Hindu groups linked to terror, Parliament rocked

[Kriterion]

Why is that not possible?? Just because you beleive in God, or do not beleive in Ghost, am I supposed to act the same? Seriously what is that if not trying to shove your own ideology down other people's throat?? If you want me to go into specifics on what I do/dont beleive in, please spell it out. Lets take Islam. Tell me your beleif and I shall tell you what I do NOT beleive. Then you can try to convince me how your beleif in Islam = my disbeleif in it. Fair?

you're UN-belief is itself a a belief. as CC said, your choosing to not believe is a belief in and of itself. what you are basically saying is that the "other" side of the coin is not a side at all, and that is plain wrong. and i never said that religious beliefs = non religous beliefs. just that lack of religous beliefs are a form of "religous" beliefs in and of themselves.

Hunkey/dorey?? You either do not understand what I write, or you are getting weirdly defensive since you are religious. I stand by my argument that if you have 100 athiests in a room, there would be NO FIGHT ON ISSUE OF THEOLOGY. On the other hand if you put 100 religious persons in a room they will all, in the very least, be defensive of their own beleif and in many cases(look around the world) would be downrightly judgemental of others.

and if you put 100 people of religion, they won't have any fights with atheists thereby proving the peaceful nature of religion. and au contraire. atheists don't fight each other? bolsheviks and mensheviks. case closed as that is just 1 example.

What kind of evidence do you need?? How many "fights" based on religion has ever happened in a Communist country?? Please show me some examples on how athiests have gone hammer and tongs at each other with a - My athiest philosphy is better than yours? xxx

see above response.

[THX_1138]

you're UN-belief is itself a a belief. as CC said, your choosing to not believe is a belief in and of itself. what you are basically saying is that the "other" side of the coin is not a side at all, and that is plain wrong. and i never said that religious beliefs = non religous beliefs. just that lack of religous beliefs are a form of "religous" beliefs in and of themselves. and if you put 100 people of religion, they won't have any fights with atheists thereby proving the peaceful nature of religion. and au contraire. atheists don't fight each other? bolsheviks and mensheviks. case closed as that is just 1 example. see above response.

debating with a intellectual jackhole like you is not particularly rewarding.

[Lurker]

True. But you would have a lot of fights over the issue of philosophy....and theology is just a branch of philosophy. So nothing different' date=' really.[/quote'] Philosphy and theology are not exactly the same. In philosphy there is always room for skepticism, in theology there is little. I would still allow the fact that Eastern theology allows room for skepticism. In Western theology however you can not be religious and a sceptic. You either beleive or you dont. Simple.

[Lurker]

you're UN-belief is itself a a belief. as CC said' date=' [b']your choosing to not believe is a belief in and of itself.

Start over, this time with what YOU say. Why is my non-beleif in God same as your beleif. Please be specific and not un-neccessary moving goalposts.

what you are basically saying is that the "other" side of the coin is not a side at all, and that is plain wrong.

Plain wrong. Not beleiving in God is NOT the other side of the coin. Who gave you that impression??? One can beleive in God, others are not sure, then some beleive at times and at other times dont, others dont care, some beleive in Pamela Anderson more than Prophets. How does that equate to "another" side of the same coin?

and i never said that religious beliefs = non religous beliefs. just that lack of religous beliefs are a form of "religous" beliefs in and of themselves.

Wow! Lack of religious beleifs is the same as religious beleif? Whats next? Having 4 wives allowed by religion is akin to not having 4 wives allowed by religion? Again, please be specific HOW it is equal, and not just throw words out there.

atheists don't fight each other? bolsheviks and mensheviks. case closed as that is just 1 example.

You need to grasp what people write..and then open the case. I had clearly suggested NO FIGHT ON ISSUE OF THEOLOGY. Did Bolsheviks and Mensheviks fight on THEOLOGY? The last I heard they split on the philosphy of Marxism and the means to achieve it. But maybe the beleif system that you follow makes you close cases without questioning them. SO again, lets be specific - Tell me your beleif and I shall tell you what I do NOT beleive. Then you can try to convince me how your beleif in Islam = my disbeleif in it. Fair? xxx see above response.

[THX_1138]

