jimmydasaint

That is a brave worldview, to have no fear or doubt. I just live between fear and hope. You must have gone round this block many times as I have. To stop yourself from getting bored just plug into your heavy metal and forget everything.

If you studied physics a bit you would see that there is no mechanism that could plausibly account for it. Even in biology, as I'm sure you know, all psychological/physiological phenomena are emergent processes. What you are asking for is an extant non-physical phenomenon that co-exists in parallel but autonomously to the physical processes.

I didn't answer this because I didn't know what extant meant. Now that I know, I am not sure that psychological/physiological phenomena are emergent processes (epiphenomenological). I think it is a good theoretical framework to explain how thoughts and actions arise but events like long term potentiation (memory) occur. I am quite interested in Penrose and Hameroff's theory of consciousness http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24070914 where the role of a soul in providing qualia (single unified thoughts, e.g. "Oh, good! Ice cream") allows for a soul to be involved in the processs of conscious behaviour by influencing neuronal outputs in the brain.

 

True; DM and DE provides an eloquent explanation for the forces underpinning the cohesion and expanse of our universe. However, belief in a soul, for some, may also have its eloquence in explaining phenomena reported as reincarnation, out-of-body and near-death experiences.

That was my main aim. I was hoping that Science would be able to explain, or not explain, out of body experiences and then means would be encouraged to measure a "proto-soul".

DrmDoc, if we were to have a soul, does that mean animals have a soul as well? If not, why not? What keeps the soul attached to a person's body? Could a soul move from one person to another person, or to an animal? Could two souls occupy the same body?

Sorry to answer for DrmDoc, he can certainly answer for himself. But I thought that animals are purely instinctive beings with a consciousness without the ability to rise above their instincts or to negate what their instincts tell them. We have: 1. Complex language; 2. thoughts that can reflect on the thinking process; 3. A unified sense of self/ego for the most of humanity, although there are anomalies. I am not trying to patronise you here or to be pedantic and I apologise if I sound that way. There are obviously faith groups who believe in metempsychosis, but I don't know anything about this topic.

I would ask "Is a soul needed?"

That is the tough question. If a soul is like a rewriteable CD and carries the right and wrong actions of a human being and then prepares to evolve to an afterlife soul that is enlightened, then, to a certain segment of the world population, the answer would be yes. It is the battlefield of the soul that provides the domain of faith. However, there are also agnostic atheists who want to believe in a "soul". Actually, to be honest, I only exchanged comments with one, but he seemed to believe in a soul-driven existence without faith involved. I don't really know the answer. What is the alternative? Mind-body states interacting with each other? From what I have read, scientists have identified parts of the brain in great detail for doing "a", "b" or "c". However, what is the cause to the effect? Just sensory information? There are more questions than answers for me personally.

From that paper Moontanman,

If some form of life exists on Titan, whether sea monster or (more likely) microbe, it would almost certainly need to have a cell membrane, just like every living thing on Earth does. Could phospholipid bilayer membranes form in liquid methane on Titan? The answer is no. Unlike water, the methane molecule has an even distribution of electrical charges. It lacks water's polar qualities, and so couldn't attract the polar heads of phospholipid molecule. This attraction is needed for the phospholipids to form an Earth-style cell membrane.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-kind-life-titan.html#jCp

The Cornell investigators saw nitriles and amines as potential candidates for their Titanian cell membranes. Both are polar molecules that might stick together to form a membrane in non-polar liquid methane due to the polarity of nitrogen containing groups found in both of them. They reasoned that candidate molecules must be much smaller than phospholipids, so that they could form fluid membranes at liquid methane temperatures. They considered nitriles and amines containing strings of between three and six carbon atoms. Nitrogen containing groups are called 'azoto' –groups, so the team named their hypothetical Titanian counterpart to the liposome the 'azotosome'.

Synthesizing azotosomes for experimental study would have been difficult and expensive, because the experiments would need to be conducted at the cryogenic temperatures of liquid methane. But since the candidate molecules have been studied extensively for other reasons, the Cornell researchers felt justified in turning to the tools of computational chemistry to determine whether their candidate molecules could cohere as a flexible membrane in liquid methane. Computational models have been used successfully to study conventional phospholipid cell membranes.

Acrylonitrile has been identified as a possible basis for cell membranes in liquid methane on Titan. It is known to be present in Titan’s atmosphere at a concentration of 10 parts per million and has been produced in laboratory simulations …more

The group's computational simulations showed that some candidate substances could be ruled out because they would not cohere as a membrane, would be too rigid, or would form a solid. Nevertheless, the simulations also showed that a number of substances would form membranes with suitable properties. One suitable substance is acrylonitrile, which Cassini showed is present in Titan's atmosphere at 10 parts per million concentration. Despite the huge difference in temperature between cryogenic azotozomes and room temperature liposomes, the simulations showed them to exhibit strikingly similar properties of stability and response to mechanical stress. Cell membranes, then, are possible for life in liquid methane.

The scientists from Cornell view their findings as nothing more than a first step towards showing that life in liquid methane is possible, and towards developing the methods that future spacecraft will need to search for it on Titan. If life is possible in liquid methane, the implications ultimately extend far beyond Titan.

When seeking conditions suitable for life in the galaxy, astronomers typically search for exoplanets within a star's habitable zone, defined as the narrow range of distances over which a planet with an Earth-like atmosphere would have a surface temperature suitable for liquid water. If methane life is possible, then stars would also have a methane habitable zone, a region where methane could exist as a liquid on a planet or moon, making methane life possible. The number of habitable worlds in the galaxy would be greatly increased. Perhaps, on some worlds, methane life evolves into complex forms that we can scarcely imagine. Maybe some of them are even a bit like sea monsters.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-kind-life-titan.html#jCp

This seems to bring out hope for some sort of life form. Our cells have a protective useful fat-based (phospholipid membrane). In methane, it is possible that acrylonitrile forms membrane-like structures like bubbles (liposomes) that they called azotosomes at such low temperatures (-180 Celsius or so). the simulations could show a potential cell membrane, which could allow protection for cell reactions, which are useful for life to form. So, the search for life could be much wider than we previously thought. Was that the main aim for the O.P.?

 

Attacking ideas is one thing, but Jimmy has yet to insult any of us and to insult him back if he had wouldn't be productive. You could just as easily have pointed out any inconsistencies in his argument without resorting to insults. We'll probably get somewhere if we all play nice, even if that somewhere happens to be boring like "agree to disagree."

