The Woman Who Knew Everything... Comments

You're right Lalabird. I'm walking a fine line that could be easily interpreted as fundamentalist. And it would help for you to have my definition of superstition. I define superstition as Carl Sagan did: belief without evidence. And, I think belief without evidence is irrational. Now it's okay to pose hypotheses, but blindly believing them when the evidence is hazy is what I (and most scientists) believe to be irrational. The same method we use to understand the world around us (the technology that powers your home, your computer, your car, and your medicine) should be applied to religious questions. A frustration for scientific thinkers is that religions are not subject to the same scrutiny. They can make any claims they want, say it was a revelation, and that it can never be proven wrong. But more often than not, the "prophets" are discredited. But when, in science something is proven wrong (like Newtons laws of a classical physics were proven wrong by Einstein's relativity, which was proven incomplete by Quantum Mechanics) the whole theory is abandoned. You're right that I could easily start a war by calling religious beliefs irrational. That's dangerous and I appreciate your patience with me. I shouldn't say that, but I'm not sure of a better way to communicate that I think belief without evidence is dangerous. Any ideas?

My "just in case" comment was a joke...you know LOL? =) I have an enormous Faith. God actually works in my life. It is such an amazing feeling! It's like that feeling when you fall in love or the love you have for your child. You can't describe it until you feel it. But you know it and it's real. You can't prove love. You can't see love. There is no SCIENTIFIC reason for love or even of it's origin. But it exists, right? Or are you going to try and disprove that as well? ;)That's who and what God is to me and for a lot of people. That's also what the.. oh, get ready for this...ok here it comes the B word again, Bible teaches. you ok? Good. =) You have done your research, so you know we have free will. You say that you can't or won't believe, well my dear, I have news for you; Look up the definition of the word "Faith". Being an "educated" guy I know you can figure it out. =) I'm not as presumptuous as to speak for ANYone, so if you are so well versed as you claim to be you would have your answers, now wouldn't you?? =) I have them but we all know you don't really care, so ask?

Eric, why are you saying that people's belief systems are superstitious and irrational? That kind of talk is exactly what cuases wars and strife. Ironic that you do that, since you don't believe in God or faith. I'm only curious as to your thought process. You mention we need to be "educated". If we're not, are you saying we are irrational about our "problem solving" skills and that any one who is religious has "outlandish claims about the cosmos"? It sounds as if you are putting yourself in the very same catagory that you dislike so much; a fundamental one. =)

Once you throw out the "defensiveness" card, what is one supposed to say? "I'm not being defensive"? It's impossible to respond without being "defensive"! :-) I don't like the default religious argument "better safe than sorry." I can't make myself believe something that doesn't make sense to me "just in case." Then it would be a phony faith and I think God would know that. A question I have God and maybe Lalabird can answer on His behalf :-) ... Why make me (and many others) with such a temperament that we can't believe in You? That doesn't sound fair. I don't have ANY free will in the matter. I really can't believe in You even if I try my darnedest. So I have to go to hell because You created me in a way that I can't believe in You? Doesn't sound very compassionate! :-)

This discussion got a little crazy! I was just trying to see what people would do differently if they knew all the answers to our biggest questions! :-) I'm not going to get involved in the religious discussion, but I have to agree with Eric that Wikipedia is a credible source of information. Yes, anyone can change it, but it is self policing. The peer reviewed study speaks pretty strongly about its accuracy. When all else fails, good ole data is quite reliable (when accurately interpreted). CET, you make a good point. What's the point in pondering these things? I think it's fun personally. And we actually do find things out. Like Eric said, we've figured out things they never would have dreamed of figuring out a few hundred years ago (like the age of the universe, the big bang, etc). So I do not believe that we have no way of knowing what happens when we die. We just have no way of knowing YET. Good luck with your religious debates! I'm enjoying reading it all! :-)

See? Now THAT'S more like it! =) I told you it would be fun to read what everyone thinks! You put up questions like that of amac's you have to come to the table prepared. Aside from the defensiveness, what you and CET are saying is pretty close to my meaning; respect for other's belief systems. We won't know anything until we are actually gone. And, in my case I'd rather be safe than sorry.. LOL! I still think wikipedia is a joke, but I'll save that for another blog. L

We can't know the answers, so I see no reason to bang my head against a wall lest I desire a headache. I suspect much of the suffering in the world comes from the unwillingness of individuals to let go of questions we can't answer. We're attached to them. The lack of being able to detatch from them brings suffering when opposing ideas are suggested. What good comes from these questions? Attachments, suffering, torture, war ...