Next time, to better educate yourself on where i am comming from, stop trying to read politically correct neo-conservative bible thumpers and try reading some Kant or Neitzche. 'beyond sensory perceptions' doesnt mean beyond the five human senses- it means beyond our ability to detect or know currently - as such, your quantum mechanics, etc. argument is irrelevant : we can still 'detect' quantum mechanics using technology. It overrules your black holes, electrons etc etc. as we are not talking about satisfying our five human senses of 'sensory perception'. The equivalent would be holding a dogmatic beleif in God or parallel universe or any such thing where we have ZERO sensory perception of the matter- even circumstantial or inductive. No need to simplify quantum mechanics for me - i have taken courses in 3rd/4th year quantum mechanics as science electives to my engineering. Not saying i know the ins and outs of it- but my knowledge of QM far superseeds what you think i know, based on your oversimplified 'dumbed-down' idea. For once and for all, lets be clear on something - you arnt talking to a scientifically challenged person here - my education in that is fairly credible by almost anyone's stadards - and neither do i reject science - all i am saying, and trying to get you to realize, is that scientific process, rationalism and logic too, has their limitations that cannot absolutely encompass the phenomenal reality at all levels. What you consider as unshakable pillars of scientific logic,reasoning and rationalism are quite the opposite and transitory- transitory in our perpetual quest of improving our understanding of phenomenal reality. Religion is a byproduct of that, a stage (depending on which religion you are talking about - not all religions are at the same stage - some are more evolved- some, like Islam or rabbanical judaism - the bottom rung of the intellectual ladder) and transitory too. Hell, the history of rationalism,scientific process and logic itself arnt linear and processes of thought just 200 years ago would be absurd assumptions by today's standards and vice versa. what humanity has considered to be logic,rationale and scientific process has evolved through time and it will evolve through the future too - but what is the biggest roadblock to that evolution of thought is the rise of the new dogmatism: the dogmatism of scientific process, which seems to be the new God replacing the more traditional viewpoint of God. That is the common misunderstanding of those who deify scientific process as the new God. Fear about being incorrect ? Its not fear - its lack of caring for divinity. As i said, you are yet to fully delve into the world of metaphysics, which is far more relevant and well rounded than what is fed in your science-only stream (which only sees one side of the coin - the better side admittedly, but fails to realize the limitations of scientific process) and my perspective is simple :Even IF a God exists, that being still doesnt have any right to tell us how to live our life if it is actually contradictory to our intrinsic nature. That is equivalent to a programmer programming the robot to grapple instead of punch and then punishing the robot for grappling instead of punching - fundamental contradiction in directives and free will. As such, it isnt fear of being wrong- it is absolutely pooh poohing the right of power of such a being EVEN IF it exists. But more importantly, agnosticism stems from the fact that you cannot really prove or disprove God and that its proof or not is irrelevant to our lives.Agnosticism is a question of asking relevance : you atheists and the opposing side of theists are the ones who are mentally shackled because you obviously care enough about this irrelevant question to form an opinion based on nothing. Do not really understand the concept of God that most theists ascribe to : such as 'reality of our universe is actually a dream inside God's head'. The ideas of creation are interesting, sometimes ridiculous but they do have a fundamental principle of logic behind it - that something must have a beginning. Petrified ? No. I dont admit to 'there is no God' because there is no reason for me to admit to that - as far as i am concerned, those who say 'there is no God' are making just as big an assumption as the ones who say 'there is God', given that there is zero evidence either which way and we DO need evidence of God's existence or non-existence to pass statements on that topic, as long as the question of origination lies unaswered ( as in where did the universe originate from ? the big bang yes- where did that supercondensed mass of ball come from ? quantum fluctuations ? yes - where did that come from...yadda yadda...)this rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than you imagine and i suggest you read some philosophy works before you form too hard an opinion on this topic that your dogmatic education of sciences no doubt pressure you into. This is not a question that you will be anywhere close to finding justifiable answers through from purely a scientific background - philosophy easily trumps this and i have never ever heard any professor of science stand up to Neitzche's pooh poohing of the 'dogma of science and the new God that is scientific process'. Yes- i have quoted Neitzche directly and maybe you should try it to your profs (after reading him - i suggest start with 'Thus spake Zarathustra' as its a good starting point for Neitzche)- only for you to realize how limited their view of science itself is and where the limitations of scientific process itself lies. IMO, the ones who cannot leave this question alone - cannot say to themselves that ' look- question of origination lies unanswered- so long as it does, question of God will always linger in the air, as in a twisted way, it is the only thing that even tries to answer the question of origination for now. But obviously, there is zero proof of God, God didnt program all of us to remember him so obviously it cant be that big a deal and therefore, God is irrelevant to my life - i will devote as much time and effort into beleiving or not beleiving in him as i devote to a bug' , those people are the ones who are jumping to conclusions. Perhaps those people need to see deep within themselves as to why they need to answer this question of God- why do they need to say 'yea or nay' to 'God exists?' question, instead of letting it be and going 'whatever...if he/she/it/they exist and want me to do something about it, i will know..if not, i dont give a rat's hiney and i will do what i want to do'. I wonder why you cannot leave this question as an 'indeterminate' or is it that you've never run into equations that are unsolvable and left it as unsolvable ? Its not fear or irrationality that leaves me to leave this question as 'answer unknown. i do not care'. It is simply, the most empirically sound perspective and stems from understanding the criticism of power of God - which is questioning the right of God to do what he wants just because he has the power to, a level of discussion we have not entered yet. And once you familiarize yourself with that thought process, it will dawn on you why it is absolutely irrelevant to me- like yesterday's used toilet paper - whether God exists or not. It is not a question about fear- it is a question about why even care ?

you seem to feel that science is fluid. not quite... to borrow an ideal analogy from Neil Degrass Tyson, the body of science is like a giant apple increasing in volume with every passing day. While the outer sheath is subject to abrasion and change, the inner volume is solid and steady. while you are correct in suggesting that science does evolve, you are incorrect in assuming that it is held up on theories that might at some junction, due to a new breakthrough, collapse and thus warrant a complete restructuring of our knowledge... let me explain the fallacy in your approach by an example from quantum physics which i am sure you have a considerable grasp over: the neil bohr model of quantum physics suggests that energy of an electron in orbit around a hydrogen nucleus is dependent upon its quantum number, in particular, the principal quantum number by the relationship: E(n) = -13.6eV / n^2 i.e., in the excited states, the energy is simply computed from the quantum number n that is used to determine the radial component of the wavefunction. this was the prevalent and readily accepted theory for most of the early 20th century, however, when einstein's theory of relativity entered the picture, an adjustment was required: E(n) = -13.6ev / n ^2 * (1 + alpha^2/n^2) here alpha was the perturbation due to the relativistic consideration and for a time it was assumed to be 1/137. for some time, the fact that 137 is a perfect prime number gave some armchair philosophers to scream some devine design... but that is not what i am trying to emphasize here... what i do want to show you is that while bohr's theory was incorrect, it was incorrect because it was inadequate. it was incomplete, and thus, a small perturbation was introduced to the theory which accounted for the new theory of relativity. nonetheless, his model was not discarded. the bohr atomic model did not overnight become obsolete! just as science rarely becomes obsolete from the development of a new understanding, it simply gets refined. furthermore, as understanding of angular momentum and spin momentum increased, especially with the zeeman effect and the stern gerlach experiment, a new refinement was needed to the above theory to account for a phenomenon known as spin-orbit coupling, i.e. the interaction of spin magnetic moment and the angular moment which lead to the following: E(n,j) = -13.6ev/ n^2 * (1 + alpha^2 / n^2 [n/(j + 1/2) - 3/4]) where j(j+1)*(h/2pi)^2 is the expected value of J^2, where J = S + L (sum of spin and angular momentum). this equation represents the complete, contemporary understanding of the atomic model for hydrogen. notice that this model is a good 10 years old, and nonetheless, it is a refinement over the previous bohr model. furthermore, alpha is not 1/137 but approximated as 1/137. notice how the equation evolved, as the original theory is improved. bohr's efforts were not discarded, but accounting for the limitations of the apparatus available to him, his achievement is commendable. same is true for the theory of gravitation; the discovery of a graviton or other particles, or some form of breakthrough in string theory (that i know nothing of) which might suggest that matter emerges from the quantum foam or whatever it is that they are currently suggesting, would not warrant a rewrite of the science textbooks! therefore your suggestion that science is somehow limited by the extent of the contemporary theories is inaccurate. with passing days, it improves and it adjusts... but it is not dramatically altered! furthermore, your suggestion that our understanding of metaphysics is limited is quite bogus. metaphysics is not science, in fact, it has nothing to do with physics and any suggestion that it has some significance in our universe is pure conjecture if one is willing to even assume for its existence.

