Post Any Evidence For God Here

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, it depends on one's moral priors, their updating of them, and/or completing changing from them.

In this world, we're not going to get absolutely certain truth, so any qualms about moral X being correct for all is just as silly a debate on "how do I know I exist?" There are morals, people follow a variety of them, moral claims are open to discussion and modification, moral claims vary in their consequences, etc.

If people went around robbing others, we wouldn't get much done. The record's pretty clear on 'truck, barter, and trade' versus 'rape, pillage, and plunder'. It doesn't take God, but science and basically people using their brains, to understand the benefits of trading v. pillaging.

[patches70]

What defines good as we see it? Like helping an old lady cross the street. Thats goodWhy not rob the old lady? Why is that not good? More cut throat philosophy. Survival of the fittist. Maybe because its easier to work with others.
Just thinking.

Exactly. It's easier to work with others. Homo sapiens is a pack animal. We do not like to live alone. That's the long and the short of all social ethics. There's different theories about the fine details, but bottom line is that we all know we get more out of life through some form of co-operation than through constant strife.

None of this depends on religion. Religions do try to codify the rules of playing nicely together, but their rules -- at least the ones that are generally recognised -- are pretty much the same as what the basic rules are in non-religious societies.

I dunno guys, do you remember what it was like for mankind before monotheism?

We live in times of plenty. So it's easy for us to say "it's easier to work with others" and "co-operation instead of strife" these days, but in days of old in times we today can learn about but not truly imagine that might not be so true.

The whole Roman Empire, for instance, required that she constantly invade and plunder everyone around her. When she ran out of people to enslave or lost the ability to plunder, she died as a civilization. Which of course supports the co-operation is better argument, but there was a time when such a thing was not even contemplated.

Tribes and groups of people were even more brutal to each other before that and it was all considered "natural".

A time when many of the things we consider today to be "wrong" or "immoral" or whatever, were virtues then. The message of Jesus today seems so...simple, common sense really. But back then and in times before what Jesus taught, love your neighbor, love your enemy, etc etc, well that was truly radical thinking. Would we have come to the sense we have today without Jesus? I don't know, maybe, there were philosophers and such who taught much like Jesus but their ideas didn't catch on like like Jesus' did. That wisdom of the Plato's and Socrates, others, lost, forgotten, ignored.

A simple truth, religion helped form what it is that we consider "good" and "moral" today. There were also other factors, but to try and say religion wasn't needed, did no good or dramatically downplay religion's role, well that's just not very true or fair. Sure we are social animals and we used to eat each other (figuratively and sometimes literally), socially.
Wolves are pack animals as well.

So what kind of pack animals are we, Dukasaur? Wolves or sheep? If we were once wolves, and are now sheep, how is it that we changed? Religion plays a greater role in that awakening than many give credit for.
It is hard for us to contemplate such an awakening such that Jesus brought, because we cannot truly understand what the world was like before that. Not in our easy lives, our luxury, our decidedly lack of need to spend every waking moment just trying to survive nature.

And it's hard to chalk mankind's transformation to "evolving" as mankind changed in the blink of an eye in the grand scale. We have been much more cruel to each other for a whole hell of a lot longer than we have been more compassionate. And even in our newly "evolved" thinking we still revert often enough to our brutal, savage selves at the drop of a hat and visit upon each other all manners of unfathomable cruelty.

But over all, mankind is much kinder than it once was. And that change happened virtually over night in the big picture of time. Sure, hundreds of years, but relative to the span of human existence it was an nearly instantaneous transformation. The "we just figured it out" doesn't hold very well without bringing religion into the mix. Add religion, particular Jesus, and we start to see a very strange transformation and that transformation is what has led directly to our days of leisure and plenty we enjoy now, relatively speaking when compared to the vast majority of mankind's existence and circumstance.
IMO.

[patches70]

If people went around robbing others, we wouldn't get much done. The record's pretty clear on 'truck, barter, and trade' versus 'rape, pillage, and plunder'. It doesn't take God, but science and basically people using their brains, to understand the benefits of trading v. pillaging.

How long has homo sapien sapiens been around BBS? According to science modern humans have been around for 200,000 years or so.

We haven't changed much at all, even the humans living a 50,000 years ago had the same brains we have today, they were no less intelligent.
So how long has mankind "known" that 'truck, barter and trade' is better than 'rape, pillage and plunder'? And why did it take us so long to just figure it out?

