It is not my style to use chapter and verse numbers, this isn't ment to be missionary as well, it is unusual for me to convince somebody meet Jesus. After all Jesus of Nazareth is famous. I don't think I ever tried exept to say yes when I got asked. Still it is the contribution of many churches to violate the Kingdom of Heaven in lots of variations. Like throwing around them with chistologies; theologes who interpret the meaning of words like "is"; keeping their followers in a prison.

People who have power, they have a different memory which allowes them to play the people. It's the same for the "emperor" as it is for the "pope". It's the same for a CEO, it's the same for spiritual leaders of groups. I reject it as the result is unsatisfactory. Teach the illiterate to read? Nope, I want to manipulate. Teach medicine? Nope, I want to be rich with synthetic addictive drugs. Teach the people to shake hands over borders? Nope, I have bullets to offer. For centuries powerhunger violates the Kingdom of Heaven.

I think that how we as individuals see death has a lot to do with faith. I have always tryied to imagine how the first human beings saw death. The first human being to have a sense of "self" would have seen animals die and say "I will die some day, what will happen to me then."

Then a terrible realization must have occurred. "I don't know what happens to me after I die." This question has plagued humanity since its earliest beginnings, because once we die we have no sensory perception of the universe, and the living have no way to communicate with the dead.

This is where religion was born. The earliest religions believed in "resurrection". Warriors and hunters in prehistoric times were buried with their weapons and possessions, sometimes even their hunting dogs and hawks. They believed they would be resurrected some day and when they woke up from their long death everything they had would be with them. The Egyptians formalized that belief and constructed their pyramids and mummified their pharaohs, thinking that they would come back some day.

Of course, they did not. Then we have the rise of other religiens like monotheism. In monotheism (Judeo-Christian or other types) human beings have a "soul". The "self" survives beyond death, because the God that created humans is merciful and wants to save them somehow. This is why we get one chance at physical life, because once the body dies, there is no need for the body any more.

Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and other religions of India believed that the "self" (or soul, called atman in Sanskrit) did not exist. Instead human beings became so attached to the physical world that once the body died, the person would "reincarnate" in a new life somewhere else. This cycle of death and rebirth led to great suffering in living beings because as we live we lose all those things we are attached to. Then the concept of "nirvana" and "enlightenment" came in. If a person became enlightened, the cycle of death and rebirth would end.

Of course, we have atheists who deny all religion and see life as a one chance to exist and then it ends with death. Atheism started in ancient Greece, but it reached its highest philosophical forms in the 19th and 20th century.

In the end it all comes down to faith, what we believe is a reflection of what we have learned through life. Doubt is part of human existence, and organized religion has used doubt as the most powerful weapon for political control.

You cannot be sure that God exists and that God will save you, so organized religion attempts to give people that certainty. In doing so it often used its influence over individual belief to promote political and economic objectives.

Today we see Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations use religion to promote their political objectives, but western society is full of examples of the abuses of organized religion. Crusades, the burning of witches, pastors in churches telling people to vote for a certain candidate, etc. Manipulation has taken many forms, and it has been done by all religions at some point or another. Every major religion spread itself through war (except for Buddhism with its strict adherence to non-violence, although some historians have argued that too).

Next time we see Al Qaida, we have to realize that they are not selling death to their followers, but the certainty of salvation after death. All those virgins waiting in paradise after death are the reward for acting in a way that promotes their political and economic objectives. I have nothing against religion or belief in God, but organized religion promoting blind obedience and conformity, that to me is an aberration.

(V): So, what is with this hacker, will he be delivered to the US? The one who went into NASA and government computers and tells how easy that is.

gogul: True. I've gone off meditating, thought just half an hour has passed and found it's hours later. Time is relative. Also it is not recognised in physics as being a constant in regards to the effects that such as gravity has on it.

A day in zero G is not the same as that in any place affected by gravity.

Tuesday: There is noting like "time will tell". Time is an illusion, and nothing is hidden behind time if you can hear and see. This is if you are willing to receive it.

