dimreepr

swansont,

 

 

 

 

I have posted evidence of something.

 

If people want to tell us their thoughts after reasoning we may discuss.

 

 

 

I thought it might be beneficial to us all so I was happy to.

 

 

 

I read a book recently “unseen academicals” by Terry Pratchett, it however, doesn’t provide evidence of trolls or any other fictional characters. Why do you think your book does?

I find it incredible, yet mind boggling, that there's a possibility to alter the genes in an unborn human being so that they're born with different skin, hair, eyes, etc.

 

I haven't seen any examples of people who have been genetically modified in any way, so I came here to discuss with more experienced minds like you, can you genetically modify a human being, and is it a good idea to do so?

Eugenics was never a good idea; seriously, it’s the thin end of the wedge.

In England, as in America, it is an example of; governance by accountancy, in that education and many other aspects of society is defined by numbers, which if manipulated well enough can show just how well our society is doing. Intelligence hasn’t changed, in general, but the numbers sure do make it seem like they have.

To my mind this experiment suggests that reason and superstition would develop together. I imagine that as humans began to reason about things, they came to an understanding that when something happens, something caused it to happen. Without the reasoning abilities of a modern human though, the causes were 'river god made the river swell' (after all they knew nothing of the melting glacier miles away) and such. Religion, in this context and as an extension of superstition, could be seen as an early attempt to identify causes.

 

Funny, when Derren Brown recreated this experiment (for entertainment, not actual science) for humans, they fell into the same pigeon thinking.

 

 

For me it goes deeper still, in that, the Elders saw a way to use these observations (that all agree on) to manipulate the thinking of the tribe in general. Wisdom of the aged, in a simple society, goes a long way.

Herd behaviour is exploitable as long as the “herd” is unaware of the scrutiny.

More on that

 

http://animal.discov...1/elephant.html

 

 

 

 

Sorry , no intent to go off topic.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon after all tell me the difference between religion and superstition.

For me you can’t beat, “heart of gold” powered by the “infinite improbability drive” in “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” by Douglas Adams.

Lots of the planets flora and fauna now have interdependency with humanity, so our disappearance would have a negative impact on such that is now dependant. The planet really doesn’t care what we do; it’ll just continue to trundle through space.

Could dark matter be explained by variations in the density of the Higgs field?

Your entire question/commentary is pointless. You imply that you are against imprisoning the "less violent" criminals; however, you don't supply a solution.

 

It’s not pointless, if you’re the one in prison (for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family), and in what universe do you need to supply a solution in order to ask a question?

 

They probably can't pay fines, it's too inhumane (only in America) to put them to work, and they could just NOT comply with any judicial sentence because that would only be a "small" crime which isn't punishable, according to your thinking. Well?

 

Have you even read the rest of this thread? When do I advocate people shouldn’t be punished?

Part of a judge’s job is to decide the punishment, on an individual basis, so things like the ability to pay can be taken into account. Why is it inhumane to put people to work as a punishment? In England community service is a well established form of punishment.

 

Got any other wise ideas?

 

Yes I have lots of ideas, one of which would be to act on the point ‘phi for all’ made.

Awesome screen shot! However I don't see that on the web page on my screen. Were should I be looking for it?

 

Pete

What version of IE are you using?

edit spelling correction no e in using

One thing to keep in mind is that cults don't have to be religious. They often are, but technically, a cult is simply the veneration of a person, ideology, or object. If fifty people sat in a circle around me all chanting about how I'm a super cool guy, and everyone should join the circle and idolize me, I'd have my own cult.

 

I don't, for the record. I wouldn't know what to do with fifty brainwashed idiots anyway.

Good point

If I belong to it, it's a religion. If you belong to it, it's a cult.

I guess subjectivity does have a lot to do with it, though, given the propensity for psychological manipulation within a lot of cults; it does muddy the waters somewhat.

Further to the OP, a lot of religions can be said to have started as a cult, so at what point do they become a religion?

Good joke btw Greg.

Cults are generally viewed as engaging in one or more of the following behaviors:

• Isolate their followers physically, emotionally, intellectually and socially from the general public
• Prohibit their followers from considering alternative perspectives or opinions
• Engage in punishments of a physical and/or psychological nature
• Involve sexual relationships with the leaders
• Require followers to give all their wealth and property to the leaders
• Change their ideologies over time from the mild to the bizarre
• Demand allegiance to their leaders rather than to their ideologies

Sounds very Catholic to me, history shows they have engaged in many of your definitions.

What is the difference between religion and a cult? Is it simply numbers, or is the difference more fundamental? I.e. is brainwashing a factor?

I'm uncertain which fundamentalist groups you could be referring to. The Christian fundamentalists I am familiar with believe Jesus is on his way back, his return is imminent, and all Christians need do to prepare for His return is believe in the Salvation that awaits them. They don't have to kill any infidels, let alone engage in acts of terrorism and mayhem.

There are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations) ranging from the mainstream Catholic, Anglican etc to the outright lunatics at the other end of the scale. Can you really tell me none of the more extreme denominations, or even mid table, don’t actively promote anti-societal ideas?

Now back to topic; I take it from your reply you would welcome your version of societies demise?

I'm very sorry to hear about your condition. It's the kind of situation where you really need other people to help you. Without knowing you, one of the first things I thought of when I read your words was how much I would hate being thought of as a "burden", and how much I would probably push people away if I were in your circumstances, people who were genuinely concerned for me and simply trying to help. It's hard to be positive when negative things happen to us, but people have a harder time being around negativity unless they have the training for it. Your friends and family might just be waiting for you to WANT their help.

