The secret to understanding almost everything

[swivel]

Evolution.

If you do not understand evolution, you will never understand people and the way they behave. Your politics, economics, philosophy, and ethics will always be misguided. So, take the Evolutionary Psychology Challenge. Spend the next week thinking about human behavior from an evolutionary standpoint. Let me give you a quick primer and some examples:

Things to understand as completely true:

1. Humans are animals, not much different than Squash and Oysters and pretty much identical to Chimps.

2. Modern humans are about 200,000 years old. To put this into perspective, if all of human history took place in a single year, then Agriculture is something we would have come up with on December 10th. Jesus would have been born on December 27th. WWII would have taken place at 9 p.m. on New Year's eve. Here's the thing to remember with these shocking examples: we have evolved for a very long time in a primitive setting, and almost no time in a modern one. We haven't even been selecting our own crops for very long. Everything we are is suited to living in a non-modern environment.

3. There is NO Blank Slate. Rousseau and his ilk were 100% wrong and this has been proven. Infants are afraid of heights from the very beginning, without having to ever fall. Tests have proven this as babies will not crawl over glass surfaces suspended over some height. Newborn sheep display the same tendency when this is their very first experience. All of behavior is pre-programmed, including the ability to learn from the environment and alter that programming. If you talk to a human infant and a puppy, the human infant will learn to speak, the puppy will not. It is not the environmental cue that contains power, it is the wiring in the brain that controls everything, especially what it can and can not do with stimuli from the environment.

4. All of life is chemistry. If a chemical can sustain a chain reaction, and does not run out of input material, it will continue. That is what started RNA, which led to DNA, which found its way in the skin of small pockets of material in porous rock, which led to the first life (which was probably stationary, and lived in microscopic holes in porous clays which serve as protection, chemical reactant surfaces, and buffets of passing chemical materials). It was life like a primitive reef. And some of these spherical nodes "learned" to detach themselves and survive as spherical cells. And other cells, such as mitochondria, moved in. These first creatures had no competition and no predators, just a natural mix of powerful hydrocarbons and elemental building blocks. They grew rapidly and eventually started to compete, so the best chemical reactions won out. And this process of small changes, over 4.4 billion years, results in every living thing around us. Just keep in mind that life is chemical. Even most of our brain functions are really chemical, not electrical as is the common misconception. All of our emotions are primarily chemical.

5. The very most important thing to understand about evolution is that it does NOT work on the level of the individual organism. It only seems that way. It works on the level of the individual GENE. This is because of number 4, the chemical nature of life. Genes are just chemical compounds that are in a sustained (albeit very complex), chemical reaction. The ones that eventually lead to more of themselves will soon find that there are more of themselves around. It can not be stated more simply than this.

6. Evolutionary reality is NOT, I repeat NOT ethical reality. Understanding our drives does not make them ALL OK. This is the Naturalistic Fallacy (what pot-smokers claim when they point to the fact that marijuana is all-natural. None of them seem keep to drink snake venom, however). We obviously have tendencies towards superstition, rage, prejudice, jealously, etc... When we use evolution to explain WHY we have these emotions, and how they are important, we are NOT saying that they are preferred or ethical. Understanding them is the best way to overcome and control them. Pretending that we are all noble savages perverted by an evil society is to live a fantasy, ignoring reality, and making no ethical progress. We need to understand that all animals have evil tendencies, that these tendencies are NOT OK in a civilized society, and that we must understand and overcome them, not let utopian delusions rob us of all power in an attempt to "feel good" in a politically-correct, nonsensical way.


Those are the basic concepts, and here are some of the neat conclusions that you can make:

Q. Why are humans becoming more obese?
A. Humans, like most animals, have a craving for sugars and fats. Traditionally, these are rare commodities that are loaded with energy (adoninetriphosphate, or ATP is the storehouse for life's energy. We go through our BODY WEIGHT in ATP every single day, and sugars and fats are bonanzas for the ATP cycle). The problem arises when technology, politics, and economics create a cheap supply of sugar and fat, but our bodies are designed to live a life of near-starvation. Our compulsion is to eat as often and as much as we can. Understanding that this is a genetic urge, designed by evolution to keep us alive in times of meager rations, explains an odd and detrimental behavior and can give us power over it.

Q. Why do women have a harder time reading maps?
A. Amazingly, it seems to be tied to Testosterone. Studies have shown that map-reading abilities separate people out in the following order, from best to worst: Straight men, bi men, gay men, gay women, bi women, straight women. This also seems to be the order you find sexual preferences on a line with testosterone on the left and estrogen on the right. Since testosterone is the chemical used to build hunting bodies, it makes sense that it also augments the parts of the brain used for spatial awareness, the map on which we hunt.

Q. Why do men have a greater sex drive?
A. The reproductive strategies for males and females differ in all species. In most species, the female devotes more energy to the care of the offspring. Whichever gender has this role, is always the "choosy" gender. (some male beetles raise the young, and in these cases, they are the more "attractive" gender, they are very picky about who they mate with, and the females are bigger, stronger, and hornier). This makes complete sense from an evolutionary perspective. It is in the male's self-interest to impregnate as many women as possible and have someone else raise the offspring if they can. This is why most human societies today are still polygamous. (The United States included. In my country, at least 10% of kids are being raised by cockled men). Women, on the other hand, have to devote a ton of time and energy to each child, and so they much choose the male that will provide the most resources. That used to be the Alpha Male who controlled the hunts, now it is the rich man in the fancy car. Males are primarily interested in the hip-to-waist ratio (.7 is perfect) and want young, symmetrical, beautiful mates (and lots of them). When I was living in South Florida, I saw many of these "ideal marriages" of millionaire men with young, gorgeous women half their age. This is the match-up that all of us crave due to evolutionary pressures.