[CC1981]

the body of science is like a giant apple increasing in volume with every passing day. While the outer sheath is subject to abrasion and change, the inner volume is solid and steady.

The inner volume isnt absolute either.

you are incorrect in assuming that it is held up on theories that might at some junction, due to a new breakthrough, collapse and thus warrant a complete restructuring of our knowledge..

That is completely dishonest of you - i can cite the evolution of the atomic model, the concept of the universe, etc as categoric examples where theories which were considered fact at one junction being proven categorically inadequate/false. I appreciate your effort with that example, but you are fundamentally not grasping what i am saying - i was a student of science in north america - i know what is taught to you so far as the philosophy of science is concerned. And scientific process is grossly overplayed in the scientific circles, in a similar fashion that God is overplayed in theology classes. You are lacking education in the other side of the coin - the other side being limitations of the logical thought, deductive/inductive reasoning, principle sufficient reason, occam's razor etc. All these are not covered in your degree program and i thought a lot like you before i opened my mind and read some philosophy - something you need to do IMO to get both sides of the coin, to realize what the limitations of our thought processes are and where we are making assumptions. I will give you one categoric example : your scientific community takes it as gospel that we are the most intelligent species to've ever walked the earth, it makes assumption that human beings today are smarter than 50,000 years ago. But you will find, when the actual facts are examined, there is no credible way of telling the intelligence of a dead creature - it is not a simplistiic function of brain mass - otherwise crows wouldn't be helluva lot smarter than dogs or sheep. Whether you like it or not, our view on evolution of thought/intelligence on this planet is one big pile of steaming boolsheet with ZERO factual basis behind it. That is just 'one' shortcomming of the scientific community - but how are you going to realize if if you fail to educate yourself on the other side of the coin ? How are you being any different than a religious nutter- who only reads HIS dogma/teachings and not the other side of the coin ? As i said, we'd be far better off if science students were given a decent grounding in philosophy - if not anything, it'd shatter the illusion about the perfection of science and its ability to encapsulate the phenomenal universe to the satisfaction of an undogmatic mind.

[Kriterion]

Start over, this time with what YOU say. Why is my non-beleif in God same as your beleif. Please be specific and not un-neccessary moving goalposts. Plain wrong. Not beleiving in God is NOT the other side of the coin. Who gave you that impression??? One can beleive in God, others are not sure, then some beleive at times and at other times dont, others dont care, some beleive in Pamela Anderson more than Prophets. How does that equate to "another" side of the same coin?

what is your religion?

Wow! Lack of religious beleifs is the same as religious beleif? Whats next? Having 4 wives allowed by religion is akin to not having 4 wives allowed by religion? Again, please be specific HOW it is equal, and not just throw words out there.

to be honest, you threw the whole "equality" phrase out there. Kriterion did not. lack of belief in God is a belief about the concept of god...do you agree? thats all i'm saying really.

You need to grasp what people write..and then open the case. I had clearly suggested NO FIGHT ON ISSUE OF THEOLOGY. Did Bolsheviks and Mensheviks fight on THEOLOGY? The last I heard they split on the philosphy of Marxism and the means to achieve it. But maybe the beleif system that you follow makes you close cases without questioning them. SO again, lets be specific - Tell me your beleif and I shall tell you what I do NOT beleive. Then you can try to convince me how your beleif in Islam = my disbeleif in it. Fair? xxx see above response.

true, but on the grounds of technicality only. but what is theology? does it have to be god-centric? if so then buddhist philosophy is not in the realm of theology because they don't have any god, per se. what is religion? if it is a series of beliefs, unproven beliefs with or without factual proof which people hold dear to their core, and are willing to die and kill to defend it, then i see little difference between marxists and marxism and beleivers and religion. religious conflict stems from differences of theology at the very core, and the dispute between early russian communists was precisely a dispute in ideology between the majority and the minority marxists. ********************************* you're insinuation that atheists should be given props for not beefing with each other over theological reasons is not only "false", but quite elementary as well - its like praising timothy mcveigh for not being a rapist :haha:

[THX_1138]

The inner volume isnt absolute either. That is completely dishonest of you - i can cite the evolution of the atomic model, the concept of the universe, etc as categoric examples where theories which were considered fact at one junction being proven categorically inadequate/false. I appreciate your effort with that example, but you are fundamentally not grasping what i am saying - i was a student of science in north america - i know what is taught to you so far as the philosophy of science is concerned. And scientific process is grossly overplayed in the scientific circles, in a similar fashion that God is overplayed in theology classes. You are lacking education in the other side of the coin - the other side being limitations of the logical thought, deductive/inductive reasoning, principle sufficient reason, occam's razor etc. All these are not covered in your degree program and i thought a lot like you before i opened my mind and read some philosophy - something you need to do IMO to get both sides of the coin, to realize what the limitations of our thought processes are and where we are making assumptions. I will give you one categoric example : your scientific community takes it as gospel that we are the most intelligent species to've ever walked the earth, it makes assumption that human beings today are smarter than 50,000 years ago. But you will find, when the actual facts are examined, there is no credible way of telling the intelligence of a dead creature - it is not a simplistiic function of brain mass - otherwise crows wouldn't be helluva lot smarter than dogs or sheep. Whether you like it or not, our view on evolution of thought/intelligence on this planet is one big pile of steaming boolsheet with ZERO factual basis behind it. That is just 'one' shortcomming of the scientific community - but how are you going to realize if if you fail to educate yourself on the other side of the coin ? How are you being any different than a religious nutter- who only reads HIS dogma/teachings and not the other side of the coin ? As i said, we'd be far better off if science students were given a decent grounding in philosophy - if not anything, it'd shatter the illusion about the perfection of science and its ability to encapsulate the phenomenal universe to the satisfaction of an undogmatic mind.

