Whats up? I'm new.
I'm trying to formulate a theory of the Human Spirit and how it's existence can be accepted Scientifically -- at least as a possibility.
I believe I read that gravitons have the ability to travel out of this dimension -- correct? What other particles have the ability to phase in and out of our physical boundries? How many more are likely to exist undiscovered?
Is it not possible the human spirit is of these same type of particles, and at death it leaves our reality?
I recommend reading The Phenomenology of Spirit by GWF Hegel. He discusses much about the purpose of science and religion, while trying to reconcile both as legitimate areas of knowledge. If you don't feel like reading it, the "ending" is
SPOILER WARNING
science and religion are incompatible because they are based around fundamentally different ideas of the meaning of "concept" and "truth." Trying to explain religion via science, or science via religion, only serves to destroy during the conversion the very idea that you're trying to convey. So, please, save the theologizing for religious message boards.
PS - gravitons haven't even been discovered yet. Their expected properties are a matter of dispute.
SPOILER WARNING
science and religion are incompatible because they are based around fundamentally different ideas of the meaning of "concept" and "truth." Trying to explain religion via science, or science via religion, only serves to destroy during the conversion the very idea that you're trying to convey. So, please, save the theologizing for religious message boards.
PS - gravitons haven't even been discovered yet. Their expected properties are a matter of dispute.
Kalibur -
As far as I can see, JavaTool is correct on both points.
FYI - you can't formulate a "scientific" theory on anything (and this part is critically important) that cannot be measured. Science is science b/z you can measure something(s). So, carrying this fact to its Socratic end, if you can measure G_d then you've discovered G_d's existence.
See the problem?
This is why creationist, ID, spiritual, Biblical arguments never work, since any "evidence" presented needs to be measurable in order to be considered "scientific".
As far as I can see, JavaTool is correct on both points.
FYI - you can't formulate a "scientific" theory on anything (and this part is critically important) that cannot be measured. Science is science b/z you can measure something(s). So, carrying this fact to its Socratic end, if you can measure G_d then you've discovered G_d's existence.
See the problem?
This is why creationist, ID, spiritual, Biblical arguments never work, since any "evidence" presented needs to be measurable in order to be considered "scientific".
Thanks. I see the paradox. Imagine though: the particles that make up the spirit being discovered -- would that not be remarkable and revolutionary?
I'm not religous but I am spiritual. I contradict myself because I fancy myself a man of logic. Spirituality is not logical. So I search for a logical possibility that what I feel as my spirit -- really exists.
A world where it doesn't is grim.
Do not think of spirit in the conventional, idealistic or religous nature. Just think of an energy force existing. A force coherent in life that transitions at death. In my way of thinking, a conscious spirit is very illogical and unlikely. However the endurance of energy is fact. Unfortunantely there are no observations of this spiritual energy.
That is what I search for.
On the gravitons: Can you direct me to any sources containing that information?
I'm not religous but I am spiritual. I contradict myself because I fancy myself a man of logic. Spirituality is not logical. So I search for a logical possibility that what I feel as my spirit -- really exists.
A world where it doesn't is grim.
Do not think of spirit in the conventional, idealistic or religous nature. Just think of an energy force existing. A force coherent in life that transitions at death. In my way of thinking, a conscious spirit is very illogical and unlikely. However the endurance of energy is fact. Unfortunantely there are no observations of this spiritual energy.
That is what I search for.
On the gravitons: Can you direct me to any sources containing that information?
I read (probably a year or two ago) that someone actually weighed a very minute difference in a person before and after death. At the moment the person died, the body became minutely lighter. But that probably won't get you any closer even if it is a fact. As others said, science is science and it probably can't even be proven that the weight difference is from the loss of a "spirit".
Good luck on your quest!
Good luck on your quest!
While searching for the true spirit may be pointless in a scientific sense, there's still a lot of fun to be had. Science and religion don't necessarily have to contradict; they merely need to have exclusive scope.
With that, you're free to assert that some type of "spirit" thing exists, and keep it religious. BUT... the body is, without question, a physical thing. With those two assertions - at some point, some where, there *must be* some type of physical interface between the two; some method where straight biology/chemistry/physics can provide a mechanism for this spirit to interface/attach/interact/etc.
And what's neat about that is that we can then identify and duplicate this interface, since (by definition of the body being purely physical) all that's needed to "host" this spirit is stuff that's physically present. Any way you slice it, sooner or later, the body is just pieces-parts, and those parts must be sufficient to pull this off.
The implications of this will vary, based on how complex you make the assumed spirit. If the spirit is merely a "sense of being", then we'd pretty much be limited to creating a "virtual host". But if you assume a more complex spirit, much more fun ensues.
If you assert that the spirit is capable of actual behavior, literally acting as some type of "control device" for the brain, then that means that (somehow) there's a datapath from the brain (to the spirit) to provide information, and there's a datapath from the spirit (to the brain) to assert control (or whatever). This becomes fun because we know the "brain half" of the connection must be do-able with straight, simple matter. And if the body can build this interface, then we can build an emulator.
This leads to an interesting concept of creating a virtual body for a spirit. No actual body would be required; merely a "black box" that "looks and feels" like the interface, since the spirit wouldn't know the difference. Doesn't sound incredibly interesting, but it's interesting. At best you'd probably end up with a new "ghost porn" industry, but who knows.
More fun would be along my line of work - namely, exploitation. If we hold that the spirit and body are "separate" with some sort of link, and that (clearly) the body's interface must be simple matter - then *we* can attack that communication path. We can inject false information into the stream "received" by the spirit; we can inject false directives into the stream "received" by the body. Or more basically, we could perhaps just "jam the signal". More interesting would be to deny the path, and inject a "replay attack" of a previous (or engineered) stream. I'm not convinced that any of these would be immediately useful outside of warfare, but other applications where "remote presence" is helpful (such as gaming or medical diagnosis / treatment) would also benefit. It could also be useful for training in dangerous environments, or (asserting a *very* complex spirit-model combined with a replay attack) criminal rehabilitation / payback - literally, put the aggressor into the victim's shoes.
