Sir Bandelot

BS. If you really read it you would not criticize metaphysics in the lame way that you did. Metaphysics is philosophy based on science and mathematics, and asks open questions about reality and our origins. Even daring to discuss the possibility of a creator, but makes arguments using logic and scientific observations. Religion is just a brand name, it does not mean the same thing as spirituality, and certainly not the same thing as metaphysics. But the fact is, the origin of science is in the priest and the shaman, who first mapped the patterns of stars and planets in the sky. They new about the cycles of planetary apparitions and devised the first calendars, but attached religious significance to this. That is both the origin of astronomy and astrology, and possibly the origin of religious myths. As for you, it seems like your stuck on using terms like "masturbation" and wanker a bit too much. Get over it, and get a girlfriend.

Thats right, yet scientists firmly "believe" in it despite that it is only a mathematical hypothesis, without physical proof. same goes for dark matter and dark energy. Sheesh, the arrogance of people who think they know something, then insist on telling everyone else that they dont know nothin. You clowns who might like to dis the term metaphysics, would do well to read a little more from some of history's greatest thinkers. The book by Aristotle titled Metaphysics might open your narrow mind a little further. Instead of your asses

Anything goes isn't necessarily the best philosophy. Thats liberalism.

I like the term "Metaphysics"!

I don't see why the two concepts have to be irreconcilable. To me, if a God exists, it does not micro-manage the universe. So called laws broadly define the interactions that can take place between forces and materials. At small scales there is chaos, but on larger scales, the averages show structure. We are such a structure, and we are the average of many smaller random processes. And strangely science is coming full circle in its observations of this process. In the beginning, there was a primordial cloud of particles and energy, that separated (by physical laws) into clusters of matter, galaxies, stars, held together by gravity. Stars are fairly simple objects, massive yes, powerful yes but simple in that they are composed of mainly hydrogen atoms. But in the nuclear furnace of stars, fusion creates heavier elements that are released when stars burn out. And we have deduced that this world, rocks and oceans were created by the dust of this process. Yet even that material is simple, when compared to living animated beings. If we view all this as part of a continuing process, it means that we humans are the most complex things there are in the known universe. Although other life might exist elsewhere as well, it means that in comparison with the billions of stars, galaxies and inanimate matter we are very rare and unique. The universe, if it has a purpose seems to be evolving from simple atoms into more and more complicated structures, and the most complicated thus far realized is- us. And to me that clearly puts man back at the center of the circle http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Luc_Viatour.jpg

What would you suggest?

Then why did he used the words "designed laws". He could have said natural laws, or physical laws, or some other term. The choice of the phrase "designed laws" implies there is a designer.

That may be true but its a whole other issue. What it will do is get millions of North Americans out of the criminal system. The root problem will be easier to deal with, when you don't have a criminal record hanging around your neck for the rest of your life.

We expect that cause and effect are a fundamental law that the universe is built upon. Einstein showed us that time is simply another dimension, implying that higher order dimensions could exist where time is represented in one plane, space on another. Modern cosmologists who study the origin of the universe ie. Big Bang now believe that this universe was created when an 11-dimensional object collapsed. This is part of what string theory is about. The point is its possible for things to exist outside of the time dimension that we can't easily understand, but mathematics shows they could logically exist. People often ask, what was before the big bang, the conventional answer so far is that time itself did not exist before the big bang. There was no "before".

Right, and I never said prayers would prevent disasters... thats absurd. I said, having a belief helps the people who have to deal with recovery, psychologically, so they can get on with it. "I can think of many situations where prayer and hope have encouraged passive fatalism rather than taking action to improve their lives." Sure, because anything can be made good or bad, useful or useless. These are just ideas. They can be used in different ways, right or wrong. Even nuclear technology is the same thing, helpful in some ways, harmful in others. That does not mean we dismiss it, only that we learn how to make it useful, for ourselves. This sort of discussion becomes absurd whenever we take ideas that are metaphors and interpret them as physically real. That is fundamentalism, and to me it misses the point completely. We all know what fundamentalism does, take a look at the world around you. I don't know anything about heavenly creatures, both my feet are on the ground. But if it helps someone to believe that heavenly creatures exist, and influence this reality, good for them. As a scientist I say that randomness exists, chaos exists and we see creation and destruction happening all the time in the universe around us, in a cycle. It happens to us too, just as likely as it can happen when a star dies or meteors slams into a planet. Random chance means that bad things can happen, and you "pray" that it just won't happen to you. But if it does, it does. Meanwhile the cycle continues. For those who are left to survive a catastrophe, the choice is to look into the empty abyss and see that life is cruel and means nothing, so leading to complete despair and even self destruction, or find a way to cope with it. Like when a loved one dies, people need a way to cope. Then they go to the church, even though they would never go at other times. For many people, this is an easier way to deal with tragedy than what the atheist philosophy has to offer. What could Dawkins possibly offer a poor mother who has lost her children? Not much I think. But Jesus has a lot to offer thats easy for her to understand, so she can go on, and make more babies. Tragedy is the birth of religion...