Sheesh... you question a person's beliefs long enough and sure enough you'll eventually find this defensive grasping backlash. :-) Lalabird, I don't want to start a heated fight. I'd like to keep this conversation calm and rational. You sound offended and I'm sorry if I caused that. Not my intention. I honestly believe rational debates are healthy as long as everyone keeps emotion out of it. With that said, I'll point out some of the inaccuracies of your statements above in the spirit of the advance in knowledge for all of us involved in this discussion. You said: Wikipedia is not a credible site. However, in a scientific study peer reviewed and published in "Nature" Wikipedia was shown to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica <url removed> I'm not putting words in your mouth. You claimed that the words of the Bible are divinely inspired. Therefore you must believe that it's an accurate assessment of what really happened 2000 years ago (that Jesus was the son of God and they he performed all these miracles). You claim that I have not read or researched the Bible. Wrong. I have read it all the way through twice (new and old testims.), along with the Koran (twice), Bhagavad Gita (4 times), Tao Te Ching (twice), and Yoga Sutras (3 times). I am well read on religious scripture; not to mention many, many hours of watching documentaries. When we read and study many religions instead of just one, it's easy to see that they are not to be taken literally. They all must be wrong about certain things and are almost certainly wrong about their respective dogmas. It's true the Bible is a historical document, but it's clearly not 100% accurate. There are contradictions all over the place. Bible scholars mostly agree that a lot of the stories about Jesus were made up to add the powerful effect of the story. I don't remember editing my blog. Which part was taken out or edited? I don't need proof of the inexplicable. I am not asking for proof of God. Like I said before, I'm asking for outdated and clearly inaccurate descriptions of God, creation, and existence to be abandoned. We know that God is not in the sky. We know that hell is not underground, yet people still reference this stuff. Those of us who are open-minded skeptics and well educated on ALL of the known facts and debates about the religions know that the claims of divinity of their respective prophets are HIGHLY unlikely. Your argument that because the scriptures are old that they are more accurate than Wikipedia is invalid. There are many books from back then that directly contradict the Christian view. How do you know yours is right? Second, we can verify what's written in Wikipedia. The only corroboration of the New Testament is the the New Testament. It claims its own authority, which is an unacceptable source of accurate information. All I'm asking is for people to take an objective view of things. I'm passionate about this because I think superstition and irrational beliefs are a barrier to human progress. The battle between fundamentalist Muslims and Christians is putting all of our lives at risk. Children and adults need to be more educated on rational problem solving and skeptical scrutiny of outlandish claims about the cosmos. Otherwise it will take us thousands of years to find peace on Earth.

E- Wow! I give you prime examples from the Bible and you give me wikipedia?? LOL! Wikipedia is a site that can be edited or added to by anyone. That's hardly a credible site. Thanks, but I'll take my chances with that Jewdaio Christian book that's been around for thousands of years and followed by millions any day… I'm still laughing. I personally prefer Webster's dictionaries and encyclopedias. They've been around for years, too. I didn't say everything in the Bible was literal history, please don't put words in my mouth or attempt to read between the lines. It doesn't matter if you're a Christian or not, or if you believe what I believe. The Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls are historic documents whether or not one believes in prophecy or not (I'm wasn't asking you to). I know wikipedia can back that up. You asked some questions (in a condescending way) and I put some things out for you to actually research for yourself, and in return, you give wikipedia. You can do better, c'mon. Eric, you haven't researched or even read the Book, so how can comment one way or the other? You also pointed out that's it's all in how we interpret the Bible. I kinda knew that, so for you to reiterate the phrase you're "glad I have faith" leads me to believe that you think that I'm trying to convince you of something. This is not an attempt at conversion, call me a bad Christian, but I really don't care very much (sorry). Science is all about constants and variables. You test something out enough times and if you get the same results, there you have it; scientific fact. I'm not saying that if enough prophesies are fulfilled it will result in fact. I am saying it's pretty amazing that so many have. I don't believe in coincidences either. You have this theme going on in your comments about needing proof to explain the inexplicable. That's like needing a brick to fall on one's head before believing in gravity. I've noticed that you've edited your original blog… Why? You had me cracking up at that Carl Sagan comment regarding The Ten Commandments being engraved on the moon. Before you put the last word in on your blog (I'm sorry, amac's, you both write SO existentially ;)) just think about how we are only carboniferous creatures. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible just happen to fall into the historical document category definition. Scholars, even non-religious ones, agree that these are historical, regardless of religion or belief systems. Just as the Dewey Decimal System and <url removed> are not the end all be all to decide whether or not it has legitimate information in it, neither are anyone's interpretation of the Bible- yes, including mine. Those "prophecies" are not any broader than your ideas and not everyone shares your views either. Why all the ridicule? Wouldn't you agree that we all should have a thorough understanding of any "religion" before we make such critical assumptions? I do. Best, L

Lalabird, those "prophesies" are all way to broad to be considered bona fide. Like what Lotte said, many people see what they want to see in the bible. I could say that there will be famine in the United States and if you track it for thousands of years sure enough there will eventually be famine. The prophesies in the bible are all way to generic and broad. Now, if there were things that were more specific like: a German man named Einstein will write a paper called "Relativity" in 1905 in the United States; that would be something convincing! But even then it could be argued that it was a self fulfilling prophesy -- but it would be more convincing than general statements that are bound to eventually happen. Lalabird, I'm glad you find peace from your religion, but that doesn't mean that everything in the bible is literal history. It sounds great: everlasting heaven for just believing something. What a great idea! Read this article about bible contradictions: <url removed>. It has some interesting points about the bible. I like to look at religion like I think Lotte does; there are many things you can learn from it, but it's different for each person, personal, and its stories are not to be taken as literal history. Best of luck, Eric