We didn't know that just 2,000 years ago. The 'rape, pillage and plunder' was standard operating procedure for most of mankind even that small amount of time ago and that model was "moral". As you pointed out, what is considered "moral" changes. Well, we been raping, pillaging and plundering each other as a general business model a whole hell of a lot longer than we have been bartering and trading with each other as a general business model.

basically people using their brains

Man, humans have been using their brains since the beginning BBS. The concept of "love your enemy" is so new, so radical to the human condition and human practice that it wasn't just figured out over time. Something else brought that awakening to us as a species. It is so new and radical thinking that we still have trouble wrapping our minds around such a concept.

[BigBallinStalin]

If people went around robbing others, we wouldn't get much done. The record's pretty clear on 'truck, barter, and trade' versus 'rape, pillage, and plunder'. It doesn't take God, but science and basically people using their brains, to understand the benefits of trading v. pillaging.

How long has homo sapien sapiens been around BBS? According to science modern humans have been around for 200,000 years or so.

We haven't changed much at all, even the humans living a 50,000 years ago had the same brains we have today, they were no less intelligent.
So how long has mankind "known" that 'truck, barter and trade' is better than 'rape, pillage and plunder'? And why did it take us so long to just figure it out?

We didn't know that just 2,000 years ago. The 'rape, pillage and plunder' was standard operating procedure for most of mankind even that small amount of time ago and that model was "moral". As you pointed out, what is considered "moral" changes. Well, we been raping, pillaging and plundering each other as a general business model a whole hell of a lot longer than we have been bartering and trading with each other as a general business model.

basically people using their brains

Man, humans have been using their brains since the beginning BBS. The concept of "love your enemy" is so new, so radical to the human condition and human practice that it wasn't just figured out over time. Something else brought that awakening to us as a species. It is so new and radical thinking that we still have trouble wrapping our minds around such a concept.

Yeah, I didn't say humans know trade > plunder for past 200,000 years. Just sayin' how human morality evolves, and I was dealing with warmonger's bit about "if not God, then what" issue.

[tzor]

What defines good as we see it?

"Good" is exceptionally easy to define. I remember an article back in Second Edition AD&D that defined it quite well.

Of course "Good" as in the "Common Good" has nothing to do with "Good."
And "Good" as in "of excellent quality" doesn't have anything to do with "Good" either.

Good as the article described was an arrangement of ones priorities in ones action where the needs of others are placed before the needs of self.

Note that it is based between self and others. Actions from one group of others to another group of others is not covered under that method in any manner whatsoever.

Relating that to religious argument is an interesting thought exercise.

[Gillipig]

What defines good as we see it?

"Good" is exceptionally easy to define. I remember an article back in Second Edition AD&D that defined it quite well.

Of course "Good" as in the "Common Good" has nothing to do with "Good."
And "Good" as in "of excellent quality" doesn't have anything to do with "Good" either.

Good as the article described was an arrangement of ones priorities in ones action where the needs of others are placed before the needs of self.

Note that it is based between self and others. Actions from one group of others to another group of others is not covered under that method in any manner whatsoever.

Relating that to religious argument is an interesting thought exercise.

Good is whatever you want it to be, except that which you don't like, it can't be that.

[BigBallinStalin]

What defines good as we see it?

"Good" is exceptionally easy to define. I remember an article back in Second Edition AD&D that defined it quite well.

Of course "Good" as in the "Common Good" has nothing to do with "Good."
And "Good" as in "of excellent quality" doesn't have anything to do with "Good" either.

Good as the article described was an arrangement of ones priorities in ones action where the needs of others are placed before the needs of self.

Note that it is based between self and others. Actions from one group of others to another group of others is not covered under that method in any manner whatsoever.

Relating that to religious argument is an interesting thought exercise.

Yeah, that's just one definition of 'good'. It's not all that clear why one's needs must be inferior to others' (and whose? which people get preferential treatment? and why?)

[Lord Arioch]

In one religion stoning is good, in one cruxifiction... in one its good to burn whitches, in one its good to smite the infidels and so on .... good is allways in the eye of the beholder (not the evil eye tyrant) and during "the hunt gather period" we were mostly "good" sure some rape/pillage did occur but hey when have we ever stopped on that?

