What up?

I'm going to stop now. I stand by what I have said, but I am coming across like a twaddle. Didn't mean to be such a bell end about it.

Seems Clancy doesn't like the idea of rebirth.

If he is a reductionist, then he will be more likely to follow the "physicalist" approach to psychology, rather than the "dualist" approach that will separate the mind from the body.

It's hard to consider the mind as being separate from the body, because the brain is effected directly by the conditions it is in. If you pass a small current over a small area of the brain, you won't be ably to say your own name. So clearly the mind is something intrinsic to the body.

But on the other hand, we don't know nearly enough about the brain to say that emotions and thoughts are simply chemical impulses or an elaborate endocrine hormonal system, or whatever I'm supposed to write here, I'm way to tired to be online...

So, the question concerning rebirth remains: is the mind necessarily intrinsic to the body? If not, then a separate entity exists and can be reborn, or whatever happens these days.

Check this out:


Science of the Soul - YouTube

I guess you haven't realized that by being an atheist, you too believe in something that has yet to be definitively proven

Nice video. What exactly does it have to do with this discussion?

Edit: Just seen the post above. Not really the same is it. I am pretty sure the Doctor in the video wouldn't, based on his research, go around telling people the brain, body and soul are separate. Merely he is looking into it.

Mr. Zoon, I think you're in the same boat as Mr. Clancy insofar as when you say God, you mean a Judeo-Christian God.

I had an IR professor in college, Iranian expatriate thrown out during the revolution. He was saying once how most people in America (and the west) have Christianity so ingrained in them that when they say they are agnostic/atheist they say its in reference to Christianity even if they don't specificy. The whole concept of religion, which they reject, is fundamentally rooted in Christianity.

I don't have a problem with people not believing in God, but just make sure (and I'm not saying this speciafically to you, or that you are doing this, Jans) you're not thinking the story of Jesus is illogical and all creators in any form.


Tommy Boy - I don't think talking to you is going to be worth our time. You seem too closed-minded for me. Sorry buddy.

In general:

For my money, Futurama got "God" better than anyone else. I cant find a larger clip than this, but as for looks, and philosophy, I'm with them...

It's related to Might Salami's most recent post about the mind being seperate from the body.

Absolutely correct. I often say the same thing to my atheist friends. A lot of atheists don't know enough about religion abroad to reject it completely. Most atheists I know don't even know enough about Christianty. They hear the stories of the bible and take them in the most literal sense and just instantly disregard them, and it's understandable. I'm no bible nut but it's quite obvious that the bible shouldn't be taken so literally. It can be interpreted in many ways and it's been translated so often that some of it's true meaning has been twisted.

No problem buddy. I'll not bother you with a series of PM's.

He clearly said that he meant all religions, not just christianity.

While the lessons that most religions teach are beneficial, believing that there is a higher power is foolish. Having a "lack of evidence" for the non-existence of god/gods is not anything like having a lack of evidence for the existence of god.

Here we go again.:laughing:

Nice clip by the way, Thebig3. Silly humans, always thinking they've got the answer.

This is on of my favourite Religious satires.

I don't know if you're speaking to me or Blast, but let me explain why your wrong. And why i think your arrogant in your closed-mindedness.

We have this thing called science. Science has rules. For the most part, to prove something you need a constant and a variable. You need a controlled experiment. You cannot do this with god for one of the following reasons:

1. You don't beleive in God, you don't believe God exists anywhere, therefore you can't run an experiement with God in it.

2. You do believe in God, you believe God is everywhere, therefore you can't run and experient without God in it.

This starts the argument. Seeing as you can disprove God just as easily as you can prove him, you need to move from there. And since I'm talking about a constant - What I don't know - and you're assuming quite a bit - talking about things you can't know - if anyone is being reasonable here its those of us who are willing to concede that we don't know everything.

Now as for Limb and Clancy, I don't know if they have died, come back and can tell us there is nothing out there, I hope they enlighten us on their experiences. But I myself have not died, I've never seen the absense of beings beyond here and I don't know what could be out there.

Could it be nothing? Certainly. But I don't know that. I'm being told by other posters that my position is absurd. I'd love to hear more from them.

So why air on the side of crazy?

There are highly touted theories that we can physically be in multiple places at the same time. We have no idea when our universe began or how big it is, or what's outside of it. We literally don't know anything about our physical world. But you're going to just go out on a limb here and claim that it's foolish to think that a God is possible. The only foolish thing is to claim that you know that anything does or does not exist.

*err, and everything about the universe is crazy.

It's foolish to expect somebody to assume based on nothing.

I am here, right now. Not in two places.

