U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-30-2009, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Nashville, Tn
7,916 posts, read 16,422,672 times
Reputation: 5442

Advertisements

kdbrich wrote:
Quote:
It's amazing how we all agree on the idea of cause/effect until it points to the idea that this earth was "caused", or created. Apply that to the rest of life. Do you believe the computer you're typing on just sprang into existence one day from nothing? Or was there a factory that built the pieces and then someone assembled them?
Manufactered items have nothing to do with biology and the comparison makes no sense. Computers don't reproduce and have baby computers that grow up to be desktop computers, they're obviously man made and built in a factory. Any biological organism that is living today is the result of the countless generations that existed previously and has inherited the genetics that are favorable for it's existence. People have tried to explain evolution to you but it doesn't appear to be sinking in. In fact there have been many excellent posts by individuals who are very knowledgeable on the subject and have gone to alot of effort to present information for those who don't understand it. You, however, have not presented any in depth and coherent information that supports the concept of a creator. Of course you're not able to do that because there isn't any evidence of a creator to begin with. So now I guess you're going to point out that I'm not rational even though you're the one who keeps losing these debates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2009, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
521 posts, read 791,288 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
1. It's amazing how we all agree on the idea of cause/effect until it points to the idea that this earth was "caused", or created. Apply that to the rest of life. Do you believe the computer you're typing on just sprang into existence one day from nothing? Or was there a factory that built the pieces and then someone assembled them?
I'd be willing state that most every one will agree on cause and effect. The problem comes when when some one says that the cause has no realistic basis. Also, when travling down this line of thought there is the problem with infinite regression. I think coosjoaquin said it best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin View Post
Simply put:

"everything has a cause"
and
"god didn't have a cause"

Contradict each other. Believers, please explain yourselves on this discrepancy.
If you want to say that everyting in existance was caused/created and that this points to god, thats fine. But then following this same line of logic, what created god?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
2. And back to my original point. If there was no immune system, wouldn't the attacks on the body have killed the people, thus not giving them time to evolve a defense?
That is one of the many reasons that some species go extinct. But this does not apply to all species, as some evolve to combat such infections and other adversities they will face, these traits are then passed on to future generations giving them a greater chance at survival.

BTW, coosoaquin i tried to rep ya, but i gotta spread some around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Brussels, Belgium
971 posts, read 1,503,992 times
Reputation: 235
(Guys, the cause-effect question is out of topic.)

I'm not sure what the usefulness of this thread is, kdbrich. You're not interested in an answer because you have made up your mind long ago. If the answer is really good, you'll just drop the subject and probably start a new thread about some other imaginary flaw in the theory of evolution.

And if we cannot give you a good answer, what would that prove? That we aren't qualified biologists? I told you that to begin with. Do you think that someone can learn all there is to know about evolution with a few years of biology in high school? One would only have to look at your posts to see that this isn't the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Which evolved first? The immune system? Or the need for it?
The immune system.

And just like sexual reproduction, one should not confuse the "original" immune system with the modern fine-tuned anti-virus machine that we have, which is the result of a billion-years-long arm race against parasites of all kinds.

Let's take a simpler analogy. Here's a population of primitive multi-cellular organisms. They have bumps on their backs, though some have more than others. Since it provides no evolutionary advantage one way or the other, no version is "bred out".

Some organisms evolve a sort of hook that sometimes allow them to accidentally attach themselves to others. That way, they do not have to spend any energy to move to the food sources, they travel for free. These are the parasites. Their hosts have to spend twice as much energy, and a few may even die of hunger.

With this system, the more bumpy individuals have a greater chance of being caught by a parasite. Over the years, the population therefore evolve towards flatter and flatter backs. To survive, the parasites are forced to improve their hook, and so on. A billion years later, you could get a fish with perfectly smooth scales, with a little spiky thing lodged in an articulation.

So what came first, the parasite or the defence against it? Clearly the defence (the less bumpy organisms), though it didn't evolve to protect the organism against non-existent parasites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 11:57 AM
 
Location: US
81 posts, read 131,177 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
I could say the same about you. You're irrational to the point that you won't consider the possibility of supernatural events, regardless of the evidence. You don't REALLY want to learn about anything, but only want to express your views.