Tuesday: And if there is no family? And three comes up in many forms in Judaic based religions, as does 40.... btw.. when it comes to death, it is also said that it is not certain (see Gospel of Thomas) which refers to that the Bible talks of more then one type of death as the original texts used more then one type of hell.

Over simplification causes complication that leads away from the simplicity of the Bible. It's no good just going by what others think is right.

Btw.. Christian wise... there is always transmigration!!

gogul: Reincarnation is not alien to Judaic based religions. It was just rejected by those who decided to formalise western orthodoxy into an easily taught faith. I feel a certain amount of trying to convert pagan religions by keeping certain elements of paganism (of those dominant at the time) was used.

As to science... I don't think it can reject an afterlife as such anymore, so much is coming to light that we don't know everything and that not only is this body of ours a biological organism but also has many EM aspects.

eg .. when I was at school we were taught electrons orbited in a nice clean orbit. Now I learn that science finds that electrons though stay around the nucleus of an atom there is no clear orbit. An electron can jump around, be in more than one place at a time, etc.
..... we are now looking at multiple dimensions to explain gravity and it's weakness, that space/time is bent from gravity and that it is not an attraction as such, but matter falls when faced by gravity. Black holes I was taught nothing could escape from, now certain particles can, and in the end a black hole can explode.

Science is still learning.

Czuch: This is the problem Czuch... If taken as per the original intent of religions then death is just a normal life event. But, so much has been empathised on fear of the afterlife by nature of ... have we been good boys and girls. The original 4 'hells' have been converted by bad translation into 1 'hell'.

As to virgins.... you have to be a bit metaphorical regarding some aspects of religion.

But my original point was the difference between suicide and choosing to die with dignity. This difference has been lost somehow. We recognise when in battle a hero may sacrifice their life to save others and remember and reward such sacrifice. Yet if someone is terminally ill with no chance of recovery, and as such a painful undignified death.. we say this is wrong. Yet at the same time doctors get to choose at times when to 'switch off the machine' that is keeping a persons body alive.

Übergeek 바둑이: We also need to stimulate companies and universities thaht do research into ways to reduce the amount of gases we emit. That means that the goverment has to take our hard-earned tax dollars and put them to work properly. That will always be a difficult thing, because politicians are influenced by special interests, and taxpayers might be skeptical of how the money is being spent.

**

Be it the environment, be it health, I do not see the science as we know it today offering the anwers that would bring us forward. To get consensual on the climate problem like the science is describing it, we would have to move to a complete 'scientification' of the whole world population, science fiction of it's worst. Different cultures have different answers, and people tend to put faith over science, even more the situation gets dramatic. People see them self confirmed in doupting in scientifical explanations, because science fails to solve problems above technical aspects. Our mainstream medicine is tied to big companies who blind government lot lots of tax revenues. It's taking cash out of our pockets, this for a medicine that hasn't much to do with health. Lots of people don't seem to understand that health is something in between the visit to the doctor. They feel not good about something, go to a doc, get a chill pill, but don't get told to invisage a change of lifestile, reaching life quality. We wouldn't be in need of that much pharmaceutica if we would take the lessons from our cultures and religions serious. Then, we don't deny that coffein, nicotine, alcohol has an effect on us. It is the case for everything, all foods, nonfoods, things we don't know anymore that they are fine for us. We all seem to know this, but continue to let the synthetic monster science be decisive in what's good or wrong. Not every aspect of science is monstreus, but some definitly are. Health science is in large parts. Our science denies that an organism is more than a single body. It's wrong, even cruel. I don't call myself religious but I'm true in being thankful toward God. It is a logical consequence following the culture I grew up in. This culture, let me generalise it, west of Jerusalem, knows what buddhists seem to call rebirth (as in reincarnation). So why should I care about getting older at the point when it tells me, face death now. I can take it as a new chance, yay, new start. All this, the science denies it, is fighting it, mainly for the strange idea of some few to live in repulsive abundance. It's the same with the climate. Arts examles of Hollywoodstars who don't get it are typical for that. This toilet paper example. In America you seem to be dwelt to 5-ply fluffy papers, while most of the world is doing the toilet business with the more hygienic water and hand method. How do you want to reach scientifical consensus, when the differences of lifestile are so blatant? It isn't a new thing that cultures learn from each other, without fighting. What needs to get fighted is repulsive abundance.

