RiverRat

It would be prudent to point out that oil is a critical part of enormous amounts of products that our society takes for granted (plastics, fertilizers, medicine, etc…). The impact of depletion in oil would not just be felt at the gas pump. I’m unsure what the government would be able to do when we reach the point of demand outstripping supply. I suppose we could pillage other countries stockpiles to prolong the inevitable. Otherwise … the government would have to severely restrict the ‘lifestyles’ of all citizens. This is a societal decision that will need to be made in the near future. We can’t have our cake and eat it too. What truly is sad is … there really is no other viable energy source that can compete with the energy density of oil. All other know alternative energy sources would need to be fine tuned and ramped up may percentage points on a ‘yearly’ basis to even make a small dent it the gap formed in the oil undersupply. Believe me …. You would NOT want oil to be suddenly pinched off. Even a slow trickle out will be quite painful (sans a radical ‘Hail Mary’ alternative energy source that could fuel the worlds linear upward economic growth).

Here is a scenario that very few people can be prepared… The total collapse of industrialized society on a world wide basis brought about by the steady depletion of our planets fossil fuels (oil being the first). It is postulated by numerous geologist (some of which worked for years with BIG OIL CO’s) that we are near PEAK OIL production. This peak is estimated to occur between 2010 and 2015. This estimate has been countered as too aggressive by others. But… can it be imagined what impact the vast economic growth of China and India will do to oil reserves? One time line I came across was startling! It is estimated by 2040-2050 the world will be in transition back to an agrarian society coinciding with a massive population reduction. Quack Doomsday Scenario …. Maybe Possible Outcome … Maybe http://www.peakoil.net http://www.oilcrisis.net

I’m 35. At 15 … ‘I know that I know everything and I’m unaware that I really know nothing’ At 20 … ‘I think that I know that I know everything but I’m unaware that a little knowledge can be dangerous’ At 25 … ‘I really do not know as much as I think I do’ At 30 … ‘I really do not know as much as I think I do but I’m aware that a little knowledge can be dangerous’ At 35 … ‘I really can not know everything and understand why a little knowledge can be dangerous’ :Alien: :Alien: :hihi:

Have any of you come across this site in your travels across the ‘web’? http://www.simulation-argument.com It appears that the movie ‘Matrix’ has some scholarly backing? Any thoughts on this scenario? This would really throw a wrench into the ‘free will’ vs ‘determinism’ arguments. :) :eek:

Hmmmm …. I’m not sure I understand the context of the question. Can you expand on your thought? Let me throw this against the wall to see if it sticks. “how much evil must you do…” : Implies that ‘evil’ is measurable in absolute terms. I would again suggest that this is variable over time in relation to a perceived level (that is likely arbitrarily set against a past event). “before you do good”: since both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ must each exist to understand or relate to the other, I defer to my above comment. “is that even possible” : I see no laws of physics that must be defied. :) Although … reconciling ‘good’ and ‘evil’ may be like ‘squaring a circle’. :cup:

Except for the outstanding members of PETA :cup:

Cost of War: Economic – can be calculated based on generally accepted accounting principles. Physiological and Psychological – can not be readily calculated as there is no reliable metric. Therefore a concrete reliable total cost of a war is inevitably a subjective term. This subjective total cost would be variable across time. As a country’s economy expands and contracts, the economic cost would become either more or less bearable. As a countries ideology and ethics shift, the Physiological and Psychological cost would also become either more or less bearable. War worth the cost: When the perceived subjective cost of inaction exceeds the perceived subjective cost of action. On a side note in respect to the subjective nature of Physiological and Psychological costs of war. Imagine the probability of … A) an individual existing that had vastly superior intellect and foresight to cure many deadly or debilitating diseases thus benefiting all of humanity. :cup: an individual existing that was exponentially more evil and destructive than any current or past leader. … If Stalin and Hitler were unable to carry out there massive genocidal charters that exterminated 10’s of millions of lives and there potentials thereafter.

From the rebuttal in question… . Blackmore later states in her own words … These claims are actual accounts, the data exists and studies revolve around the whole aspect of a NDE being a ‘dualistic’ experience. There are even documented accounts of the blind from birth giving vivid replays of the ‘physical aspects’ surrounding their resuscitation. It seems to me that a flippant renouncing of these studies may stem from the idea that these experiences are an attempt to justify a ‘God’ or some ‘religious doctrine’. There are varying degrees of accounts ranging from elderly atheists that convert to Christianity to young children with no real worldly experience. The overwhelming majority of people that have experienced a ‘core’ NDE have been profoundly impacted for the better. I suppose that for each individual experience there will be different rationalizations (ranging from the simple … ‘we can’t claim to know everything’ to the profound … ‘God is the moving force behind the universe’).

