http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2606/4038811458_307f34340b_o.jpg

keep the actual religiously based comments out of the post if you can so that the thread can remain open. just found the flowchart humorous so wanted to share :lol:

that is awesome :lol2:

Are you rich and insane? Scientologists...:rofl:

:rofl: thats awesome

Man I didn't know us jehovahs wintnesses were annoying and what's the whole magical underwear thing mean lol

Lulz

I love the rich and insane scientoligist :lol: I literally loled

Are you rich and insane? Scientologists...:rofl:

Great, now they are going to come here, make profiles on us, and then stalk and harass us.

This guy must not have watched the Zohan movie...cuz they LOVED hummus (and so do I lol)

I'm a boring, generic, Christian. :rofl:
Kinnda surprised there isn't one just for Catholics.

I think most of us will be boring christians just because of that damn bacon lol

Are you rich and insane? Scientologists...:rofl:

+1000!!!! lol

lol good stuff

Magical underwear refers to mormon's. They have special undies.

I'm a "boring, generic Christian"!!
Woo Hoo!!!!!

I do have a black cat however.........

dude this is epic it should be stickied lol:yesnod::yesnod:

i should be an atheist.

its funny. cause i am an atheist.

The magic underwear refers to certain vows Mormons make in their temples, usually as part of marriage vows, or as preparation for religious missions, and they wear certain traditional garments to represent this.

It is similar to Hindu's accepting the thread, and wearing cast marks;
Buddhists ceremonially shaving their heads;
Prayer beads and head covers used by Muslims;
Shawls and head covers used by Jews;
Rosaries, head shavings, robes and Nuns clothing, used by Catholics;
and the clerical collars, religious shawls and communion used by Boring Christians.

And to Mormons, it is about as nice to talk about these things in public, as it is for Catholics to hear someone mocking their rosaries or for Muslims to hear someone profane their holy prophet.

Except in a cartoon world like this one, it would be considered in really bad taste -

But just as Nazi's liked to innocently pull out the shirt corners of Jewish men to laugh at their tassels, so the less educated innocently pull out religious beliefs for the entertainment of their fellows....and humor often comes from the shock appeal...

I noticed they didn’t mention us Druids – probably afraid of waking up with onions sprouting from his ears…

i should be an atheist.

its funny. cause i am an atheist.

+1
Then again, Atheism isn't a belief or a religion.


I noticed they didn’t mention us Druids – probably afraid of waking up with onions sprouting from his ears…

Druids don't believe in "god" as defined by the primary qualifier of this chart.

Wow, pretty accurate.

The magic underwear refers to certain vows Mormons make in their temples, usually as part of marriage vows, or as preparation for religious missions, and they wear certain traditional garments to represent this.

It is similar to Hindu's accepting the thread, and wearing cast marks;
Buddhists ceremonially shaving their heads;
Prayer beads and head covers used by Muslims;
Shawls and head covers used by Jews;
Rosaries, head shavings, robes and Nuns clothing, used by Catholics;
and the clerical collars, religious shawls and communion used by Boring Christians.

And to Mormons, it is about as nice to talk about these things in public, as it is for Catholics to hear someone mocking their rosaries or for Muslims to hear someone profane their holy prophet.

Except in a cartoon world like this one, it would be considered in really bad taste -

But just as Nazi's liked to innocently pull out the shirt corners of Jewish men to laugh at their tassels, so the less educated innocently pull out religious beliefs for the entertainment of their fellows....and humor often comes from the shock appeal...

I noticed they didn’t mention us Druids – probably afraid of waking up with onions sprouting from his ears…

oh ok thanx for clearing that up, so its kinda like a level of abstainence?

mmmm..baconhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PLsyqhMySRk/SQAEc1gln2I/AAAAAAAAA4Q/yZMbWO29pv0/s400/homer_simpson31.jpg

I'm a boring, generic, Christian. :rofl:
Kinnda surprised there isn't one just for Catholics.

lol thats what i thought too lol

You forgot a religion.

http://i36.tinypic.com/amtg1d.jpg

Then again, Atheism isn't a belief or a religion.

