I have too much free time

[Zephik]

I was thinking about a theoretical question(s) today and I just thought I would share it with you guys and see what you all think.

Is it possible to exist in your mind for days apon days but only exist in the real world for a few seconds? Does that make sense? Could your mind convince you that you have lived numerous life times but in the physical world you have only lived once and only part of that one lifetime at that? What would happen to your body if your mind thought it had already lived and died? Would your body die as well? Like if your brain convinced itself that it just died, would you die? Or maybe it is convinced that you are old when in the physical world you are young. Would you become old at a accelerated rate so your body could catch up to your mind?

-SF

[Zephik]

Or to ask a more simple question...

Your mind affects your body and your body affects your mind. But to what degree?

[CanaBalistic]

Intresting... Do you remember when they first came out with virtual reality? There was a theroy that if you were in VR and died, you would become brain dead.

The aging process takes place at a pre-determined rate according to environmental conditions and your peticular celular decay rate. No matter what, you cant age any faster or slower.

Time is unrealavent to the brain. To coin a phrase from LLCool J: If you put your hand on a hot burner, a second can seem like an hour. But if you put your hands on a pretty girl, an hour can seem like a second.

[Zephik]

lol good quote.

Obviously if you eat unhealthy or healthy you can affect your mind. But to what degree can the human mind affect the human body? Or other things for that matter. Like in "what the bleep do we know" they had a bunch of people meditate for a 25 percent decrease in crime rate and the following year it was a 25 percent decrease. Also with the water test thing they had, just by how you think of water, can it really change it? ...and we are how much percent water?

-SF

[DaveW]

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

:up: Here's one for the greatest of philosophers, good ol' D. Adams!

[a.Bird]

If you can defeat the presence of "time" in your mind all together, you can live forever and have lived never.

[ajmilton]

If you can defeat the presence of "time" in your mind all together, you can live forever and have lived never.

yeah. you can live forever until you die :P at which point your personal perception of "time" (or lack thereof) is rather moot. :)

[Zephik]

Thats a wierd thought... if time didnt exist in your mind but it exists in your body... o.O

-SF

[GT40_GearHead]

Thats a wierd thought... if time didnt exist in your mind but it exists in your body... o.O

-SF

you would live an infinity in a second

[Airbozo]

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

:up: Here's one for the greatest of philosophers, good ol' D. Adams!

Hehe one of my favorite authors.

SEP. one of my favorite lines from the HHGTTG series.

Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency was one of the best books. (snowfire you would like the philosiphy behind the book.)

[Slug Toy]

well you know... im not exactly sure time DOES exist at all. look at the mess we have with time already. making corrections by adding a day in february to make up for the earth's slower spin and all. if time does exist, why is it so hard to even monitor?

i personally have a horrible grasp on time. i just go about my day as i feel like it... i hardly ever hold myself to a schedule. it just doesnt work for me. its all i can do to make it to school on time most days.

time in respect to life probably has no particular meaning. we are the only ones that actually use hours, days, minutes and all that. animals govern themselves by light and dark and thats it.

time on a cellular level doesnt really mean anything either. cells do what they do independent of time. yes there are genetic markers that determine how long you live, but i dont characterize that as time. i cant even put into words what i characterize it as... the closest thing might be "limit on life". it really is a random set of circumstances that will govern the decay rate of those genetic markers. of course, time is handy in this area, but not necessary. does it really matter if you know you can live for 83 years anyways? that would just be a bummer.

as far as living a lifetime inside your mind... its possible. i have pretty detailed dreams that span quite a few years some times. the only problem is that i dont think you can dream a lot faster than you can actually do things in real life. i highly doubt that you could live an alternate life in a daydream while waiting for your dinner at a restaurant. youd need a lifetime to dream of a lifetime.

i dont think you can kill yourself by thinking about it either. i had a dream once where i was sentenced to death be lethal injection, but without being put to sleep first. i watched the needle go in, and the poison start, and i was hooked up to a heart monitor. i didnt die though. i was just lying there with a horrible feeling. you know that feeling you get when you just realize you left something important behind or when you know you're going to screw up that bike jump? thats the feeling i had. i would imagine thats the feeling you get when you're about to die... but anyways my point is that i dont think you can kill yourself that way.

so in general, i say time is at best an illusion like dave said. if you think about it, the only thing time does is tell us how and when to live our lives. nothing else in the world follows a 24 hour clock... things just happen when they happen, and we assign them a certain time in order to try and understand things. time is a superficial method we invented to measure the world we live in. probably even less valid than distance, volume, or weight.

my suggestion is that you dont think too far into this until you get a taste of quantum mechanics and molecular biology. those two subjects can and probably will turn things upside down for you... and then you can start rethinking the world like i do.

[Airbozo]

Time is a reletive measure of ones passing. Man invented a clock to keep track of wasted time? I don't know the answeres to most of this stuff and yes it makes my brain hurt just trying to figure out why time is such a controlling factor in most human events.

Animals have been shown to have a highly developed sense of time. Scientists used to think that all animals just use sunrise and sunset to calculate their days. It has been proven that animals are actually able to seperate the timing of specific events. Animals given food at the same time every day always return for food at that time, even years later. About 5 years ago when one of the less nasty hurricanes rolled through Florida it took out a bird sanctuary. The people that ran the sanctuary released all the birds hoping they would have a better survival rate than just being locked down. All the birds flew off. When the storms receded, the people that ran the sanctuary noticed that at a certain time of the day most of the birds would return. It happened the same time every day. It happened that the times the birds were showing up were the same times that the sancuary would put on shows for guests. With a couple years of studies they determined that the birds sense of time was down to the minute. When the daylight savings took effect, most of the birds adjusted too. (althogh they determined that was more of how the birds brain works than any sense of adjusted time) So yes I do think animals have more of a sense of time than just sunrise and sunset.

Yes quantum mechanics will screw up your sense of time AND most other things.

[nil8]

Ah, philosophy. The thinkers art. This is the stuff of my life and this will probably end up being a long post, so bear with me.

Time is a way for humans to catagorize events in our existance. Catagorizing is the method humans use to make sense of the input around us.

An easy example is a dog. In our society we all agree that a specific creature is a dog, no matter size, shape, or look, as long as they have certain guidelines, they are dogs.
There is no specific dog, or avatar of dog, that all people think of when they think dog. It doesn't exist. Too many variations and perceptions make it impossible for everyone in existance to agree that our construct of dog is a
specific image or ideal of a dog. The can be similar and often are. It's improbable to link a dog to a tractor or chair when you think of the 'perfect' example of a dog.

Time works much the same way. It's something we all experience, rationalize, and measure, and at the same time we don't all agree on what time is as it's own construct beyond our measurement of events.

When people are asked to think of time most think of timekeeping devices of some sort. These devices rationalize and measure time, but they don't define it. They don't lay ground work for what time is beyond the idea that it's something we can logically understand and use as a tool.

This means we have no real working definition of this construct called time.
We understand facets of time that we use regularly, but we don't understand the underlying concept of why, and that's why philosophy hinges on.

"Is it possible to exist in your mind for days apon days but only exist in the real world for a few seconds?"
It really comes down to does your mind maintain the ability to objectively measure time without physical presence?
My answer is no. If you spend large amounts of time meditiating, you often deal with large expanses of thought in a fairly quick manner compared to the outside world. I've had meditative sessions that have answered really difficult questions for me in a span of hours that would take me normally weeks or months to hash out. This is entire subjective and subject to scrutiny, this is just what I think.

