Democracy?

7xstall

Well-Known Member
No, it just enables us to make up stories.



why would we evolve to be able to do that?

wouldn't evolution have favored traits that lend more efficient use of metabolites instead of traits that would disorient or potentially impair its "offspring" in going about the process of evolving more?

if you are brutally honest and fast forward through all the standard debate, the fact that we have become so complex and industrial at all completely undermines the idea that evolution (of the sort Darwin first imagined then discarded) has occured at all. having spontaneously "occured", life would have not sought to increase the risk for failure by introducing new variables to the system on an exponential scale. life would certainly not have propagated more forms of life dependent on other forms of life, thereby exponentially increasing the already exponential risk.

your statement just made me curious.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
i just noticed you had a big anti-God thread going in another section skunk...

oh well, if it's all emotional for you then there's no reasoning, good luck with that!
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
No, it just enables us to make up stories.



why would we evolve to be able to do that?

Huh? real question? why would we evolve the ability to make up stories? Can't answer such an obvious question.

wouldn't evolution have favored traits that lend more efficient use of metabolites instead of traits that would disorient or potentially impair its "offspring" in going about the process of evolving more?

This is true, and this is the way it is. Still don't know what your point is.

if you are brutally honest and fast forward through all the standard debate, the fact that we have become so complex and industrial at all completely undermines the idea that evolution (of the sort Darwin first imagined then discarded) has occured at all.

How? The fact that we are so complex undermines evolution? You spout a lot of shit my friend.

having spontaneously "occured", life would have not sought to increase the risk for failure by introducing new variables to the system on an exponential scale. life would certainly not have propagated more forms of life dependent on other forms of life, thereby exponentially increasing the already exponential risk.

Life is more than just man. The new variables you speak of can only be other life forms, and it is not life that is the driving force but evolution. For life to have propogated other life, this would suggest that life is god, that life is somehow a creator of other life. While this may certainly be true in some cases, it certainly isn't sustainable across the board.

New life forms are evolving as we speak. It starts in the deepest of oceans, it adapts... it learns. It feeds. Just like a disease that can evolve past our herbal remedies, all life is uniform in this. It's ability to adapt with the ever changing environment is the difference between life and extinction. Just as new life forms are evolving, life forms are also becoming extinct.
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
i just noticed you had a big anti-God thread going in another section skunk...

oh well, if it's all emotional for you then there's no reasoning, good luck with that!
Not emotion, at least not in the manner I think you are implying, merely common sense. I've listened to this shit for years, you cannot escape from it. Some actor will pick up an award and thank his god, another guy will take a shit and do the same...

Why is religion still here? Why is deity worship?

There is no god yet people still continue to fool themselves that there is. It may make you feel better, but this is false. When someone dies you do not celebrate their death... I would if I believed the bullshit about god and heaven... but you do not. You cry, because they are dead and you will never see them again. You'll try and believe, you'll try really hard to make yourself feel better, but deep down you'll always know the truth.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
we can't "prove" each other wrong and i won't set out to, if we could the debate wouldn't exist. i also can't intellectually bully you into submission so please don't fool yourself into thinking you can do this to me either. all we can do is weigh evidence and then we verify at the "end".


i'll respond with my thoughts to the end of your post first because this is less technical and more philosophical.


Why is religion still here? Why is deity worship?

by "still here" i assume you believe it no longer serves a purpose and we have moved beyond the need for a collective acknowledgement of something other than that which is concretely observable, verifiable. if we are to achieve this level of adaptation, this "next level" then imagine (while you still can) what it will be like to no longer imagine or ponder things that are not concrete. Art of all sorts will be shed from our capacity, as well as scientific endeavors, romance, hope and even relationships; this is all intimately linked to our understanding that we don't and can't understand everything. our need to give refuge to the things we are not capable of understanding, to conceptually de-clutter the peripherals of our existence, has been given over to what you call religion throughout our existence. i will make the bold proclamation that if we evolve into something without religion then we will have nothing, we will in fact, "be" nothing.

throughout history prominent intellects have sought to show that there is no need for God, that society is restricting itself by imposing such a ridiculous construct as this "Creator" upon itself. in the end, almost all of them succumb to the realization that they have battled this need themselves. they have actively denied the need and found out after all their efforts that they still have the need at the end of their lives.

as far as death goes, for Christians it is bitter sweet. you are sad that interaction once taken for granted will no longer happen but happy on a deeper level that they are well.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
i said: why would we evolve to be able to do that?

you said: Huh? real question? why would we evolve the ability to make up stories? Can't answer such an obvious question.


please tell me what survival advantage we have in being able to do this and how did it come to be, what environmental factors would yeild, then firmly establish such a genetic deviance from our unimaginative "cousins"?


disorient or potentially impair its "offspring" in going about the process of evolving more?

