Paul, much as I think the people in this debate are the crux and essence of this debate and discussion I applaud you on this write up and very much a well versed summary of my posts and what I have tried inadequately to express. I'm with you all the way on this overall concept of science, life and the fullness of earthly existence followed thereafter by oblivion. It is where I have arrived and see my existence in true morals but not advantageously moralistic or religious. As the expression goes, this life of 70+ years is it not a dress rehearsal for something else or maybe better, this is it warts and all. Much as I accept others beliefs, religions etc for them and they have the right of choice I would rather put my faith in the sciences, truth and facts rather than blind beliefs for the sake of beliefs. I can no more conceptualise 4.5 billion years than flying to the moon but evolution to me is a plausible and to a geater extent verifiable phenomena far more so than the Adam and Eve fable. I can believe and visualise the religious persecutions of the middle ages and medieval era and even to modern history as much of fact is written and latterly photographed to support these facts along with scientific studies. The problem I was faced with was that judaism and catholicism offered no hard evidence or facts whatsoever and one was expected to accept blind belief as a basis for these religions which to me was so superficial and unacceptable. This then brought into question everything within these concepts and then the existence of a superior being and the afterlife. Yep, it would be great, fantastic if one moved into an 'afterlife' and into immortality but there is no evidence other than what mortal men have proffered over centuries and no-one can offer anything of evidence to convince me otherwise. If my dead relatives were reincarnated and sat down next to me as a real living mortal and not in the middle of the night in some gloomy mystical form and told me there was this 'nirvana' I would be sceptical of it as to whether it was an aberration or whatever but it may go partway, but, nothing and it will never happen as it's scientifically impossible. To me it's the same as a silk purse from sow's ear.

 

I'm really pleased you enjoyed the skit. I'll try and find out a PM you about it.

You may also like these ...................

 

The thing about this discussion that I don't care for is the insistence that your way is the right way Paul and any other thought from that is wrong. I deal with scientific facts every single day so I understand the significance of reason. I found your sentence 'On the other hand, if you're a rational being, facts should be able to change your beliefs' highly offensive as I have never once asked you to change your beliefs, they are personal to you. When you say that 'science is the place where we get rid of all our biases and embark on a journey to establish, for once and for all, truth', are you saying that you'll put aside your bias that 'believer's' are non-reasoning, potentially depressive, thick-skulled individuals? I would hope so because this conversation seems pretty one-sided to me.

We have a saying where I work which is 'data doesn't lie'. For the past seven or so years I, along with 3 of my colleagues, have collected real life data to create algorithms so we are able to predict the depth of penetration and size of a corrosive defects in buried pipelines. It's a lot of data. Many hours of painstakingly measuring defects in steel pipe that have either been milled or produced by bacteria somewhere in the good ol US of A. So I understand the concept of data, reasoning, studies and rationale. I'd be curious to find out how many individuals took part in this study of the frontal lobes and if the scientists thought to explore the brains of other groups of individuals who were non-religious/spiritual but engaged in other relaxing pursuits that would give one the same 'feeling'. Meditation doesn't necessarily have to be religious.

As far as Neil Degrasse Tyson is concerned.. he wouldn't even commit to the word 'atheist' when asked to describe his thoughts on God, spirituality or a higher power. He merely said that he 'didn't care' and 'I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care.' Sounds somewhat familiar

As I have stated before, I have never bought into the 'one story fits all' belief system of religion. I'd like to think each of us can grow spiritually in our own unique way and whether we choose to flock with others of like mindedness, then so be it. It doesn't make me any less of a person because I believe in an afterlife (whatever that may be). I'll tell you this though.. I do not believe in an afterlife as a reward for adhering to a particular set of rules in order to gain entry. I believe in an afterlife because of my own personal experiences with life and death, that's all. And you're right Paul, there is no do-over. Life is not a dress rehearsal.

.. and try and not be so hard on yourself, eh? We need you around here.. -who else would we debate with and try to annoy?

 

No, what I am insisting is that science and the knowledge we gain from it are the right way towards understanding what and who we are and where we're going.

[/QUOTE]I deal with scientific facts every single day so I understand the significance of reason. I found your sentence 'On the other hand, if you're a rational being, facts should be able to change your beliefs' highly offensive as I have never once asked you to change your beliefs, they are personal to you. [/QUOTE]

But if you believe in a flat earth or that the sun revolves around the earth and are presented with evidence to the contrary, what does that say of your beliefs if you are unwilling to change? You see, this is the beauty of science. If, over time, evidence mounts to support a competing idea science doesn't hold it's hands over its ears and refuse to change. It has too.

