Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Thank you, thank you! L Lind@ wrote: > > well i felt a strong need to balance all this god stuff > > i like the karl marx line " religion is the opium of the masses " > > though in modern times it is given a close run by " television/shopping > being the opium of the masses " > > having said that i will be watching a tv program by a philosopher i > respect called 'religion: the root of all evil " > > my experience of sma is not helped or hindered by god. my quality of > life with sma is far more affected by politics and the push for > adequate funding for pa services, access and general human rights. i > have 24 hour support from PA's i choose and control and so can > generally do what i want when i want, have people i trust to support > me through any pain or health crisis, and find meaning in all sort of > things. > > a(wo)men > linda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 , you deserve a huge round of applause for your mail. Nothing takes more courage than expressing a different view when it seems that everyone thinks the same, especially when the word " God " is around, and especially in times like this, when it seems everyone from the White House to the hills of Afghanistan is intent on abandoning Enlightenment reason and recreating the fundamentalist nightmare of the Dark Ages. I notice you've got a UK address. I'm British too, and if the long thread about religion has demonstrated one thing, it's that the US and the UK are separated by much more than the Atlantic in so many ways (sadly). Is the philosopher you mention by any chance? Did you see his TV series on atheism? Brilliant, compelling TV. To paraphrase a Greek philosopher quoted in that series: " Was God willing to prevent my daughter's SMA, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Was he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Was he both able and willing? Then whence cometh SMA? Was he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " Tokyo, Japan 2006/1/5, Lind@ <anna.quay@...>: > well i felt a strong need to balance all this god stuff > > i like the karl marx line " religion is the opium of the masses " > > though in modern times it is given a close run by " television/shopping > being the opium of the masses " > > having said that i will be watching a tv program by a philosopher i respect > called 'religion: the root of all evil " > > my experience of sma is not helped or hindered by god. my quality of life > with sma is far more affected by politics and the push for adequate funding > for pa services, access and general human rights. i have 24 hour support > from PA's i choose and control and so can generally do what i want when i > want, have people i trust to support me through any pain or health crisis, > and find meaning in all sort of things. > > a(wo)men > linda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Awesome, . Thank you. > To paraphrase a Greek philosopher quoted in that series: > " Was God willing to prevent my daughter's SMA, but not able? Then he > is not omnipotent. > Was he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. > Was he both able and willing? Then whence cometh SMA? > Was he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " > > > Tokyo, Japan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Mitch, When you throw out a question about religion, you can be sure you will get all kinds of responses. As with other issues, one topic may lead to others which can be a good thing....that's what open discussion is about. As far as your comment about people " ...attacking the stated beliefs of another " , I've re-read the various posts on this topic and I don't see it. People are stating their own beliefs and I think that we (all responders)of this thread were respectful to each other. As you said, our views are different but not more right or wrong. Lori wrote: > Thank you ALL for your viewpoints - I for one, > appreciate each & every one. However, if you recall, > I prefaced my initial email that I really wasn't > looking for another God Versus No God type debate. > Things turn into what they will anyways apparently > (sadly). We are all free to type in whatever it is we > feel like, thus proving Free Will is an unstoppable > force. > > Regarding comments of abandoning the supposed Age of > Enlightenment and diving back down to the Dark Ages - > what complete utter nonsense to make such a statement > - at least IMO. Apparently it seems to be suggested > that if we are to advance as a society, we must > abandon religion? Sorry, - if that's the predominant > Euro view, then I'll come over & play the Golf Courses > in Scotland - but other than that - no thanks. > > I am so often amused by how we as a people (of the > world) always like to think that OUR time is SO god > damned unique - SO different - SO wrong or SO right. > Please, give me a break. Things are no different than > they've always been. We have such a poor > understanding and realization of our own history its > no surprise we so often make the same mistakes time > and time again. > > I am also always amazed how sensitive people become > just by brushing on the topic of God. Whether you > believe in God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Appollo, Mithra, > Netjer, Zorastronism, Darwin, Crystals, Nature, > Science, or Luke Skywalker, Bobafet & R2D2, or > supposedly in nothing at all - we all have some belief > or set of beliefs. What's the big frickin deal in > merely mentioning this topic at all? Why are we so > open about talking about sexuality (which I do think > is a good thing) - but so quiet when talking about > issues of religion? I'm the first one to tell the > ultra right to go stick it - but I certainly won't > deny my humanity and avoid talking about religion > (perhaps thats why we yanks just don't have that stiff > upper lip all the time). > > Regardless, I sincerely appreciate everyone's view on > religion and SMA or something quite the contrary. But > I don't see the need to comment on this issue from a > position where someone holds their views as either 1) > more real, or 2) more sophisticated. I choose to > think of my views or beliefs simply as different than > others - that's it. It's really quite easy ( & quite > lazy if truth be told) for someone to state their view > on an issue by essentially just attacking the stated > beliefs of another. Far more difficult - and in all > likelihood much more meaningful to state one's view > point with reasons why without putting down the ideas > or beliefs of another - at least IMO. > > Thats my additional 2 cents on the issue...Mitch > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Mitch, When you throw out a question about religion, you can be sure you will get all kinds of responses. As with other issues, one topic may lead to others which can be a good thing....that's what open discussion is about. As far as your comment about people " ...attacking the stated beliefs of another " , I've re-read the various posts on this topic and I don't see it. People are stating their own beliefs and I think that we (all responders)of this thread were respectful to each other. As you said, our views are different but not more right or wrong. Lori wrote: > Thank you ALL for your viewpoints - I for one, > appreciate each & every one. However, if you recall, > I prefaced my initial email that I really wasn't > looking for another God Versus No God type debate. > Things turn into what they will anyways apparently > (sadly). We are all free to type in whatever it is we > feel like, thus proving Free Will is an unstoppable > force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Remember many of us here who agree with , at least partly, are from the US. Also, I agree with you about the danger of recreating the fundamental ways of the Dark Ages. This seems like a political message. Also remember the last presidential election in the US was very close to 50/50. Half the country doesn't agree with the way the country is being run. So I think half feels the same as those in the UK. I don't think we're all that different. btw I really like that paraphrase. Senior wrote: >, you deserve a huge round of applause for your mail. Nothing >takes more courage than expressing a different view when it seems that >everyone thinks the same, especially when the word " God " is around, >and especially in times like this, when it seems everyone from the >White House to the hills of Afghanistan is intent on abandoning >Enlightenment reason and recreating the fundamentalist nightmare of >the Dark Ages. > >I notice you've got a UK address. I'm British too, and if the long >thread about religion has demonstrated one thing, it's that the US and >the UK are separated by much more than the Atlantic in so many ways >(sadly). > >Is the philosopher you mention by any chance? Did you >see his TV series on atheism? Brilliant, compelling TV. > >To paraphrase a Greek philosopher quoted in that series: > " Was God willing to prevent my daughter's SMA, but not able? Then he >is not omnipotent. >Was he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. >Was he both able and willing? Then whence cometh SMA? >Was he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " > > >Tokyo, Japan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 I think I'm the one who's being accused of intolerance toward other people's beliefs, so let me just clarify a few points. First, my previous post was directed primarily at (which is why it starts " , . . . " ). My purpose in hitting the " send " button yesterday was to publicly applaud for sticking her neck out amid the numerous posts from those who believe in God and say " Hey, I don't believe in God, and I'm fine. " That took a lot of courage, in my opinion. It takes courage to dissent against the majority on any topic, but especially when the topic is religion. That was my point. How come it's fine for people who believe in God to express their views at length, but as soon as one or two people say " Well, now that you mention it, I don't believe in God " , suddenly those people are guilty of maliciously attacking the beliefs of others? Is expressing a lack of faith inherently offensive? Second, the comment about the Enlightenment and the Dark Ages was certainly an exaggeration (I'm not suggesting there's a plot to build a time machine or anything), but I stand by the underlying assertion that, as more and more people in both the Christian and Islamic worlds are turning to religious fundamentalism, the values of reason, universal human rights, and tolerance of dissent seem, IMHO, to be under increasing threat. The concerted attempt by some US politicians to hold back progress on stem cell research because of their personal religious beliefs is an example of this trend that has direct relevance to SMA. Third, I certainly did not say that religion must be abandoned if we are to advance as a society. In fact I would say tolerance of other people's beliefs (religious or not) is another Enlightenment value that seems to be under increasing threat. That threat comes not from people of no faith but from people who hold that their faith is the only possible truth and every other faith is false or evil or must be destroyed. Religion poses no threat to society or progress or whatever; fundamentalist extremism poses a big threat to everyone, not least the vast majority of tolerant, compassionate Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. Fourth, as far as the US-Euro divide goes, I believe that the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution - documents that guarantee religious freedom for all by separating the state from any particular faith - are among the greatest achievements of humankind. To put it another way, fundamentalism is literally " unamerican " . It therefore worries me that the trend toward fundamentalism is much stronger in the United States than in Europe. Contrary to popular perceptions, Europe has plenty of people who believe in God, probably not much fewer than the US, actually. What we do have much less of is fundamentalism, however, and that is the " divide " I refer to. Anyway, apart from the relevance of this to stem cell research, I'm way, way off the subject of SMA. Mitch did say in his original mail that he didn't want a God vs. No God debate, so unless somebody accuses me of some further crime I doubt I'll post again on this subject. Tokyo, Japan 2006/1/6, <mongomustgolf@...