The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Freedom for some
05:07 Oct 26 2008
Times Read: 690

You can't buy alcohol before 10:00AM on MY religious sabbath.



You can't engage in science research which conflicts with MY religious doctrines.



You can't get married unless your marriage complies with MY religious beliefs.



You must teach MY theology as science in public schools.



But PLEASE, remember to allow me the unchallenged freedom to believe as I wish.

The Illusion of Complexity
19:28 Oct 16 2008
Times Read: 729

How often do I hear, "It's too complex to have come about naturally."?



Complexity is usually an illusion -- a failure to grasp the underlying simplicity. One might marvel at the distinct layers of sediments in what used to be a lake bed. A better approach might be to recognize the consequence of gravity and the control provided by viscosity.



Scoop up a bucket of dirt, sand, silt and rock. Now sit down and attempt to sort all of the particles by a ratio of weight to surface area. How long will this process take? Dump the same bucket into a pool of standing water and the sorted results will be at the bottom in minutes. And yet the viscosity is not intelligent, nor is gravity. All of that apparently complex work is performed without any applied intelligence.



Look to the complex patterns of veining in a leaf. Now find the bottom of a dried pond and note the patterns in the cracked mud. Photograph it and change the color to green instead of brown. It looks very much like the leaf. This seemingly complex pattern is simply the result of greater contraction at the top than in the deeper layers. The contraction is provided by evaporation -- the loss of water. How complex is that?



There are rules of interaction in nature because there must be. If the rules attempt to violate the nature of the physical, an imbalance is created. And imbalance always leads to transition. Eventually, transition leads to balance. Push a rock to the edge of a cliff. When the gravitational attraction overcomes the support under the rock, an imbalance is induced and a transition follows. The transitions will occur until balance is restored and the rock comes to rest.



Fill a bowl with water. Now jiggle the bowl and watch what happens. High and low points will appear in the water (ripples and waves). They will shift back and forth, each time lessening in amplitude until the surface of the water is flat. That's a demonstration of induced imbalance, transition, and the restoration of balance applied through transition.



A few simple rules can create an amazing "illusion" of reality. One of the most pervasive forms in nature is the circle/sphere. This can be represented mathematically using a balanced ratio of sine and cosine. So let's create four rules using sine and cosine and structure them to interact. Using sine and cosine assures that each rule will be based on the form of a curve or circle. Each rule's output will apply to the input of the following rule. Each rule will provide only one visible adjustment to the final outcome -- a line or a dot. With only four rules, how complex will be the result?



Here are the rules.







Aside from the first, each rule is nested within the preceding rules. Each rule is denoted here by a background color and a blue bracket on the left. Each point where an actual visible change (only a dot or a line), takes place is marked with a red arrow. The code may appear complex to the uninitiated but the principle is purely devoid of complexity. It's simply about picking a point and marking it with a dot or linking it, via a line, with a point determined by the previous rule. Each change is only a line or a dot.



Remember, it's just four very simple steps, each adhering to the steps defined by all four.



This is the result. Does it appear complex?







Some suggest that it looks like a grain of pollen but there is no complexity here. One simply has to understand the simplicity of the individual rules and then it's easy to see how by nesting -- forcing the rules to work together -- the illusion of complexity is generated.



This is how nature works.

Souls lead to Morality?
00:36 Oct 12 2008
Times Read: 763


Ms A: "I do believe without a soul we would not be balanced or have any type of morals at all. It is the hub that balances a human I believe."

---



When you think about it... I mean, really think about it, perhaps this is more evidence that souls do not exist.

Intelligent design... or simple accidental random chance?
00:22 Oct 12 2008
Times Read: 771


Mr U: "I can think of no question more imperative to our lives, more critical to the values we hold dear, and more telling of how we live our lives and find purpose therein than how we choose to answer this single question: 'Are we the result of intelligent design... or simple accidental random chance?'



If the former, then we are indeed here for a purpose and to fulfill specific potentials for which this life was... intelligently designed.



If the latter, then... ultimately... nothing matters given that life doesn't matter as it all is simply a random-chance accident that has no purpose and goes back into the oblivion from whence it sprang."

---



The question is, and should be seen as important because it is perhaps the most fundamental question we can ask. But I disagree that morals become unimportant if life arose as a natural consequence of chance rather than by sentient and intentional design.



Let's suppose the Earth and it's inhabitants were intelligently designed. Now let's assume I cross your path, club you with a bat, take your wallet and spit in your face. Does it matter to you that I've done this? Will it matter to your friends, family and the police?



Now let's suppose the Earth and it's inhabitants were the result of natural events, devoid of intelligent direction. So now I cross your path, club you with a bat, take your wallet and spit in your face. Does it matter to you that I've done this? Will it matter to your friends, family and the police?



Either way, it matters.



The answer is clear. Morality doesn't rest on the outcome of the question asked. Whether or not there was an intelligence behind the existence of life and the Earth, moral behavior still matters. That's why we find it even among what some might choose to call "lower life forms", such as bats, wolves, chimpanzees, etc.



And if we were intelligently designed, then the intelligence behind the design was painfully limited. We have a single port through which to obtain food and oxygen and that port is easily blocked by food, depriving us of oxygen, leading to death. Is that an "intelligent design"?



We have eyes which can only see part of even the visible spectrum of electro-magnetic energy. Yet we have learned to build devices which can "see" the rest of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Why not just design us to be able to sense the entire spectrum? And the sensing systems we use for electro-magnetic energy degrade over time. Many times, they distort even while we're quite young, leading to imprecise detection. The same happens to the sensors which tell us about compression waves in the atmosphere around us (ears/hearing). We have organs we don't use such as the appendix. What's that all about? Unlike some animals, the human animal has teeth which don't heal as does the rest of our bodies. Many other animals have ivory teeth. If they get a cavity, it's no more of a problem than is a chipped fingernail for us. How smart is that?