Changing, modifying and adopting fresh perspectives in the face of new evidence is what a rational person does. It's the cornerstone of intellect. Clinging to a belief system that cannot plausibly be supported by scientific evidence, is something else, entirely.

[/QUOTE]When you say that 'science is the place where we get rid of all our biases and embark on a journey to establish, for once and for all, truth', are you saying that you'll put aside your bias that 'believer's' are non-reasoning, potentially depressive, thick-skulled individuals? I would hope so because this conversation seems pretty one-sided to me.[/QUOTE]

When someone can provide a plausible scientific explanation for your beliefs or anyone else's beliefs, I'm more than willing to listen.

[/QUOTE]We have a saying where I work which is 'data doesn't lie'. For the past seven or so years I, along with 3 of my colleagues, have collected real life data to create algorithms so we are able to predict the depth of penetration and size of a corrosive defects in buried pipelines. It's a lot of data. Many hours of painstakingly measuring defects in steel pipe that have either been milled or produced by bacteria somewhere in the good ol US of A. So I understand the concept of data, reasoning, studies and rationale. [/QUOTE]

Frankly, I can't understand why a person such as yourself who, on a daily basis, relies on science and mathematics for checking and rechecking data to insure that the right decisions are made, has such a difficult time with what I've been saying?

[/QUOTE]I'd be curious to find out how many individuals took part in this study of the frontal lobes and if the scientists thought to explore the brains of other groups of individuals who were non-religious/spiritual but engaged in other relaxing pursuits that would give one the same 'feeling'. Meditation doesn't necessarily have to be religious.[/QUOTE]

First, I agree in action and words with your assertion about meditation. I have employed breathing exercises I learned from Swami Vivekananda for over 35 years to help me meditate. It is a method for relaxation and helps to reduce stress.

As far as how many people were used in the various tests that were mentioned in the two articles I posted, there are links to the actual studies that would provide greater detail for those that were really interested in following up on the studies.

Finally, I don't know how you would actually know if the spirituality you experience in those moments of "feeling" are the same as those found in the subjects in the one test. The scientists were using monks and nuns to establish a base line. Through brain scans of these subjects they were able to locate specific portions of the frontal lobe that were excited during meditation and prayer. I think the main reason monks and nuns were used was because (and this is where my Carnegie Hall comment came in) through repetition, these subjects were able to, on a far more regular basis, reach a level of transcendence that most people would accept as spiritual. (Again, we have to put aside matters of the philosophy of language for a moment.)

Perhaps if you volunteer yourself for a similar test you can explore the possibility that your "feelings" are the same or similar to those found in the original subjects, or they may be something completely different. The key would be that you would have to be able to reach that transcendent moment at will. I don't think you've mentioned how frequently or how easily you achieve these feelings. If they are random, testing becomes all the more difficult.

[/QUOTE]As far as Neil Degrasse Tyson is concerned.. he wouldn't even commit to the word 'atheist' when asked to describe his thoughts on God, spirituality or a higher power. He merely said that he 'didn't care' and 'I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care.' Sounds somewhat familiar [/QUOTE]

You know a study was released a couple of years ago that showed atheists to be one of the most distrusted groups of people in America.

In Atheists We Distrust - Scientific American

I think the study showed that atheists are on a par with rapists as far as trustworthiness is concerned. Given that kind of prejudice, is it a wonder anyone denies being a non believer. There's one representative in Congress, out of 535 who openly acknowledges his disbelief in god. In reality, there are certainly many more. Statistically, there has to be more. A Pew study found that somewhere around 16% of all Americans are non believers. Granted that includes all variations from atheists to agnostics to the lazy. Nevertheless, it points to a statistical fact that there has to be many more elected officials who don't believe in a god. They just know, if they spoke the truth, they wouldn't get elected. Is it really that surprising that Tyson dodged the question?

Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

[/QUOTE]As I have stated before, I have never bought into the 'one story fits all' belief system of religion. I'd like to think each of us can grow spiritually in our own unique way and whether we choose to flock with others of like mindedness, then so be it. It doesn't make me any less of a person because I believe in an afterlife (whatever that may be). I'll tell you this though.. I do not believe in an afterlife as a reward for adhering to a particular set of rules in order to gain entry. I believe in an afterlife because of my own personal experiences with life and death, that's all. And you're right Paul, there is no do-over. Life is not a dress rehearsal.[/QUOTE]

KD in the first paragraph of my length post you took issue with, I said "I believe in your right to think what you like but I also believe in my right to expect some fundamental basis for anyone's belief." You can believe in anything you want. Believe the earth is flat, unicorns exist, that the flying spaghetti monster will save us all. Believe whatever you like. But, if you're going to post on a public forum about your spiritual feelings, ect. I'm going to ask where the plausible science is to support your assertions. Where are the scientific tests and evidence that serve as support for your feelings. If you have them, I'm onboard with you and want to learn as much as I can from you. However, if your basis is formed on anecdotal experiences then I am sorry but you have nothing for me.