I think a better way to phrase "what religion are you?" would be "what are your religious views?" for that reason. Not necessarily out of political correctness or anything like that... it's just seems more correct from a semantic view.

I went through basic with a magic underwear wearing dude. They made him dye them desert tan though :mdrmed:

Dude was 26 and had never even kissed a girl on the mouth and joined the infantry. He was prepared to deploy and face death before ever having been close to the warmth of a woman... that shit blew my mind.

what about those of us that f*&ing love baba ghanoush?

I think a better way to phrase "what religion are you?" would be "what are your religious views?" for that reason. Not necessarily out of political correctness or anything like that... it's just seems more correct from a semantic view.

it still isnt a religious view. its a lack of a religious view. its a rejection of the belief in gods/goddesses.

emart, that is crazy. the whole deploying bit makes it even worse. but to be 26 and not even kissed a girl? damn. talking about 40y.o. virgin and putting the pussy on a pedestal.

damn dshiz! i almost FORGOT ABOUT MY RELIGION! how could i do that?

FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER FOR THE MOTHERUFCKING WIN!

http://homepage.mac.com/jkosi/scienceversusfaith-4.jpg

Atheists like to say they are not religious, because they oppose God, but they have many of the religious trappings – including public meetings and community groups discussing their lack of faith.:evil_laug

They usually display a blind faith that there is no higher power - which makes them a lot of fun when then join the AA and have to do the 12 step program. :rollingla

And instead of just living quietly like agnostics usually do, they argue their lack of beliefs with a missionic enthusiasm. Although that may be reserved for just the naturally irritating ones.:evil_laug


They often cite Darwin as a cure for religion - when they are actually citing Huxley, the atheist, who gave Darwin stomach pains, and they never bother to read Darwin, or they would know that in his 3rd edition of Origin of the Species, he states that he personally believes in a benevolent creator who is continuously improving his species. Yup, Darwin, like his grandfather, believed in God!

Atheism, as the State Religion, mandated by a Communist State, could include such religious trappings as pictures of the local God (dictator), ceremonies and profession of love for the leader of the day, and they even had little books of scripture, like the Red Book of Chairman Mao.

On another issue – abstinence – or self control – it is something that both religious and non-religious philosophies embrace. The Holy Warrior usually can control his bowel movements enough to use a flush toilet, and he practices chastity, and family loyalty.

In our modern culture, loss of control or under development of control is common, thus elevators, and covered garages, in major cities are often used as receptacles for human waste, and you might need to make sure your car is locked to prevent those who lack control from tempting you into very unreligious thoughts!:cussing:

^ Written like a true faithist. lol

Atheists don't "oppose" god. They have no opinion on the concept one way or another.
Otherwise, they would be called Antitheists, which is something else altogether.

It is not "blind faith" to simply have no blind acceptance of something that is antithetical to proof.

well i know a couple of antitheists, people who mock me for following a god (im a scientist atm so theres a lot of that going round). IMHO my science serves to verify my beliefs by allowing me to explore the wonderful complexity and redundancy of the human body.

i find it a little reprehensible to have science and faith as separate entities...the synthesis is why i love what i do.

well i know a couple of antitheists, people who mock me for following a god

That isn't strictly "antitheism". That is anti-ignorance.
Just because someone else refuses to accept faith does not exempt you from ridicule for doing so.

It is part and parcel for going freely into faith on your part.

The problem is that many atheists are just as poor at making logical arguments and avoiding logical fallacies as are their theist counterparts, so lots of ad hominem and generally contemptible confrontations result.


i find it a little reprehensible to have science and faith as separate entities.

They are, by sheer definition, completely separate and incompatible.
Good luck with that.

They are, by sheer definition, completely separate and incompatible.
Good luck with that.

Not exactly. Prove to me that the real number set actually exists. At the bottom of everything is a foundation of an unprovable theory... Not religious by any means but it's something to think about.

Prove to me that the real number set actually exists.

It doesn't. That, like all perceptive tools, are completely man-made.
Real numbers are not an object - they are a system of understanding.