Q. Why do people clump together in groups that are similar to each other? Why are we prejudiced, choosing to segregate rather than integrate?
A. You can separate chimps at birth, and re-introduce them at sexual maturity, and they will NOT engage in sexual behavior with one another. Organisms, even some single-celled ones, know their relatedness to each other using chemical cues. This prevents inbreeding, which is the bane of sexual reproduction. It allows two recessant genes to overlap, expressing an inferior allele. This is why incest is so rare in the animal kingdom. The fact that it does happen is no different than the imperfect nature of all biological systems. Perfect vision is not the norm, and more people are born blind, deaf, dumb, or even not born at all (miscarried) than are born without this natural safeguard. Isn't it interesting that religions spend almost no time warning us of incest? It is because our sense of right and wrong is mostly innate, and this drive is strong enough to not need reinforcement.
The same ability to distinguish relatedness gives rise to prejudice. We do not want to procreate with direct relations, but we also are to fear anything outside of our small tribe. All organisms are big balls of energy-laden biological compounds. Sacks of warm ATP, if you will. The ones that walk around extending a hand to everything did not leave that DNA in large amounts. The ones that beat different things to death with a stick, or ran like hell and hid in a tree... these things did very, very well. We are programmed to know in a single glance whether or not something belongs in our tribe, and if we should mate with them or not. This leads to a lot of hate, fear and mistrust (and a lot of mating, as well). Go observe any school cafeteria to see this at work.


Please ask questions, disagree, or add your own findings. I promise you that you will not go to hell if you spend the next week looking at all human behavior from an evolutionary perspective. If the world was made by an invisible ghost, she made it by using natural selection, eons of time, and all of the principles stated above.

[CPL CHUD]

I know you touched on it briefly Swiv, but I'd also like to mention that biology doesn't make a lick of sense without evolution. The passing of genes, mutations, etc., really holds no grand purpose without evolution. People who dismiss evolution fail to see the beauty behind how it makes an entire field of study that much more viable. It even ties into psychology, and the origin of all of our emotions. It streamlines the understanding of human behavior by stomping out immaterialism. Thoughts come from somewhere, sadness comes from somewhere, happiness comes from somewhere; and we can identify them all and how to trigger them. It gives one control over their own mental state via understanding. It squishes the ghosts and goblins of old psychology.

[brokenandtwisted]

Blah @ evolution. That seems to be the main discussion in this section. :lol:

I prefer religion, honestly. I love biology, chemistry, anatomy, living matter...and I can wrap my head around the theory of evolution; but religion is comforting in my opinion. Is that a fault? It can be perceived as that, but religion offers much more than evolution (ie. comfort). For every 'negative' thing about religion, there's something positive as well...no?

[I am Legend]

4. All of life is chemistry. If a chemical can sustain a chain reaction, and does not run out of input material, it will continue. That is what started RNA, which led to DNA, which found its way in the skin of small pockets of material in porous rock, which led to the first life (which was probably stationary, and lived in microscopic holes in porous clays which serve as protection, chemical reactant surfaces, and buffets of passing chemical materials). It was life like a primitive reef. And some of these spherical nodes "learned" to detach themselves and survive as spherical cells. And other cells, such as mitochondria, moved in. These first creatures had no competition and no predators, just a natural mix of powerful hydrocarbons and elemental building blocks. They grew rapidly and eventually started to compete, so the best chemical reactions won out. And this process of small changes, over 4.4 billion years, results in every living thing around us. Just keep in mind that life is chemical. Even most of our brain functions are really chemical, not electrical as is the common misconception. All of our emotions are primarily chemical.



maybe thats why Genesis tells us that man was made from dirt/dust/clay. the actual Sumerian story Genesis plagarizes tells the same basic story. so do quite a few religions across the globe.

also note the logical flow of evolution in Genesis, whereby the waters are where life appears first, and man comes along last. not saying genesis gets it all right, but there is at the very least a hint of "knowing" somehow that perhaps somewhere deep down in our DNA we all know (even the ones who wont admit it) that we are part of a natural process of occurence over time, not a miracle of epic proportions.

[I am Legend]

Blah @ evolution. That seems to be the main discussion in this section. :lol:

I prefer religion, honestly. I love biology, chemistry, anatomy, living matter...and I can wrap my head around the theory of evolution; but religion is comforting in my opinion. Is that a fault? It can be perceived as that, but religion offers much more than evolution (ie. comfort). For every 'negative' thing about religion, there's something positive as well...no?

i would say...................................no.

[brokenandtwisted]

i would say...................................no.

I think you have to be affiliated with one to fully understand it. From my understanding most atheists look down upon religions as complete psychological 'mind-fucks' and things we have fabricated to explain our own existence, or a moral code to live with.

[I am Legend]

Blah @ evolution. That seems to be the main discussion in this section. :lol:

I prefer religion, honestly. I love biology, chemistry, anatomy, living matter...and I can wrap my head around the theory of evolution; but religion is comforting in my opinion. Is that a fault? It can be perceived as that, but religion offers much more than evolution (ie. comfort). For every 'negative' thing about religion, there's something positive as well...no?


I think you have to be affiliated with one to fully understand it. From my understanding most atheists look down upon religions as complete psychological 'mind-fucks' and things we have fabricated to explain our own existence, or a moral code to live with.

most atheists i know were at one time religious, as was i. i just happened to one day notice that that little comfort blanket i was holding onto was tattered and frayed. at its core, religion is that for people, a security blanket. personally, i look down on religions because they are lies and not much else. people bask in religion because it makes them feel safe about death, and secondly to have a "one-up" on others. it makes em feel good to know that they are going to heaven whilst the vast majority of the people on earth, ever, are going to hell. and being non-religious doesnt mean atheist all the time, just as many percieved atheists are actually agnostic. the common bond is the contempt for organized religion.