Well thats a pretty unkind thing to say, about large groups of people in every corner of the world. Each person seeks answers about the meaning of life based on their own needs. You did use the word HOPE- "they hope he will answer their prayer". And thats what I say is one reason people need to believe in God. When people are suffering, as in times of disaster, they need hope to believe in something, to lift them out of hopelessness and give them the strength to continue on. Suffering is a common human condition. Hope is a very basic human need. Thats a big question. I don't have an easy answer that will satisfy you. But my view is, if every event was controlled and pre-ordained, there would be no free will. We would be acting out a scripted role. But the fact is, we do have free will, to do anything we want. We can be good or evil. Yes evil causes pain and suffering, why do we need that? What does it do for us to feel pain, to suffer... We become stronger. Look at spoiled children, look at people who have never suffered or been in need, who have all things provided for them- they often take things for granted, they become arrogant and self centered. They do not understand anything beyond the fulfillment of their own desires. They become morally weak. I see life, suffering as a matter of creating endurance, building character, building intelligence even by the questioning, finding a way to overcome. Each person answers to suffering in their own way. Just like steel must be tempered, to make it harder. And then the master swordsman must test the blade. To soft, it yields too easily. Too hard, it breaks under stress. So as the saying goes... that which does not kill me, makes me stronger.

I did not imply that humans invented God. I said that whether God is real or not is irrelevant to the millions of suffereing people who ned to have something greater to believe in. What needs to be reversed, or rather eliminated is the question "Is God real?" because that distracts from the deeper meaning of God. Much like Santa... the spirit of Santa is far more important than fretting over whether he's real. Ho Ho Ho

Another strange seemingly irrelevant post. What knd of glue are you sniffing, please, so I can make sure to avoid it.

Sorry I was actually thinking... not reading your stupid stuff

Well having raised a few of them myself I can tell you that at no time did I actually start to believe in Santa again, at least not literally. More to the point I see belief as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. It does not matter if its actually true, as long as it gets you there. For many people, this is the point of religion- Belief provides the framework for having the courage to go on despite, great difficulty or even despite inevitable failure. Many great athletes have a system of belief to help them draw on their strength when the situation is desperate. The same goes for suicide bombers. Belief is a tool, in some cases even a weapon. Belief overcomes fear and self doubt.

Dawkins view of what religion is about, of what function it serves for people is extremely narrow minded. The analogy of a flying spaghetti monster for instance, is about as sophisticated as the religious belief of a two year old. My take on him is that he's in it for the money. What he and any other self righteous types dont get is that they as atheists believe in a dogma, just as any "believer" does, yet they childishly ridicule people who believe in religion. Having a fixed belief that you are right and know all, is about the most arrogant thing a person can do to themselves. Any real scientist knows, we constantly make false assumptions based on our own perspective, the uniqueness of our environment and the limits of our senses. Considering the bizarre direction that modern cosmology has taken, most people could not even comprehend what they're talking about. The universe is more strange than we are capable of imagining. I would not be surprised that science, if allowed to continue making unbiased explorations will eventually come face to face with a creator.

Easy answer at home. Not so easy, when it comes to foreign affairs. In other words we have some measure of justice here in our western countries, towards our citizens. But the exploitive capitalist policies have only served to perpetuate misery in some other lands. From slave trade to industrial revolution to global economy, where Misumi cannot afford to buy a piece of chicken for dinner because she works in a little sweat shop in India, for ten cents an hour. All so you can buy a cheap pair of pants at Wally World. We see ourselves as pretty high and mighty, the highest level of civilization and justice, and we are compared to what else is out there. But we commit our sins too, to the smallest man. So I wouldn't go proudly shouting from the rooftops about how great we are. PS Been drinking? I guess its ok...