"So, you're really and truly an atheist, eh?"

"Yep, swear to god!"

"So, you're really and truly an atheist, eh?"

"Yep, swear to god!"

lulz :smoker:

It doesn't. That, like all perceptive tools, are completely man-made.
Real numbers are not an object - they are a system of understanding.

Yea I dunno where I was going with that.

My stance is "god" is abstract enough of a concept to believe in some capacity or another but Abrahemic religions are just too much for me... I mean Jesus? Let's get real.

That isn't strictly "antitheism". That is anti-ignorance.
Just because someone else refuses to accept faith does not exempt you from ridicule for doing so.

It is part and parcel for going freely into faith on your part.

The problem is that many atheists are just as poor at making logical arguments and avoiding logical fallacies as are their theist counterparts, so lots of ad hominem and generally contemptible confrontations result.



They are, by sheer definition, completely separate and incompatible.
Good luck with that.

im not saying im exempt or that i should be, i enjoy a well played out debate more than most. im saying that having someone push an anti-god stance literally defines antitheism not atheism and i am aware that there clearly is a difference.

i challenge you to show me how science and religion are completely separable. I will posit something that for me shows god in and through science. For example lets take a look into a couple of why's of physical properties of water.
Water is essential for life...(as we know it here)
Water has almost perfect properties for supporting life, it is highly polar making it an excellent solvent for non organic molecules, it provides basicity and acidity which goes further to push why it helps keep us alive.
Clearly life takes advantage of all the beneficial properties and our bodies work the way they do due to the intricately delicate balance of water.
However water is a compound that is unlike any other on this planet so far known...none share its properties.
It is due to water that we can have an argument. The specific chemical properties including electronegativity of oxygen along with oxygen's particularly useful atomic radius allowing the hydrogen bonds to have just enough distance to be a much more useful polar compound than say the structurally (but not chemically) similar hydrogen sulfide.
Clearly water's abundance and specific properties are why we are alive, to me such a perfect coincidence is a proof of god. Its just too perfect.
I can go on a little more macro with nitrogen and its amino properties that allow for proteins, then i can go into why sulfur specifically allows proteins to fold and so on and so forth....

...there is just too much coincidence for there not to be a god. I also adhere to the idea that if i believe in god, i believe he is the creator of everything, then he also created all the physical compounds, properties of those compounds, and physical laws we find so facile in this day and age. So i both have faith in that, yet am unrelenting in my desire to understand why it works, and each time i find out how and why things work in our world...i feel enlightened and one step closer to what i think of as god.

That's how i see science and god fitting together...i've thought about this a great deal all the way out to the cosmic sense and how our universe works...i'd be happy to discuss with you further...and i certainly am not pushing this view on anyone, i dont care what anyone thinks but this is how i think, as someone who is scientifically minded i relish hearing proofs and hypothesis that our counter to mine or supportive of mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mryDAixYHJY

My stance is "god" is abstract enough of a concept to believe in some capacity or another but Abrahemic religions are just too much for me... I mean Jesus? Let's get real.

Gravity is an abstract concept in which you can believe.
It is invisible, the result of properties of the universe that are not understood and can be described only using man-made terms and meters.
Just like god.

However, gravity doesn't know that it is gravity and does not require intelligence to do what it does.
No one that believes in god would assert the same about him.
God is rational and intelligent - something that is completely lacking in any of the acts attributed to him. Like gravity.
There is nothing in the universe that requires rationality or intelligence for its existence - only for its perception. Our perception.

Its just easier (sometimes) to attribute something to intelligent action.
Theists often misapply Occam by stating that all the "coincidence" necessary to yield the known universe is more complicated than god simply wiling it to be.
This is just a misdirection of the obvious complexities of an intelligent, purposeful creator - a concept that requires that you ignore a significant amount of obvious simplicity.


Water is essential for life...(as we know it here)

Right off the bat you have confused cause and effect.
Water is not here because we need it.
We are here as a result of the abundance of water.
If it were possible (and it might be) for self-replicating molecules to develop in the presence of mercury and THAT were the predominant substance, you would be discussing the "miracle" of mercury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mryDAixYHJY

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Excellent man. Met him many times over the years and he leaves me quite star-stuck.