[Killroy]

I think you have to be affiliated with one to fully understand it. From my understanding most atheists look down upon religions as complete psychological 'mind-fucks' and things we have fabricated to explain our own existence, or a moral code to live with.

I guess I just do not understand the comfort one gets from religion. I have been closely affiliated with it, and I found it silly and hypocritical. I truly found no comfort in fooling myself into thinking that death was not an afterlife described in the Bible, nor did I like the feeling of living my life to a code of conduct and rules that were created purely for control and nothing but the proverbial boogeyman tactic.

Dont' get out of the bed, or the boogeyman will get you.

Except by "Don't get out of the bed" I mean "Believe what I tell you" and "the boogeyman" I mean "God".

Besides, I have found atheists to be more compassionate towards humans in general and a lot more outraged by needless loss of life. But in Christians defense, why should they care too much if someone dies needlessly. "They're in a better place" or "They are in Gods hands" or "It was Gods will". Don't even get me started on the Fundie I worked with who could care less about any environmental issues, as to him, we wont be around much longer anyway. God's a comin'.

Sorry of the rant, as I don't think I was really aiming to post anything but to ask what kind of comfort someone gets from religion.

[brokenandtwisted]

I guess I just do not understand the comfort one gets from religion. I have been closely affiliated with it, and I found it silly and hypocritical. I truly found no comfort in fooling myself into thinking that death was not an afterlife described in the Bible, nor did I like the feeling of living my life to a code of conduct and rules that were created purely for control and nothing but the proverbial boogeyman tactic.

Dont' get out of the bed, or the boogeyman will get you.

Except by "Don't get out of the bed" I mean "Believe what I tell you" and "the boogeyman" I mean "God".

Besides, I have found atheists to be more compassionate towards humans in general and a lot more outraged by needless loss of life. But in Christians defense, why should they care too much if someone dies needlessly. "They're in a better place" or "They are in Gods hands" or "It was Gods will". Don't even get me started on the Fundie I worked with who could care less about any environmental issues, as to him, we wont be around much longer anyway. God's a comin'.

Sorry of the rant, as I don't think I was really aiming to post anything but to ask what kind of comfort someone gets from religion.

I once was religious as well however I didn't like, for the lack of words...the 'umbrella corporation' my religion truly was. Cultural clash as I'm 'bi-racial' and my parents religions differ somewhat so it allowed me to see both sides of what they truly were...so I stepped back, examined them and decided I didn't want to be apart of either. So naturally I broke away from it because as you stated, it's hypocritical and silly. I'm more agnostic now as I still believe in something, I just don't know what. A little crazy? I guess you could say that...but I find it comforting. More psychologically comforting rather than "well...I'm going to go to Heaven, or be reincarnated into a billionaire if I lead a virtuous life" comforting.

Comforting in the sense of in times of need I'll always have something to look to for guidance or something to believe in; to look 'up' to. It's mentally comforting because I've assured myself in knowing that everything will be alright. It can be a weakness but I've accepted it. I don't find that comfort in evolution. I believe something made us exist and looking for that is probably the ultimate enlightenment. A god? It could be.

Although I appreciate the theory of evolution and the brilliance behind it, I can actually accept it but my mind always goes back to 'How did evolution start?'. Someone will say, "a lightning storm, some carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and boom...one bolt of energy and you have cells, mitosis and the likes, the beginning of evolution and existence". It's neat, I'll accept that...but how did the lightning come to be? I believe believing in something that's always existed, albeit foolish to some; makes more sense to me and I can grasp it. Logically to me, God or whatever; set evolution into motion so humans and everything else can exist without assistance.

What I don't appreciate or enjoy about religions is the 'shit that comes with it' such as radicals, fanatics and people who greatly misinterpret them (Westboro Church, anyone?). They give religion a bad name...a lot of people I personally know think of Muslims and people of the Islam faith as extremely violent people who are willing to do anything for their god...well...that's untrue. Islam is actually a rather peaceful religion and the propaganda focuses on the radicals such as suicide bombers and we have the interpretation that they'll do anything for their celestial being...and to me, I don't want to be affiliated to such stereotyping. I'd rather sit back and just exist. Not ignorant to evolution or religion, but just being neutral and accepting that fact that somehow everything came into existence and something caused it...I don't want to be 'in too deep'.

*Sigh* End of rant for now...

[I am Legend]

i fear another rant/school lesson on how "something comes from nothing" from Swivel before this topic dies out. :D

[brokenandtwisted]

i fear another rant/school lesson on how "something comes from nothing" from Swivel before this topic dies out. :D

I do too, which is why I much prefer string theories. I'm not going to disagree with him but I find the Big Bang Theory completely ridiculous so if he goes with that approach I'll be somewhat annoyed...:arf:

[I am Legend]

im down with the big bang myself. its just misunderstood i think. as for strings.........im 1/2 sold on em, it makes a certain sense to me, but i believe the study of string theory will open the door to an answer that is not exactly what they are looking for.

[brokenandtwisted]

im down with the big bang myself. its just misunderstood i think. as for strings.........im 1/2 sold on em, it makes a certain sense to me, but i believe the study of string theory will open the door to an answer that is not exactly what they are looking for.

Yes but I've never seen anything from a scientist stating why the Big Bang occurred. Actually...more of, yes; it occurred with a collision, but where did the particles that formed the collision come from? It just isn't answered...

String theories make much more sense to me...but I'm half on them as well, I'd like to learn more about them and when more information is available I'd be glad to research.