Like I said, the "spirit" might well be outside the scope of science - but the body is not, which means (if you assert a "persistent" spirit exists) the interface between the body and its spirit are not. Sooner or later, the body's half of that interface must be purely physical; that means we can reverse engineer it, and that means we can emulate it.
Thoughts? Ideas?
With that, you're free to assert that some type of "spirit" thing exists, and keep it religious. BUT... the body is, without question, a physical thing. With those two assertions - at some point, some where, there *must be* some type of physical interface between the two; some method where straight biology/chemistry/physics can provide a mechanism for this spirit to interface/attach/interact/etc.
And what's neat about that is that we can then identify and duplicate this interface, since (by definition of the body being purely physical) all that's needed to "host" this spirit is stuff that's physically present. Any way you slice it, sooner or later, the body is just pieces-parts, and those parts must be sufficient to pull this off.
The implications of this will vary, based on how complex you make the assumed spirit. If the spirit is merely a "sense of being", then we'd pretty much be limited to creating a "virtual host". But if you assume a more complex spirit, much more fun ensues.
If you assert that the spirit is capable of actual behavior, literally acting as some type of "control device" for the brain, then that means that (somehow) there's a datapath from the brain (to the spirit) to provide information, and there's a datapath from the spirit (to the brain) to assert control (or whatever). This becomes fun because we know the "brain half" of the connection must be do-able with straight, simple matter. And if the body can build this interface, then we can build an emulator.
This leads to an interesting concept of creating a virtual body for a spirit. No actual body would be required; merely a "black box" that "looks and feels" like the interface, since the spirit wouldn't know the difference. Doesn't sound incredibly interesting, but it's interesting. At best you'd probably end up with a new "ghost porn" industry, but who knows.
More fun would be along my line of work - namely, exploitation. If we hold that the spirit and body are "separate" with some sort of link, and that (clearly) the body's interface must be simple matter - then *we* can attack that communication path. We can inject false information into the stream "received" by the spirit; we can inject false directives into the stream "received" by the body. Or more basically, we could perhaps just "jam the signal". More interesting would be to deny the path, and inject a "replay attack" of a previous (or engineered) stream. I'm not convinced that any of these would be immediately useful outside of warfare, but other applications where "remote presence" is helpful (such as gaming or medical diagnosis / treatment) would also benefit. It could also be useful for training in dangerous environments, or (asserting a *very* complex spirit-model combined with a replay attack) criminal rehabilitation / payback - literally, put the aggressor into the victim's shoes.
Like I said, the "spirit" might well be outside the scope of science - but the body is not, which means (if you assert a "persistent" spirit exists) the interface between the body and its spirit are not. Sooner or later, the body's half of that interface must be purely physical; that means we can reverse engineer it, and that means we can emulate it.
Thoughts? Ideas?
hello-
as THEY mentioned, there really is a reduction in body mass due to death. But from a normal, mundane thermodynamic sense (see the first and second Laws), this is perfectly logical. From specific relativity, energy and mass are interconvertible, so you SHOULD see this reduction (no wispy magic or spirit here, just straight thermodynamics).
Remember, ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is the human's workhorse energy molecule, produced in all the mitochondria we have. If we were to pile up all the ATP made by the average adult in a 24hr period, we would have over 85kg of it! We are intensely energy-dependent creatures w/ some serious energy needs for our brains. Hell, even when we're sleeping our brains use 11kcal/hr. Wow.
S
as THEY mentioned, there really is a reduction in body mass due to death. But from a normal, mundane thermodynamic sense (see the first and second Laws), this is perfectly logical. From specific relativity, energy and mass are interconvertible, so you SHOULD see this reduction (no wispy magic or spirit here, just straight thermodynamics).
Remember, ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is the human's workhorse energy molecule, produced in all the mitochondria we have. If we were to pile up all the ATP made by the average adult in a 24hr period, we would have over 85kg of it! We are intensely energy-dependent creatures w/ some serious energy needs for our brains. Hell, even when we're sleeping our brains use 11kcal/hr. Wow.
S
It's funny, I don't believe in an afterlife, god or religion but I consider myself to be spiritual. We have all been put in life changing situations where we find ourselves asking why?... why me?, such as the death of a loved one in a tragic accident. Due to our emotions we want to believe that there is something beyond our knowledge of life that has some control over these travesties.
If the world found out today that scientists had found proof that a spirit and soul do scientifically exist would people accept their fate or strive to be good people? Likewise, what if the world knew that people had no soul, would chaos reign?
I feel like the soul (pardon the pun) purpose of a spirit goes hand in hand with religion. Without religion people would not be fearful of doing wrong and having it affect their afterlife, whatever that might be. Obviously in this case, only good souls make it to heaven.
When cavemen were dragging their women around by their hair and having their savage ways with them. I'm sure that not for one second they believe that what they were doing was wrong and that they could be divinely punished for it after their death.
It wasn't until the introduction of religion to mankind that people were taught about having a soul and making sure that they repent their sins and do more good in the world than bad. Religion molded people to think this way, having a spirit is a mere bi-product of this.
If the world found out today that scientists had found proof that a spirit and soul do scientifically exist would people accept their fate or strive to be good people? Likewise, what if the world knew that people had no soul, would chaos reign?
I feel like the soul (pardon the pun) purpose of a spirit goes hand in hand with religion. Without religion people would not be fearful of doing wrong and having it affect their afterlife, whatever that might be. Obviously in this case, only good souls make it to heaven.
When cavemen were dragging their women around by their hair and having their savage ways with them. I'm sure that not for one second they believe that what they were doing was wrong and that they could be divinely punished for it after their death.
It wasn't until the introduction of religion to mankind that people were taught about having a soul and making sure that they repent their sins and do more good in the world than bad. Religion molded people to think this way, having a spirit is a mere bi-product of this.
Personally, I think religion and spirit are irrelevant. I sure don't need them, since the universe has so much cool stuff in it that can be figured out. I find the notion of religion, in and of itself, quite restrictive - putting oneself inside a box w/ rules that rarely make any sense, particularly nowadays. I find organized religion a real albatross. It's a crutch that isn't needed, provided the individual is up to the actualization of their own potential, a la A. Maslov.