>: > Thank you ALL for your viewpoints - I for one, > appreciate each & every one. However, if you recall, > I prefaced my initial email that I really wasn't > looking for another God Versus No God type debate. > Things turn into what they will anyways apparently > (sadly). We are all free to type in whatever it is we > feel like, thus proving Free Will is an unstoppable > force. > > Regarding comments of abandoning the supposed Age of > Enlightenment and diving back down to the Dark Ages - > what complete utter nonsense to make such a statement > - at least IMO. Apparently it seems to be suggested > that if we are to advance as a society, we must > abandon religion? Sorry, - if that's the predominant > Euro view, then I'll come over & play the Golf Courses > in Scotland - but other than that - no thanks. > > I am so often amused by how we as a people (of the > world) always like to think that OUR time is SO god > damned unique - SO different - SO wrong or SO right. > Please, give me a break. Things are no different than > they've always been. We have such a poor > understanding and realization of our own history its > no surprise we so often make the same mistakes time > and time again. > > I am also always amazed how sensitive people become > just by brushing on the topic of God. Whether you > believe in God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Appollo, Mithra, > Netjer, Zorastronism, Darwin, Crystals, Nature, > Science, or Luke Skywalker, Bobafet & R2D2, or > supposedly in nothing at all - we all have some belief > or set of beliefs. What's the big frickin deal in > merely mentioning this topic at all? Why are we so > open about talking about sexuality (which I do think > is a good thing) - but so quiet when talking about > issues of religion? I'm the first one to tell the > ultra right to go stick it - but I certainly won't > deny my humanity and avoid talking about religion > (perhaps thats why we yanks just don't have that stiff > upper lip all the time). > > Regardless, I sincerely appreciate everyone's view on > religion and SMA or something quite the contrary. But > I don't see the need to comment on this issue from a > position where someone holds their views as either 1) > more real, or 2) more sophisticated. I choose to > think of my views or beliefs simply as different than > others - that's it. It's really quite easy ( & quite > lazy if truth be told) for someone to state their view > on an issue by essentially just attacking the stated > beliefs of another. Far more difficult - and in all > likelihood much more meaningful to state one's view > point with reasons why without putting down the ideas > or beliefs of another - at least IMO. > > Thats my additional 2 cents on the issue...Mitch > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Lori: As stated, yes, I respect all points of view expressed - and to date, I've yet to even express my exact point of view. Each idea/set of beliefs expressed allows me to continue to examine my own. However, while the " attack(s) " on other people's views weren't as obvious as say " hey are you some sort of a freakin moron " - they were much more slight - but still just as potentially cutting. If you read closely, they're not too hard to find - and I see no benefit of restating them here. Regardless, I'm glad the original thread - which specifically asked for faith-based responses - has lead to additional discussion. Something as important as beliefs about our own existance and beyond surely deserves more discussion in everyday life than it typically receives - thus - I'm giddier than Woody on his horse Bullseye yellin' " Giddy Up " (from Toy Story 2) about all of the exchanges. Thanks to all. Mitch --- Those Two <those2@...> wrote: > Mitch, > > When you throw out a question about religion, you > can be sure you will > get all kinds of responses. As with other issues, > one topic may lead to > others which can be a good thing....that's what open > discussion is > about. As far as your comment about people > " ...attacking the stated > beliefs of another " , I've re-read the various posts > on this topic and I > don't see it. People are stating their own beliefs > and I think that we > (all responders)of this thread were respectful to > each other. As you > said, our views are different but not more right or > wrong. > > Lori > > wrote: > > > Thank you ALL for your viewpoints - I for one, > > appreciate each & every one. However, if you > recall, > > I prefaced my initial email that I really wasn't > > looking for another God Versus No God type debate. > > Things turn into what they will anyways apparently > > (sadly). We are all free to type in whatever it > is we > > feel like, thus proving Free Will is an > unstoppable > > force. > > > > Regarding comments of abandoning the supposed Age > of > > Enlightenment and diving back down to the Dark > Ages - > > what complete utter nonsense to make such a > statement > > - at least IMO. Apparently it seems to be > suggested > > that if we are to advance as a society, we must > > abandon religion? Sorry, - if that's the > predominant > > Euro view, then I'll come over & play the Golf > Courses > > in Scotland - but other than that - no thanks. > > > > I am so often amused by how we as a people (of the > > world) always like to think that OUR time is SO > god > > damned unique - SO different - SO wrong or SO > right. > > Please, give me a break. Things are no different > than > > they've always been. We have such a poor > > understanding and realization of our own history > its > > no surprise we so often make the same mistakes > time > > and time again. > > > > I am also always amazed how sensitive people > become > > just by brushing on the topic of God. Whether you > > believe in God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Appollo, > Mithra, > > Netjer, Zorastronism, Darwin, Crystals, Nature, > > Science, or Luke Skywalker, Bobafet & R2D2, or > > supposedly in nothing at all - we all have some > belief > > or set of beliefs. What's the big frickin deal in > > merely mentioning this topic at all? Why are we > so > > open about talking about sexuality (which I do > think > > is a good thing) - but so quiet when talking about > > issues of religion? I'm the first one to tell the > > ultra right to go stick it - but I certainly won't > > deny my humanity and avoid talking about religion > > (perhaps thats why we yanks just don't have that > stiff > > upper lip all the time). > > > > Regardless, I sincerely appreciate everyone's view > on > > religion and SMA or something quite the contrary. > But > > I don't see the need to comment on this issue from > a > > position where someone holds their views as either > 1) > > more real, or 2) more sophisticated. I choose to > > think of my views or beliefs simply as different > than > > others - that's it. It's really quite easy ( & > quite > > lazy if truth be told) for someone to state their > view > > on an issue by essentially just attacking the > stated > > beliefs of another. Far more difficult - and in > all > > likelihood much more meaningful to state one's > view > > point with reasons why without putting down the > ideas > > or beliefs of another - at least IMO. > > > > Thats my additional 2 cents on the issue...Mitch > > > > > __________________________________________ DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 : I agree with you on many points - one I don't is the increasing fundamentalism in the US and abroad. Within the US I see no overt shift either way regarding religion. Is the US current President evidence of increasing fundamentalism in the US? I don't think so - although all of our general Presidential elections have always been somewheat close (at least 3 out of the last 5) - I would say Bush's re-election was more an assertion (be it good or bad) - of the US electorate's desire for leadership willing to " kick ass and take names later. " Aside from a majority of the folks voting for Bush indicating they followed some organized religion (as did the same amount who voted for Kerry) - most that voted were either - IMO - 1) stupid, 2) convinced the republican party is the more moral party (based on 1 issue and 1 issue alone)-correct or not, 3) wanted more tax breaks, and/or 4) stupid. I still say that times now, are no different than in the past. There is 'fundamentalism' in the world now - and there always has been 'fundtamentalism' is the world in the past. This will never change. Yes - it takes courage to express one's belief or view point - as agnostic - OR as a christian. The problem I see, is that an agnostic's point of view typically revolves around why christians (or people of any faith) - are wrong (and not why they believe what they believe). The expressing of a lack of faith - is never just that - it always seems to include some level of criticizing those that do believe in God. Why? Regarding Europe having less fundamentalism than the US...hmmmm...I'd challenge that assertion since I'm not sure it could be 'proved' either way. But I would point out that far more fundamentalist-driven terror attacks have occurred on European soil than in North America. Ultimately, these such attacks will only be limited (never eliminated) - by the cooperation of all civil governments and people around the world. Regarding our President's position on Stem Cell research - I agree 100% wholeheartedly with you. Thank GOD for the people of California and other states within the US and abroad with initiatives to push forward on this critical research that will affect us all in our lifetimes. Thus - my switch to the Democratic Party two years ago - if for just this one reason. Aside from our President, a majority within our ledgistlative branch (House & Senate which are both Republican Party controlled) are in favor of over-riding Bush's position on SCR - unfortuntately a super-majority is not apparent to offset a Presidential veto). All that said, I'll still come to play your homeland's golf courses...any time...best in the world. Mitch --- Senior <jsenior@...> wrote: > I think I'm the one who's being accused of > intolerance toward other > people's beliefs, so let me just clarify a few > points. > > First, my previous post was directed primarily at > (which is why > it starts " , . . . " ). My purpose in hitting the > " send " button > yesterday was to publicly applaud for sticking > her neck out amid > the numerous posts from those who believe in God and > say " Hey, I don't > believe in God, and I'm fine. " That took a lot of > courage, in my > opinion. It takes courage to dissent against the > majority on any > topic, but especially when the topic is religion. > That was my point. > How come it's fine for people who believe in God to > express their > views at length, but as soon as one or two people > say " Well, now that > you mention it, I don't believe in God " , suddenly > those people are > guilty of maliciously attacking the beliefs of > others? Is expressing a > lack of faith inherently offensive? > > Second, the comment about the Enlightenment and the > Dark Ages was > certainly an exaggeration (I'm not suggesting > there's a plot to build > a time machine or anything), but I stand by the > underlying assertion > that, as more and more people in both the Christian > and Islamic worlds > are turning to religious fundamentalism, the values > of reason, > universal human rights, and tolerance of dissent > seem, IMHO, to be > under increasing threat. The concerted attempt by > some US politicians > to hold back progress on stem cell research because > of their personal > religious beliefs is an example of this trend that > has direct > relevance to SMA. > > Third, I certainly did not say that religion must be > abandoned if we > are to advance as a society. In fact I would say > tolerance of other > people's beliefs (religious or not) is another > Enlightenment value > that seems to be under increasing threat. That > threat comes not from > people of no faith but from people who hold that > their faith is the > only possible truth and every other faith is false > or evil or must be > destroyed. Religion poses no threat to society or > progress or > whatever; fundamentalist extremism poses a big > threat to everyone, not > least the vast majority of tolerant, compassionate > Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. > > Fourth, as far as the US-Euro divide goes, I believe > that the US > Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution > - documents that > guarantee religious freedom for all by separating > the state from any > particular faith - are among the greatest > achievements of humankind. > To put it another way, fundamentalism is literally > " unamerican " . It > therefore worries me that the trend toward > fundamentalism is much > stronger in the United States than in Europe. > Contrary to popular > perceptions, Europe has plenty of people who believe > in God, probably > not much fewer than the US, actually. What we do > have much less of is > fundamentalism, however, and that is the " divide " I > refer to. > > Anyway, apart from the relevance of this to stem > cell research, I'm > way, way off the subject of SMA. Mitch did say in > his original mail > that he didn't want a God vs. No God debate, so > unless somebody > accuses me of some further crime I doubt I'll post > again on this > subject. > > > Tokyo, Japan > > > 2006/1/6, <mongomustgolf@...