An interesting rebuttal to… “ proved, scientifically, that NDE’s are hallucinations caused by brain activity.” http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001.html

There are actually quite a few 'hell' accounts from NDE's. I suspect that there would be even more if people actually relayed their experiences. It is thought that people are less apt to tell about a 'negative' NDE because they wish not to be 'labeled'.

Read through the massive amount of literature on these two sites. http://www.near-death.com http://www.nderf.org I had a fortunate opportunity to speak directly with an individual that had a NDE. He is a simple man that has become very reflective and at the same time optimistic. He suffered a heat attack, lost consciousness and was fortunately revived by EMT’s via CPR and defibrillation while in route to the ER. His experience affected him in a most profound way. He broke into tears when he recounted the experience he had 7 years earlier. He said that he rarely speaks about it because he is afraid to be labeled a ‘kook’. He described the prototypical NDE with a separation from his physical body (he later … freaked out the ambulance driver that was not possibly visible to him by ‘thanking him’ for the quick response), tunneling with vibrant lights, a beautiful vast flower meadow and an encounter with a deceased relative and also a ‘stranger’. Of course this is easily dismissed as ‘anecdotal’. However … it struck me as odd that some of your atheist brethren actually did an ‘about face’ after such an experience. I suppose that was all the ‘proof’ they needed. Tormond ... could these posts be moved elsewhere to get more views?

I listened to talk radio a good bit. I listened to a WV representative that is on the oversight and budget committee for the states prison systems. He quoted a figure that the recidivism rate for ‘sexual offenders’ was 85%-87%. He mentioned that the consensus of data available to him was that sexual offenders are very unlikely to be reformed. My view is that every person has a ‘sexual orientation’. Wether it is a man that desires a very young girl or man that desires a very young boy or a female that desires other same age females, it is still an ‘orientation’. (I’m not sure how traditional rape would fit in this though … as it would be a male that has a ‘traditional orientation’ yet executes his desires against the will of the female. I guess this even may be an ‘orientation’ if the individual desires forced sex over consensual) Currently … we do not have the ability to change the orientation of homosexuals so I’m not sure we can change the orientation of pedophiles. Until we understand the very basics of sexual orientation and desires, we may only be able to contain the symptoms.

Oh ... I got the impression from you post that all capitalists are bad. Sorry :o

Now …. What if you found out this man was a TRUE capitalist and yet was quite philanthropic? The capitalist system enabled him to acquire wealth and he distributed it as he sees fit.

From National Geographic News …. Oct 18, 2004 Brian Greene believes we are taking giant strides toward understanding the deepest laws of the universe. That, he says, has strengthened his belief in the underlying harmony and order of the cosmos. "The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me." Now … I would contest the fact that he ‘dismisses’ ID

In terms of if what we viewed on CSpan was in fact the same program … then it appears that we both viewed an ambiguous reply with our own presuppositions. After some digging … I located this info… Donald Page's estimation is to be found in L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell, "God and Modern Science: New Life for the Teleological Argument"' International Philosophical Quarterly 27 (1987): 416. In fact, as Page later explained that, Betty and Cordell get the number too low, misinterpreting 1010(124) to mean (1010)124, when in fact Page calculated 10(10(124)), an absolute ‘astronomical’ probability. Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, has called this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science. This can be located in … "The Astronomer and God," in The Intellectuals Speak Out About God) … I think this was published in the eighties. I will indeed appeal to authority in respect to the above calculations on the probability of our universe even existing. If you would like to have a crack at refuting this figure with your own research, then ‘have at it’. I suppose if one would view the existance of our universe in simplistic terms ... the probabilty could be 50% (either it will exist or it will not)

Hilbert … "On the Infinite," in Philosophy of Mathematics I saw this referenced in a footnote once. I got bits and pieces of it photo copied from a relative that had an advanced math theory class.

Are you saying the expansion is related to the attraction of our entire universe to another universe (ie … our universe is (+) and other nearby universes are (-) … like being stretched) or that matter from other nearby universes are spewing into ours ‘physically’? I would tend to think that if matter was crossing universal boundaries physically, we would theoretically be able to detect it ??? Dumb question ... Does our universe overall have a charge ???

Did Hilbert not state … infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for infinite to play is solely that of an idea. Infinite is easily described in the abstract (x +1). I read at one point that a rationalization for infinity can be found in the dissection of ‘space’. Take a ‘foot’ of space and continually divide into subsets (1/2,1/4,1/8, … 1/100000000 etc). What would happen when the subset reaches the planck length? Does it become meaningless and thus ceases to be a product of infinity?