We are here as a result of the abundance of water.
.

keep reading i do mention that
"Clearly water's abundance and specific properties are why we are alive."
i get that please provide your own view and clearly if it were mercury that were such a perfect substance i'd posit the same argument.

Huh, usually my posts have a more immediately fatal affect on threads.

The scientific method requires evidence.
Faith requires a lack of evidence.

Written another way, if you have found evidence, it is no longer faith. If you believe without evidence, it is not science.

The difference to me is thus:
If you take the position that:
* there is a being of capacity several (or infinite) orders of magnitude greater than you
* We can believe that you can better understand that being through study and experimentation.
* the lack of knowledge requires a quest for better understanding

This is really no different from SETI.

If you believe that:
* there is a divine supernatural or paranormal being
* that we can never hope to understand this being in any way aside from trying to telepathically communicate with it
* any unexplainable phenomenon are attributable to it

This is not science. That is faith. That is God "living in the gaps" of understanding. If you take that to its logical conclusion then we should seriously stop with the space travel, nanotech research, and medical science and simply pray for divine intervention.

To be honest, if there is such a being as God, I can't possibly see how it would care whether I or not I ate bacon, worked on a specific day or telepathically asked it to grant me immortality. IMHO, that's ego on a scale larger than anything else in the universe.

Clearly, I believe that NOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria)is a waste of thought.

"Clearly water's abundance and specific properties are why we are alive."


Still confusing cause and effect.
We are not alive because of water.

Not only that but correlation is not causation.

Jeef!!!

PM me!!

Yes. Got your e-mail.

Not only that but correlation is not causation.

Yes, but that is a big chunk to swallow for many people.
Just look at all the anthropogenic global climate change arguments that are totally based on that confusion.

Reading back on it, I think Feras got the Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) backwards.

After all of that...
The Chart is Still Sweet!

I'm an Atheist - at times an Antitheist - the rest of the time i'm a Pastafarian
...but i won't get into that.

Antitheism is a war against war. that doesn't sound right....
Stop religion, eat Thrills gum. no....

RX-8 was born in Japan, a mostly Atheist country, at least it seemed to be in Tokyo.
I'll let you guy's resume your theories of non-theism.
game on!

Still confusing cause and effect.
We are not alive because of water.

you see im not too sure on that one and im also not to sure how 'we are here because of water' what you said... is any different. Essentially calling me on not being able to differentiate cause and effect is uncalled for. Moreover water and life can be shown to have cause and effect, throw water methane and hydrogen into a sealed container, vaporize the water and apply a strong spark, and you can make amino acids. miller-urey experiment...simply for posterity ;). From there life could have evolved from essentially nothing theoretically. So that would infact be direct cause and effect. Water provides the necessary oxygen atoms for amino acids that later may have organized themselves, and we know that protein additions are simply dehydration reactions, so water is one of the lynchpin every step of the way. The experiment also showed other basic life building blocks (nucleic acids, sugars, basic lipids...granted all were racemic, while life is only L-amino's they created D's as well.../shrug still a good experiment) can be created in this method. The experiments have been repeated and verified under a number of early earth conditions...is this a proof of god...nope not in the least...but it is solid evidence of the possibility of life's building blocks directly because of water. Correlation would be creating amino acids experimentally without water present, even though we know primordally water was present. Tell me where im confusing cause and effect there. water is responsible for life at least as a major component directly, take it out of the equation and it doesn't happen the way it did, the way we know it...could it of happened some other way, maybe i dunno, show me some sort of experiment that rationalizes an alternate hypothesis on how life's building blocks can be created... but we stray from topic using water was just an example i used. One of a few i could have. Its just biochemistry is my forte, so i'm ready to throw down there.