Hey wait a sec now, its clear you don't support Obama or the bailouts, yet here you seem to criticize the fact that they were not given the money carte-blanche. If they screw up and can't run their company without a major cash injection, ie. public money, it seems fair that some changes would have to be made, fix the real problems internally before handing over the cash. My banker won't give me a loan unless I prove that I can pay it back, by showing some fiscal responsibility. So which is it? You don't want to give them public money, but they get to do whatever they want with it?

Lets not be so high and mighty... every one of us has moments of stupidity. Some are stupid in different ways than others. A person can be highly educated, technically or artistically skilled, but at the same time socially inept. Let us ask, who among us is not stupid. The ones who take delight in pointing out the stupidity of others, as though somehow to express their inner need for their a superiority complex, also in a way show this trait. Stuidity is not inherited, like red hair is or like blood types. Stupidity can also be TAUGHT, and in fact there is a preference for stupidity in some western subcultures, the anti-intellectuals. Disdain for science, disdain for higher education. George Bush is a symbol of this subculture. How is it that two well educated parents can have not-so-bright offspring? Or the reverse, a capable and intelligent person springs forth from a home of butt scratching tv watchers? A mystery, but it happens. Humans are evolving and the distribution of stupidity can be mapped on a bell curve. Stupidity, whatever that means, is difficult to eliminate. One reason is that those who are truly NOT stupid, generally keep it to themselves.

I'm guessing that the enemy does not wear a uniform or bear their arms openly, because if they do they will get quickly annihilated, by high altitude bombers, cruise missiles and "unmanned" predator drones. Seems that those weapons and the people controlling them would not comply either. Any insurgent who wants to survive would have the choice of conforming to the GC and be vaporized, or hiding their identity and weapons.

Ok, as long as we're clear on that idea then. Christians do condone torture as part of their religion. The direct evidence comes from the church itself, see inquisition etc. Well seems that they and muslim extremists are really not that different, at a fundamental level.

Well your christ taught turning the other cheek, guess thats too idealistic to be adhered to in reality. But even so the point is about acceptance of the use of torture, not killing someone in self defense. So let us now ask, who would Jesus torture?

Yep. Sad that he has to stretch so far to post these unimportant criticisms of Obama. Dude, can't you find something real to complain about? Theres plenty I'm sure... but the reason you won't touch on the real issues is that any criticism of such would also be a direct criticism of Bush et al. In other words, same old same old. Which leaves you with nothing to post beyond tabloid trash. I pity you

Multinational corporations hide the country of origin for the ingredients in their products. If it says "Distributed by..." you can be sure its from outside of Canada, but thats all. I'm not sure but I suspect that even if something says "Product of Canada", like say its pasta, you don't know where all the ingredients come from. Was the wheat purchased from China? because with the global economy the raw ingredients can be purchased by the boat load at a cheaper price, then taken into the plant and refined, processed into noodles. Anyway although I try to buy Canadian, its getting darn near impossible. Went to a clothing store recently and EVERY SINGLE ITEM was made in China. Well, maybe one or two from India. Welcome to the global economy, where we buy stuff made by slaves and child labourers, without regulations or pollution controls, so you can get a shirt that cost 5 cents to make, for $19.99. In the new anti-globalist cultural movement people will stop buying their shit entirely, out of fear and repulsion for what it represents, and start making their own. We are seeing this anti-consumerism on the rise now. Don't buy stuff make it yourself. It takes longer, yes. So you must stop sitting around at night watching TV or playing video games. Unplug, turn off, get with it.

Here's the problem as I see it- the government assigns the military to fight wars based on politics, international treaties, pressure from outside. I think many Canadians would sign up very quickly if the threat was to our country, but to go fight a war that really makes no difference at home, that doesn't sit well with a highly educated, informed public. Thats for people who want to go fight, regardless of the reason. I am saying, to join the military means in a certain way to give trust to the government, that they will send you on the right mission, and provide the support necessary to win. You will put your life on the line for this. Under the right circumstances I would consider doing it. But, when I see people like Peter Mackay...