You're right. I apologize to Jimmy. While I found his statements indefensible and completely wrongheaded, I should not have insulted him by calling him stupid. I think he is wholly mislead and engaging in extreme obscurantism. I do think he should think about what he said and reconsider. But nonetheless, I am sorry, and I don't want the people here to think I'm a jerk. There are just some modes of thought and arguments that I have a very short fuse for, and I cannot imagine any smart person consciously making them. It is a slap in the face to victims of Islamic intolerance to call Islamic terrorism an "oxymoron". This statement immediately sends a message to the victims that they cannot criticize the belief sets that influenced their oppression and cruel treatment, and if they do it would be an "oxymoron". It is a terrible thing to suggest.

 

Apology accepted. We disagree on many things but we can agree to disagree in a civil manner. I felt that I was misunderstood and I was not an apologist for Muslims, Christians or anyone else. I say it like I see it, like it or not. You can criticise whomever you like and any religion if you wish, but please take care to use citations. If you have opinions, state them as opinions. As I wrote earlier, I did a Google search, found a website and quoted it after a perfunctory read. I should have been more analytical. However I gave a quote and a citation- right or wrong. If you do the same, it allows critical analysis in a scientific manner.

In which countries? In Saudi Arabia, a Muslim theocratic state, women make up the majority of the college students.

You're right, my mistake. The doctrine of Islam never caused a woman to be oppressed, or an apostate to be beheaded, or a homosexual to be thrown from a rooftop. What was I thinking? These things are definitely the result of geopolitics, poverty, and depravity in 3rd world countries. Islam is fully a religion of peace and does not encourage actions of this sort. I honestly can't believe I'm reading the words of a smart individual who is making these statements. You do realize there is more than one muslim country don't you? You do realize that they all enforce Islamic law to varying degrees don't you? Quit with the obscurantism. "Oh look, this one muslim country does x, therefore Islam is a religion of peace." That is not scientific thinking my friend. There is a big confirmation bias going on there, and I can point to numerous reductio ad absurdums that can easily refute them.

 

If these events are common practice, a citation would help to show that oppression, beheadings etc... are religious demands.

 

I never made the argument that all muslims commit these atrocities. Rather, I'm saying that the worst atrocities coming from the Islamic world right now have clear ties to the doctrine, and the laws laid out by the religion wreak of intolerance, bigotry, oppression, and violence. I'm all about criticizing ideas instead of people. But Jimmy should know better than this. He should know better.

I have stated my thoughts several times. If you read them Tampitump, come back and let's continue in a civil and friendly way. If you find my views incomprehensible then fine! They are what they are.

Moontanman, this evidence about something unusual on Titan is six years old. Is there any update?

Strobel found a disparity in the hydrogen densities that lead to a flow down to the surface at a rate of about 10,000 trillion trillion hydrogen molecules per second. This is about the same rate at which the molecules escape out of the upper atmosphere.

"It's as if you have a hose and you're squirting hydrogen onto the ground, but it's disappearing," Strobel said. "I didn't expect this result, because molecular hydrogen is extremely chemically inert in the atmosphere, very light and buoyant. It should 'float' to the top of the atmosphere and escape."

Strobel said it is not likely that hydrogen is being stored in a cave or underground space on Titan. The Titan surface is also so cold that a chemical process that involved a catalyst would be needed to convert hydrogen molecules and acetylene back to methane, even though overall there would be a net release of energy. The energy barrier could be overcome if there were an unknown mineral acting as the catalyst on Titan's surface.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/titan20100603.html

Artistic rendering of Titan's surface. Awe inspiring!

I always thought Boric acid powder embedded in flour dough and placed as doughballs everywhere would do the trick, unless my heart medicines are making me hallucinate and imagine things which have never existed. Get back to you on this...

I didn't imagine it!

Here it is:

DIY Mix:

White Flour
Boric Acid
Confectioners Sugar or Brown Sugar
Water

• Mix 50/50 flour and boric acid. Sprinkle in some confectioners sugar (about 1/4 of the amount of flour used). Make a dough by adding in water, don’t make it runny.
• Roll the dough into small marble sized balls and place them in corners, dark cupboards, behind heavy appliances, along floor boards and around the garbage.

Within a month the critters should be gone.

If the infestation is particularly bad:

• Double the effort by making a mix of 50/50 boric acid and brown sugar then pour the mixture in a thick line around the entire room and entrance ways. The roaches will get the stuff on their bodies and carry it back to the nest. Once there is no trace of the pest left (usually within the month), vacuum up the powder.

 

http://tipnut.com/how-to-get-rid-of-cockroaches-roach-ball-recipe/

Some interesting stuff there. I'm trying to get hold of the full article of the first study: it's behind a paywall but i should be able to get access when next i'm at uni.

 

But before that i'd just like to point something out: cessation of cardiac activity doesn't necassarly mean cessation of brain activity. If the medical team are doing CPR well, the brain will be perfused to some extent (sometimes we could get sats readings of 100% on a patient during CPR). That a few people can still hear and be vaguely aware of their surroundings shouldn't be surprising.

 

I would therefore call that these particular aspects are not used as evidence of a soul surviving the body: it could just as easily be taken to be evidence that the brain can still function to some degree during a cardiac arrest.

Exactly so. I deliberately referred to cardiac arrest because I don't think anyone in the whole of humanity has returned to life after brain functions have collapsed.

For now let me not get involved in all of the aspects of this discussion apart from highlighting this specific part of the previous post. For me it makes sense to replace God with Nature or to equate God to Nature...but to seriously consider any one of the Abrahamic God versions (which one?) as a contender for the ultimate divine power who created and who still manages nature, as well as getting personally involved with a particular species on one small planet at a specific time in (evolution) history to a point of conjuring up this strange sequence of events in order for them to worship God (and hope it is the right one) so as to qualify for eternal life in heaven opposed to eternal damnation in hell as a result of same intervention...seems all very nonsensical.

Hi,Memammal, I needed a break from the intense atmosphere here for a couple of days. However, I was not trying to ignore you. I think I will end up repeating what I have been saying all along which is a personal belief, based on my limited understanding and reasoning and also following my education. I have doubts, I have asked myself questions which I cannot answer. As far as I can ascertain, the Abrahamic God Yahweh, Ela/Allah are the same. It was the God that called Moses to duty. I am not going to argue that one religion gave rise to the later two. Let people believe what they want to, as a fundamental human right. IMO, I disagree with the idea of an interfering God. However, I do believe in the illusion of freewill which provides a sufficient condition for a choice which then has consequences which are specific to the choice (this sounds more and more like Harry Potter, I know). IMO, God made the Universe as a single act in which everything was predetermined. My prayers which get answered or not, all predetermined. The creation of evil people to show others what is good, predetermined. This is my personal opinion.

If I'm being too personal, Jimmy, just tell me so.

But were you religious before the tragic events happened in your life ?

 

MigL, I am OK to talk about it now. I was religious before the event. After it I started to doubt everything and became reflective and inward looking. But, I am only human after all.

