151. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54699 by darwin2 on July 8, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Comment #54595 by Dunc-uk on July 8, 2007 at 3:03 am

"No you do not. You have decided who you are. You have chosen an explanation of why you are here, and a method of selecting where you are to go."

"As much as you might believe something, however fanatically or absolutely, that does not make it true. You may have decided to ignore all other possible explanations, but you do so in faith. Your faith that whatever you believe is literal truth does not make it any more true."

"Do not tell us that you "know" when that knowledge is based upon faith."

I agree and disagree with you. Objectively speaking I agree that I don't know. Only death will give the correct objective answer as to whether consciousness continues or ceases after we die.

Subjectively, I believe 100% that my beliefs are reality. Yes you are correct my subjective views are based on faith but they are also based on observations of the physical world that science has provided us with.

"There is no evidence of anything happening after death. Making a claim that something happens after death is an extraordinary claim - i.e. one that has no known, proven "similar" precedent."

Again my views about the after life are my subjective views and not my objective ones. If consciousness continues after death, we will get the scientific evidence to prove my claim "that something happens after death."

"Atheists will speculate on post-mortal consciousness when it's existence is proven, or at least gains some material, evidential weight. The nature of such evidence would be an event in which interaction with the dead was the most reasonable hypothesis."

Its existence will only be proven when we die and then we will have no need to speculate.

"Life on other planets is not an extraordinary hypothesis. There is a precedent (life on this planet) and it most certainly is testable. Evolution lends no prohibition to extraterrestrial life, I would argue that evolution suggests life will attempt existence in every possible arena. It is therefore less credible to claim that it fails on every single one of those except earth. Time, investigation and research will tell. Theology cannot provide a definitive answer."

I also look for science to find extraterrestrial life. I agree theology can't provide a definite answer.

152. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54696 by darwin2 on July 8, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Comment #54560 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 7:02 pm

"I wonder what tangential thinking would look like if it weren't so tangential."

Tangential thinking has its good points. We live in a very violent and brutal world. The vast majority of people live lives of quiet desperation. We are daily confronted with the atrocities taking place in Darfur, Iraq, Uganda and many other countries. Yes, tangential thinking has its goods points. Praise be to God for helping me understand why these atrocities take place and for giving me hope to know that in the end all will be well.

153. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54616 by darwin2 on July 8, 2007 at 6:58 am

Comment #54516 by Lauregon on July 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm

"If the Bible presents an anthropomorphic god, what is your resource for knowing about an allegedly One True God who possesses the same qualities the god of the Bible is supposed to possess but who is at the same time not anthropomorphic?"

Most people that I am acquainted with that believe in the god of the Bible actually believe they will meet God in person and have a one on one encounter with Him after death. The God I believe in is infinite. I am finite. Finite beings can not meet or understand that which infinite. I entertain no fantasy about ever meeting or talking to God. However I can acquire an appreciation of the magnificence, immensity and infinite power of God by observing His beautiful creations.

"People have been theorizing for thousands upon thousands of years about "God" and an afterlife. So far, fanciful supernatural explanations have been the sole result. Why do you suppose even more theorizing about an unknown divine creator god and afterlife will result in a god and afterlife any less supernatural and "ridiculous" than what's already been theorized?"

Scientists theorize to find out the truth about observable matter. Eventually they find the theory that is correct. The same holds true for spiritual beliefs.

154. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54610 by darwin2 on July 8, 2007 at 6:46 am

Comment #54511 by Lauregon on July 7, 2007 at 3:15 pm

"You've come to these certainties how?"

From a strict objective perspective, I do not have certainty about my beliefs. Objectively, I realize my subjective beliefs may be totally wrong and death might end consciousness.

However subjectively, I have 100% confidence my beliefs are correct. My observations about our universe force me to conclude our universe and all universes that may exist are the product of One God The Supreme Designer and Creator. My belief in God forced me to ask the following questions. Who Am I? What is my purpose for existence? What do I need to do to fulfill my purpose? The only spiritual belief that answered these questions for me was Reincarnation and Karma. However there were several issues that this belief did not address. When did God create our eternal souls? What is the purpose of our existence? And what is our ultimate destiny? Further self exploration gave me the answers to these questions. I live my life fully and I enjoy my life. I have no fear of death. My death in this lifetime will not be the first time I died but I believe it will be the last incarnation for me. I know death is not the end but just an entrance into another world.

155. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54555 by darwin2 on July 7, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Comment #54359 by blaine on July 6, 2007 at 2:03 pm

"What most of us here are probably wondering is, how can anybody be satisfied by postulating such a huge, unexplained anomaly as darwin2's super-powerful God? If this huge and complex world causes so much stress to somebody by virtue of having no known cause, then how could an even more complex entity with admittedly unknown cause reduce said stress?"

It satisfies me. It gives purpose to my life. It relieves stress in my life. I know who I am, why I am here and where I am going.

"I've never heard any answer that was both honest and logical, besides one college chum who admitted that the extra level of inference lets their mortal brain push the disturbing anormality a little further from their consciousness (in the same way that we don't worry as much about distant starving babies or our own relatively distant death)."

Death comes sooner or later. There is no escape from it. I realize that atheists believe consciousness ceases at death. Many atheists have a scientific approach to life. Scientific people like to speculate on the unknown. One of the unknowns in life is whether or not intelligent life exists outside our planet. Many atheists have speculated on what this extraterrestrial intelligent life would look like if it actually exists. What happens after death is unknown. I wonder if atheists speculate on what consciousness would be like if consciousness indeed does survive after death.

156. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54546 by darwin2 on July 7, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Comment #54353 by NormanDoering on July 6, 2007 at 1:22 pm

"Are not "knowing" "loving," "merciful" and "perfectly just" also anthropomorphic terms? They're mentally anthropomorphic"

They are anthropomorphic only if they are not reality. If consciousness survives death, we will discover they are reality and not anthropomorphic.

"One of the sciences you seem to be ignoring is neuroscience and artificial intelligence."

I do not ignore neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Both fit perfectly with my belief in the existence, survival and growth of our eternal souls.

157. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54352 by darwin2 on July 6, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Comment #54308 by Lauregon on July 6, 2007 at 10:37 am

"Do you imagine confirming such an arrangement would make your life on earth better? Do you think it would it make your hypothetical after-life better? Why would you be eager to know you were designed to be the lowest being on the cosmic totem pole?"

Absolutely yes to the first two questions. My answer to the third question is this. I wasn't designed to be the lowest being on the cosmic totem pole although I find myself in that position at present. I was designed to be a god and to participate with God in the creation process by imitating God and using my God given powers to create my own universes. I have made many mistakes in my spiritual evolution and that is why my eternal soul finds itself temporarily encumbered in this human body. I take full responsibility for my mistakes and have taken the appropriate measures to correct these mistakes

158. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54347 by darwin2 on July 6, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Comment #54305 by Lauregon on July 6, 2007 at 10:26 am

"WHAT "God" will that be? As we see in the case of
Einstein's use of the word "God," to say "God" is most often assumed by others to refer to the Jehovah/Yahweh "God" of the Bible with all those supernatural doctrines and dogmas. Do you mean to imply such a "God?" If not, what sort of "God" do you imagine exists? What would "God" be without the supernatural doctrines and dogmas of religious orthodoxy?"

