Check out this video on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/HX-UPcrejHc
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Fwd: Big bang
I don't think that the big bang theory is intended as proof of the non-existence of God. Science is in the business of describing how things happen but not why. I am sure that there are many who believe in both.
Based on the evidence, the big bang likely happened, but I have heard of other theories.
Belief in God, however, doesn't necessarily mean belief in the traditional religions.
If one has no understanding of science, then people assume that the workings of the universe are due to magic. As more things get explained, the realm of magic becomes less and less until maybe all we have remaining is a creator. Some would prefer to dismiss any role of the supernatural altogether. So this leads to religion becoming a matter of philosophy and belief as to whether existence requires a creator.
I think that we are hard wired to believe in religion. It is a natural instinct and maybe a survival skill. But since we are wired this way, I think that this makes people susceptible to bogus ideas. Breaking away from this requires that people be objective, which is something that we are not particularly hard wired to do.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
John Coffey
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Grant wrote:
When I first read about the Big Bang when I was still in Jr High, Fred Hoyle a just starting to waiver on his steady state theory. At that time it was believed to have originated from one location depicted in Discovery Magazine as smaller than a golf ball. Last I heard this was changed to originating everywhere in the universe simultaneously. There's still a lot of problems with the theory including increased expansion rate which is not consistent with how we view explosions. Bottom line: No one apparently knows, so we've been unable to prove or disprove it. We just keep changing the model. My philosophical view is that it's hardly a proof that God doesn't exist nor has he ever, as one theoretical physicist would have us believe.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Fwd: Mummies and Snowcrash
All the copies of Gospels that I have heard about were in Greek, and not Aramaic. The early English bibles were copied from a multitude of Greek texts. There were an explosion of Greek gospels starting around 151 AD, which was right after the church leaders gathered together to decide if Jesus was a real person or just a spirit. The only Gospel that was older was a paragraph from the book of Mark found on a fragment in Egypt. It was dated around 113 AD.
Pretty much all biblical scholars agree that the book of Mark was the first one written and the usual date given is around 90 AD, although some give a range from 70 AD to 100 AD. All the other gospels were written in the second century and two appear to have been copied from Mark. None of the gospels could have been written by the people that the gospels claim wrote them. Technically, that makes them forgeries.
This lead to common speculation that the gospels were derived from previous unknown works, and these hypothetical works have been called "M Source" (book of Mark source) and "Q Source."
However, most of the stories of the Bible have been shown to have been copied from Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian myths. Moses the lawgiver was copied from the Egyptian Misis the lawgiver, which in turn was copied from the Babylonian (or Sumerian?) Mases the lawgiver. Jesus was the last of long line of demigod dying god myths going all the way back to Osiris in 4200 BC, and the Jesus story seems to have copied many of these other myths.
If there is a Gospel older than 90 AD then that would be interesting.
'In recent years scientists have developed a technique that allows the glue of mummy masks to be undone without harming the ink on the paper. The text on the sheets can then be read.
The first-century gospel is one of hundreds of new texts that a team of about three-dozen scientists and scholars is working to uncover, and analyze, by using this technique of ungluing the masks, said Craig Evans, a professor of New Testament studies at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
"We're recovering ancient documents from the first, second and third centuries. Not just Christian documents, not just biblical documents, but classical Greek texts, business papers, various mundane papers, personal letters," Evans told Live Science. The documents include philosophical texts and copies of stories by the Greek poet Homer. [See Images of Early Christian Inscriptions and Artifacts]
The business and personal letters sometimes have dates on them, he said. When the glue was dissolved, the researchers dated the first-century gospel in part by analyzing the other documents found in the same mask.
One drawback to the process is that the mummy mask is destroyed, and so scholars in the field are debating whether that particular method should be used to reveal the texts they contain.'
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/mummy-mask-may-reveal-oldest-known-gospel-n289006
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Monday, January 5, 2015
Religion vs. Communism | In Praise of Christianity!
The first 9 minutes is interesting, but then he rambles on different topics.
Check out this video on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/jHXFJveCgiA
Check out this video on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/jHXFJveCgiA
Friday, April 18, 2014
Fwd: Carl Sagan
Larry,
I say this with the understanding that I won't persuade you, nor do I particularly want to, so I will add the caveat of this is just how I see things from my point of view. I just wanted to share my thinking on this since you are one of my favorite people to talk to.
I think that religion, being almost universal among humans, is an evolutionary trait that allowed primitive humans to cope with 30 year life spans, and also a survival mechanism to justify the killing of competing groups in the name of the religion.
I think that all official religions are a product of the human tendency to manipulate others humans. We already know that roughly 1 out of 26 people are sociopaths and I think that these people are attracted to positions of power like the government which is probably filled with sociopaths. Even people with good intentions will be attracted to positions of power because of the natural human tendency to promote our own self interest.
A rational person, therefore, would not believe in religion because he would realize that we have been manipulated (bamboozled).