but seriously in my opinion this is what i'm hearing from you, i ask for a discussion and you deflect and tell me i can't separate cause and effect. :dunno:

not a preppie because i can only observe life on earth doesn't mean that life can't exist elsewhere, it just means its hard to believe in based on the rules that seem to govern this universe/plane of existence/consciousness...whatever you want to call it. Non carbon based life form is highly unlikely based on our frame of reference because chemically taking the shift down one on the periodic table changes a lot of chemical properties including valence shells, size of atoms, and basic physical properties. It doesn't mean it is not possible, its just not realistic with our observational power and our set of rules. Silicon does not work like carbon chemically, sulfur doesn't work like oxygen fully (although is a lot better of an analog than silicon/carbon) etc. etc. .
This honestly is the first time i've heard of the anthropic principle so if i am getting it backwards then /shrug im getting it backwards. However there really are no experiments (that i've heard of) that can show that life can exist another way than ours, so that would just be faith at this point as well am i right?
Can it organize a different way somewhere else and be called intelligent life? ya, but that would take faith of some sort...and all of this is not to say that an athiest is faithless (that does not follow at all...nor would i say that), but that a scientist is allowed to go on faith as well as facts. A hypothesis isn't a fact until it is tested...we make postulates we hope things turn out the way they do they sometimes don't and that leads usually to new directions and discoveries.
As a scientist i have to have faith in what i know, and also an open mind to what i don't know yet, otherwise its just a technical job without the chance of discovery. So im just positing that your flow chart is flawed based on the evidence i can conceive of.

i've rambled on for a while and its late, so this is all probably incoherent...love to sit down and actually discuss this stuff with someone willing to at least actually discuss.

I think I might have to re-read that a bunch of times before I understand what you are getting at.
But, is it true to say, that you are asserting that the "coincidence" of the nature of the relationship between water and biological organic processes indicates a need for an intelligent designer?

Atheists like to say they are not religious, because they oppose God, but they have many of the religious trappings – including public meetings and community groups discussing their lack of faith.:evil_laug

They usually display a blind faith that there is no higher power - which makes them a lot of fun when then join the AA and have to do the 12 step program. :rollingla

And instead of just living quietly like agnostics usually do, they argue their lack of beliefs with a missionic enthusiasm. Although that may be reserved for just the naturally irritating ones.:evil_laug


They often cite Darwin as a cure for religion - when they are actually citing Huxley, the atheist, who gave Darwin stomach pains, and they never bother to read Darwin, or they would know that in his 3rd edition of Origin of the Species, he states that he personally believes in a benevolent creator who is continuously improving his species. Yup, Darwin, like his grandfather, believed in God!

Atheism, as the State Religion, mandated by a Communist State, could include such religious trappings as pictures of the local God (dictator), ceremonies and profession of love for the leader of the day, and they even had little books of scripture, like the Red Book of Chairman Mao.

On another issue – abstinence – or self control – it is something that both religious and non-religious philosophies embrace. The Holy Warrior usually can control his bowel movements enough to use a flush toilet, and he practices chastity, and family loyalty.

In our modern culture, loss of control or under development of control is common, thus elevators, and covered garages, in major cities are often used as receptacles for human waste, and you might need to make sure your car is locked to prevent those who lack control from tempting you into very unreligious thoughts!:cussing:

I've heard some pretty skewed beliefs about atheists, but yours are rather unique.

1. I know that there are atheist groups and I disagree with what a lot of them do. That said, in a nation like ours, any part of the population that have a similar belief or view is likely to have an agenda that will only be furthered by forming a group and working together. This is one thing that I do believe can be beneficial in some ways.

2. I think a claim like that is ridiculous. You have no basis for proving a statement like that other than personal experience. I could find hundreds of people from any religion who know nothing about what they believe, but believe it very strongly. Your assumptions mean nothing.

3. There are a lot that do that, but that's another one of those things that shows up for most groups. There's a lot of people on this forum who truly believe the RX-8 is the best car ever made. I usually stay quiet (aside from simply stating that I am an atheist if it does come up) unless someone is making claims about atheism that are incorrect or are plain out bashing the idea.

4. Many people, on both sides, misunderstand and misrepresent Darwin. Regardless of his religious views, his ideas work. I never understood why people rejected his ideas as if they disprove religion.

