Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 256 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 27 of 120 < 1 2 ... 25 26 27 28 29 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#24275 - 11/12/07 08:24 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Rev asked:

"So all you and I have to do to get rid of the laws against against killing and stealing is to go out and break the laws against them?"

Rev, you are still confusing human laws with scientific laws. Scientific laws are, by definition, absolute and it's impossible to break them no matter how hard we try. If it appears on some occasion someone has broken a scientific law it means the law is incorrect and we have made a mistake. It's not a law. There is no scientific law against killing and stealing. In fact some cultures encourage both these activities.

Tom wrote:

"My philosophy is: MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE." I'm pleased to hear that. I seem to remember when you joined SAGG you were a bit of a Bible basher. I also note with pleasure your realisation that "And they did. And they still are. And it needs to still be done." An understanding that our history is and accumulation of ideas is important. I hope there are many more young people like you. But I'm sure there are. And I'm sure you are enlightening your friends.

Top
.
#24277 - 11/12/07 01:38 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
TFF, I don't plan to break the law of gravity either. In my dictionary "breaking" a law means going against it.

If, as you say, the laws of science are absolute then I presume you think the following is wrong:
Quote:
In 1959, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Michael Scriven read a paper that implicitly distinguished between Laws of Nature and Laws of Science. Laws of Science (what he at that time called "physical laws") – with few exceptions – are inaccurate, are at best approximations of the truth, and are of limited range of application. The theme has since been picked up and advanced by Nancy Cartwright.

I read somewhere that even the "absolutely" constant meter, kept in Paris is not absolutely constant. Perhaps we need to be humble enough to keep in mind there is only one absolute, GØD.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#24278 - 11/12/07 01:42 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TFF comments
Originally Posted By: Fiend
Nevertheless, if a law is actually broken, it is no longer a law.


So all you and I have to do to get rid of the laws against against killing and stealing is to go out and break the laws against them?


No. I'm not sure whether you actually do not understand or are just yanking my chain. Actual Laws of Nature (not to be confused with "Natural Law" of moral philosophy) cannot be violated. If they are violated, then they ought never to have been laws to begin with. Laws of Man can, and often ARE, broken. The laws remain - usually - but they are capable of being violated. They are not fundamental constraints of the cosmos.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Does TFF's statement make sense to anyone? I don't think I will put this to any kind of test, soon. laugh


I'm going to guess that most people on here clearly understand my intent, even if they disagree with it. If I seriously thought otherwise, I'd need to find a different hangout.

I do not advocate violating any human laws, but the fact remains that they CAN be broken, while physical laws cannot, even by those who would choose to do so. We are all prisoners to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, to Newton's laws of motion, to relativity and QM.




Edited by TheFallibleFiend (11/12/07 01:42 PM)

Top
#24279 - 11/12/07 01:58 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
GØD, I find the following very interesting:
"Conservative estimates indicate that there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science

Even then, in quantum physics there is talk of the "law of uncertainty"
Quote:
Quantum Mechanics

* Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - Uncertainty in position multiplied by uncertainty in momentum is equal to or greater than Dirac's constant divided by 2.

\Delta x \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}



Tim, BTW, I hope that if there is, for certain, a person called "God" that He has a sense of humour, eh? smile

In my humble opinion, GØD is in and through our sense of humour.
My humble guess is that that the uncertainty principle (law) is there--right at the heart of philosophy, art and science--to keep arrogant scientists, including psychologists and pneumatologists, humble--that is, loving, flexible, open, respectful with even those with whom we may disagree.


Edited by Revlgking (11/12/07 04:59 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#24280 - 11/12/07 02:36 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
GØD, I find the following very interesting:
"Conservative estimates indicate that there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science

That is a good link. Note that Kepler's laws, even though they were discovered before Newton's, are derivative of same. Newton's laws broadened and explained Kepler's laws.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Even then, in quantum physics there is talk of the "law of uncertainty"
Quote:
Quantum Mechanics

* Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - Uncertainty in position multiplied by uncertainty in momentum is equal to or greater than Dirac's constant divided by 2.

\Delta x \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}



I'm quite familiar with HUP. There are two ways of viewing this: as a fundamental limit on what we can know AND as an expression of intrinsic indeterminism in the universe (i.e. the Copenhagen Interpretation). I don't follow how this is relevant to our discussion, but there's some interesting stuff you should know.

Scientists once believed that if we could know the fundamental principles of the universe and it's state at any given time, called t0, then we could compute the next states. A number of developments crushed this idea:
1) Relativity destroyed the IMPLICIT assumption of simultaneity and a Euclidean universe.
2) QM showed that we could NEVER describe a state of even a single particle with high precision, because measuring the momentum would screw up the position calculation (and vice versa).
3) Gödel's incompleteness theorem proved that even if we could know the know the initial states, there are in any mathematical (logical) system at least powerful enough to represent basic arithmetic, there are true statements that cannot be proven to be true!
4) Cantor proved that there are infinities larger than the set of integers. Infinities bigger than, well ... infinity? Yes!
5) Experimental psychology (as separate from the rest of psychology, the vast amount of which is pretend science) has shown that experimenters bring biases into an experiment - and sometimes we need "double blind" experiments.