Bottom line is that apparently when you don't have an answer for something you'd rather shout me down than to change your mind.
Supernatural lends predominately from the minds of the superstitious. There is no conclusive or even cogent evidence for any supernatural act, in the history of the world.
When asked how he would explain a "genuine mystical experience," Sagan responded: "Your question presupposes the existence of a genuine mystical experience and I'm not sure what that is. People have vivid hallucinations. How do you distinguish between altered states of consciousness?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 12:02 PM
 
4,512 posts, read 6,587,500 times
Reputation: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by anaarkh View Post
Supernatural lends predominately from the minds of the superstitious. There is no conclusive or even cogent evidence for any supernatural act, in the history of the world.
When asked how he would explain a "genuine mystical experience," Sagan responded: "Your question presupposes the existence of a genuine mystical experience and I'm not sure what that is. People have vivid hallucinations. How do you distinguish between altered states of consciousness?"

Not at all as long as they are all kept to oneself.. consciousness going towards distinction or ex--
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 12:04 PM
 
Location: US
81 posts, read 131,177 times
Reputation: 36
"Pointing around" is a lazy way of implying the natural reverence for the luck mankind has in experiencing existence at all, much less a pleasant and beautiful one as it is. With that phrasing, you could be a pantheist, deist, or just a good ol' atheist in reverence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 01:20 PM
 
37,606 posts, read 25,300,228 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by anaarkh View Post
Supernatural lends predominately from the minds of the superstitious. There is no conclusive or even cogent evidence for any supernatural act, in the history of the world.

When asked how he would explain a "genuine mystical experience," Sagan responded: "Your question presupposes the existence of a genuine mystical experience and I'm not sure what that is. People have vivid hallucinations. How do you distinguish between altered states of consciousness?"
Supernatural doesn't exist, period. Everything is natural, including God who is ALL. Your preference for the name "Nature" and the descriptions and attributes discovered by science is your preference. The irrational beliefs of others about God do nothing to remove the reality (which you call "Nature") . . . their irrationality simply discredits the other beliefs about God . . . not yours.

The answer to Sagan is "control," Adepts develop control over their awareness and invoke the altered states under that control. We have the ability to control much of what is experienced during these altered states . . . but NOT ALL. That which we cannot control (fixed) and which appears to be constant across experiences (consistency), as well as, those which intrude and appear to be transient but uncontrollable . . . we attribute to another aspect of our reality. Unfortunately . . . without the ability to control . . . these distinctions are not available to others. The ability (like true mathematical adeptness) requires time and discipline to acquire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 03:17 PM
 
Location: US
81 posts, read 131,177 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
1]Supernatural doesn't exist, period. Everything is natural, including God who is ALL. Your preference for the name "Nature" and the descriptions and attributes discovered by science is your preference. The irrational beliefs of others about God do nothing to remove the reality (which you call "Nature") . . . their irrationality simply discredits the other beliefs about God . . . not yours.

2]The answer to Sagan is "control," Adepts develop control over their awareness and invoke the altered states under that control. We have the ability to control much of what is experienced during these altered states . . . but NOT ALL. That which we cannot control (fixed) and which appears to be constant across experiences (consistency), as well as, those which intrude and appear to be transient but uncontrollable . . . we attribute to another aspect of our reality. Unfortunately . . . without the ability to control . . . these distinctions are not available to others. The ability (like true mathematical adeptness) requires time and discipline to acquire.
1]Your answer is irrefutable in it's subjectivity. The part where you say, "including God who is ALL" is a bit ambiguous and is a touchy subject, since you obviously believe in a concept of God independent of nature, since you include God as natural without specifying whether or not you believe God to be Nature...