We have roughly 200,000 years of modern human existence where I am sure humans believed in all sorts of false religions and did all sorts of nasty evil things to each other. Modern religion would have us believe that God waited roughly 198,000 years before actually deciding to do something about this.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
Friday, January 10, 2014
Sunday, January 5, 2014
"How much government is necessary?"
For the first 16 minutes, Stephan Molyneux makes his interesting case for Anarchism, which has developed quite a following, but I see this as a temporary fad.
Molyneux is one of my favorite people to listen to on YouTube, because is he is a prolific and very intelligent speaker on many topics. However, his faith in anarchism seems highly misplaced and defies common sense notions. He could argue that our common sense notions are incorrect, but so few would agree with him that the burden of proof belongs in his court.
His makes the points that governments were created for the purpose of violating people's rights, and therefor cannot protect rights, and that if we raise children in an atmosphere of non-violence that people will not be as aggressive toward each other. The first notion is incorrect and the second misunderstands human nature.
All animals and people compete within their own species for resources. Most species understand either the concepts of property and/or territory. I saw one squirrel aggressively chase another squirrel out of a tree. Just as ostriches will fight each other for the best place to roost, many different animals will either defend their territory or forcibly fight to take over the territory of others. What keeps another from stealing the place where you live or your food is the use of force or the threat of force.
The reason why some animals and people are social and form groups is simply because there is safety in numbers. A tribe of 1 or 2 people would not last very long because all it takes is a slightly bigger tribe to chase them away or kill them. Small groups formed for mutual defense and protection of territory. As human population increased, this necessitated the smaller groups turning into bigger groups. The need for mutual defense seems self evident since the first few thousand years of human civilization saw almost nothing but different groups invading, killing and/or enslaving other groups. If you lived in the bronze age, a powerful authoritarian society might suck, but it might also be the safest place for you to be. If your government was weak, it would be taken over by a different powerful authoritarian society that likely would have even less regard for your well being and survival.
A small group of 20 cannot function very well without leadership, otherwise the group will splinter over disagreements, many of which will be about property, territory and rights. Having leadership is what allows a group to get bigger, and therefor have a better chance at survival. There is a Darwinian selection process for the groups that function the most efficiently. As groups grew into societies, this lead to concentration of power, which certainly lead to all kinds of abuses. As Milton Friedman pointed out, freedom is not the natural state of man. Human beings have always lived under the thumb of some kind of authority.
The brilliance of the United States Constitution is that it created a government with many checks and balances to protect individual liberty. The fact that the government has gotten out of hand just shows that the checks and balances were just not good enough. Amending the constitution could help. Still, it is one of the best governments in the world. There are other countries that score higher on The Freedom Index, but compared to most nations, the United States interferes a lot less with its citizens.
Abandon all government and the concepts of property and rights disappear instantly. We would be back to the animal state where the strongest get what they want. The power vacuum would be so great that humans would immediately start to form groups for their protection and to resolve conflicts. These quasi-governments would eventually evolve into actual governments out of necessity because these different groups would conflict with each other. My theory is that if you abandon all government, those who are powerful now, corporations, unions, organized crime and religion would immediately start to take over. If had to pick one, I would guess that organized crime would only need about a week to rule the world.
So governments were created to protect people's rights, and if that were the only role of government then I would gladly pay taxes for its protection, and it is the natural state of man to live under some kind of authority. Despite the many flaws of government, it is possible for some people to construct governments that are much better than others. So the goal here should not be to eliminate government, but to make it better.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
FW: Marriage
From: Daniel
Hay,
Rush Limbaugh just said what I have been saying for a few years.
“Sooner or later someone will want to marry their pet”.
Can I be first, please….
Regards,
Dan H.
There is a type of argument called reductio ad absurdum, which tries to argue that something is false by taking it to the absurd level. In my view this does not invalidate the original argument, but only serves to show that going to the extreme might be a bad thing.
People by their nature have desires. What people desire varies from person to person. It is in the nature of human beings to be different and want different things. Wanting different things does not define a person or make them good or bad.