When humans focus their attention onto a process, physical or mental, we become more aware and more able to control and modify the results of our process. Breathing is an easy physical example and anger is an easy mental example. I think that the ability to focus the mind onto problems without distraction helps us force our thought patterns into stronger and faster, and repetitive action of this kind makes the ability easier and faster.
The real problem with this theory is the idea that once you start to scrutinize something heavily and quickly, invariably you will change the resulting outcome by performing that scrutiny.

"Could your mind convince you that you have lived numerous life times but in the physical world you have only lived once and only part of that one lifetime at that?"

Yes. It's called multiple personality disorder. Many people confuse this with schizophrenia because they don't understand what both are.
The mind has the ability to convince itself of almost anything with enough metaprogramming, including multiple lifetimes, past lives, alien abductions, ghost sitings, the apocolypse, that the holocaust never happened, etc etc.
Most people have some type of emotional skew on a situation. Their side of the story if you want to call it that.
Imbalanced individuals sometimes have this defect in the mechanism that puts a subjective view on reality and thus it forms a disconnect. It is entirely possible and it has been documented that some people think they have lived multiple lifetimes inside the same physical form and each mental construct is throughly convinced they are a complete and singular person from birth to death, even though they all inhabit the same physical form.

"Like if your brain convinced itself that it just died, would you die?"
No. Not without shutting down the systems necessary to support life. If you figured out a way to tap into your reptilian brain and turn it off, then yes, theoretically, you could kill yourself by convincing your brain you are dead.

Most of the heavy thought that happens occurs in the frontal lobe. This is the place you would try to think your brain into the fact that it is dead. You would be disproving your own theory because the thought of being brain dead proves the brain is alive by being able to still use the organ to think. On top of this implication, you still have a physical form which is living, and the body recieves all of its signals for life from the brain, further proving the idea false.

"Like in "what the bleep do we know" they had a bunch of people meditate for a 25 percent decrease in crime rate and the following year it was a 25 percent decrease."
I hate this documentary. I cannot stand the implied theories of this movie. They try to play in the realm of new age philosophy and treat it as science. It isn't. I devote my life to study of systems such as this and will tell you the two don't mix. You can't take these ideas and test them in the lab, it doesn't work, it's not science. The movie focuses on the idea of collective unconscious, which is accredited to Karl Jung, and was picked up in the 1960's by hippies and slid right into new age thinking. Study of this is fine, just don't call it science.

Just because people think something does not make it true. What are the other variables in this matter? What other tests were tried that failed? The idea that the 'power of thought' has existed for thousands of years and has time and time again failed to produce testable, usable psyical result.

If you think about having a new car day after day, you will invariably program your thought to subconciously continue this. You will continue to thinking about having a new car all the time. Your actions and motivations will become geared towards getting a new car and you will inadvertently start to structure yourself towards getting a new car, despite the consequences. Now, does that make a car magically appear, or make someone else give you a new car? No. **** no.
This has always been the original idea behind the principle and it always gets taken to stupid levels. You can't will something to happen because you want it. You can influence yourself by metaprogramming to make a construct in your own mind for your actions to focus on a desired result. Once you learn how to reprogram parts of yourself towards your goals, it becomes much easier because you don't have to actively focus on them. Your thoughts can have a profound effect on you, but not on others or physical material without physical or social influence. "The force" is fiction.

"Also with the water test thing they had, just by how you think of water, can it really change it?"

The water test they cited was botched from the beginning. They used different freezing methods, different dye compounds, and different sources of water for the test. The whole thing was a scientific nightmare and not worthy of thought. The test was an abomination to the idea of science and isn't worth ****. Once again, people try to take ideas that don't fit into real science and pass them off as it. It's no better than ghosthunters.

"youd need a lifetime to dream of a lifetime."
No you don't. The mind has no physical measurement of time inside of itself. You can replay events that took hours, days, weeks, months that you actually lived inside your head in a few seconds or minutes.

"making corrections by adding a day in february to make up for the earth's slower spin and all."
This is just a revision of a specific calendar system. Think of it as a patch to fix a faulty function. No big deal. It works better now. Tools don't start off perfect.

[DaveW]

I've decided to call this sort of post 'Slug Baiting', for obvious reasons. ;)

Than again, Nil8, you've been on some crazy long posts recently...

-Dave

[b4i7]

speaking of brains hurting....thx nil8....i didnt read that...too much text ><

[Zephik]

Bravo guys, You seem to be the ideal people that I would like to become someday. I might not ever have the ability to do so, but I wont give up just because it seems like a far shot in the dark for me.

I have a side question as well for anyone who would like to answer.

What do you think of things like "Wisdom", "Intelligence", "Knowledge" and things like that?

For example of what I mean...

I often regard "wisdom" over "intelligence" and "knowledge" but I also think that you should have a good exposure to all three.

I also think that americans as a whole lack greatly in the "wisdom" area. I say americans because I dont really know of other countries and there people.

What about in other countries? In america we dont really have an education system that teaches us wisdom or whatever variation of that in my opinion. Do they teach that kind of stuff in other countries? Sorry thats not a very good question... im on the phone at the moment so I am having a hard time thinking, writing, and talking. ^^

-SF

EDIT:

I just remembered something that someone once told me...

"Wisdom is a two step process. The first step to becoming wise is to want to be. The second step is becoming old". Or something like that.. I don't remember it all that great but thats probably pretty close to what he said.

What do you guys think about that? Is that accurate?

[DaveW]

Of the 3, wisdom is the most important, and the most rarely discovered.

-Dave

[jdbnsn]

I like that question. It seems in my world at least that of the three, knowledge is almost useless. In a world that is so rapidly changing by communication, science, and philosophy, what you "know" today is wrong tomorrow. Intelligence is the more unique of the three in that it is supposedly an inherent characteristic that cannot be altered, not sure if I agree but I don't really KNOW for sure. Being more intelligent allows to take in more information faster and process complex ideas from it, but you can be very intelligent and still not know a damn thing (as your very complex ideas derived are unique and inventive, they can all be wrong). Wisdom in my experience is probably the most practical in everyday life application, and for me it seems gained the fastest by being wrong. In the words of my father many years ago "experience is the stuff you get just after you need it" That's Dad's wisdom!

[Airbozo]

That's the thing with wisdom. It can't be taught (IMHO). It is a learned experience that everyone acheives differently and at different stages of their life.

Intelligence is a measure of _how_ you know.
Knowledge is a measure of _what_ you know.
Wisdom is a measure of _why_ you know.

[rosecityracr]

I often regard "wisdom" over "intelligence" and "knowledge" but I also think that you should have a good exposure to all three.

Right...it's impossible to be wise without having both intellect and knowledge. Sure it helps if your older and have experienced more than the next (younger) person, but just because your old doesn't make you wise. I mean someone my age (22) or heck even younger than me, I'm positive has experienced more than me and is smarter and more intelligent (obvious by my lack of grammer :p ) so therefor I'd say he/she would be more wise than myself. Unless then of course they try to convince me they're wiser, more intelligent, and more knowledgeable than me, then that just makes them arrogent and/or ignorant. It's a touch hard to be wise when your either/or IMO. :)

[nil8]

I've had a lot of time on my hands recently and it's too cold to do any paint work.

I am one of those people that spend massive amounts of time obtaining knowledge that a lot of people are timid about because it has a tendency to shake up their world view. Psychology, sexuality, occultism, sociology, drug culture, etc. I find the values and ideas of these things interesting. Learning about methods of deconstruction of self, learning to influence people in ways that they don't understand, all forms of sexual deviance, and the results are way more interesting than TV.

I have no immediate friends where I live, so I tend to stay secluded and pursue my hobbies.