It's been said before; if we were intelligently designed, then the evidence locked within that design suggests it was by a very poor designer with very limited intelligence.

---



Trying to place the whole of morality and ethical action on the balance of the question makes the people themselves devoid of value. I don't believe there is any "higher sentient power" who created the Earth or caused its creation because there is no evidence to support such an assertion. Yet it still matters very much to me how people treat each other, how I treat others and how people treat me. Moral behavior should be about people. We know without question that people exist and that the things we choose to do have a very significant effect on them.



And if the evidence doesn't matter, then no knowledge we have obtained by adhering to evidence matters. Do the mechanical systems which keep many comatose patients alive not matter? Do computers not matter? Do the lives saved through the immediate communication afforded us via cellular phones, not matter?



No matter how the Earth was created, everything still matters. But if the evidence is lying to us, then how is it that following the evidence has given us every modern convenience in life?

Science and the concept of Proof.
17:20 Oct 10 2008
Times Read: 800

I find it interesting that the majority of people seem to have the idea that science starts with an assertion, forms it into a theory, goes on a search for evidence, locates various bits of data, and then eventually provides "proof".



While this is obviously a very common perception, it's also very, very wrong. Science doesn't present proof that the universe came about via the Big Bang because science doesn't operate on proofs (aside from mathematics), doesn't utilize the concept of proof and never produces anything it properly refers to as "proof". Science operates on evidence and produces theories. And the word "theory" doesn't mean; "an unconfirmed idea".



In science "theory" is the pinnacle of credibility. Nothing is more fully confirmed than a "theory". Science has three levels for the ranking of concepts.



1. Law



2. Hypothesis



3. Theory



A "law" is a relatively simple concept which is always observed to be true. The "Law of Gravity" is a good example. It simply states that objects of mass tend to attract.



A "hypothesis" is more of a developed complex concept based on the observation of objective evidence.



A "theory" is a hypothesis which has undergone an extended period of intense challenges from all pertinent fields of science and many different groups of researchers and scientists, all attempting to demonstrate any failure of the concept to comply with every single bit of objective evidence.



The people who challenge a popular hypothesis stand to win great recognition if they are able to prevent a hypothesis from being adopted as a theory or show an existing theory to be in conflict with objective evidence.



And a theory is never safe. At any time, new evidence may be discovered or new methods might be found to more fully examine existing evidence. If new evidence contradicts the "theory" it's stripped of the title, or is modified, if possible, to bring it into compliance with the new evidence and all of the older evidence.



So no one will ever see a proper scientific conclusion proclaiming that science has "proved" that Big Bang Theory is correct.



Nor will anyone ever see a proper scientific conclusion proclaiming that any form of theism (or atheism) has been "proved" correct or incorrect.



Science doesn't believe in the concept of proof for a very good reason. We don't have "proof" of anything. We don't have "proof" that the Earth is a sphere. All of the available pertinent evidence leads us to the conclusion that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, but new evidence can produce new conclusions. So proclaiming "proof" would constitute a violation of the principles of the scientific method.



Science hasn't "proved" that humans must have oxygen to survive. And I know that sounds like a mis-statement. It is more a statement of extreme caution, in the name of pure accuracy. We all know that if we stop breathing, we die. And we know that the important gas we breathe is oxygen. But we can't say with all certainty that we won't someday produce some new compound which can fuel the chemistry behind metabolism as well as oxygen. So to remain very cautious in not producing anything which might be less than 100% accurate, we can't say that there is "proof" that humans require oxygen to survive. What we can say is that all of the existing pertinent evidence agrees with the suggestion that humans need oxygen to survive. By proclaiming "proof" we'd be forgetting that if we ever find anything which can take the place of oxygen, the "proof" would be "proved" wrong.



I want to present one last example which will hopefully illustrate the need for this kind of caution when making statements of conclusion concerning the findings of science.



Gravity



We all know that if we lift something and then let go, the object will move rapidly toward the Earth. We call this effect "gravity". Most people know that the concept of gravity was first drafted by Sir Isaac Newton who not only presented the idea, but developed equations to predict the effect of gravity; given weights, sizes and distances. So was Newton's "Theory of Gravity" a proven fact?



No, it wasn't.



Einstein has since demonstrated that gravity is not really so much a force, as it is the consequence of distorting space-time. Objects have mass and mass distorts space-time. And objects also tend to move from areas of lesser distortion to areas of greater distortion. So while Newton's findings were correct, he held no concept of the mechanism behind gravity, and therefore dubbed it a "force".



Does that mean that Einstein's modification to gravity makes the new "Theory of Gravity" a proven fact? Again, the answer is "no".



Scientists are currently looking to a new proposition which may explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, while the effects of gravity suggest that it should be slowing. They're looking to a concept called "Dark Energy". But the concept has not been proved, nor will it ever be. It may become accepted as a theory, but if a better conclusion is found, it's possible that the new conclusion could change our view of gravity and how it operates. So science never considers anything to have been "proved".

Intentional creation or Big Bang?
12:36 Oct 10 2008
Times Read: 812

It is certainly true that the idea of intentional creation hasn't been "proved" wrong but neither has gravity been "proved" right.



Those who point out that no one has ever disproved any creator concept should also remember that no one has ever disproved Leprechauns, fairies, 1,000-foot tall cosmic mushrooms or a second, invisible moon, orbiting the Earth. And they never will "prove" or "disprove" any of these things because science is not in the "proof" business.



The common link between all such assertions is the lack of objective evidence. When we see the complete lack of objective evidence for the existence of Leprechauns, we accept this to be sufficient to proclaim them non-existent.



We do the same thing with 1,000-foot cosmic mushrooms, fairies, mermaids, unicorns and gremlins. In each of these cases, the total lack of supporting objective evidence leaves us to conclude that they do not exist. But most of us have no emotional stake in whether or not such things actually exist.