5. I hate when people make connections with communism and atheism. They dont have to go hand in hand and communism is usually implied to be a negative thing in all forms. Your mention of the "local god" (dictator) simply shows the fact that you misunderstand communism or are ignoring it's true form. If there's a dictator, it's a dictatorship. Communism does not include a dictator. Countries that claim to be communist on the other hand, frequently do include a dictator. Regardless, this point is simply invalid because it's making an association with implications based on opinions and misinformation only.

6. Unless I'm misreading, this is just a statement on overall society today. (edit: just noticed that you said "on another note") I would agree that there's an overwhelming reduction in respect for people and their property today. I dont believe that society has lost all morals or anything as extreme as many people believe, but, like most eras, we do have our flaws. I think we'll always see some improvements along with setbacks in society.

I think I might have to re-read that a bunch of times before I understand what you are getting at.
But, is it true to say, that you are asserting that the "coincidence" of the nature of the relationship between water and biological organic processes indicates a need for an intelligent designer?

not necessarily a need at that level, but it does begin to raise the question and i don't blanketly just say well its complicated so god made it this way...no...for me i really am infinitely curious as to how things work, and i need rational explanations. I get these rational explanations and I am often amazed and fascinated at how perfect things seem to work and my mind wanders to the possibility that there's more to it all than sheer coincidence.

For me specifically the coincidences create that miraculous wonder of learning at the level of neuroscience i'm currently studying. Water moving on to make life is one thing fast forward to how we get hundreds of billions of neurons to gather together in one body so that we can think and have a discussion is part of what blows my mind. But again i study the science because i want to know how it works.

For example take developmental neurobiology and the development past a neural crest of progenitor cells into individualized neurons and eventually a human brain. Innervation of neurons occurs across the layers of the cortex occur due to having a specific trace amount of a chemical at exactly the right moment at exactly the right location. without that the nerve doesn't make it to its target and you lose the neuron because untargeted neurons get marked for apoptosis. That in itself is pretty neat, checks, balances, road signs...its all there for each neuron.

Multiply that amazing feat by a few hundred billion times, and then once all those neurons are set in their right positions, they begin communicating with eachother by creating synapses. Each single neuron in your head makes more than 10,000 connections with other neurons during your formative years. so take 100 billion cells and have them connect with each other 10000 times and the number of 'brain circuits' is in a number that may not be matched by a computer in our lifetime (if you turn it into MIPS the human brain is on the order of billions of MIPS compared to the millions that the best supercomputer has done).

I can keep going on and on in terms of the magnitude of how awesome all of that is. I understand chemically what is happening, i understand how its programmed in our DNA to happen exactly that way from the moment we are zygotes. I just step back from all of that and try and lift my jaw off the floor, its amazing to me at how wonderful and how complicated a system our brains are, and how far we are as people from creating something like that. I know how it works yet i can't help but see something of the divine in the sheer beauty of something as simple and as complicated as the few pounds of goo inside each and everyone of our heads.

That's where i see god in the science, i don't just say well god made us this way no reason to think about it, we should just accept it and bow down in fear of his infinite grandeur...no. To me its like hearing beautiful music that moment of understanding when i go from, 'i have no idea whats going on here' to 'so thats how this system works' sometimes has me thinking of god. Maybe that's silly, but i don't think its fair to call it blind faith completely.

not being able to differentiate cause and effect

Not trying to answer for him, but your interpretation is a tad more extreme than I feel it was actually intended to be. I think he was only saying that you're misunderstanding in that one instance, not your actual ability to understand.


However there really are no experiments (that i've heard of) that can show that life can exist another way than ours, so that would just be faith at this point as well am i right?

I don't assume there is life that takes another (basic) form than ours. There's a fair amount of research that shows that it's possible for other forms to exist, and statistically speaking, there's a fair chance that somewhere in this vast universe it could actually exist.

Atheist ... I think so.