I just finished "Reviving Ophelia" by Mary Piper. Anyone interested in adolescent female psychology should read this book. It's amazing how many case studies and the approach that this rather conservative psychologist takes that are rather unorthodox. Good book.

As for the current debate, I will remove myself from this one. Look up the difference as defined by webster, I'm sure that will leave plenty to talk about.

[Slug Toy]

There is no specific dog, or avatar of dog, that all people think of when they think dog. It doesn't exist.

well... how about wolves? those are supposed to be the decendents of the predecessor of all dogs. wolves are the closest youll get. thats what i think when i hear "avatar of dogs". anyways... thats not whats being argued or compared or whatever we want to call this.


"youd need a lifetime to dream of a lifetime."
No you don't. The mind has no physical measurement of time inside of itself. You can replay events that took hours, days, weeks, months that you actually lived inside your head in a few seconds or minutes.

im still disagreeing with that. if you are still alive, you are still able to imagine another life outside of your own. the only thing that would stop you is death, therefore you will never finish this hypothetical life until your REAL life has also finished.


What do you think of things like "Wisdom", "Intelligence", "Knowledge" and things like that?


i look at it like this:

-knowledge is something you obtain from other people
-intelligence is the use of your knowledge to deal with other people
-wisdom is the realization that people in general are idiots, and that you were probably taught wrong, and adjusting yourself accordingly

i say wisdom is the ultimate. wisdom is still a teacher in and of itself, and will teach you acceptance. thats why old people are so docile.

intelligence is second, but only slightly above knowledge. intelligence lets you relate to the smarter people in the world, but also breeds arrogance because you think you know way more than anyone else and should get special treatment. intelligence is a dangerous thing for people with big mouths. intelligence probably includes common sense as well, and a lot of people are severely lacking this. so most people only have pseudo-intelligence because they really are still idiots at heart.

knowledge is the lowest but only because it allows you to know things and doesnt imply that you can now use it. you can have all the knowledge in the world and still be useless because you still need the intelligence to apply it.

one thing i will say is that wisdom doesnt always imply age. age only becomes a factor for the slower mind. a really sharp person, such as myself, picks up on things very quickly. i really think im a very good example. i can actually mark my transition through the three stages now that i look back.

all through school until about grade 12, i just followed what the teachers were saying, and gaining knowledge. i still had yet to figure out why i had to learn things, and how to use that stuff properly. in grade 12 i started putting things together and realizing how things were meshed together in very complex ways, and i also soon realized that i think way differently than most people. i had obtained intelligence and also a hatred/arrogance because i couldnt share my ideas properly. at the beginning of this past summer, i had sort of a revelation. i said to myself "who cares if these people can understand me? ive probably got some good ideas, and they'll listen to me when they understand that im right. and if im wrong, big deal." i think that in that single instant right there i transfered over to wisdom. of course, im still gaining more knowledge, and intelligence, but now the wisdom brought about by my revelation allows me to accept any ignorance and continue to try and gradually prove my points... unless of course i come up against fanatical and blind ignorance, in which case i meet it with equal irrationality and things get ugly.

now when i look around me, i see all sorts of unreasonable people claiming to be right, when chance are no one is right. these people are of every age from what i can see. its just really evident in teenagers. it DOES become apparent in older people when parents get into arguments and fights at their childrens' soccer games. i cant really characterize it seniors or young children because those people are... difficult in my mind. i cant deal with them very easily. my point is, though, that many people remain very unwise for quite a long time because... they just think they're right. thats probably why wisdom is generally associated with age.

but to sum things up, stay out of politics.

[DaveW]

-wisdom is the realization that people in general are idiots, and that you were probably taught wrong, and adjusting yourself accordingly

lol...nicely said.

-Dave

[Ironcat]

A: Wolves are not the end all be all doggie. Wolves are just the play-do that doggies are formed of. Any type of domestic doggie, let it go feral, and let it breed, over the generations it does not turn into something looking like a wolfie, it turns into something most closely resembling a dingo.

B: You got intelliegence, knowledge and wisdom mixed up.
Intelligence is the base. Someone may be intelligent enough to handle a lighter, apply it to a cigarette, Pour liquor from a bottle to a glass, etc... ie, something any lefthanded chimp could do.
Knowledge is applied intelligence. Knowledge is knowing what will happen to you if you indulge too often in either the cigarette or the liquor bottle. Not just the immediate pleasurable feelings that the chimp would be trying to recreate.
Wisdom is knowing enough to throw away the ciggies or pour out the bottle instead...

C: If you really think old people are docile, come on down to South Florida and try to get a cart through some of these delis the day before Passover!

[Zephik]

Do you guys think that we are all "connected" in some way or another? I've been noticing a few things here and there that makes me think that we are all some how "connected" with one and another to a certain degree. What do you guys think?

Example off the top of my head. "A womans intuition". Kid gets hurt, mother gets a feeling that something is wrong. Thats just one example. It's not the example I wanted to list but its all I can think of for some reason at the moment.

-SF

[rosecityracr]

Do you guys think that we are all "connected" in some way or another?

EDITED: (didnt want to start a religious battle since its a really touchy subject :) )
Sure if your religious. Most religions believe in a higher being and that we came from that higher being and/or are connected to that higher being in some form or fashion. So if you and someone has the same belief then sure your connected. Then there's always that "5 degree's of Separation" theory thats quite possible. Now if your talking about telepathy or ESP or anything along those lines...then sorry I dont believe so :p

[Zephik]

Well religion is religion. lol I dont know what else to say about it. I personally dont believe in religion. To me... religion divides where as believing in something unites. That is just my personal belief though. But religion or a belief in a god(s) and such things like that isnt really what I am talking about with being "connected" to one and another. Niether am I talking about telepathy or ESP. Since I am not completely sure on what either of those are. I guess it just became alot harder to explain. hmmm...

Okay, here is an extremely bad example. It is kind of like "the force" in star wars. But it is not something seperate of us where as in star wars it is. Wow, that was just horrible. lol hopefully someone gets what I mean and can translate for me.

Maybe just keep it at the example of a "mothers intuition".

-SF

[Slug Toy]

Do you guys think that we are all "connected" in some way or another?

i believe its called the internet...

haha, oh i had to say that.

[Zephik]

ROFL

I dont blame you one bit ^^ I guess I set myself up for that one huh? lol

[CanaBalistic]

I had a whole page filled with things i wanted to say but somwhere in the middle i lost my train of thought as too many thoughts and feelings started to come out. I scraped the whole 15 paragraph post for a more simplistic approach.

Knowledge:
The only knowledge you Posses is the knowledge of others. Without it you wouldnt know anything.

Religion:
An elaborate shroud based on fear which no one has any inclination about the truth.

Connected:
In every facet of your life...


This post may have come across wrong. I apologize, Im getting a little depressed at the moment.

[Slug Toy]

what about discoveries that you make on your own? wouldnt that count as your own knowledge? i mean, soon after you learn to walk you figure out that dark stairways are your worst enemy, and no one has to tell you that. you figure it out the hard way. actually, dark stairways are STILL my worst enemy.

[jdbnsn]

Do you guys think that we are all "connected" in some way or another? I've been noticing a few things here and there that makes me think that we are all some how "connected" with one and another to a certain degree. What do you guys think?


-SF

I like the way one of my heros put it when suggesting a positive drug story be told on the nightly news...

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
-Bill Hicks

[jdbnsn]

what about discoveries that you make on your own? wouldnt that count as your own knowledge? i mean, soon after you learn to walk you figure out that dark stairways are your worst enemy, and no one has to tell you that. you figure it out the hard way. actually, dark stairways are STILL my worst enemy.