This is true, and this is the way it is. Still don't know what your point is.


ok, in evolution, you assume that variances occur randomly. you then assume that occasionally these variances result in a more favorable trait. if we look at this from a cold, biochemical/molecular biology stand point, the first hint of variance producing even a subtle metabolical, physical, or even structural difference is OBSERVABLY eradicated from the population, EVERY time in the lab. even if it didn't get eradicated, you think in a sexual population that this "deviant" would be exchanging DNA with another, genetically compatible partner? you are telling me it makes more sense to have faith in quadrillions of instances of the population "turning a blind eye" to severe differences than it makes to believe it was just made this way?



if you are brutally honest and fast forward through all the standard debate, the fact that we have become so complex and industrial at all completely undermines the idea that evolution (of the sort Darwin first imagined then discarded) has occured at all.

How? The fact that we are so complex undermines evolution? You spout a lot of shit my friend.


complexity goes against the system my friend. nowhere in the observable universe does energy go into creating variety. the opposite is true. if you believe in the big bang then the universe was at it's peak atomic and molecular complexity in the millionths of a nano-second (current universe time) following that great explosion. reactions to create simple proteins demand energy and to assume that the cold, elemental world, bound only by supposed laws of physics, would find novelty in a random strand of simple pre-cursor protein, nurture and protect it, randomly generate companion strands and then facilitate the combination of these things is preposterous. beyond preposterous. mathematical models of probability using chaos math, fuzzy logic, ALL show that we're talking billions upon billions of years to "by chance", PERHAPS, form only the beginning of a simple, building block component of a protein. every additional component required to get all your pieces to make just one part of the puzzle is an exponential factor to the equation.


For life to have propogated other life, this would suggest that life is god, that life is somehow a creator of other life. While this may certainly be true in some cases, it certainly isn't sustainable across the board.

indeed. evolution is the driving force of what, of life? if evolution drives life and not the other way around then we have a problem. what was evolution prior to life? if life existed prior to evolution then why did evolution evolve?



New life forms are evolving as we speak. It starts in the deepest of oceans, it adapts... it learns. It feeds. Just like a disease that can evolve past our herbal remedies, all life is uniform in this. It's ability to adapt with the ever changing environment is the difference between life and extinction. Just as new life forms are evolving, life forms are also becoming extinct.

we have never observed evolution, if we had then the case would be closed. what you are referring to with "evolving past herbal remedies" is described as "trait survivability" and this has nothing to do with evolution.

when we change the environment in a living system, your body for example, by introducing antibiotics we are trying to damage a group of specific proteins to the point that the life dependent upon them can not survive, we interrupt the chain of events. some bacteria might not get surrounded by as high a concentration of the antibiotic as others (skip a dose, stop early, etc.) but their ability to make use of this protein is still hampered. as the bacteria's neighbors die off this one multiplies and just as you begin to feel better you blow your nose, put your dirty hands on a door knob which someone grabs, then immediately wipes their mouth, the bacteria has a new, clean home! this time, the strain doesn't respond so well to the antibiotics that are known to kill this bacteria but they were given the same amounts of the same kind, producing a more narrow strand. think of this process like a strainer, it's not any thing new, we just got rid of some of the old...like we do with dog breeds.
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
It's a little late, and this couldn't wait till morning. I'm about to watch the last king of scotland.

It's about trait survivability, which suggests that only certain traits of the disease (germ whatever) remain. My understanding of it is that the germ evolves. It learns, it's very instinct is it's driving force. Weaker germs will die off, while stronger strains will have more chance of adapting to new and harsher environments.

If you take our eco-system as an example, and go back to humans. We have adapted over millions of years (if you accept the history of mankind, 60 odd thousand if you don't) to various changes in the Earth's climate. We have less hair, better health etc. Plenty of things that we have improved even over the past hundred years. Is this not evolution? Have we not evolved to survive better in our environment?