 

I was raised R. C. but decided I have no need for it .

You, on the other hand, may have been looking for answers, the 'why' if you will, of the tragedy which put your life in turmoil.

We don't have answers for such tragedies, and I believe most of us here would be searching for some spiritual comfort if something similar happened in our lives.

Even as people get sick or older, and become concerned with death, they often seek spiritual comfort. I don't think it's my place ( or anyone else's ) to deny people in need, that comfort. Even if some might call it a 'crutch'.

 

I agree that we are looking for answers to "why?" questions anyway. I have tried to rationalise my faith as a scientist. You may disagree on my methods but I found it to be mentally satisfying. I have never used my beliefs as a crutch but as a tool for understanding the evil that exists in the world, and for rationalising or understanding why there is evil anyway. It is a tough argument, I will not repeat it here but atheists reject it. However, I have also found much good and much love from unexpected sources and it fills e with hope.

 

As to your point concerning the effect of religion ( any kind ) in helping to establish an ordered society...

We are basically animals. Natural instincts tell us to take advantage of those with less power than us. We see it in a pride of lions with a dominant male. We see the wildebeest sacrifice the young, old and sick/weak to the lion so that the others may survive.

But religion has always taught us to take care of our fellow human beings, and the message was strong enough to overcome our natural instincts. So I would agree, it has helped to shape our civilization.

 

Wow. You have given me some more hope for religion then. Remember, respect for the old and love for your neighbour. I cannot see anything wrong with those actions, regardless of belief systems.

 

A few of us, however, are still ruled by those base instincts, and will take advantage of our fellow humans. Structured groups, like governments, religions, cults, etc. make this easy for unscrupulous people, and the structured group ( religion ) gets tarnished as a result.

 

A central point, dismissed by some others, is that a priesthood is unnecessary for someone who wants to "link" to a higher form of life. Yet ae a High ll religions have priests. Even neo-pagans have a High Priest and High Priestess, I believe.

 

Most of these guys trying to 'sway' you will argue that its not Islam's fault that a few idiots are misinterpreting a religion of peace to spread terror through the Middle East and the world ( and they'd be right ), but in the same breath, will tell you that the fault of Christianity lies in the religion, not the unscrupulous people who use it to their own ends.

But that's OK, I still like them.

 

As an old guy, I still remember the bombings and fear created by the IRA in the UK mainland - horrible inhumane actions - shall we blame Roman Catholicism? Or was it a political action, because terror seems to be an effective political action in this screwed up world of ours? I don't know the answer mate, but I do have an opinion.

 

In my view, and I am repeating myself so I apologise, I have met people of other faiths who are truly religious and call themselves as such. I find some common features in them and myself:

1. a moderate nature,

2. tolerance to all other people,

3. a thirst for knowledge,

4. compassion to people and animals

5. care for the environment

6. easily emotional (not in anger) in kindness and empathy to others

 

Why is it that I find these to be typical features of religious people and others don't see them?

Because you are forgetting that those "few demented individuals" are not "demented" at all. Most of them are perfectly sane, even well educated individuals with professional degrees (as in the case of 9/11). The only difference is that these people are so convinced of the validity of their religion that they are following its prescriptions to the letter.

 

You also grossly misunderstood what I was saying. I was not blaming 9/11 fully on all of Islam. I was saying that I could engage in the same type of obscurantism to excuse the acts of the hijackers by forgetting everything they did. That is what Jimmy Dasaint is doing with religion in general.

 

I am a pretty calm guy, but this is really insulting and condemns me to justifying the acts of madmen. Where the hell did I gloss over their actions? Nowhere? Where have I said that terrorism and Torquemada and killings by the Catholic Church were OK? Nowhere? At least base your opinions on facts man.

 

Every time you try to link religion to years of blood shed and death, you get these people saying "well, you can't blame it on religion, its more just politics and a few bad apples who did it." You can have crusades, inquisitions, and all sorts of other barbarism that fully aligns with what the holy book teaches, and people will fully dismiss all the brutal things religion influences and claim that religion is still positive and good. I'm saying, yes, its good when fully take away all the crap that it has influenced and just focus on the small amounts of positive things it has influenced. This is classic obscurantism and flat out denial that there is any link between the doctrines and the acts. My point was to show that I could do that with the 9/11 hijackers if I just forgot about all the stuff they did. Nothing I said had anything to do with blaming anything on Islam, so your argument IN ITS ENTIRETY did not even remotely address what I said in the slightest. You're addressing an argument I did not make.

 

This is nonsensical and if you want to justify this position, prove to me that all three religions teach people to kill anyone who opposes them in a peaceful situation i.e. when peace prevails. I just looked up a passage quickly to see where Islam justifies the actions of terrorists and found this quotation. I did not have time to thoroughly peruse the website so all I have is preliminary opinions at present:

 

Islam is portrayed as a religion of “terror” and “killing”, yet this is just one of the most widely held misconceptions about Islam. Allah Almighty states unambiguously in the Quran (what means): "Nor take life -- which Allah has made sacred -- except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)."[Quran 17:33]

 

Based on this verse, it is Islamically unlawful to murder anyone who is innocent of any crime. At this point, we would do well to remember the distinction between the Quran and Sunnah, and the Muslims. Only the Quran and Sunnah are guaranteed to be in accordance with what the Creator desires, whereas the Muslims may possibly deviate. Hence, if any Muslim kills an innocent person, that Muslim has committed a grave sin, and the action cannot be claimed to have been committed "in the name of Islam."

 

It should be clear, then, that the oft-used term "Muslim terrorist" is almost an oxymoron: by killing innocent people, a Muslim is committing a grave sin, and Allah is Just. This phrase is offensive and demeaning of Islam, and it should be avoided. It is hoped that as the general level of public awareness and understanding of Islam increases, people will keep "terrorism" and "Islam" separate from each other, and not use them in the same phrase.

 

Jihaad or Holy War?

 

Another misunderstood Islamic concept is that the Creator has imposed `Jihaad' on us. The term "holy war" has come from the time of the Crusades, and originated in Europe as a rallying cry against the Muslims in

Jerusalem. Jihaad is an Arabic word, meaning struggle, but in the context of many verses in the Quran, it carries the meaning of military struggle or war. Allah gradually introduced the obligation of military struggle to the Muslim community at the time of the Messenger . The first verse ever revealed in that connection is as follows, (which means): "Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." [Quran 22: 39]

 

http://www.islamweb.net/en/article/113432/

 

 

Besides, even if most of these things weren't due to religion, religion still does not help things. They are debunked beliefs, based on debunked books, with debunked principles. You have to split hairs to find any teachings in them that are even useful or positive to modern civilization. Even the good parts are nothing special and don't offer any teachings that we don't already know or couldn't have derived from some other source or just through living and learning.