[patches70]

In one religion stoning is good, in one cruxifiction... in one its good to burn whitches, in one its good to smite the infidels and so on .... good is allways in the eye of the beholder (not the evil eye tyrant) and during "the hunt gather period" we were mostly "good" sure some rape/pillage did occur but hey when have we ever stopped on that?

You got a point. There was a time when a slave obeying his master was considered "good". Today if a slave tries to free himself we consider that "good". At least, in the case of the US, we are good because we are marching all over the world "freeing" oppressed peoples. So the narrative goes.

Oh, and I'd propose that a majority of humans beings are still "hunter gatherers". So few of us actually farm. Most of use hunt and gather by going to work to earn money to go to the grocery store to gather supplies. Hahahha!

We aren't so much an agricultural based civilization anymore. We've become debt based civilizations. Once upon a time it was considered "good" to save, and "bad" to be in debt. Today everyone is in debt and debt is required for our civilization to exist. Saving is "bad" because we have to keep the velocity of money moving to keep everything going. That's why inflation is "good" because it discourages saving which is "bad" now.

Go figure.

I guess we've forgotten the old story of the ant and the grasshopper. We're all grasshoppers now! BBS knows what I'm talkin' about, don't ya BBS?

[Dukasaur]

What defines good as we see it? Like helping an old lady cross the street. Thats goodWhy not rob the old lady? Why is that not good? More cut throat philosophy. Survival of the fittist. Maybe because its easier to work with others.
Just thinking.

Exactly. It's easier to work with others. Homo sapiens is a pack animal. We do not like to live alone. That's the long and the short of all social ethics. There's different theories about the fine details, but bottom line is that we all know we get more out of life through some form of co-operation than through constant strife.

None of this depends on religion. Religions do try to codify the rules of playing nicely together, but their rules -- at least the ones that are generally recognised -- are pretty much the same as what the basic rules are in non-religious societies.

I dunno guys, do you remember what it was like for mankind before monotheism?

We live in times of plenty. So it's easy for us to say "it's easier to work with others" and "co-operation instead of strife" these days, but in days of old in times we today can learn about but not truly imagine that might not be so true.

The whole Roman Empire, for instance, required that she constantly invade and plunder everyone around her. When she ran out of people to enslave or lost the ability to plunder, she died as a civilization. Which of course supports the co-operation is better argument, but there was a time when such a thing was not even contemplated.

Tribes and groups of people were even more brutal to each other before that and it was all considered "natural".

A time when many of the things we consider today to be "wrong" or "immoral" or whatever, were virtues then. The message of Jesus today seems so...simple, common sense really. But back then and in times before what Jesus taught, love your neighbor, love your enemy, etc etc, well that was truly radical thinking. Would we have come to the sense we have today without Jesus? I don't know, maybe, there were philosophers and such who taught much like Jesus but their ideas didn't catch on like like Jesus' did. That wisdom of the Plato's and Socrates, others, lost, forgotten, ignored.

A simple truth, religion helped form what it is that we consider "good" and "moral" today. There were also other factors, but to try and say religion wasn't needed, did no good or dramatically downplay religion's role, well that's just not very true or fair. Sure we are social animals and we used to eat each other (figuratively and sometimes literally), socially.
Wolves are pack animals as well.

So what kind of pack animals are we, Dukasaur? Wolves or sheep? If we were once wolves, and are now sheep, how is it that we changed? Religion plays a greater role in that awakening than many give credit for.
It is hard for us to contemplate such an awakening such that Jesus brought, because we cannot truly understand what the world was like before that. Not in our easy lives, our luxury, our decidedly lack of need to spend every waking moment just trying to survive nature.

And it's hard to chalk mankind's transformation to "evolving" as mankind changed in the blink of an eye in the grand scale. We have been much more cruel to each other for a whole hell of a lot longer than we have been more compassionate. And even in our newly "evolved" thinking we still revert often enough to our brutal, savage selves at the drop of a hat and visit upon each other all manners of unfathomable cruelty.

But over all, mankind is much kinder than it once was. And that change happened virtually over night in the big picture of time. Sure, hundreds of years, but relative to the span of human existence it was an nearly instantaneous transformation. The "we just figured it out" doesn't hold very well without bringing religion into the mix. Add religion, particular Jesus, and we start to see a very strange transformation and that transformation is what has led directly to our days of leisure and plenty we enjoy now, relatively speaking when compared to the vast majority of mankind's existence and circumstance.
IMO.