>: > > Thank you ALL for your viewpoints - I for one, > > appreciate each & every one. However, if you > recall, > > I prefaced my initial email that I really wasn't > > looking for another God Versus No God type > debate. > > Things turn into what they will anyways > apparently > > (sadly). We are all free to type in whatever it > is we > > feel like, thus proving Free Will is an > unstoppable > > force. > > > > Regarding comments of abandoning the supposed Age > of > > Enlightenment and diving back down to the Dark > Ages - > > what complete utter nonsense to make such a > statement > > - at least IMO. Apparently it seems to be > suggested > > that if we are to advance as a society, we must > > abandon religion? Sorry, - if that's the > predominant > > Euro view, then I'll come over & play the Golf > Courses > > in Scotland - but other than that - no thanks. > > > > I am so often amused by how we as a people (of > the > > world) always like to think that OUR time is SO > god > > damned unique - SO different - SO wrong or SO > right. > > Please, give me a break. Things are no different > than > > they've always been. We have such a poor > > understanding and realization of our own history > its > > no surprise we so often make the same mistakes > time > > and time again. > > > > I am also always amazed how sensitive people > become > > just by brushing on the topic of God. Whether > you > > believe in God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Appollo, > Mithra, > > Netjer, Zorastronism, Darwin, Crystals, Nature, > > Science, or Luke Skywalker, Bobafet & R2D2, or > > supposedly in nothing at all - we all have some > belief > > or set of beliefs. What's the big frickin deal > in > > merely mentioning this topic at all? Why are we > so > > open about talking about sexuality (which I do > think > > is a good thing) - but so quiet when talking > about > > issues of religion? I'm the first one to tell > the > > ultra right to go stick it - but I certainly > won't > > deny my humanity and avoid talking about religion > > (perhaps thats why we yanks just don't have that > stiff > > upper lip all the time). > > > > Regardless, I sincerely appreciate everyone's > view on > > religion and SMA or something quite the contrary. > But > > I don't see the need to comment on this issue > from a > > position where someone holds their views as > either 1) > > more real, or 2) more sophisticated. I choose to > > think of my views or beliefs simply as different > than > > others - that's it. It's really quite easy ( & > quite > > lazy if truth be told) for someone to state their > view > > on an issue by essentially just attacking the > stated > > beliefs of another. Far more difficult - and in > all > > likelihood much more meaningful to state one's > view > > point with reasons why without putting down the > ideas > > or beliefs of another - at least IMO. > > > > Thats my additional 2 cents on the issue...Mitch > === message truncated === __________________________________________ DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 After all the philosophical discourse, it was back to the reality of caring for a child with SMA with a bump this evening, as our daughter Alice nearly choked to death. After patting her back and shaking her every which way failed to dislodge the offending piece of food, I finally managed to get it out by sucking. It's probably not in the textbooks, but it worked, and given the fact that her lips were already blue, I've never been so relieved in my life. Tokyo, Japan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 : I am so glad that your daughter is OK - and that your improvised life saving technique worked in what had to be a terrifying moment. My wife is a nurse in an ER - and while I know some CPR stuff, I should know more - but perhaps don't knowing my wife is very capable. Nonetheless, what you described motivates me to take an update course on CPR, etc. Take care. Mitch --- Senior <jsenior@...> wrote: > After all the philosophical discourse, it was back > to the reality of > caring for a child with SMA with a bump this > evening, as our daughter > Alice nearly choked to death. After patting her back > and shaking her > every which way failed to dislodge the offending > piece of food, I > finally managed to get it out by sucking. It's > probably not in the > textbooks, but it worked, and given the fact that > her lips were > already blue, I've never been so relieved in my > life. > > > Tokyo, Japan > __________________________________________ DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 2006/1/6, <mongomustgolf@...>: > : > > I agree with you on many points - one I don't is the > increasing fundamentalism in the US and abroad. > Within the US I see no overt shift either way > regarding religion. Is the US current President > evidence of increasing fundamentalism in the US? I > don't think so - although all of our general > Presidential elections have always been somewheat > close (at least 3 out of the last 5) - I would say > Bush's re-election was more an assertion (be it good > or bad) - of the US electorate's desire for leadership > willing to " kick ass and take names later. " I'm glad to hear from someone in the US (my observations are by definition from outside) that fundamentalism isn't on the rise. I wasn't so much thinking of the election itself, more what seems to be an underlying trend of more and more ordinary Americans joining fundamentalist organizations, and these organizations becoming increasingly powerful, to the extent for example that they now effectively have a veto over who gets nominated to the Supreme Court. To my knowledge, they've never had that much influence before. > Yes - it takes courage to express one's belief or view > point - as agnostic - OR as a christian. The problem > I see, is that an agnostic's point of view typically > revolves around why christians (or people of any > faith) - are wrong (and not why they believe what they > believe). > > The expressing of a lack of faith - is never just > that - it always seems to include some level of > criticizing those that do believe in God. Why? Yes, you're right that when atheism is expressed, it's usually in opposition to something, and in the Western world, that " something " is usually Christianity. The recent posts have been a good illustration of why that is, I think. It's simply that " believing " is the position of the overwhelming majority, and therefore there is a feeling that any other point of view must justify itself in relation to this. When everyone around you believes in God, it's hard to express atheism without criticizing " belief " , which " believers " then interpret as criticism of them personally, which it usually isn't. The word atheism encourages this because it is just " theism " (belief in God) with an " a " (meaning not) in front of it. " Materialism " is perhaps a better term, though that now has all sorts of other money-related connotations. The habit of defining atheism in relation to Christianity is definitely a failure on the part of atheists. Here's an attempt to define my own " atheism " without placing it in opposition/relation to Christianity: I believe in science, which simply means that I believe nothing unless there is evidence for it. One example of my beliefs is that all life, including myself, evolved. This belief is based (1) on the very large body of fossil, genetic, and other evidence for evolution; (2) on the fact that the theory of evolution has in the past 150 years been subjected to a rigorous and often fiercely contested process of scrutiny, open and rational debate, criticism, and constant refinement and has not only survived but has become ever more compelling as this process has progressed; and (3) that genetics, in a way an offshoot of evolutionary science, has not only explained how the disease that affflicts my daughter occurs but has begun to offer hope as to how it may be treated/cured in the future. If another theory comes along that supercedes evolution through a similar process to the one described above, I will switch my " allegiance " to that, though the sheer weight of evidence for evolution makes that a pretty remote possibility in my opinion. The same goes for the other beliefs that make up my " religion " , such as gravity, inertia, and the Big Bang. If something more compelling comes along, I'll abandon those beliefs too. > Regarding Europe having less fundamentalism than the > US...hmmmm...I'd challenge that assertion since I'm > not sure it could be 'proved' either way. But I would > point out that far more fundamentalist-driven terror > attacks have occurred on European soil than in North > America. Ultimately, these such attacks will only be > limited (never eliminated) - by the cooperation of all > civil governments and people around the world. Yes, you've spotted the flaw in my argument, which is Islamic fundamentalism. We have a lot more of that. So while we have no equivalent of Pat on, we have plenty of Islamic " scholars " proclaiming death to everyone who disagrees with them. The answer to them all is exactly as you say. > Regarding our President's position on Stem Cell > research - I agree 100% wholeheartedly with you. > Thank GOD for the people of California and other > states within the US and abroad with initiatives to > push forward on this critical research that will > affect us all in our lifetimes. Thus - my switch to > the Democratic Party two years ago - if for just this > one reason. Aside from our President, a majority > within our ledgistlative branch (House & Senate which > are both Republican Party controlled) are in favor of > over-riding Bush's position on SCR - unfortuntately a > super-majority is not apparent to offset a > Presidential veto). The effort to stop federal funding for SCR is concerted, but I'm sure eventually it will fail. AFAIK, none of the potential candidates for 2008 on either side are as opposed as Bush. It's just a tragedy that every day of delay means that the treatments will come too late for some people, particularly in the case of fast-progressing diseases like ALS. > All that said, I'll still come to play your homeland's > golf courses...any time...best in the world. Ah, golf. I'm planning a week-long golf trip back to my homeland in May. Can't wait! Tokyo, Japan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 , This conversation is actually becoming both very interesting and fun. I hope you're seeing it that way? I'd like to chime in regarding some of your comments: You and I do agree on one thing...evolution is a belief system. That in mind, a belief system is what religion is. So I guess you would say your religion is evolution? That being said, since I've been question on my belief in Christianity throughout these conversations, I would like to understand your belief in evolution...primarily because we seem to have some conflicting information regarding what the past 150 years have shown us in regards to evolution. 