actually it is incorrect. building with something as fundamental as the daltonian atomic model, which was incomplete, but set a blue print: electrons revolve around the nucleus; bohr's atomic model was developed, and that which is remarkably accurate for hydrogen, is still inadequate. now that is not to say that some theories have not been tossed out. for instance, there were numerous atomic models, the so called "plum pudding model" etc were discarded when rutherford demonstrated that the positive charge was highly localized. but as the analogy with the apple goes, those theories were at that time, the sheath on the apple, which was subject to change. the one theory that penetrated into the volume, is the bohr atomic model, incomplete but not incorrect. the thing is, i can debate this endlessly with you, and you can still continue to believe in some horse manure for which there is not an iota of evidence. you do this because either: a) you somehow know that there is something science is missing; b) you have concrete evidence, though not made public as yet of some supernatural entity; and c) you dont have the balls to admit that there is no god, because you find that acknowledging that we are here on our own, and there is no one to look over our shoulders is something that petrifies you... since the first two are about as likely as passing square pegs through round holes, its the third. lets end this. you can continue to believe that there is something out there (dont ask where) that cannot be detected by our feeble science (i.e. it has no electromagnetic, gravitational, or tidal signature), it has left us no evidence of its existence (no fossils, no celestial milestones etc), it does not communicate with us (at least not through the means of mass communication, but he or she or it likes to talk to us personally since we are all so bloody important), it has no intentions for us, it has no time to help us better ourselves, it has no desire to rescue us from adversities, it is content with letting this universe head on a one way road towards complete extinction... but it loves us. i on the other hand will root sl*ts and drink beer.

[THX_1138]

The inner volume isnt absolute either. That is completely dishonest of you - i can cite the evolution of the atomic model, the concept of the universe, etc as categoric examples where theories which were considered fact at one junction being proven categorically inadequate/false. I appreciate your effort with that example, but you are fundamentally not grasping what i am saying - i was a student of science in north america - i know what is taught to you so far as the philosophy of science is concerned. And scientific process is grossly overplayed in the scientific circles, in a similar fashion that God is overplayed in theology classes. You are lacking education in the other side of the coin - the other side being limitations of the logical thought, deductive/inductive reasoning, principle sufficient reason, occam's razor etc. All these are not covered in your degree program and i thought a lot like you before i opened my mind and read some philosophy - something you need to do IMO to get both sides of the coin, to realize what the limitations of our thought processes are and where we are making assumptions. I will give you one categoric example : your scientific community takes it as gospel that we are the most intelligent species to've ever walked the earth, it makes assumption that human beings today are smarter than 50,000 years ago. But you will find, when the actual facts are examined, there is no credible way of telling the intelligence of a dead creature - it is not a simplistiic function of brain mass - otherwise crows wouldn't be helluva lot smarter than dogs or sheep. Whether you like it or not, our view on evolution of thought/intelligence on this planet is one big pile of steaming boolsheet with ZERO factual basis behind it. That is just 'one' shortcomming of the scientific community - but how are you going to realize if if you fail to educate yourself on the other side of the coin ? How are you being any different than a religious nutter- who only reads HIS dogma/teachings and not the other side of the coin ? As i said, we'd be far better off if science students were given a decent grounding in philosophy - if not anything, it'd shatter the illusion about the perfection of science and its ability to encapsulate the phenomenal universe to the satisfaction of an undogmatic mind.

let me get this straight: you believe or well are aware of some entity existing somewhere where it leaves no electromagnetic or gravitational signature; makes no attempts at communication; does not influence this universe; but still you have the audacity to suggest that i am unaware of Occam's Razor?

[THX_1138]

The inner volume isnt absolute either. That is completely dishonest of you - i can cite the evolution of the atomic model, the concept of the universe, etc as categoric examples where theories which were considered fact at one junction being proven categorically inadequate/false. I appreciate your effort with that example, but you are fundamentally not grasping what i am saying - i was a student of science in north america - i know what is taught to you so far as the philosophy of science is concerned. And scientific process is grossly overplayed in the scientific circles, in a similar fashion that God is overplayed in theology classes. You are lacking education in the other side of the coin - the other side being limitations of the logical thought, deductive/inductive reasoning, principle sufficient reason, occam's razor etc. All these are not covered in your degree program and i thought a lot like you before i opened my mind and read some philosophy - something you need to do IMO to get both sides of the coin, to realize what the limitations of our thought processes are and where we are making assumptions. I will give you one categoric example : your scientific community takes it as gospel that we are the most intelligent species to've ever walked the earth, it makes assumption that human beings today are smarter than 50,000 years ago. But you will find, when the actual facts are examined, there is no credible way of telling the intelligence of a dead creature - it is not a simplistiic function of brain mass - otherwise crows wouldn't be helluva lot smarter than dogs or sheep. Whether you like it or not, our view on evolution of thought/intelligence on this planet is one big pile of steaming boolsheet with ZERO factual basis behind it. That is just 'one' shortcomming of the scientific community - but how are you going to realize if if you fail to educate yourself on the other side of the coin ? How are you being any different than a religious nutter- who only reads HIS dogma/teachings and not the other side of the coin ? As i said, we'd be far better off if science students were given a decent grounding in philosophy - if not anything, it'd shatter the illusion about the perfection of science and its ability to encapsulate the phenomenal universe to the satisfaction of an undogmatic mind.