A good, thoughful response -- the kind that makes patches a delight to have in this forum, even when we disagree.

It's true that times are perhaps good for us. And yet, just in the last century, we've seen something in the neighbourhood of 100 million people murdered either by their own government or by a neighbouring one. Just in my lifetime, Idi Amin has butchered his opponents and served their bodies for dinner, Rafael Trujillo has permanently attached wires to the genitals of political prisoners to make them easier for guards to control with electric shocks, Pol Pot has deliberately starved to death three million of his friends and neighbours, villagers in Rwanda who committed the crime of marrying outside their tribe were forced to "atone" for their crime by making the unpalatable choice of killing their own wife or killing their own children, a million died in Darfur without a peep from the sanctimonious governments of NATO (who nonetheless have gone to war dozens of times to prevent atrocities in other countries, or so we are told) and on and on and on. So not all is sweetness and light in our kinder, gentler world.

(Don't for a minute imagine that those incidents are unique to "barbaric" countries in the Third World. Thousands of people die every year in the wealthiest and most "civilized" countries through police actions and other forms of state-sanctioned brutality.)

Perhaps in the past life was more brutal yet. But then again, when we look at ancient societies, we see that acts of kindness existed alongside the brutal realities of life, right from earliest times. Temple inscriptions in Egypt and India clearly show organised charities, whereas every bit of evidence we have points to private philanthropy, the giving of gifts, and the propping up of those less fortunate.

Here's a story that shows evidence for people of 4,000 years ago caring for a crippled youth: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/science/ancient-bones-that-tell-a-story-of-compassion.html?_r=0

But when I wrote about "It's easier to work with others" I wasn't just referring to altruistic charities, although they are of course part of the total picture. I was talking about all forms of working with others -- trade, exchange, and communal effort of every kind.

There's no doubt whatsoever that communal effort is how humans survived, right from the earliest times. Whether just informal bands or organized armies of thousands, every advance in human life required co-operation with others. Sometimes it was communal, sometimes mercenary, sometimes enforced slavery, but in one flavour or another it was always co-operation, and required humans to, above all, do more net benefit to each other than net harm.

As to your question: are we wolves or sheep? That one is easy. Wolves, like us, are pack animals. Sheep are herd animals, and there are fundamental differences between a pack and a herd. A pack is a form of social organisation with a clearly defined heirarchy and clearly defined relationships between members of the pack. A herd, on the other hand, is an almost-random assembly of animals. Leadership, if any, is poorly defined. Relationships are not enhanced in any way by a herd (An animal recognises its mother, but it would do that even if they were completely solitary. Being part of the herd does not in any way contribute to the strength of that relationship) whereas relationships are very much enhanced by position within the heirarchy of a pack. We are nothing like sheep, and battles for position within the pack explain why it's so easy for us to engage in conflict, even while our most important activities are co-operative.

[patches70]

Dukasaur, sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I am referring to how tribes of humans treat other tribes.

That humans banded together for mutual survival is not at issue at all and I agree with you on that. But this pack of wolves never gets along with that pack of wolves. Certainly there were specific cases in ancient times when various tribes worked together, but for the most part they all raped and pillaged each other.

Not that today we don't do the same. But we have learned that just because there are peoples from other tribes doesn't mean we have to kill them. We can cooperate. Such thinking wasn't so common way back when, IMO.

It is easy to show kindness to one's own kind, but showing kindness to one's enemy is something different. We can always use more of such, even in these days. But it seems to me that such cooperation was rarely sought in ancient times.

The trade, exchange, communal effort between different groups of peoples comes easier for us today than it did back before 33AD. Even in the 2,000 years since that time we have struggled often enough, but the cooperation between nations (tribes/packs, etc) is more natural than it was to our ancient ancestors.

In those days of old when one tribe discovered the existence of another tribe it was usually instant distrust and both tribes would begin to plan on how to pillage the other. The idea of "Hey, let's be friends" didn't comes so easy for them as it is for us today. Not that it's always easy for us either.

I'm just wondering what it was that made mankind change and change so quickly in relative terms to how long we lived like literal wolves. Surely we still act like brutal animals at times, the examples are numerous.