Take Judaism, for example. The rather restrictive rules regarding the strict separation of meat and dairy were very cleverly built into the religion as a matter of self preservation. When people were dying and no one could figure out why, process of elimination found some correlation b/t meat and dairy on the same plate. Now we know that the wood plates they often used (when kilns weren't readily available to fire clay, like when youre on the go fleeing the Egyptians!) carried microbes like c. botulinum, aspergilis, bacillus, e. coli, etc. Then, if you look at modern Judaism, those same restrictions are in place, but science has figured out what was up. Now it's a pretty artifact and should be honored for its really clever mechanism, but you've now limited that person for artificial reasons.
If you have grown up in a religious environment (like I did) and then realize that the restrictions are pretty artificial - like I don't need a tablet to tell me not to kill, steal, etc. - you shed the religious artifact and realize how freakin' liberating it is. You look at the world in a remarkably enlightened manner, and the religious stuff just nice stories. Look how much trouble humans get themselves into by taking the religion/spirit stuff too seriously: gay bashing, global terrorism, global war - all of it directly attributable to religion. Spirit is nice, but it is overwhelmingly tied to religion. If spirituality was just that and not tagged to religious nonsense, we'd be fine. Ahh, but this is NOT a perfect world....
Take Judaism, for example. The rather restrictive rules regarding the strict separation of meat and dairy were very cleverly built into the religion as a matter of self preservation. When people were dying and no one could figure out why, process of elimination found some correlation b/t meat and dairy on the same plate. Now we know that the wood plates they often used (when kilns weren't readily available to fire clay, like when youre on the go fleeing the Egyptians!) carried microbes like c. botulinum, aspergilis, bacillus, e. coli, etc. Then, if you look at modern Judaism, those same restrictions are in place, but science has figured out what was up. Now it's a pretty artifact and should be honored for its really clever mechanism, but you've now limited that person for artificial reasons.
If you have grown up in a religious environment (like I did) and then realize that the restrictions are pretty artificial - like I don't need a tablet to tell me not to kill, steal, etc. - you shed the religious artifact and realize how freakin' liberating it is. You look at the world in a remarkably enlightened manner, and the religious stuff just nice stories. Look how much trouble humans get themselves into by taking the religion/spirit stuff too seriously: gay bashing, global terrorism, global war - all of it directly attributable to religion. Spirit is nice, but it is overwhelmingly tied to religion. If spirituality was just that and not tagged to religious nonsense, we'd be fine. Ahh, but this is NOT a perfect world....
QUOTE
Look how much trouble humans get themselves into by taking the religion/spirit stuff too seriously: gay bashing, global terrorism, global war
I don't think this arises from taking religion "too seriously". I think this arises from psychological dispositions of the people who adhere to the religions. What causes one Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong to campaign against gay rights and another Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong to let people live the way they want without interfering? What causes one person to translate the Christian message as compassion for others and stern self-expectation, and another person to translate it as a justification of self-righteous aggression?
I suggest it's the same thing that can cause one child of an abusive parent to grow up well-adjusted while the other continues the cycle of abuse. People's personalities are susceptible to a certain amount of external influence when they are young, but the importance of introspection and reflection cannot be denied. It's what prevents identical circumstances from producing identical people.
In short, I think that if someone adopts a hateful outlook, it's because they have the physical and mental capacity for hatred, not necessarily because they were told to hate.
hey, WB -
sure, but religion is soooooooo often and sooooo easily used as the excuse or nowadays, the vehicle. You can't discern b/t the two, just like it's next to impossible to see where the religious line ends and the spiritual line begins. Totally blurred, like photoshop blurred
QUOTE
I don't think this arises from taking religion "too seriously". I think this arises from psychological dispositions of the people who adhere to the religions.
sure, but religion is soooooooo often and sooooo easily used as the excuse or nowadays, the vehicle. You can't discern b/t the two, just like it's next to impossible to see where the religious line ends and the spiritual line begins. Totally blurred, like photoshop blurred
You know, that weight loss at death thing has been around since the 50s, I think I first encountered it in one of Frank Edwards books.
It might be urban legend.
Howsomever.
A nice fruit-loop theory would tie in dark matter with psychic phenomena, I would research victorian engish ecto-plasm. (Those people believed in that sort of thing.)
I say this as a psychic (hey, intertainment purposes only) who really is more interested in the physics on this forum than the spiritual hoo-ha.
Otherwise, I too would be making the fruit-loop posts.
(have a smily.
)
It might be urban legend.
Howsomever.
A nice fruit-loop theory would tie in dark matter with psychic phenomena, I would research victorian engish ecto-plasm. (Those people believed in that sort of thing.)
I say this as a psychic (hey, intertainment purposes only) who really is more interested in the physics on this forum than the spiritual hoo-ha.
Otherwise, I too would be making the fruit-loop posts.
(have a smily.
)
ss-
The problem I had with your post was really this statement:
All hateful attitudes, all terrorism, all war is due to religion? That's simply and unequivocally untrue. That may not be what you meant, but that's what it sounded like, and that's a big problem I have with the anti-religious movement. They make careless use of hyperbole and people get swept up in it. It makes for a big, easy target. It creates a false black-and-white polarity out of what is a grey issue. Anti-religious people are often adamantly opposed to black-and-white judgement in every other area. Why is it okay against religion? It's a double-standard, and it's not fair, and people take it to hateful levels, just like every other ideology. It's just as dangerous.
What about the religious people who don't pursue these aggressive lifestyles? What about the religious people who actively perform acts of generous kindness and compassion? Is that directly attributable to religion? I don't think you can say one without the other. But if you say both, you've got inconsistency. Can religion be both good and evil? I don't think religion is anymore good or evil than science is. But people can be good or evil. And evil people will use whatever tool is available for their evil.