I read a few years ago that the probability of our universe even existing was … one chance out of 10 to the power of ten to the one hundred and twenty-fourth power. Now… I’m not sure how one could calculate this number and I’m not sure if it is reasonable accurate … but even if it is in the ballpark … this probability can not even be comprehended. I remember footnotes stating that an emanate cosmologist indicated that this is a powerful sign of ID directly from science. I also remember a few years ago a book lecture on public TV about string theory. I think it may have been Green explaining the theory in relationship to the ‘elegant universe’. After his book lecture, he fielded questions and at the very end an attendee asked if what he sees in his research and in his data is ‘too elegant’ to be truly random and if everything may be by design. I do not remember his exact words but I do recall that his brief answer leaned more towards ID. He even chuckled and jokingly said something like “imagine that …” as if he could not believe what he just said. Tormond … I tried to post in the ‘lounge’ but was not able. Re Infinity … did not Hilbert state … infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for infinite to play is solely that of an idea.

Forgive me for my ignorance. I do not claim to be versed in theoretical physics other than what I casually read in my monthly ‘Discover’ magazine. My question would be… if theoretical physics is only an approximation would this equate to the ‘probability’ of actual reality or correctness? At what point in this approximation; do physicists margin of potential error call into question the very premise that was set forth? Is this ever reconciled? I can understand James’ contention; however, some logical evidence would need to be presented. Unfortunately, once a line of thinking is presented and repeated over and over it becomes entrenched and thus becomes difficult to refute (speaking in terms of current theories). I think James' stance is our current paradigm is flawed and it may be prudent to approach from a different angle. I do not think there is enough data yet to formulate an alternative view. Ah … who knows ??

I can not say that religion pushed me away and was the catalyst of my rebellious stage. Looking back (hindsight is 20/20) it was apparent that I was EXTREMELY self centered. Everything revolved around ME, ME, ME !! Everything I did was an individual endeavor (from mixed martial arts to power lifting to racing superbikes). Nothing else was relevant except ME. Not a healthy or productive state of mind. Would I have evolved to the steady state I am comfortable in now without religion?? Maybe … but probably not. I’ve had a few life changing experiences that are not easily communicated and are readily dismissed as ‘anecdotal’ by a skeptic. This does not lower the event to an irrelevant status for me … the person that experienced it. Over the years… through these few experiences, reading and searching and speaking with other people … I evolved to my POV.

FT ... I commend you on your activism. The cub scout thing was a bit militant… but extreme views (based on societal norms) requires extreme tactics (“…. By any means necessary”). The Jews runs Hollywood, the Christians run Government and atheists run cub scout troop #777 and Jefferson elementary soccer team … :cup: You are in an unenviable position of constantly trying to educate people and defend your POV (which is undoubtedly taxing). Myself … I do not have to ‘evangelize’ my POV therefore I am able to concentrate my energy on tangible items. Although I admit I could do more, I have done far less in the past. As I grow and learn, I understand that there are unfortunate people in adverse situations. When I was younger in my rebellious stage my ‘faith’ was negligible and my actions and outlook reflected it. As I continually evolve, my ‘faith’ strengthens and my actions mimic this. I simply try to find the good in every person, live my life in a proper manner and be altruistic whenever possible. One could say … well geez you could do that without ‘believing’ … but I say why must they be mutually exclusive. I’m by far a better person now then when I was in my rebellious stage. For me at this point in time … it is good enough.

FT … It appears that you have provided a plethora of studies that suggests (or possibly proves) that individuals with inferior intellects are more apt to be ‘religious’. You have mentioned (and cited literature) on numerous occasions that religion has impeded an overwhelming number of good and viable advancements in any number of fields (education, medicine, etc …). You have also mentioned that religion is the root cause of war and suffering throughout history. OK …religious individuals are intellectually inferior, impeded advancements in the betterment of humanity and are the root of all evil. NOW … I pose to you again (as you dodged a similar post)… what will you do to ‘right’ which is easily apparent ‘wrong’? What are your action plans? It is obvious that you have spent countless hours formulating and researching your point of view. Have you spent equal time in proposal development?

Humans are immensely territorial. I have a co-worker that goes ‘nuts’ when someone takes his un-assigned parking space. I had a next door neighbor that threatened me with bodily harm because I inadvertently ran over a 2 ft swatch of his yard (the same day I was moving into the house no less – nice welcoming committee !!). This is just one of a few major human traits that would need to be ‘overrode’ in order for War to disappear from the Earth. As humans we learn very little from the past. WWI did not end all Wars and genocide seems to be a reoccurring fad. I would say that humans have the POTENTIAL to evolve to a warless planet … but … it would take a cataclysmic event to change the current mindset and many, many generations to ingrain it