You believe that a thing created all life. Why? Why would this thing do this? Also, why would this thing vary it's choices of life-forms giving only one the power to go to heaven? Forgive the last question as I'm not sure where you stand on the bible, after all talking of a creator is a completely different matter. You can still believe in a creator while at the same time believing the holy books are a load of twaddle.

Nice talking to you.
 

medicineman

New Member
You believe that a thing created all life. Why? Why would this thing do this? Also, why would this thing vary it's choices of life-forms giving only one the power to go to heaven? Forgive the last question as I'm not sure where you stand on the bible, after all talking of a creator is a completely different matter. You can still believe in a creator while at the same time believing the holy books are a load of twaddle.

Nice talking to you. Skunk, I'm not as educated as the afore mentioned Dude, but heres my take on the creator. The "Creator" may not be a person at all. It may be a substance of spiritual goo, or a cloud of etheral dust, it may be a piece of dirt, I really don't proclaim to put a face on the creator, but who or what caused the "Big Bang", is the mystery. Supposedly before the "big Bang" there was nothing, sort of like it says in the bible, and then there was light, It came out of the firmament, ( the arch of the sky, heavens) who created this. How could the whole universe be created in one huge explosion, "Big Bang", without a creator? If you take the Bible literally, It tells you the creator (God, Allah, Jehovah, etc) is omnipotent, All powerful, Omniescent, all seeing and all loving. Why the horrible things that go on on this planet are allowed, I have no clue. In my humble opinion, God (The creator) needs to send a peacekeeper to earth, maybe thats what all these UFOs are doing cruising the planet, watching out so we don't self destruct as I think with the current governments in power, thats a possibility! I would like to put you through a spiritual awakening, but that can't be done on the internet. All you have to do, I mean ALL you have to do, is believe in Jesus Christ, Just take a leap of faith and believe. If you do that, the rest doesnt fucking matter one smidgen, You my friend are going to live forever, sounds too easy doesn't it, believe me with all the adversity to Christ on the planet, it's not easy at all, especially if you are one of the ones promoting adversity. You'll probably laugh this off, and that is your right, but if you think about the possibility of there being a creator with an open mind, maybe something will filter in. Bless you and may the creator open your mind in time!
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
It's about trait survivability, which suggests that only certain traits of the disease (germ whatever) remain. My understanding of it is that the germ evolves. It learns, it's very instinct is it's driving force. Weaker germs will die off, while stronger strains will have more chance of adapting to new and harsher environments.

learning and using what you already "know" are very different. the traits are already there in the DNA, circumstances have changed in a way that makes these traits more pronounced. there is no learning, only reaction and application of less dominant traits.



If you take our eco-system as an example, and go back to humans. We have adapted over millions of years (if you accept the history of mankind, 60 odd thousand if you don't) to various changes in the Earth's climate. We have less hair, better health etc. Plenty of things that we have improved even over the past hundred years. Is this not evolution? Have we not evolved to survive better in our environment?


no. let me give an example of why this isn't evolution, which i repeat has never been observed. it is a theory, it is not a fact despite rabid declarations to the contrary. it is also a theory which was abandoned by its creator.


i love bacon but pigs are amazing animals, disgusting, but nonetheless amazing in their intelligence and adaptability. if you take a pink little pig from a farmer and let it go wild, within two weeks the appearance of the animal will completely change. it's hair will grow longer, thicker and darker. it's snout will elongate and social behavior will change, violence being more common. the offspring will have these "feral" traits also, from birth forward. place the same pig back into captivity and within weeks the hair will fade, soften and you will again have a pink little pig which is fairly docile. offspring will return to having tame traits.

all that capability and adaptability is in the same DNA of that humble animal.

same is true with different strains of plants, bacteria, anything that has DNA, it's the most amazing molecule in existence! apply "selection pressure" and you will determine what traits come out.




You believe that a thing created all life. Why? Why would this thing do this? Also, why would this thing vary it's choices of life-forms giving only one the power to go to heaven? Forgive the last question as I'm not sure where you stand on the bible, after all talking of a creator is a completely different matter. You can still believe in a creator while at the same time believing the holy books are a load of twaddle.