Now we know that some people wish to marry people of the same sex. Provided that this does not harm anyone else, for the government to tell people that they can’t do this is a form of oppression. You could argue that this would somehow have a negative impact on society, but the only way that this might possibly be true is if you consider homosexuality to be immoral, which I do not. Gambling, drinking and smoking have a negative impact on society, but we tolerate these things and regulate them because people are going to do them anyway and they are not bad in every situation.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Therapeutic cloning - How it is done; possible benefits
Is an embryo a human person? Pro-life supporters generally believe that a human person comes into existence at conception. Some believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer is sufficiently similar to normal conception with an egg and spermatozoa that a human person also comes into existence during therapeutic cloning. The process of extracting stem cells involves killing the embryo. To many pro-lifers, this is murder. They feel that murdering one person, the embryo, to cure another person of paralysis, or diabetes, or heart disease, etc. can never be justified. More details. Therapeutic cloning research may well be limited to those countries, like China, the UK, and perhaps Canada, where pro-life supporters are relatively few in number.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Science can answer moral questions - Sam Harris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn3ITqtGzQ8
... some people might question what perspective this person is coming from, but his central premise seems pretty universal to me.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Therapeutic cloning - How it is done; possible benefits
Therapeutic cloning: (a.k.a. Somatic cell nuclear transfer or research cloning): This starts with the same procedure as is used in adult DNA cloning. The resultant embryo would be allowed to grow for perhaps 14 days. It's stem cells would then be extracted and encouraged to grow into a piece of human tissue or a complete human organ for transplant. The end result would not be a human being; it would be a replacement organ, or piece of nerve tissue, or quantity of skin. The first successful therapeutic cloning was accomplished in 2001-NOV by Advanced Cell Technology, a biotech company in Worcester, MA.Is an embryo a human person? Pro-life supporters generally believe that a human person comes into existence at conception. Some believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer is sufficiently similar to normal conception with an egg and spermatozoa that a human person also comes into existence during therapeutic cloning. The process of extracting stem cells involves killing the embryo. To many pro-lifers, this is murder. They feel that murdering one person, the embryo, to cure another person of paralysis, or diabetes, or heart disease, etc. can never be justified. More details. Therapeutic cloning research may well be limited to those countries, like China, the UK, and perhaps Canada, where pro-life supporters are relatively few in number.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Response to "Redeemed"
>"Evrything in "THE BIBLE" must be received by..."FAITH-ALONE"...with no "PROOF".
Why is that? Why can't there be proof? This seems like an extremely ridiculous notion to me. In other words, the Bible can say anything at all, and not matter how absurd or immoral it might seem, you will believe it.
Your willingness to believe anything does not lead you to truth. Consider the bumper sticker:
God said it.
I believe it.
That's final.
However, this is circular reasoning. What it is really saying ...
I believe God said it.
I believe it.
That is final.
However, you have no rational basis to know that God said it in the first place. How is your faith any better than any Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist? Because you are right and they are wrong? They would say the same thing about you.
Evidence is how you determine if something is true or not. Reason is the process of figuring that out.
Your reasoning starts with the notion that the Bible is true. That should be the conclusion and not the premise.
If you believe in an evil God who tortures people without mercy, and kills children, babies and pregnant women, then the Bible is the "good" book for you. If you accept these things without any thought whatsoever, then the Bible is the book for you. However, I don't believe these things. I think they are evil, therefor the Bible disproves itself.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Conspiracy Theories
I think that people believe Conspiracy Theories because they see
themselves as victims. Because they view themselves as victims, they
have pent up resentment. This resentment causes people to quickly
accept rumors or partial truths as full truth.
One of my goals in life is to not see myself as a victim of anything,
which maybe isn't 100% possible. I think that this leads to a more
objective view.
themselves as victims. Because they view themselves as victims, they
have pent up resentment. This resentment causes people to quickly
accept rumors or partial truths as full truth.
One of my goals in life is to not see myself as a victim of anything,
which maybe isn't 100% possible. I think that this leads to a more
objective view.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
From: Reedemed
I'm..."PRAYING FOR YOU JOHN"...
The..."HOLY GHOST"...is ((("VERY POWERFUL"))) !!!
Dear..."LORD JESUS"...I ask for...("JOHN"),...
Redeemed,
You can waste time all you want. It doesn't really hurt me. But why send me the same message 6 times? When you say that you "ask for John", you ask for John what?
Given the tone of your messages, I assume that you are a somewhat emotional person. All humans are going to be emotional to one degree or another, but I like to think of myself as much less so. (I was much more emotional in my teens, and thus religious.) The concern that I have is that emotion might cause someone to believe in something because they need something emotionally and not because it is rational.
Regardless of what anyone believes, people have a hard time straying from their beliefs because those beliefs become part of their identity and their self esteem. If you are proud of being a christian then taking away that belief would hurt your self image.
PLEASE see:
Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real
THE EMPTY CROSS: WHY JESUS DIDN'T EXIST COMPLETE DVD PART 2 OF 7
The God Who Wasn't There
The Jesus Myth - Timothy Freke
Best wishes,
John Coffey
I'm..."PRAYING FOR YOU JOHN"...
The..."HOLY GHOST"...is ((("VERY POWERFUL"))) !!!
Dear..."LORD JESUS"...I ask for...("JOHN"),...
Redeemed,
You can waste time all you want. It doesn't really hurt me. But why send me the same message 6 times? When you say that you "ask for John", you ask for John what?
Given the tone of your messages, I assume that you are a somewhat emotional person. All humans are going to be emotional to one degree or another, but I like to think of myself as much less so. (I was much more emotional in my teens, and thus religious.) The concern that I have is that emotion might cause someone to believe in something because they need something emotionally and not because it is rational.
Regardless of what anyone believes, people have a hard time straying from their beliefs because those beliefs become part of their identity and their self esteem. If you are proud of being a christian then taking away that belief would hurt your self image.
PLEASE see:
Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real
THE EMPTY CROSS: WHY JESUS DIDN'T EXIST COMPLETE DVD PART 2 OF 7
The God Who Wasn't There
The Jesus Myth - Timothy Freke
Best wishes,
John Coffey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)