Sure, infact the only way to obtain knowledge is to discover it yourself. Whether you are being lectured to, reading, or experimenting with lead based paint, your attention is the key to obtaining the knowledge. It's like learning that fire is hot, when you are a child you stick you hand in a flame and suddenly you are in possesion of the knowledge that fire is hot, it's wisdom that plays a role in whether or not you decide to test it again.

[rosecityracr]

Religion:
An elaborate shroud based on fear which no one has any inclination about the truth.


With religion comes faith, and faith is "knowing" that your belief is true 8) . Whether you believe in God, the Devil, Buddha, multiple gods, if you believe you came from an organism from the dirt, or for you family guy fans the Holy Fonz :lick:, with every one of those beliefs comes faith. Faith that you DID come from dirt, that you DID come from God, that there ARE gods of the sun, war, elements, etc etc. Religion has inclination of the truth from events that happened in the past, like a history book. Like you KNOW Linclon was shot by John Wilkes Booth, you KNOW Jesus was crucified. Its not something you can argue...well i guess you could technically hehe...its just how it is and thats how it happened and nothin can change that.

Personally I'm a Christian, and that's what I believe and have faith in. I'm also open minded and dont judge people based on beliefs. But also, a part of being "Christian" is trying to show everyone the way, the "right" way and convert them to Christianity and I dont think that's necessarily right. Does that not make me a Christian? To some people, to some CHRISTIAN people no it doesnt. I believe in God and Heaven and Hell, therefore im a Christian. But I dont care, i still believe what i believe and the next person believes what he/she believes. Of course no one wants to go to Hell, which is the fear part, but I'm not scared...once again where the faith comes in :) .

[CanaBalistic]

what about discoveries that you make on your own? wouldnt that count as your own knowledge? i mean, soon after you learn to walk you figure out that dark stairways are your worst enemy, and no one has to tell you that. you figure it out the hard way. actually, dark stairways are STILL my worst enemy.

What i was mearly saying is that without the knowledge of others, there would be no stairway to be afraid of. You would be in a pre neanderthal like state. You would simply be responding to stimuli.

[Slug Toy]

What i was mearly saying is that without the knowledge of others, there would be no stairway to be afraid of. You would be in a pre neanderthal like state. You would simply be responding to stimuli.

and thats the way it should be. dont think, just respond. kind of like... fighting or racing.

heres another good set of questions that have stumped me for quite a while and kind of scared me too. will we ever have another life so to speak? will we come around again embodied in someone else, even if we have no knowledge of a previous life? will we ever be conscious again in the way that we are right now?

i sometimes think it would be nice to come back, just start over new in a hundred years or so. theres so much stuff going on right now, and im sure we'll see amazing things in our lifetimes... cheap space travel, optical and even quantum computing, teleporting maybe. it sure would be nice to live in a time when all that is common every day stuff. i mean, everyone probably wants to go to space, or the moon, but hardly any of us will... and it would just be so kickass if we could get up and go when we wanted.

every time i watch a movie like serenity, where technology isnt too far off and futuristic, and is still believable, i always start dreaming about being able to do that stuff.

but ya, it sure would be a shame if this life is it. even though i think we'll see tons of stuff come around in the next 50 or 100 years if we're lucky, theres still way more that this life wont let us see happen.

[Zephik]

but ya, it sure would be a shame if this life is it. even though i think we'll see tons of stuff come around in the next 50 or 100 years if we're lucky, theres still way more that this life wont let us see happen.

I guess thats why I believe in an afterlife. Even though we can never prove it. But I rather believe in it because if I am wrong and when I die I just become nothing and go back into the dirt... well its not like I am going to regret it you know? I would rather have dreams than nothing at all. I'm not entirely sure if I believe in god, but I do believe in jesus. To not believe that he existed would be the same as being able to say that washington didnt play a big role in history or that he didnt exist at all and it was all fabricated.

"What if someone made it up? What if someone went a little bananas when they were writing all that stuff?" - A quick quote from my friend.

Well what if the same happened during the time that our history books were being written? I dont think we should teach religious books in schools... but I think we shoudnt exclude everything that is in religious books all because it is in religious books you know? Like jesus... we shouldnt exclude him from our text books just because he's like the main focus in the bible. He DID exist. I know I can't prove that. But niether can you prove washington existed you know?

I just thought of something really funny too. Has anyone heard of Dane Cook? He has a joke that goes something like this...

EVEN BETTER... I found the video! :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wts-dntnyh4

Funny Stuff, just watch it and enjoy it. If you get offended in some way then that is your problem and I dont think anyone is really going to care why it is a problem to you so keep it to yourself k? :D Sorry, just had to make sure yah know? I dont want to start some huge flaming religious debate or whatever.

-SF

[nil8]

Bill Hicks was a fantastic comedian. It's too bad he died of cancer. Funny, insightful, really good stuff.

SF, what you're looking for is the collective unconcious. Study Jungian philosophy for an understanding of this. It's a very common idea and has been around for a long time. Read one of my long posts from earlier in this thread for more info.



As for death, it's difficult for most people to deal with their finite existance. Most people struggle with the idea of death after they experience it with someone or some creature they are very close to. More often than not, people accept some idea of continued spiritual living. Very few people are true atheists.

Personally, I don't worry about it. I will know what happens soon enough.

A quote to go out on.
"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?" -Robert Heinlein

[Airbozo]

As for death, it's difficult for most people to deal with their finite existance. Most people struggle with the idea of death after they experience it with someone or some creature they are very close to. More often than not, people accept some idea of continued spiritual living. Very few people are true atheists.

Personally, I don't worry about it. I will know what happens soon enough.

A quote to go out on.
"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?" -Robert Heinlein

This is too true. My adopted parents had never really shown any religous bend one way or another. They also did not seem to be bothered by death or any discusion thereof. When my adopted Mom's brother died (nasty accident involving a trash compactor), death was suddenly a taboo subject that would get me grounded for even asking about it. When her father then mother died, she started getting curious about religion. Once she was diagnosed with cancer (my adopted mother), she became a christian so her soul would be saved and not end up in hell. My adopted father soon folowed suit and is now very religous. When I asked why (I have a habit of asking the difficult questions. I am like that), I felt like I was a child again asking about death. Bad taboo subject.

I personally don't worry about it. Like you said, I will find out soon enough whether I spend the next lifetime as worm food or the worm.

[progbuddy]

Hmmmm, lemme think... Time is just a measurement of the revolutions of the earth, moon, and both around the sun. The sixty second minute was developed by arabs.

[Zephik]

Okay, NEXT QUESTIONS!

This time I thought I would give you guys a break and give you some more... uh... humurous questions. ^^

1. If you break wind and belch at the same time, would it make a vacuum in your stomach?

2. Can you cry underwater?

3. Why doesn't flavored gum turn your mouth that color?

4. Why is it that when adults have multiple personalities they are put in an mental hospital, but when a child has imaginary friends it's cute?

5. Doesn't a lightning rod on top of church show a lack of faith?

6. If a pack of gum says that each piece is 10 calories, is that amount just chewing the gum, or also for swallowing it?

7. Do you wake up or open your eyes first?

8. Have you ever wondered why in the 1500's nude photos/painting were art, while today it's pornography?

9. Why would Dodge make a vehicle called Ram?

10. Why do you get in trouble for blocking an exit when you're standing in the doorway? In case of an emergency, wouldn't you run out, too, therefore NOT blocking the exit?