[I am Legend]

basically, i have the same issue with the ALL creation scenarios, they do not actually get to the root of the question honestly. assuming the big bang is 100% fact, i do not get how some people will then say fine, thats it then. the energy and particles that caused it to happen still had to come from somewhere. i already know swiv will speech me about quantum and how particles on a quantum level do not act like particles in our seen and felt world, and how virtual particles pop in and out, and how energy is borrowed from other sources and such, but at some point i can only answer with 2 words:

cop
out

if anything, the way particles act on a quantum level shows, to me anyway, that there is some type of force at work that we do not have a clue about. quantum to me so far proves that there is something at work that goes against everything we thought we understood. as if someone is saying " lemme show you this just to fuck with you some more, since you think you are so smart"

at this point, we cannot claim that something comes from nothing, only that something comes from an as of yet unseen and understood source (unless there is yet smaller levels, as im sure there are). the idea/proof from Thomas Aqinas still holds in the end as of now: something does not come from nothing.

[gprime]

For every 'negative' thing about religion, there's something positive as well...no?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Religion replaces logic, with many people deriving their values from archaic and irrational texts, superstitions, and dogmas. This limits their own growth, which is perfectly fine with me. The problem is the way it impacts those around them. When said people have children, they poisen the mind of innocent youths with their unsound crap. And, because many of these people would rather not have to face logic and reality, they fight against science, as seen in the past several decades regarding evolution education lawsuits. Tainting the schools aren't enough for many of these people though. Many try and spread their faith into the laws of their respective nations, limiting the freedoms of their countrymen. And, in the most extreme cases, it inspires mindless violence and mayhem.

Religion is a terrible, terrible thing. And this comes from somebody who was once a frum Jew. I used to have payot, daven three times a day, wear tzitzis, ect. Looking back on that period of my life, I can safely say it was my greatest ever error and waste of time. For example, when I was religious, I couldn't even sleep on my back. Believe it or not, there is a halachic prohibition against men doing so after they've reached a certain age. I certainly couldn't date, since virtually everything associated with it was strictly forbidden under Jewish law. And don't get me started on kashrut regulations. When I did those absurd things, I wrote them off as good because I was "pleasing God". Only now do I realize how stupid that was, and how much potential pleasure I missed out on during some of the formative years of my life. Because of this, I cannot be a passive atheist like most. Having suffered from being religious, I cannot help but take the same hard line that men like Dawkins do. He is right to strongly condemn it, as no good comes from religion.

[brokenandtwisted]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Religion replaces logic, with many people deriving their values from archaic and irrational texts, superstitions, and dogmas. This limits their own growth, which is perfectly fine with me. The problem is the way it impacts those around them. When said people have children, they poisen the mind of innocent youths with their unsound crap. And, because many of these people would rather not have to face logic and reality, they fight against science, as seen in the past several decades regarding evolution education lawsuits. Tainting the schools aren't enough for many of these people though. Many try and spread their faith into the laws of their respective nations, limiting the freedoms of their countrymen. And, in the most extreme cases, it inspires mindless violence and mayhem.

Yes, all true...but the concept of religion in my opinion is brilliant, though the execution is extremely lacking as noted from all that you've said. I don't agree with any of the customs, practices or even holidays. I don't agree with religion intermingling with education, as it isn't event relevant (unless it's a course/degree actually on/in religions). You cannot learn about logic and reason...the whole quadrivium and trivium when religion is interspersed.

In relevance to replacing logic, do you feel that religion breeds ignorance? I do to an extent, although I think it depends entirely upon what religion and who you're following. Religions aren't something to die by, they're moral codes to live by...sure, all are a little different but they all originate from the same source or at least 'pray' to a similar 'being' so in perspective no religion is incorrect. They're extremely lose and it depends upon your upbringing in them, or how you interpret them. The hamartia with religion is that it's open to interpretation (whereas evolution is not). So to an extent I disagree with religion displacing logic, as brilliant minds such as Thomas Aquinas were religious; yet he clearly did not process thought in any form of 'illogic'. It's just interpretation...


Religion is a terrible, terrible thing. And this comes from somebody who was once a frum Jew. I used to have payot, daven three times a day, wear tzitzis, ect. Looking back on that period of my life, I can safely say it was my greatest ever error and waste of time. For example, when I was religious, I couldn't even sleep on my back. Believe it or not, there is a halachic prohibition against men doing so after they've reached a certain age. I certainly couldn't date, since virtually everything associated with it was strictly forbidden under Jewish law. And don't get me started on kashrut regulations. When I did those absurd things, I wrote them off as good because I was "pleasing God". Only now do I realize how stupid that was, and how much potential pleasure I missed out on during some of the formative years of my life. Because of this, I cannot be a passive atheist like most. Having suffered from being religious, I cannot help but take the same hard line that men like Dawkins do. He is right to strongly condemn it, as no good comes from religion.

That's a horrible experience to go through. :( However, would you not consider...you looking back upon your religious experience, something good? Something decent that came out of it? Look at yourself now, see how it shaped you and think of what knowledge you've gained.

In all I don't have a valid argument at all, because as an individual -- setting aside 'the umbrella corporations' -- I feel believing in something provides me with security.

[swivel]

also note the logical flow of evolution in Genesis, whereby the waters are where life appears first, and man comes along last. not saying genesis gets it all right, but there is at the very least a hint of "knowing" somehow that perhaps somewhere deep down in our DNA we all know (even the ones who wont admit it) that we are part of a natural process of occurence over time, not a miracle of epic proportions.

Depends on which "Creation Story" you read in Genesis. There are two of them. In one of them, god makes Man first, and then makes various animals and brings them to Adam to see if they are a suitable companion. None are, so as Adam sleeps, god takes a rib and makes Eve.