2]It's hard to argue an answer to a deceased genius who won't be defending his response today, but I will assume you misunderstood the phrase, "People have vivid hallucinations. How do you distinguish between altered states of consciousness?" You can't test in a laboratory vivid hallucinations and altered states of consciousness any easier than it would be to use a "control" method. And there is ample evidence that an altered state of consciousness can bring about extremely pleasant feelings and can profoundly affect personality. Some religious experiences, for example, are described as providing a very pleasant sense of divine presence and of the oneness, interrelatedness, and significance of all things. You can not distinguish that and normality when referencing the religious...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 03:59 PM
 
37,606 posts, read 25,300,228 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by anaarkh View Post
1]Your answer is irrefutable in it's subjectivity. The part where you say, "including God who is ALL" is a bit ambiguous and is a touchy subject, since you obviously believe in a concept of God independent of nature, since you include God as natural without specifying whether or not you believe God to be Nature...
Of course God is nature . . . that is what ALL means. But I do add attributes that have only been subjectively determined in addition to those verified by science.
Quote:
2]It's hard to argue an answer to a deceased genius who won't be defending his response today, but I will assume you misunderstood the phrase, "People have vivid hallucinations. How do you distinguish between altered states of consciousness?"
I assure you I did not misunderstand and did not expect the deceased Carl Sagan to respond. But you may have misunderstood the "control" I was speaking about. The difference with hallucinations or delusions and brain states produced by external factors, such as disease or drugs or stimulation of brain centers and those brain states achieved under meditation . . . is that under meditation our awareness can control what is experienced (with a lot of practice) . . . for most states . . . which is the signal that those things are "of the brain" or subjective. There are things like the end state . . which is always the same and cannot be altered or controlled by our awareness . . . that prove to the individual experiencing it that it is a fixed and consistent aspect of our reality. Some things intrude on these states at random and of various content . . . and they cannot be controlled or altered by our awareness either. Therefore these things tend to be attributed to aspects of our reality as well . . . such as the "thoughts of others" specifically directed toward or about us.
Quote:
And there is ample evidence that an altered state of consciousness can bring about extremely pleasant feelings and can profoundly affect personality. Some religious experiences, for example, are described as providing a very pleasant sense of divine presence and of the oneness, interrelatedness, and significance of all things. You can not distinguish that and normality when referencing the religious...
Yes . . . I can . . . as explained above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2009, 04:11 PM
 
Location: US
81 posts, read 131,177 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Of course God is nature . . . that is what ALL means. But I do add attributes that have only been subjectively determined in addition to those verified by science. I assure you I did not misunderstand and did not expect the deceased Carl Sagan to respond. But you may have misunderstood the "control" I was speaking about. The difference with hallucinations or delusions and brain states produced by external factors, such as disease or drugs or stimulation of brain centers and those brain states achieved under meditation . . . is that under meditation our awareness can control what is experienced (with a lot of practice) . . . for most states . . . which is the signal that those things are "of the brain" or subjective. There are things like the end state . . which is always the same and cannot be altered or controlled by our awareness . . . that prove to the individual experiencing it that it is a fixed and consistent aspect of our reality. Some things intrude on these states at random and of various content . . . and they cannot be controlled or altered by our awareness either. Therefore these things tend to be attributed to aspects of our reality as well . . . such as the "thoughts of others" specifically directed toward or about us.
Yes I did misunderstand, leading to a semi-unrelated tirade... sorry..
On your proof of distinguishing altered states of consciousness...

The proof lies within the individual experiencing it, as you said. Assuming the self-induced and self-controlled alteration of state of consciousness is interpreted as religious, supernatural, or transcendent in general, is it not because the person seeking [and working hard to] control over his altered mindset had preconceived expectations, perhaps of religious or supernatural nature?

My homework has got me this far:

Most likely, the mechanisms that trigger these feelings are completely natural. They may be a pleasant side effect of some evolutionary adaptation, but as yet we do not know why such brain states are triggered. And while it is an extremely interesting discovery that religious experiences can be induced by disease, electrodes, and by drugs, it hardly seems a compelling reason for believing in God. Although it might be a compelling reason for taking drugs, for not seeking treatment, or for using a transcranial electromagnetic stimulator and hoping for Orgasmatron results like the Woody Allen character in “Sleeper.” Most religions identify the ideal state as an ASC: losing one’s body and one’s self, uniting with some sort of Divine Being, and feeling ecstatic pleasure. In this sense, to seek an ASC is to seek to kill your sense of self while enjoying the ultimate orgasm.

Last edited by anaarkh; 01-30-2009 at 04:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top