When you add an emotional factor, the tendency is to try to turn the table and suggest that as long as there isn't any objective refuting evidence, then the assertion maintains merit. And this is what is being done when people suggest that since there isn't any "proof" that the universe wasn't created, then it's reasonable to maintain the belief that it might have been. In reality, the likelihood is the same as that for the existence of car-eating toads, 30-ton pink feathered elephants, sentient marbles, invisible flying snakes, zombies, furry pink and purple turtles or 50-leaf clovers -- zero objective supporting evidence for any of these things and zero supporting evidence for the creator concept, render them of equal likelihood.



Everything for which there is zero objective supporting evidence is on the same level of the credibility scale. If one has no objective evidence to support a concept, then it's no more likely than any other concept for which there is no objective supporting evidence.



The bottom line becomes this; there are numerous, strong lines of objective evidence to support the Big Bang Theory and no objective evidence to refute it. Compare that to the concept that the universe was created which has zero objective supporting evidence.

The Universe -- Created or not? Does it matter? (from the forum)
22:55 Oct 09 2008
Times Read: 829

For me it matters greatly. If the universe was created then everything we have learned through study of the universe means very little; in effect, it would be meaningless.



The words "create" and "creation" should only be used metaphorically, and that is because these words refer to a process never witnessed or even evidenced to any human. No one has ever witnessed an event of creation. What we see and refer to as "creation" are events of transformation. And this complies with the most likely scenario for the universe.



The universe has most likely always existed. Some people have trouble with such a concept because they look at their television, their cell-phone or even their home and think of these things as having been created -- going from non-existence to existence. But the most basic components of the atoms from which these things are formed have most likely always existed. The forms change, but the basic units of which matter and energy are composed show no evidence of ever not existing.



Many believe that the Big Bang theory is an explanation of how the universe was "created". Some will even find support for such an idea through carelessly worded technical writings on the subject. But the Big Bang is not a model of a creation event. It is the model of a transformation event. It begins not with nothing, but with a point of intense heat and dramatic density. Without that point, no Big Bang occurs. So the base components exist "prior" to the event known as the "Big Bang".



For me it helps to look to Einstein's most popular equation; E = MC^2. All that equation tells us is that matter and energy are the same thing. The conversion factor between one and the other is simply the square of the speed of light (89,875,517,873,681,764).



This means that the whole of the universe could be converted into energy. And energy is detectable through its affect on matter. So with no matter, can you detect the energy? The appearance is the absolute lack of existence, aside from perhaps space-time itself. And yet by reversing the process, an entire universe comes back into obvious existence because it was never really gone. It simply transformed into another state, and then back.



I would submit that the answer to the question is of great importance to all of us, though some may not feel the need to ponder the question.

The LHC, the Mayan Calendar and Doomsday.
22:31 Oct 09 2008
Times Read: 839

I find it encouraging to see the difference between the responses in this thread and the responses in other threads which spoke of the supposed danger behind the LHC. It appears that either people really are starting to become more informed, or perhaps those who are less informed are taking pause and starting to listen.



As has been mentioned, the LHC presents no particular danger. The energy of the impacts it will produce are below the energy of impacts which occur naturally in the atmosphere on a daily basis. Were the acceleration of the sub-atomic particles (hadrons), to be sufficient to provide them with a dramatic gain in mass, within their reference frame, the instant this happens, the mass would cause the inversion of the process which provided the mass. The result is that any sub-microscopic black hole would wink out of existence as quickly as it formed.



As for the Mayan Calendar; it's a man-made tool with a finite limit. Think of it like the odometer on your car. It's there to help you track the number of miles the car has traveled. The fact that it will reach its limit at 999,999.9, does not mean that if the car were to travel that far, and then another tenth of a mile, that the car will suddenly explode or vanish into nothingness.



Doomsday predictions have been around for as long as superstitions have existed. And that pretty much means, for as long as man has existed. Every few decades we're inundated with another claim of impending doom. The vast majority of these claims are based in primitive thought processes which should be regarded as holding no merit because they are devoid of logic. The more we exercise the responsibility to debunk such ideas and adhere to objectivity and logic, the more we serve our own needs to advance.



How sad is it that in a time when;



- computers and Internet access are common-place



- probes are traveling to Mars and even beyond our solar system



- science is detecting particles so small they virtually become lost within the volume of an atom



- instant communication is possible via tiny devices carried by most people in developed nations



- the concepts of radio, television, x-rays, facsimile machines, microwave ovens and LCD displays are seen as mundane and boring...



... we still have people subscribing to primitive superstitions and ancient myths and becoming deeply concerned that they might be true?

---



Numbers are a man-made tool which can help us construct models which assist us in our attempts to understand nature. Numbers are not nature, they're a tool. Tools all have limitations. If the display on your calculator has room for only 8-digits, it doesn't mean the device will explode if a 9th digit is entered. It won't end the world. It simply means that 8-digits was considered sufficient for the intended purpose and presented a lower cost than would a display with more digits and a processor able to handle larger numbers.



I see it as our duty to separate ourselves from the ancient, primitive processes of looking for mystical patterns rather than observing logic and objectivity. We live in an advanced world and yet, many insist on continuing to hold thought-processes consistent with those of the Dark Ages and earlier. There is a price to be paid. The more people who subscribe to such irrationality, the more it affects man as a whole and retards our development. Stagnation is nothing of which to be proud. We can help ourselves to advance or we can digress. Advancement requires effort and the willingness to release failed ideas. Digression requires lazy adherence to ignorance and the desire to linger in emotionalistic thought.

The whole truth
12:00 Oct 09 2008
Times Read: 860

I had intended to copy and paste the full posts of "Mr. X" to which I have responded so that people here might see everything that was posted. There were many things which I simply did not feel were worthy of a response so I did not respond to them, nor did I include many of his comments in my responses.