Let's say you inherit a desert island which has a small population, like Diego Garcia and you are the boss. What are you as a human, showing human behaviour (which preceded religious behaviour) going to do on that island to sustain peace and order. Then, if you have a revelation from a higher, more perfect authority, what would you do? You would put the equivalent of the ten commandments in place, right? Now if there was a war between your island and a neighbouring island, which laws would you put in place to allow humane behaviour? Of course you see the point. You seem angry at religion but it is a human right to have a belief - even in a same-religion group of people there will be a whole spectrum of beliefs. Please don't blame all for the actions of a few.

 

 

 

Jimmy isn't pushing his religion on anyone. He came on here, but didn't try to convert anyone. His beliefs are simply HIS beliefs, and facts are not the basis for beliefs.

He is certainly entitled to them.

And if those beliefs help him through a difficult time in his life, so much the better.

 

From reading this thread I get the impression that you guys are trying to convert him.

MigL, thank you man. I am isolated in having to be a spokesman for religion, when even I believe that priesthood/rabbihood and imamhood are totally unnecessary when a human needs to commune with God by himself/herself. I am deeply concerned how religious institutions become so easily corruptible and responsible for misguided beliefs in my opinion.

I am quite upset. I had hoped that Near Death Experiences (where patients in hospitals have been resuscitated following cardiac arrest) would provide enough evidence to show that there is an ego/soul/self that leaves the body after heart stoppage and then returns during resuscitation. Unfortunately, there is a very small number of anecdotal accounts and the evidence is that these experiences occur in the brain.

First the anecdotal evidence:

Of the 2,060 patients in the study, only 140 survived and were well enough to have a Stage 1 interview. Of these 140, 39 were not able to complete the Stage 2 interview, mostly due to fatigue. Of the remaining 101 patients interviewed in Stage 2, only 9 were deemed to have had an NDE (9%) and of these 9 NDErs, only two reported memories of auditory/visual awareness of the physical environment. Of these two, one was not able to follow up with an in-depth Stage 3 interview due to ill health. The other patient had verified perceptions of CA events:

• During the NDE, the patient felt quite euphoric.
• The patient heard an automated voice saying "Shock the patient, shock the patient."
• The patient rose near the ceiling and looked down on his physical body, the nurse and another man, bald and "quite a chunky fella", who wore blue scrubs and a blue hat. The patient could tell the man was bald because of where the hat was.
• The next day, the patient recognized the bald man who attended him during the resuscitation.
• The medical record confirmed the use of an AED (Automated External Defibrillator) that would give the automated instructions the patient heard and the role that the identified man played during the resuscitation.

 

http://iands.org/resources/media-resources/front-page-news/1060-aware-study-initial-results-are-published.html

The sample number is one, and the evidence is not strong, but, if these findings are replicated across the world, then it seems to indicate a "self" with some sensory capacity leaving the body.

However, Science says:

For a quicker, less powerful jaunt outside your bodily confines, try thedouble-mirror trick: Position two mirrors facing each other and then lean toward one so that two thirds of your face is reflected in it. Scratch your cheek and stare deep into the hall of mirrors you have created, past your original reflection, past the image of your back, and settle on the third reflection—your own face but slightly obscured. Within seconds, you won't recognize that reflection as you, says neuroscientist Eric Altschuler of the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark, who reported the phenomenon in the April issue of Perception.

Admittedly, neither of these illusions precisely match the classic example of the out-of-body experiences reported by patients near death who say they floated out of their bodies but were able to continue observing scenes from above or elsewhere in the room. But two studies published this week in Science show how the self and body can be disconnected, using video cameras.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/real-outof-body-experiences/#

and:

Some people claim that they have experienced out-of-body experiences—aka "astral trips"—floating outside of their bodies and watching themselves from the outside. A team of scientists found someone who says she can do this at will and put her into a brain scanner. What they discovered was surprisingly strange.

Andra M. Smith and Claude Messierwere from the University of Ottawa described this subject's ability in their paper, published in Frontiers of Human Neuroscience:

How the hell is this possible? Can it be real? The researchers found that something dramatic, and consistent with her account, was happening in her brain: The fMRI showed a "strong deactivation of the visual cortex" while "activating the left side of several areas associated with kinesthetic imagery," which includes mental imagery of bodily movement. This is the part of the brain that makes it possible for us to interact with the world. It's what makes you feel where your body is in relation to the world.

She was able to see herself rotating in the air above her body, lying flat, and rolling along with the horizontal plane. She reported sometimes watching herself move from above but remained aware of her unmoving "real" body. The participant reported no particular emotions linked to the experience.

This is the very first time that this type of experience has been analyzed and documented scientifically. Researchers know that out-of-body experiences can be induced "by brain traumas, sensory deprivation, near-death experiences, dissociative and psychedelic drugs, dehydration, sleep, and electrical stimulation of the brain, among others. It can also be deliberately induced by some." But this may be the first documented case of someone who can get into this state at will.

 

 

This particular "evidence" comes from a website calling itself the scientifically elegant "sploid gizmo" so I don't account for its veracity.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/scientists-unlock-mystery-of-woman-who-sees-herself-out-1538196076

I hope that others who believe in a spirit or soul can add to this particular study and that the Science can be critically evaluated.

I am deliberately posting in Speculations due to the nature of the material.

That paper was from 2008 buddy. Hardly a relevant new topic for the Science News thread. If you can update scientific news or comments please come back and elucidate or extend your arguments.

Yes it is happening. Two of my friends (one a political activist on the "Left" side of the political spectrum) and another (former Ministry of Defence IT scientist) have complained about hearing voices and then also feeling body pains unaccountably. The voices are designed to frighten - for example, one of them is told the exact amount of his electricity bill to the nearest penny before he opens his letter. Another is teased about his marriage or asked to be a better Christian etc...As far as I can ascertain, the two men are sane and have not undergone treatment for mental health issues. They have told me that this is a post MK Ultra experiment on large proportions of the public which is covered by Black Ops. However, if this is happening (as they say) at an accelerated scale worldwide, then this has to stop. Human rights include a right not to be tortured.

Enya? You are kidding Stringy? Normally I would listen to something that would rock hard - Guns N Roses, Gun,Thunder, UFO, Metallica, Dream Theater...But Enya? What happened? Even on a dark day I would never play this stuff. .

If there are Enya fans out there I apologise to both of you.

 

And what about religions without any god, or a god so different as to be incomparable to the Abrahamic god? And atheists who claim to have a rich spiritual life for that matter. Theism does not own a monopoly on spirituality (whatever the term may mean).