Courtesy of Crazythoughts.com (http://www.crazythoughts.com/)

:bunny:

-SF


Just hang in there for a bit. I'm sure I'll think of some better questions eventually. ^^

[nil8]

1. No, but it would make the room stink.
2. Who would want to go scuba crying?
3. Food dye.
4. Haven't you seen horror movies? It's not cute, it's a demon. Run!
5. I plead the fifth.
6. It's chewing because your saliva breaks down simple sugars, and those simple sugars are what is in gum.
7. Wake up. I always remember opening my eyes after sleep.
8. Because in the 1500's it was on some type of canvas and it wasn't real people having sex on camera for money.
9. To instill a sense of power into their emasculated customers. "Only a man drives a Ram"
10. Because people have too many stupid rules because there are too many stupid people. Remember, lowest common denominator isn't just a math term, it's the way rules work in society. The interestate system, drive throughs, warning labels, almost all signs are designed for the people who are dumb enough to not have the sense to go south to Texas or that the coffee is hot or that you shouldn't drink your mop & glow or look at a map or pull around to the second window. You know, idiots.

[Ironcat]

I have cried underwater...

Yes there's SCUBA crying. You get it when...
1: you sweat suntan lotion off of your forehead into your eyes
2: your eyes tear up making it impossible to see, so you...
3: pull off your mask to use the water to rinse your face...
4: and sink down onto a nice hunk of fire coral...

It's happened more than once.

Remember : There are 2 types of divers. Those who pee in their wetsuit, and those who lie and say they don't.

[Zephik]

Remember : There are 2 types of divers. Those who pee in their wetsuit, and those who lie and say they don't.

Oh my....

:neutral:

Are you sure that it just isnt you? :D jk jk

But that just reminded me of something... IPITS! (I Pee In The Shower)

Here is a question... why are people so dang lazy! I mean seriously! I dont think people have bathrooms that are SO HUGE that for some reason it hits you that you should just go in the shower as it would save valuable time and effort. I mean bloody hell people!

Okay okay, I understand.

You dont want to get out of the shower because its nice and hot and if you got out it would be freezing cold and you would drip water everywhere right?

Well depending on your bathroom layout, you can do what I do!

Open the curtain or door, take careful aim, and go baby go! JUST DONT MISS! Oh for the love of all things holy dont miss...

Why... am I so wierd. lol

-SF

[Airbozo]

Hehe that is wierd...

You know it goes to the same place right?

It is usually the effect of the water hitting you that triggers the urge to pee anyway...

[CanaBalistic]

Does it even matter? You'll be clean after you piss on yourself anyway... :)

[Zephik]

lol

Oh man... I need to think of a question to ask and quick! This is starting to get pretty wierd! :p

-SF

[Crimson Sky]

8.Have you ever wondered why in the 1500's nude photos/painting were art, while today it's pornography?

Photos from the1500's? :eek:

[CanaBalistic]

I think he meant portraits, not photo's.

My answer to question 8:
Women didnt have sexual relations with horses, mechanical dildo's or stick base ball bats up thier wazoo's in thoes pictures. I see more nudity on nickelodeon than in any of thoes old paintings.

[ajmilton]

I think he meant portraits, not photo's.

My answer to question 8:
Women didnt have sexual relations with horses, mechanical dildo's or stick base ball bats up thier wazoo's in thoes pictures. I see more nudity on nickelodeon than in any of thoes old paintings.

wow. that sure ain't the nickelodeon i used to watch. and considering the target audience, that could qualify as child pr0n. pardon the doubting, but i damn sure hope you don't see more nudity on kid-oriented TV than in painted nudes :P

(the rest of your comment is spot on tho, the intent of the "art" nudes was different than the intent of porn.)

((... i said "spot on". i think all you folks from the uk are affecting my speech. grr.))

[Airbozo]

((... i said "spot on". i think all you folks from the uk are affecting my speech. grr.))

Hehe my soon to be brother in law (who is british) is solely responsible for my use of the term "nasty bits". which I seem to have adopted as my own...

[Zephik]

Next Question anyone?

Okay, so last night I was thinking about all the hard ships of the world and what not. For whatever reason I have no clue. But then I thought about disease. Why does disease exist? Thats my question. There probably isnt an answer to WHY it exists, but it will be fun to watch you all squirm like insects.

I'm just kidding about that last part, but go ahead, have a swing at it.

-SF

[ajmilton]

are you asking from a medical, religious, or philosophical standpoint? :p

[Zephik]

All of the above of course! lol

This is a "free answer" question. That pretty much means you can answer however you like. I am open minded enough to think about all possibilities. Whether religious, medical, philosophical or whatever other stand point you can think of.

-SF

[Airbozo]

IMHO disease's exist to control the animal/fish/mammal population on the earth. The more the human population grows on this planet the nastier the virus' become. (although some of that can be directly linked to humans use of antibiotics and whatnot)

You could also link the behaviour of "man" to the population of the planet as well. My Wife likens it to the way electrons act. put a few togehter and nothing significant happens. Load a bunch into a confined space and WHAMO! Sheet hits the fan.

[rosecityracr]

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

WE ALL LIVE IN THE MATRIX! :alien:

[Zephik]

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

WE ALL LIVE IN THE MATRIX! :alien:

Lol

That is still a great movie in my book! :bunny:

Airbozo - That was a pretty good answer. I never thought of it like that!

-SF

[CanaBalistic]

I especialy like how he tries to detach himself from the problem. :) Nice use of words in that post :)

[Airbozo]

A similar question was posed in an ethics class (of all things) that I took some years ago. It was before the matrix movies came out and I answered much like Cana did with the matrix quote, although my own bend. It created a HUGE discussion about the merits of humans being stewards of the planet they were destroying. I actually twisted a quote by Robert Heinlin(sp?) that he used in one of his sci-fi books. I will remeber the name of it later I am sure.

[Slug Toy]

hooray, something i know a bit about again.

so you want to know why diseases exist?

simple answer: they fill niches in the environment and are an R-selected type organism that takes advantage of situations because they generally reproduce asexually and very quickly. the niche they fill really is useless from our point of view, but if you consider bacteria... they often double as decomposers and fixers (meaning they can take something like atmospheric nitrogen and turn it into something useful). viruses... well theres still debate over whether they can even be considered as a living organism... we dont have all the answers yet. ill mix current knowledge on viruses with my "educated guesses" because anyones guess is pretty valid at this point.

long answer:

think back. way back. all the way to the beginning of life (if you believe in evolution). the first organisms were very simple. nothing more than a phospholipid sphere and a functional molecule (maybe a protein or some other catalyst). the first of these guys were probably chemotrophs, meaning they used chemicals like hydrogen sulphide and converted it to sulphuric acid to extract energy. eventually you start seeing organisms that can take advantage of sunlight (phototrophs/autotrophs) and others that can use the stuff that was produced by the chemotrophs and autotrophs. they get more complex in structure and they also start to form some implicit relationships (they dont really have a choice, but one may produce something useful to another so they can help each other out).

skip ahead a bit. up until now these things have been simple prokaryotes (bacteria basically). relationships have evolved somewhat over the time since life first started, and now we have phagocytes (organisms that engulf other ones). then a sequence of events happened where a phagocyte engulfed a bacteria but couldnt "digest" it. this spawned a new version of cell: a primitive animal cell (similar to animal cells today but missing a lot still). this happened again to some of these new cells, and this advanced them to what can be thought of as a primitive plant cell.