The god of the Bible is anthropomorphic and is an insult to the One true God who is infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and perfectly just. I find the supernatural dogmas of organized religion to be pathetic, superstitious, evil and illogical.

"WHY "must" we pursue, much less arrive at conclusions about that which we can't possibly know? What would be the point of that exercise?"

We should purse these issues because we will die and if when we die and find ourselves conscious on the other we will get the correct answers to the questions that these issues pose to us in this lifetime. Objectively we have to concede that it is possible for consciousness to exist after the death of our physical bodies and so it is important to give some thought about what might happen if this possibility turns out to be a reality.

159. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54341 by darwin2 on July 6, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Comment #54171 by Goldy on July 5, 2007 at 8:16 pm

"Das2 (I may contract your name, may I?)"

I have no problem with that.


"If God designed all these galaxies and stuff and had, or still has, to spend all his time looking after them, creating life and so on (takes 6 days work with the 7th day off, remember....and why should a god need rest? Always wondered about that), how is he paying heed to what's happening on Earth. Remember, he ballsed up looking after just 2 people in the beginning and now his floods in the UK and Pakistan probably killed more believers than gays (or athiests) becasue he's too busy to protect against collateral damage - just how can you believe in a god? Does the saying "god moves in mysterious ways" actually mean he's tied up somewhere else?"

You make some very good points. However, I don't believe God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the seventh nor do I believe God ever has a need to rest. I believe our universe was started by the Big Bang approximately 13-14 billion years ago and that Darwin was correct about evolution and natural selection.

About the floods in the UK and Pakistan, they are the result of the laws of physics that God created when He created our universe. One of the laws of physics is Reincarnation and Karma that control the evolvement of eternal souls and all events that take place on our planet. God does not interfere with these laws nor does he intercede in any human affairs. Eternal souls in human form created the problems in their human lives and eternal souls must solve these problems. To try to bring clarity to these statements, I have summarized my beliefs below.

My spiritual beliefs can be summed up as follows. I believe humans have eternal souls and our eternal souls are relatively new creations of God. I believe God created our eternal souls in a perfect state of pure energy and as pure energy we could assume any physical form we chose and travel to any place in the universe we desired. We were literally born into paradise and heaven. Immediately after our souls were created, we were instructed by highly evolved spiritual beings as to why we were created and what we needed to do to achieve our divine destiny. I believe God has a divine purpose and destiny for creating our eternal souls and that divine purpose is for us to participate in the creation process with God by becoming gods ourselves, imitating God and using our god given powers to create our own universes and beyond. To accomplish this God gave us free will and wants us to use our free will to learn, obey and master the laws of physics and this involves using energy correctly. However, shortly after God created our eternal souls we began to make mistakes by misusing our free will and violating God's laws of physics by using energy incorrectly. Soon our mistakes accumulated to the point that they caused us to descend into the temporary hells of the physical world of which Earth is one of these temporary hells and where our eternal souls presently find themselves encumbered in these temporary human bodies. Our mission on Earth is to address and correct our mistakes and to take steps to learn, obey and master God's laws of physics so that we can ascend back to that perfect state of pure energy that God created us in and where we can fulfill our divine destiny. The law of physics that will enable us to accomplish this is the law of reincarnation and karma. The sooner we learn, obey and master the laws of physics, the quicker we will fulfill our divine destiny for our existence.

160. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54180 by darwin2 on July 5, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Comment #53890 by Philip1978 on July 4, 2007 at 1:51 am

"How can you scientifically test the invisible and imaginary?"

You can't scientifically test the invisible and imaginary. Let me answer your question objectively and subjectively. Objectively examining the issues regarding the existence of One Supreme Being responsible for all creation and the survival of consciousness after death, the most I or anyone can truly say is that we may or may not get an answer when we die. If death is the end of it and consciousness does not continue, we will never know the correct answers to these issues. However if consciousness continues after death, we will then learn that God exists and consciousness does indeed continue after death.

Subjectively, I have come to the conclusion that One Supreme Being exists and that consciousness continues after death by using critical thinking skills when investigating the deep questions about life. I belong to no organized religion and find most dogmas of organized religions to be evil and con games. Dawkins says he has concluded that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates a high probability that One Supreme Being does not exist and consciousness does not continue after death. I disagree and conclude that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that One Supreme Being does exist and that consciousness exists after death. I believe the key to understanding our existence comes from learning, obeying and mastering God's laws of physics. I believe scientists, especially physicists, are among the most spiritually evolved beings on our planet.

"Religion and Science are complete polar opposites because Science needs evidence to work, Religion simply needs faith to work and faith is belief without evidence."

I strongly feel my subjective beliefs are correct. As I said above concrete evidence will come when we die. If consciousness continues after death, death will provide the evidence to confirm my beliefs.

"If your god is the Supreme Designer, who designed him/her/it? I would say human beings designed their gods and I have more evidence for that that you do for proof of your god."

Existence and Creation factor down to One God, The Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exists. One current scientific theory states that there may be an infinite number of universes. Some scientists say the cause and beginning of the universe is unknowable and suggests we leave it at that. I disagree and believe we must go beyond this limited thinking and if we do we will come to the conclusion that One Supreme Designer and Creator must exist.

"I would also actually like to ask is how when Science explains something do you then need to add your god into the equation, it works just as well without him/her/it as it does with."

No it doesn't work well for me. I am not a scientist and I do have faith that certain scientific theories are true because of the global scrutiny process that scientific theories are subject to. If a scientific theory is not correct, other scientists will demonstrate why it is wrong. However, I strongly believe behind every discovery science makes is God and science and God are not incompatible.

161. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54175 by darwin2 on July 5, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Comment #53874 by Shuggy on July 3, 2007 at 8:33 pm

"Interesting when the more we learn about nature through science, the less necessary any Designer or Creator becomes. If S/He/It/They used evolution to design us (or if S/He/It/They didn't), S/He/It/They chose a very inefficient, cruel and wasteful way to do it, and not do it very well. The "Supreme Designer and Creator"
really goes with the 6000-year age and the earth at the centre, with man on top. Trying to have it both ways doesn't really work."

I find that the more I learn about nature through science, the more I find it necessary for One God, the Supreme Designer and Creator, to exist. I believe God is all-powerful and if He chose, He could have created the world in 6 days. However, I believe science had demonstrated clearly that this is not the case and that God did choose evolution as a way to create all forms of life on our planet. The Supreme Designer and Creator don't really go with the 6000 year age with man at the top. My version of the Supreme Designer and Creator thanks to science is that the universe is approximately 13 to 14 billion years old and that man is not on top but on the bottom in a long hierarchy of intelligent beings.

162. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54163 by darwin2 on July 5, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Comment #53828 by NormanDoering on July 3, 2007 at 12:34 pm

"Would you care to elaborate on how science has given you more of an "appreciation of God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exists"?

Astronomy currently reveals that our universe has approximately 150 billion galaxies and that some super galaxies may contain more than 3 trillion stars. There may also be an infinite number of universes. Thinking of these astronomical facts expands my mind immensely. Thinking that God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of all these universes, gives me a greater appreciation of the nature of God.

163. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53825 by darwin2 on July 3, 2007 at 11:57 am

Comment #53656 by alexanjc on July 2, 2007 at 12:21 pm

"The more the media puts Sharpton on as a representative of the religious faction, the better it is for the atheists."

I have watched several interviews between Christian spokespersons and Hitchens and also Dawkins. These Christian spokespersons do poorly when trying to justify their dogmas of Original Sin, eternal damnation, prayer and many other ridiculous and superstitious doctrines. However Hitchens and Dawkins' ability to point out the flaws in religious dogmas in no way negates the existence of God. I believe science and religion are compatible and complementary. Science has helped me acquire a greater appreciation of God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exists.

164. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51862 by darwin2 on June 25, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Comment #51759 by _J_ on June 24, 2007 at 5:58 pm

"You can have tea and biscuits with me if you're ever in the neighbourhood."

Thank you for your kind comments. I will give some thought about the United Unitarians. If we are ever in the neighborhood at the same time, I too would enjoy having tea and biscuits with you.

165. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51755 by darwin2 on June 24, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Comment #51654 by Russell Black ford on June 24, 2007 at 12:41 am

"I really don't understand how we could have a choice about whether or not we obey the laws of physics. I suppose I'm missing the point in some way, and some kind of metaphorical meaning is intended, but the fact is that so-called "laws" of physics - unlike laws in the literal sense of legal norms - aren't the kind of thing you can disobey."

We do have choices on how we use the laws of physics. We can use the laws of physics correctly and produce positive results or we can use the laws of physics incorrectly and produce negative results. For example we can use the laws of physics to produce nuclear power. If we choose to use nuclear power correctly by building nuclear power plants, we get a positive result for our civilization. If we choose to use nuclear power to build a nuclear bomb, we get negative results by harming civilization and our planet. One of the laws of physics is reincarnation and karma. If we choose to use our energy correctly we get positive results. If we choose to use our energy incorrectly we get negative results. We make free will choices as to how we use our energy. Karma requires us to be totally responsible for how we use our energy both as individuals and as a society. Accountability for these free will choices may come in this lifetime or a future lifetime.

166. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51751 by darwin2 on June 24, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Comment #51652 by kaja on June 24, 2007 at 12:30 am

"The most religious people I know are among the most prejudiced. I can not imagine them working
hand in hand and with utmost sincerity with people
who have beliefs that are different from theirs."

I agree totally. Religious people are among the most prejudiced people I have met in my lifetime. In the past these prejudiced people did not have the power to wipe out all civilization and life forms on our planet. Wars in the past only did minimal damage to civilization and our environment. Both recovered quickly at the end of wars. However, now with the development of nuclear weapons, we have the ability to wipe out all civilization and all life forms on our planet. Nuclear weapons been confined to nations not individuals. However in the 21st Century, exponential advances in new technologies, especially nanotechnology, will enable individuals with minimal scientific proficiency to acquire weapons of mass destruction and some of these weapons will be more powerful than nuclear weapons. Religion in the past has been a divisive force and has frequently been a cause of wars. Religion needs to change if our planet is to survive and thrive. The common traits that connect all major religions are a belief in one God and love thy neighbor as thyself. If peace discussions among world leaders would focus on these two common traits, world peace would be achievable. If world leaders continue to ignore these common links, World War III looks highly probable.

167. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51748 by darwin2 on June 24, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Comment #51613 by steve99 on June 23, 2007 at 7:14 pm

"That does in any way address my point. You are supporting your view of religion with ideas (the requirement for God as a source of order and as a first cause) that are contrary to modern science"

"This is about whether you accept or reject modern science. If you accept it, much of your justification for God disappears, and you need other arguments for His existence - arguments which aren't based on your understanding of science."

"If you are going to persist in the 'order' and 'first cause' arguments, then you are rejecting the work of some of greatest scientists of the last 100 years or so. For example, if you insist that God is required to create order, as order can't come from nothing, then you are claiming that you know better than Boltzmann, Poincarre, Mandelbrot and many others".

"You can't just make your views compatible with science simply by declaring that they are! That is dishonest."

As I told you in previous comments, I am an average Joe in my science proficiency. I rely on scientists like Carl Sagan and Neal deGrasse Tyson to make science comprehensible for average Joes like me. Thanks to their extraordinary efforts, I have acquired a layman's understanding of science and this has dramatically increased my appreciation of the magnificence, immensity and infinite power of God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all universes that exists. I have never read Poincarre, Mandelbrot and all the other scientists that you mention in your other comments. Based on your input, I doubt if I would understand them. I'll stick with the Tysons and Sagans. At least I can easily understand what they are talking about.

After listening to your comments and the writings and video clips of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, I have asked myself what type of religion and church I would like to go to. I don't go to any church now but I miss the social interaction. So I gave some thoughts as to what traits I thought I would like my ideal church to have and to how it would conduct its Sunday church service. My ideal church would have these two traits. First it would ACKNOWLEDGE AND PRAISE GOD, the Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exists. Second it would have one simple doctrine and ritual which is LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. The church service would last one hour and be divided into two segments each segment lasting one half hour. During the first segment, we would discuss scientific theories like the Big Bang, evolution and natural selection, black holes, etc etc, and sing some songs praising God for the miracle of His creation. The second segment would consist of members participating in an open discussion of things they did during the past week to love their neighbors as themselves.

168. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51610 by darwin2 on June 23, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Comment #51358 by steve99 on June 22, 2007 at 1:23 pm

"That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about you using arguments based on order in the universe and the need for a first cause as justification for the existence of God. As you now know, those arguments conflict with what has been found out about physics and cosmology in the 20th century."

"These issues are nothing to do with whether or not consciousness exists after death. That is an entirely separate matter."

"This is about whether you accept or reject modern science. If you accept it, much of you justification for God disappears, and you need other arguments for His existence - arguments which aren't based on your understanding of science."

I disagree and believe and live by the reality that science and religion are complementary and compatible. Presently our civilization is experiencing technological adolescence and some scientists like Carl Sagan speculate that advanced technological civilizations either destroy themselves during technological adolescence or survive it and thrive. I believe those that do survive only survive because they have accepted the reality of God and have learned to respect and obey His laws. The two moral directives God has for the intelligent life He created are "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF' and "OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BY USING ENERGY CORRECTLY." In "The Miracle At The Pyramid" Nano tells the Secretary General of the United Nations that all civilizations that survived technological adolescence, especially the use of nanotechnology, believe in God. As you are aware this is my belief. If we are to survive our own technological adolescence our world leaders need to bring God into the equation for world peace.