 

 

I often see this sense of awe and reverence cited as a reason for believing in a creator god, but i just can't understand it. Surely by saying this numinous thing you are experiencing is only possible through the grace of god you have separated yourself from that experience: no longer is it a direct experience that one part of the universe is feeling for another part, but is something you have to outsource to some other super being for validation.

 

I believe in a supreme Creative intelligence for a number of reasons, one of which is as follows:

For example, IMO, I believe that the Big Bang was an act of Creation which created the Laws of Physics that we see around us today. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang from Red Shift from galaxies flying away from us to Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Science point out these supporting pieces of evidence I think. I then consider the distance of the Earth from the Sun in its Goldilocks position (not too hot, not too cold) and the Ozone layer which forms a protective coat around the Earth. The high and anomalous heat potential of water and I think that these factors are not sheer coincidence or the outcome of a random event followed by random events in a chain of diminishing possibilities. Of course, in your position you consider that a series of chance events occurred to make the Earth and then develop life. I respect your view but I~ would also state that I have evidence of an act of Creation which implies a Creator as a first Mover if you will,

Secondly when you or I view a sport or a visual event, who sees the event in the brain? Is it a posited mind-body state or is it easier to believe in a soul? Furthermore, when I move my arm, who is it that actually moved my arm? Is it an intangible spirit or is it a mind-body state. Either could mediate an event through electrochemicals but I choose to believe that a soul made the difference.

 

I can also never understand the 'merely' implied in '...sentient meat without a soul'. That one part of the universe (you) can experience such things for another (your child) is truly awe inspiring in itself - why the need to invoke anything else between that experience?

 

I suspect, Prometheus, that you have read these debates before in the same way as all the contributors to this thread and that all the arguments here have gone round and round as they have in this thread. I believe from some points of evidence: philosophical (cosmological principle), scientific (Big Bang theory with evidence) and a number of other scientific and non-scientific factors that there is a God, a creative principle that is my choice based on my limited reasoning. f you replace the word God by Nature then I respect your choice. Let's agree to disagree. My head hurts...

 

 

Moontanman, these are the best answers I can give from my knowledge and my knowledge is definitely lacking. Our society has evolved to become different although the murder rates around the world suggest that human nature/behaviour has not changed. I cannot apologise for what God said or why. But at least I am trying to be bloody honest friend. I think that we are now at the point here t which my answers are exhausted and we will go round and round to a standstill. I cannot answer fr God because I don't have the viewpoint of a Creator. I have the limited view and limited knowledge of a creation. Religious people have a different view of God than atheists do, it is a certainty because we are not tied to the material but the spiritual.

When I looked into the face of my children when they were born, I did not think "ah, sentient meat without a soul" I saw a soul and a spark in their eyes. The love I felt for them did not come from a temporary chemical imbalance, I felt it in my gut to my soul.

I am sorry I could not answer your questions friend. Maybe I have to read a bit more.

Photosynthetic bacteria also oxidize sulfide to sulfate and hydrogen to water (reviewed in [38]). Both the oxidation of sulfur to sulfate and the oxidation of hydrogen are energy-releasing reactions on Earth, and so the light capturing apparatus is being used in these organisms as a supplement to chemosynthetic processes and not as the primary energy source.

We might therefore suspect that life on a hydrogen-dominated world might evolve photosynthetic chemistry that does not produce hydrogen (“anhydrogenic” photosynthesis) if suitable reactions are available.

Anhydrogenic photosynthesis might dominate if: (1) the mechanisms for hydrogen evolution had not evolved; (2) light energy was a limiting resource, and reactions that required less energy were available; (3) a source of hydrogen atoms to build into H2 was limiting; or (4) some combination of these. The next sections address the overall energetics of hydrogenic photosynthesis and the relative energetics of hydrogenic vs.anhydrogenic photosynthesis.

I am assuming that the paper is restricted to photosynthetic bacteria making carbohydrates and other macromolecules (proteins, fats) in bacterial form that turns methane into hydrogen and carbohydrate. they mention Earth bacteria as analogues and extend the argument. Algae are not mentioned clearly - I assumed that one. Sorry.

Because this paper is concerned with possible photosynthesis reactions on an inhabited planet, we will consider the third of these scenarios, one in which atmospheric carbon is present primarily or exclusively as methane. We note that the third scenario is itself indicative of the presence of life, i.e., the presence of methane and the absence of carbon dioxide is a weak biosignature in its own right, even in an H2-dominated atmosphere.

 

Methane is the most reduced form of carbon, so in order to build complex molecules, it must be oxidized. In a reducing environment, oxidizing methane will require energy, which here we assume comes from light. The analogous reaction to Reaction (1) above is therefore

CH4 + H2O + hv→CH2O + 4[H]

(4)

 

A simple version of this reaction would be one that generated hydrogen gas, thus:

CH4 + H2O + hv→CH2O + 2H2

(5)

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284464/

This could be the biosignature which, if identified, could change the history of our planet - low carbon dioxide, ammonia and hydrogen together as a ratio could indicate a form of life, especially if the gas composition fluctuates, as methane is consumed by alien photosynthetic bacteria or algae. So, if I read it correctly, we would need a rocky planet, with similar mineral composition to the Earth and the presence of simple organisms could utilise the light from their close Sun-like star to turn methane into atmospheric hydrogen. and biomass in the form of carbohydrate. Just one word: WOW!

QUOTE: "..finding objective truth..... not support atheistic motif"

 

 

That's the thing though - science doesn't care about atheism or religion... it points out what we have found to be true to the best of our tests and knowledge.... and that truth points to there being no god (not the Abrahamic one anyway, or any of the world religions)... in fact it kind of ridiclues the idea. This isn't atheistic agenda, it is just the findings of science, the looking at reality and accepting it for what it is rather than being fooled by a work of fiction.

 

I wonder if that is true though. For example, IMO, I believe that the Big Bang was an act of Creation which created the Laws of Physics that we see around us today. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang from Red Shift from galaxies flying away from us to Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Science point out these supporting pieces of evidence I think. I then consider the distance of the Earth from the Sun in its Goldilocks position (not too hot, not too cold) and the Ozone layer which forms a protective coat around the Earth. The high and anomalous heat potential of water and I think that these factors are not sheer coincidence or the outcome of a random event followed by random events in a chain of diminishing possibilities. Of course, in your position you consider that a series of chance events occurred to make the Earth and then develop life. I respect your view but I~ would also state that I have evidence of an act of Creation which implies a Creator as a first Mover if you will

.

 

I believed in the same God for many many years.... but when you are true to your self and make your decision based on evidence rather than fear or pier pressure then the idea does seem real stupid. Looking back I cannot see how I ever believed all of the lies and contradictions at all.... I was always sceptical of the many priests with their varied and differing views from different denominations... I kept my own personal relationship with God - looking back I was either crazy or brain washed or deceived because I really believed it at times in my life. I have seen some 'miraculous' things.