you have used this lame duck before, and while the last time i ignored it since i genuinely believed that you did not subscribe to it, but evidently you do, so let me address it with my limited knowledge of evolutionary biology: intelligence is indeed measured by brain volume since a larger volume provides for more foldings within the cellular tissues, and thus a greater density of axons that result in higher brain functions. if indeed a species existed on this planet with a brain larger than ours, which it did not, or maybe a smaller brain but with greater folding(s), then there ought to be evidence of its craft, which is unfortunately for you, non existent. furthermore, the obvious question that arises is that if this organism had greater brain folding(s) and thus a much more superior intelligence, what prevented it from emerging as the dominant species on this planet. and if it indeed succeeded in doing so, i.e. we are direct descendants of this species, then what could possibly lead to the reverse development of our brains to reduce the amount of folding(s)? so not only is there no evidence for the existence of such a species with a higher brain function, or any particular reason why evolution would lead to the reduction in human intelligence, applying occam's razor, your initial assumption is bunk. but the frequency with which you use it suggests that you have stumbled across it in some literature that you were reading and have now taken to be your walking stick. and yeah, one other thing. last i checked you were not trained as an evolutionary biologist. which is why i feel i should remind your, or maybe inform you that the evidence for evolution is not predominantly paleontological. in fact, of all the different forms of evidence available, it rates below some others which are: genetic, embryological, bio diversity, and physiological. in fact the origin of species used only bio diversity and physiology as its evidence for the theory of evolution. now this, i read in a book and like a scientist, i state that knowledge is not internal like a philosopher might state. it is acquired by investigation outside one's self by hypothesizing and then performing rigorous test to validate or invalidate that hypothesis.

[CC1981]

Right here i will show you an example of your dogmatism: You said:

you have used this lame duck before, and while the last time i ignored it since i genuinely believed that you did not subscribe to it, but evidently you do, so let me address it with my limited knowledge of evolutionary biology:

So you conclude that my viewpoint is a 'lame duck', despite having very limited knowledge in evolutionary biology. If that isnt dogmatism, what is ? You admit you are ill-equipped to address my argument, but you have already concluded it to be lame. Is that really much different from the religious dogmatists who conclude that your idea of the universe is lame, despite lacking knowledge in basic physics ?

intelligence is indeed measured by brain volume since a larger volume provides for more foldings within the cellular tissues, and thus a greater density of axons that result in higher brain functions.

Categorically false. A larger brain volume doesnt provide more foldings by default - it offers the potential to house more foldings, sure, but there is absolutely no basis in concluding that larger volume equates to more foldings. If that were true, our brain wouldnt have more foldings than a Pilot whale's brain, which is 3-4 times more massive than ours.

. if indeed a species existed on this planet with a brain larger than ours, which it did not, or maybe a smaller brain but with greater folding(s), then there ought to be evidence of its craft, which is unfortunately for you, non existent

If existed ? Dude, it already exists - the brain of an elephant, the brain of a pilot whale, etc. *ARE* more massive than ours. It has more mass, more volume. Do look up your stats before you run with your dogma that conventional science has fed you.

furthermore, the obvious question that arises is that if this organism had greater brain folding(s) and thus a much more superior intelligence, what prevented it from emerging as the dominant species on this planet. and if it indeed succeeded in doing so, i.e. we are direct descendants of this species, then what could possibly lead to the reverse development of our brains to reduce the amount of folding(s)?

1. Who said that this so-called species wasnt the dominant species of the planet ? 2. Your sociology knowledge is obviously bare, because you assume that we *MUST* be direct descendants of this species - which totally rules out the very probable and genuine factor that this species could easily have gone extinct due to a whole host of reasons : natural cataclysms, destroying its own society, wiped out by a virus or a bacteria, etc etc. As far as leaving evidence of its craft goes, you clearly arnt very familiar with the concept of entropy in an organic environment - suppose this species walked this planet 50 million years ago and died out 40 million years ago. Sure, we can have its fossils, but what leads you to assume that any of its 'craft' would survive 40 million years ? Furthermore, the limited scope of your ideas of existence is exposed here, because you presume that an intelligent being would form a society similar to ours with similar values - when values have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Our society wanting to build skyscapers, own cars, win competitions etc. arnt a function of our intellegence, it is a function of our social values. Your presumption that another being of similar/superior intelligence would have the same sociological values is not only shockingly idiotic, it is extremely naive. Which is why i said to you before : do yourself a favour and delve into the world of philosophy. For without it, you really are lost in the world of dogmatic science, which is only slightly better than being lost in the world of dogmatic religion.

applying occam's razor, your initial assumption is bunk.

What your limited knowledge is assuming to be my assumption, is actually a biological fact : There is ZERO correlation between brain mass and intelligence. If it were so, explain to me how can crows have far superior cognitive and memory skills than a dog - its brain is lilliputian compared to a dog's, yet crows exhibit far more sophisticated intelligence than dogs - the crows can tell when you are looking at it and what you are looking at, crows can tell if you are agitated or calm, crows can remember upto 10 different objects and tie it to base functionality and crows have a far superior response times in figuring out action-consequences experiments ( eg : figuring out that tapping the 4th button from right will result in food dispensation and 3rd button from right will result in electrocution). If you contest this fact ( that crows show far superior cognitive and memory skills than dogs), then you are simply unware in this field of study and i can easily throw volumes after volumes of work at you. And if you do not contest this fact, then there is absolutely ZERO credibility in your dogma that larger brain size = superior intelligence. For not only do elephants and pilot whales have brains more massive than ours, a crows' brain is far smaller than a dog's, yet it is far smarter. Only goes on to show, how successfully the dogma of science has brainwashed you and legions of others in their simplistic assumptions of evolutionary intelligence.

last i checked you were not trained as an evolutionary biologist.

never said i was - doesnt prevent me from learing on this topic and doesnt prevent me from demonstrating that my knowledge in this field superseeds yours.

which is why i feel i should remind your, or maybe inform you that the evidence for evolution is not predominantly paleontological. in fact, of all the different forms of evidence available, it rates below some others which are: genetic, embryological, bio diversity, and physiological. in fact the origin of species used only bio diversity and physiology as its evidence for the theory of evolution.