All made-up tripe. Only the fear of a big-bad-punisher can make a sane person read these contradicting stories and see a glimpse of truth.


Edit: Brokenandtwisted, I think that gprime would credit dreamindemon.com and his own search for truth for the brilliant person he is today, not the stifling dogma of his past. All his religious background did was retard the growth of a naturally bright man.

[swivel]

Yes but I've never seen anything from a scientist stating why the Big Bang occurred. Actually...more of, yes; it occurred with a collision, but where did the particles that formed the collision come from? It just isn't answered...

String theories make much more sense to me...but I'm half on them as well, I'd like to learn more about them and when more information is available I'd be glad to research.

Every creation theory has the same problem. Where did the strings come from? Where did god come from? You can't dismiss a theory for what is a universal fault.

Only Ex Nihilo avoids this, and it has its own difficulties. (conceptually, at least, it does not suffer from the logical contradictions that doom other creation theories)

String Theory is a fad. It may turn out that the lucky guessers got it all right with no experimental evidence, but this would be that one monkey out of the infinite that just happened to hammer out Shakespeare's complete works on his typewriter. Which makes its odds against pretty high. String Theory is just a religion for people who need pseudo-scientific gibberish to bolster their faith. It makes NO TESTABLE CLAIMS, which in science is worse than being wrong, it is what we refer to as "Not even wrong", which means that we can't even learn anything from the falsification of the theory. It can't be proven or falsified, only played with on paper. I rank it with Mormonism on my validity scale.


You don't have to believe in all the facets of the Big Bang if you don't want to, but everything in the universe is flying away from each other, and FAST. This is observational evidence which can not be disputed and requires no faith. And if you play this backwards... uh.... yeah.

[I am Legend]

Depends on which "Creation Story" you read in Genesis. There are two of them. In one of them, god makes Man first, and then makes various animals and brings them to Adam to see if they are a suitable companion. None are, so as Adam sleeps, god takes a rib and makes Eve.

All made-up tripe. Only the fear of a big-bad-punisher can make a sane person read these contradicting stories and see a glimpse of truth.



yeap, i know all about the differing sources of the OT. doesnt take away from the fact, in my eyes, that there is a hint of truth to the OT.there is. taking into account first that Genesis was plagarized from Sumerian/mesopotamian wrintings which were polytheistic, and then accounting for the fact that there are at least 4 different source writers for genesis alone, and third that it was some goat herder/scribes that copied and changed the original writings around to fit their religious needs and its easy to see how much good info can be lost in the shuffle.

agreed, most of it IS tripe, but it cant be denied that there is "some" historical accuracy and worth there, along with a hint of past things almost lost. since sumerian tablets have been translated though, its simply better to go to them for seeing what man first wrote down, and how the bible copied and changed them around.

so, in essence, i do see a "glimpse" of truth in the OT. also the NT. a glimpse is all there is though i would say, and even that glimpse is very small and open to interpretation, but undeniably there in many ways.

[swivel]

yeap, i know all about the differing sources of the OT. doesnt take away from the fact, in my eyes, that there is a hint of truth to the OT.there is. taking into account first that Genesis was plagarized from Sumerian/mesopotamian wrintings which were polytheistic, and then accounting for the fact that there are at least 4 different source writers for genesis alone, and third that it was some goat herder/scribes that copied and changed the original writings around to fit their religious needs and its easy to see how much good info can be lost in the shuffle.

agreed, most of it IS tripe, but it cant be denied that there is "some" historical accuracy and worth there, along with a hint of past things almost lost. since sumerian tablets have been translated though, its simply better to go to them for seeing what man first wrote down, and how the bible copied and changed them around.

so, in essence, i do see a "glimpse" of truth in the OT. also the NT. a glimpse is all there is though i would say, and even that glimpse is very small and open to interpretation, but undeniably there in many ways.

It is selective sourcing + hindsight that makes it seem as if the OT and NT have slivers of truth.

Here's something to think about: Let's say that 3,000 years from now mankind has spread throughout the galaxy. We are fabricating wormholes to teleport people and information over great distances. There are flying cars everywhere, and people own spaceships that ferry cargo and passengers all around the galaxy. Now, some group finds all of these old films and books from the 20th century. We would seem primitive to them, the same way that we look at neanderthals. The fact that we have no silicon implanted in our brains, that we have to perform calculations with external devices, that we store the world's information outside of our bodies, that we can not telepathically communicate, that we kill one another and eat animals, etc... Basically, we are to them what man was to us at 1,000 BCE.

Now, with all of that bullshit science fiction at their disposal, they are going to be looking at TONS of made-up crap that never came true. And this, they would expect from a backwards group. But, there is so much stuff on film and in books, that they would come across some obscure Star Trek episode, or an entry in the Star Wars novel saga, that explained precisely how they achieved faster-than-light travel. In another movie that would see that their current political system was predicted. In another movie, the implant technology they used. They could ignore the reams and reams of bullshit, and focus on the few "hits". It would seem as if we must have been in contact with aliens, or had time-travel, or some other such nonsense. It would be conspiracy-theory thinking running amok.


And that is what people do with the OT, NT, and Koran. They ignore the fact that "the sun stood still", and the omission of dinosaurs, the Americas, higher math, germ theory, etc... All of these old books only mention the very few things that people back then observed around them. Absolute proof that all of those books were written by mortals with limited vision.

You are just looking at them with too much hope, and skewed reasoning. Ignoring the 99% of the crap and pretending to see divine inspiration in the lucky guesses.

[I am Legend]

It is selective sourcing + hindsight that makes it seem as if the OT and NT have slivers of truth.