I think religion is often like the CIA. People don't care about or notice the successes. But every single failure comes under the microscope. The thing no one likes to admit, on either side, is that a failure of religion usually comes down to the failure of a person. Which, incidentally, is why I don't like organized religion. Too much trust in people. Just ends up being a dictatorship. These religious dictatorships are a problem, yes. But that's because people give them that power. It has nothing to do with religion. It just has to do with the fact that people flock to ideologies and like to have leaders in them. The Nazi movement wasn't a religious movement, it was an ideological movement, and it was arguably as insidious (or moreso) than the infamous religious equivalents throughout history.
But not every religion is like this. I think there's an argument to be made that the ones that are, are "dangerous". Just don't start persecuting religion as a whole. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A frightening number of significant figures in history who were homosexuals were also pedophiles. So should we outlaw homosexuality to prevent pedophilia? What about the ones that aren't pedophiles? And what about the heterosexual pedophiles? See? This type of blanket action doesn't solve the problem. No more than the Patriot Act solves the U.S. security problems. The sacrifice is too great. You're throwing out a lot good things to get rid of some (not even most!) bad things.
All hateful attitudes, all terrorism, all war is due to religion? That's simply and unequivocally untrue. That may not be what you meant, but that's what it sounded like, and that's a big problem I have with the anti-religious movement. They make careless use of hyperbole and people get swept up in it. It makes for a big, easy target. It creates a false black-and-white polarity out of what is a grey issue. Anti-religious people are often adamantly opposed to black-and-white judgement in every other area. Why is it okay against religion? It's a double-standard, and it's not fair, and people take it to hateful levels, just like every other ideology. It's just as dangerous.
What about the religious people who don't pursue these aggressive lifestyles? What about the religious people who actively perform acts of generous kindness and compassion? Is that directly attributable to religion? I don't think you can say one without the other. But if you say both, you've got inconsistency. Can religion be both good and evil? I don't think religion is anymore good or evil than science is. But people can be good or evil. And evil people will use whatever tool is available for their evil.
I think religion is often like the CIA. People don't care about or notice the successes. But every single failure comes under the microscope. The thing no one likes to admit, on either side, is that a failure of religion usually comes down to the failure of a person. Which, incidentally, is why I don't like organized religion. Too much trust in people. Just ends up being a dictatorship. These religious dictatorships are a problem, yes. But that's because people give them that power. It has nothing to do with religion. It just has to do with the fact that people flock to ideologies and like to have leaders in them. The Nazi movement wasn't a religious movement, it was an ideological movement, and it was arguably as insidious (or moreso) than the infamous religious equivalents throughout history.
But not every religion is like this. I think there's an argument to be made that the ones that are, are "dangerous". Just don't start persecuting religion as a whole. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A frightening number of significant figures in history who were homosexuals were also pedophiles. So should we outlaw homosexuality to prevent pedophilia? What about the ones that aren't pedophiles? And what about the heterosexual pedophiles? See? This type of blanket action doesn't solve the problem. No more than the Patriot Act solves the U.S. security problems. The sacrifice is too great. You're throwing out a lot good things to get rid of some (not even most!) bad things.
sure, but religion is soooooooo often and sooooo easily used as the excuse or nowadays,
Getting rid of the religion will not get rid of the problem. In fact, I'm inclined to think that if we replace the world's religions with relative moralism, you've just exchanged one usurpable ideology for another. People will still justify their actions by saying "this is right for me".
The problem I had with your post was really this statement:
QUOTE
all of it directly attributable to religion
All hateful attitudes, all terrorism, all war is due to religion? That's simply and unequivocally untrue. That may not be what you meant, but that's what it sounded like, and that's a big problem I have with the anti-religious movement. They make careless use of hyperbole and people get swept up in it. It makes for a big, easy target. It creates a false black-and-white polarity out of what is a grey issue. Anti-religious people are often adamantly opposed to black-and-white judgement in every other area. Why is it okay against religion? It's a double-standard, and it's not fair, and people take it to hateful levels, just like every other ideology. It's just as dangerous.
What about the religious people who don't pursue these aggressive lifestyles? What about the religious people who actively perform acts of generous kindness and compassion? Is that directly attributable to religion? I don't think you can say one without the other. But if you say both, you've got inconsistency. Can religion be both good and evil? I don't think religion is anymore good or evil than science is. But people can be good or evil. And evil people will use whatever tool is available for their evil.
I think religion is often like the CIA. People don't care about or notice the successes. But every single failure comes under the microscope. The thing no one likes to admit, on either side, is that a failure of religion usually comes down to the failure of a person. Which, incidentally, is why I don't like organized religion. Too much trust in people. Just ends up being a dictatorship. These religious dictatorships are a problem, yes. But that's because people give them that power. It has nothing to do with religion. It just has to do with the fact that people flock to ideologies and like to have leaders in them. The Nazi movement wasn't a religious movement, it was an ideological movement, and it was arguably as insidious (or moreso) than the infamous religious equivalents throughout history.
But not every religion is like this. I think there's an argument to be made that the ones that are, are "dangerous". Just don't start persecuting religion as a whole. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A frightening number of significant figures in history who were homosexuals were also pedophiles. So should we outlaw homosexuality to prevent pedophilia? What about the ones that aren't pedophiles? And what about the heterosexual pedophiles? See? This type of blanket action doesn't solve the problem. No more than the Patriot Act solves the U.S. security problems. The sacrifice is too great. You're throwing out a lot good things to get rid of some (not even most!) bad things.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| all of it directly attributable to religion |
All hateful attitudes, all terrorism, all war is due to religion? That's simply and unequivocally untrue. That may not be what you meant, but that's what it sounded like, and that's a big problem I have with the anti-religious movement. They make careless use of hyperbole and people get swept up in it. It makes for a big, easy target. It creates a false black-and-white polarity out of what is a grey issue. Anti-religious people are often adamantly opposed to black-and-white judgement in every other area. Why is it okay against religion? It's a double-standard, and it's not fair, and people take it to hateful levels, just like every other ideology. It's just as dangerous.
What about the religious people who don't pursue these aggressive lifestyles? What about the religious people who actively perform acts of generous kindness and compassion? Is that directly attributable to religion? I don't think you can say one without the other. But if you say both, you've got inconsistency. Can religion be both good and evil? I don't think religion is anymore good or evil than science is. But people can be good or evil. And evil people will use whatever tool is available for their evil.