(V): So much covering death I believe is the church's fault...


Funny... I have always felt that religion made us fear death less, that we had a better place waiting for us? Since I personally have no beliefs like this, death is something that I am not looking forward to.... and I believe the big draw of religion is the "afterlife"... the "eternity" that people crave (not to mention all the virgins)

Übergeek 바둑이: Death.. yes well... part of life. Biological machines are not made to last, although people have been known by will to extend a scheduled change in address, such is that our bodies are designed to break down.

So much covering death I believe is the church's fault... religion has in the past (not so much now) found it profitable to make us afraid of a change in state. But I find in such fear a paradox in that it denies part of who we are in it's belief.

Euthanasia will always be a touchy subject. Here in Canada it is illegal, and we had a few cases where the legal system saw itself torn in the debate of suffering versus merciful death. I know that if I was suffering and I knew there was no cure I would prefer to die, rather than prolonguing my suffering and that of my family. However, if somebody in my family was seriously ill and suffering, I don't know if I could assist them to die. I think it will always be an extremely difficult subject, like abortion and other things related to death.

Well in the UK it looks like the government (and the law as such) have backed off on prosecution of those who go abroad with their loved ones, and help out those who decide to end their lives due to incurable medical reasons.

It looks like they have seen the difference between choosing how to end your life with dignity and suicide. After all.... It's against the law to let an animal suffer and can end up in a criminal prosecution.

Strange world!!

Artful Dodger:

In reply to this:

> If the "carbon footprint" is a bit crazy (it's not scientific and it's nonsense.
> Carbon dioxide is plant food. The environmentalists treat it like it's a polution.
> And Co2 levels are DOWN. Temps are up. Where's the connection?

Usually when we talk of global warming people tend to get the wrong idea. It is a gradual warming that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Here is a graph that shows what the anomaly is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

From the 1920s to the present the average atmospheric temperature in the world has gone up about 1 degree centigrade. It does not sound like much, just 1 degree. However, it is a lot if we consider that we are heating up an entire planet. I recommend the full Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The problem with global warming is not that it will kill everything on Earth. Carbon dioxide and methane are not mustard gas or some toxic substance.

Estimates of the effect of global warming say that we could see a further increase of 1.1 to 6.4 degrees centigrade over the next 100 years.

What is the effect of that? It is not like everything will get cooked or roasted. The problem is that as the temperature goes up, the rate of evaporation of water goes up. In many areas of the world the soil is not able to retain moisture the way it used to and those areas are slowly becoming deserts.

As global warming makes its slow advance, more areas will become arid and agriculture will suffer. The Earth is already having a hard time providing everyone with food. Advances in plant breeding and genetic engineering have made the growing of food easier, but global warming threatens to destroy about 30% of the arable land of the world. That means 30% less food, and by the end of this century the population of the world could be 3 times what it is now. 30% less food and 3 times the number of people is not a joke.

There is a lot of skepticism about this and some scientists doubt it is actually happening and they think the warming mighht be part of a much greater climate cycle. However, the statistical data do point to emmissions of carbond dioxide, methane and other gases as the most likely causes of the warming.

There is also a lot of debate about how to reduce those emmissions. Industrialized countries are willing to reduce emmissions, if populous countries like China and India reduce their emmissions too. Emerging economies like China, india and Brazil are unhappy with the caps because it means that they will have to limit their economic growth.

I am a chemist and I think that global warming is the product of human industrial activity, the use of cars and other means of transport, and the overuse of electricity. However, I also think that we have to be realistic and see that people need those things. The problem with this is that it is a politically charged issue because politicians cannot agree on how to proceed.

Those that want the environment protected at any cost want tough caps imposed. Those that have been lobbyed by oil and energy companies will oppose any action. Squeezed in between are the people of the world who will some day see their grandchildren suffer if something is not done. As always, it is poor people who will pay the price for the agricultural catastrophe that could happen if something is not done.

