Maybe First Baptist Church is not so powerful...

[If_I_Loved_you]

you seem to be all over the place here.

So can you prove that 'zero' exists? or is it a scientific belief?

Not sure where you are going here.

It is not a belief, nor can you prove it. It is a definition either of a null count or some arbitrary, discrete point of measure. It is a tool, not an item whose existence can be questioned.

Where I am going: Your argument is basically that science is as faith-based as religion because "zero" and "infinity" have not been 'proven' to your liking. What does that even mean?
I equated this position to saying that "pretty" has not been proven because, while you can say it, it doesn't make sense.

Regardless, zero and infinity have nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence of deities.

Also, First Baptist Church discussion...

“Black holes are where God divided by zero.”
― Albert Einstein

[Ocklawaha]

In too many cases those someones doing all the interpretation are men, so we get stories like Adam and Eve (the woman being the reason they are cast from the Garden of Eden.  lol).  The same goes for other organized religions that say a woman must cover herself and be submissive.

Cheshire Cat, there is a fact missing her taught me by a Baptist teacher long ago; the phone number in the Garden of Eden was "ADAM - 8 - 1 - 2."

As you are probably well aware, the rules about 'covering' and submissiveness' stem largely from mid-eastern culture. I believe the early Christian church leadership didn't want women to rock the culture boat and bring down the kinds of judgements on the whole lot of them that we see today in the 6 o:clock news. The same verses that tell a woman to act submissive etc. go on to a greater point where the men are told in Ephesians 5: 25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless."

For the most part, those that hold to some of the old cultural ideas that 'women are the root of all evil' have never taken the time to think through what those verses mean. 

[feedback]

You do NOT have "faith" in science, you have a logical reasoning to believe it. Big difference.

[Cheshire Cat]

I think the statement is in response to my comment Stephen.  Feedback is giving us his/her interpretation of having faith.  He/she takes the position that science is based purely in logic.  From my perspective Feedback is missing the reality that logic is itself a type of perception that differs from person to person.  So you still must have faith in what you perceive to be "logical" in order to believe that science has it all right.  It's parsing words from my perception but that's fine.  I know the point feedback was making about logic, but many times those claiming "logic" as a basis for understanding do not know the variables of logic.  Just ask physicists who crunch the same numbers and still come up with different interpretations of universe, how it was created and so forth.  It still boils down to faith in scientific logic. 

[Ocklawaha]

Reason is: 1 item + 1 item = 2 items
Faith is: crossing the railroad track at 60 miles per hour without looking because you have faith in the signal maintainers.

[Cheshire Cat]

Reason is: 1 item + 1 item = 2 items
Faith is: crossing the railroad track at 60 miles per hour without looking because you have faith in the signal maintainers.

One plus one equals two, because humanity has decided that it does via our limited understanding of this universe and what is beyond it.     I get the math for sure and am just making a point about perception. 

[ronchamblin]

This was interesting.  It seems to have been done a while back.  I missed it.  Have many of you seen it?

http://vimeo.com/12376557


"Chuck Norris was once accused of heresy by the pope, but as it turns out, Chuck Norris is, in fact, the true son of god."

[TheCat]

Very funny...though it's a little hard to stomach Hitler as the voice of reason.

[Ocklawaha]

Reason is: 1 item + 1 item = 2 items
Faith is: crossing the railroad track at 60 miles per hour without looking because you have faith in the signal maintainers.

One plus one equals two, because humanity has decided that it does via our limited understanding of this universe and what is beyond it.     I get the math for sure and am just making a point about perception.

Right you are on a cosmic scale, 2 could be 18, or maybe is isn't, could it be a void? Actually putting your faith in science and 'reason,' considering the parameters are constantly in flux, is probably about as foolish as putting your faith in a carved statue.

[Cheshire Cat]

Bob, Nothing like two old hippies talking science and religion. Love ya man!    Psychedelic!  lol

[ronchamblin]

What’s all this stuff about faith, as if it is a quality to be admired, cultivated, and even accepted in environments where it should not be?   

[ronchamblin]

It seems appropriate to assume, to expect, to anticipate, to hope, or to know, but to excessively engage the emotion or practice of faith is a giving up, a copout, an admittance of one’s inability to garner the initiative, the discipline, or the ability to solve problems.     

Engaging excessively the idea of faith, especially regarding the idea that a god will do or not do something, is to shrug off one’s responsibilities onto something else.

The cultivation of the process of having faith in the existence of a god, or in the truth of a message as if it was of a god, encourages a dependency on something outside of oneself, and removes from oneself the motive to learn the truths of the universe, and thus one’s place within it. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Ron, I guess my question to you would be, "Why does the faith others have bother you so much?" lol  Faith can be a powerful thing, faith in oneself is huge to living a good life.  Faith in your loved ones, faith in humanity or faith in God can impact the amount of peace and happiness one experiences while alive and breathing.  Faith like so many other things in life is something people can embrace or not, but I have to tell you, not having faith that there is more goodness then bad in the world for me would make life much less bearable. 