Upon some lengthy deliberation I'm now concerned that some might not have an accurate feel for the level of abuse contained in many of his responses. Perhaps he looks like someone who is respectfully and sincerely offering only his beliefs and is being mercilessly and systematically shot down. This is not the case.



Unfortunately, it appears that his flaming, profanity, ridicule and sometimes childish conduct was sufficient to cause many of his posts to be removed from the thread. That being the case, I can only offer that any depiction of him as the "innocent victim" is highly misguided which may be due to my attempts here to limit the presentation only to what was necessary to illustrate the pertinent assertions and the counter-points.



The best I can offer is that many of his comments which I have included here, are no longer in the thread. Obviously, I lack the ability to remove them. Hopefully, that reality might help some to gain a better feel for the nature of the exchanges.

Explaining the
09:32 Oct 09 2008
Times Read: 886

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding some of the comments I've encountered. But assuming even one of them to be what I believe them to be, perhaps it is appropriate to explain why I feel it is important to rationally discuss beliefs which show themselves to hold no merit.



I doubt there is anyone who still believes that vulcanology is wrong and the concept of volcano gods is correct. I believe there was no disservice in demonstrating the validity of vulcanology and eliminating the misconceptions which lead to continued ignorance and even useless sacrifice.



I believe that the evidence Galileo brought to the world has been a benefit. Had no one ever had the courage to demonstrate those truths, we might still believe that the sun orbits the Earth. This would obstruct our understanding of the solar system and sentence us to sustained ignorance. Galileo paid dearly for his courage. We should be cautious not to punish those who provide us with new knowledge, even if we don't like the truths they offer.



I feel it was proper to explain to those who believed that disease was best treated through ritualistic methods designed to cast out evil demons, that disease is caused by tiny organisms, invisible to the eye, and not by spirits. Despite the objections, aggression and adherence to superstition, this opened the door to medical research and the acceptance of medical treatment.



I simply do not believe that there is anything to be gained through immersion in false premises which serve to mislead, to retard intellectual development and to hinder the advancement of mankind.



Had no one ever exhibited the courage to challenge long-held, yet false beliefs, we'd still be living in the wilderness, exposed to the elements, huddling in caves and serving as prey to large predators. We'd still be killing one another over conflicting yet false beliefs.



We have the opportunity to demonstrate and accept truths. Even when we find those truths distasteful, we do ourselves no service by adhering to beliefs long after all logic and reason has shown them to be devoid of merit.



Advancement is beneficial and in order to advance, it is always necessary that false beliefs be replaced with accurate beliefs. There will always be resistance to such a practice. History demonstrates this resistance with continual consistency. Where would we be today if we still thought we could receive rain by offering food, dance or praise to a rain god? Would we be able to predict the weather? Could we flee before being subjected to the destructive force of hurricanes, tornadoes or floods?



We can only advance if we allow our knowledge to advance. Insistence upon holding beliefs which demonstrate no merit leads only to stagnation.



Demonstrating truths is not bad, not disrespectful and not immature. It is a gift to mankind. It's the gift Einstein, Galileo, Bruno, Szilard, Heisenberg, Bohr, Newton, Hubble, Hawking, Thorne and a host of others offer. And while some of these subjects received only ridicule, persecution, imprisonment and even death, their contributions to the advancement of mankind has since brought them well-earned respect.

Truth is not subserviant to belief.
08:58 Oct 09 2008
Times Read: 890


Mr A: "String theory has not yet been conformed to exist either, but many scientists "believe" it does.



String Theory most certainly does exist. In fact, one of the most substantial problems with string theory is that there are actually five different versions that all exist. What doesn't exist is confirmation that any of the various versions of the theory are correct. They have, however, been tied together to form a singular theory called "M-Theory".



The problem is that you're working with two quite different concepts and trying to blur them into the same thing.



In the case of attempting to blend General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the problem is that we're searching for an explanation that fits the evidence for Quantum Mechanics and also fits the evidence for General Relativity. The evidence most certainly does exist -- mountains of it.



In regard to the soul, the explanation is being offered for evidence which doesn't exist. In valid concepts, the evidence comes first, and then an explanation is sought to explain the evidence. You're trying to explain evidence which doesn't exist, without admitting the obvious given that the evidence is missing.



In the case of M-theory; the evidence exists. We're searching for an explanation which fits the evidence. This is the mark of science.



In the case of souls; the explanation exists. The search for evidence to fit the explanation has continued to yield negative results. This is the mark of superstition.



See the difference?

---



Mr A: "Length of the search is not relevant, evidence may be found in the near future, we simply do not know.



Time most certainly is a factor which should be considered. When one considers the relatively simplistic assertions made for the concept of the soul, evidence should be relative child's-play to find. When you have something which is first supposed to be localized to a physical biological entity, is claimed to leave that biological entity at the time of death, is proclaimed to be energy and to be able to interact with physical mass; finding evidence to confirm the assertion should require little more than about $100 worth of equipment and the knowledge held by the average high school physics student. Were such an entity to exist, finding evidence to support the assertion would be a yawn. You know where it is claimed to be, when it's said to depart from the location asserted, what it is and that it can interact with the physical.



If one were to suggest "Svenska-rays" existed and were located at specific given points, departed those points at a predictable moment, were a form of energy and could interact with the physical, it would take but a few minutes to test the idea and proclaim that there was no support for the claim that Svenka-rays exist. And until evidence can be found for a form of energy which is comparably well defined and detectable, there is no reason to label the assertion anything but "false".



And yet, that's exactly what is being suggested for the "soul". The only difference is that many people have already accepted the idea of a soul and believe they will evade death through their belief. So rather than applying the logical premise of evidence to reason, and noting the complete lack of supporting evidence, they jettison their usual methods of determining whether or not a concept holds merit, simply because they don't like the answer they receive.