1. I'd like to mention that there is something in science called the " Law of Cause and Effect " . This is an indisputable, universal law that says for every material effect, there had to be a cause. There is nothing in the universe that doesn't have a cause behind its existence. 2. Secondly, the scientific method requires testable, repeatable observation. 3. Thirdly, there are two branches of evolution: a) Microevolution which is minor variations within a species. We see this all the time with bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc. Microevolution is scientific because it's observable and measurable. Macroevolution which is successive small changes that over time change one species into another. Macroevolution has never been observed, and therefore is not scientific. It also has never been repeated, and so can't be tested. It fails the scientific method miserably. 4. Fourth, even with intelligence man has never been able to create life from non-life. However, that's what pure evolution assumes happened. 5. Fifth, there is a termed called irreducible complexity which says that a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually because of irreducible complexity it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to work on. For example, the human knee could not have evolved gradually over time, but have been created as a fully functioning unit. Every functioning biological system and organ in the body works that way (i.e. Make a " slightly " functioning liver or kidney or whatever and see how long you can survive.) So lets talk about your evidence comments under the assumption you still think macroevolution is a scientific fact: " This belief is based (1) on the very large body of fossil, genetic, and other evidence for evolution; " * What fossil evidence? The fossil evidence in fact supports the Bible's version of creation...not macroevolution. There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. Since evolution requires millions and billions of years, we should find massive numbers of these transitional fossils. However, we find absolutely none. The Bible says God created in " kinds " . And, that's exactly what we find in the fossil record. In addition, we should see transitional species before our very eyes. However, thought there are variations within species, dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats, birds are still birds, etc...We see kinds...just as the Bible says...both in the fossil record and in observation (science). (2) on the fact that the theory of evolution has in the past 150 years been subjected to a rigorous and often fiercely contested process of scrutiny, open and rational debate, criticism, and constant refinement and has not only survived but has become ever more compelling as this process has progressed; * I guess we could debate that one, but from what I see the opposite is true. Yes it still exists as a " theory " , but it's still hotly debated and divided. However, when polls indicate that 85% of the population in the US still believes in God, it must not be as highly compelling as you think. Beyond that, we see lifelong evolutionists becoming creationists far more frequently than the reverse. I wonder why? 3) that genetics, in a way an offshoot of evolutionary science, has not only explained how the disease that afflicts my daughter occurs but has begun to offer hope as to how it may be treated/cured in the future. * It's interesting that you say genetics has something to do with evolutionary science. Do you realize that there human DNA contains 3 billion pieces of information? In book terms, that's 10's of thousands of pages of information. Did that information develop and evolve one page at a time, and miraculously end up in the proper order? How could that be by chance? In fact, DNA is one of the greatest evidences of a creator that I can think of! Your other comment... " It's simply that " believing " is the position of the overwhelming majority, and therefore there is a feeling that any other point of view must justify itself in relation to this. " * ...is not a true statement in my case. I have weighed the evidence, and have determined that there is no conclusive evidence for macroevolution...in fact...have determined it to be impossible from a scientific perspective. The facts show that far more faith is required to " believe " in evolution than a Devine creator. Beyond that, (I don't have a way of doing superscripts in my e-mail package, so I'll use ^ to denote raising a number to a power.) science considers anything with less chance of occurrence than 1 in 10^50th power scientifically impossible. Carl Sagan himself estimated that the chance of life evolving on any single planet, like earth, to be 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. .....I don't know why he was an evolutionist. I guess he just willfully didn't want to believe. Jay Re: OT religion and me 2006/1/6, <mongomustgolf@...>: > : > > I agree with you on many points - one I don't is the > increasing fundamentalism in the US and abroad. > Within the US I see no overt shift either way > regarding religion. Is the US current President > evidence of increasing fundamentalism in the US? I > don't think so - although all of our general > Presidential elections have always been somewheat > close (at least 3 out of the last 5) - I would say > Bush's re-election was more an assertion (be it good > or bad) - of the US electorate's desire for leadership > willing to " kick ass and take names later. " I'm glad to hear from someone in the US (my observations are by definition from outside) that fundamentalism isn't on the rise. I wasn't so much thinking of the election itself, more what seems to be an underlying trend of more and more ordinary Americans joining fundamentalist organizations, and these organizations becoming increasingly powerful, to the extent for example that they now effectively have a veto over who gets nominated to the Supreme Court. To my knowledge, they've never had that much influence before. > Yes - it takes courage to express one's belief or view > point - as agnostic - OR as a christian. The problem > I see, is that an agnostic's point of view typically > revolves around why christians (or people of any > faith) - are wrong (and not why they believe what they > believe). > > The expressing of a lack of faith - is never just > that - it always seems to include some level of > criticizing those that do believe in God. Why? Yes, you're right that when atheism is expressed, it's usually in opposition to something, and in the Western world, that " something " is usually Christianity. The recent posts have been a good illustration of why that is, I think. It's simply that " believing " is the position of the overwhelming majority, and therefore there is a feeling that any other point of view must justify itself in relation to this. When everyone around you believes in God, it's hard to express atheism without criticizing " belief " , which " believers " then interpret as criticism of them personally, which it usually isn't. The word atheism encourages this because it is just " theism " (belief in God) with an " a " (meaning not) in front of it. " Materialism " is perhaps a better term, though that now has all sorts of other money-related connotations. The habit of defining atheism in relation to Christianity is definitely a failure on the part of atheists. Here's an attempt to define my own " atheism " without placing it in opposition/relation to Christianity: I believe in science, which simply means that I believe nothing unless there is evidence for it. One example of my beliefs is that all life, including myself, evolved. This belief is based (1) on the very large body of fossil, genetic, and other evidence for evolution; (2) on the fact that the theory of evolution has in the past 150 years been subjected to a rigorous and often fiercely contested process of scrutiny, open and rational debate, criticism, and constant refinement and has not only survived but has become ever more compelling as this process has progressed; and (3) that genetics, in a way an offshoot of evolutionary science, has not only explained how the disease that affflicts my daughter occurs but has begun to offer hope as to how it may be treated/cured in the future. If another theory comes along that supercedes evolution through a similar process to the one described above, I will switch my " allegiance " to that, though the sheer weight of evidence for evolution makes that a pretty remote possibility in my opinion. The same goes for the other beliefs that make up my " religion " , such as gravity, inertia, and the Big Bang. If something more compelling comes along, I'll abandon those beliefs too. > Regarding Europe having less fundamentalism than the > US...hmmmm...I'd challenge that assertion since I'm > not sure it could be 'proved' either way. But I would > point out that far more fundamentalist-driven terror > attacks have occurred on European soil than in North > America. Ultimately, these such attacks will only be > limited (never eliminated) - by the cooperation of all > civil governments and people around the world. Yes, you've spotted the flaw in my argument, which is Islamic fundamentalism. We have a lot more of that. So while we have no equivalent of Pat on, we have plenty of Islamic " scholars " proclaiming death to everyone who disagrees with them. The answer to them all is exactly as you say. > Regarding our President's position on Stem Cell > research - I agree 100% wholeheartedly with you. > Thank GOD for the people of California and other > states within the US and abroad with initiatives to > push forward on this critical research that will > affect us all in our lifetimes. Thus - my switch to > the Democratic Party two years ago - if for just this > one reason. Aside from our President, a majority > within our ledgistlative branch (House & Senate which > are both Republican Party controlled) are in favor of > over-riding Bush's position on SCR - unfortuntately a > super-majority is not apparent to offset a > Presidential veto). The effort to stop federal funding for SCR is concerted, but I'm sure eventually it will fail. AFAIK, none of the potential candidates for 2008 on either side are as opposed as Bush. It's just a tragedy that every day of delay means that the treatments will come too late for some people, particularly in the case of fast-progressing diseases like ALS. > All that said, I'll still come to play your homeland's > golf courses...any time...best in the world. Ah, golf. I'm planning a week-long golf trip back to my homeland in May. Can't wait! Tokyo, Japan A FEW RULES * The list members come from many backgrounds, ages and beliefs So all members most be tolerant and respectful to all members. * Some adult language and topics (like sexual health, swearing..) may occur occasionally in emails. Over use of inappropriate language will not be allowed. If your under 16 ask your parents/gaurdian before you join the list. * No SPAMMING or sending numerous emails unrelated to the topics of spinal muscular atrophy, health, and the daily issues of the disabled. Post message: Subscribe: -subscribe Unsubscribe: -unsubscribe List manager: (Sexy Mature Artist) Email: Esma1999@... oogroups.com List manager: (Sexy Mature Artist) Email: Esma1999@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 In light of Jay's post I'd like to revise a post I wrote to about the Catholic College I attended and how the nuns who taught science believed evolution could be a theory which explained how man and other living things came to be on this earth. Although the nuns said evolution could be an explanation, they also asked the ? to where did the 1st bacteria come from which started the whole evolution process. The nuns of course believed God was the one who began the whole evolutionary process. So according to Jay's post, they still would be considered creationists. I thought I'd make my post more explicit since Jay did all the footwork and explained much of what some Christians who are scientists believe. Thanks Jay, you did a great job. My main point though, was even in the theology classes, we were taught not to take the Bible word for word and to look at it in certain views, one being a symbolic/mythical view. Yes, the Bible is the Word Of God, but some things God did (like the story of Creation) is worded in a way that man can understand since God's way is inexplicable in human terms. Hope I made some sense. Kimi In a message dated 1/6/2006 1:17:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jondus@... writes: , This conversation is actually becoming both very interesting and fun. I hope you're seeing it that way? I'd like to chime in regarding some of your comments: You and I do agree on one thing...evolution is a belief system. That in mind, a belief system is what religion is. So I guess you would say your religion is evolution? That being said, since I've been question on my belief in Christianity throughout these conversations, I would like to understand your belief in evolution...primarily because we seem to have some conflicting information regarding what the past 150 years have shown us in regards to evolution. 