This is an open discussion. Feel free to chat or talk about anything. Long-term discussions are welcome.

I'm new to this site, just browsing around

Google linked me to this page, nice reading

I didn't say I was insulted. I know all kinds of people who insult my faith, and I don't care. I just thought it was something we shared.

I'm curious to if anyone else is offended by my Sunday quote of the day. The two quotes are below.

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.” Arthur C Clarke
“We have guided missiles and misguided men.” Martin Luther King Jr.

The first is not an attack on religion, only a very true statement. I know many agnostic and atheist people with better morals than most religious people I've met. The second was meant to leverage the possibility of insult, as it is about spirituality from a minister. However I received a comment from someone who was insulted. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this matter.

Not a whole lot. I like to ride my bicycle.

I was wondering, is there more to your universe than astronomy, physics and technology?

Hatley posted an article on Guinness and nutrition. Very funny, check it out.

Well we can hardly see any detail inside of our own star system, and the nearest planets are millions of kilometers away from us. I don't know what exactly you mean by viewpoint, but our perspective is limited by a lot more than time.

Michael, sounds like you are trying to say that we have some special viewpoint in the universe.

Gene said:

"Your reliance on only the provable is falable. Most of what you believe in, you've never seen the proof of. You could also be victim of "false proffets," but you believe anyway. I do not disbelieve in modren science at all."

Actually I do not believe all modern science. I look at everything very skeptically. I pick everything apart, and find flaws, and depending on how flawed is a theory or hypothesis I give it varied levels of belief.

The thing I push myself to do more than anything else is to not have a firm belief. I'm wrong often, and with nearly a complete open mind I'm able to correct myself, and be right in the future. If I were to hold firm beliefs, ignoring evidence against said belief, and seeking evidence that supports it, I would be fooling myself as much as the average population. I would never allow myself to sink to that position. I'm not at all saying I'm in any way better than someone else, but I damn well don't try not to be.

Actually I know this is splitting hairs, but with the lifespans of stars, and the regeneration of elements through their (super, hyper, or regular) nova, I highly doubt a civilization would be near our advancement. Now if the stars of said systems formed at around the same time, yes, I could see that being the case, and their evolutionary pattern forming an intelligent culture at about the same pace. As we know our own culture has changed in a manner which cannot be turned back in only 100 years. On another world their cultural differences could be a few hundred years off, and it could be a completely different people. I had no specific direction in which I was going, just rambling.

I read this discussion and my mind wanders back to Daniel Quins book, Ishmael, in which a captive Gorilla (who happens to be an anthropologist), relates a story to his student. It’s about another anthropologist and a jellyfish. I wont write it out here because its to long, but I do recommend the book.

The point of that specific story is that if you ask most people to recount the history of universe, you will get an answer similar to the following: A big bang happened, planets and solar systems formed, our planet cooled, life forms emerged out of protein sequences, mammals appeared, and eventually humans appeared. When you asked them to go on, it may go something like this: Well eventually we became agrarian peoples and settled the lands, we built cities, discovered technologies, and here we are today. End of story. However the world and the universe continue to change around us. Yet most probably believe that man-kind is the pinnacle of evolution, and that all of reality is a stage that was set for us.

Now I am a religious person, but I would not be so arrogant as to say this world was made for man, or that we are the only important thing on this world. Neither would I understate our importance.

In the broader spectrum of the universe, we are probably nothing special. Dr. J. Richard Gott’s Copernican principle is very simplistic, yet can be applied in almost any situation. It goes on the idea that in any given situation, what you are observing is not special. Its chaos mathematics, and I wont go into all the details here, but basically it can be drawn from this principle that there is a good chance that life exists in other parts of the universe. Further, if they do exist they are probably at about our same level of advancement. Only a small percentage would be significantly ahead of us, and only a small percentage would be behind us.

So I would say we meet the status quo.

what the heck did you just say?

There is no fixation on my end relating to reducing the relevance of man's place in the pattern of life. You apparently missed the part of man's hubris in relation to his importance. The fixation is common, so one without such fixation seems abnormal, ridiculous, and preposterous.

The simple fact is such Theology is very important, it explores the unexplainable. It also bares no relevance on the specifics on why "People are the ONLY important thing in this world." I do notice that you offered no answers to my questions or directly confronted any of my statements. I must say that I find that to not be dialog, and that is why I requested empirical terms.

Your reduction of everyhting to empirical terms creates such limitations on conversation. There IS more to us than just the science of what makes us up. We are beings possesed of morality and critical thinking, and boundless posibilities to do good for one another and the world around us. Your reliance on only the provable is falable. Most of what you believe in, you've never seen the proof of. You could also be victim of "false proffets," but you believe anyway. I do not disbelieve in modren science at all. I'm saying that anything that you accept for truth, you do so with a bit of faith in something beyond yourself. Why can that not be applied in another dirrection? And will you please let go of this fixation with reducing the relevance of man's place in the patern of life? I don't think that there is any thing in this world more meaningful than the chance we have here to learn from our mistakes and better ourselves as a race, and as individuals. Science is a great part of that, but you have to learn to value what we are as being unique and necessary beings.

I copied your post here, for topic relevance.

I really dislike the type of hubris that man-kind gets in relation to our importance. I don't see "people" as being all that important in this world. There are countless cycles in this world that require precise balances of elements, assistance from various animals from crustaceans to bees through bacteria. That is not even mentioning the tremendous role of plants. Not a single essential Earth related cycle requires humans. The world would be better off without the destruction and pollution of humanity. I'd like to hear why, in empirical terms, people are so important.

To reduce the value of human life to simple terms of universal importance is an unfurtunate mistake. People are the ONLY important thing in this world.