I don't assume there is life that takes another (basic) form than ours. There's a fair amount of research that shows that it's possible for other forms to exist, and statistically speaking, there's a fair chance that somewhere in this vast universe it could actually exist.

this is the crux of the matter...we can't prove that life exists anywhere else, but we can have faith in that possibility of life elsewhere like or unlike our own. Clearly this is not blind faith, but faith based on a rational argument... to me that sounds like an argument familiar to the divine question we are discussing and goes back to my original simple (yet clearly complicated) assertion...science and god do not have to be mutually exclusive ;)

feras you sir are a smart man i really like your veiws.

:)

I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE ! (Nacho Libre)

For example take developmental neurobiology and the development past a neural crest of progenitor cells into individualized neurons and eventually a human brain. Innervation of neurons occurs across the layers of the cortex occur due to having a specific trace amount of a chemical at exactly the right moment at exactly the right location. without that the nerve doesn't make it to its target and you lose the neuron because untargeted neurons get marked for apoptosis. That in itself is pretty neat, checks, balances, road signs...its all there for each neuron.

Multiply that amazing feat by a few hundred billion times, and then once all those neurons are set in their right positions, they begin communicating with eachother by creating synapses. Each single neuron in your head makes more than 10,000 connections with other neurons during your formative years. so take 100 billion cells and have them connect with each other 10000 times and the number of 'brain circuits' is in a number that may not be matched by a computer in our lifetime (if you turn it into MIPS the human brain is on the order of billions of MIPS compared to the millions that the best supercomputer has done).

I can keep going on and on in terms of the magnitude of how awesome all of that is. I understand chemically what is happening, i understand how its programmed in our DNA to happen exactly that way from the moment we are zygotes. I just step back from all of that and try and lift my jaw off the floor, its amazing to me at how wonderful and how complicated a system our brains are, and how far we are as people from creating something like that. I know how it works yet i can't help but see something of the divine in the sheer beauty of something as simple and as complicated as the few pounds of goo inside each and everyone of our heads.


Good stuff feras, you would enjoy "a new kind of science" by Doctor Stephen Wolfram (the creater of the software Mathematica.) Though the book reads like he's trying to sell the idea, it does have a fantastic idea that starting with simple rules you can over time create impressively complex systems. One example is the human brain with neurons, cellular automata, DNA with just 4 basic proteins, computers with just "on and off" single bit transistors, and my field physics with 4 fundamental laws of force and (who knows how many) fundamental particles of space.

Basically if you start with a handful of simple rules, add time and math, eventually you'll have an incredibly complex system that seems impossible as an outcome.

Good stuff feras, you would enjoy "a new kind of science" by Doctor Stephen Wolfram (the creater of the software Mathematica.) Though the book reads like he's trying to sell the idea, it does have a fantastic idea that starting with simple rules you can over time create impressively complex systems. One example is the human brain with neurons, cellular automata, DNA with just 4 basic proteins, computers with just "on and off" single bit transistors, and my field physics with 4 fundamental laws of force and (who knows how many) fundamental particles of space.

Basically if you start with a handful of simple rules, add time and math, eventually you'll have an incredibly complex system that seems impossible as an outcome.

sounds like an interesting book, i'd definitely like to pick that up complexity from simplicity is fascinating.

I am a little cautious around science, cause I worked in it too long - it has had it bad moments - like the Piltdown man, Polly Water, and Cold fusion...

In the name of science horrors have occured - that were so terrible that to merely mention them causes the blood of moderators to need antifreeze...

And even today, to doubt Ozone Holes, or the endangerment of polar bear populations, or other religious issues - can make you such an apostate that you can't get your opinion printed ...

I prefer to worship something that doesn't require a human hand to make it, move it, or clean it up!

this is the crux of the matter...we can't prove that life exists anywhere else, but we can have faith in that possibility of life elsewhere like or unlike our own.

But does anything in our current understanding depend on the existence of life elsewhere?
It does not.
So goes the argument against the theist perspective as well.

It might be nice to wish for such a scenario (either), but nothing in our world requires it (other than our species-specific fear of the unknown) and to place dependencies on such a wish when there are simpler, more plausible explanations is unscientific and unreasonable.

We don't even need to go into the nearly infinitely opposite probabilities of the existence of extraterrestrial life and the existence of an intelligent, purposeful creator.