I think ultimately the only solution will be to teach people to waste less energy. We all love to leave the lights on, run electrical appliances 24 hours a day, drive two block to buy a soda, etc. I am sure that if we all accounted for how we use energy, we would find that 50% of the energy we consume is wasted.

We also need to stimulate companies and universities thaht do research into ways to reduce the amount of gases we emit. That means that the goverment has to take our hard-earned tax dollars and put them to work properly. That will always be a difficult thing, because politicians are influenced by special interests, and taxpayers might be skeptical of how the money is being spent.

Right... that's it. I'm getting into the Carbon offset business. I recon the religious book sellers must be fuming that it's taken over as an idol of sorts.

$5.5 billion in 2006.. No wonder every boffin that can is laughing.

Czuch: Sorry Czuch, sometimes I forget that people might not have read or seen the stuff I have. Most of what I think people know is basic stuff about geology, geography, etc is a case such as this.

As to the carbon footprint business.. I'll have to look and see how much it's worth. Seeing as everyone (pro greenhouse or anti greenhouse) is making a buck, I don't see why we shouldn't

Maybe what we need is a stock market for carbon foot prints, where those of us who have a very small one can sell what we dont produce to someone who over produces on an open market

(V): So what is a zero carbon footprint worth these days, in dollars, and who decides this, and how come the government can sell and keep the cash for my personal carbon foot print, shouldnt I have the right to sell my own and keep the cash?

(V): Its two different arguments..... you made a statement that he had ignored some evidence, but until your recent post, you never gave any evidence that he had. I only claimed to agree with his thesis, there is a difference.

Artful Dodger: Perhaps you don't know what I'm referring to Art regarding carbon footprint.. It's to people (or companies) buying the ability to off put their excessive production of carbon by buying someone's lack of production of carbon.

And have you read all his works to know it's true? I just read the article as presented by Czuch and found errors. Maybe it's just the way Jonathan Manthorpe presented it. But based on that presentation, there are concerns I have over what Plimer is saying.

Is that ok?

And if this Plimer bloke is right, then can you (or Czuch) provide from his work (seeing as you two are saying it's right) the evidence to show he is correct??

Czuch: I've already stated why I think he ignored it. The bloke "Plimer" says the Earth's climate is cyclic and random. To me that is wrong. The climate regarding ice ages and the like is cyclic, true. Random... no. Why ... because they come in cycles. No-one can predict exactly to the minute when they occur, we do not have the weather forecasting ability for that, but they are not random.

But I presumed people here would know that... my bad.

Czuch: Yeah. Interesting that it assumes the very thing is supposed to prove: That in fact there is such a thing as a "carbon footprint" and that such a thing is actually significant to the fact of global warming.

In the 70's it was global cooling. In twenty years from now it will be something else. Politicians and ideologues are always inventing new crises to control people and extort money from the little guy.

Czuch: You've summed it up. ;)

Artful Dodger: You are saying that the end justifies the means. That's bad policy.


Thats exactly what he is saying... that it doesnt really matter how we get people to reduce their "carbon foot print" as long as it happens!

(V): Ok... it is a fact that we are an adaptive species..


The point AD was trying to make , is that you claimed that he IGNORED the fact that we are an adaptive species when he made his thesis.... give us some proof how you know that this fact was IGNORED?

(V): You said: "As to random.. that's only due to lack of info over how. "

If you lack information, how can you draw such a conclusion? The reality is, you can't. You're saying that the scientist is wrong about "random" and you use as evidence in your argument the lack of evidence. How's that work?

Then you say: "Plus he ignores that we are the first race on this planet to be able to change significantly our surroundings, such as deforestation.."

Which you can't possibly REALLY know unless you've read his work in its entirety. Which I doubt you have.

So it makes me wonder how you came to that conclusion. Did a hedgehog whisper it in your ear?

And also: "I agree, the carbon footprint thing is a bit crazy in certain respects, but it's also leading to a cut down in fuel usage by making cars more economical."