When the only answer you will accept is that which you've already insisted must be true despite a complete lack of demonstrability for your proposed answer, you have isolated yourself from the truth.



If I accepted belief in 50-foot long, feathered, flying worms and believed they existed only to transport me to Nirvana upon my death, and refused to accept the complete lack of evidence for such creatures, I'd be doing nothing different than what those who insist upon belief in the soul are doing.



No matter what form of testing is performed to detect these worms, the results continually come up negative. But rather than recognize that the negative results are providing the answer, I insist that I already know the answer and until the tests provide results which agree with my foregone conclusion, I just continue to assert that the tests are flawed or incapable of providing what I insist "has to be true" simply because I will not allow myself to accept it as other than true. Such a practice is devoid of intellectual honesty.



So do you believe that 50-foot long, feathered, flying worms exist? If not, why not?

---



When you open the garage door and your car isn't inside where you left it, it's best to realize that your car has been taken, even if you dearly love your car. You can continue to search for evidence that the car is still there, but when all of your tests fail to provide evidence that the car is there, intellectual honesty demands that you accept the conclusion. It's time to call the police.



If you simply adore and cherish an amazing female acquaintance and hope passionately that she holds intense feelings of affection for you, it's best to recognize the evidence when she spits at you and tells you she finds you disgusting. Continuing to insist that she really does harbor feelings of intense fondness for you, despite the lack of evidence for such feelings, is simply a form of denial. It demonstrates an inability to cope with realities you dislike.



The evidence (or lack thereof), isn't wrong. And given the relative simplicity of the assertion, were it to be accurate, the evidence would be overwhelming and painfully simple to confirm.



We live in an age when even particles so small that billions of them can slip through an atom at nearly the speed of light, and never collide with any of the atom's mass; can not only be detected, but accurately counted. We can do this because evidence suggests they should exist and that evidence was followed to the confirmation of their existence. It took only 26-years to confirm what the evidence suggested.



We can actually listen to the remnant background radiation of the universe from an event which occurred at least 13.7 billion years ago. We can map that radiation and demonstrate that it fits the conclusions of the theory drafted before the ability to map it was developed.



We can smash a stream of sub-atomic particles into another stream of sub-atomic particles and comprehensively analyze the debris which results.



We can analyze a 3-foot long molecule and determine the function of each of its sections.



Yet you want to assert that in tens of thousands of years, we're still unable to detect the blindingly simplistic evidence which would exist if souls were real.



There is simply no merit to be found in any such assertion.

---



Mr A: "You have no argument regarding the abstract, simply because there has not been evidence to it's existence yet does not mean it does not exist."



Do you apply the same assertion to Leprechauns, pink, feathered mushrooms, mermaids, unicorns, spherical cubes, core-boring giant gophers, zombies, metal-eating pencil erasers, invisible buildings and gremlins?



Do you assert that those things also exist but we simply haven't found the evidence for them yet? If you apply such an assertion to the concept of souls, why do you not apply the same assertion to the concepts I've presented? (Lack of supporting evidence, perhaps?)



I think when one chooses to apply intellectual honesty before emotionalism, the answer is clear. There is no evidence for any of these things and that is exactly what we expect to find when a proclaimed entity doesn't exist. Yet you divorce yourself from exactly the same logic when it comes to souls, simply because it serves your emotional desires to do so. The concept of souls cannot be shown to be in any way, excluded from this same logical premise, yet you discard the premise regarding souls, simply because you want to believe they exist, while continuing to apply that premise to other concepts with no less credible evidence.

Offense is not the best defense.
10:03 Oct 08 2008
Times Read: 925


Mr X: "What gives you the right to say I am wrong?"



You do. With every false assertion you present, you invite the application of critical thought, reason, evidence and the presentation of logical premises which demonstrate your error.

---



Mr X: "Your 'scientific proof?'"



I guess we shall do this one more time. The word "proof" is completely beyond any use in any debate or counter-point discussion. It is meaningless, inappropriate and useless. I've explained why this is so but it appears appropriate to explain it yet again.



There are still people in the world who devoutly believe that the Earth is flat. Some do not believe that it orbits the sun. Does that mean that we do not have "proof" that they are wrong? In the concept of "proof" who must be convinced? If all parties involved are not convinced, regardless of the strength of the evidence, the clarity of the logic and the certainty of the demonstration; does that render the argument other than "proof"? As you attempted to assert before, "scientific proof" (which is, by the way, an oxy-moron), demonstrates that the sky is not blue. The gases of the atmosphere are not blue nor is the light which enters the atmosphere. So is there "proof" that the sky isn't blue? Or are you still convinced that your eyes are more reliable than research, demonstration and logic?



There is no such thing as "scientific 'proof'". When one asserts science, they must recognize that science is not based on proofs, does not utilize proofs (outside of math), and does not produce proofs. Nor is there such a thing as "scientific evidence". As far as physical evidence is concerned, there is objective evidence and subjective evidence. When a subjective assertion is devoid of supporting objective evidence, it is the standard of logic that the assertion is false. If you'll step outside of concepts of mysticism, you can demonstrate this point to yourself.



- How do you know when your car is out of gas?



- How do you know when you need a new light bulb?



- How do you confirm when a candle is lit?



- How do you know when the batteries in your remote should be changed?



Every moment of your life is filled with the utilization of objective evidence. And were that objective evidence to fail you, you'd likely have lived a very short existence. It is only when objective evidence fails to support one's desired beliefs that they turn to pure subjective assertion in order to try to serve their emotions. This behavior is called "faith". At every other time, we utilize objective evidence when we want to reach valid conclusions.



- Do you close your eyes and drive on subjective "feeling"?