I tend to think Jesus had a lot to do with that changing attitude, among other things as well. I can't speak for God or religion per say, as one's personal relationship with the Creator is one's private thoughts, and the concept of religion and it's place are varying between individuals that I won't really comment on those aspects.
But Jesus is a different thing all together.

If you are at least somewhat familiar with what Jesus taught, do you agree that some of the things he said were at the time radical thinking?
And that such thinking today isn't radical at all, but is just normal good relationship advice between people?

The story of the Good Samaritan is a fine example, since the Hebrews of the time didn't like Samaritans at all and it would have been a shocking tale to them at the time. But to us today, it's a story of how we should treat people whom may or may not be of our own tribe, nationality, or even known to someone, but that it is right and decent to help them anyway if they are in need.

That type of thinking was scandalous at the time, not so today. Would such a changing in attitude also go about transforming mankind if such thinking were to suddenly catch on?

I'm just kind of musing here, I don't really disagree with much of what you and even BBS say, I just think there may be things either over looked, ignored or not considered is all.

Anyway, peace.

[Gillipig]

What defines good as we see it? Like helping an old lady cross the street. Thats goodWhy not rob the old lady? Why is that not good? More cut throat philosophy. Survival of the fittist. Maybe because its easier to work with others.
Just thinking.

Exactly. It's easier to work with others. Homo sapiens is a pack animal. We do not like to live alone. That's the long and the short of all social ethics. There's different theories about the fine details, but bottom line is that we all know we get more out of life through some form of co-operation than through constant strife.

None of this depends on religion. Religions do try to codify the rules of playing nicely together, but their rules -- at least the ones that are generally recognised -- are pretty much the same as what the basic rules are in non-religious societies.

I dunno guys, do you remember what it was like for mankind before monotheism?

We live in times of plenty. So it's easy for us to say "it's easier to work with others" and "co-operation instead of strife" these days, but in days of old in times we today can learn about but not truly imagine that might not be so true.

The whole Roman Empire, for instance, required that she constantly invade and plunder everyone around her. When she ran out of people to enslave or lost the ability to plunder, she died as a civilization. Which of course supports the co-operation is better argument, but there was a time when such a thing was not even contemplated.

Tribes and groups of people were even more brutal to each other before that and it was all considered "natural".

A time when many of the things we consider today to be "wrong" or "immoral" or whatever, were virtues then. The message of Jesus today seems so...simple, common sense really. But back then and in times before what Jesus taught, love your neighbor, love your enemy, etc etc, well that was truly radical thinking. Would we have come to the sense we have today without Jesus? I don't know, maybe, there were philosophers and such who taught much like Jesus but their ideas didn't catch on like like Jesus' did. That wisdom of the Plato's and Socrates, others, lost, forgotten, ignored.

A simple truth, religion helped form what it is that we consider "good" and "moral" today. There were also other factors, but to try and say religion wasn't needed, did no good or dramatically downplay religion's role, well that's just not very true or fair. Sure we are social animals and we used to eat each other (figuratively and sometimes literally), socially.
Wolves are pack animals as well.

So what kind of pack animals are we, Dukasaur? Wolves or sheep? If we were once wolves, and are now sheep, how is it that we changed? Religion plays a greater role in that awakening than many give credit for.
It is hard for us to contemplate such an awakening such that Jesus brought, because we cannot truly understand what the world was like before that. Not in our easy lives, our luxury, our decidedly lack of need to spend every waking moment just trying to survive nature.

And it's hard to chalk mankind's transformation to "evolving" as mankind changed in the blink of an eye in the grand scale. We have been much more cruel to each other for a whole hell of a lot longer than we have been more compassionate. And even in our newly "evolved" thinking we still revert often enough to our brutal, savage selves at the drop of a hat and visit upon each other all manners of unfathomable cruelty.

But over all, mankind is much kinder than it once was. And that change happened virtually over night in the big picture of time. Sure, hundreds of years, but relative to the span of human existence it was an nearly instantaneous transformation. The "we just figured it out" doesn't hold very well without bringing religion into the mix. Add religion, particular Jesus, and we start to see a very strange transformation and that transformation is what has led directly to our days of leisure and plenty we enjoy now, relatively speaking when compared to the vast majority of mankind's existence and circumstance.
IMO.

A good, thoughful response -- the kind that makes patches a delight to have in this forum, even when we disagree.