1. I'd like to mention that there is something in science called the " Law of Cause and Effect " . This is an indisputable, universal law that says for every material effect, there had to be a cause. There is nothing in the universe that doesn't have a cause behind its existence. 2. Secondly, the scientific method requires testable, repeatable observation. 3. Thirdly, there are two branches of evolution: a) Microevolution which is minor variations within a species. We see this all the time with bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc. Microevolution is scientific because it's observable and measurable. Macroevolution which is successive small changes that over time change one species into another. Macroevolution has never been observed, and therefore is not scientific. It also has never been repeated, and so can't be tested. It fails the scientific method miserably. 4. Fourth, even with intelligence man has never been able to create life from non-life. However, that's what pure evolution assumes happened. 5. Fifth, there is a termed called irreducible complexity which says that a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually because of irreducible complexity it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to work on. For example, the human knee could not have evolved gradually over time, but have been created as a fully functioning unit. Every functioning biological system and organ in the body works that way (i.e. Make a " slightly " functioning liver or kidney or whatever and see how long you can survive.) So lets talk about your evidence comments under the assumption you still think macroevolution is a scientific fact: " This belief is based (1) on the very large body of fossil, genetic, and other evidence for evolution; " * What fossil evidence? The fossil evidence in fact supports the Bible's version of creation...not macroevolution. There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. Since evolution requires millions and billions of years, we should find massive numbers of these transitional fossils. However, we find absolutely none. The Bible says God created in " kinds " . And, that's exactly what we find in the fossil record. In addition, we should see transitional species before our very eyes. However, thought there are variations within species, dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats, birds are still birds, etc...We see kinds...just as the Bible says...both in the fossil record and in observation (science). (2) on the fact that the theory of evolution has in the past 150 years been subjected to a rigorous and often fiercely contested process of scrutiny, open and rational debate, criticism, and constant refinement and has not only survived but has become ever more compelling as this process has progressed; * I guess we could debate that one, but from what I see the opposite is true. Yes it still exists as a " theory " , but it's still hotly debated and divided. However, when polls indicate that 85% of the population in the US still believes in God, it must not be as highly compelling as you think. Beyond that, we see lifelong evolutionists becoming creationists far more frequently than the reverse. I wonder why? 3) that genetics, in a way an offshoot of evolutionary science, has not only explained how the disease that afflicts my daughter occurs but has begun to offer hope as to how it may be treated/cured in the future. * It's interesting that you say genetics has something to do with evolutionary science. Do you realize that there human DNA contains 3 billion pieces of information? In book terms, that's 10's of thousands of pages of information. Did that information develop and evolve one page at a time, and miraculously end up in the proper order? How could that be by chance? In fact, DNA is one of the greatest evidences of a creator that I can think of! Your other comment... " It's simply that " believing " is the position of the overwhelming majority, and therefore there is a feeling that any other point of view must justify itself in relation to this. " * ...is not a true statement in my case. I have weighed the evidence, and have determined that there is no conclusive evidence for macroevolution...in fact...have determined it to be impossible from a scientific perspective. The facts show that far more faith is required to " believe " in evolution than a Devine creator. Beyond that, (I don't have a way of doing superscripts in my e-mail package, so I'll use ^ to denote raising a number to a power.) science considers anything with less chance of occurrence than 1 in 10^50th power scientifically impossible. Carl Sagan himself estimated that the chance of life evolving on any single planet, like earth, to be 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. .....I don't know why he was an evolutionist. I guess he just willfully didn't want to believe. Jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 I still don't get why you think you can't believe in God and evolution. I believe in both. Maybe evolution is God's plan. There is so much proof of evolution. Since you brought it up, there is no proof God exists. A book isn't evidence. Miracles happen all the time. Still not proof. There are acheological findings. They could have different explanations. Fossils do show transition. They show the history of human evelution in history. Macro and microevolution are the same. Macroevolution just happens over aa longer period. We haven't seen it because humans haven't been here that long. It is happening now. In the world where animals are separated from land changing, people moving them, etc., the same species develop much differently. Animals start to be able to reproduce asexually when there are no enough to reproduce sexuaally. On day, they willl be different species. Evolution is genetics. Small mutations in the DNA. That's really all evolution is. Yes it did develop one page, or one letter, at a time. There are things in our DNA we no longer need, that were used in the past. It has been evolving over billions of years. I believe God started evolution. You said " the chance of life evolving on any single planet, like earth, to be 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. " There are many many more stars and probably even more planets, so even if the chance was that small, it would still happen. jondus@... wrote: >, > >This conversation is actually becoming both very interesting and fun. I >hope you're seeing it that way? I'd like to chime in regarding some of >your comments: > >You and I do agree on one thing...evolution is a belief system. That in >mind, a belief system is what religion is. So I guess you would say >your religion is evolution? > >That being said, since I've been question on my belief in Christianity >throughout these conversations, I would like to understand your belief >in evolution...primarily because we seem to have some conflicting >information regarding what the past 150 years have shown us in regards >to evolution. > >1. I'd like to mention that there is something in science called the > " Law of Cause and Effect " . This is an indisputable, universal law that >says for every material effect, there had to be a cause. There is >nothing in the universe that doesn't have a cause behind its existence. > > >2. Secondly, the scientific method requires testable, repeatable >observation. > >3. Thirdly, there are two branches of evolution: a) Microevolution >which is minor variations within a species. We see this all the time >with bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc. Microevolution is >scientific because it's observable and measurable. Macroevolution >which is successive small changes that over time change one species into >another. Macroevolution has never been observed, and therefore is not >scientific. It also has never been repeated, and so can't be tested. It >fails the scientific method miserably. > >4. Fourth, even with intelligence man has never been able to create >life from non-life. However, that's what pure evolution assumes >happened. > >5. Fifth, there is a termed called irreducible complexity which says >that a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts >that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of >the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Since >natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then >if a biological system cannot be produced gradually because of >irreducible complexity it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in >one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to work on. For >example, the human knee could not have evolved gradually over time, but >have been created as a fully functioning unit. Every functioning >biological system and organ in the body works that way (i.e. Make a > " slightly " functioning liver or kidney or whatever and see how long you >can survive.) > >So lets talk about your evidence comments under the assumption you still >think macroevolution is a scientific fact: > > " This belief is based (1) on the very large body of fossil, genetic, and >other evidence for evolution; " > >* What fossil evidence? The fossil evidence in fact supports the >Bible's version of creation...not macroevolution. There are no >transitional fossils in the fossil record. Since evolution requires >millions and billions of years, we should find massive numbers of these >transitional fossils. However, we find absolutely none. The Bible says >God created in " kinds " . And, that's exactly what we find in the fossil >record. In addition, we should see transitional species before our very >eyes. However, thought there are variations within species, dogs are >still dogs, cats are still cats, birds are still birds, etc...We see >kinds...just as the Bible says...both in the fossil record and in >observation (science). > > > >(2) on the fact that the theory of evolution has in the past 150 years >been subjected to a rigorous and often fiercely contested process of >scrutiny, open and rational debate, criticism, and constant refinement >and has not only survived but has become ever more compelling as this >process has progressed; > >* I guess we could debate that one, but from what I see the opposite is >true. Yes it still exists as a " theory " , but it's still hotly debated >and divided. However, when polls indicate that 85% of the population in >the US still believes in God, it must not be as highly compelling as you >think. Beyond that, we see lifelong evolutionists becoming creationists >far more frequently than the reverse. I wonder why? > >3) that genetics, in a way an offshoot of evolutionary science, has not >only explained how the disease that afflicts my daughter occurs but has >begun to offer hope as to how it > >may be treated/cured in the future. > >* It's interesting that you say genetics has something to do with >evolutionary science. Do you realize that there human DNA contains 3 >billion pieces of information? In book terms, that's 10's of thousands >of pages of information. Did that information develop and evolve one >page at a time, and miraculously end up in the proper order? How could >that be by chance? In fact, DNA is one of the greatest evidences of a >creator that I can think of! > >Your other comment... " It's simply that " believing " is the position of >the overwhelming majority, and therefore there is a feeling that any >other point of view must justify itself in relation to this. " > >* ...is not a true statement in my case. I have weighed the evidence, >and have determined that there is no conclusive evidence for >macroevolution...in fact...have determined it to be impossible from a >scientific perspective. The facts show that far more faith is required >to " believe " in evolution than a Devine creator. Beyond that, (I don't >have a way of doing superscripts in my e-mail package, so I'll use ^ to >denote raising a number to a power.) science considers anything with >less chance of occurrence than 1 in 10^50th power scientifically >impossible. Carl Sagan himself estimated that the chance of life >evolving on any single planet, like earth, to be 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. >....I don't know why he was an evolutionist. I guess he just willfully >didn't want to believe. > >Jay > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 , This is beautifully put...perfect. Thank you! Lori P.S. I know everyone is probably sick of this subject by now but I'm just getting home from work and catching up on the posts. Senior wrote: > I think I'm the one who's being accused of intolerance toward other > people's beliefs, so let me just clarify a few points. > > First, my previous post was directed primarily at (which is why > it starts " , . . . " ). My purpose in hitting the " send " button > yesterday was to publicly applaud for sticking her neck out amid > the numerous posts from those who believe in God and say " Hey, I don't > believe in God, and I'm fine. " That took a lot of courage, in my > opinion. It takes courage to dissent against the majority on any > topic, but especially when the topic is religion. That was my point. > How come it's fine for people who believe in God to express their > views at length, but as soon as one or two people say " Well, now that > you mention it, I don't believe in God " , suddenly those people are > guilty of maliciously attacking the beliefs of others? Is expressing a > lack of faith inherently offensive? > > Second, the comment about the Enlightenment and the Dark Ages was > certainly an exaggeration (I'm not suggesting there's a plot to build > a time machine or anything), but I stand by the underlying assertion > that, as more and more people in both the Christian and Islamic worlds > are turning to religious fundamentalism, the values of reason, > universal human rights, and tolerance of dissent seem, IMHO, to be > under increasing threat. The concerted attempt by some US politicians > to hold back progress on stem cell research because of their personal > religious beliefs is an example of this trend that has direct > relevance to SMA. > > Third, I certainly did not say that religion must be abandoned if we > are to advance as a society. In fact I would say tolerance of other > people's beliefs (religious or not) is another Enlightenment value > that seems to be under increasing threat. That threat comes not from > people of no faith but from people who hold that their faith is the > only possible truth and every other faith is false or evil or must be > destroyed. Religion poses no threat to society or progress or > whatever; fundamentalist extremism poses a big threat to everyone, not > least the vast majority of tolerant, compassionate > Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. > > Fourth, as far as the US-Euro divide goes, I believe that the US > Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution - documents that > guarantee religious freedom for all by separating the state from any > particular faith - are among the greatest achievements of humankind. > To put it another way, fundamentalism is literally " unamerican " . It > therefore worries me that the trend toward fundamentalism is much > stronger in the United States than in Europe. Contrary to popular > perceptions, Europe has plenty of people who believe in God, probably > not much fewer than the US, actually. What we do have much less of is > fundamentalism, however, and that is the " divide " I refer to. > > Anyway, apart from the relevance of this to stem cell research, I'm > way, way off the subject of SMA. Mitch did say in his original mail > that he didn't want a God vs. No God debate, so unless somebody > accuses me of some further crime I doubt I'll post again on this > subject. > > > Tokyo, Japan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Jay: You want evidence of evolution? If you're ever in London, go to the Natural History Museum and you'll find rooms full of it. I'm sure there's an equivalent in the US. The sonian perhaps? The micro/macro division may be convenient for discussion, but as says, they are one and the same thing, just on different time scales. I don't understand how can you accept microevolution but not macro. Are creatues allowed to mutate a little, but not so much as to create a new species? That just doesn't make sense to me, and it certainly is not what the evidence shows. One point where I would disagree with is that I don't see how it is possible to believe in God (assuming you mean the Christian God) and evolution. The Bible, as far as I remember, makes no mention of evolution (micro or macro) or genetics or mutation or natural selection. It is very clear on how life on Earth began. It says God created everything in 7 days. To interpret that as " God made the first bacteria but then sat back for millions of years and watched it evolve " seems to be stretching the story of Genesis a very long way. But now I'm dissecting other people's beliefs again, and that's already got me into trouble. Hey, Jay and started it! LOL One of the mistakes people like me can make is to get all defensive and start talking about scientific " facts " , as opposed to " beliefs " . Science differs from religion not because it consists of facts that are set in stone ( " absolute truth " ) but precisely because everything is always open to question. That is the beauty of it. Although there are scientific beliefs like gravity that seem so well-proven that we should call them facts, that is unscientific, because it would suggest that they are set in stone and unchallengable. If I had lived 1,000 years ago, I would have believed that the Earth is flat, and that would have seemed self-evident. The fact that scientific beliefs are being constantly refined, questioned, argued over, dismissed, etc. is in my opinion a strength, not a weakness. Will science ever explain everything? Maybe, maybe not, but the track record of scientific inquiry - 5,000+ years of increasing knowledge about the world around us, suggests that given enough time, science does have the potential to explain everything. What if it doesn't manage it? Must science explain everything to prove itself as a valid belief system? It has already explained enough to pass that test in my mind. Saying " science can't explain this, so God must have done it " or even " aliens must have done it " adds precisely nothing to our knowledge about the world around us unless such a hypothesis is subjected to the same rigorous scientific scrutiny as every other theory, and survives. This has not happened, and that is why God is not one of the beliefs that make up my " faith " . Think of some of the things that a person with SMA might use in an average day. An electric wheelchair, household electricity, a PC, the Internet, a bi-pap system, a car, a TV, a headache pill, physiotherapy, valproic acid even. These lifesavers and conveniences would not exist but for the simple, ingenious system of thought known as science, in which no hypothesis is accepted unless it survives rigorous scrutiny. Is this process failsafe? Hell no! It's operated by living beings whose traits include greed, pride, impatience, and stubbornness, all of which can interfere in scientific progress, as a certain South Korean stem cell researcher has just shown. It also means the process can result in things like guns and nuclear weapons. Does that invalidate scientific thought itself? Hell no! Somebody said that evolution is my religion. That's certainly not what I'm saying. Evolution is the best (ie. backed by the most evidence) explanation that has been devised for life on Earth. That is not the same thing as a religion. I do not worship evolution, or genes, or Darwin. I think Darwin is one of the most ingenious human beings who ever lived, because he was the first one (or second, depending on who you ask) to notice evolution, just as Newton was the first to " notice " gravity. That does not make him a god, or a prophet, or perfect, or anything like that. But it does make him a very good example of someone who figured out that something previously ascribed to supernatural forces was actually caused by natural forces. That's why he is admired by people like me, and resented by people who prefer the supernatural explanation, like the 85% of Americans who someone quoted. As for the 85% figure, it reminds me of a poll just before the millennium in which something like 60% of Americans said they expected the world to end on January 1, 2000. My observations in the past 5 years suggest that this did not happen. Lots of Americans (perhaps the same ones, perhaps not) believe that Elvis is still alive. (I'm not getting at Americans here - plenty of Brits and every other nationality believe things that contradict the evidence, although the vast majority of Brits do believe in evolution.) The US Constitution (which, as I said yesterday, I regard as one of the greatest achievements of humankind) guarantees everyone the freedon to believe whatever they want, and that is a wonderful thing. Whether any percentage of any nation believes in anything or not is not relevant to the question of whether that belief stands up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, however. Phew, I'm tired of typing. Tokyo, Japan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Now that's a guy with some real faith! By the way, I didn't say " the chance of life evolving on any single planet, like earth, to be 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. " Carl Sagan himself said it! Also, microevolution and macroevolution ARE not the same...in fact they are very different. Look it up. You say, " There is so much proof of evolution. " Where? I've never seen any. All those drawings of humans evolving are just drawings. A vision someone had/has of how life might have evolved. However, there are no transitional fossil...just everything variations within their own species. In fact, if it really took " billions of years " for all of this evolution as you say, then we should find millions of missing links/transitional fossils all throughout the fossil record. However, there's never been a single one found. How could it possibly be that big of a struggle to find them if there has been the massive change to species, over a massive number of years, that would be required to evolve all the species on earth today. Now that I think of it, if " It is happening now " as you say we should see transitional species in existence before our very eyes. In fact, there should be thousands of them! However, we don't. Like I said before...as examples dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats, mice are mice, rabbits are rabbits, fish are fish. How does a fish survive with a partial gill? (just trying to figure out how he evolved that). They are all limited within their DNA. Everything exists in kinds. No features that are not already present in the creature's DNA can ever be produced by natural selection. In fact, if you think about it, all genetic mutations we've ever heard of have negative results...not a positive to the recipient. These aren't things I made up...they're observable facts...we just need to look at the evidence. Jay Re: Re: OT religion and me I still don't get why you think you can't believe in God and evolution. I believe in both. Maybe evolution is God's plan. There is so much proof of evolution. Since you brought it up, there is no proof God exists. A book isn't evidence. Miracles happen all the time. Still not proof. There are acheological findings. They could have different explanations. Fossils do show transition. They show the history of human evelution in history. Macro and microevolution are the same. Macroevolution just happens over aa longer period. We haven't seen it because humans haven't been here that long. It is happening now. In the world where animals are separated from land changing, people moving them, etc., the same species develop much