I think religion is often like the CIA. People don't care about or notice the successes. But every single failure comes under the microscope. The thing no one likes to admit, on either side, is that a failure of religion usually comes down to the failure of a person. Which, incidentally, is why I don't like organized religion. Too much trust in people. Just ends up being a dictatorship. These religious dictatorships are a problem, yes. But that's because people give them that power. It has nothing to do with religion. It just has to do with the fact that people flock to ideologies and like to have leaders in them. The Nazi movement wasn't a religious movement, it was an ideological movement, and it was arguably as insidious (or moreso) than the infamous religious equivalents throughout history.
But not every religion is like this. I think there's an argument to be made that the ones that are, are "dangerous". Just don't start persecuting religion as a whole. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A frightening number of significant figures in history who were homosexuals were also pedophiles. So should we outlaw homosexuality to prevent pedophilia? What about the ones that aren't pedophiles? And what about the heterosexual pedophiles? See? This type of blanket action doesn't solve the problem. No more than the Patriot Act solves the U.S. security problems. The sacrifice is too great. You're throwing out a lot good things to get rid of some (not even most!) bad things.
sure, but religion is soooooooo often and sooooo easily used as the excuse or nowadays,
Getting rid of the religion will not get rid of the problem. In fact, I'm inclined to think that if we replace the world's religions with relative moralism, you've just exchanged one usurpable ideology for another. People will still justify their actions by saying "this is right for me".
I dunno, WB...
Getting rid of religion would really solve a lot of problems. Over 3000 people died directly b/z of religion on 9/11 - several of whom were really close friends of mine. Pick a place in the world that hasnt been scarred by religion-based slaughter. US - yes, Sudan? - absolutely. How about the 250k people slaughtered as a result of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia just a few years back? yup. 6m Jews in WWII? 1m Catholics? The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition?
?How about recently - David Kopp killing off the physicians in buffalo in 02? Paul Hill, same deal in Florida in 98? Women being shot in Morocco by their own fathers, because they were raped!! Perfectly legal in Moroccan law, since it's Shariah law. Sunni v. Shia currently in Pakistan (Muslims blowing up Muslims, no less). 1500 yr old Buddhist statues destroyed in Afghanistan...
So, you say that the non-aggressive (i.e., "good") ones go underreported. Well, I don't consider the Catholic church, or for that matter, the Coptics or G.O.s, religious-based terrorist organizations. Yet talk to most R. Catholics and they'll tell you it's a sin to be gay. The five heads of religious organizations in Jerusalem all made the front page of the New York Times in their unified opposition to a gay-pride parade in Jerusalem.
How about all the nonsense w/ changing my kid's school curricula (actually buying into the Intelligent Design nonsense), simply b/z good-hearted religious say that it has to be due to ID, despite the copious evidence directly proving the evolutionary model. Even my old HS (all-boys, Catholic priests and brothers) pursues homosexuality as a disease.
My point is that when you get down to it, you are actually referring to a really small subset of the total religiously active population who are truly "good" and even those (the Pope?) are, for example, against homosexuality as 'unG_dly'. Give me specific examples of good and I'll show you an agenda they represent.
I completely agree w/ you that I appear binary in this, but where are the shades of gray? Is it "ok" that my deeply religious friends organize the Saints' feasts and say their novenae and give to charity only to harbor hatred for gays (which they do)? Where can one draw the line? It would be a really crooked one, trying to navigate around all the nonsense. Talk about your proverbial n-edged sword!
If all the religious people out there just happily practiced their religions and didnt try to impose their collective will on society, just b/z they "believe" it would be better for all us sinners, I would be cool. But we both know that will NEVER happen. Like you said, man, if they JUSt said "this is right for me" that would be fine...
I have never seen any maniacal chemist running down the street trying to blow me up (and he's the one who can make the explosive!). Or a physicist, or biologist. Recall the WWII aftermath? How many physicists were opposed to nukes? Like, uh.... all of them...
Getting rid of religion would really solve a lot of problems. Over 3000 people died directly b/z of religion on 9/11 - several of whom were really close friends of mine. Pick a place in the world that hasnt been scarred by religion-based slaughter. US - yes, Sudan? - absolutely. How about the 250k people slaughtered as a result of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia just a few years back? yup. 6m Jews in WWII? 1m Catholics? The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition?
?How about recently - David Kopp killing off the physicians in buffalo in 02? Paul Hill, same deal in Florida in 98? Women being shot in Morocco by their own fathers, because they were raped!! Perfectly legal in Moroccan law, since it's Shariah law. Sunni v. Shia currently in Pakistan (Muslims blowing up Muslims, no less). 1500 yr old Buddhist statues destroyed in Afghanistan...
So, you say that the non-aggressive (i.e., "good") ones go underreported. Well, I don't consider the Catholic church, or for that matter, the Coptics or G.O.s, religious-based terrorist organizations. Yet talk to most R. Catholics and they'll tell you it's a sin to be gay. The five heads of religious organizations in Jerusalem all made the front page of the New York Times in their unified opposition to a gay-pride parade in Jerusalem.
How about all the nonsense w/ changing my kid's school curricula (actually buying into the Intelligent Design nonsense), simply b/z good-hearted religious say that it has to be due to ID, despite the copious evidence directly proving the evolutionary model. Even my old HS (all-boys, Catholic priests and brothers) pursues homosexuality as a disease.
My point is that when you get down to it, you are actually referring to a really small subset of the total religiously active population who are truly "good" and even those (the Pope?) are, for example, against homosexuality as 'unG_dly'. Give me specific examples of good and I'll show you an agenda they represent.
I completely agree w/ you that I appear binary in this, but where are the shades of gray? Is it "ok" that my deeply religious friends organize the Saints' feasts and say their novenae and give to charity only to harbor hatred for gays (which they do)? Where can one draw the line? It would be a really crooked one, trying to navigate around all the nonsense. Talk about your proverbial n-edged sword!