Considering how uninformed you are about facts about animal intelligence, i think you should feel silly at your attempts to try and regurgitate the dogmatism of university-educated folks at me. I have progressed beyond that, though you do remind me of myself 4-5 years ago. Hopefully you can make that intellectual leap yourself and not become yet another dogmatist.

i read in a book and like a scientist, i state that knowledge is not internal like a philosopher might state.

How much philosophy have you read to come to that conclusion ? Btw, philsophers dont state that knowledge is internal - they state that understanding is internal. Something you are clearly, yet to recognise, since you are yet to break your shackles of dogmatism of the science-God.

it is acquired by investigation outside one's self by hypothesizing and then performing rigorous test to validate or invalidate that hypothesis.

Considering that you are still a student and my track record in performing rigorous testing is far voluminous than yours, i urge you not to patronize me. All i said that your scientific dogmatism is silly in peddling the notion that we are the smartest species to've ever evolved on this planet, because we have simply no idea how smart a creature is from dead specimens. Your scientific process does not account for the fact that a crow is smarter than a dog. Or that we, of lesser brain volume, are helluva lot smarter than pilot whales. Therefore, you simply cannot assume that humans are the smartest to've ever evolved, even though i realize that it is a hard admission for the egotists which abound in the religion of science. If we were to use the same benchmarks and criterias for guaging intelligence of an extinct species, then homo sapiens would be rated inferior to an elephant due to inferior brain volume. Proof positive that your science has its own dogmas, assumptions and idiocies that arnt infallible and not much different from the ethos of religion : you simply believe because you are conditioned that way, same with the religious dogmatists. Only difference is, your God resides inside of the university,not inside the church/temple. And i find it highly unscientific, closeminded and dogmatic of you to proclaim the 'absolute amazingness and infallability of science' despite having been only brainwashed by the dogma of science and having zero grounding in philosophy - that which supports and/or disapproves of the scientific thought process. Highly unscientific to dismiss something without investigating it, wouldn't you say ? :winky:

[CC1981]

you believe or well are aware of some entity existing somewhere where it leaves no electromagnetic or gravitational signature; makes no attempts at communication; does not influence this universe; but still you have the audacity to suggest that i am unaware of Occam's Razor?

You are unaware of the application of occam's razor in this example, because you simply have the audacity to concluding that lack of evidence is the evidence of existence. I do not believe in such a being as you describe, i simply do not rule out the possibility of its existence. Ofcourse, a dogmatic atheist, who'll make the assumption into the non-existence of an entity is inherently too stupid to get the perspective of an agnost, who simply doesnt care enough to make the assumption of 'yes or no'. Just as stupid as the dogmatic theist because you are simply the corollary of the dogmatic theist - making similar assumptions but using different focus to come to the diametrically opposite, but equally ridiculous conclusions about existence. And listen, young padowan - you have this tendency to patronize others on the bare basics of science. You've regurgitated the basics of QM quite laboriously in the past and you've regurgitated basic high school evolutionary biology very well - the point if that escapes me, since you are well aware that i am well qualified in science as well - and i happen to be several years your senior, so do consider the possibility that as far as regurgitating basic university level $h*t is concerned, you are highly unlikely to regurgitate something that i've not already encountered. Also remember that two can play this game and your university level knowledge of physics or science is still fairly basic as far as real world applications and post-education development is concerned. This site isnt full of stupid people and neither is scientific awareness lacking on this site. You are a young upstart with a good education that is still undergoing. But do control your urge to regurgitate, because i garantee you : if we all played your game of regurgitating basic $h!t that we know, you will find yourself well out of your league - something that you cannot rectify without actually earning your degree AND having a lot of experience in the real world of applied science. So next time, dear student, please go easy with words such as 'audacity' when talking about science -especially with people who far superseed your current level of development ( which is not to say that you are stupider or that you will not superseed us in your knowledge - but you are still only a measely undergrad.That doesnt impress me much. Remember that).

[CC1981]

the thing is, i can debate this endlessly with you

Indeed. Refer to my comment about your dogmatism.

and you can still continue to believe in some horse manure for which there is not an iota of evidence.

Sorry, that is you, not me. As i said, i dont believe or believe - i simply don't care. You on the other hand are believing in horse manure ( God doesnt exist) without an iota of evidence. So good doc, kindly take thy own advice.

you dont have the balls to admit that there is no god, because you find that acknowledging that we are here on our own, and there is no one to look over our shoulders is something that petrifies you... since the first two are about as likely as passing square pegs through round holes, its the third.

Its interesting that you keep refering it as a question of balls, not a question of evidence. Only goes on to prove my point that the God of science feeds on the egotists like you. No, i don't have the 'balls' to conclude something doesnt exist when there is absolutely zero proof for its existence or non-existence. I'd have the 'balls' to admit that the original creator doesnt exist when you can explain to me where everything came from - which you can't, neither can anyone else. Its not a question of being petrified, its a question of being fair and honest. Maybe the idea of something greater than yourself existing petrifies YOU -which is why you chose to belive in the nonsensical atheistic viewpoint and falsely believe that we are the 'smartest things to've ever walked the earth with the biggest brains ever' - when the last part is a categoric falsehood. And yes, i do know that there is a lot of things that science and scientific thought is missing - which is why i said to you that you are ill-equipped to debate this until you familiarize yourself with the world of philosophy, since you've been brainwashed by a very narrow school of thought ( the school of rationalism). You are incapable of debating the limitations and extent of the rational school, because you have never had the balls or education to question what's been fed to you. A common affliction amongst science worshippers as i said before.

you can continue to believe that there is something out there (dont ask where) that cannot be detected by our feeble science (i.e. it has no electromagnetic, gravitational, or tidal signature), it has left us no evidence of its existence (no fossils, no celestial milestones etc), it does not communicate with us (at least not through the means of mass communication, but he or she or it likes to talk to us personally since we are all so bloody important), it has no intentions for us, it has no time to help us better ourselves, it has no desire to rescue us from adversities, it is content with letting this universe head on a one way road towards complete extinction... but it loves us.