differently. Animals start to be able to reproduce asexually when there are no enough to reproduce sexuaally. On day, they willl be different species. Evolution is genetics. Small mutations in the DNA. That's really all evolution is. Yes it did develop one page, or one letter, at a time. There are things in our DNA we no longer need, that were used in the past. It has been evolving over billions of years. I believe God started evolution. You said " the chance of life evolving on any single planet, like earth, to be 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. " There are many many more stars and probably even more planets, so even if the chance was that small, it would still happen. jondus@... wrote: >, > >This conversation is actually becoming both very interesting and fun. I >hope you're seeing it that way? I'd like to chime in regarding some of >your comments: > >You and I do agree on one thing...evolution is a belief system. That in >mind, a belief system is what religion is. So I guess you would say >your religion is evolution? > >That being said, since I've been question on my belief in Christianity >throughout these conversations, I would like to understand your belief >in evolution...primarily because we seem to have some conflicting >information regarding what the past 150 years have shown us in regards >to evolution. > >1. I'd like to mention that there is something in science called the > " Law of Cause and Effect " . This is an indisputable, universal law that >says for every material effect, there had to be a cause. There is >nothing in the universe that doesn't have a cause behind its existence. > > >2. Secondly, the scientific method requires testable, repeatable >observation. > >3. Thirdly, there are two branches of evolution: a) Microevolution >which is minor variations within a species. We see this all the time >with bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc. Microevolution is >scientific because it's observable and measurable. Macroevolution >which is successive small changes that over time change one species into >another. Macroevolution has never been observed, and therefore is not >scientific. It also has never been repeated, and so can't be tested. It >fails the scientific method miserably. > >4. Fourth, even with intelligence man has never been able to create >life from non-life. However, that's what pure evolution assumes >happened. > >5. Fifth, there is a termed called irreducible complexity which says >that a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts >that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of >the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Since >natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then >if a biological system cannot be produced gradually because of >irreducible complexity it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in >one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to work on. For >example, the human knee could not have evolved gradually over time, but >have been created as a fully functioning unit. Every functioning >biological system and organ in the body works that way (i.e. Make a > " slightly " functioning liver or kidney or whatever and see how long you >can survive.) > >So lets talk about your evidence comments under the assumption you still >think macroevolution is a scientific fact: > > " This belief is based (1) on the very large body of fossil, genetic, and >other evidence for evolution; " > >* What fossil evidence? The fossil evidence in fact supports the >Bible's version of creation...not macroevolution. There are no >transitional fossils in the fossil record. Since evolution requires >millions and billions of years, we should find massive numbers of these >transitional fossils. However, we find absolutely none. The Bible says >God created in " kinds " . And, that's exactly what we find in the fossil >record. In addition, we should see transitional species before our very >eyes. However, thought there are variations within species, dogs are >still dogs, cats are still cats, birds are still birds, etc...We see >kinds...just as the Bible says...both in the fossil record and in >observation (science). > > > >(2) on the fact that the theory of evolution has in the past 150 years >been subjected to a rigorous and often fiercely contested process of >scrutiny, open and rational debate, criticism, and constant refinement >and has not only survived but has become ever more compelling as this >process has progressed; > >* I guess we could debate that one, but from what I see the opposite is >true. Yes it still exists as a " theory " , but it's still hotly debated >and divided. However, when polls indicate that 85% of the population in >the US still believes in God, it must not be as highly compelling as you >think. Beyond that, we see lifelong evolutionists becoming creationists >far more frequently than the reverse. I wonder why? > >3) that genetics, in a way an offshoot of evolutionary science, has not >only explained how the disease that afflicts my daughter occurs but has >begun to offer hope as to how it > >may be treated/cured in the future. > >* It's interesting that you say genetics has something to do with >evolutionary science. Do you realize that there human DNA contains 3 >billion pieces of information? In book terms, that's 10's of thousands >of pages of information. Did that information develop and evolve one >page at a time, and miraculously end up in the proper order? How could >that be by chance? In fact, DNA is one of the greatest evidences of a >creator that I can think of! > >Your other comment... " It's simply that " believing " is the position of >the overwhelming majority, and therefore there is a feeling that any >other point of view must justify itself in relation to this. " > >* ...is not a true statement in my case. I have weighed the evidence, >and have determined that there is no conclusive evidence for >macroevolution...in fact...have determined it to be impossible from a >scientific perspective. The facts show that far more faith is required >to " believe " in evolution than a Devine creator. Beyond that, (I don't >have a way of doing superscripts in my e-mail package, so I'll use ^ to >denote raising a number to a power.) science considers anything with >less chance of occurrence than 1 in 10^50th power scientifically >impossible. Carl Sagan himself estimated that the chance of life >evolving on any single planet, like earth, to be 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. >....I don't know why he was an evolutionist. I guess he just willfully >didn't want to believe. > >Jay > A FEW RULES * The list members come from many backgrounds, ages and beliefs So all members most be tolerant and respectful to all members. * Some adult language and topics (like sexual health, swearing..) may occur occasionally in emails. Over use of inappropriate language will not be allowed. If your under 16 ask your parents/gaurdian before you join the list. * No SPAMMING or sending numerous emails unrelated to the topics of spinal muscular atrophy, health, and the daily issues of the disabled. Post message: Subscribe: -subscribe Unsubscribe: -unsubscribe List manager: (Sexy Mature Artist) Email: Esma1999@... oogroups.com List manager: (Sexy Mature Artist) Email: Esma1999@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Hey : Again, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding the 85% figure - I don't believe it. As a matter of fact, I think if you ask someone who considers himself/herself a christian in America if they consider themselves to be part of the majority - I would expect every single one of them to say no - and I'd agree with that assertion. Plenty of folks go to church or some place of worship - true believing is an entirely different question. Regarding the 60% - Y2K stuff - where'd that come from? I don't know a single person aside from reading about some crazies in some California cult that held any such belief (but in California, you'll have that sort of thing from time to time). I guess this also explains why most of the world apparently thinks of the US as the great evil and all of the world's problems are attributable to Uncle Sam (even though, without a doubt, the USA is the single biggest donor nation to poor countries and people in need around the world - sometimes we're it seems we're more generous to those outside our borders than to those in need within our borders). I guess the US continues to be miss-undah-stud 'bout more than just why we gots us a prison in Cuba. But the Y2K stuff is complete bunk. Also having visited Graceland (in Memphis, TN) - a time or 2 while on business trips - I wouldn't doubt there's a crazy or two out there still seeing the King from time to time at a local KFC having his way with a half-bucket - but aside from the movie Men In Black (Tommy Lee character)I sure don't know any. I think far more Brits thought was really dead (after playing the record backwords enough times... " I buried " , etc.) - than Americans who think Elvis is really still alive. For some inexplicable reason, I felt compelled to defend the hundreds of millions of morons/hilljacks/rednecks/hicks linked to Elvis sightings & doomsday beliefs. Now that I've addressed those 2 silly items, all else is certainly up for grabs. Mitch --- Senior <jsenior@...> wrote: > Jay: You want evidence of evolution? If you're ever > in London, go to the Natural History Museum and > you'll find rooms full of it. I'm sure there's an > equivalent in the US. The sonian perhaps? > > The micro/macro division may be convenient for > discussion, but as says, they are one and the > same thing, just on different time scales. I don't > understand how can you accept microevolution but not > macro. Are creatues allowed to mutate a little, but > not so much as to create a new species? That just > doesn't make sense to me, and it certainly is not > what the evidence shows. > > One point where I would disagree with is that I > don't see how it is possible to believe in God > (assuming you mean the Christian God) and evolution. > The Bible, as far as I remember, makes no mention of > evolution (micro or macro) or genetics or mutation > or natural selection. It is very clear on how life > on Earth began. It says God created everything in 7 > days. To interpret that as " God made the first > bacteria but then sat back for millions of years and > watched it evolve " seems to be stretching the story > of Genesis a very long way. But now I'm dissecting > other people's beliefs again, and that's already got > me into trouble. Hey, Jay and started it! LOL > > One of the mistakes people like me can make is to > get all defensive and start talking about scientific > " facts " , as opposed to " beliefs " . Science differs > from religion not because it consists of facts that > are set in stone ( " absolute truth " ) but precisely > because everything is always open to question. That > is the beauty of it. Although there are scientific > beliefs like gravity that seem so well-proven that > we should call them facts, that is unscientific, > because it would suggest that they are set in stone > and unchallengable. If I had lived 1,000 years ago, > I would have believed that the Earth is flat, and > that would have seemed self-evident. The fact that > scientific beliefs are being constantly refined, > questioned, argued over, dismissed, etc. is in my > opinion a strength, not a weakness. Will science > ever explain everything? Maybe, maybe not, but the > track record of scientific inquiry - 5,000+ years of > increasing knowledge about the world around us, > suggests that given enough time, science does have > the potential to explain everything. What if it > doesn't manage it? Must science explain everything > to prove itself as a valid belief system? It has > already explained enough to pass that test in my > mind. Saying " science can't explain this, so God > must have done it " or even " aliens must have done > it " adds precisely nothing to our knowledge about > the world around us unless such a hypothesis is > subjected to the same rigorous scientific scrutiny > as every other theory, and survives. This has not > happened, and that is why God is not one of the > beliefs that make up my " faith " . > > Think of some of the things that a person with SMA > might use