In the last 200 years, science has undergone a staggering amount of introspection, self-awareness, self-criticism, revision, and rejuvenation - unlike the stagnant, authoritative and yet puerile ramblings of the pseudosciences and philosophers, science has progressed, even though much of the progress is understanding its own limitations.


Top
#24281 - 11/12/07 05:30 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
TFF comments
Quote:
...science has undergone a staggering amount of introspection, self-awareness---science has progressed, even though much of the progress is understanding its own limitation.
Thank GØD!

BTW, as a pneumatologist--a student of self-awareness, of the nature and function of the human spirit, and of the GØD-concept--I have no fear of hard-nosed research into such concepts.
You mention
Quote:
...stagnant, authoritative and yet puerile ramblings of the pseudosciences and philosophers...

Is it not possible that many such scientists and philosophers have PhD's and responsible positions in the research field?

Top
#24283 - 11/12/07 05:49 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Is it not possible that many such scientists and philosophers have PhD's and responsible positions in the research field?"

Many pseudoscientists have PhDs and some have responsible positions in "research." I'm not impressed by a PhD alone and being in a responsible position means you know the right person, not that you're a good researcher. The more important questions are 1) what is the quality of the persons thinking, 2) what contributions has the person made to the field, 3) is the person identifying good questions, 4) does the person's work reflect a clear understanding of the subject area, 5) has the person produced something that others can build on? "Scientists" don't get a bye just because they're "scientists."

One of the hallmarks of the pseudoscientists is that they point to such and such a doctor somebody with 3 PhDs - so he just MUST be right. Curiously, they unfailingly miss the fact that their hero's 3 PhDs haven't resulted in his generating any actual results.

As for philosophers, I'm sure there are a great many intelligent and clear-thinking individuals among them, and I suspect those brilliant souls have the darnedest time trying to get their opinions noticed in a din of vociferous stupidity.


Top
#24284 - 11/12/07 06:31 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
TFF, now you are talking what I call "pneumatologically"--that is, from the human Spirit (pneuma) from the heart of truth.
You mentioned "stupidity". The difference between stupidity and ignorance is: the latter is curable. laugh


BTW, it would be interesting to know how many great scientific minds of the past were not actually formally educated in science.
JUST A FEW EXAMPLES
Copernicus was a monk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus

William Herschel, the great astronomer, was a musician
Quote:
Discovery of Uranus
Herschel's music led him to an interest in mathematics, and hence to astronomy. This interest grew stronger after 1773, and he built some telescopes and made the acquaintance of Nevil Maskelyne. He observed the Moon, measuring the heights of lunar mountains, and also worked on a catalog of double stars.

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


Charles Darwin's education? He had a BA in theology from Cambridge.
Quote:
In 1827, his father, unhappy at his younger son's lack of progress, shrewdly enrolled him in a Bachelor of Arts course at Christ's College, Cambridge to qualify as a clergyman, expecting him to get a good income as an Anglican parson.[15] However, Darwin preferred riding and shooting to studying.[16] Along with his cousin William Darwin Fox, he became engrossed in the craze at the time for the competitive collecting of beetles... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Early_life

Thomas Edison had little formal education
Quote:
In school, the young Edison's mind often wandered, and his teacher the Reverend Engle was overheard calling him "addled." This ended Edison's three months of official schooling. He recalled later, "My mother was the making of me. She was so true, so sure of me; and I felt I had something to live for, someone I must not disappoint." His mother then home schooled him.[2] Much of his education came from reading R.G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy.

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

And so it goes.

Top
#24285 - 11/12/07 08:17 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
There is a huge difference between schooling and education. The conflation of these two related, but very different things is perhaps one of the greatest impediments to improvement in the US education system.

I'd trade a dozen PhDs for one Darwin any day.


Top
#24288 - 11/12/07 09:46 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
There is a huge difference between schooling and education. The conflation of these two related, but very different things is perhaps one of the greatest impediments to improvement in the US education system.

I'd trade a dozen PhDs for one Darwin any day.
Tell us more: What are some of the differences between schooling--I presume you mean the spoon-feeding approach--and education.

What's your beef with Darwin?

What do you feel about my opinion: Education (literally means 'to draw out) happens when a creative teacher draws out the creative spirit already in the student. That is, when the teachers succeeds in inspiring the student to love the art of learning.