I find to be quite illogical that you could instantly dismiss the idea of divinity and think that this awe-inspiring universe could just be a pointless result of chance. I don't see how something so insanely intricate and marvelous could just be an act of chance.

I don't dismiss it at all. I hope there is a God. Would be great. But I will not allow myself to believe in something that is basically an idea. I wished Santa was real, but as soon as I was able to think beyond "How many presents am I getting" you realise that the idea is ridiculous.

I will also not allow myself to live by the rules of religious teaching, which we all know are basically man made.

See this is what I'm talking about. No one said anything about religious teachings. You're thinking of a Christian God.

God =/= religion.
God =/= teachings.

And theres no telling what god is or what its intentions are, so the whole "presents" analogy is again Christian.

I'm curious what would make you think that. I can assure you I'm not specifically talking about the Abrahamic God, I'm talking about a general god concept. This does bring up a point worth discussing though, namely defining what we're discussing. When I say "god" I am referring to any notion of an intelligent supernatural entity or entities which govern and/or created the universe.

^ That.
Assuming there is anything like a heaven or hell is completely separate from whether or not God exists. Heaven isn't necessary for God to be.



Janzoon, your definition works for me. I think "God" implies both creation and sentience.

As am I Jaz.

Okay, you really are failing to grasp the simplest of ideas here.

Your post is basically telling me that there is only religious teachings in Christianity because you assume that when I say "religious teachings" am I not speaking on broader terms.

Secondly, if we are talking about God and not religion, you still have a belief of something that is not proven to even the most basic extent. Therefore you have these beliefs for no apparent reason.

I get the feeling being religious is the new alternative viewpoint that some use to appear to be more worldly and intelligent.

Until some undeniable proofs turns up, I'll remain undecided on the subject.

I think Christianity deserves a little credit. It looks good compared to the ancient mythologies. For quite possibly the first time in human history, messages of good morals were being preached. And there were some scientific claims in the bible that were ahead of it's time, for example, it says that life on earth began in the ocean.

It's possibly the greatest story ever told. Got a bit out of hand.

I just want to pinch your delightful little cheeks.

So why don't you tell me some Islamic laws you don't subscribe to. And Tao and Rastafarian and Gnostic laws you think are foolish.

Why should I? I really don't care.

I don't want to know their teachings, I have no interest in learning what they consider to be the right kind of religion and I am not going to waste my time discovering it.

I don't care for religion, I have no faith at all, I think it is entirely possible that God exists, but choose not to devote any aspect of my life towards that and eagerly await being proven wrong.

Uh, well I guess I'm with you assuming by supernatural you mean beyond what we would experience on earth.

I don't necessarily concede that god governs the universe. I sometimes wonder if its governs, set processes in motion, or is observing as mutations are allowed to fully playout.

much as I like to believe in reincarnation, i have to confess i have no memories of a past life

Buddhism in its purest form, is merely a philosophy, Buddha never proclaimed himself God, unlike Jesus

only later when the Taoists came in, only was Buddha worshipped as a God

such as?

a multi-verse only really implies there are multiple versions of yourself, and yourself in another universe would be in a divergent situation, because of the paths your alternate versions chose

they are not necessarily "you"

see above

Taoist, in its purest form, also, is merely a philosophy - read the "Tao Te Ching" if you don't believe me

only when some religious fuddy-duddies mixed in Indian mysticism was it a religion

Well, you fail on several levels here, I am not Atheist, Reality is Subjective, Atheism is not based on science, and there is nothing to "know", only to perceive.

That's why I put the "and/or" there. I was leaving room for the Deists and whatnot. :)

It is ancient mythology.

Not in the Old Testament (yikes). And the New Testament was written after the Ramayana. So I'd have to go with a "no" on that claim.

No it doesn't. According to Genesis, God put plants on dry land on the third day. He didn't get around to putting anything in the ocean until day five.

So it is a religion then?

Yeah I mean I don't know what your daily intake has to do with it but vegans, i guess, are a religion too.

^ I hope people who read that last comment are tricked into thinking I am intelligent :D

Would it take trix?

I was talking about the mythology that came before it.

And I said "possibly", not "definitely". Doesn't change the fact that it was one of the first.

And that only validates the science of the bible even more. Considering plants did exist before animals. Thanks.

depends on which followers you talk to

majority are those into burning incense and paper, praying to idols, and speaking to "mediums"

truer subscribers who only see it as a philosophy only, like myself, will do otherwise

Was it? You haven't exactly made a strong case here.

And plants existed before to sun too, right? That's what the Bible says so it must be true.

Didn't want any of my sexy troll bait, huh?