Nice talking to you.
yes, i believe God created all life, matter, energy, time, everything that exists and does not exist. why do we humans obsess over creating artificial intelligence? i don't know, He didn't explain this and i won't pretend to have any idea as to why. it is a question that i will certainly be asking when i get the chance.

i also don't know why He gave us the power to be with Him forever, perhaps the animals have never gone without Him, they didn't sin so i don't think their communion was ever interupted.

my stand about the bible is that it is a book He chose to give us through men of His choosing. the book contains contradictions, violent laws of millenia past, accounts of miraculous healing, prophecy, valor and failure. the bible also gives a path to salvation, as med said through Jesus, the one and only Son of God. you and anyone hearing His name and listening to His story will have a moment where you know, without a doubt, that He is there asking for you to accept the offering of His suffering and He will ask you to give yourself to Him as He gave for you. He doesn't see anyone as better or worse, no one is His equal.
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
What of the other holy books? Are these real too?

Do you accept the history of mankind? Did dinosaurs ever walk the Earth?

According to carbon dating the dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago. Intelligent human types, came around 65, 000 (cro-magnon) years ago.

The Romans had many gods, likewise the norse, the saxons. You see, your argument holds weight when you speak of the very essence of a god. When you get down to the rawness of it all, the very driving force behind life could be classed as a god. A simplistic god that isn't even aware of it's existence, in fact has no awareness... this I could accept. After all it's not really a god is it.

Yet, you actually believe the bible, a book written by men. You believe that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs... you believe that Mary conceived while a virgin, conceived by a god... you believe that a man was executed and then rose from the dead three days later... the bible is a selection of passages, carefully chosen and carefully edited. In fact a lot of the stories are stolen from other religions, like christmas, the immaculate conception (well almost, Hercules was born from his mother's union with Zeus, Zeus was a swan at the time). How can you believe this bullshit?

Someone on this site said that 80% of Americans believe in your god. This is a disgusting figure, yet shows a lot about the propagnda machine that is your media... shows the depth of your programming.

I know what is god, it is you and me. We all have the power to make our LIVES more fulfilling.

Are you afraid of death 7x?
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
What of the other holy books? Are these real too?

Do you accept the history of mankind? Did dinosaurs ever walk the Earth?

According to carbon dating the dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago. Intelligent human types, came around 65, 000 (cro-magnon) years ago.
obviously i have answered the first two. if they are real they have no bearing on the complete message contained in the bible, at best they were mistakenly omited, at worst they are distractions from the truth.

yes. yes.

have you studied the physics and math behind C14 dating? can you honestly state that there is any basis for making the claim that electromagnetic conditions occuring right now in our immediate part of the universe are the same as they were 65,000 years ago, how about 100 years ago? can you refute the evidence that electromagnetic variances can not only speed the process of isotopic stabilization but even prevent it? did you realize that the earth had a major shift in the alignment and intensity of our magnetic poles last century? this should all come to bear on how you use data from C14 analysis and this is why scientists all use the term "estimation" when they publish data obtained by this means.

using C14 analysis on anything more than a couple millenia old is like counting the gray specs on a snowy TV screen.

take your 65,000 figure and do a math statement. if you assume that one generation is 25 years old, there have been 2600 generations since your dawn of man. do you realize what the size of our current generation would be? hey, go crazy and subtract 25% from every 10th generation to simulate a MASSIVE catastrophy, the likes of which we have never seen.


The Romans had many gods, likewise the norse, the saxons. You see, your argument holds weight when you speak of the very essence of a god. When you get down to the rawness of it all, the very driving force behind life could be classed as a god. A simplistic god that isn't even aware of it's existence, in fact has no awareness... this I could accept. After all it's not really a god is it.

Yet, you actually believe the bible, a book written by men. You believe that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs... you believe that Mary conceived while a virgin, conceived by a god... you believe that a man was executed and then rose from the dead three days later... the bible is a selection of passages, carefully chosen and carefully edited. In fact a lot of the stories are stolen from other religions, like christmas, the immaculate conception (well almost, Hercules was born from his mother's union with Zeus, Zeus was a swan at the time). How can you believe this bullshit?
to create a female child you need XX chromosomes, both female. a male child requires X and Y. isn't it logical that woman came from man in the start, the only carrier of both types of DNA? do you think luck played a part in this 5000+ year old declaration?

btw, christmas isn't in the bible. the early church was gathered up and it was attempted to be assimilated in with a new "universal" church (the word Catholic means universal). this consolidated church combined many religions and non-religions in an attempt to appease a vast array of differing people groups on many continents. parts of the actual church, the biblical church, survived in and amongst the universal church, still does and many parts which are independant or protestant in nature do too.

