What happens when we die?

[peter12]

No. They create signals. They don't speak.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

No. They create signals. They don't speak.

What's the difference? They speak to each other with different sounds than we do. Dolphins have been known to even have different languages among different groups.

I would say the ability to write and make knowledge a matter of record is our most separating trait. It's what lead to this whole discussion in the first place, and the reason we are able to move information at ever increasing rates.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by peter12

No. They create signals. They don't speak.

Again you are attempting to take something where we have evolved a bit further than other animals and try and claim there is a difference, like it required a creative hand.

Should the cheetah look down arrogantly at the warthog and believe he's been favoured by god because he can run faster?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

There's nothing arrogant about it, as sure as we are about things like the big bang and evolution, those 16 billion neurones in our cerebral cortex constitute more than a incremental change from all other species and the leading scientific explanation for what separates us. such a big difference that we devote 25% of our daily energy consumption to our brains. ~10x that of other mammals.

But the issue is: do we have reason to believe we were created to be superior? Are we actually different? Or have we simply evolved further?

You have provided nothing to suggest it's anything other than simply evolving further.

There is pretty clear evidence in our evolution that show the brain gaining in size in clear, evolutionary steps.

Simply stating 'hey our brains are bigger' says nothing about us actually being separate from the other animals.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's not a moot point just because you say it's a moot point lol. It's actually really relevant.

Do you believe in the theory of evolution, or did god drop us off here in his image?

I do believe in evolution. As a matter of fact I think there's even more to it. However no scientific theory is written in stone. It's a theory. It will change many times as we learn more. But yes I believe for the most part in evolution and that we evolved from apes. But on top of that there's more, and it's part of a greater evolution that involves the afterlife. To me, life is just an instant in time of life.

It's wierd to listen to people in this thread say "how can you believe in the afterlife" when science itself requires so much faith. What we believe today is probably only partly right because it's based only on what we know today. As scientific theories develop, we'll probably one day see that the there's so much more to the Big Bang theory than we thought. Who knows, maybe we will know something completely different that wouldn't make any sense to us today.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by peter12

A few things that I find perplexing:

- In a universe, so vast and impersonal, how did the conditions for life emerge on this particular planet. I recall the probability being staggeringly low.
- why did man emerge from this chaos, and why is he so at odds with himself when the other animals aren't? He is the best and worst of all animals.
- why did man emerge as the only animal with speech, and why does this unique attribute make him the cause of his own demise?

I am not making a God of gaps kind of argument but pointing out that these things seem to be so universally perplexing, and profoundly mysterious.

you see us as having 'emerged'. Like it's final. Like we won. Like we're better and separate.

I see us as simply being the next step in the evolutionary process. And I think it's reasonable to guess that we aren't the last step

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is a big advantage. There is a difference.

Quantity has a quality all of its own

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I do believe in evolution. As a matter of fact I think there's even more to it. However no scientific theory is written in stone. It's a theory. It will change many times as we learn more. But yes I believe for the most part in evolution and that we evolved from apes. But on top of that there's more, and it's part of a greater evolution that involves the afterlife. To me, life is just an instant in time of life.

It's wierd to listen to people in this thread say "how can you believe in the afterlife" when science itself requires so much faith. What we believe today is probably only partly right because it's based only on what we know today. As scientific theories develop, we'll probably one day see that the there's so much more to the Big Bang theory than we thought. Who knows, maybe we will know something completely different that wouldn't make any sense to us today.

It doesn't require faith though. A fundamental part of the scientific process is to challenge everything and never assume you know anything. The process isn't about believing its about doubting and challenging everything, and always force the burden of proof on every theory (understanding that proof isn't always available, but the process remains)

That's fundamentally different than saying 'we don't know, so I can believe what I want'. I mean, you can - you're free to. But they're not the same

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by peter12

A few things that I find perplexing:

- In a universe, so vast and impersonal, how did the conditions for life emerge on this particular planet. I recall the probability being staggeringly low.
- why did man emerge from this chaos, and why is he so at odds with himself when the other animals aren't? He is the best and worst of all animals.
- why did man emerge as the only animal with speech, and why does this unique attribute make him the cause of his own demise?

I am not making a God of gaps kind of argument but pointing out that these things seem to be so universally perplexing, and profoundly mysterious.

The way I see it, calculus would be boggling to a chipmunk yet the numbers don't lie do they? In a similar way humans are simply incapable of really understanding the big picture.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Jews can't say or pronounce the name of God. Anyway, I just googled the quote, and found that it is most likely an Internet myth.

Not to say that many, many Jews didn't have their faith fundamentally shaken by the Holocaust. Zionism is more or less an extremely pragmatic revisionism of Judaism that emphasizes action over faith.

This follows what I know, the name of God can be heard but not spoken. In similar fashion the word is mistaken for the Bible.

I'm not a Christian or follower of any religion but sometimes some come to a conclusion that I somewhat agree with. I found this page by googling, "the word" is mistaken for the Bible.

I like this part.

The Bible is not the WORD OF GOD. It has no special powers and it is not magic. Sacred scripture means nothing if it is not alive inside the individual. Embodied, fully embraced.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergen...t-christendom/

Oh yeah and thanks for this thread, I'm enjoying reading it and participating.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

you see us as having 'emerged'. Like it's final. Like we won. Like we're better and separate.