- Do you change your light bulbs each time the moon is full?



- Do you attempt to restart your car while stopped at intersections despite seeing a reading on the tachometer?



- If someone sincerely believed you were planning to kill them, despite having absolutely no objective evidence that you had any such intent, would you be opposed to being sentenced to a prison term to protect them?



- Would you be opposed to legislation which allowed people to be imprisoned for the subjective assertions of others who claimed intent to harm?

---



Mr X: "That you SAW performed with your own eyes?"



If I told you that I locked my only set of keys in my car, and then told you that I used my keys to unlocked the car to get my keys, you might notice a certain violation of logic to the nature of the assertion. One cannot unlock their car if the keys are locked inside because the keys are needed to unlock the car.



But if I tell you you're looking at something which you believe to be blue, and explain to you why it isn't blue and utilize confirmable concepts in my explanation, suddenly logic begins to tell us the assertion is true.



So I needn't see every conclusion of science performed before my eyes. One can tell me that at any point on the Earth if one were to raise an anvil, then release it, it will fall. Need I visit every point on Earth with an anvil in my suitcase to recognize the logic behind the assertion?



Your assertion simply lacks logic and lacks objective evidence. Beyond that, it is an idea originally developed by people who had no concept of science, little understanding of nature and were demonstrably wrong in nearly all of their superstitions.

---



Mr X: "You are believing what you are told and wha you read. Just because something may make sense, it doesn't make it correct."



Give me an example of something which does make sense, complies with all of the available objective evidence, yet is confirmed to be untrue.



Perhaps it's best to recognize that if something doesn't make sense, has no supporting objective evidence and fails every assertion, it most certainly does not make it true.

---



Mr X: "You had no right to compare me to a religious cult."



Nor did I. I simply demonstrated via multiple examples that one's security or confidence in their beliefs, is not a valid measure of the accuracy of those beliefs.

---



Mr X: "So yes, I do take offense to that."



Which is your right. By all means, any time you wish to take offense to anything, you have every right to do so. If in the morning, a family member greets you with "good morning", should you desire to take offense, please do so. That is your right. But understand that it affects only you. It doesn't affect me nor should it. Your right to feel offended is in no way an indication that anyone around you has done anything wrong or should change anything that they do. It's simply your choice to be offended. And you made that choice, despite the fact that I did not do that to which you chose to take offense.

---



Mr X: "You apparently aren't mature enough."



I'm not certain that flying off the handle about being shown that you're wrong, calling people names, utilizing profanity and berating people simply for supporting their positions are signs of maturity. I rather think they are not.



You are here to assert that your views are correct. I support your right to do that. I am here to assert that my views are correct. Yet you seem to suggest that I'm doing something wrong. I'm doing nothing that you aren't doing and not doing many things that you are doing which are generally considered to be signs of immaturity.

When your assertions fail... be offended?
10:25 Oct 07 2008
Times Read: 964


Mr. X: "if science prooved that the sky wasn't blue would you believe it?"



Well, in a manner of speaking, the sky isn't blue. There is nothing inherently blue about the light that enters our atmosphere. But the impurities in the atmosphere react more often with the smaller wavelengths of visible light (the blues), resulting in greater refraction of those wavelengths. So we perceive the sky to be blue, even though the light entering the atmosphere isn't blue.



Think of it much like if you were to hold a piece of blue glass in front of your eye and then look at your friend's face. Is your friend blue, or does the refractive quality of the glass only make him appear blue? Park a white car next to a blue wall on a sunny day. The side of the car near the wall will receive the light reflecting off the wall and it will appear blue. Now move the vehicle away from the wall. Is it blue?



We know why the sky appears to be blue due to adherence to the objective principles of the scientific method. And although I would again suggest caution in using the word "prove" concerning anything outside of math, science has aptly demonstrated both why the sky appears to be blue, and that it isn't really blue. So I believe you have your answer.

---



Mr. X: "Science is not everything."



It occurs to me that I see this claim repeatedly. But I've also asked repeatedly that anyone provide even a single example of when a subjective claim has conflicted with objective observation, and the subjective claim turned out to be right while the objective observation was wrong. So far, I've not seen even one attempt at a response. When it comes to discoveries of truth concerning reality, the method employed by science really is in a class by itself. Nearly everything man has learned about reality in the time since the scientific method was developed and refined, has been due to adherence to the scientific method.

---



Mr. X: "I don't need proof or a claim to back me up. I am secure with my beliefs.=)"



Obviously, the members of the Heaven's Gate cult were quite secure with their beliefs as well. In case you don't remember them, they were the people who believed that the Hale-Bopp Comet was hiding a space craft which was going to transport them to Nirvana upon taking their own lives. They demonstrated their level of security when all 38 of them committed suicide.



The members of the People's Temple were secure enough in their beliefs to leave their home country and flee to Guyana where they met their deaths -- over 900 of them; due to suicide and murder.



The Branch Davidians...

...the list is very long and very sad.



Being confident in one's beliefs is in no way any kind of evidence that those beliefs hold any validity. Only objective evidence provides validity to any assertion. Think about all the people who have lived on Earth since the beginning of human history and all of the gods and beliefs they've held as truth. Think about the fact that many of these beliefs contradict many of the other beliefs. Therefore, it's simply not possible for them to have all been correct. Look back only a few thousand years: if those people were correct, then the vast majority of people in the past few thousand years have been incorrect. Remember that the vast majority of these people were so secure in their beliefs that they sacrificed their own children for those beliefs, donated what little wealth they may have had for those beliefs and took the lives of non-believers out of the security they held for their beliefs. And the vast majority of them, believed that humans have a soul.



Never allow your level of security to be a suggestion of the validity to your beliefs. Popular opinion and doubtless belief both have long and notable histories of being quite incorrect.