Someone on this site said that 80% of Americans believe in your god. This is a disgusting figure, yet shows a lot about the propagnda machine that is your media... shows the depth of your programming.

I know what is god, it is you and me. We all have the power to make our LIVES more fulfilling.

Are you afraid of death 7x?
our media in no way contributes to this figure. if anything, it would serve to decrease the number of believers. the great thing about my faith is that there is no programming involved, it's all about discovery. i was exposed to it early on, questioned it, doubted it and set out to go without it. i was actually angry at the notion of God, this thing out there watching us in His little fishbowl, this crutch that weak people used to tell themselves it would all be ok one day, this soap box that people use to look down on others. i barely survived this time of self-reliance but eventually i began to see how i survived it all. there was intervention all along the way, this intervention has brough me here as well. i still wanted to rebel, believing in the very thing i am hollowing out for you in this thread. it was like God said to me, fine, go study your sciences, immerse yourself in the knowledge of man. what i found were more questions than answers and interestingly, it all leads back to Him.

i am not afraid of death itself, i am afraid of being on God's turf, in His presence. He knows everything i've done, thought, not done, given and taken. being in front of Him will be absolutely terrifying but i wouldn't miss it for the world.
 

medicineman

New Member
am not afraid of death itself, i am afraid of being on God's turf, in His presence. He knows everything i've done, thought, not done, given and taken. being in front of Him will be absolutely terrifying but i wouldn't miss it for the world. I have the same feeling, I know I'll get some kind of come-upance, I haven't exactly been an angel these 65 years. I wonder if you've been a fuckup, if you'll get sent to someplace like Bagdad, a living hell, as a newborn Iraqi poor person, or Darfur as one of the woebegotten, or a myriad of other hellish places here on this planet, Maybe a deaf, dumb and blind child in a ghetto someplace, LA, Bombay, Calcutta, I don't think it will be all wine and roses for everyone. Like for example, Sadam comes back as a kurd during the chemical attacks, Hitles gets a free ride to the gas chambers in Trablinka or Bergan Belson, or Auswchwitz, Stalin gets a firing squad, etc. I kinda believe in Karma (past actions are rewarded or punished in the next life). I know Jesus forgives us all, it just seems that we should pay for our transgressions.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
i've wondered about that too med, it is only briefly mentioned in the bible and a lot of people take it to one extreme or another but really it boils down to seeing God first hand then being permanently separated from Him after judgement...nothing could be worse. no matter what He gives us, we have assurance that we will never be apart from Him and that's more than any of us deserve.
 

medicineman

New Member
i've wondered about that too med, it is only briefly mentioned in the bible and a lot of people take it to one extreme or another but really it boils down to seeing God first hand then being permanently separated from Him after judgement...nothing could be worse. no matter what He gives us, we have assurance that we will never be apart from Him and that's more than any of us deserve.
Boy aint that the truth
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
Sorry about my last couple of posts, my head isn't quite here yet as I have been suffering with flu... a combination of a coke and xtc binge, not eating, followed by the cold spell that is now passing us over. I feel about 90% this morning, so hopefully my post will hold a little more weight.

I know how the current bible was written, my parents taught me when I was a child. I also know about the estimations behind carbon dating. Believe it or not, I also know about the shift in the poles last century (wasn't it blamed, quite wrongly, on nuclear weapons testing?)... I also know that the poles may actually reverse altogether, not the first time this has happened apparently.

What I don't understand is your mathematical equation on the current population of man. Are you saying there isn't enough people? Even allowing for your 25 year generation, and natural catastrophies known and unknown, you could not possibly ever know how many people there should be. There can be no equation.