If the "carbon footprint" is a bit crazy (it's not scientific and it's nonsense. Carbon dioxide is plant food. The environmentalists treat it like it's a polution. And Co2 levels are DOWN. Temps are up. Where's the connection?

You are saying that the end justifies the means. That's bad policy.

Artful Dodger: People can use examples Art. I see people comparing things to other things on here?

Did I miss another memo??

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

It's a little story that you can click and read on how man spread. One such spread was the bearing land bridge. The use of tools spread through one ice age.

It's all their, including the near extinction of man. That was one event.

(V): You have no point. You ramble around in circles. You don't stay on point. And nothing you bla bla around will change that fact.

What was the geologists main thesis? That's what's being discussed. NOT dinosaurs and hedgehogs.

You've gone off the cliff.

(V): I know what roadkill is, but are they more clever in NZ than they are in UK? they were introduced to NZ and are now a pest...*shakes head*

no need to look on giggle...bing is the go.

Artful Dodger: Yes we are and I get this every time when I have a point on here.

I can't help remembering things.

Bernice: It's called roadkill Bernice, there was a day when our roads were littered with dead hedgehogs. Scientists who study hedgehogs(it was on the news) are now saying that many are learning to not crawl into a ball which is a natural trait when they feel threatened. And a car.. especially at nights with headlamps is a threat.. so they feel.

Hence .. roadkill.

If you look on google you'll find the story.

(V): No. It's rambling nonsense. It avoid the topic entirely. We aren't even talking about any of those silly things you've drawn into the conversation. Bunny trails NOT welcome.

(V): where did you get the bit about hedgehogs "learning" not to crawl into a ball? They only turn themselves into a ball if they are threatened, how do they know a car is a threat? and why hasnt it happened in NZ...they do have cars there you know. LOL

CCP*****Hedgehogs are a powerful form of pest control. A single hedgehog can keep an average garden free of pests by eating up to 200 grams of insects each night. It is common throughout the United Kingdom to see people attempting to lure hedgehogs into their gardens with treats and hedgehog-sized holes in their fences.[citation needed]

One problem with using hedgehogs for garden pest control is the use of chemical insecticide. While the hedgehog is large enough to resist most insecticides, it cannot withstand them if it eats many insects which have become full of the poison. This causes many hedgehog deaths where pet hedgehogs eat contaminated bugs within the house.

In areas where hedgehogs have been introduced, such as New Zealand and the islands of Scotland, the hedgehog itself has become a pest. In New Zealand it causes immense damage to native species including insects, snails, lizards and ground-nesting birds, particularly shore birds. As with many introduced animals, it lacks natural predators. With overpopulation, it kills off more insects than initially intended and expands its diet to include things such as snails, worms, and the eggs of wading birds.

Correcting overpopulation is troublesome itself. Attempts to eliminate hedgehogs from bird colonies on the Scottish islands of North Uist and Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides were met with international outrage. Eradication began in 2003 with 690 hedgehogs being killed. Animal welfare groups attempted rescues to save the hedgehogs. By 2007, legal injunctions against the killing of hedgehogs were put in place. In 2008, the elimination process was changed from killing the hedgehogs to trapping them and releasing on the mainland.

Artful Dodger: Ok... it is a fact that we are an adaptive species.. skin colour being one, hence as man left Africa and travelled far away our skin change to match our surroundings. It is a fact that during ice ages man did travel to escape (survival technique) and hence grew stronger. Man then as such became a stronger more adaptable race, hence our ability to travel to the four corners of the earth. The way Africa's climate changed, led to man moving.

........ An opinion based on what has learnt as being held as historic fact from findings by geologists is fine. But to distort the significance of the event on human existence by taking that many humans died during the ice ages as a decline, rather than a time of hardening and strengthening as nature doth provide from time to time. The dinosaurs opened up the way for mammals, yet at cost of much of life on Earth. But some survived.

For example... the humble hedgehog here has been in decline, but now.. they are learning not to crawl into a ball when on a road. Hence those hedgehogs that do not, and instead run are transferring that trait unto their descendants and the population is now on the increase.