It's true that times are perhaps good for us. And yet, just in the last century, we've seen something in the neighbourhood of 100 million people murdered either by their own government or by a neighbouring one. Just in my lifetime, Idi Amin has butchered his opponents and served their bodies for dinner, Rafael Trujillo has permanently attached wires to the genitals of political prisoners to make them easier for guards to control with electric shocks, Pol Pot has deliberately starved to death three million of his friends and neighbours, villagers in Rwanda who committed the crime of marrying outside their tribe were forced to "atone" for their crime by making the unpalatable choice of killing their own wife or killing their own children, a million died in Darfur without a peep from the sanctimonious governments of NATO (who nonetheless have gone to war dozens of times to prevent atrocities in other countries, or so we are told) and on and on and on. So not all is sweetness and light in our kinder, gentler world.

(Don't for a minute imagine that those incidents are unique to "barbaric" countries in the Third World. Thousands of people die every year in the wealthiest and most "civilized" countries through police actions and other forms of state-sanctioned brutality.)

Perhaps in the past life was more brutal yet. But then again, when we look at ancient societies, we see that acts of kindness existed alongside the brutal realities of life, right from earliest times. Temple inscriptions in Egypt and India clearly show organised charities, whereas every bit of evidence we have points to private philanthropy, the giving of gifts, and the propping up of those less fortunate.

Here's a story that shows evidence for people of 4,000 years ago caring for a crippled youth: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/science/ancient-bones-that-tell-a-story-of-compassion.html?_r=0

But when I wrote about "It's easier to work with others" I wasn't just referring to altruistic charities, although they are of course part of the total picture. I was talking about all forms of working with others -- trade, exchange, and communal effort of every kind.

There's no doubt whatsoever that communal effort is how humans survived, right from the earliest times. Whether just informal bands or organized armies of thousands, every advance in human life required co-operation with others. Sometimes it was communal, sometimes mercenary, sometimes enforced slavery, but in one flavour or another it was always co-operation, and required humans to, above all, do more net benefit to each other than net harm.

As to your question: are we wolves or sheep? That one is easy. Wolves, like us, are pack animals. Sheep are herd animals, and there are fundamental differences between a pack and a herd. A pack is a form of social organisation with a clearly defined heirarchy and clearly defined relationships between members of the pack. A herd, on the other hand, is an almost-random assembly of animals. Leadership, if any, is poorly defined. Relationships are not enhanced in any way by a herd (An animal recognises its mother, but it would do that even if they were completely solitary. Being part of the herd does not in any way contribute to the strength of that relationship) whereas relationships are very much enhanced by position within the heirarchy of a pack. We are nothing like sheep, and battles for position within the pack explain why it's so easy for us to engage in conflict, even while our most important activities are co-operative.

Dukasaur, sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I am referring to how tribes of humans treat other tribes.

That humans banded together for mutual survival is not at issue at all and I agree with you on that. But this pack of wolves never gets along with that pack of wolves. Certainly there were specific cases in ancient times when various tribes worked together, but for the most part they all raped and pillaged each other.

Not that today we don't do the same. But we have learned that just because there are peoples from other tribes doesn't mean we have to kill them. We can cooperate. Such thinking wasn't so common way back when, IMO.

It is easy to show kindness to one's own kind, but showing kindness to one's enemy is something different. We can always use more of such, even in these days. But it seems to me that such cooperation was rarely sought in ancient times.

The trade, exchange, communal effort between different groups of peoples comes easier for us today than it did back before 33AD. Even in the 2,000 years since that time we have struggled often enough, but the cooperation between nations (tribes/packs, etc) is more natural than it was to our ancient ancestors.

In those days of old when one tribe discovered the existence of another tribe it was usually instant distrust and both tribes would begin to plan on how to pillage the other. The idea of "Hey, let's be friends" didn't comes so easy for them as it is for us today. Not that it's always easy for us either.

I'm just wondering what it was that made mankind change and change so quickly in relative terms to how long we lived like literal wolves. Surely we still act like brutal animals at times, the examples are numerous.

I tend to think Jesus had a lot to do with that changing attitude, among other things as well. I can't speak for God or religion per say, as one's personal relationship with the Creator is one's private thoughts, and the concept of religion and it's place are varying between individuals that I won't really comment on those aspects.
But Jesus is a different thing all together.