 

I read a couple of good articles about the future yesterday and thought I'd post links to them.

The first was in the New Statesman and it addresses the new Luddite movement that seems to be growing in technology.

New Statesman | The new Luddites: why former digital prophets are turning against tech

The other article from The Chronicle of Higher Education may be of particular interest to Senormac. He made mention of a possible future like what's depicted in the movie "The Terminator." Well, this article might just keep you up at night if you read it. I think I said, in one of my posts that The Singularity" is both thrilling and chilling. Well, after reading this, my feelings were reconfirmed.

Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat? - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

 

The article in the NS is almost as predicted. When it applied to the blue collar workers no-one showed concerns ........... that was progession and automation but now when it applies to making the white collar workers redundant everyone sits up and takes notice. I believe I mentioned the luddite scenario and it appears I'm not the only forecaster on the block. However, luddites or not, they will not stop the march of progress and the automation of many jobs in the future.

Regarding the other artical in the Chronical Review on artificial intelligence, we have already passed the brink (or even the precipice) IMO and your mentioning earlier the concept of singularity brings home the imminence and the future for many. One can run but never hide from the inevitability and as developed nations we should be preparing the young and addressing these matters now and preparing them for a different kind of future and far more radical than has ever been considered before. Those nations who ignore the signs will be left behind in the commercial wilderness and become additional third world whilst the existing third world drops further down the scale and pecking order. Tradition is history IMO from hereon out. Sounds all a bit like armageddon but in truth it will be but completely without any hierarchical emotions. It'll be like 'sitting on the dock of the bay' for some of us with all the time in the world to waste.

 

Here's a plausible explanation for the latest scientific brain scan study:


Revelation 22:4:


'And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.'

Hm.. where are the frontal lobes located?







AMEN

 

And, I'll just cut and paste from my post above:

"But, if you're going to post on a public forum about your spiritual feelings, ect. I'm going to ask where the plausible science is to support your assertions. Where are the scientific tests and evidence that serve as support for your feelings. If you have them, I'm onboard with you and want to learn as much as I can from you. However, if your basis is formed on anecdotal experiences then I am sorry but you have nothing for me."

 

This is one of the best threads I've ever read or been involved in. We are getting to see the flipside of the dime here as well. My brain cells are aching so much so I need to realign my three cells of grey matter to build up for the next round as it's so fascinating. It's a pity there aren't more participants on both sides but religion, spirituality and politics are oft the subjects of a 'no go area' for many. Pity

 

Ahhh.. but that is where the divide comes between us my friend. Do you realize that, like me, you are also pointing out your beliefs on the same forum but you require me to prove my disposition before you'll grant me the time of day? You want proof and all I can give you is 'poof' because, at the moment, no one can prove or disprove spirituality & religion. Perhaps that is why science is considered a different category than religion and it isn't a black and white answer. Have I asked you if you can prove that it doesn't exist? No. Have I told you that you have nothing to offer me in this conversation? No. I merely respected your views and stated that I don't hold the same views. Nothing wrong with that at all. The brain scan study is interesting and perhaps it is leading the way to bigger and better findings toward understanding why some people are spiritual and others are not. Does it change my viewpoint right now? No, it does not.

Many scientists are divided on the subject. - I probably could do a poll where I work and we'd be divided 50/50. Many of us have the attitude that if we can't disprove it then we won't rule it out. I know a lot of us have experienced mystical moments in our lifetime and we weren't smoking crack. Just because I'm a scientist doesn't mean that I can't imagine the possibility of knowledge being created by something larger than all of us alongside the process of evolution. I'd be interested in studying this further, yes. But for the time being (until I am otherwise proven absolutely incorrect) I am happy to coexist with my spiritual side and trust the intuitiveness and consciousness that it provides me. No one can take spirituality away from another. As I said before, to me, it comes from within those that experience it and shows itself in many different forms. I don't know if it will ever be defined.

I have enjoyed this conversation - very much so. Thank you.