 

I am against the organisation of a priesthood in any religion due to the inequity and influence that a priest can bring to bear on the innocent. However, I see nothing wrong with a personal relationship with an amazing Intelligence.

 

Regards

 

Best wishes.

 

 

Jimmy, you claim numerous times that the word of your god has been corrupted or misused in some way, you state the commandments are a good guide to civilized life yet four of them only deal with how to worship god, the others are not unique to the abrahamic religions at all and are in fact simply rip off of things like the code of Hammurabi. I'd have been impressed a bit more if it had included things like maybe not owning other humans, or giving women equal rights, or possibly not committing genocide (like god demanded several times), respecting others who are different, possibly telling men not to be racist or sexist or homophobic. No it simply states the same old tired codes thought up by bronze age savages with a huge dose of who to worship and how.

 

Yes Moontanman, but you and I are twentieth century people. Things have changed in 2 millennia including women now not being chattels (personal property) of their husbands as in the "enlightened" times of the Roman Empire. Yes there is killing and condemnation of the homosexual act and some early misogyny. I cannot answer WHY these were featured more than to thousand years ago but I cannot see that as a widespread feature amongst religious folks today, I truly don't.

 

Then you go on to at least imply that what other christians are doing is not for you to criticize yet they are are attempting to destroy our civilization by trying to impose those same horrific biblical values and knowledge we spent centuries trying to get away from. A return to the time of religious power would be insane at this juncture. It always spirals out of control because men always twist religion, or any other arbitrary power system for that matter, to serve their own needs.

 

I do not follow what Christian movements are doing in America. I tend not to read about these guys. I am not in a position to debate this point. As a country/continent where religion is separate from the legislative, executive and judicial functions of Government, you guys need not to follow any ruling of a religious order. I don't see what the fuss is about.

 

Religion is especially vulnerable because it's adherents seem to always take the attitude that they cannot judge the religious values of others (of the same religion of course) yet once one religion gains power the first thing they do is persecute the people of other denominations or sects or what ever it is called. You see it in every religion, not just the christian one. when they don't have power they protect each other, when they do they persecute each other. It's a power game, nothing more and I for one will not play it or allow it to gain power through my own inaction..

 

It is a power game when religious people allow a priesthood to have power over them rather than giving their power to God. I have to agree. But religious I have to say again: a truly religious person is tolerant, compassionate and moderate with a thirst for knowledge and ready to help out others regardless of faith. I have met these people. They exist. They have never persecuted anyone else of a different religion. This is not a general behaviour of religious people. It is the general behaviour of a select order of priests/ministers etc...

 

Again fix it, don't try to make excuses for it...

 

The Church, Mosque and Synagogue authorities would have to dismantle their institutions and sack all their priests, imams and rabbis and we as religious people would have to start from scratch.

 

But they are opposed to each other Jimmy, by definition they are opposed to each other, one is based on belief the other is based on evidence. Science does not support the atheistic anything, atheism looks to reality, science defines reality, if religion looked to reality there would be no problem but it does not... again by definition..

 

I have answered this to Dr P's post

 

 

 

Jimmy how do you tell who is a false prophet and who is not? How do you know what the message is if it's so easily corrupted?

False prophets did not bring Divine Revelations to bear to the people. A passage has been quoted earlier how false prophets who asked people to worship other gods should be treated.

 

 

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't become you Jimmy...

Moontanman, like yourself, I have a worldview. It is there, like it or leave it, but I do try to say it as I see it.

Planets with a very dense gaseous envelope (“sub-Neptunes”) will have a surface too hot for liquid water, if they have a defined surface at all (Seager and Rogers in preparation). However rocky planets with a thin, hydrogen-dominated atmosphere can have a surface temperature compatible with liquid water. H2:H2collision-induced absorption (CIA) of near-infrared (NIR) light provides a strong greenhouse effect [47,48], which can mean that such planets have surface temperatures compatible with liquid water well outside the conventional “habitable zone”. Thus, the habitable zone for super-Earths with a H2-dominated atmosphere can be much more extensive than that for truly Earth-like planets (reviewed in [49]). However, there are limits to the extension of the habitable zone for a planet with an H2-dominated atmosphere. In general, the atmospheric greenhouse effect caused by H2-H2 CIA will increase with increasing atmospheric depth, but the attenuation of light reaching the surface will also increase with atmospheric depth. For a very dense atmosphere, surface photosynthesis will not be possible, because the surface will be dark. We return to this inSection 3.6 below.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284464/

Exciting news guys. With hydrogen gas so widely spread, it may just be possible that living things with a large surface area:volume ratio could diffuse methane across their surface and turn out hydrogen as a by-product. However, bacteria or singe celled organisms would be dominant and not some multicellular floozy waiting to seduce a future Captain Kirk . However, from my sketchy reading, which could be incorrect as I as having a conversation at the same time, the composition of these planets needs to have a mineral content similar to that of Earth. The reason for a thin layer of atmosphere is justified above.

You don't need all 10 to form a society. The first 4 are nice if you're arbitrarily excluding the religious practices of others. But this is all besides the point of the thread.

How does one twist a passage prescribing death to a false prophet that is potentially gathering followers when they command the execution of said prophet? If what they have done is consistent with the written commandment from god - they have found and executed the prophet - then there is no twisting of scripture.

A society that is nascent would presumably require some direction. A prophet figure would be the channel of Divine revelation to the masses in was it could be understood. I am pretty sure that there were many "prophets" claiming Divine knowledge at the same time as the Bible was revealed. those that were false would confuse the message. At the time, the punishments were not as enlightened as those handed out today. Just my opinion.

 

I'd agree with that analysis: but the question then becomes whether religious institutions are useful or harmful to modern society. Many countries have yet to get past religiously motivated (or is it simply religiously enshrined?) homophobia and misogyny etc.

 

The act of homosexuality is proscribed true, but can the individual be loved - yes, most certainly so. Misogyny is a cultural phenomenon rather than religiously enshrined.

 

The particular problem the Abrahamic faiths have is that they are predicated on the infallible word of their creator, as conveyed in their holy books. Any changes to interpretation (to allow homosexual clergy, for instance) are done painfully (usually involves schisms), and very slowly.

 

I agree with you. And I cannot make an excuse about religious inflexibility.

 

This lack of ability to be reactive to society means they are no longer relevant to the modern world. When we have Popes declaring Harry Potter as an evil, and Islamic institutions declaring Pokemon haram (forbidden), no sane person should take them seriously. Rowan Williams was the last clergyman i heard making any meaningful contribution to modern debates, but such lucid religious figures are rare.