[ronchamblin]

Ron, I guess my question to you would be, "Why does the faith others have bother you so much?" lol  Faith can be a powerful thing, faith in oneself is huge to living a good life.  Faith in your loved ones, faith in humanity or faith in God can impact the amount of peace and happiness one experiences while alive and breathing.  Faith like so many other things in life is something people can embrace or not, but I have to tell you, not having faith that there is more goodness then bad in the world for me would make life much less bearable. 

Diane, I refer more to the idea of “having faith” in something because one doesn’t understand enough of the environment, is desperate, or has faith that others will do something one should do oneself.  Admittedly, faith of this kind is almost necessary as one becomes desperate, and seeks “any” assistance to relieve the mind of stress and imbalance.  I think the word for your use is “confidence”.  I have confidence in myself, or Marsha has confidence in herself, or she has the confidence that Sue will perform well in the test.

I cannot have faith in humanity, or that humanity will do this or that, as it is too disturbed by deficiencies.  But I can have “hope” for humanity.  I can wish good things for humanity.  Instead of having faith that there is more goodness in life than bad, I would “expect” it to be, or I would “hope” it.  Having faith in something seems to allow one to depend upon it, when their might be no valid reason to do so, thus opening oneself to being failed or abandoned by it. 

So…. much of what we’ve been calling faith is really ideas like having “confidence”, “expectations”, “assumptions” about something.

My problem is having too many people around who seem to have a blind faith in the existence of something, or a blind faith that something is true, and acting upon it, or failing to act because of it, without a thread of evidence of it.  My problem is having too many people around who excessively seek comfort via faith, as this habit places all of us in precarious positions simply because fewer people perceive the truths around us, and thus fail to see the dangers, and the solutions. 

Much suffering in the world is a consequence of too many people having a blind faith, much as a child would depend upon a leader, a god, a religion, or a church.  These people become like sheep.  They follow like ducklings.  And sometimes they follow to the death, or to the suffering life, simply because their blind faith allows them to be oblivious to the realities in their environment, and thus the actions necessary to maintain a reasonable quality of life, void of suffering.  In the least, these ducklings, because of their habit of having faith in others, and in gods, perpetuate their dependency upon others, and sometimes perpetuates their suffering.   

[Ocklawaha]

It seems appropriate to assume, to expect, to anticipate, to hope, or to know, but to excessively engage the emotion or practice of faith is a giving up, a copout, an admittance of one’s inability to garner the initiative, the discipline, or the ability to solve problems.     

Engaging excessively the idea of faith, especially regarding the idea that a god will do or not do something, is to shrug off one’s responsibilities onto something else.

The cultivation of the process of having faith in the existence of a god, or in the truth of a message as if it was of a god, encourages a dependency on something outside of oneself, and removes from oneself the motive to learn the truths of the universe, and thus one’s place within it.

Faith is what you exercised when you plopped down on your chair to write that last piece Ron, how did you "know" that chair would hold you up?

Then we have to explain telepathic experiences, how is it a dog knows when his master comes home, or, that animals know when a major earthquake is near? These experiences can't be seen, or measured, but somehow they exist, existence in a realm of the spiritual.

“Skepticism is the default position because the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. But who is the believer and who is the skeptic?"

"I am skeptical of people who believe they know what is possible and what is not. This belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in. Genuine skepticism involves an attitude of open-minded enquiry into what we do not understand, and this is the approach I try to follow."

A non-believer can be "pompous when he tries to persuade, even bully, religious believers, and patronizing toward those who have not achieved the intellectual superiority to which atheists lay claim."

I am a Christian. Several of our posters have a "commitment to atheism makes them dismiss out of hand the significance of religious experiences. For example, many people have experienced a sense of the presence of God, or overwhelming love, or a feeling of unity with nature, or visions, or transformative near-death experiences. In the 1970s, the Oxford biologist Sir Alister Hardy initiated a scientific enquiry into religious experiences in Britain, and found that that they were far more common than most atheists -- and even most believers -- had imagined." The study found that people with religious beliefs lived longer and healthier and happier lives then those of non believers.

"The truth. Science can only answer the questions that we ask of nature. Scientists need to be a bit more skeptical about their own findings, they need to be a bit more circumspect about what they actually do. Science is not the ultimate arbiter of truth."

"The scientific community is just like any other: it has its own rifts, agendas, schisms and personalities. Science is not homogenous, nor should it be. 'Science does not equal institutional science', Sheldrake says. It is the institutionalisation and homogenisation of science (as epitomised by Dawkins) that attempts to impose an ideological hegemony."