If you are at least somewhat familiar with what Jesus taught, do you agree that some of the things he said were at the time radical thinking?
And that such thinking today isn't radical at all, but is just normal good relationship advice between people?

The story of the Good Samaritan is a fine example, since the Hebrews of the time didn't like Samaritans at all and it would have been a shocking tale to them at the time. But to us today, it's a story of how we should treat people whom may or may not be of our own tribe, nationality, or even known to someone, but that it is right and decent to help them anyway if they are in need.

That type of thinking was scandalous at the time, not so today. Would such a changing in attitude also go about transforming mankind if such thinking were to suddenly catch on?

I'm just kind of musing here, I don't really disagree with much of what you and even BBS say, I just think there may be things either over looked, ignored or not considered is all.

Anyway, peace.

[warmonger1981]

Can anyone explains how matter becomes conscious?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck

Or the Golden Ratio and its correlation to the Fibonacci sequence in nature? Is this coincidences? How does matter know how to do this?

Or Phi 1.618 in nature. A sea horses tail is the mathematical formula for Phi as are sea shells and flowers. Or the spiraling winds in a tornado or hurricane.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Can anyone explains how matter becomes conscious?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck

Or the Golden Ratio and its correlation to the Fibonacci sequence in nature? Is this coincidences? How does matter know how to do this?

Or Phi 1.618 in nature. A sea horses tail is the mathematical formula for Phi as are sea shells and flowers. Or the spiraling winds in a tornado or hurricane.

So you're saying the strong force is the mind of God?

Also, don't buy into all the golden ratio nonsense. Sometimes it's just the most efficient way to fit things (like the sunflower seeds). It's also not really that prevalent and it's just plain false in a lot of things. People try to fit patterns they observe as some mystical golden spiral when actually it doesn't come close.

Here's a decent rebuttal of golden ratio nonsense.

-TG

[warmonger1981]

I claim nothing. Simply ask questions so people like you can comment.

[Gillipig]

I claim nothing. Simply ask questions so people like you can comment.

You claim nothing? Pff you can't even lie convincingly, this is a claim alright, it's also a completely baseless, rectum derived claim which you do not even try to back up with rational argument.

Can anyone explains how matter becomes conscious?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck

Or the Golden Ratio and its correlation to the Fibonacci sequence in nature? Is this coincidences? How does matter know how to do this?

Or Phi 1.618 in nature. A sea horses tail is the mathematical formula for Phi as are sea shells and flowers. Or the spiraling winds in a tornado or hurricane.

To adress your claim. Why do we have to assume that an intelligent and concious mind is behind the creation of the certain fundamental aspects of physics? The answer is appearantly so obvious to you that you even conclude that we "must assume" it to be true, so you must have plenty of rational arguments not based on pseudo science or a the bible to justify this don't you?

[2dimes]

Warmonger is Max Planck?

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[warmonger1981]

First of all Gillipig it was a quote from Planck not me. So again I claimed nothing Mr.Planck did. I just gave a quote to get a reaction and I did, its just that you misunderstood me. Sorry to get your panties in a bunch. BTW you didn't answer any questions. You just started spewing garbage. At least gunner donated some logic. Can you?

How do quantum particles compose an atom, how does an atom compose a molecule, how does a molecule compose a chemical? Can anyone show or guide me through the process?


Still wondering how matter can become conscious.

[2dimes]

Warmonger is not Max Planck?

[notyou2]

Warmonger is not Max Planck?

Max Troll

[2dimes]

Warmonger is not Max Planck?

Max Troll

As played by Shatner.

[notyou2]

Warmonger is not Max Planck?

Max Troll

As played by Shatner.

Could anyone else do the part justice?

[warmonger1981]

Everyone seems to know so much about science and not Godin this thread so I thought I would ask questions. Now I have nothing but goofballs answering my questions. Still looking for an answer to my questions. Anyone with a reasonable answer please reply. If not please go eat a PBJ and get back to me when you have protein from peanuts in your butt.

[2dimes]

I'm not addressing your questions right now. I'm having fun with my pal after establishing Gillipig could not tell the difference between your statement and one you quoted.

Max Troll

As played by Shatner.

Could anyone else do the part justice?

Pitt, Norton, Kilmer... There's quite a few but I see what you're saying. If you were to direct the project Shatner might be your preference.