You are just looking at them with too much hope, and skewed reasoning. Ignoring the 99% of the crap and pretending to see divine inspiration in the lucky guesses.

not true. you are assuming i see some divine inspiration in the OT, which i do not, at all. im just not so against the bible that i can see it for what it is, and not as some sacred cow to rage against in my atheistic agenda (like some). i am just able to aknowledge that there is much in the OT that is at the very least semi-historical (although written from a skewed viewpoint) and viable for study concerning what people believed in back then, and it also helps us to see what some of our oldest stories are concerning origins, which is a very interesting topic (otherwise we wouldnt be talking about this anyway). many of the places mentioned in the OT which were once thought of as fiction have been found and proven to be fact. its almost common knowledge now that Genesis is a plagarized version of sumerian writings now (the beginning of the end for the bible as a religious book i think).

just as a fundie would do with a preacher, should i just believe what you say because you said so? na.........ill stick with my beliefs that somewhere along the way people as we are today sprang up pretty quickly all of a sudden, and while i do believe 100% in evolution, the fact is that there is a massive gap in it, which doesnt account for us. it only gets us close to humans as we are today, but not all the way. as for aliens..............with all that "space" out there, its retarded to think we are the only life in the universe. evidence, in my opinion, leads to a simple answer that we came from some type of alien contact on earth long ago. it easily explains everything we know about religion, astrology, and so forth and so on, amen.

[swivel]

Oh, I agree with you that the Bible is important for understanding what people believed in the past. It is also important for seeing what stories people told each other. But too much of the history has been proven to be wrong (Jesus couldn't have been born before 4 AD), and the only way we know what history in the Bibile IS correct is by collaborating it with other sources. And since we have these other sources... it makes the Bible worthless for history.

If all you had was the Bible, you couldn't tell me anything about the history of mankind except to talk about some of its myths and storytelling, and there it doesn't even compare to Homer. It is literary tripe, historical tripe, and its mythology is boring and uninspired when compared to the Norse, Greek, Roman, and Native American traditions. It is really just a handbook for the subjugation of the masses and the torture and ill treatment of apostates.

Aliens had nothing to do with life forming here. Live will form wherever it is wet and warm. The sugars, methanes, water, hydrocarbons and everything needed to create life are just floating around in interstellar space. Life forms very, very, very easily. It only took 300 million years from the Earth coming out of the severe impact time to the first micro-fossils that have survived. So life probably appeared much, much sooner. And since life started from extremely simple beginnings, it looks to have chemical beginnings, not the advanced beginning you would expect if aliens were involved.

Use Occam's razor in all things. The aliens aren't needed, so simply disgard them. It is almost as if you miss your belief in the gods so much, that your claim to a quasi-secularism requires that you replace the invisible ghosts with more invisible ghosts. If faith is that important to you, don't be ashamed of it. I mean that.

[brokenandtwisted]

Live will form wherever it is wet and warm. The sugars, methanes, water, hydrocarbons and everything needed to create life are just floating around in interstellar space. Life forms very, very, very easily.

Yes but that goes back to the root...where did the elements come from to create the concoction of existence? I think one should define existence (as it is obviously more than a physical state of being) for us. Yes, existence can be defined as 'to come into being', but really...you have obviously compiled quite the substantial amount of evidence yet I don't see the point.

You can call it ignorance, I can call it faith. I can argue God exists, you can argue that he is merely our own creation. You can argue evolution defines our existence and I can say it doesn't...it doesn't seem to end and unfortunately no one as it seems will ever discover the reasoning behind it. Although I don't agree with religion I don't see how it is, setting aside the circumstances and events in history it has created, at least the concept; how it is something completely horrendous. Can't there be more than a physical state of being? If we can ponder about this, why can't it exist?

[I am Legend]

another misinterpretation of what i said there:

i never said aliens started life on earth, and i dont believe they did.

for the record: i believe that at some point "they" were here and played some role in our advancement from drinking out of ditches. as far as faith goes, i have faith in that as far as you have faith in the big bang, it goes both ways. i see as much evidence for aliens in our past as for the big bang. at least we can agree that faith in Jesus as the son of god (or as god) is stretching the limits, perhaps?

i just like how you can say life formed from amino acids/RNA on clay, but you go 1/2 postal when i mention that the bible says man was formed from clay also.

also, there is evidence of a localized flood in mesopotamia also, so again i would say that claiming the entire bible is tripe is just your own bias against it speaking.

as an example, lets look at mans creation:
the bible says:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

baylonian:
Nintu opened her mouth
And said to the great gods:
'With me alone it is impossible to do;
With his [Enki] help there will be man.
He shall be the one who fears all the gods.
Clay [line damaged]
[Enki instructs the gods:]
"'Let them slay a god,
And let the gods [line damaged]
With his flesh and his blood
Let Ninhursag [Nintu] mix clay.
God and man
[line damaged] united in the clay."

Atrahasis:
We-ila [a god], who had a personality
They slaughtered in their assembly.
From his flesh and blood
Nintu mixed clay.
For the rest of the time they heard the drum,
From the flesh of the god there was a spirit.
It proclaimed living man as it's sign,
And so that this was not forgotten there was a spirit.
After she had mixed that clay
She summoned the Anunnaki, the great gods.
The Igigi, the great gods,
Spat upon the clay.
Mami [Nintu] opened her mouth
And addressed the great gods,
'You commanded me a task, I have completed it;
You have slaughtered a god together with his personality.'
[snip]
They entered the house of destiny
Did Prince Ea [Enki] and the wise Mami
With the birth-goddesses assembled
He trod the clay in her presence.
She kept reciting the incantation,
Ea, seated before her, was prompting her.
After she had finished her incantation
She nipped off fourteen pieces of clay.
Seven she put on the right
Seven she put on the left.
Between them she placed the brick
She [line damaged] the cutter of the umbilical cord [line damaged]
The wise and the learned
Twice seven birth-goddesses had assembled,
Seven produced males,
Seven produced females.
The birth-goddesses, creatress of destiny-
They completed them in pairs.