in an average day. An electric wheelchair, > household electricity, a PC, the Internet, a bi-pap > system, a car, a TV, a headache pill, physiotherapy, > valproic acid even. These lifesavers and > conveniences would not exist but for the simple, > ingenious system of thought known as science, in > which no hypothesis is accepted unless it survives > rigorous scrutiny. Is this process failsafe? Hell > no! It's operated by living beings whose traits > include greed, pride, impatience, and stubbornness, > all of which can interfere in scientific progress, > as a certain South Korean stem cell researcher has > just shown. It also means the process can result in > things like guns and nuclear weapons. Does that > invalidate scientific thought itself? Hell no! > > Somebody said that evolution is my religion. That's > certainly not what I'm saying. Evolution is the best > (ie. backed by the most evidence) explanation that > has been devised for life on Earth. That is not the > same thing as a religion. I do not worship > evolution, or genes, or Darwin. I think Darwin is > one of the most ingenious human beings who ever > lived, because he was the first one (or second, > depending on who you ask) to notice evolution, just > as Newton was the first to " notice " gravity. That > does not make him a god, or a prophet, or perfect, > or anything like that. But it does make him a very > good example of someone who figured out that > something previously ascribed to supernatural forces > was actually caused by natural forces. That's why he > is admired by people like me, and resented by people > who prefer the supernatural explanation, like the > 85% of Americans who someone quoted. > > As for the 85% figure, it reminds me of a poll just > before the millennium in which something like 60% of > Americans said they expected the world to end on > January 1, 2000. My observations in the past 5 years > suggest that this did not happen. Lots of Americans > (perhaps the same ones, perhaps not) believe that > Elvis is still alive. (I'm not getting at Americans > here - plenty of Brits and every other nationality > believe things that contradict the evidence, > although the vast majority of Brits do believe in > evolution.) The US Constitution (which, as I said > yesterday, I regard as one of the greatest > achievements of humankind) guarantees everyone the > freedon to believe whatever they want, and that is a > wonderful thing. Whether any percentage of any > nation believes in anything or not is not relevant > to the question of whether that belief stands up to > rigorous scientific scrutiny, however. > > Phew, I'm tired of typing. > > > Tokyo, Japan > __________________________________________ DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Hi Mitch, I confess the 60% figure for the doomsday believers was from memory, so I wouldn't stake my life on it. However, I do remember being astonished at how many people thought the world was about to end. Maybe it was 40%, I don't know. I guess if it proves anything it's that you can get any result you like in an opinion poll if you ask the questions the right way. I have actually met one American who believes the end of the world is imminent, but he says it's coming in 2012. It's something about a Mayan prophecy. At least it gives us a few more years to play golf! 2006/1/9, <mongomustgolf@...>: > Hey : > > Again, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding the 85% > figure - I don't believe it. As a matter of fact, I > think if you ask someone who considers himself/herself > a christian in America if they consider themselves to > be part of the majority - I would expect every single > one of them to say no - and I'd agree with that > assertion. Plenty of folks go to church or some place > of worship - true believing is an entirely different > question. > > Regarding the 60% - Y2K stuff - where'd that come > from? I don't know a single person aside from reading > about some crazies in some California cult that held > any such belief (but in California, you'll have that > sort of thing from time to time). I guess this also > explains why most of the world apparently thinks of > the US as the great evil and all of the world's > problems are attributable to Uncle Sam (even though, > without a doubt, the USA is the single biggest donor > nation to poor countries and people in need around the > world - sometimes we're it seems we're more generous > to those outside our borders than to those in need > within our borders). I guess the US continues to be > miss-undah-stud 'bout more than just why we gots us a > prison in Cuba. But the Y2K stuff is complete bunk. > > Also having visited Graceland (in Memphis, TN) - a > time or 2 while on business trips - I wouldn't doubt > there's a crazy or two out there still seeing the King > from time to time at a local KFC having his way with a > half-bucket - but aside from the movie Men In Black > (Tommy Lee character)I sure don't know any. I > think far more Brits thought was really dead > (after playing the record backwords enough times... " I > buried " , etc.) - than Americans who think Elvis > is really still alive. > > For some inexplicable reason, I felt compelled to > defend the hundreds of millions of > morons/hilljacks/rednecks/hicks linked to Elvis > sightings & doomsday beliefs. Now that I've addressed > those 2 silly items, all else is certainly up for > grabs. > > Mitch > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 About that evolution discussion: The universe is infinite. Some great power created it somehow. I feel we will find out after death how this whole life, world, and universe was created, and why. You can't really rely on the bible for answers to these questions, that's just ridiculous. The stories in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally. They are written as lessons to be learned, to figure out what the meaning is, and each person can interpret the same story in different ways. The universe, its origin and purpose is simply beyond our comprehension. There is no point in arguing about it. No one will win. Eternal Blessings, Meg. (My Blog: http://360./my_profile.html) Re: OT religion and me Jay: You want evidence of evolution? If you're ever in London, go to the Natural History Museum and you'll find rooms full of it. I'm sure there's an equivalent in the US. The sonian perhaps? The micro/macro division may be convenient for discussion, but as says, they are one and the same thing, just on different time scales. I don't understand how can you accept microevolution but not macro. Are creatues allowed to mutate a little, but not so much as to create a new species? That just doesn't make sense to me, and it certainly is not what the evidence shows. One point where I would disagree with is that I don't see how it is possible to believe in God (assuming you mean the Christian God) and evolution. The Bible, as far as I remember, makes no mention of evolution (micro or macro) or genetics or mutation or natural selection. It is very clear on how life on Earth began. It says God created everything in 7 days. To interpret that as " God made the first bacteria but then sat back for millions of years and watched it evolve " seems to be stretching the story of Genesis a very long way. But now I'm dissecting other people's beliefs again, and that's already got me into trouble. Hey, Jay and started it! LOL One of the mistakes people like me can make is to get all defensive and start talking about scientific " facts " , as opposed to " beliefs " . Science differs from religion not because it consists of facts that are set in stone ( " absolute truth " ) but precisely because everything is always open to question. That is the beauty of it. Although there are scientific beliefs like gravity that seem so well-proven that we should call them facts, that is unscientific, because it would suggest that they are set in stone and unchallengable. If I had lived 1,000 years ago, I would have believed that the Earth is flat, and that would have seemed self-evident. The fact that scientific beliefs are being constantly refined, questioned, argued over, dismissed, etc. is in my opinion a strength, not a weakness. Will science ever explain everything? Maybe, maybe not, but the track record of scientific inquiry - 5,000+ years of increasing knowledge about the world around us, suggests that given enough time, science does have the potential to explain everything. What if it doesn't manage it? Must science explain everything to prove itself as a valid belief system? It has already explained enough to pass that test in my mind. Saying " science can't explain this, so God must have done it " or even " aliens must have done it " adds precisely nothing to our knowledge about the world around us unless such a hypothesis is subjected to the same rigorous scientific scrutiny as every other theory, and survives. This has not happened, and that is why God is not one of the beliefs that make up my " faith " . Think of some of the things that a person with SMA might use in an average day. An electric wheelchair, household electricity, a PC, the Internet, a bi-pap system, a car, a TV, a headache pill, physiotherapy, valproic acid even. These lifesavers and conveniences would not exist but for the simple, ingenious system of thought known as science, in which no hypothesis is accepted unless it survives rigorous scrutiny. Is this process failsafe? Hell no! It's operated by living beings whose traits include greed, pride, impatience, and stubbornness, all of which can interfere in scientific progress, as a certain South Korean stem cell researcher has just shown. It also means the process can result in things like guns and nuclear weapons. Does that invalidate scientific thought itself? Hell no! Somebody said that evolution is my religion. That's certainly not what I'm saying. Evolution is the best (ie. backed by the most evidence) explanation that has been devised for life on Earth. That is not the same thing as a religion. I do not worship evolution, or genes, or Darwin. I think Darwin is one of the most ingenious human beings who ever lived, because he was the first one (or second, depending on who you ask) to notice evolution, just as Newton was the first to " notice " gravity. That does not make him a god, or a prophet, or perfect, or anything like that. But it does make him a very good example of someone who figured out that something previously ascribed to supernatural forces was actually caused by natural forces. That's why he is admired by people like me, and resented by people who prefer the supernatural explanation, like the 85% of Americans who someone quoted. As for the 85% figure, it reminds me of a poll just before the millennium in which something like 60% of Americans said they expected the world to end on January 1, 2000. My observations in the past 5 years suggest that this did not happen. Lots of Americans (perhaps the same ones, perhaps not) believe that Elvis is still alive. (I'm not getting at Americans here - plenty of Brits and every other nationality believe things that contradict the evidence, although the vast majority of Brits do believe in evolution.) The US Constitution (which, as I said yesterday, I regard as one of the greatest achievements of humankind) guarantees everyone the freedon to believe whatever they want, and that is a wonderful thing. Whether any percentage of any nation believes in anything or not is not relevant to the question of whether that belief stands up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, however. Phew, I'm tired of typing. Tokyo, Japan A FEW RULES * The list members come from many backgrounds, ages and beliefs So all members most be tolerant and respectful to all members. * Some adult language and topics (like sexual health, swearing..) may occur occasionally in emails. Over use of inappropriate language will not be allowed. If your under 16 ask your parents/gaurdian before you join the list. * No SPAMMING or sending numerous emails unrelated to the topics of spinal muscular atrophy, health, and the daily issues of the disabled. Post message: Subscribe: -subscribe Unsubscribe: -unsubscribe List manager: (Sexy Mature Artist) Email: Esma1999@... oogroups.com List manager: (Sexy Mature Artist) Email: Esma1999@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.