 

These statements make religious institutions look ridiculous. However, religious belief is individual and covers a whole spectrum. Institutionalising religion was a mistake in my opinion.

 

The Abrahamic faiths serve God first and humanity second: until that changes, they should become increasingly marginalised.

If you read religion carefully, God is served by serving humanity. If that concept has been messed up, it is due to the short-sightedness of believers.

I've been reading the posts in this thread, and I just wanted to add my 2 cents.

 

While I think most religious folks do have good points when say that cruelty and death have been committed both in the name of god(s), and not in the name of god(s), on both macro and micro scales, I think they miss the point of the argument in the end. The point, at least to me, is to show that believing in the religion does not actually gain anything for the society in question. If anything it has proven to do much more harm than good. Sure, you can make an argument that religions do charities, relief aids, etc. But the real harm is that which goes largely unseen and unheard. The teachings of religions are replete with unfalsifiable, untrue nonsense just to put it lightly. Things like child indoctrination and religious teachings impeding into science education bear heavy consequences on a world that is trying to understand the nature of reality and how to live within it. The charity part is not something that one must accept ancient nonsensical beliefs on poor evidence in order to do.

 

In my opinion, the religious person is invariably moderate, knowledge-seeking, compassionate and caring. These are qualities that a society should appreciate. Any deviation is due to the habits of the person. There is also room for flexibility by consensus if necessary but there are absolutes which are required for running an orderly society - no murder, for example. Where Science and religion do clash it is over interpretation, IMO. Is there a problem in believing that God created then allowed His creation to evolve? Not to my mind.

 

The second part of this argument most religious folks miss is the fact that, if there is a God behind all of this, then the centuries of blood-shed, death, torture, plagues, inquisitions, rapes, honor killings, sectarian wars, genocides, tribalism, in-group/out-group and anti-science committed in his name are very good indicators that this God has failed at the project of establishing a peaceful and adequate message to deliver to his children. It seems to me that religion wreaks of being man-made. All of the tell-tale signs of something being man-made are manifestly evident in religion. It couldn't be more obvious.

 

The murders, rapes and crimes also took place in non-religious societies. I think the problem is in the misuse of the revelations by individuals. I am sure that most belief systems, including polytheistic systems preach peace, but the choice of individuals in power is their own choice dictated by nature and environment. Human nature is quite cruel. Entertainment T.V. will show you that.

 

Of course, this isn't to say that you aren't perfectly welcome to believe in God, or that people are stupid for believing in God. As an atheist myself, I really don't care if others believe in God. I just want people to accept science where it has been proven, and to do their best to make their decisions based on the most sound and empirically-based understanding of reality possible. I really do think the Abrahamic religions have overstayed their welcome and their expiration date is far overdue. I'm not advocating for some "new age" voodoo to take its place, but I would like to see those who still want to remain believers to move to a more "reason-based" view of spirituality (if there is such a thing).

 

That's my opinion.

Thank you for that reasonable opinion mate.

 

Jimmy, the Bible specifically demands that witches be killed, that anyone who tries to talk you into worshiping another god should be killed, In fact there are 613 commandments in the bible many of which the punishment for not following is death. From wearing cloth made of more than one fiber to planting two crops in the same field to working on the sabbath. Far too much death and the entire idea of heaven and hell is unjust and immoral...

You have to wonder about the morals of those who support them in these actions too.

Each society needs rules. Tacitus writing about First Century A.D. Germany mentioned the rules that the largest tribes had to moderate extremes of behaviour. Most of them advocated death for those that showed any deviancy from the acceptable, verbally articulated norm. When religious authorities do the same, they are criticised but remember that they also have to regulate societies and unite them by a common belief system.

Gets millions in tax incentives from state of KY for an openly religious-themed attraction aimed at teaching creationism as fact. Then turns around and discriminates who he hires based on religion and views on women's rights. Unbelievable! Ken Ham is a total piece of shit who will stoop to the lowest levels.

Some religious and non-religious people are despicable. I cannot comment on something or somebody whose words I have never heard.

If I had to summarise my views, I would state:

1. Religion suffered from having a privileged class called priests. Individual peccadilloes became justified under the flag of religion unjustly.

2. A study of Rome in the times of Caligula and Tiberius will tell you that excesses of deviancy have always existed in society. human nature tends to be cruel.

3. Institutionalisation of religion has led to perversion of the original message in some cases.

4. Science and religion should not be totally opposed to each other. Science is a way of finding objective truth and should be embraced by religion. However Science needs to be objective and follow the conclusions of the Science to a logical end and not to support atheistic motif.

5. Human societies have always needed rules and the rules sometimes (or most of the times) have led to the death of those who showed extremes of behaviour.

All the above are my personal opinions as a follower of the Abrahamic God.

The first 4 commandments have nothing to do with morality and everything to do with an angry, jealous god.

 

Honor thy father and thy mother: that's fine within reason. Honor and respect are earned over the course of the relationship. I do not expect someone with abusive birth parents to respect or honor them (though they may, for some reason, love them). Part of this honoring entails gifts: do abusive parents deserve gifts? The only biblical justification I can find is because god grants the child long life

Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.— Exodus 20:12 (NIV)

and that honoring your parents is akin to honoring god

"A son honours his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honour due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?" says the LORD Almighty. "It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name. But you ask, 'How have we shown contempt for your name?'"— Malachi 1:6 (NIV)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_thy_father_and_thy_mother

 

The last 3 are about coveting. What is the justification for there to be laws which make thoughts which can come into consciousness without conscious forethought such as "Damn I wish I had his Mercedes" immoral? How would ones yearning for another's possession cripple the society? That seems on the surface beneficial to the economy as they might go out and buy whatever it is they want. And for coveting thy neighbors wife, so long as you don't act on it a la committing adultery and it doesn't impact your other relationships what is the problem?

 

"People will always manipulate the rules to suit their on personal peccadilloes. "

There is no manipulation when a rule says to kill those who have a difference of religious opinion and you follow through with the prescription of said rule. You're following the rule to its logical conclusion.

Andrew, we are drawing a conclusion about Popes or religious authorities misusing power in the name of religion. Secular rulers have also misused power throughout history. I will try to find out a couple of names later and edit them in. The Popes, Catholic priests, other Abrahamic faiths etc... have always had people who twisted an ideal or an absolute idea and have justified their twisted logic. Where they have used this twisted logic to kill those who did not share their religion, e.g. witches, this is not a religious absolute, it is a form of extremist logic. In the hands of the powerful, it is a poison to society and a divisive influence.

However, let's posit that God wished a people to prosper as a society. To allow society to be unified and act as a cogent unit, there had to be a control to excesses. These absolutes required to punish those that committed excesses. People would then live in a moderate environment, something like the Aristotlean golden mean. Rulers who were corrupt and sought to increase their power by rising to power increased their corruption as a consequence. A person who had to lie, bribe and cheat to rise to the top has to reclaim his money somehow and then religion becomes a mask for corruption.