 

I would suggest that you need to find a professional to counsel you. Friends and family are great but they are ill-equipped when it comes to problems they can't overcome for you. It sounds like everyone in your life (including you) feels helpless against this extremely unfortunate setback, but there are those who are trained to help you cope. Please seek out such a professional. Internet forums are for learning, but right now you have a wound that is tainting everything for you that we can't ever properly help you with. It takes someone who can talk to you face to face and get to know exactly what you're dealing with.

With this, I couldn’t agree more, having found my way through my own depression. The reasons for unhappiness are many and varied and your family only wants to help (seriously), but naturally, you only consider the situation from your own point of view, they don’t see it the way you think they do. People in general are much more empathic and caring than any of us give ourselves credit for. There are happier days to come my friend, please seek the help 'phi for all' suggests.

I strongly suspect that there are many motiviations and among them would the desire for something exciting to enliven their dull lives, or a frisson of superiority thinking they are 'in on' a secret. For me the troubling ones are those who think we are nearing the End Days and therefore do not need to take any corrective action on global warming, or any of the troubles facing civilisation. They are rushing straight to the scene of the accident.

This is the thinking that motivated the OP. It is the dark side of humanity, and ill considered, because however bad things seem today, a true doomsday scenario is one in which most of us (humans) would die. Do these people think they are going to be the exception? Or are they just a bit peeved that existence didn’t give them the ideal lifestyle?

The doomsayers are growing in number (seemingly) and spreading the doom to all who will listen.

My question is; are they warning us or do they, secretly, welcome the devastating scenarios they describe?

Oh, no you didn't!

LOL yep I did... doh

sammy7,

There are plenty of examples where science holds up its hands and says “I don’t know” because, as you say, it happened in the past or is unobserved. This, however, doesn’t mean inference can’t be employed as a very real and compelling answer to whatever the question may be. In astrology the observation that a star wobbles, given our clearly understood knowledge of the physics involved, it is perfectly reasonable to assume such wobbling is the result of a planet orbiting.

Science has provided a myriad of evidence to support evolution (just google it), what exactly is your counter proposal to explain everyday observations of our planets flora and fauna.

I CAN HARDLY BELIVE THIS IS AN ACTUAL "SCIENCE" SITE PLEASE SEE THE EXACT WORDING OF MY QUESTION ABOVE, I STARTED THE SENTENCE WITH " I CANT BELIEVE HE IS......

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

So, your idea of scientific scrutiny is to listen to a biased video and blindly accept its conclusion. That’s probably why you can’t believe this is a science forum.

Yes, thank you.

 

I am being mentally retarded for viewing the world that way. Have you ever worshiped the fire coming out of the gas stove in your kitchen? The ancients used to do that, have you ever worshiped the water coming out of your tap? They did that. Some might suggest that the ancients didn't knew how things worked and hence they worshiped the things in nature as gods, I think there is more to it to this idea of viewing the things around us as anthropomorphic gods, some scholars are convinced that we are not alone and that they exist and support such a view of the world. This way of thinking is so much different from the current science, I still cannot grasp how the air we feel can be an anthropomorphic god with human qualities and emotions. I don't know where to begin with, I think studying such ancient cultures would be the right place to start with.

 

 

The idea can be fairly described by pansychism which suggest that even rocks, water etc have a mind and has feelings and expierence the world, this clearly redefines our notion of life and what constitutes to be called as alive.

 

Only when we view the world in this way, the mainstream religions makes some sense.

The ancients were just being clever, at least the elders were, they were just establishing well known everyday phenomena with a spiritual aspect and thus creating a God like figure to fear. Therefore creating a mental police force, that has no physical reality, but has a very real presence in the mind of the average citizen.

My original position saw telepathy as the only viable way for this to work, but having thought this through I see the idea has more legs. Most of what influences our daily decisions is unknown to us at the conscious level. The way our culture is all pervading in the way we think and interact with the world. The way our food and, everyday drugs, changes the chemical balance of our body and how that changes our decision making. Plants change their chemical composition when attacked and communicates this to the local, similar, plants. Who’s to say this isn’t also a global communication, and if so how this might influence us.

no, I'm right, you are wrong.

I have a feeling I’m going to regret this, but I’m genuinely interested in your answer. Would you care to provide some evidence to back up your assertion?

I refer to God the creator of the heaven and the earth, not a human made god or some image of a beast, mythological figure, egyptian miaaauuu or woof woof, indian mooooo or similar low things

In fairness the gaia hypothesis is much more likely than your invisible cloud talking fire hazard.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the semi-colon, because otherwise you seem to be misunderstanding my point because the point of what I was saying was exactly that "if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning. "

You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die, you'd only attack it because of the chemicals released into your bloodstream, and those chemicals don't have a direct correlation to logic. It's just that if they are released, they cause a compulsion to do something. There's nothing saying that something actually "deserves" the response.

I knew I shouldn’t respond to posts after my fourth glass of wine, your reply isn’t, in the cold light of day, quite so twisted, my apologies.

Whilst morals have a lot to do with emotion and subjectivity, logic does have its part to play. In the scenario of the OP this statement “You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die.” is false, if the negative consequences are known. I doubt anyone could logically or emotionally argue in the mosquitoes defence; we humans are the ones dying after all.

Then that means logically there is no real reason for malaria or mosquitoes to actually wiped out because the only reason it is suggested is because of emotions which do not have a direct logical correlation to actions or reality.

That is quite twisted logic; if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning.