I'm sure as a public figure (celebrity) Oprah expects all sorts of comments - good and bad. But if we could get her crunching imagine the free publicity this project and BOINC could receive.

---

me@rescam.org

You've never had the many blessings in your life that Oprah has had in hers. If you had come as far as she has in life, you might just find yourself thinking differently about these things.

Let's not assume things about another's life based on limited information. (That wouldn't be very scientific, would it?) Beethoven, this portion of your post seems to suggest you believe people choose atheism due to a difficult life. Yet we know plenty of people choose religion to due to a difficult life as well.

Belief puts it a bit strongly, but I have noticed many people who have been exceptionally fortunate (like being born very wealthy or achieving great wealth), happen to be very deeply religious. I've also seen poor people rely on religion as a support to get them through a difficult life, and they're very religious too.

What I haven't seen much of, is people with comfortable, ordinary lives, being very deeply religious.

So, yeah. I guess that I see a connection of some kind there. I'd call it a hypothesis based on observation, rather than a theory or a belief, though. Does that explain it better?

---

I'm sure as a public figure (celebrity) Oprah expects all sorts of comments - good and bad. But if we could get her crunching imagine the free publicity this project and BOINC could receive.

I think the show publishes an address (web link too?) where you can write in to suggest material for her shows. It couldn't hurt to try.

---

Belief puts it a bit strongly, but I have noticed many people who have been exceptionally fortunate (like being born very wealthy or achieving great wealth), happen to be very deeply religious. I've also seen poor people rely on religion as a support to get them through a difficult life, and they're very religious too.

What I haven't seen much of, is people with comfortable, ordinary lives, being very deeply religious.

So, yeah. I guess that I see a connection of some kind there. I'd call it a hypothesis based on observation, rather than a theory or a belief, though. Does that explain it better?

O.K., I see where you're coming from, though I do not know that my observations would match up similarly. In any case, what I was getting at is why do you think people choose atheism?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Belief puts it a bit strongly, but I have noticed many people who have been exceptionally fortunate (like being born very wealthy or achieving great wealth), happen to be very deeply religious. I've also seen poor people rely on religion as a support to get them through a difficult life, and they're very religious too.

What I haven't seen much of, is people with comfortable, ordinary lives, being very deeply religious.

So, yeah. I guess that I see a connection of some kind there. I'd call it a hypothesis based on observation, rather than a theory or a belief, though. Does that explain it better?

O.K., I see where you're coming from, though I do not know that my observations would match up similarly. In any case, what I was getting at is why do you think people choose atheism?

Um, I'm about to go to sleep, so I'm not very sharp at this point. But, just off the cuff: because they haven't had any exceptional luck (good or bad) in their life, one way or another? So, they don't have a 'sense' of anything existing except the facts. ("Just the facts M'am, just the facts." Lieutenant Joe Friday - Dragnet) LOL

Good night! :)

---

Um, I'm about to go to sleep, so I'm not very sharp at this point. But, just off the cuff: because they haven't had any exceptional luck (good or bad) in their life, one way or another? So, they don't have a 'sense' of anything existing except the facts. ("Just the facts M'am, just the facts." Lieutenant Joe Friday - Dragnet) LOL

Carl Sagan had many "blessings," as you might put it. Perhaps not of the same type as Oprah's, but certainly he went far and I am sure he was doing well financially and in other respects. Yet he was atheist.

On the other hand, I had a roommate from 1999-2000 who went through a lot of discouraging experiences. I forget what happened with his dad, for example, but I think at the least he had been out of the picture for several years and he'd been raised by his mother only (?). He also wanted to be a Navy Seal, but had a problem in one of his ears. So, the Navy gave him a different assignment. (For lack of a better way of explaining it.) Apparently, he did not get along well with his roommate or people living nearby. (Might have been a dorm situation in the Navy?) He managed to get himself discharged due to blowing up in an argument with the roommate or friends of the roommate. Something like that. Went to college after that. Had a few more bad experiences, but was on his way to graduating at least cum laude. He, too, was atheist.

Two strikingly different examples, at the opposites of the spectrum. Neither was living an ordinary, in the middle sort of life.

EDIT: So, I think the story is more complex. Just as I think it is (or can be) a more complex situation for why others are religious than the reasons some have suggested.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Um, I'm about to go to sleep, so I'm not very sharp at this point. But, just off the cuff: because they haven't had any exceptional luck (good or bad) in their life, one way or another? So, they don't have a 'sense' of anything existing except the facts. ("Just the facts M'am, just the facts." Lieutenant Joe Friday - Dragnet) LOL

Carl Sagan had many "blessings," as you might put it. Perhaps not of the same type as Oprah's, but certainly he went far and I am sure he was doing well financially and in other respects. Yet he was atheist.

On the other hand, I had a roommate from 1999-2000 who went through a lot of discouraging experiences. I forget what happened with his dad, for example, but I think at the least he had been out of the picture for several years and he'd been raised by his mother only (?). He also wanted to be a Navy Seal, but had a problem in one of his ears. So, the Navy gave him a different assignment. (For lack of a better way of explaining it.) Apparently, he did not get along well with his roommate or people living nearby. (Might have been a dorm situation in the Navy?) He managed to get himself discharged due to blowing up in an argument with the roommate or friends of the roommate. Something like that. Went to college after that. Had a few more bad experiences, but was on his way to graduating at least cum laude. He, too, was atheist.

Two strikingly different examples, at the opposites of the spectrum. Neither was living an ordinary, in the middle sort of life.

EDIT: So, I think the story is more complex. Just as I think it is (or can be) a more complex situation for why others are religious than the reasons some have suggested.

Yes, you're right, it's a very complex issue, why people are atheists or believers, because for one thing, there's all types of people out there. Some people are atheist just because they resent the authoritarianism of religions, for example.

I was only trying to make the point that people's beliefs on this are more likely to result from their personal experiences in life than they are from merely upbringing. But there are exceptions to that too, of course. Just going from my own experience, I've never met a millionaire or multi-milionaire that wasn't religious. I've met/known about 12-20 of them, and it's consistent.

Carl Sagan may be the norm, he may be the exception, but I've been told that the great majority of physicists are religious. The existence of a creator seems to be their considered conclusion. Religion and science are not necessarily opposing doctrines. There can be overlapping common ground. Sir Isaac Newton expressed that, for example, by saying that "The laws of nature constitute that part of God's workings that he has chosen to reveal to us."

---

I was only trying to make the point that people's beliefs on this are more likely to result from their personal experiences in life than they are from merely upbringing. But there are exceptions to that too, of course. Just going from my own experience, I've never met a millionaire or multi-milionaire that wasn't religious. I've met/known about 12-20 of them, and it's consistent.

Very brief response from me and perhaps too off the cuff, but were any of these ppl involved with Amway or something similar?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I was only trying to make the point that people's beliefs on this are more likely to result from their personal experiences in life than they are from merely upbringing. But there are exceptions to that too, of course. Just going from my own experience, I've never met a millionaire or multi-milionaire that wasn't religious. I've met/known about 12-20 of them, and it's consistent.

Very brief response from me and perhaps too off the cuff, but were any of these ppl involved with Amway or something similar?

Nope. All different kinds: oil tycoon, shipping, brewery, insurance, newspapers, cable TV, you name it. ;)

---

Very brief response from me and perhaps too off the cuff, but were any of these ppl involved with Amway or something similar?

Nope. All different kinds: oil tycoon, shipping, brewery, insurance, newspapers, cable TV, you name it. ;)

Alright. Well, perhaps I need to withdraw the sub-conjecture I was about to advance, which was that the strong religious beliefs preceded the attainment of wealth. Attainment of wealth then created a positive feedback loop, strengthening an already strong belief. (In the back of my mind, I am thinking there's a term for this ... what's the word or phrase or explanation I seek?)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Was Albert Einstein a Scientist? A "pure scientist" in Chuck's eyes? I think so.
But here is what he said:
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425.
"...On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people." ("Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine - November 9, 1930)

---

Account frozen...

Very brief response from me and perhaps too off the cuff, but were any of these ppl involved with Amway or something similar?

Nope. All different kinds: oil tycoon, shipping, brewery, insurance, newspapers, cable TV, you name it. ;)

Alright. Well, perhaps I need to withdraw the sub-conjecture I was about to advance, which was that the strong religious beliefs preceded the attainment of wealth. Attainment of wealth then created a positive feedback loop, strengthening an already strong belief. (In the back of my mind, I am thinking there's a term for this ... what's the word or phrase or explanation I seek?)

Reinforcement?

Well, to be fair, many of these people are older now, most of them lived through the Great Depression, and nearly all of them had church-going parents, for what that's worth.

---

Reinforcement?

Maybe. I was thinking of something along the lines of, but not necessarily the same as, the Pygmalion effect; a.k.a., the Hawthorne effect. Something that has been researched.

Well, to be fair, many of these people are older now, most of them lived through the Great Depression, and nearly all of them had church-going parents, for what that's worth.

Folks in their 70s-80s? How old were they at the time? My grandfather was born 1917, died in 2000. Grandmother was born in 1920, died in 2003.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Einstien was religious, so I am not suprised he made a stupid and short-sighted statement. Clearly, not everything that comes out of the mouth of a genius is a brilliant statement.

Ninjadwarf, here you can gain some insight to Chuck's view of Einstein. Note, my posting this does not imply disagreement with the second statement.

Most important here: Chuck's claim appears to be that when one adheres to some religious faith system or something similar and is a scientist, that person begins to lose some credibility. In fact, that is the essence of a statement by Dawkins in a recent Time-moderated debate between Dawkins and a famous geneticist whose name eludes me right now. (*) In fact, Chuck seems to go further. Not only is some credibility lost, Chuck seems to suggest that makes the person not a scientist at all. (???)

* Wanna see something new added here? How about the bit about the Time article? A debate between scientists!!!. How about the fact that within approximately the last two years, one could find a similar article in Discover magazine? A science magazine for the general public. So, we have some scientists weighing in on religion, using science to back up a lot of their claims and when the one who is religious cannot back up a claim and resorts to talking about God or gods (whether this is right or not - no judgement by me in this post) ... the other says that lowers the scientist's credibility. So ... it is a scientific discussion! Otherwise, neither Dawkins nor the other would have engaged in Time magazine moderated debate!.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

The only reason any god at all has been a 'hypothesis' (which it isn't) for more than 6,000 years is because humanity is made up of lots and lots of uneducated and frightened people who cling to whatever fantasy they can to make them feel better. It gives no ghost of 'proof' at all that it might possibly be true just because it's been around so long. You're trying to mislead people again.

I disagree, I think the reason Religion is still around, and as popular as it still is, is because the Scientists have not been able to discount it. Sure Science says there was no "true" Adam and Eve as the Bible says there was. But the Scientists cannot say there was no Eden, or Mount whatever that Moses came down from after talking to God. In fact Science now says they believe they have found where they believe the Mountain is, and they are think they are zeroing in on Eden itself. There are a whole lot of things in the Bible alone, not to mention all the other Religious texts, that are being found out to be not only possible, but possibly true! The Great Flood is thought to have been an actual event now.

When religious people stop judging others on that basis, stop brainwashing their children who have NO chance to learn other possibilities, stop trying to enforce their doctrines in schools and dumb down the population, stop giving up the obligation to make decisions; referring only to their 'holy book' and religious leaders for direction, stop trying to MISLEAD people subtly into the directions their own religion lies, and when they stop KILLING others over minor differences in 'holy books', then I will let up and stop giving such [people*] a hard time.

Couldn't agree more!

I think the problem with Religion and God that seems to be talked about in here is that Scientists do believe that "something" created what we see and feel, ie matter. If the general public, and some Scientists, want to call that God, so be it. There is no way to disprove it, right now. Sure it could be some superior being that we cannot even concieve of, but then what created it? What came first, the chicken or the egg? How did you get a chicken if you had no egg for it to hatch from? How did you get an egg if you had no chicken to produce it? As a Scientist that can be answered, conclusively, today. But a hundred years ago it was not possible. It was thought we had an answer, eveolution, but it was not conclusive, today it is. God is what we make of him/her/it.
If God did even half of what we humans begged for he/she/it would be a very busy whatever indeed. I pray for 6 feet of snow, you pray for no snow, yet we live next door to each other. How to keep both happy? Not possible!

So belief, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
IMHO

---

I was just wondering, what would constitute proof for the non-believers. Or, maybe this is a better way of putting it, what would constitute an undeniable "miracle" nowadays?

I think the atheist side of the debate especially, ought to weigh in on this: because if the atheists say "Nothing could persuade me that there is a Creator", then I'd accuse them of belief-based doctrine, ie an irrational faith in the non-existence of God.

---

In fact, that is the essence of a statement by Dawkins in a recent Time-moderated debate between Dawkins and a famous geneticist whose name eludes me right now.

I was referring to Francis Collins.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I was just wondering, what would constitute proof for the non-believers. Or, maybe this is a better way of putting it, what would constitute an undeniable "miracle" nowadays?
I think the atheist side of the debate especially, ought to weigh in on this: because if the atheists say "Nothing could persuade me that there is a Creator", then I'd accuse them of belief-based doctrine, ie an irrational faith in the non-existence of God.

I think a 'miracle' would have to consist of something that was just stupendous in size and absolutely outside the boundaries of any Science known to man. It would have to be so overwhelming in its effect as to be totally unexplainable as anything BUT a 'miracle'. The Virgin Mary showing up on a cheese sandwich would not qualify.
Actually anything that was thought to a 'miracle' in the past probably would not qualify. The water turning red, is now know to be algae caused. The sea parting can now be done in a lab experiment. Plagues of frogs and locusts, etc are now known to be natural progressional events. In short, I think it would have to so outstanding as to absolutely known as a 'miracle' and nothing else.
Maybe ET coming down and saying "Hi", would qualify? But then agian we are proving that life has the possibility of existing in many places. So for ET to come here, might not qualify either. Life changing, but probably not a 'miracle'.

---

It is an archaic invention of ancient societies to explain the natural world which was unexplainable and to control populations through fear of retribution...it was about power over people, nothing more or less..

Now, here's something amazing!
Statements such as this can be traced back to similar statements like those made by Karl Marx, at the least. Now, not discounting that there was some validity to such statements from Marx, why is it that the statement is repeated so much in what appears to be an uncritical fashion? Sounds like more of the same ... DOGMA!
Why is it that even those interested in science or are in fact scientists swallow a simple story as easily as others? Why is it you are not looking for a complete picture of understanding?
Case in point: the medulla oblongata. We have it as a result of evolution. If memory serves me correctly, it is a/the center for aggression in the brain. The aggressive tendencies we carry within us as a result of evolution could explain as much or more of the problems in the world that others blame on religion. Furthermore, the medulla oblongata has been around a lot longer than religious/spiritual feelings/thought.
Sorry, folks, but your observations/statements/rehash of the ideas of others does not completely describe the phenomena. You make these statements about religious people as if it covers all of them. So many of them are so easy to tear apart and I have done that for some of them in another thread. So, if your statements do not cover the whole picture, it's time to perform more observations and develop a theory that fits the whole, complex, situation much better.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

It is an archaic invention of ancient societies to explain the natural world which was unexplainable and to control populations through fear of retribution...it was about power over people, nothing more or less..

Now, here's something amazing!
Statements such as this can be traced back to similar statements like those made by Karl Marx, at the least. Now, not discounting that there was some validity to such statements from Marx, why is it that the statement is repeated so much in what appears to be an uncritical fashion? Sounds like more of the same ... DOGMA!
Why is it that even those interested in science or are in fact scientists swallow a simple story as easily as others? Why is it you are not looking for a complete picture of understanding?
Case in point: the medulla oblongata. We have it as a result of evolution. If memory serves me correctly, it is a/the center for aggression in the brain. The aggressive tendencies we carry within us as a result of evolution could explain as much or more of the problems in the world that others blame on religion. Furthermore, the medulla oblongata has been around a lot longer than religious/spiritual feelings/thought.
Sorry, folks, but your observations/statements/rehash of the ideas of others does not completely describe the phenomena. You make these statements about religious people as if it covers all of them. So many of them are so easy to tear apart and I have done that for some of them in another thread. So, if your statements do not cover the whole picture, it's time to perform more observations and develop a theory that fits the whole, complex, situation much better.

I can't agree more. Though that evolution thing - there are too many missing links, and too many former "proven facts" which had to be revised, that I'd like to look forward to a better theory, fitting to the facts known nowadays...

---

But there have non-explainable things happened: in medicine (what they called a "spontaneous self-healing" or something like that, or when people who worked OK until they died appeared to have had only a small part of a brain when they were autopsied) or that entire PSI stuff, which has even been experimented with until during the "Cold War" (proven), or some other things in physics: that "ball lightning" (is it the right word for it?) which is able to go through glass but to destroy walls and doors, and mostly rolls around humans and animals without harming them... The scientists could create normal lightnings, but AFAIK no-one could create a ball lightning yet, there are even some scientists who deny their entire existence, accusing everybody who experienced them to be a liar or to have had hallucinations or something.
Telling explanations don't necessarily have to do with the ability to really explain things. Sometimes they've been only puzzling a theory around existing facts and called this a scientific explanation - well, until the theory came out to be full of mistakes and was replaced by an other one. Isn't science sometimes just another kind of religion nowadays? There is dogmatic thinking in each scientific branch, and each one who follows one theory arguments against those who follow another theory, despite both being scientific based theorys...
IMO there is as much bias and fundamentalism in science as there is in religion, so only the way of explaining things is a different one. While religion admits, that a thing or situation can't be explained (and claims that God may reveal it once on a whim), scientists research to find a momentarily working theory why this thing can be like it is, and even dare to say it can't be like that, because it's impossible by the known Laws of Nature (physical, chemical, whatever). But who can claim that the Laws of nature (no matter what science) which we know now are the only ones? That there may be other ones which allow those "impossible things" to work?
Only because something is entirely improbable it doesn't have to be absolutely impossible.

---

Account frozen...