As far as the 10 Commandments, for a primitive society of farmers, that is going to form an early civilisation, I believe that you are being over-fussy with the commandments. Are they good enough to form a society - yes they are.

I have reproduced them below, for the sake of brevity:

The 10 Commandments List, Short Form

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

http://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/10-commandments/the-ten-commandments/10-commandments-list/

Despite your objections, they seem OK to set up a simple farmer society that is going to grow and then add or evolve rules by unanimous consent. As a believer, I don't see anything wrong with that. If people choose to use religion as a flag of convenience for murder, rape and crime, that is their choice, as a means of placating and scaring the public. That still happens today in our great democracies.

 

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." - Leviticus 20:13 NIV

 

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

 

Or more relevant to the pope in the op: "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God" Deuteronomy 13

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+13%2CTitus+3%3A10%2CTitus+3%3A11%2C2+John+10%2C2+John+11&version=NIV

 

Murder of the innocent is quintessential?

Certainly not, but they could just as easily find biblical justification for their actions if they decided to go down his path.

 

I am not going to be drawn into the "gay" debate. We all live in a society where we have laws. Right. For a reason, and we adhere to them, for a reason. Society needs to be limited in the scope of what individual can do. If God has decided something as an absolute manifestation of a law then humans, with their limited understanding have to adhere to them. You could have mentioned the Ten Commandments. Are they not reasonable and moderate enough to run a society? Individuals who have power and choose to follow extremes in their INTERPRETATION of faith hhave always existed, and always will exist. People will always manipulate the rules to suit their on personal peccadilloes.

 

Btw mate:

 

Worshiping Other Gods

 

13 [a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods”(gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fastto him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

 

The wosrhipping other gods bit is a bit objectionable to religious thought.

 

 

 

Wasn't it Conan who said that?

 

 

 

The fact that the christian religion allowed and even demanded things like the burning of witches and the killing of all who didn't follow the correct dogma, even other christians, and supported those who committed those crimes in the name of god doesn't really bode well for our game of cherry picking. Religious violence was at least partly responsible for the framers of the Constitutions wanting a separation of church and state. So many major and minor wars based on nothing but interpretation of dogma until religion was gelded during the enlightenment... I think I'll pick cherries from my side any day.

 

Even those rulers who aspired to the highest ethical standards were often not particularly nice when they dealt with those they thought didn't... In fact I would assert that the worst of the lot were those with the highest "church approved" moral standards.

 

The Christian Church you see today is a shadow of it's former self when it had real power of life and death over all who disagreed. Yeah, I'll pick cherries from my side any day over your side on this one.

 

I am sorry to hear you are having problems Jimmy, very sorry to hear about your son, please accept my heart felt condolences. My health has been pretty bad in recent years as well, I can't imagine having to deal with both my health problems and a death of a child. Please feel free to talk if you need a sounding board...

I am quite sure that religion was twisted by men to achieve their end goals but the fact it can be so easily twisted is a strike against it from the get go...

Frankly Moontanman, I am surprised you di not mention some of the other Popes who behaved like depraved animals. I was horrified to read about the seriously disgusting actions that they performed whilst in leadership. Was it religious belief that allowed them paedophilia, bestiality and other corrupt actions? That is my central point, and you know it. You did pick on some of the worst examples of human beings if we can call them that. If you had a choice to punish their actions,what would you do? In 2016, come on, what would you do to a paedophile and defiler of innocent human beings? Be honest here. I would have them imprisoned for life. These guys misused religion for personal means.

Thank you for your thoughts and condolences on my troubles. I think I have held things in and then stopped exercising leading to my present lamentable demise. However, this is typical of Northern British people who tend to be so tight-assed with their problems that coal becomes diamond in their trousers....

Ghenis Khan was a tengrist, but it doesn't matter to the topic of this thread because his behavior wasn't driven by his religious ideology.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Religion

I disagree. The point is more about power than power and religion combined. Christian religious ideology has existed for a couple of thousand years. Were all the Popes as cruel as Pope Innocent IV? Were the two World Wars caused by differences in religious ideology?

I am an Abrahamic faith believer and I could pick out examples of religious tolerance and civilisation from religious rulers that conform to the highest ethical ideals. But, if I didn't wish to do so, I could cherry pick religious leaders who have shown the utmost disregard for morality. I am surprised the Borgias have not been mentioned at all yet....

In short, the quintessential ethics that could allow an ordered society to be founded and continue can be found in the Abrahamic faiths. If individuals choose to flout the ethical foundations of their faith, this is a reflection of their own personalities and not due to the religion.

Moontanman Man, I am a bit late to this topic due to a heart attack and subsequent stay in hospital (too much stress and no exercise since my son died in 2014...). However, I could easily pick out someone who is definitely not religious and point out the cruelty and injustice of his rule. For example, and I did not have to look too far mate:

IIRC,the 13th century was dominated by the Mongols who were quite happy to kill every man, woman, child and dog who opposed them. Also, IIRC, when Genghis Khan died, every creature who passed by his funeral cortege was slain.

At this rate Moontanman, we could quite happily swap these stories all night. Can you please get to the point brother?

OK guys,I did not sit still and leave it aloe. I watched the following video for clues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5smas8uum4

then I watched the following:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=electroytes+in+the+human+body&atb=v10&ia=videos&iai=JhdFkyQBfSY

and now I will make a testable and falsifiable hypothesis which you are all free to falsify so that we all move forward to a higher amount of knowledge.

I am assuming that:

a) the beating of the heart has an effect on calcium and sodium levels in the conducting fibres of the heart but also on Interstitial (or tissue fluid); lymph or blood plasma;

b) sodium and calcium ions are extracellular:

c) the beating of the heart causes a change in levels of extracellular ions such as sodium or potassium which are "relayed" to the skin where voltmeters or electrodes can detect changes in electronic potential energy which is correlated with ion movements (current).

You are all welcome to comment and correct me.

Excellent answers. My question was about the wave of depolarisation conducting down the specialised conducting tissue and then through electrolytes and other tissues until it reaches the skin.

I wondered at the mechanism because an ECG would presumably detect changes in electrical potential energy.

Is there a concomitant current provided by ion movements which cascades across connective tissues and then permeates for over a metre over the skin?

Would this mean perturbation of charge ratios across every cell membrane from the heart to the skin?

Which part of the cell membranes in other tissues would be affected by the heartbeat in terms of electrical conductivity?

As I have said, this is one of the many gaps in my knowledge and my Internet searches for answers were frustrating.

Keep going guys...