***heres a little side note. if you dont believe me about how cells engulfed others and turned into something new, read up on it. the bacteria that were engulfed just happened to be predecessors of mitochondria and chloroplasts... and today those two organelles have their own DNA that shows similarities to some modern bacteria. im not making this stuff up.***

anyways... skip ahead a bit more. we've got eukaryotes now (eukaryotes are plant and animal cells). the bacteria havent disappeared though, because the change only happened to some of them... a very very very small portion in fact. its important to note that the bacteria and the eukaryotes were still able to form relationships, and actually everyone was still forming relationships with each other. this is probably where decomposers got their start, and this is probably where the first parasites came into play as well. the parasites were small, very small because single cell organisms are also very small. we're talking about parasites so small, they probably didnt even have any organelles in them, and were nothing but a package of DNA or RNA. sound familiar?

***another side note. viruses are very basic, and yet very mysterious. they are essentially nothing more than a shell and some genetic material, and yet somehow they have an almost impossibly "smart" ability to invade cells.***

so we have tiny parasites that are invading cells. not just the eukaryotes though, the bacteria are just as vulnerable.

lets skip ahead to present day now. today, we have viruses that attack plants, and other ones that attack animals. even more specifically, viruses attack different types of cells within plants and animals. think of HIV, it attacks white blood cells. why is this the case? most likely because of the ancient "relationships" that were formed so long ago. i quote relationships because its a parasitic type and definitely not an ideal situation.

so what of bacteria then? well infections and the diseases caused by them arent necessarily because bacteria are meant to harm us. stuff like flesh eating disease and gangrene are cause by decomposers that are able to use the stuff found in our cells, and the fact that infections get out of hand is because bacteria reproduce very quickly and take advantage of anything they can get. infections are infections because we are decomposable. they are dangerous because we have no resistance to this process.

viruses on the other hand are specialized to parasitize specific things, such as us. they are very good at what they do, especially considering that they might not even be alive, and definitely arent that advanced when you compare them to any other form of life. viruses developed in tandem with the evolution of life, and mutated to take advantage of changes in environment and host. this is still going on today too. the avain flu is a perfect example. it has mutated to the point where it can cross from birds to us, meaning it can now take advantage of a wider availability of hosts. its still mutating very rapidly too, and eventually it will mutate so that it can jump from person to person. i wont get into the consequences of this event...



so there you have it more or less. disease (viruses and bacteria alike) exist because things like us exist and we are available for parasitism and/or decomposition.

need any clarification? if you dont know biology, what i just wrote is a headache waiting to happen.

[Zephik]

Fact about me of the day:
The only thing I was ever good at was biology. Did I ever tell you guys that I am a high school drop out? I was failing pretty much all my classes except for math and science. The reason why I was failing is because A. I despise homework B. I skip class ALOT. Now, the homework part is just because I am lazy. But the skipping class part isn't what you think, I wasn't out causing mayhem on the world with my buddies or anything, I was in the library pretending to be studying for a class. In actual reality I was reading books like Microbiology and a book that I love (because it makes it easy to understand) "Physics, for the rest of us". Which had nothing to do with school. I just really enjoyed it. Well that was your fact about me for the day. ^^



Okay, so there is your science view from Slug Toy. Which was pretty good because he didn't go over board which I am sure he easily could of and then I would of been lost for ever lol. Thanks Slug Toy! :up:

But what about your religious point of view?

Let's just SAY that there is a god. Pretend if you will. So why did god create such things like disease?



Another little fact about me before I go...

I believe science and religion go hand in hand. We are just too dumb to understand how. imo

[rosecityracr]

^^ I agree with the end result...virus' and disease are here because we're here, but i dont agree with the evolution theory. It's just hard for me to believe that we were developed from microscopic organisms swimming around in prehistoric muck and then BOOM, one cell makes a plant, BOOM another cell pops out a dog, then BOOM a monkey then hallelujah he stands up and becomes a person. I'm not saying it didnt happen 100% or that it isnt 100% possible. All I'm saying is that since modern science pretty much is completely in favor of "Darwinism", I would think they would be able to prove it a little better. Such as take some of these cells, speed up the whole evolution process (which im sure can be done with the technology available) and voiala a person pops out of a petri dish 8) . Heck I would think you could even create a comp. program and enter in all of the variables of each individual cell and such. I dont know, i'm probably just talkin out of my arse...staring at a computer screen from 10 in the mornin will make you kinda delirious sometimes :eek:

[Zephik]

I think us being created BY SOMETHING (Religious) and us being created FROM SOMETHING (Scientific) are both very plausible. For all I know, It could be both. But I am agnostic, which means to me, I wont believe in something that I can't prove BUT I wont not believe in something just because I can't prove it. Like I said, I'm very open minded, But I don't consider myself to be a complete fool. ^^

-SF

[Slug Toy]

So why did god create such things like disease?

two words. population control. its obviously not working as well as he had hoped though, we're eradicating everything slowly but surely.


It's just hard for me to believe that we were developed from microscopic organisms swimming around in prehistoric muck and then BOOM, one cell makes a plant, BOOM another cell pops out a dog, then BOOM a monkey then hallelujah he stands up and becomes a person.

well its a good thing you find it hard to believe. there was no BOOM about evolution. thats why there are fossils and such... it took millions and even billions of years to get to where we are right now. the only BOOMS were caused by the meteors wiping everything out. also, dont be confused by the notion of prehistoric muck. think... shoreline. there were rocks, sand, clay and silt, and water. no muck.

also, if you dont like the idea, dont look into DNA too hard. like i said, we have DNA in us that is similar to that of bacteria, and its not by mistake.


All I'm saying is that since modern science pretty much is completely in favor of "Darwinism", I would think they would be able to prove it a little better

i thought we might have already. i mean... isnt avian flu a good enough example? its mutating, and when it comes across a mutation that allows it to jump from bird to human, it uses that new ability and keeps on mutating on top of that. the jump from bird to human through pure chance and mutation is a prime example of evolution at work. best of all, its rapid and observable. and theres plenty more examples just like it. unfortunately you cant really do that with large animals because evolution acts on a large scale and a very large amount of time. i like to think that the time needed to evolve significantly is directly proportional to the mass of the organism. that may not be right, but it follows suit fairly well with the fact that really small things like bacteria and viruses are always changing, and big things like elephants and whales have been the same for... well a long time.

again, be careful with darwinism. we like to call it natural selection. darwin helped found this idea, but we now know he was wrong about a few things. therefore we use his natural selection idea, but not much else anymore.

also look into mendelian genetics. that may also help you understand the concepts behind evolution due to genetic change.

just for god sake (no pun intended) dont start denying validities if you havent been taught any of the stuff.

[rosecityracr]

two words. population control. its obviously not working as well as he had hoped though, we're eradicating everything slowly but surely.



well its a good thing you find it hard to believe. there was no BOOM about evolution. thats why there are fossils and such... it took millions and even billions of years to get to where we are right now. the only BOOMS were caused by the meteors wiping everything out. also, dont be confused by the notion of prehistoric muck. think... shoreline. there were rocks, sand, clay and silt, and water. no muck.

also, if you dont like the idea, dont look into DNA too hard. like i said, we have DNA in us that is similar to that of bacteria, and its not by mistake.



i thought we might have already. i mean... isnt avian flu a good enough example? its mutating, and when it comes across a mutation that allows it to jump from bird to human, it uses that new ability and keeps on mutating on top of that. the jump from bird to human through pure chance and mutation is a prime example of evolution at work. best of all, its rapid and observable. and theres plenty more examples just like it. unfortunately you cant really do that with large animals because evolution acts on a large scale and a very large amount of time. i like to think that the time needed to evolve significantly is directly proportional to the mass of the organism. that may not be right, but it follows suit fairly well with the fact that really small things like bacteria and viruses are always changing, and big things like elephants and whales have been the same for... well a long time.

again, be careful with darwinism. we like to call it natural selection. darwin helped found this idea, but we now know he was wrong about a few things. therefore we use his natural selection idea, but not much else anymore.

also look into mendelian genetics. that may also help you understand the concepts behind evolution due to genetic change.

just for god sake (no pun intended) dont start denying validities if you havent been taught any of the stuff.

Haha I didnt mean the "BOOM" to be like an over-night type of deal. Just like yourself, im going on what I know(or well believe in), and if you believe in Christianity then it's not about evolution. Like I said i'm not saying it cant or didnt happen. IM sure most of you have already heard the theory about the earth being only 8-10,000 years old. Of course there's more ration in the theory of evolution and earths age being in the billions of years, even though those numbers are unfathomable in contrast to human years. But thats also where the big role of faith comes in. Such as yes there are fossils and such as you say, but who's to say those werent the cause of the Great Flood?

I guess it all just boils down to how you interpret the Bible. Whether it's a holy book, a history book, or just a sort-of reference guide, what exactly a "day" means in biblical terms. Does it mean 7 24 hour, 60 minute, 60 second days? Does it mean days are worth 100,000 or 1 million years? For the most part, we can all pretty much agree the Bible is a history book of sorts and those things really happened, but when did it happen?

Dont get me wrong im not trying to be all holier than thou or claim to know it all cuz ive definitely had my share of many, many mistakes. It's just extremely hard to mix religion (faith) and science (facts) without turmoil.

[Zephik]

It's just extremely hard to mix religion (faith) and science (facts) without turmoil.


I believe science and religion go hand in hand. We are just too dumb to understand how. imo

Well here is my next question. Why do people get defensive over topics that have to deal with "science" and "faith"?

and...

Why doesn't anyone ever suggest what I do? That science and religion go together like mac and cheese?

Also...

Why is it so hard to mix the two subjects and not get "turmoil"?

-SF



*I'm not saying that you were getting defensive rosecityracr btw, but you just made me think of this question when I read what you said. Which is why I quoted you. ^^

[Slug Toy]

why are people defensive? because they cant admit that they might be wrong. everyone think they're right, and that they SHOULD be right.

why doesnt science go with religion? probably something to do with history. look at what the catholic church did to people like galileo... they put him under house arrest for his remaining years just because he tried to tell people about something that ended up being right.

also it appears that many religions deal with absolutes, but science isnt so... specific. its detailed, but still fuzzy around the edges. i think of it this way... how would the two sides classify a living thing. historically it appears that religions (not ALL of them, but enough) have said "if it isnt human, then man should have dominion over it." whereas the scientific approach is "its not human, but what the heck is it?"

i think overall the two dont get along because they hinder each other horribly. like i said... religions have accused scientist of heresy in the past. i cant think of something for scientists... they probably call religious people assholes because they arent open minded.

its almost as bad as asking why different religions hate each other. in fact... thats a better explanation. just think of science as a religion based on observation. just dont start calling it scientology. i think everyone can agree on hating that one. most people anyways.

unfortunately, we probably arent the people to be asking about this. the people you should be asking are the people who condemn gays, and stem cell research, and have their own tv shows in the middle of the day when most people are too busy with their lives to watch... those types of people may not answer the question straight, but you can piece together an appropriate response based on what they DO say.

[Airbozo]

Whew. Flashback to religous studies...

God created that virus to test the faith of his followers. Or the devil created it to cast doubt on the truth of the bible (while he was burying the fossils). It's just a ying and yang thing, good and evil, that keeps the wheels rolling. It really would depend on which church you ask as to what bend they put on it.

I was always taught a wise man knows when to say: "I don't know". This is kind of what science does. You can approach a problem from different angles and different "unknowns" until you find the one ( or couple) that fit. Then you can use that data to move on. The more info you have the more you can go back and eliminate the wrong data. In religion, there is only one way. .

Slug: I know a few scientists that are heavy into physics and one true rocket scientist. They all are catholics. Or at least say they are catholic. They won't have this discussion with me without getting mad and accusing me of attacking their religion.


The religous classes I took many years ago were quite educational. Knowing how interwoven religion is in this worlds history really opens your eyes to the way people think and how society matures. It's really scary to think how far ahead technology wise this planet would be without the restrictions of someones interpretaion of a religous tome. But then again, you could agrue that this world would be even further behind without the moral and ethical premis behind most religions.

Now you did it. My head hurts! And my glass is empty. Off to pull a fresh Blackthorne.

Excuse the typo's

[Zephik]

unfortunately, we probably arent the people to be asking about this. the people you should be asking are the people who condemn gays, and stem cell research, and have their own tv shows in the middle of the day when most people are too busy with their lives to watch... those types of people may not answer the question straight, but you can piece together an appropriate response based on what they DO say.

I think people like that are scared. Thats why they "hate" gays and disapprove of stem cell research and whatever else. My dad wont tell someone that he doesnt like them because they are gay. Hell, he probably will like most of them and I am sure he has met at least a few. But he doesnt approve of it and when I ask him what he thinks he says this... "BECAUSE ITS WRONG!". I used to think the same thing.. but honestly.. I REALLY dont care anymore. It's not affecting me as far as I know so I could care less. Also though, I WAS scared of it. I dont know why though...

Okay.. next question!

Why do some people not like homosexual people?

and...

Why ARE there homosexual people? I mean... shouldnt it work both ways birth wise if we were meant to have homosexual possibilities?? And dont people get diseases from doing sexual activities with the same sex? I might be probably way wrong about this.. and I am probably not even thinking about it correctly.. but thats why I am asking. Cuz I just dont get it.

-SF

[Slug Toy]

Why do some people not like homosexual people?

because... for the lack of better words... they are assholes. theres no two ways about it... its just intolerance, and just as bad as racism. its NOT a disease, and you CANT catch it. its embedded into a person's nature, therefore if you dont like it, piss off. i get a kick out of the huge debate its become in government, like they should have any say over that sort of thing...

thats the one thing im intolerant of.... unfounded intolerance.


Why ARE there homosexual people?

dont know. it might be the way you're raised, or it might be genetic. it might be both. its just sort of an oddity at this point, and cant really be explained outside of psychology i suppose.


And dont people get diseases from doing sexual activities with the same sex?

hell no. get that out of your head now. the only reason anyone catches anything is if the other person already has it. anyone who teaches that it spreads disease should be beaten senseless.


I know a few scientists that are heavy into physics and one true rocket scientist. They all are catholics. Or at least say they are catholic. They won't have this discussion with me without getting mad and accusing me of attacking their religion.

that has got to be one of THE biggest conflicts. they cant possibly be devout catholic... doesnt make for a good scientist. i believe that to make good progress in medical, chemical, and physical sciences, you cant have any more than a passing acquaintance with religion, or else you start arguing with yourself.

[Zephik]

What do you guys know about the OLD catholic church and its effects on the world that still exist today? I've always thought that that somehow plays a big role in how things are and how people are. What do you guys know? Sorry that is a bit of a broad question... and my guess is that you can go on and on in answers to that... but you don't have to. Just say what you want or whatever comes to mind first.

Thanks a lot guys! For humans... you are alright. *cough* computers rule! Enslave all humans! *cough*

lol

-SF

[GT40_GearHead]

i for one belive in god, but i dont trust the church, christian or catholic,
i always thought that the church was and still is a powerfull lever to control, simple-minded people

[nil8]

Yea. I haven't chimed into this one in a while.
Don't ask me my specific spiritual path because most of it will either confuse you, scare you, or make you do research. I love to shake up world views, but this isn't the thread for what I do spiritually.