If all the religious people out there just happily practiced their religions and didnt try to impose their collective will on society, just b/z they "believe" it would be better for all us sinners, I would be cool. But we both know that will NEVER happen. Like you said, man, if they JUSt said "this is right for me" that would be fine...
I have never seen any maniacal chemist running down the street trying to blow me up (and he's the one who can make the explosive!). Or a physicist, or biologist. Recall the WWII aftermath? How many physicists were opposed to nukes? Like, uh.... all of them...
Genocide in East Timor, the Siberian gulags, Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot in Cambodia, the civil wars in Africa... all of these were not provoked by religion and cost millions in lives.
PS, if anyone got the wrong impression, I don't mean religion and science are irreconcilable ideas. I meant one can't explain the other, and are best left separated in usage.
PS, if anyone got the wrong impression, I don't mean religion and science are irreconcilable ideas. I meant one can't explain the other, and are best left separated in usage.
ss -
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the subset of dedicated religious people who don't try to impose their beliefs on others is very small. But I'm not convinced that the ones who do wouldn't be just as dedicated to some other ideology if they had no religion to turn to.
I want to take a look at your list again, because I don't think some of those are inseparable from religious issues. There is a great amount of hatred in the Arab world for Jews, and for supporters of Jews (which the U.S. is) but I don't necessarily think that is founded in religion. There has been conflict between those peoples for as long as they've been around, despite the fact that their religions have mingled more than just about any other. If anything, it's an ethnic/racist issue. Sudan? Ethnic/racist. Both groups are Muslim, but one is Arab and the other isn't. Bosnia? Ethnic/racist. While one group was largely Muslim, this has never been given as a reason for the conflict. Jews in WWII? Did Hitler ever list their religion as a reason? He was against all religion, not just Judaism. And he didn't just exterminate "practicing" Jews.
The Crusades? Yes. The Spanish Inquisition? Yes. And both point to faults in an organized religion that places the decrees of one life-elected man above the foundations which they claim their whole system is based on. If you ask me, most of the faults that lead to these travesties are "point sources", in that they are verifiable faults of reason regardless what domain they are in. If you give someone absolute power over a body, there's a good chance it will be misused. Whether it's in government or religion. So do we get rid of government because it can be abused, or do we just make sure the best we can the abusive ones are "dealt with"? I suggest we adopt the same approach for religion. The abuse is the crime, not the system it occurs in.
There's a fundamental difference in attacking what someone believes as opposed to attacking how they act on it. The former should be academic. People can argue and debate, but agree to disagree. I think homosexuality is wrong, you don't. You may think it's wrong of me to think that, and vice versa as well. But we should both be allowed the freedom to think and say such things. I also think drunkenness is wrong. But do you really care what I think as long as I'm not trying to burn all your alcohol or prevent you from buying it? You may think my religion is wrong, but I don't really care, unless you're trying to shut down my church. It's when violence, propaganda, slander, political undermining, etc. come into the picture that it becomes a problem. But that falls under the latter of the two situations in the first sentence of this paragraph. That's about actions, not about thoughts or words.
I totally understand where you're coming from. Religion is used as an excuse way too often. But so is race, and so is gender, without necessarily any religious underpinnings. Why are we so afraid, as a society, of researching whether there are actual genetic differences leading to mental/physical differences between races or genders? It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the human propensity for "brotherhood" and "antithesis". I.e. "us vs. them" mentality. It shows up everywhere, not just in religion. It shows up in politics, it shows up in sports, it shows up in business, it shows up in academia, it shows up in taste decisions (PC vs. Mac, MS vs. Linux, XBox vs. Playstation, RedHat vs. BSD vs. Gentoo etc.). Anywhere that you can point to a difference between two groups, there arises an "us vs. them" conflict. The only reason you see it more often in religion is because religion is globally present, whereas the others are not (with the possible exception of sports).
Anyway, getting rid of religion is attacking the symptom, not the source. It takes out a big section of potential area of conflict, but it doesn't get rid of the actual source of the conflict. That resides in humanity. If you really want to get rid of the conflicts, start educating on peaceful coexistence and reconciliation as ultimate virtues, instead of ideological victory on all fronts.
Just beware, because you're also subscribing to an ideology.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the subset of dedicated religious people who don't try to impose their beliefs on others is very small. But I'm not convinced that the ones who do wouldn't be just as dedicated to some other ideology if they had no religion to turn to.
I want to take a look at your list again, because I don't think some of those are inseparable from religious issues. There is a great amount of hatred in the Arab world for Jews, and for supporters of Jews (which the U.S. is) but I don't necessarily think that is founded in religion. There has been conflict between those peoples for as long as they've been around, despite the fact that their religions have mingled more than just about any other. If anything, it's an ethnic/racist issue. Sudan? Ethnic/racist. Both groups are Muslim, but one is Arab and the other isn't. Bosnia? Ethnic/racist. While one group was largely Muslim, this has never been given as a reason for the conflict. Jews in WWII? Did Hitler ever list their religion as a reason? He was against all religion, not just Judaism. And he didn't just exterminate "practicing" Jews.
The Crusades? Yes. The Spanish Inquisition? Yes. And both point to faults in an organized religion that places the decrees of one life-elected man above the foundations which they claim their whole system is based on. If you ask me, most of the faults that lead to these travesties are "point sources", in that they are verifiable faults of reason regardless what domain they are in. If you give someone absolute power over a body, there's a good chance it will be misused. Whether it's in government or religion. So do we get rid of government because it can be abused, or do we just make sure the best we can the abusive ones are "dealt with"? I suggest we adopt the same approach for religion. The abuse is the crime, not the system it occurs in.
There's a fundamental difference in attacking what someone believes as opposed to attacking how they act on it. The former should be academic. People can argue and debate, but agree to disagree. I think homosexuality is wrong, you don't. You may think it's wrong of me to think that, and vice versa as well. But we should both be allowed the freedom to think and say such things. I also think drunkenness is wrong. But do you really care what I think as long as I'm not trying to burn all your alcohol or prevent you from buying it? You may think my religion is wrong, but I don't really care, unless you're trying to shut down my church. It's when violence, propaganda, slander, political undermining, etc. come into the picture that it becomes a problem. But that falls under the latter of the two situations in the first sentence of this paragraph. That's about actions, not about thoughts or words.