==================



Mr. X: "how dare you compare me to them! i know exactly who they are. You percieve all people of faith as ignorent and crazy when that simply is not true. I may have faith but i still no right from wrong. jeeze you can be an ass."



==================



There is no call to become hypertensive. I simply made a perfectly valid point -- being secure in one's beliefs is simply not an indication that those beliefs are in any way accurate.



I supplied examples to illustrate my point.



Answer these questions (even if only to yourself):



1. Were the people in the examples given, secure in their beliefs?



2. Do you feel their beliefs were correct?

---



If you wish to insist on jumping to conclusions and becoming offended, then be my guest. If someone is insistent upon being offended, there isn't anything anyone can do to diffuse that. It's your choice to be offended and it harms only you. Your offense is your choice, not mine.

The pen's razor edge
10:00 Oct 06 2008
Times Read: 987

So completely we fool ourselves into believing that the pen is only an implement of creativity and wit. Gone are the days of the guillotine, the executioner's axe and Jack the Ripper's tool in trade. Shall we forget that it is often the intent to cut which does the most damage?

Anything is possible to an open mind?
22:58 Oct 02 2008
Times Read: 1,006

Ever notice that when people ask you to keep an open mind, they're almost always attempting to convince you to believe what they believe, despite their lack of evidence? When people have credible evidence, that's what they present as their argument. When they don't, they want you to "keep an open mind"; meaning "simply believe what I believe because I asked you to".



Can you think of a single time when anything has ever been confirmed to exist, for which there existed no credible evidence? It just doesn't happen. Can you think of a single instance where people's subjective beliefs contradicted objective observation and it was eventually confirmed that the subjective beliefs were right and the objective observations were wrong?



The truth is, one shouldn't have an open mind anymore than they should leave their front door open at all times. Instead, when you want to let fresh air (ideas) in, you should probably keep the screen door closed (a rationality filter). It lets the rational air in, without letting the junk (mosquitoes, the neighbor's cat, grasshoppers, mice and rats & superstitions) into the house. An open mind is no better than a completely closed mind. And when you look at it objectively, most people who tell others to keep an open mind, are themselves demonstrating a closed mind. They have closed their mind to the realities they'd prefer to disbelieve and are urging others to do the same.



One should keep a rational mind. Be open to new ideas unless they demonstrate themselves to be other than rational and logical. If someone attempts to sell you 400-acres of residential property in Florida at $20 per acre, keep a rational mind, not an open mind. If a man in a city park, dressed only in a raincoat on a sunny summer afternoon, offers to watch your child for you while you run to the restroom, keep a rational mind. Don't simply be open to the idea that the man might have strange taste in clothing and a genuinely caring heart.



The same holds true when people tell you that you won't ever "really" die, even though we all know that we'll all die. If they tell you that you're going to continue to exist in a conscious state beyond death, ask them when they died. Certainly, if they know what's going to happen when you die, they must have first-hand knowledge, right? Of course we all know that people do die and once they're biologically dead, they don't come back. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that one continues in any conscious manner beyond death.



We can induce unconsciousness in people and when we do, it's through a physical process -- something done to the physical body. They can show nothing of any soul that continues their conscious self while the body is unconscious. And when you hear people asserting to the contrary, remember that they have no first-hand knowledge and are simply guessing in direct contradiction to the evidence. People like the idea that they'll never really die. It makes them feel secure. And the more people who believe the same thing, the more secure they feel. But just as with the flat Earth, the geocentric solar system and the rituals to rid the diseased body of "evil spirits", the belief is completely contrary to the evidence and therefore, not based in reason or logic. And the belief in a flat Earth, a geocentric universe or the "evil spirits" causing disease, did nothing to change the reality of any of those circumstances.

---



I'm also curious about phrases that people seem to like to latch onto despite the fact that they present no reasonable level of truth such as "anything is possible to an open mind".



No it isn't.



If it were, then either no one anywhere in the world has an open mind or there would have been an end to war, to disease, to starvation and to global warming. Many things aren't possible no matter how open one is to the suggestion. The reality is that to an open mind, it's possible to believe that anything is possible. But reality has spent the lifetime of the universe demonstrating that it has no concern whatsoever what people believe. Reality is only concerned with what is.



Think about it. The universe is dated at about 13.7 billion years. The Earth tests out at 4.6 billion years. Man has only been around for perhaps 1.3 million years. So for more than 13.6 billion years, there wasn't any human belief for reality to be worried about. And yet reality kept right on being real. And it remains real today, no matter what anyone thinks. And since so many people believe so many different and contradictive things, it simply wouldn't be possible for reality to be at all affected by what people believe.



The rule is simple and it's this; if you believe that which isn't real, your beliefs are wrong. That's really all there is to it. And man's history shows a long, continuous record of wrong beliefs. Man used to believe the Earth was flat. Man used to think the Earth was the center of the universe, orbited by the sun. Man used to believe that volcanoes were controlled by gods rather than hot magma rising to the surface. Man used to believe that disease was caused by evil spirits. Man used to believe that lightning was caused by one god and thunder by another. Man used to believe that life arose spontaneously. Man used to believe it would be impossible for man to fly.



All of those beliefs were wrong no matter how strongly people believed them. They were always wrong. Reality isn't shaped by the beliefs of rather insignificant bits of protoplasm stumbling around on the surface of the planet and bumping into each other in our little metal boxes we use to move from one place to another. Reality shows no concern whatsoever about any belief which might arise from any organism on this tiny speck of matter, floating about in a tiny solar system, circling one of around 200-billion to 400-billion stars in our galaxy alone. There is nothing to suggest that the entire galaxy couldn't be swallowed up by the rather pathetic little super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, with absolutely no significant effect upon reality -- except, that reality would then include the absence of the Milky Way galaxy.



What matters is that we align our beliefs with reality because reality has never, and will never, align itself with our beliefs. If we fail to align our beliefs with reality, those beliefs are simply wrong, no matter how open we remain to possibilities.