I care not one iota if that 'creature' exists, loves us, hates us or is apathetic towards us. I simply see zero reason to believe such a creature exists or doesnt exist. Ie, i do not know if such a creature exists - but so far you or the scientific community has done ZILCH to convince me that such a creature doesnt exist and answer the question of origination of phenomena. When you can explain the root cause of phenomena, then perhaps you can rule out such a being - but not until then, my young upstart. The difference between you and me is, you will drink beer, patting yourself in the back for your false assumption (that such a being doesnt exist), while blindly pointing finger at another dude who pats himself in the back with the false assumption that such a being exists, while i will sit back, drink beer and consider BOTH of you as morons and personally not give a toss whether such a creature exists or not.

[Guest HariSampath]

i hear that crap day in and day out... the other day i was at a temple bookstore and the first book i picked up had a chapter on "how to talk to an atheist" and used that very line: denial of reality that is beyond sensory perceptions... while not even delving into oxymoron that this sentence is: "reality" that is beyond sensory perceptions... i would like to point your attention to the following that falls under the realm of beyond sensory perceptions: 1. Quantum Mechanics... not only is it beyond sensory perception, it is down right contradictory to our common sense. If you dont believe it, just know that you are not really where you are, it just so happens that the wave packet that constitutes the fundamental particles in your body have a greater probability of you being where you are. or that if you put an electron in a single, empty box, the ruddy bytch wont just sit there, it will move around... hence, even in its ground state, it possesses a finite energy (called the zero point energy which evidently they use in stargate atlantis to power their ZPMs) 2. Black Holes: Not only have we not seen one, the most prominent evidence for their existence is circumstantial. 3. All radiations beyond the visual and auditory spectrum. Not tangible, not observable by our pathetic senses, and yet the fundamental foundations of modern engineering. 4. Your bloody computer... works on invisible electrons traveling inside copper conductors (which by the way is vibrating and not stationary as our senses suggest)... In summary, this argument is weak, its pathetic, and it is obsolete. you are welcome to maintain a healthy agnosticism about this universe, though this is nothing but a hedging of your bets that there might indeed be a god... a result of your catatonic fear of being incorrect about divinity which suggests that you are stilll shackled by the limitations of a theistic upbringing for which the blame lies squarely with your parents. somehow you are so petrified of admitting that there is no god, that while your rational intellect points one way, you corrupt your ideals to accommodate an absurd fear. Nonetheless, you are still miles and miles ahead of those bound by the silly rituals and obligations of religion and are not impressionable enough to fall victim to any jingoistic fervor that it ferments. But nonetheless, grow a pair and say it with me... their 'aint no motherfrackin god!

The facts are THX, you do not have even a basic claim to be logical in order to question your own assumptions. The facts also are that NO ONE can conclusively prove that there is "no god". By this term "god", I refer to an original cause for this universe existing in the form we know. God is just a term of convenience, Humpty Dumpty would do as well...The truth is that in all its scientific advancement, there is YET to be an acceptable theory of how the universe was evolved ab initio. Science presumes the Big bang theory and tries to explain the evolution of this universe just AFTER the big bang. There is STILL no evidence to show anything from the time of the big bang. If you had spoken to any serious theoretical cosmologists, they would tell you that the biggest block to science would be to explain how energy or matter came to exist. Science would stop there. We can only attempt explaining how energy came to be transferred as matter ,and that too at best how.There is no way we can explain a WHY it had to happen when it did. Science cannot proceed beyond the stage of space and time. It is impossible for science to explain time except in the relative terms of reference as "intervel between events", which is fine , but fails to address a dimension that has no event, namely no change taking place. Anything that changes would have to do so in a backdrop of "constancy". So would energy and matter. In fact change by its very nature , defines something "unchanging". Finally, you have assumed that science has explored and explained the entire universe...NO. Science hasnt even explored a microscopic part of the universe. Simple logic tells you that if you get to the farthest point of the universe, there would still be space beyond....and so how can you say conclusively that there would be no energy or matter a gazillion light years away from that point ? Atheism is totally idiotic. In the sense that no one can conclusively deny the existence of something they cant even define ( without evidence too). It is dishonest intellectually. One can only say " as far as my enquiry and scientific knowledge goes" there is no god ( as per my definition ). Agnosticism means acceptance of the position that there could be a creative cause of this entire universe, which could be termed God ( or humpty dumpty), and till it is conclusively proved that this is not the case ( meaning nothing was ever created by ANYTHING ), one need not accept it. In fact most great philosophers visionaries were agnostics to start out with . It is the very basis of honest enquiry, and it is intellectual honesty as well as logical acceptance of the fact we are ignorant. Accepting ignorance honestly is the very first step to understanding anything, and acquiring knowledge about it. Further , atheism explains zilch about that crucial factor called "consciousness" and "intelligent cognizance", and whether this is merely associated with the human body or has an existence of its own. There is a whole new world out there mate, and trust me, several have tread that path.