I totally understand where you're coming from. Religion is used as an excuse way too often. But so is race, and so is gender, without necessarily any religious underpinnings. Why are we so afraid, as a society, of researching whether there are actual genetic differences leading to mental/physical differences between races or genders? It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the human propensity for "brotherhood" and "antithesis". I.e. "us vs. them" mentality. It shows up everywhere, not just in religion. It shows up in politics, it shows up in sports, it shows up in business, it shows up in academia, it shows up in taste decisions (PC vs. Mac, MS vs. Linux, XBox vs. Playstation, RedHat vs. BSD vs. Gentoo etc.). Anywhere that you can point to a difference between two groups, there arises an "us vs. them" conflict. The only reason you see it more often in religion is because religion is globally present, whereas the others are not (with the possible exception of sports).
Anyway, getting rid of religion is attacking the symptom, not the source. It takes out a big section of potential area of conflict, but it doesn't get rid of the actual source of the conflict. That resides in humanity. If you really want to get rid of the conflicts, start educating on peaceful coexistence and reconciliation as ultimate virtues, instead of ideological victory on all fronts.
Just beware, because you're also subscribing to an ideology.
about that 21 grams thing again (21 grams supposedly lost at death) is a little more in depth than that. I remember reading about it in a journal a while back, it was a doctor that placed the seiously ill people on a new bed with sensitive measuring scales in it. With almost all patients he saw sudden drop in weight (i belive it was 5-16 grames) and then within the next 5 or so minutes they would loose on "average" 21 grams. Now these weight drops were sudden and not a nice even decline so thats a little interesting. He also tried the same tests with different animals and saw no change. Im not saying this info is totaly concrete but it does make u raise your eyebrow and go hmmmmmmmmmm
Guest Steve - what do you think would happen with an human clone? Just a thought to ponder on.....
The most authorative study I could find among the many articles treating the topic of mass-loss at the moment of death, is:
Unexplained Weight Gain Transients at the Moment of Death
Without going into a long analysis, which I must admit is very tempting but not presently possible due to strong time constraints, there are just a few points I consider worth mentioning:
1. There seems contention about "the precise moment of death" - differently identified criteria for clinical death may be taken as the pertinent indicators of when death occurs - however, most of these occur sequentially within a short period of each other - the "moment" is therefore technically more a definitive phase, culminating in an aggregate effect, after some short and variable time, that is by all criteria clearly and unambiguously identifiable as death having conclusively occurred. Anything else really seems like vacuous splitting of hairs.
2. Transient losses and gains have been seen to alternate during this phase - and perhaps facetiously intended questions as to "has death then occurred twice?" have been posited. It is however indeed clinically quite possible, and has surely been observed countless times, that patients may suffer clinical death several times in succession. When revival has been possible, many of these cases report out-of-body experiences during such phases. More pertinently perhaps, unless we truly take the scientistic and neuricentric stance that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, i.a.w. simply the secondary, induced result of being an organic system, we need to acount for survivable elements of individual consciousness after death of the body. In this case, the body may more be regarded as organic vehicle for consciousness in order to experience the living of a physical life. Also then, we may well hypothesise that consciousness could, during a short phase preceding conclusive death, transiently return to the body several times, before a more "permanent" departure.
3. As to the scientific model of an association, and relationship of proportionality between an alleged unitary, or collective, set of consciousness elements, and mass - this resulting in an observable mass-loss during the phase of dying, I am not aware of any clear explanation at present. Personally I admit surprise at this phenomenon as seen from both a scientific and esoteric-spiritual perspective - I would not envisage that consciousness has mass but could perhaps more envision that there is an indirect relationship: that the effect of consciousness on organic tissue could cause a mass-loss result via quantum gravity effects. QG-effects are associated with massive Microtubulin-Associated-Protein (MAP) quantum-coherence which has been postulated by several eminent researchers as vitally involved in the processes of consciousness in the brain. (Penrose and Hameroff, Orchestrated Objective Reduction, ORCH-OR theory; Frolich resonance radiation; Dr. A. Kaivaranen, microtubulin H20 cleft-cavitation ~ 10MHz.)
FV
Unexplained Weight Gain Transients at the Moment of Death
Without going into a long analysis, which I must admit is very tempting but not presently possible due to strong time constraints, there are just a few points I consider worth mentioning:
1. There seems contention about "the precise moment of death" - differently identified criteria for clinical death may be taken as the pertinent indicators of when death occurs - however, most of these occur sequentially within a short period of each other - the "moment" is therefore technically more a definitive phase, culminating in an aggregate effect, after some short and variable time, that is by all criteria clearly and unambiguously identifiable as death having conclusively occurred. Anything else really seems like vacuous splitting of hairs.
2. Transient losses and gains have been seen to alternate during this phase - and perhaps facetiously intended questions as to "has death then occurred twice?" have been posited. It is however indeed clinically quite possible, and has surely been observed countless times, that patients may suffer clinical death several times in succession. When revival has been possible, many of these cases report out-of-body experiences during such phases. More pertinently perhaps, unless we truly take the scientistic and neuricentric stance that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, i.a.w. simply the secondary, induced result of being an organic system, we need to acount for survivable elements of individual consciousness after death of the body. In this case, the body may more be regarded as organic vehicle for consciousness in order to experience the living of a physical life. Also then, we may well hypothesise that consciousness could, during a short phase preceding conclusive death, transiently return to the body several times, before a more "permanent" departure.