Sorry about this, but I have to end somewhere... If a god created all life, why only put it on one planet?
 

medicineman

New Member
If a god created all life, why only put it on one planet? This is one Christian belief I have a hard time accepting. There are just too many possibilities of life on the quadrillion+++ planets that are out there. Here's basically what I believe: When you die, your spirit goes to one of these planets and starts out as a newborn there. Depending on how you've accepeted the challenges put before you here on Earth, is the criteria that determines which planet you will be interned on. Now I consider this to be the War planet, there could be worse ones, for sure, But say you were an Iraqi in Bagdad, it can't get much worse than that. Since there are so many planets, the types of environment could vary immensely. If you've done well here, you could be rewarded with a nice beautiful peaceful planet where the lifespan could be long and prosperous. This is only one scenario as no-one really knows where you go after death of the body. You see Skunky, it is so much more comfortable to tease yourself with these possibilities, than to think death is fade to black. If you see your self as a spirit with a body carrying it around, your possibilities are unlimited, if your only a body, its fade to black, which scenario sounds more promising! You first must discover youir spirit, and that aint easy for some, but if you give it a try, it might work. the whole person is much greater than the whole! BTW wavels, if you don't get this, go read a fucking book!
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
I know med'... It's a shame. Unfortunately, death is final. I understand death, permanent unconsciousness. There isn't anything, not even your awareness of this fact. Can you understand this med'?

Heaven is a lie made-up by a backward society. This may be hard to accept, but deep down med' I know you know the truth. Anybody that believes in heaven MUST truly deep down realise that they are desperately believing in a lie. So want it to be real because the prospect of never existing again is too much to bear.
 

battosai

Well-Known Member
I know med'... It's a shame. Unfortunately, death is final. I understand death, permanent unconsciousness. There isn't anything, not even your awareness of this fact. Can you understand this med'?

Heaven is a lie made-up by a backward society. This may be hard to accept, but deep down med' I know you know the truth. Anybody that believes in heaven MUST truly deep down realise that they are desperately believing in a lie. So want it to be real because the prospect of never existing again is too much to bear.
einstein was convinced that our esscence goes somewhere after this life because energy doesnt just disappear. i think the idea of perma-death is just as ridiculous as any other because its still people who have never died trying to say what happens. in near death experiences there are countless cases of people seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and meeting god, and countless others that saw nothing or remember nothing. what is it to argue the afterlife anyways? isnt trying to figure out so hard the same thing as trying to manipulate it.. why does everyone need to know so badly. all religions boil down to this: live your life in a way that wont leave you regretting it when you're dying.

what did u want to accomplish? how did u live?


maybe if u can die without regret u can just float away....
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
This is a very interesting thread....nothing like debating the unprovable....

I read this little piece yesterday and I thought of Skunky's valiant effort to inject the atheistic viewpoint into these ruminations....
BTW, Skunky, good job!



By Sandi Dolbee
UNION-TRIBUNE RELIGION & ETHICS EDITOR January 27, 2007


Robert Zeps doesn't believe in prayer. He doesn't believe in God. He believes it's all in your head.
“It has to be in the brain,” he says. “Your brain is your brain and all your thoughts and feelings and what you believe, it all happens in the brain.”

Sitting in the conference room of his Solana Beach business, Zeps speaks rapidly, passionately, his British accent making him sound like an English version of Elmer Gantry. Except his is a theology of atheism.
“I don't think there's any difference between religious belief and whatever else you might believe,” he is saying. “It's just a particular type of belief. I believe my car will start in the morning, and when it doesn't, I don't think it's evil spirits. I believe it's something probably mechanical.”
He is curious about why people believe in God.
“Why does it persist? The answer comes from our brain. Our brain through evolution has evolved to not only allow us to have some of these beliefs, but almost to require us to have some of these beliefs in order to get on with everyday life.”
Zeps is doing more than talking. The 37-year-old investor, who lives in Rancho Santa Fe with his pregnant wife and young son, gave $200,000 last year to fund a seminar at the Salk Institute in La Jolla that still has much of the religious and science communities buzzing.
Called “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival,” and organized by Salk scientist Roger Bingham, the November gathering featured a who's who of researchers – many of whom, as it turned out, were less than enthusiastic about religion.

