistic materialists. Including stereotyping, demonizing, and scapegoating.

Darwinists are responsible for both socialism and lassie-fair capitalism. Both racism and liberalism. Both feminism and sexism. Both animal research and the animal rights movement. And Commie-Nazism.



#55 Cyto

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 03 January 2003 - 09:11 AM

The ones I like (because I hear them so MUCH!!!)


Darwinists can’t explain the evolution of life in every single detail, therefore it’s wrong. But don’t ask IDists to explain these things, because that’s not the kind of theory ID is.

Mainstream scientists dare not disagree with the monolithic block that is Darwinian orthodoxy. However, here are a number of mainstream scientists who disagree with each other on some issues, which means that they can’t agree on anything, so theory is crumbling.


I have even devoted time to making a disk to hand out to the *scientificaly impared* (trying to clean up my language) fundies. Its just a pile of resources and Q&A sort. Yea they bug me that much.

Laters Laz

#56 Cyto

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 27 January 2003 - 08:37 AM

OH yea, I think its done for now. I have 50 pages of fundie teaching Q&A, articles, links, research mag links. Course, like druggies, alcoholics, Obsessive Compulsives and such, you have to get them to first admit, they have a problem. I just compiled info, no I didnt type 50 pages. It doesnt mean that much to me. But anyways. . .



Laterz

#57 Cyto

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 27 January 2003 - 08:53 AM

Feedback Letter

Comment: your not very smart


Response

From: Ed Brayton

Response: But we know that in that sentence the word "your" should be "you're". Thank you for playing.



TAKEN FROM TALKORIGINS.ORG

Edited by XxDoubleHelixX, 27 January 2003 - 08:54 AM.


#58 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 27 January 2003 - 10:20 AM

[Your stats are plain wrong about Christian soldier Armies in history but the very conclusion here is false.  Participation in religious groups is up not down.  It is participation in Organized faiths like the Catholic Church that have lost membership.  But most polls show and increase in the percent of total population claiming to possess a core of spiritual beliefs.  And I think belief systems especially when it is some Creationist Group that is trying to set the standards on issues of abortion, fertility options, stem cell research, cloning, and general health guidelines for both domestic standard and export policy play into the discussion.  

I think I am slightly more optimistic than you on this point Lazarus. Regular church attendance is down in the United States. Further, any numbers on people claiming to have "core spiritual beliefs" is by its very nature speculative. How do we know how deeply people believe in something? My girlfriend and I call them C&E Catholics (Christmas and Easter). You see them everywhere, the secular nonbelievers who continue to play the game and hate every minute of it. Maybe its just me though. When you understand the absurdity of it all it is hard to imagine someone buying into it. I must admit that I am bias on this issue. Sometimes when I see Bush on TV I wonder, "Is he really so religious or is he just using his born again status to avoid character attack?" Heck, that's what I would do if I were a politician.

Edited by Kissinger, 27 January 2003 - 10:28 AM.


#59 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 27 January 2003 - 10:53 AM

Sometimes when I see Bush on TV I wonder, "Is he really so religious or is he just using his born again status to avoid character attack?" Heck, that's what I would do if I were a politician

you too? heh

That's nice to know about church attendance being down. Any link, per chance?

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#60 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 27 January 2003 - 05:05 PM

"Sabbath Believers" are definitely the garden variety crop. But this has always been the case.

I don't have time to go look it up but I think it was from the National Council of Churches and a Roman Catholic Study that I saw that concurs with what Kissinger is saying. I said as much, attendence is down for the "Major Organized Religions" i.e. Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox Jewish etc. But is up even faster in a the vast number of diverse alternatives now being offered in our society from cults to Jehova's Witnesses, from Bhuddist to Unitarian.

I have seen both Gallop and Harris polls recently that placed the number of Americans who claim a belief in god at 84% and above and vaarious stats that as many as 41% (or more) regularly attend. I am sure the stats are averaged and that there are wide variations from one community to another but don't discount the Church as a place for Social Intercourse and Economic Interest. Also realize that from Employee Psych tests to Government and even the American Psychiatric Association, participation in a "group spiritual activity" is generally viewed favorably and as a positive indicator.

For grins I took a Health Practices Test the other day from a group that assesses Life Expectancy and they have a qualifier question that influences your actuary outcome based on Church membership. I would rather not promote them but I will share the link by PM with anyone that is interested in validating this claim.

The depth of one's belief system will be a reflection of the superficiality and focus of that individual, regardless of whether the belief system is spiritually interested or not. Sadly the issue of superficiality is probably more important in the long run than religion in this regard.

Yes, Kissinger, I would say you are more optimistic than I on this matter and I will add I am even less optimistic as I travel abroad. Factionalism and fanaticism are making converts everywhere and rationalism is failing to take heed.

Or doesn't anyone notice that we are all arming to the teeth and beginning to dig trenches?

Both devout christians and muslims take the issues of Crusade versus Jihad all too seriously and they will drag all parties in against their will. Afterall they see it as God's Will that matters.

Oh, that is just "them", right?

Bush's duplicity is on many levels, but ask youselves for a moment the reverse of your question:

What if he is sincere?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users