In Chapter 24 of "Darwinian Creationism," I comment on the very dangerous situation that exists in the Middle East. It focuses on Iran, Iraq and Israel. If the chaos that exists there continues unabated, it may soon lead to World War III. The key to getting this situation under control and our planet on the path to world peace lies with President Bush. So far the Bush administration has royally screwed up in Iraq. Prior to the Iraq War and shortly after 911, my country, the United States, was loved and respected by most of the countries on our planet. Today the opposite is true thanks to my country's incompetent administration. If Bush continues on the present course, he may well be remembered as the worst president in U.S. history. However there is still hope. A peaceful turn around depends upon Bush waking up and facing reality. He needs to become an outstanding world leader and have the moral insight and courage to do the right thing and the right thing here is to have a face to the face meeting with the heads of states of the key players in the Middle East. At this moment, these countries include Iraq, Iran and Israel. He needs to look at the common link he has with these three countries. That common link is this. These leaders all believe in the same One God and all believe that God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves. During these peace negotiations, if all four world leaders keep these two powerful directives of God in front of them at all times, the differences that separate these countries can be bridged, acceptable compromises can be negotiated and peace in the Middle East will take place. If Bush can have an epiphany and implement this strategy, he will restore America's prestige abroad, substantially reduce terrorism, increase world economic prosperity and reduce poverty. And history will record Bush as the greatest president of the United States and the greatest world leader of our civilization.

169. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51354 by darwin2 on June 22, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Comment #51100 by steve99 on June 21, 2007 at 1:16 pm

"Your comment is clear. You don't claim to know more about the universe than Linde, Hawking, Boltzmann, Poincarre, Mandelbrot, Einstein and many, many others."

"But that is precisely what you ARE claiming if you reject their descriptions of space, time, order and causality."

"If you are rejecting their science because of 'special knowledge' given to you by God, then you ARE claiming to know more than them."

"You can either embrace science honestly, and admit that the order and first cause arguments for God are redundant, or you can reject science. Your current position is unsupportable"

Regarding the issues of the existence of God and consciousness continuing after death, I indeed may know more than these scientists specifically on these issues only if consciousness exists after death. Einstein is dead. At this moment in time, he either has found the correct answer that God exists and consciousness continues after death or you and Einstein are correct and consciousness does not continue after death.

170. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51097 by darwin2 on June 21, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Comment #50967 by robert s on June 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Comment #50969 by BAEOZ on June 20, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Comment #50971 by spikie on June 20, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Thank you for pointing out my mistake on the speed of light. I meant to say 186,000 miles a second. That was a sloppy mistake on my part and I apologize.

171. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51095 by darwin2 on June 21, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Comment #50963 by steve99 on June 20, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Again who is deluded you or me? Again the correct answer will only be found if consciousness exists after the death of our physical bodies.

"No, because you are deluded about other things in this world."

You say at best I have only a 19th-century understanding of science. I believe there are approximately 150 billion galaxies in our universe and some jumbo galaxies may contain up to 3 trillion stars. I believe in DNA. I believe in plate tectonics. I believe the speed of light is 186,000 miles an hour. I believe there are other planets in other star systems. Are these 19th century scientific beliefs?"


"Yes, they are. They are all based on a 19th century, primarily Newtonian foundation. The speed of light was actually measured way before the 20th century, Mendel discovered the particulate nature of inheritance, and many, many philosophers postulated a potentially infinite universe".

"Where you decide to shut down your education is at the start of the 20th century, with relativity and quantum mechanics. Both revealed the distortions of time, space and causuality that you hand-wave away in your desperate need to support your belief in some 'first cause'. Also, at the start of the 20th century, the mathematics which led to thermodynamics and chaos theory was devised, becoming more widely understood in the 60 and 70s. That is yet more 20th century progress that you wish to ignore because you are so anxious to need a God to explain order."

"If you want to learn and use science, then do so! But to pervert science and mathematics as you do, in some attempt to justify God and your naive model of the universe is dishonest."

"You claim you believe in plate tectonics. Why do you? I am not sure I understand. You don't believe in what physicists say. Why do you listen to experts on geology, but not physics?"

You say at best I have only a 19th-century understanding of science. I believe there are approximately 150 billion galaxies in our universe and some jumbo galaxies may contain up to 3 trillion stars. I believe in DNA. I believe in plate tectonics. I believe the speed of light is 186,000 miles an hour. I believe there are other planets in other star systems. Are these 19th century scientific beliefs?


"Yes, they are. They are all based on a 19th century, primarily Newtonian foundation. The speed of light was actually measured way before the 20th century, Mendel discovered the particulate nature of inheritance, and many, many philosophers postulated a potentially infinite universe"

"Where you decide to shut down your education is at the start of the 20th century, with relativity and quantum mechanics. Both revealed the distortions of time, space and causuality that you hand-wave away in your desperate need to support your belief in some 'first cause'. Also, at the start of the 20th century, the mathematics which led to thermodynamics and chaos theory was devised, becoming more widely understood in the 60 and 70s. That is yet more 20th century progress that you wish to ignore because you are so anxious to need a God to explain order."

"If you want to learn and use science, then do so! But to pervert science and mathematics as you do, in some attempt to justify God and your naive model of the universe is dishonest."

"You claim you believe in plate tectonics. Why do you? I am not sure I understand. You don't believe in what physicists say. Why do you listen to experts on geology, but not physics?"

Steve99 PLEASE REREAD MY COMMENT # 262 ABOVE.

172. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51089 by darwin2 on June 21, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Comment #50963 by steve99 on June 20, 2007 at 5:45 pm

"Well, I leave that to you. You claim to know more about the nature of the universe than Andre Linde, Stephen Hawking, and even Einstein... apparently because God has given you some special knowledge. Me, I call that deluded - what do you call it? Or perhaps it was not God."

I wish I did know more about the nature of the universe then these scientists. Let me compare my scientific proficiency to theirs using a scale of 1-10 and 10 being the highest level of proficiency. I rate these scientists with a proficiency score of 10 while my rating is in the 3-4 range. These scientists have credentials and expertise. I have no credentials or expertise. My only claim about science is that science has helped me acquire a greater appreciation of the magnificence, immensity and infinite power of God. I love the Carl Sagans, the Neal degrasse Tysons and the many scientists who have written books and hosted TV documentaries that make science so understandable for the average Joes like me.

Yes God has definitely given me special knowledge. I have looked and found it. It is available to all of us not only me. The belief in Reincarnation and Karma is not something new I invented. It goes back thousands of years. I think you and religious fundamentalists share one common trait. Religious Fundamentalists believe anyone who doesn't believe in their religion is delusional and you believe anyone who believes in God is delusional. When someone tells me their view and only their view is correct I take pity on that person and hope someday his or her view will widen and accept the fact that someone with a different view from his or her view is not necessarily delusional.

"In the Miracle At The Pyramid, we get some sage advice by an intergalactic entity named Nano"

"Are you sure that was not "Nano Nano"? Perhaps then Mork could come and rescue us.."

The message from Nano is very clear and very appropriate at this time for our planet. We are developing new technologies exponentially. These technologies, specifically nanotechnology, will either benefit our civilization and planet or they will destroy us and our planet. Nano states there are many other intelligent civilizations in our galaxy and I personally believe this to be true. Nano states that many civilizations reach a critical point in the development of technology and either destroy themselves or learn how to successfully deal with it and survive and prosper. Nano tells us that we are now at that point and we either cooperate and thrive as a planet and civilization or we continue to be stupid and divisive and destroy ourselves and our planet. .

173. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50964 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Comment #50957 by steve99 on June 20, 2007 at 5:07 pm

"Then if you aren't as deluded as your book suggests, then for goodness sake, while you still have time, educate yourself! You have at best a 19th-century understanding of science. At worst, you sound like someone claiming that the flat earth can only be explained by God, and refusing evidence for its roundness. (After all, scientists have been wrong before!)"

Again who is deluded you or me? Again the correct answer will only be found if consciousness exists after the death of our physical bodies. You say at best I have only a 19th-century understanding of science. I believe there are approximately 150 billion galaxies in our universe and some jumbo galaxies may contain up to 3 trillion stars. I believe in DNA. I believe in plate tectonics. I believe the speed of light is 186,000 miles an hour. I believe there are other planets in other star systems. Are these 19th century scientific beliefs?

174. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50960 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Comment #50952 by steve99 on June 20, 2007 at 4:23 pm

"Oh dear. No point in further discussion I think. There is probably more than just a simple God Delusion going on here"

Thank you again Dr. steve99 for your insight into my psychological state. You say " there is probably more than just a simple God Delusion going on here." So Dr. steve99 describe my symptoms to me.

175. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50959 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Comment #50926 by Benjamin Michael on June 20, 2007 at 1:16 pm
"I imagine everyone who has read this thread will see that I immediately offered up the conclusion that either you are a plagiarist or you are Killoran himself using a pseudonym. This is a logical conclusion."

For Pete's sake, show some responsibility here. Your first sentence said "darwin2 is a plagiarist." It's a huge blunder both legally and morally. You should have written it this way "darwin2 is either a plagiarist or the actual writer" and then you would have avoided this embarrassing development.

"And to be honest, being a plagiarist is the lesser of two evils in this case"

You state that being a plagiarist is the lesser of two evils. Yes, plagiarism is an evil but what is the second evil you are talking about? Are you implying I am evil or my spiritual beliefs are evil? What do you mean by evil?

"I find it disturbing that you believe in god as ultimate power and judgement and simultaneously feel that you are worthy of annointing yourself as one to offer comfort and guidance to the likes of Hitler et al. What if chief justice god finds the act of comforting murderers to be despicable? Hitchens said in a recent interview that it is morally reprehensible to 'love your enemy' as the NT teaches, and I agree with him. I find it repugnant that you attempt to offer comfort and the promise of forgiveness to the likes of Hitler, even if just in an open letter to someone long deceased."

Yes, I do believe God is the ultimate power. However I do not believe God judges us. We will judge ourselves when we pass on. God created the laws of physics and does not interfere with their implementation. The laws of physics are about matter and energy and their interactions. When we use energy correctly we get good results. When we use energy incorrectly we get bad results. I give no comfort to Hitler and the likes of Hitler. They will answer to God's laws of physics and this means perfect justice for all and these tyrants will have to account for every incorrect use of energy and that is not going to be a pleasant experience.

I definitely agree with Hitchens on his criticisms of organized religion but for him to state that it is morally reprehensible to 'love your enemy' is morally reprehensible. In former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's book, "The Fog of War," he states from his Vietnam experience that the only way wars can be averted is for the opposing sides to see through their enemy's eyes and then to negotiate a way to bridge these differences.

176. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50954 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 4:45 pm

. Comment #50711 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2007 at 2:58 pm

I am 66 years old and retired. Alternative career paths are not in the plans.

177. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50924 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Comment #50708 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm

"Sadly, D2, your spiritual journey has become a matter of indifference. I wish you well, but, there is nothing here at all for me..."

We have barely survived the atomic age and we still might not survive it. Nuclear war is still very possible as more nations acquire nuclear weapons. In the 21st Century we are presently experiencing exponential advances in technology especially nanotechnology. The survival of our civilization is questionable. These new technologies will make it easy for a garage level scientist to make weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately the development of these technologies is for the most part unregulated. I hope the countries of our planet can learn to cooperate on the development of these new technologies but I am not overly optimistic. In the Miracle At The Pyramid, we get some sage advice by an intergalactic entity named Nano. The way our world is now, we may need a Nano to save it.

178. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50922 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Comment #50700 by krogercomplete on June 19, 2007 at 2:03 pm

"Yeah, I had a good laugh at the infinity - 1 comment. Sounds like little kids on the playground: "yeah, well I'm so strong I can lift infinity swingsets!" "Oh yeah, well I can lift infinity + 1!"

WOW! What health club have you been going to? Your ability to lift infinity + 1 impresses me. Please furnish me with the name of this health club.

179. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50921 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Comment #50699 by steve99 on June 19, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I don't know if I can stomach going point by point through the things you have written in that pdf.


I opened at something that seemed vaguely interesting, and gave up at ....

"If we classify God as infinite, then the most intelligent being below God would have a classification of infinity minus one."

This is new-age gibberish that ranks along with the stuff that Alan Sokal so justifiably parodied.

Subjectively I believe this. Subjectively you disagree. I respect your beliefs, and I feel that you respect mine even though you strongly disagree. That is the reason I enjoy my dialogues with you. We have engaged in mutually respectful dialogues and that is the reason I came to this web page namely to see if it was possible for me to engage in mutually respectable dialogues with atheists. I conclude it is definitely possible and also very enjoyable.

180. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50919 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Comment #50696 by Benjamin Michael on June 19, 2007 at 1:39 pm
"I don't know if I can stomach going point by point through the things you have written in that pdf."

"As a general response to your question, offering comfort and guidance to Hitler and other madmen is very disquieting behaviour."

My advice to you is to think before you put words on a website like this. You obviously don't check your facts before you write. For example in comment 222 you boldly state as a fact "darwin2 is a plagiarist." Any intelligent person would have first checked to see if this was a correct fact. Obviously your intelligence is minimal. Now you realize that darwin2 is not a plagiarist and everyone who has read your posts to me on this web page has probably agreed that you don't check your facts before putting them in writing and that your intelligence level is very minimal.

""I don't know if I can stomach going point by point through the things you have written in that pdf."

I wouldn't expect you to do this because this action would indeed require intelligence.

"As a general response to your question, offering comfort and guidance to Hitler and other madmen is very disquieting behaviour."

My point in those letters is that no one escapes the perfect justice God, not even Adolf Hitler, Shiro Ishii and Ted Bundy. You say I offer comfort and guidance to these evil bastards and you are absolutely correct. I believe God is loving and merciful and leaves no one behind and even evil bastards like those three will make it into heaven but first they will be held totally accountable for their actions and their journey back to heaven will be long and difficult ones.

181. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50912 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Comment #50693 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 1:25 pm

"Anyway, I'm glad you're not coming after me. I extend the same promise to you. There'll be no atheist jihads on my part. I'm too lazy."

Laziness has some socially redeeming qualities to it. Like you I am also too lazy. So I think we can safely conclude that we have nothing to fear from each other.

182. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50909 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 11:58 am

Comment #50692 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2007 at 1:22 pm
"Understand, I am asking you to think back to how it (your whole spiritual way of thinking) started, not how you have come to piece the various bits together into a satisfying (for you, at least!) story. I would be fascinated to learn what led you to where you are".