also notice the idea in them that man is created to work, toil, or "bear the yoke"
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.................................
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

enuma elish:
Let them provide for their [the gods] maintenance [i.e. food] and let them
take care of their sanctuaries.
May he provide the gods with burnt offerings to smell;
their incantations may be [line damaged]
[snip]
Let him [Marduk] teach mankind to fear [some translations read revere] him.
[snip]
Let the black-headed [mankind] wait on their gods and goddesses."
Let them make their land shine by building shrines for themselves.1"

baylonian :
[Ea (Enki) probably speaking] "'Create man that he may bear the yoke;
That he may bear the yoke [line damaged]
The [line damaged] of creation man shall bear.'"
[snip]
[Nintu (mother goddess) speaking] "'He [man] shall be the one who fears all the gods.'3"

atrahasis:
"When the gods like men
Bore the work and suffered the toil
The toil of the gods was great
The work was heavy, the distress was much
The great Anunnaki [great gods]
Were making the Igigi [lesser gods] suffer the work.
[The next section details the type of work they did. Very similar to the Sumerian Birth of Man. The Igigi had to toil for 3600 years. Finally, they confront Ellil (Enlil) and threaten to revolt. Ellil agrees that the burden on the Igigi is too much, so he instructs Belet-ili (mother goddess):]
"'Let her create a mortal man
Let him bear the yoke [line damaged]
Let him bear the yoke,
Let man carry the toil of the gods!'5"

surely a comman thread is easily seen. and now it seems to me that science agrees that life did come from clay! perhaps those ancient writings have other truths as of yet "unproved" by modern scholars..................................

[brokenandtwisted]

I highly suggest anyone interested in debunking the Bible, that they should read Bible Code Bombshell (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Code-Bombshell-Edwin-Sherman/dp/0892216239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/104-8666800-3451152?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183237855&sr=8-4). It's a compelling read...highly recommended.


Are there hidden words and messages within the Hebrew text of the Bible? Who hid them there? What is their purpose? Author and mathematician R. Edwin Sherman presents startling, never-before-seen evidence of these codes and their significance for the world today. In this informative and entertaining new book, the astonishing contents of over 200 lengthy codes are translated by Dr. Nathan Jacobi, one of the worlds leading experts on Bible codes. Unlike other books on this topic, most of the codes presented in this book are so lengthy that they could not be coincidental. For example, while it may be possible to find Messiah as a code in an ordinary book, the chances of finding the longer code, you will cry out for the blood of the Messiah, are extremely small. A mathematician with 30 years of experience in probability and statistical analysis, Mr. Sherman explains clearly how codes show that the Bible is indeed inspired by God.

[I am Legend]

I highly suggest anyone interested in debunking the Bible, that they should read Bible Code Bombshell (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Code-Bombshell-Edwin-Sherman/dp/0892216239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/104-8666800-3451152?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183237855&sr=8-4). It's a compelling read...highly recommended.

or try this out:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

[brokenandtwisted]

or try this out:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

:lol: That's a response to Drosnin's novel, The Bible Code; which is complete trash. I can throw a chart together as well and circle random letters and rant on about mathematical formulas (which mind you, are never mentioned, neither are the alleged 'mathematicians' that worked with him). Come on, given a decent response. :p

[I am Legend]

:lol: That's a response to Drosnin's novel, The Bible Code; which is complete trash. I can throw a chart together as well and circle random letters and rant on about mathematical formulas (which mind you, are never mentioned, neither are the alleged 'mathematicians' that worked with him). Come on, given a decent response. :p

ok, simply put, there is no bible code. since i havent read the book you linked i cannot comment on it, but its nothing to get excited about im sure. since jesus simply cannot in any way be the messiah of the OT, any book that claims an OT bible code says he is, has to be bunk by default.

also, since, as i have shown, the OT is plagarized from the earlier sumerian/mesopotamian writings which they basically borrowed from during their time in captivity, it would make no sense that "god" would encode something into something which isnt even an original work, not to mention all of the messianic references you can get to just by reading it from left to right.

[swivel]

I highly suggest anyone interested in debunking the Bible, that they should read Bible Code Bombshell (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Code-Bombshell-Edwin-Sherman/dp/0892216239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/104-8666800-3451152?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183237855&sr=8-4). It's a compelling read...highly recommended.

The Bible was too randomly and horribly put together to contain secret meaning. It is a collection of manuscripts of various ages and reliability culled by religious leaders and the wear of time and assembled by men 1,500 years after the story being told. It has been translated so many times that there are now more errors in it than original draft.

One thing I love about Bible codes is when they are found in English versions of the Bible. It makes me believe in the divinity of King James more than the divinity of Jesus. Two of the gospels can't even agree on the lineage of Jesus (who begat who), none of them agree on what his last words were, who went to his tomb, what they found there, etc... The Bible isn't even internally consistent, so I think the "hidden code" being screamed out from every page is:

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

[I am Legend]

The Bible was too randomly and horribly put together to contain secret meaning. It is a collection of manuscripts of various ages and reliability culled by religious leaders and the wear of time and assembled by men 1,500 years after the story being told. It has been translated so many times that there are now more errors in it than original draft.

One thing I love about Bible codes is when they are found in English versions of the Bible. It makes me believe in the divinity of King James more than the divinity of Jesus. Two of the gospels can't even agree on the lineage of Jesus (who begat who), none of them agree on what his last words were, who went to his tomb, what they found there, etc... The Bible isn't even internally consistent, so I think the "hidden code" being screamed out from every page is:

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

yeap....what he said.