Do you see the basis for my opinion now??

(V): Stating an opinion and then stating something as a fact (which you have done here) are not the same thing. You claim that the scientist's data was flawed. That's not an opinion. You are making an assertion. Either the scientist did overlook what you said he did, or he didn't. You can't have an opinion on that. It's either a fact that he did, or a fact that he didn't. Now you claim he DID. So it's reasonable to expect you to offer some proof of that claim.

C&P is fine as long as it's not your argument. Pointing out studies or articles (which we all do) is fine.

Artful Dodger: That link based on old data. Sure that's great You are saying having an opinion is bad?

Shall we all stop posting then?? And I thought having an opinion was better then c&p stuff!! Look.. have I missed a memo?

And V, look back. I already posted the link long ago.

(V): In other words your claims aren't really based on any fact, just your generalized opinion based on your own narrow experience.

Artful Dodger: I'm just going by what I've learnt of our history as a species. By what I've seen and learnt of how important it is that we are a race (as such) with now no natural predators.

And by what the link Czuch posted.

Seems guys on both sides of the global warming debate are making money out of this business.

And can you provide a link to that 2005 article you are going on about? I thought you would have least done that.

(V): I'm curious. How do you know he ignores anything? Which of his books have you read and which of his papers have you studied?

Czuch: Well that Ice ages made us spread more about the world tends to make his thoughts a little nuts. As to random.. that's only due to lack of info over how.

Plus he ignores that we are the first race on this planet to be able to change significantly our surroundings, such as deforestation.. The dust bowl somewhat shows what can happen. That farmers here are restoring the use of natural predators regarding bugs that attack crops, which cuts down on the need of pesticides.

I agree, the carbon footprint thing is a bit crazy in certain respects, but it's also leading to a cut down in fuel usage by making cars more economical.

Czuch: Many scientists know the truth about the global warming con but don't speak up because they universities they work for would possibly lose some funding or even their jobs could be in jeopardy. Politicians that talk about global warming as if it is man made are ignorant. They don't know. They've not studied the issue. They, like so many, jump on the band wagon. And in the end, if they get their way, we will pay big bucks.

Locally we are being forced to recycle. Now my rates have gone up. I have to recycle through the government or I will pay a fine. Never mind that for years I've recycled everything that's possible to recycle. No exceptions. So what I used to do for free, I now have to pay for.

It's only the beginning. There will be more nonsense from the government. Where there's a buck to be made, they will try to make it. Note the new term "carbon footprint." What the heck is that? It's mumbo-jumbo. They are morons. A bunch of fools.

Some idiot from Hollywood was interviewed and she talked about using less toilet paper. Seriously? If she's using less, then I'll use more. What an idiot. That's as bad as the PETA fool who complained about the Seattle fish market that is well known for throwing and catching of the fish they sell. The guy actually called the dead fish a cadaver. And how would you feel if we did that same thing to humans?

Another idiot. So I went out and bought a fish from the local market and we played a game of "fishball" with it. A few swings of the bat and that fish was mush. I packaged it up and sent it to PETA. With some crackers.

Ok, just kidding on that but it makes ya wanna puke sometimes.

This guy in Australia is right on as far as I am concerned....

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Vikings: 1) needs sorting out I agree, the whole USA system of sue needs capping. Something that over here we've had.

2) Our gov uses a similar system to get part time workers into full time employment. It works. But as to people shopping around for a doc... This is a Hippocratic situation and as such I feel set limits on what doc's can charge should be limited.

3) I thought was already somewhat in place. All UK people are advised as a matter of course to take out medical insurance when visiting another country to which they are not covered automatically. Also.. if this recharge was in place then as such then every country ought to do the same.

Our docs have a sign that if you have medical insurance to tell them.

Artful Dodger: Then show it, and it's source and how they collected the data.

gogul: Nahhhh though being part of European history it's been a big subject of study. Both pre WWII and post WWII. Also due it being a hot topic, many documentaries have been made about it that I've seen. Plus live info... such as the fall of the Berlin wall.

That was a great day!!