"In fairness I must say, lest you think otherwise, I am very unlikely to be a potential convert. I am, however, genuinely intrigued by how spiritual journeys begin for other people."

I did not come to this website to convert you or anyone. I came to this website to see if it is possible for me to have a mutually respectable dialogue with atheists. Overall this has been a very positive experience and I thank you and the others who have participated in this dialogue with me.

Now let me answer your question and explain how I came to believe what I believe. First, I was brought up in a Catholic environment. I attended Catholic grammar school, high school and graduated from a Catholic college. Two things that deeply troubled me with Catholic dogmas were the dogma of eternal hell and the one that stated the Catholic Church was the only Church you could belong to for entrance into heaven. Fortunately the most important thing I learned in college was how to do critical thinking. Shortly after my graduation from college, I rapidly concluded Catholicism was not for me. However, the next critical question I asked myself was this. Does God exist? My conclusion was God does exist. The next question I asked was this. Did God have a purpose for creating us? I explored various spiritual beliefs and the only one that made sense to me was Reincarnation and Karma. This is the only belief system that answers every question about the human condition. From there I formulated my own beliefs. If you want further elaboration I suggest you go to my comment 218 above.

183. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50903 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 11:31 am

Comment #50687 by steve99 on June 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm

"You haven't understood, I don't think. You are no in position to claim that science will be on your side, especially when you now actively reject well-established science. Unless you are personally thoroughly versed in thermodynamics and physics, you simply have to take the word of experts in that field. To claim that you know better than them is not justifiable"

I have never claimed science is on my side and proves my belief that God exists and consciousness exists on the other side is correct. And most certainly I know my place in the pecking order here and I do not claim nor will I ever claim in this lifetime that I know better then these scientists. But I strongly believe science and religion are compatible and complementary because science has helped me and could definitely help all believers to have a greater appreciation of God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all universes that may exist.

184. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50900 by darwin2 on June 20, 2007 at 11:20 am

Comment #50683 by steve99 on June 19, 2007 at 12:31 pm

"No, this isn't true. You now know more than before this thread started, and yet you reject science to try and cling to the idea of a creator. You really haven't studied this question thoroughly enough, or you would know about the issues I have discussed here."

"I find your approach deeply puzzling"

As I have expressed to you many times in our correspondence, science has helped me acquire a greater appreciation of the magnificence, immensity and infinite power God. I have never used science to prove that God exists because science can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist. Again you call me dishonest and again you fail to justify it. I have listened carefully to your feedback and you have failed to justify your own belief that God does not exist. Objectively and scientifically speaking, we both are agnostics on this issue and only the death of our physical bodies will give us an answer if we find ourselves conscious on the other side. Subjectively, I believe God exists and subjectively you disagree.

185. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50691 by darwin2 on June 19, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Comment #50526 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 3:20 pm

"Oh dear. Plagiarism makes the baby Jesus cry."

You will not have to be concerned about the baby Jesus crying because I am not a plagiarist.

186. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50690 by darwin2 on June 19, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Comment #50515 by Benjamin Michael on June 18, 2007 at 2:11 pm

"[... I am still reading... the 'letters' section is disturbing on many levels...]"

You are correct, I am the writer. Now what disturbs you on many levels?

187. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50688 by darwin2 on June 19, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Comment #50512 by BAEOZ on June 18, 2007 at 2:00 pm

" Peace and don't listen to your god when he gets all medieval and appears in a vision telling you to waste me. OK? :P"

Your statement explains why I strongly admire Richard Dawkins and Christophers Hitchen's books. They graphically describe the evils of organized religion and sadly there are too many fanatics in these religions who have visions or are brainwashed into believing that it is God's will that they torture, maim or kill those who disagree with their superstitious beliefs. I know you probably think I am superstitious too but believe me I would never allow myself to knowingly hurt anyone because to do so would definitely be a major violation of what I believe in.

188. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50686 by darwin2 on June 19, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Comment #50510 by steve99 on June 18, 2007 at 1:44 pm

I agree with what you said about homosexuality. I don't mean to be nasty here but I would not be surprised if that narrow minded person was a homosexual because during the past few years it seems that some public officials and ministers who have publicly fought against homosexuality have turned out to be homosexuals themselves. The former governor of New Jersey, the former mayor of Tacoma and Ted Haggart are examples.

"Even if this were true, his argument was nonsense. He was not an expert in these areas, so what he wanted to believe had no connection with reality. He was not in a position to judge which views were correct."

"You are in the same position. You can't in one sentence attempt to use scientific arguments (such as the existence of order) for the existence of God, and then"

Your point is well taken but I believe when push comes to shove, science will be on my side and in the end science and religion will become compatible and complementary.

189. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50682 by darwin2 on June 19, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Comment #50509 by TemporaryAura on June 18, 2007 at 1:42 pm

"A devout Christian woman married a man who did not believe in the hereafter. All her efforts to convert him were of no avail. He died first, and she got even with him by having inscribed on his headstone 'Now, he knows'".
"Ok then"

Objectively speaking the correct answer is "Now he either knows or he doesn't know." Subjectively speaking, I believe the woman is correct and "Now, he knows."

190. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50680 by darwin2 on June 19, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Comment #50506 by steve99 on June 18, 2007 at 1:35 pm

"Before I go on, I have to say that I am concerned about challenging what may be a deeply held, and necessary, belief. I sense that you would be deeply troubled by loss of this belief. So if you don't want to continue discussion, I can understand."

That's a very condescending statement. As the old saying goes "If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, get out of the kitchen." I'm in the kitchen, and the heat doesn't bother me so I will stay in the kitchen. Quite frankly, I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy this mutually respectful dialogue.

"The order we see in the universe arises entirely by itself."

"If the universe was eternal and entirely random, then areas of arbitrary order (even an entire universe) will, by chance, form eventually. This is just a matter of statistics."

On the issue of order, I understand your logic but I respectfully disagree. Order can not come from nothing. Order comes from Intelligent Design and that Intelligent Design is God.

"An example is Andre Linde's, in which universes could arise from a system that is looped in time. If you have a loop in time, there is no 'first', so no First Cause."

The loop in time appears to be an excellent theory that could cause other universes to arise. However, who caused the loop in time? God, the First Cause did.

"Yes, but you know that others in the past have genuinely believed all kinds of things. So, that really isn't any guide to what is true. People said exactly the same thing about Zeus, Poseidon, Mithras and so on."

The challenge in life is to first determine if you believe in a God behind all of creation. If after careful study you conclude as you have that the universe came into existence without a God, your inquiry can stop there. However if you conclude that there is a God who created that universe, then you need to ask the next question which is does God have a purpose for us humans? I have studied this question thoroughly and have concluded that God does and have formulated my beliefs accordingly.

191. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50511 by darwin2 on June 18, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Comment #50429 by newatheist on June 18, 2007 at 5:33 am

"I love your stuff. I want to believe it, it's fantastic. I need to know more."

So, Earth is hell. Ah jeeze, and I was just getting to like it here. What's great though, is there's a short cut off this rock and into an even super-duperer splediferous place!"

"Please tell me how to master the god given laws of physics and energy so I can avoid coming back as a caterpillar. Please!"