[brokenandtwisted]

The Bible was too randomly and horribly put together to contain secret meaning.

Please, enlighten me. How do you know this? Were you involved in the 'writing' process? Why do you instantly debase something when there's no physical evidence?


It is a collection of manuscripts of various ages and reliability culled by religious leaders and the wear of time and assembled by men 1,500 years after the story being told. It has been translated so many times that there are now more errors in it than original draft.

The Torah, which is being analyzed, is a sacred document...it has never been changed in its' entire history to my knowledge, as it is believed to be dictated to Moses from God.


One thing I love about Bible codes is when they are found in English versions of the Bible. It makes me believe in the divinity of King James more than the divinity of Jesus. Two of the gospels can't even agree on the lineage of Jesus (who begat who), none of them agree on what his last words were, who went to his tomb, what they found there, etc... The Bible isn't even internally consistent, so I think the "hidden code" being screamed out from every page is:

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

I would discredit English Bible codes as well.



also, since, as i have shown, the OT is plagarized from the earlier sumerian/mesopotamian writings which they basically borrowed from during their time in captivity, it would make no sense that "god" would encode something into something which isnt even an original work, not to mention all of the messianic references you can get to just by reading it from left to right.

I don't believe they borrowed at all...they're speaking of the same being, the same thing, the same way of life...

[I am Legend]

even the idea of using codes is another idea the hebrews took from the mesopotamians. most notably Ashurbanipal and Esarhaddon. in that sense its fine for me to accept a certain level of encoding in the torah, such as its simplistic showing of the word "Torah" numerous times. none of the codes i personally have ever seen were anything more than simplistic, to say the least.

also, to direct reply, they arent speaking of the same being. mesopotamian/sumerian mythology was polytheistic, not monotheistic. see the use of the words "us" and "we" in genesis again and again. note that in hebrew the word used is elohim, which is a plural form of "el". its not hard to see the plagarism.

[brokenandtwisted]

even the idea of using codes is another idea the hebrews took from the mesopotamians. most notably Ashurbanipal and Esarhaddon. in that sense its fine for me to accept a certain level of encoding in the torah, such as its simplistic showing of the word "Torah" numerous times. none of the codes i personally have ever seen were anything more than simplistic, to say the least.

Read the book I linked you. Definitely not simple in any sense, and the mathematical equation is actual given. It's proven that Thomas Edison spent many years of his life trying to crack the Bible but he couldn't...he didn't have a computer. So logically, when the Bible was written (dictated to, if you'd please); how on Earth would someone like Moses be able to encrypt the Torah?


also, to direct reply, they arent speaking of the same being. mesopotamian/sumerian mythology was polytheistic, not monotheistic. see the use of the words "us" and "we" in genesis again and again. note that in hebrew the word used is elohim, which is a plural form of "el". its not hard to see the plagarism.

Yes...but the Ten Commandments also says, You shall have no other gods before Me...that doesn't mean he's the only god, it means he wants to be the only one recognized...so yes, it's monotheistic because the one god says so, not because he's the only god in existence...But then again, all polytheistic religions have a central god, don't they? A leader of sorts.

I'm not saying I'm right...I just don't believe something so convoluted and mathematical can came from BCE when over nineteen hundred years later one of the world's most brilliant minds still couldn't crack the code.

[gprime]

In relevance to replacing logic, do you feel that religion breeds ignorance? I do to an extent, although I think it depends entirely upon what religion and who you're following. Religions aren't something to die by, they're moral codes to live by...sure, all are a little different but they all originate from the same source or at least 'pray' to a similar 'being' so in perspective no religion is incorrect. They're extremely lose and it depends upon your upbringing in them, or how you interpret them. The hamartia with religion is that it's open to interpretation (whereas evolution is not). So to an extent I disagree with religion displacing logic, as brilliant minds such as Thomas Aquinas were religious; yet he clearly did not process thought in any form of 'illogic'. It's just interpretation...

But that isn't entirely true. Many religions spell out what is, and make clear that deviation from it is not to be tolerated. One cannot, for example, decide that the Islamic laws of hallel are irrelvant in modern society, and therefore do not apply. Nor may they take jihad to mean an "inner struggle" and still uphold the specific task outlined in the Koran and the Haddith.



That's a horrible experience to go through. :( However, would you not consider...you looking back upon your religious experience, something good? Something decent that came out of it? Look at yourself now, see how it shaped you and think of what knowledge you've gained.

Well, I don't consider it something good. Religion aside, I was logical at the time. Removing the crutch allowed me to become more logical, but had it never been there in the first place, I wouldn't be any worse for the wear. True, I'd know less about religion, but to compensate, I'd be vastly more educated in other subjects.

[swivel]

Please, enlighten me. How do you know this? Were you involved in the 'writing' process? Why do you instantly debase something when there's no physical evidence?

There's plenty of evidence for debasing the Bible. It wasn't until the Councils of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage in the 4th century that a bunch of old farts sat in a circle and more or less randomly chose the books that were going to be included in the "Bible".

If you want a quick primer on how the Bible was put together, and which mistakes were made and the consequences those mistakes have had, the best book is by the brilliant Dr. Ehrman, the foremost Bible scholar in the world. It is a brilliant book to get you started, if you care about how the Bible was put together, that is. Most people don't really give a shit, they just quote the bits that buttress their prior brainwashings.

Misquoting Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5572520-6988053?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183249808&sr=8-1)

One of the most fascinating conclusions of the book for me is the fact that the story of the whore that Jesus protected by asking "Him without sin to cast the first stone"... that story was added much later. Isn't original to the author of that gospel. Crazy, eh?