Edited by Revlgking (11/12/07 09:47 PM)

Top
#24289 - 11/12/07 10:46 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
There is a huge difference between schooling and education. The conflation of these two related, but very different things is perhaps one of the greatest impediments to improvement in the US education system.

I'd trade a dozen PhDs for one Darwin any day.
Tell us more: What are some of the differences between schooling--I presume you mean the spoon-feeding approach--and education.


Schooling is what gets done to you; education is what you do for yourself. Schooling happens "in a school" or "in a room" or in some other place "out there," while education has always occurred in only one place - a student's yearning mind. S and E are interfering functions. Sometimes their interference is constructive and at other times it is destructive; they can even cancel each other out! Schooling ends when school is not in session, but education never has to end. One major purpose of schooling should be to help students understand what education is and appreciate their own responsibilities in regard to its development.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

What's your beef with Darwin?

No beef. Were it not for my fear of being accused of hyperbole, I should have made him the equal to several hundred or a thousand biologists.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

What do you feel about my opinion: Education (literally means 'to draw out) happens when a creative teacher draws out the creative spirit already in the student. That is, when the teachers succeeds in inspiring the student to love the art of learning.

I think it's in line with what I have said. It's only part of it, but probably the most important part. Students need to get motivated to take responsibility for their own education - of course they will not do this if they can see no value in it.

Top
#24291 - 11/12/07 11:17 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
In my post, above, I asked you: What's your beef with Darwin?

Now you respond: "No beef. Were it not for my fear of being accused of hyperbole, I should have made him the equal to several hundred or a thousand biologists."
=================================

The above illustrates an important point about the value of really communicating, pneumatologically: I came to the wrong conclusion. I thought that you were knocking Darwin. Now I understand that you were actually extolling him. I am glad I put my response in the form of a question.
====================================
Now you comment, "... Students need to get motivated to take responsibility for their own education - of course they will not do this if they can see no value in it."

I agree. This is what I call the pneumatological, or the personal-responsibility approach.

It seems to me that controlling, schooling and training have more to do with psychological and/or somatological factors, not pneumatological ones. Even animals deserve better.


Edited by Revlgking (11/12/07 11:22 PM)

Top
#24292 - 11/12/07 11:28 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
FF said this:
Schooling is what gets done to you; education is what you do for yourself. Schooling happens "in a school" or "in a room" or in some other place "out there," while education has always occurred in only one place - a student's yearning mind. S and E are interfering functions. Sometimes their interference is constructive and at other times it is destructive; they can even cancel each other out! Schooling ends when school is not in session, but education never has to end. One major purpose of schooling should be to help students understand what education is and appreciate their own responsibilities in regard to its development.

Well said FF.

There is also the point that I remember hearing when I was very young and trying to be a teacher!!-- Just because you have taught something it does not mean that anyone has learned anything! Very true indeed!

Top
#24293 - 11/12/07 11:32 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Rev- you still do not answer my observation that twice now you have referred to disease as the result of something breaking the law of science. Do you believe in a judgment or arbitration of use these laws--with god as judge or not?

Top
#24294 - 11/13/07 12:35 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Revlgking,
I think TFF was referring to laws of nature being broken. If a law of Nature is broken, it is no longer a law.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#24295 - 11/13/07 03:13 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Revlgking,
I think TFF was referring to laws of nature being broken.If a law of Nature is broken, it is no longer a law.
Thanks AR, I welcome your presence as a moderator--that is, as an arbitrator, or a mediator. The role of a moderator, as I understand it is to promote dialogue until there is communication among all concerned.

MORE ON THE ROLE OF MODERATOR
=============================
BTW, AR, keep in mind that the "leader" of the United Church of Canada, in office for a limited period of time, is called 'Moderator'. He/she is not a bishop, cardinal, or a pope--or any kind of an infallible dictator in any way shape or form.

ABROGATING THE LAW IS NOT THE SAME AS BREAKING THE LAW
======================================================
With this is mind, keep in mind that I do not now, nor have I ever advocated that is it okay, without just cause, to call for the abrogation of any established law--physical, mental or spiritual.

At this point, all I say is this: If we choose to go against, that is, to ignore, any established law we have to be prepared, until it is abrogated, to accept that there are consequences.


Edited by Revlgking (11/13/07 03:17 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#24296 - 11/13/07 03:33 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Rev-you still do not answer my observation that twice now you have referred to disease as the result of something breaking the law of science. Do you believe in a judgment or arbitration of use these laws--with god as judge or not?

Ellis, take note of the response that I gave to Amaranth Rose:

I do not advocate the abrogation of any law, without just and due cause. I agree that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius, or 32 degrees F. I also agree that there are any number of physical, mental and spiritual laws, some yet to be discovered.

Am I making my position clear?

I addition to this, as a unitheist, I do not believe in a god who goes around making arbitrary laws. How about you?