3. As to the scientific model of an association, and relationship of proportionality between an alleged unitary, or collective, set of consciousness elements, and mass - this resulting in an observable mass-loss during the phase of dying, I am not aware of any clear explanation at present. Personally I admit surprise at this phenomenon as seen from both a scientific and esoteric-spiritual perspective - I would not envisage that consciousness has mass but could perhaps more envision that there is an indirect relationship: that the effect of consciousness on organic tissue could cause a mass-loss result via quantum gravity effects. QG-effects are associated with massive Microtubulin-Associated-Protein (MAP) quantum-coherence which has been postulated by several eminent researchers as vitally involved in the processes of consciousness in the brain. (Penrose and Hameroff, Orchestrated Objective Reduction, ORCH-OR theory; Frolich resonance radiation; Dr. A. Kaivaranen, microtubulin H20 cleft-cavitation ~ 10MHz.)
FV
The paragraph (in the website) that talked about weight changes in humans, the experiments were done on remote viewing subjects. I don't believe that is the same as death. Is remote viewing the actual sprit leaving the body or the consciousness leaving the body? But then, no science can measure that one either! 
(we just know it somehow happens.... - remote viewing, that is)
(we just know it somehow happens.... - remote viewing, that is)
The weblink mentioned in Unexplained Weight Transients refers to scientifically monitored experiments with excellent controls to confirm transient weight changes at the moment of death, remote viewing is only incidentally mentioned. From your reference one could interpret that the whole site was dedicated to measuring mass transients during remote viewing which is a little misleading.
The difference between consciousness and spirit that you imply is commented on in some ways in esoteric approaches such as auric analysis - study of the aura. Different layers of the aura are identified consistently by all who have the ability to see this , and there are very many using it as diagnostic technique as the basis for several non-allopathic healing therapies. High-frequency electrophotography has proven that the aura exists and that it is generally indicative of states of health, although these allopathic researchers have not found it to be diagnostically capable of indicating specific disease states - this may well be because in the allpathic domain the aura can only be seen by means of instrumental assistance and all finer resolution is lost.
Identified layers in the aura are:
1. The physical auric body
2. Etheric auric body
3. Vital auric body
4. Astral auric body
5. Spiritual auric body
It is of course not easy to comment on whether consciousness leaves the body during states of remote viewing - it appears from experience that remote viewing is more the "spatiotemporal extension" of consciousness and that there is an unbroken association with the physical body. The centre of Self-aware "I-ness" certainly does "leave" the body during these states, but may be connectively associated with it, unbreakably until the demise of the individual, in some continuum-extension of its functionality. During altered states of consciousness such as astral travelling, it feels as if the larger portion of conscious function leaves the body intact - if consciousness, as indicated in my previous post is associated with MAP-coherence and quantum gravity effects, this may therefore also perhaps display mass-transients - of course basic homeostatic control functionality of the physical body, its basic life processes, are still well regulated by the central nervous system during these states. Aware consciousness is not required for these, such as respiration, circulation, temperature regulation, peristalsis, imunological function etc - although these can be modulated by actively practised consciousness. - This again supports the concept of the body being an organic vehicle for the life-residence of a strictly non-epiphenomenal consciousness.
FV
The difference between consciousness and spirit that you imply is commented on in some ways in esoteric approaches such as auric analysis - study of the aura. Different layers of the aura are identified consistently by all who have the ability to see this , and there are very many using it as diagnostic technique as the basis for several non-allopathic healing therapies. High-frequency electrophotography has proven that the aura exists and that it is generally indicative of states of health, although these allopathic researchers have not found it to be diagnostically capable of indicating specific disease states - this may well be because in the allpathic domain the aura can only be seen by means of instrumental assistance and all finer resolution is lost.
Identified layers in the aura are:
1. The physical auric body
2. Etheric auric body
3. Vital auric body
4. Astral auric body
5. Spiritual auric body
It is of course not easy to comment on whether consciousness leaves the body during states of remote viewing - it appears from experience that remote viewing is more the "spatiotemporal extension" of consciousness and that there is an unbroken association with the physical body. The centre of Self-aware "I-ness" certainly does "leave" the body during these states, but may be connectively associated with it, unbreakably until the demise of the individual, in some continuum-extension of its functionality. During altered states of consciousness such as astral travelling, it feels as if the larger portion of conscious function leaves the body intact - if consciousness, as indicated in my previous post is associated with MAP-coherence and quantum gravity effects, this may therefore also perhaps display mass-transients - of course basic homeostatic control functionality of the physical body, its basic life processes, are still well regulated by the central nervous system during these states. Aware consciousness is not required for these, such as respiration, circulation, temperature regulation, peristalsis, imunological function etc - although these can be modulated by actively practised consciousness. - This again supports the concept of the body being an organic vehicle for the life-residence of a strictly non-epiphenomenal consciousness.
FV
Wow, you guys are smart. I'm looking for the spirit too-looking in chemistry and physics-coming to color, the study of color----can anyone tell me what is up with the table of elements? Hydrogen being the most abundant and reactive and helium being inert? is that right? why are those two elements at the top? are they the mother and father or the beginning and end? Are all the other elements transitional? What the heck does that mean? The objective is for all hydrogen to turn to helium? Why do crystals keep coming up? Why do people think i'm crazy for searching for the origin of life and the meaning of it all? I think they are crazy for not wanting to know? I can't go on without searching--but the more I search the more confused I am--its as if I am not meant to perceive--but why?
Here's my two quick cents on the weight issue. I believe it has been called the 21 gram theory, as I was reading a short article on a university prof who had long term care patients and those likely to die in the next day or two lying on gurneys with sensitive weight measurement devices. Now long story short there was an "average" weight loss of around 21 grams now some of this can be attributed to thermodynamic laws but the vast majority cannot be explained in its speed or loss. The one interesting thing found in this experiment was that humans seemed to be the only organism to undergo this loss or weight (not mass) ie. dogs,cats, horses did not loose any measurable weight.
True or not? It's interesting all the same.
True or not? It's interesting all the same.
the unibomber was mathematician/scientist. evil is inherent in humanity. if there was no religion there would be the same amount of evil. (evil meaning perpetration of crimes to another.) religion, like guns, is neutral. its what you do with them once you pick them up and use them. do you help, protect, save, or do you endanger, control, destroy? thats why people go on trial, not their weapons or their beliefs. we are to blame for our evil, we alone. if you are predisposed to commit evil, religion is not required to bring it out. it will come out.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.