There was Richard Dawkins, the Oxford biologist whose best-selling book, “The God Delusion” calls the Bible “just plain weird.” And Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Texas, who once said the “historical mission of science has been to teach us that we are not the playthings of supernatural intervention.” And Sam Harris, author of the religion-blistering “Letter to a Christian Nation.”
A Web site of the presentations (beyondbelief2006.org) has drawn 3 million hits, according to Bingham, who also runs the Science Network, a science education organization that sponsored the gathering.
“It generated an absolute firestorm of activity,” says Bingham.
Anti-religious 'screeds'
Even while the sessions were still going on, one audience member stood and cautioned a panel of speakers that they were comparing “the best of science with the worst of religion.”
Looking back, one of the presenters who was at odds with many of the speakers is more blunt.
“The core of the meeting for the most part was intellectually unimpressive and excessively propagandistic,” says Charles Harper Jr., senior vice president of the John Templeton Foundation, a leading funder in studies that have been more sympathetic toward the intersection of science and religion.
Harper describes the event as “excessive grandstanding for authors of recently published nonscholarly, pop conflict screeds against religion.”
Bingham says the seminar was not a revival meeting for atheists and agnostics.
“The purpose of this was enlightenment. The more information we get, the better we are able to make rational decisions about all this,” he says.
Zeps was so impressed with the gathering that he's already agreed to help fund a sequel this year. He dismisses “uncharitable things” being said about the seminar.
“It just so happened that the people who were there just happened to be nonreligious, which for a scientific group is hardly surprising,” he says. “But the seminar wasn't about let's discuss religion, let's bash religion. It was more about the neurology of religious beliefs.”
He's hoping “Beyond Belief II” will delve even deeper into that subject.
Not raised religious
Even as a young boy, attending daily religious assemblies in school in England, Zeps found it “very uncomfortable” to bow his head for prayer.
“I never had that religious feeling,” he remembers, adding that his parents also weren't religious. “I never thought there was a God out there.”
When he was a teenager, he became interested in Zen Buddhism. But that didn't stick. “I wanted it to be true. It felt great for it to be true. But it wasn't true.”
He was infatuated with science and studied physics at Imperial College in London. He went into the business world and was working for a global consulting firm when he met his wife, Diane, who worked for the Los Angeles office of the same company. They were married eight years ago.
Diane Zeps is the granddaughter of the late Bernard and Dorris Lipinsky, who were well known in San Diego for their philanthropy – particularly for Jewish causes, including launching the Jewish studies program at San Diego State University. Diane Zeps says she can't remember how the subject of his atheism came up, but it wasn't a big deal. She describes herself as Jewish by birth but not religious.
The couple's investment portfolio ranges from property development to new technology. They, along with Diane's sister, Jane Murphy, also own Donum Elite Gifting, a luxury gifting service run out of an upstairs office of a Solana Beach shopping plaza.
Funding “Beyond Belief” was a joint decision, says Diane Zeps. “I think it's really important that people discuss these things.”
Science junkie
Those who know Zeps describe him as an exceptional science enthusiast.
“He's one of the few people I know who is widely read in science,” says Bingham, who approached Zeps about funding the seminar after he began to see interest in the subject building through books and research projects.
“He loves science,” says Michael Shermer, editor in chief of Skeptic magazine. Zeps has been a supporter of Shermer's education organization, the Skeptics Society.
“He's a Brit, but he lives in America now and he recognizes some of the peculiar problems we have here to resistance to particular aspects of science, particularly in regards to religion,” Shermer says.
Zeps isn't hostile toward religion.
“In my opinion, religion is wrong, and believing in a personal God is not true. It doesn't mean that having that belief isn't helpful to you or to a society,” he says.
So what does it mean?
“It means that we as humans have to acknowledge that we have a lot of different things that we believe in our heads, and they help us get through our lives, and they just may be wrong.”
Take death, for example.
Some people cope with the prospect of dying by ignoring the topic, says Zeps. Others cope by believing in an afterlife. “That's a pretty good belief to have, if it's true.”
Does he think he'll change his mind as he gets closer to his own mortality? Will he regret his stands?
He shakes his head. “I'm of the opinion that says if there is a God and he's supposed to be merciful and all the rest of it, he will find me infinitely better company than most Christians who just believed in him blindly. And if he isn't that kind of God, then I want no part of him anyway.”


SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Features -- He of little faith
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
Very good post. I read it all the way through as it says all of the things I KNOW to be true. If there is a god, then it is our brains, for it is our brains that have created it.
 
Top