Edited by Revlgking (11/13/07 03:35 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#24298 - 11/13/07 05:29 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Rev- I did not suggest that you advocate the breaking of laws. I merely commented on a curious notion that you have stated twice and then not responded to my querying you about. On both occasions you made the statement that disease is the result of breaking a law of science. I remember that in the first instance there was a suggestion of blame for the one with a disease. I reject the notion of disease as a punishment for sin, law breaking, or indeed anything. Disease comes in many ways, none of which are the consequence of breaking laws, science or otherwise, but are the result of encountering a disease vector, usually by chance. It can and does happen to any of us, any time and anywhere. Being 'good' will not assure us we avoid disease!

Since you do not believe in a god who makes arbritary laws do you believe in a god who makes just laws?

(I do not believe in any sort of god at all.)

Top
#24303 - 11/13/07 06:00 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
One can go against or break a law (a principle) knowingly, or out of ignorance. But as I said above: "If we choose to go against, that is, to ignore, any established law, or principle, we have to be prepared...to accept that there are consequences."

For example, modern biochemists "discovered" Vitamin C in the early 1930's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Glen_King
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C#Discovery_of_ascorbic_acid

This discovery only proved what many--including so called shamans--long before this already "knew"--without calling it a vitamin. It is a fact of history that an native shaman help save Cartier's men from scurvy by giving them a drink made out of pine needles.
The principle is: Human beings must ingest foods which contain Vitamin C. Unlike most animals, we cannot make it within the body.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#24304 - 11/13/07 08:26 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
A DIALOGUE ON THE HUMAN PREDICAMENT & THE HOPED-FOR HUMAN DESTINY
=================================================================
A few weeks ago, a http://www.pathwayschurch.ca I had the opportunity to have a DIALOGUE--It was not a debate--with an atheist/humanist. We agreed to the following
RULES OF THE DIALOGUE as we shared ideas:
========================================
1. Maintain our sense of humour througout the whole process
2. Express beliefs/opinions without putdowns, or flaming
3. Make no claim that we have THE Truth
4. No attempt to convert one another
5. Use respected sources--encyclopedias, dictionaries
6. Agree to disagree, agreeably

The following is a summary of what was said:
===========================================
As I understand it, Christians who call themselves progressive thinkers can be found in most Christian denominations. They are the kind of Christians who want to embrace:

1. an affirmative and sighted faith, powered by hope and love, that affirms the sacredness and interconnectedness of all life. The affirm the inherent and equal worth of all persons, and the supremacy of love expressed actively in our lives as compassion and social justice. Progressive Christian thinkers are willing to communicate with others without

2. neglecting the roots of all Christian heritage and traditions. They are not afraid to

3. embrace the freedom and responsibility to examine all Christian traditions, practices and beliefs. They acknowledge that religions are very human organizations. In the light of conscience and contemporary philosophy, the sciences and the arts, they are willing, when it is needed, to be open to reform. In doing so, they are willing to

4. draw from diverse sources of knowledge and wisdom, accepting that all human expressions are fallible and need to be evaluated, constantly. Progressive thinkers look on life as a journey, not a destiny. Therefore, they

5. find more meaning in the search for understanding than in the arrival at certainty. They accept that any answers found probably will inspire more questions. What they hope to do is

6. encourage inclusive, non-discriminatory, non-hierarchical and democratic community building where our common humanity is honoured in a trusting atmosphere of mutual respect and support;

7. promote forms of individual and community celebration, study, meditation and affirmative prayer which use understandable, inclusive, holistic, non-dogmatic, value-based language by which people of religious, skeptical, or secular backgrounds may be nurtured and challenged to grow morally and ethically mature. Finally, using imagination as well as intellect, progressive thinkers are those who are willing to

8. commit to journeying together with honesty, integrity, openness, transparency, respect, intellectual rigor, courage, leading to on-going creativity.
==========
Then Michael Schulman offered his point of view
==============================
MS's central point was, "Humanists have no interest whatsoever, in any philosophy which is NOT based on the hard evidence which the sciences can provide. Furthermore, we believe those who advocate any kind of supernatural god who lives in a supernatural heavenly kingdom aare wrong. However, we can respect those who believe in the supernatural, without having any respect for their beliefs in the supernatural.

"Having said this, we also believe that this does not mean that we are not willing to work with any philosophy, or religion, interested in working together for the greater good of society."

ABOUT LIFE AFTER DEATH
While we are open to any kind of new evidence, humanists believe that death of the physical body and brain means the death of consciousness. "I as an individual will not survive the death of my body and brain."
==================
Of course, the above is but a summary. For more details:
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=103


Edited by Revlgking (11/13/07 08:31 PM)

Top
Page 27 of 120 < 1 2 ... 25 26 27 28 29 ... 119 120 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.