[THX_1138]

The facts are THX' date= you do not have even a basic claim to be logical in order to question your own assumptions. The facts also are that NO ONE can conclusively prove that there is "no god". By this term "god", I refer to an original cause for this universe existing in the form we know. God is just a term of convenience, Humpty Dumpty would do as well...The truth is that in all its scientific advancement, there is YET to be an acceptable theory of how the universe was evolved ab initio. Science presumes the Big bang theory and tries to explain the evolution of this universe just AFTER the big bang. There is STILL no evidence to show anything from the time of the big bang. If you had spoken to any serious theoretical cosmologists, they would tell you that the biggest block to science would be to explain how energy or matter came to exist. Science would stop there. We can only attempt explaining how energy came to be transferred as matter ,and that too at best how.There is no way we can explain a WHY it had to happen when it did. Science cannot proceed beyond the stage of space and time. It is impossible for science to explain time except in the relative terms of reference as "intervel between events", which is fine , but fails to address a dimension that has no event, namely no change taking place. Anything that changes would have to do so in a backdrop of "constancy". So would energy and matter. In fact change by its very nature , defines something "unchanging". Finally, you have assumed that science has explored and explained the entire universe...NO. Science hasnt even explored a microscopic part of the universe. Simple logic tells you that if you get to the farthest point of the universe, there would still be space beyond....and so how can you say conclusively that there would be no energy or matter a gazillion light years away from that point ? Atheism is totally idiotic. In the sense that no one can conclusively deny the existence of something they cant even define ( without evidence too). It is dishonest intellectually. One can only say " as far as my enquiry and scientific knowledge goes" there is no god ( as per my definition ). Agnosticism means acceptance of the position that there could be a creative cause of this entire universe, which could be termed God ( or humpty dumpty), and till it is conclusively proved that this is not the case ( meaning nothing was ever created by ANYTHING ), one need not accept it. In fact most great philosophers visionaries were agnostics to start out with . It is the very basis of honest enquiry, and it is intellectual honesty as well as logical acceptance of the fact we are ignorant. Accepting ignorance honestly is the very first step to understanding anything, and acquiring knowledge about it. Further , atheism explains zilch about that crucial factor called "consciousness" and "intelligent cognizance", and whether this is merely associated with the human body or has an existence of its own. There is a whole new world out there mate, and trust me, several have tread that path.

Cosmic Background Radiation. Intersection of planes; Multiverse Theory you pulled that out of your **** Dont believe that i said that, if i had, it would have been hard to justify any more exploration I will agree with you if we call him ass***got or allah

[Guest HariSampath]

You dont possess even minimum intelligence for a debate, so just stuff it.

[fineleg]

Atheism is totally idiotic. In the sense that no one can conclusively deny the existence of something they cant even define ( without evidence too). It is dishonest intellectually. One can only say " as far as my enquiry and scientific knowledge goes" there is no god ( as per my definition ). Agnosticism means acceptance of the position that there could be a creative cause of this entire universe, which could be termed God ( or humpty dumpty), and till it is conclusively proved that this is not the case ( meaning nothing was ever created by ANYTHING ), one need not accept it. In fact most great philosophers visionaries were agnostics to start out with . .

True, and well said.

[THX_1138]

The facts are THX, you do not have even a basic claim to be logical in order to question your own assumptions. The facts also are that NO ONE can conclusively prove that there is "no god". By this term "god", I refer to an original cause for this universe existing in the form we know. God is just a term of convenience, Humpty Dumpty would do as well...The truth is that in all its scientific advancement, there is YET to be an acceptable theory of how the universe was evolved ab initio. Science presumes the Big bang theory and tries to explain the evolution of this universe just AFTER the big bang. There is STILL no evidence to show anything from the time of the big bang. If you had spoken to any serious theoretical cosmologists, they would tell you that the biggest block to science would be to explain how energy or matter came to exist. Science would stop there. We can only attempt explaining how energy came to be transferred as matter ,and that too at best how.There is no way we can explain a WHY it had to happen when it did. Science cannot proceed beyond the stage of space and time. It is impossible for science to explain time except in the relative terms of reference as "intervel between events", which is fine , but fails to address a dimension that has no event, namely no change taking place. Anything that changes would have to do so in a backdrop of "constancy". So would energy and matter. In fact change by its very nature , defines something "unchanging". Finally, you have assumed that science has explored and explained the entire universe...NO. Science hasnt even explored a microscopic part of the universe. Simple logic tells you that if you get to the farthest point of the universe, there would still be space beyond....and so how can you say conclusively that there would be no energy or matter a gazillion light years away from that point ? Atheism is totally idiotic. In the sense that no one can conclusively deny the existence of something they cant even define ( without evidence too). It is dishonest intellectually. One can only say " as far as my enquiry and scientific knowledge goes" there is no god ( as per my definition ). Agnosticism means acceptance of the position that there could be a creative cause of this entire universe, which could be termed God ( or humpty dumpty), and till it is conclusively proved that this is not the case ( meaning nothing was ever created by ANYTHING ), one need not accept it. In fact most great philosophers visionaries were agnostics to start out with . It is the very basis of honest enquiry, and it is intellectual honesty as well as logical acceptance of the fact we are ignorant. Accepting ignorance honestly is the very first step to understanding anything, and acquiring knowledge about it. Further , atheism explains zilch about that crucial factor called "consciousness" and "intelligent cognizance", and whether this is merely associated with the human body or has an existence of its own. There is a whole new world out there mate, and trust me, several have tread that path.

indeed... nor can science conclusively deny that there are no china teapots revolving around alpha centuri... of course, the poignant question is: "is it justified to be agnostic about a the existence of a china tea pot revolving around alpha centuri?" what you have presented is debunked by the flying spaghetti monster statement from common colloquialism.

[Guest HariSampath]

and your "atheism" is nothing but " I dont believe Australia exists,( I dont even know if its a bird or a tree or a chemical) because I havent seen it, wont believe those who have, havent tried to go there myself, dont care whether it exists or not, but I believe that Oklahoma exists because a friend told me and he is from Texas which has NASA"....what completely deluded logic.

[THX_1138]

and your "atheism" is nothing but " I dont believe Australia exists' date='( I dont even know if its a bird or a tree or a chemical) because I havent seen it, wont believe those who have, havent tried to go there myself, dont care whether it exists or not, but I believe that Oklahoma exists because a friend told me and he is from Texas which has NASA"....what completely deluded logic.[/quote'] is that is best you can come up with, then i and others such as me would rule your kind with impunity. freaking peasants... (insert diabolical laughter).