Quotations from: Doctor Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English biochemist, Cambridge Professor and author. He is known for having proposed a non-standard account of morphogenesis and for his research into parapsychology. His books and papers stem from his hypothesis of morphic resonance, and cover topics such as animal and plant development and behaviour, memory, telepathy, perception and cognition in general.

Check out his online experiment portal: online Experiments Portal:


THE AUDIO ANTICIPATION TEST

Can you tell what you are about to hear?

This experiment involves only one person, and takes less than six minutes to complete. You do eight trials, and receive the score at the end.

How the experiment works

In each trial, you will be presented with an audio clip selected at random. Before you hear it, you will be presented with a list of four possibilities: a skylark singing, a speech by George W. Bush, the Beatles’ Strawberry Fields, and a cat purring.

You guess which audio clip you are about to hear. After you have made your selection and pressed the 'Submit' button, you will hear the sound sample for about 20 seconds. (There may be a short delay at this stage.)

The next trial will then begin. After each eight-trial test, you are told your score. The chance level is two. You can then try the test again.

Can you get better with practice? The more you trust your feelings, the better you are likely to do. The more you think about your guesses, the more likely your score will be at the chance level.

Browser setting

Please note that you will need Flash player installed in order to listen to the audio clips during the experiment.
http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/precogrd/

---------------------------------------------------------


Mobile Telephone Telepathy Test


To take part you you need two contacts, who should be family members or other people you know well. You all need to have mobile phones, and your senders will need to have some credit. The test takes very little of anyone's time and you can do it wherever you are.

You all need to be in the UK or in the US

How the test works:
You register online through the UK or US link below, entering your mobile phone number and the numbers of your two contacts. You should enter their names in alphabetical order, so that you can remember who is number 1 or 2. The test starts soon afterwards. You should not be in the same place as your contacts while the test is going on.

A computer picks one of your two contacts at random and sends her a text message asking her to call you at a number given in the message. Her call is answered by a computer that asks her to put in a pin number, also given in the message. The computer then calls you and asks you to guess which of your two contacts is on the line. You reply by pressing 1 or 2, and the line then opens up and you can talk for up to 1 minute. 

After a random time delay, the computer then does the same thing again, until 6 trials have been completed, and the test ends. You then receive a text message telling you how many times you were right out of 6. By chance you would be right about 3 times. 
http://www.telepathyexperiment.com


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE JOINT ATTENTION TEST

With Music


Can you tell when someone is looking at the same photo as you, and hearing the same music?

This experiment involves two people, and takes about five minutes to complete. You do 10 quick trials, and receive your score at the end.

When you log on, you will be asked to do a sound test to make sure that your computer can play the sound tracks. If it cannot, you can still do the test, but you will be doing it with the pictures only and not the music.

How the experiment works

This test is symmetrical: both participants are "senders" and "receivers". One person registers both of you, gives the pair a nickname and a password. Both participants then log on to the experiment at a prearranged time. You can use the same nickname and password to do this test repeatedly

In each trial, both people are shown a picture, and each picture has a particular piece of music associated with it.  In each trial you will either be shown the same picture and hear the same music as your partner, or see a different picture and hear different music.

After 20 seconds, each of you will be asked to answer the question, "Was you partner looking at the same picture?” or  "Was you partner looking at a different picture?"

Each participant can choose whether to do the experiment with or without immediate feedback. If you choose to receive feedback, immediately after making each guess, you will be told whether your partner was shown the same picture or a different picture.

After each 10-trial test, you will be told your score. The chance level is 5.
http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/jammuspic/register_group.php


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Photo Telepathy Test

Can you tell when someone is looking at your photo?
If someone looks at your photograph and thinks about you, can you feel it?
Find out by trying the photo telepathy test.

This experiment takes less than five minutes to complete. You do 20 quick trials, and receive the score at the end. The test can be done EITHER with one subject and one looker OR with two subjects and one looker.

Photo Telepathy Test for two subjects

How the experiment works

There are two subjects and one looker. One member of the group registers your group, gives it a name and a password and supplies digital photos of the two subjects. Thus the person doing the registering has to have photos of the two subjects available. These should not be very high resolution images, or they will overload the system. Ideally, images with a 640x480 resolution are sufficient.
All three participants then log on to the experiment at a prearranged time, using the registered group name and password.
In a series of 20 trials, the looker is shown the photo of subject A or of subject B in a random sequence. After ten seconds, both subjects are asked to answer yes or no to the question, 'Was the looker shown a picture of you?'
Each subject can choose whether or not to receive immediate feedback as to whether the guess is correct.

After each 20-trial test, the subjects are told their scores. The chance level is 10.

With feedback, subjects have the chance to learn how to do better, and may be able to increase their scores with practice.

Please choose which version you would like:
One Subject Test:  http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/ptt1sub/
Two Subject Test:  http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/ptt2sub/