"Oh man, I can't wait...!"

I will comply with your request and give a quick outline to salvation.

I will do it in the following steps

1. A short description of my spiritual beliefs
2. A poem describing who I am
3. A poem describing the end of our journey in this temporary hell.
4. A poem describing the steps for fulfilling our divine destiny

My spiritual beliefs can be summed up as follows. I believe humans have eternal souls and our eternal souls are relatively new creations of God. I believe God created our eternal souls in a perfect state of pure energy and as pure energy we could assume any physical form we chose and travel to any place in the universe we desired. We were literally born into paradise and heaven. I believe God has a divine purpose and destiny for creating our eternal souls and that divine purpose is for us to participate in the creation process with God by becoming gods ourselves, imitating God and using our god given powers to create our own universes and beyond. To accomplish this God gave us free will and wants us to use our free will to learn, obey and master the laws of physics. When our souls were created, we were instructed by highly evolved spiritual beings as to what we needed to do to achieve our divine destiny. However, shortly after God created our eternal souls we began to make mistakes by misusing or free will and violating God's laws of physics. Soon our mistakes accumulated to the point that they caused us to descend into the temporary hells of the physical world of which Earth is one of these temporary hells and where our eternal souls presently find themselves encumbered in these temporary human bodies. Our mission on Earth is to address and correct our mistakes and to take steps to learn, obey and master God's laws of physics so that we can ascend back to that perfect state of pure energy that God created us in and where we can fulfill our divine destiny. The law of physics that will enable us to accomplish this is the law of reincarnation and karma. The sooner we learn, obey and master the laws of physics, the quicker we will fulfill our divine destiny in life.

The following poem describes Who I Am.

WHO AM I?

BY Darwin2

Take away my name, family and friends,
Who am I?
Take away my job and possessions,
Who am I?
Take away my fame and power,
Who am I?
Take away my religious identity,
Who am I?
Take away my national identity,
Who am I?
Take away my political identity,
Who am I?
Take away my racial and sexual identity,
Who am I?
Take away my accomplishments,
Who am I?
Take away my humanity,
Who am I?
Now stripped of everything I identify with,
Who am I?
I am my ETERNAL SOUL
And my ETERNAL SOUL IS
ALL I AM
ALL I WAS
AND ALL I WILL EVER BE!

The following poem describes our last incarnation on this planet.

TO TRAVEL GOD'S
ETERNAL HIGHWAY

By Darwin2

Death is now near,
My last time for dying,
My Eternal Soul will be free forever
To travel God's eternal highway.

No more physical pain,
No more emotional pain,
My Eternal Soul will be free forever
To travel God's eternal highway.

No more worries about family and friends,
No more worries about losing my job,
My Eternal Soul will be free forever
To travel God's eternal highway.

No more worries about crime,
No more worries about war,
My Eternal Soul will be free forever
To travel God's eternal highway.

No more taxes to pay,
No more country to follow,
My Eternal Soul will be free forever
To travel God's eternal highway.

The following poem describes the steps we need to take to fulfill our divine destiny.

TO MASTER GOD'S LAWS OF PHYSICS

By Darwin2

My eternal soul has learned to free itself from physical bondage.
My eternal soul has taken a gigantic step in learning
To master God's laws of physics.

My eternal soul has learned to travel the universe.
My eternal soul has taken a gigantic step in learning
To master God's laws of physics.

My eternal soul has learned to create a solar system.
My eternal soul has taken a gigantic step in learning
To master God's laws of physics.

My eternal soul has learned to create a galaxy.
My eternal soul has taken a gigantic step in learning
To master God's laws of physics.

My eternal soul has learned to create a universe.
My eternal soul has now fully learned
To master God's laws of physics.

192. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50504 by darwin2 on June 18, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Comment #50413 by steve99 on June 18, 2007 at 12:43 am

"Current theories also seem to confirm there may be an infinite number of universes".


"So, presumably, God 'may' be infinite, depending on whether or not current theories are confirmed?"

"So if they don't work out, then God is finite?"

I have always believed that God was infinite and that He probably created an infinite number of universes. If science comes up with a new theory that gives plausibility that ours is the only universe, I will not believe it. Science has been wrong before and they will be wrong with such a new theory.

193. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50502 by darwin2 on June 18, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Comment #50412 by steve99 on June 18, 2007 at 12:30 am

"Anyway - I am now interested to know what the reason for your belief in God is. You know that you can't use the 'order' argument, and the 'First Cause' argument has always been pretty shaky..."

Yes, I can and for the rest of my life will invoke the order argument and the First Cause argument to justify in my mind my belief in God. I have concluded from all the reasons I have stated to you and all the others I have dialogued with at this response page why I believe in God and why I believe in an after life. All I can tell you is that I genuinely believe to be true what I have stated and I live my life accordingly and I shall die accordingly.

194. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50498 by darwin2 on June 18, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Comment #50398 by BAEOZ on June 17, 2007 at 5:56 pm

"The existence of order only demonstrates that order exists. It in no way implies a creator or god. And that in no way implies a heaven or any other of your beliefs. You cannot infer a god, much less your god from order, no more than you can infer god because a banana fits your hand."

Subjectively you believe order in no way implies a creator or god. Subjectively I believe order implies a creator or god. Subjectively I believe all creation requires order and behind all creation is God, the Supreme Designer and Creator. You disagree. All I can say is that I respect your belief. Death is the ultimate answer and I believe death will prove my belief to be correct.

195. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50494 by darwin2 on June 18, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Comment #50388 by BAEOZ on June 17, 2007 at 4:31 pm

"You are begging the question. The question is is there life after death, or something supernatural. But you assume this in your answer. Logically incorrect, it doesn't mean anything."
" Even if by amazing coincidence it turns out your beliefs match post death reality. You'll have been wrong for holding them without sufficient evidence. The honest person acknowledges he doesn't have the evidence to suppose what you suppose".

You are correct in stating that I don't have sufficient evidence to support my contention about God and life after death. But I do have the right to ask myself if there is a God and does my life have a purpose. I have concluded from all the reasons I have stated to you and all the others I have dialogued with at this response page why I believe in God and why I believe in an after life. All I can tell you is that I genuinely believe to be true what I have stated and I live my life accordingly and I shall die accordingly.

196. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50397 by darwin2 on June 17, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Comment #50334 by steve99 on June 16, 2007 at 11:34 pm
"To believe in God because of Pascal's Wager would be a silly, blasphemous and unscientific reason for believing in God."


"So what is your scientific reason for believing in God? Remember that to be scientific, it must be..

(1) Based on evidence
(2) Testable
(3) Refutable"

"What I a particularly interested in is what evidence would lead you not to believe. If there is no possibility of such evidence then your belief is not scientific."

As I said above it is scientifically impossible at this time to prove the existence of God. However science has helped me to believe without doubt that God exists and has a purpose for creating us. Science has demonstrated to me the great order that exists in our universe. Everyday I meditate with great awe and respect on the magnificence and order that permeates our universe. Stephen Hawking says that science presently estimates that there are 150 billion galaxies in our universe and some galaxies may contain up to 3 trillion stars. Current theories also seem to confirm there may be an infinite number of universes. Behind these universes and all universes is the First Cause, God, who is Uncaused and the Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exists. Also, as I said above, because there are an infinite number of universes, God must also be infinite.

197. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50395 by darwin2 on June 17, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Comment #50316 by Bonzai on June 16, 2007 at 5:10 pm

"Is Darwin2 a scientologist or something?"

I can handle without getting upset someone calling me delusional, stupid, ignorant, insane, bizarre or an AH. However, please, please, pretty please do not call me a scientologist or any other name associated with organized religion because if you do so you will be hitting me below the belt and getting hit below the belt is very painful.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

198. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50394 by darwin2 on June 17, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Comment #50314 by Bonzai on June 16, 2007 at 4:41 pm

"You are confusing your psychological need with logic. It may be,--I am sure it is,--psychologically compelling for you to believe in a God with all these ill defined qualities(what is "perfectly just"? According to what standard? What is "merciful"?)"

"But this is not the same as having compelling evidence or compelling arguments that such a notion has any reality other than a figment of your own imagination. Indeed you have not been able to provide any argument or evidence that doesn't fall apart under scrutiny."

"P.S. A God that would reward someone who places the right bet in the Pascal wager and torture those who places the wrong ones clearly is neither wise nor just. It sounds like a Stalin kind of God. BTW, if is it so important for God that we believe and worship him why does he deliberately conceal himself? If such a God exists, it seems that he doesn't really want us to "know him" but to have blind faith in him, or at least pretending to be so. This is exactly like the psychological rape dictators and tyrants perpetuate on their unfortunate subjects. The dictator would deliberately say something so outlandish and unbelivable that no sane person would agree. But still you have to act as though you believe. After a while you will lose all your intellectual independence and become a slave."

What is merciful? Merciful is when everybody makes it into heaven. No exceptions. I believe God is merciful and that everybody makes into heaven.

God does not punish and the dogma of eternal hell is the biggest con game perpetrated on the human race. I believe the use of energy controls our destiny. If we use energy correctly we get good results. If we use energy incorrectly, we get bad results. The problems of humanity come from using energy incorrectly.

I don't believe God is deliberately concealing Himself. Truthfully I never expect to meet God and have a personal interaction with Him. God is infinite. I am finite. A finite being can never truly know or meet that which is infinite. However finite beings can come to an appreciation of God by observing His magnificent creations.

I will never lose my intellectual independence and become a slave. God gave me free will and the ability to do critical thinking. However, I think many atheists have become slaves to the very narrow belief that it is impossible for God to exist when it is scientifically and logically possible for God to exist.

199. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50391 by darwin2 on June 17, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Comment #50312 by steve99 on June 16, 2007 at 4:35 pm

"You state many things that reveal you simply don't understand the subjects. This was one of the worst:"

"That is nothing whatsoever to do with order, and any philosopher or theologian will confirm that your conclusion here is nonsense. If you doubt that, perhaps you could try and come up with a mechanism by which a deity could change the digits of Pi when expressed to base 10."
"No, sorry. As I keep showing you, you don't need anything behind order".

"As someone who has worked in theoretical chemistry for decades, I can confirm this is just putting a lot of words together without any understanding at all, and is just embarassing."
"This is just about the same. It is just (probably unwitting) word-play. You haven't understood what I have said at all."

"Let me try and explain more carefully. This is nothing at all to do with understanding gravity. It is simply that any long range attractive force of any kind will magnify small differences in the density of dispersed matter, causing localised collapses. In such collapsed areas, you can get spontaneous generation of order, as you get structures like (in the case of our Universe) stars, which can produce energy."

"It isn't slander - it is a harsh, but simple statement of fact. Let me explain. If you claim that you need God because that supposedly explains the complexity of the universe, and someone gives you a clear explanation (that you can confirm for yourself just by looking things up) that you have misunderstood the matter of complexity, and your requirement for a God in this matter is simply not there, then to continue with an unaffected belief in God really is intellectually dishonest. But to try and get some kind of support for your ideas, you put forward statements about math, physics and chemistry that make no sense at all, and scrabbling for justification in this way is also intellectually dishonest. An honest approach would be simply to admit that you were wrong about the 'order' argument."

"That is a hopelessly confused interpretation."


"That is in no way the reason why he does not believe in God."

"Dawkins argues that God almost certainly does not exist because He is a complex and superfluous entity that explains nothing about the universe."

"He goes on to argue for the proposition that a believe in God can cause harm, but that is nothing at all to do with whether or not God exists."

"I am sorry for you because you need this imaginary security blanket. I feel sorry because I believe you aren't truly experiencing life in all its richness, which includes its fears and terrors as well as its joys and wonders. You may need this use of religion as a comforter, but my view is that this is rather like non-stop use of Prozac. It may feel good, but is it really any way for people to live?"

"That is just gibberish. How is studying the laws of physics supposed to assist with salvation?"

"This is nothing to do with science. It is a common philosophical argument."

I admire and respect you for working in the profession of theoretical chemistry. Behind theoretical and practical experiments in chemistry is order and without order chemists could not perform any experiments. Behind order is design and behind design is God.

I disagree with Dawkins because the existence of the One True God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of the Universe, explains everything about the universe. Yes the belief in God can cause some harm but this harm results from stupid, illogical, and pathetic interpretations of God by most and probably all organized religions and these misguided interpretations are divisive and extremely dangerous.

In a previous correspondence, you complained that I know very little about you but in return now you infer that you know so much about me that you can do an in depth analysis of my character that leads you to the bold conclusion: "I am sorry for you because you need this imaginary security blanket. I feel sorry because I believe you aren't truly experiencing life in all its richness, which includes its fears and terrors as well as its joys and wonders." I see symptoms of delusion and grandeur here. You have made a diagnosis of my psychological state of mind without seeing me in person and observing how I live and react to life's many varied situations. It reminds me of Dr Frist's diagnosis of Terry Sciavo from a video tape and diagnosing Mrs. Sciavo as definitely displaying symptoms of being very much alive. You definitely must be delusional and have overestimated your psychological skills when studying the character of your fellow man if you believe you are so all-knowing psychologically that you can come to the above diagnosis without ever personally meeting me. And your diagnosis Doctor is unfounded.

The laws of physics have everything to do with salvation. Physics is the study of energy and matter and their interaction. Salvation is all about using energy correctly. Use energy properly you get positive results. Use energy incorrectly, you get negative results. The problems we have in our world result from using energy incorrectly.

Regarding your reply about how you would do better in the afterlife then me if an afterlife existed, I find your reply to be 'HOGWASH." I think this is another example of delusional thinking and feelings of grandeur. On the other hand you might be correct.

200. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50387 by darwin2 on June 17, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Comment #50309 by BAEOZ on June 16, 2007 at 4:02 pm

"darwin2, your beliefs are complex and illogical. If you have no evidence based reason for them, it is wrong to hold onto them in favor of simpler, empirically supported hypotheses. Be a good nuff nuff and accept you have to let go of superstition."

You call my beliefs superstitious. I disagree. Who is right, you or me? Our deaths will give us the correct answer. I will see you on the other side and then we can discuss the correct answer.