Why do we have a soul? (From the Forum)
21:52 Oct 01 2008
Times Read: 1,034

I too found my soul mate... more than once. And every time, it turns out they were not what they appeared to be. That's because it's all subjective and subjectivity is the great liar. In fact, it was the loss of a soul-mate that lead me to a very deep and very sincere re-examination of whether souls and all the rest really exist.



It took maybe a year to realize that the answer had been right there before me all the time. Take away the confirmation-bias, the excuses, the phrases and catchy sayings we tend to use, to avoid seeing reality, and suddenly it becomes quite clear. There is no soul, no spirit, no after-life and none of the rest. We have what we have, what's physical is what's real. The saddest part for me is when there is any indication that two people go separate ways because one has elected to take the objective path while the other chooses to remain buried inextricably in the biases, the excuses and the personal servitude of subjective belief.



Sometimes it's easy to feel cursed; like anyone we meet that seems to fill that need for a "soul-mate" will ultimately change, walk away and appear confused that we are despondent and broken over their actions.



Look at all the people who marry with the firm belief that they have found their "intended", their "soul-mate", their "companion for life and beyond". Yet they display not the least of immunity from the divorce rate and many (if not most), divorces end in hatred and disdain.



When things don't exist, they leave no evidence of their existence. Before any postulated entity can leave evidence of its existence, it first has to exist. Take the neutrino for example. It was noted that the decay of a neutron into a proton seemed to violate the principle of Conservation of Energy. (Please. Don't lose interest if the terms are unfamiliar). But rather than abandon a law which seemed firmly rooted, other possibilities were considered. This lead to the theoretical concept of a particle which came to be called a "neutrino". This particle has a very, very tiny mass, travels at nearly the speed of light and actually changes properties while it travels. They were first postulated to exist in 1930.



Keep in mind that these supposed particles are so tiny that every second you have at least ten billion solar neutrinos passing through every thumb-nail sized spot on your body. The vast majority whiz right through and touch not even a piece of an atom anywhere in your body. They do the same thing with the whole of the planet -- pass right through having touched nothing. There are relatively huge spaces between the components of an atom and neutrinos are so small they slip right through those spaces even when the bundle of atoms is the size of a planet. Yet still, they leave objective evidence of their existence.



So for many years, the objective evidence was noted to exist, yet confirmation of the particles themselves remained elusive. Anti-neutrinos were first confirmed to exist in 1956. Muon neutrinos were confirmed in 1962 along with the realization that neutrinos came in more than one "flavor" (nuon, tau and electron). Tau neutrinos were confirmed to exist in 1975 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (for those who think accelerators/colliders aren't important).



In 1961 a man by the name of Ray Davis built what he claimed would be a neutrino detector. It was simply a tank containing 378,000 liters of perchloroethylene (ordinary dry-cleaning fluid). It wasn't until 1975 that the detector was finally successful in counting solar neutrinos - a period of 14-years.



The point of all of this is that it took about 26-years from the first evidence to the confirmation and then another 20-years or so to actually be able to count neutrinos passing through a detector. And souls, spirits, angels, demons and all the rest have been claimed to exist not for just decades, not for just centuries, not for just a thousand years, but for tens of thousands of years. And yet today we lie no closer to any objective confirmation for one very obvious reason -- there isn't any objective evidence that they exist. They leave the same evidence as do the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Jersey Devil -- a lot of claims, zero objective evidence.



After a few tens of thousands of years, I think it's time to recognize that the check isn't in the mail. There is no check. The more science uncovers about reality, the less support there seems to be for claims of the supernatural and paranormal. And while we haven't confirmed everything there is to confirm and perhaps never will, there still remains zero objective evidence to support these ancient primitive claims which can honestly and accurately be termed "superstitions".



Why do we have a soul? We don't.



Why won't we allow ourselves to recognize that tens of thousands of years have continued to confirm that the soul doesn't exist? Because we don't wish to die and cease to exist. Our existence is the only real experience we have. Without it, everything ceases from within our reference frame. And yet time, subjective beliefs, emotions and objective confirmations will march on in our absence, just as they always have. The Earth could vanish in a massive collision tomorrow (though it's doubtful the threat wouldn't have already been detected), and the rest of the universe goes right on ticking, even if the whole of man vanished completely -- no sentience, no consciousness and no lingering souls.



There is nothing but subjective desire to proclaim to the contrary. Tens of thousands of years have brought us farther away from a confirmation of souls rather than closer to one. The unfortunate result is that some choose to ignore or reject the results, rather than to recognize that they are merely one of billions and billions of people to have fallen to their subjective assessments. It's nothing of which to be ashamed. It happens to most everyone at some point. The only shame should be that some are so rooted in their personal subjectivity that when it's shown to be wrong by the objective analysis, they ignore or berate the objective -- the same kind of analysis they use to lock or unlock their door, to start their car, to know whether to stop or continue at an intersection, to avoid cutting themselves with a knife or to know when to change a light bulb. And it never fails them -- ever. The only thing it fails is one's desires.



People might "feel in their heart" that the lottery ticket they just bought is a winner, or that the person for whom they feel affection returns that feeling of affection, despite a lack of objective confirmation. But the reality is that most of these subjective feelings are confirmed to be wrong. But by focusing only on the very few that by coincidence, turn out to be right and discounting the vast number that are wrong, they confirm through their bias that there is some value to subjective beliefs. The process is known as confirmation-bias; confirming what one wants to believe, rather than what's real.



Once someone has turned to confirmation-bias to support their belief in subjective assessment, the only thing they have claimed for themselves is shelter from the truth. When people reach the point that the only truth they will accept is what they have already subjectively decided to be true, they can never know the truth simply because they reject everything that doesn't fit their desired belief.