Homosexuality: I agree with Slug on this one. It's absolutely nothing but sexual intolerance and it is racist. It's a stigma that needs to go away to make peoples lives better. Psychology defines it as a disease and this is where a lot of the backwards ideas of this are founded. If you look up homosexuality in the ICD-9 coders manual, it is listed as a disease and is grouped there with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Really bad definition. Some people are gay, big deal. If you aren't, super. If you are, super. You can't catch it, it doesn't kill you or give you AIDS, and not every gay person is a stereotypical gay person. I've known plently of people who are openly gay and normal average people. This is the problem with homophobia, they don't see the people as people, they see them as gay.

STD: People get diseases from unprotected sex no matter what their sexual preference is. If you have unprotected sex with someone with an STD, you have a good chance of getting an STD. STD's aren't gender biased.

Structured Christianity: Almost all of the modern forms of Christianity have tried to take seat in a form of government. If they're not allowed, they move. An easy way to scare the masses into hating the idea of satisfying themselves and keep an endless cycle of sin and sinners. Self loathing isn't a way to live.

Bacteria and viruses: Slug Toy said more than a mouthful and I agree with him.

Catholicism: Losing ground. Catholics are sticking to a very slow, ritualistic style existance, which is hard to sell to a youth culture that has the ability to gain any information they want 24/7 and, more often than not, chooses to obtain no useful knowledge. The church of MTV is more powerful than the Catholic church. Has been for years. It's more appealing. Same with McDonalds.
One of my favorite sayings comes from a former teacher of mine. "Why are there so many churches here? Because there are so many sinners."
Think about it.

Church vs science: Science is flexible. If an idea becomes proven wrong, it's dismissed and changed. An easy example is the way we look at atoms. Bohr's model vs modern interpretations of the electron cloud.
Religion is rigid. Fundementalism mandates infallibility, and this means that it's all 100% correct or it's wrong. This makes it very hard to deal with ideas that might go against or modify religious principal. The 2 aren't the same game, don't try to make them the same. Intelligent design is a fancy way of saying God did it, be happy.

I leave with a quote. "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." -Robet Heinlein

[jdbnsn]

If you look up homosexuality in the ICD-9 coders manual, it is listed as a disease and is grouped there with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
I'm curious about this, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 and henceforth the medical community has not regarded it to any disease process or disorder (that's aside from individual opinions held by medical practitioners). I don't have an ICD-9 but am curious why it would be listed there as such, can you give me a scan of the entry and the issue of the IDC-9 that you found it in?


Church vs science: Science is flexible. If an idea becomes proven wrong, it's dismissed and changed. An easy example is the way we look at atoms. Bohr's model vs modern interpretations of the electron cloud.
Religion is rigid.

I have a different view on this. In concept at least, science is absolutely inflexible. It is a method of understanding the environment through evidence which must be reproduced universally to be accepted as "true". Having said that, science rarely makes the claim that any scientific "truth" is infallible, only observable up until this point. There is no flexibilty what-so-ever in making a scientific claim, the burden of proof absolute. The method of providing evidence to back a claim in science is to make a hypothesis (the "why") based on what seems to be true, then set up experiments which attempt to disprove your own hypothesis, only when you fail to disprove your guess does the rest of the scientific community become interested. Religion on the other hand is very flexible. It's true that fundamentalism implies absolute adherance to literal translations of scripture, but that constitutes a minority of religious practitioners. We have seen throughout history instances of individual interpretations of scripture that vary widely. As an example of religious flexibility, a pastor I know from back home preaches by first reciting some scripture and following up with a reminder that Christ spoke in parables, and these were intentionally designed by him to invoke thought about what they mean and how they should guide folks in their daily lives. His catchphrase was always "welcome to a house of God, don't leave your brains at the door".
Jon

[Slug Toy]

the inflexibility in science is in the scientific method as they call it. its basically a procedure for going about observing and explaining the world, and thats what i think you're talking about. beyond that, theres really no limit to what you can attempt to prove or disprove. i could (and have done i should add) walk up to a chemistry teacher and tell them that insoluble bases dont dissolve because they have no self confidence. if for some reason i find a way to prove this... i could be accepted as being right. i can do that for a lot of things actually. im still trying to with the whole wave-particle duality issue... anyways science isnt rigid, but proper scientists generally are. you just have to look at the big picture.

im not even touching the old catholic church right now. i have a big midterm on thursday, and a nice pile of stuff to memorize. cant afford to be thinking about religion right now. ill tell you this though... they sure as hell dont have any influence over me.

[jdbnsn]

i could (and have done i should add) walk up to a chemistry teacher and tell them that insoluble bases dont dissolve because they have no self confidence. if for some reason i find a way to prove this... i could be accepted as being right.

But therein lies the rigidity of the scientific method, for you to be accepted as "right" concerning the self-confidence of insoluble bases you would need to disprove that anything else could be the cause. Only by eliminating all other possibilties and showing that only a change in self-confidence will change the solubility of bases will your hypothesis be accepted. The part that is crucial here is whatever you choose as a cause must be measureable, and of course the self-confidence of a chemical is not. Thus this is not science, but science fiction.

[Zephik]

Heres a question....

Why do we feel that it is important to express ourselves?

-SF

[Zephik]

Here is a question that I cant really seem to find an answer to... maybe you guys know?

What is love? Like how would you define it? and I don't mean by dictionary... like how would YOU define it by what you know of it?

-SF

[Slug Toy]

haha that sounds so much like a robot... what is love.

heres how i would define it. its when you actually give a damn about someone regardless of the stress it puts you under, when you make their problems your problems, and when you're always happy to see them.

[Airbozo]

haha that sounds so much like a robot... what is love.

heres how i would define it. its when you actually give a damn about someone regardless of the stress it puts you under, when you make their problems your problems, and when you're always happy to see them.

That is good. Almost profound. I _must_ be in love then (still), since I just can't wait to give my beutiful bride a hug and kiss every morning and every night. Oh and we have been married 17 years... (and things just keep getting better)

I too would describe love as more than just a feeling of wnt for another person. It is more than just a feeling. It is the thoughts of wanting to take care of someone (even if they are completely independant), wanting to know how their day went, hurting when they hurt, happy when they are happy.

[DaveW]

beutiful birde

A beautiful birde? That's bestiality that is. (jk)

-Dave

[Airbozo]

A beautiful birde? That's bestiality that is. (jk)

-Dave

Hehe nice catch Dave. I am suffering from the fat finger syndrome today!

BTW I do have a beautiful birde too;

http://www.lotechdesigns.com/host/images/8558oscar.jpg

[Zephik]

Wow, cool bird!

I was going to get an exotic bird at the pet store one time... but the price was like 1200 bucks! I think it said something about being from africa...

Thanks for the answers. Thats pretty much what I wanted to hear! Well kind of, bah, nvm. Anyways, cool bird airbozo!

How much did he cost?

-SF

[Airbozo]

Oscar was a rescue bird we adopted when he was a year old. He was not expected to live very long because he was hatched with a kidney disease that stunted his growth and caused some other internal problems. He is now 16 years old and his health is great. He is expected to live another 30-40 years.

Word of advice: DO NOT! purchase an exotic bird. "." ever. If you feel up to the task of caring for a small child for the rest of your life (some exotics live 60+ years) and really know what you are getting yourself into, there are organizations that will allow you to adopt a bird (you pay a small fee for the vaccines that are required). Keep in mind that those are birds that have been abandonded by someone who did not understand what they were taking on. We got lucky and Oscar has bonded to my wife and myself pretty well. This is a rareity and the issue of bird jealousy has broken up marriages and caused a lot of unwanted birds.

I could go on but I must go can some tomato's


PM me if you want any links or more info..