I see us as simply being the next step in the evolutionary process. And I think it's reasonable to guess that we aren't the last step

Humans are the first and only species to ever intentionally affect the evolutionary process. With biotechnology and similar research, humans may be on the cusp of being able to affect evolution in completely new ways...not sure Humans are smart enough for that research yet (see : Pharma Bro)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

The way I see it, calculus would be boggling to a chipmunk yet the numbers don't lie do they? In a similar way humans are simply incapable of really understanding the big picture.

Which is an argument many theists use.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by peter12

No. They create signals. They don't speak.

No..they do speak!, Whales, Dolphins and even some Birds use vocal learning technics for language, these aren't innate sounds like a dog bark or a meow from a cat, these are language for social situations.

Killer Whales are known for actually learning to "speak" Dolphin. And vice versa. The Magpie has been known to communicate with a larger crow in order to take down a much more dangerous eagle.

No offence Peter, I'm sure your a great person but you need to get away from the "good" book and study a little science.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It doesn't require faith though. A fundamental part of the scientific process is to challenge everything and never assume you know anything. The process isn't about believing its about doubting and challenging everything, and always force the burden of proof on every theory (understanding that proof isn't always available, but the process remains)

That's fundamentally different than saying 'we don't know, so I can believe what I want'. I mean, you can - you're free to. But they're not the same

Actually religion or any sort of belief in the afterlife is the same. There's scholars, philosophers, translators, libraries all dedicated to that very phenomenon. It's a belief based on current information and what makes sense. Science is based on belief and right now there is a ton of stuff we currently believe that's completely wrong. It's believing a lie because science doesn't have all the answers.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Actually religion or any sort of belief in the afterlife is the same. There's scholars, philosophers, translators, libraries all dedicated to that very phenomenon. It's a belief based on current information and what makes sense. Science is based on belief and right now there is a ton of stuff we currently believe that's completely wrong. It's believing a lie because science doesn't have all the answers.

That is not how science works. For anyone who 'believes' anything, it's all on them.

[The Fonz]

Science does not care what any of us believe.

[PepsiFree]

Well, the reason why people who dismiss science as just an alternate belief system do so is because a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is.

A belief does not require evidence.
Science does.

A belief can be sure.
Science rarely can.

A belief is the believing of something to be true or false.
Science is the presentation of evidence to suggest the link of something to truth, or to suggest there is no link.

The problem that occurs is that even people who choose science and reject a belief system can be very stupid, simple people. These people are the ones who sort of "ruin science" for what it is, which is inexact and constantly evolving.

A believer might say:
"God exists" or "I think God exists"

A scientist in the same situation might say:
"There is evidence to suggest that the existence of God is possible, if not probable given the current information at hand." And then proceed to cite the peer reviewed studies which the statement is based on.

Of course, they wouldn't say that because there isn't scientific evidence for it, but it's just an example.

When someone says something like "Cigarettes/red meat/asbestos causes cancer, it's proven," they are being foolish. If you ask a scientist, they would tell you "There is no concrete evidence that ______ causes cancer, but there is a significant link between _______ and the incidence of several types of cancers of the human body." (And then cite the peer reviewed studies).

Science is not a belief system, it requires you to believe absolutely nothing. Science is a series of studies and tests that show the likelihood of a hypothesis. It rarely "proves" anything at all, but it NEVER requires faith to accept. Suggesting otherwise shows zero understanding about science itself, which makes it obvious why one would be unsure about "science". How can you be sure of something you don't even have a basic fundamental understanding of?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again you are attempting to take something where we have evolved a bit further than other animals and try and claim there is a difference, like it required a creative hand.

Should the cheetah look down arrogantly at the warthog and believe he's been favoured by god because he can run faster?

Humans are unique as they are they only species that doesn't have a ubiquitous language for intra-species communication...dogs from China can talk with dogs from Spain. Humans, not so much. So there is uniqueness (Towel of Babel stuff) but using this as a reason for a divine creator is a non-sequitur.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by peter12

Which is an argument many theists use.

I don't understand it...therefore God?

Weaksauce logic

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Humans are unique as they are they only species that doesn't have a ubiquitous language...dogs from China can talk with dogs from Spain. Humans, not so much. So there is uniqueness (Towel of Babel stuff) but using this as a reason for a divine creator is a non-sequitur.

Hmm I'm not so sure that is true. I think we have a ubiquitous non-verbal language. The tone in which we say things can be interpreted pretty much regardless of your language. IE, if a person is yelling at me in Spanish, I don't need to understand Spanish to know they are angry with whatever I'm doing. I would think this is similar to dogs, although I don't know enough about how they communicate to say really. Anything beyond those primal noises and tones is a learned language. If the Spanish dog could speak what they have been taught, it would be in Spanish, and the English dog wouldn't be able to understand it. IE the dog learns its commands and those commands are in a certain language (not unlike ourselves). If you taught the exact same commands to each dog in different languages, they wouldn't be able to understand the commands of the other language (unless you combined them with consistent non-verbal cues).

I realize that's a cross species example, but the only reason something like a dog knows any language is because we taught it to them, not unlike us teaching kids our language. The only difference is they can't communicate back. And even that is up to interpretation. I know the certain sounds my dog makes when it needs to pee, is hungry, just wants to go outside, etc... They are pretty distinct. If a kid was raised in the woods by bears and joined humanity, they would probably know a few "bear sounds" and no discernible human language, but it could still convey to us that it is hungry, angry, sad, etc...