PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of

Scientific Forums

LoFi version for PDAs

Help

Members

Calendar

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Resend Validation Email

PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> General Sci-Tech Discussions -> Creation / Evolution

Pages: (191) « First ... 148 149 [150] 151 152 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll

Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of, Science and Religion Now!

LoFi version | Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

ToeQuestor	Posted: Jul 6 2009, 02:21 AM Quote
Member Group: Members Posts: 118 Joined: 27-June 09 Positive Feedback: 0% Feedback Score: -5	The Knowing “Into this Universe, and why not knowing, Nor whence, like water willy-nilly flowing: And out of it, as wind along the waste,” Omar “knew not whither, willy-nilly blowing…” Now I’m knowing, that out of this muddle, Indeed, it’s that chaos that frees me to be, For it’s all of disorder in disarray, An ultimate disorganized confusion, Whence all sprung, banged, and exploded, With no hint or trace of order, law or plan; ‘Twas mayhem, bedlam, and pandemonium, Wreaking havoc upon the turmoil of a tumult, Heaping high upon, a commotion of disruption, In the utter fullness of the uproaring upheaval… …The maelstrom to end all messes and shambles, The lawless free-for-all of total energetic anarchy, Entropy crowned the King of the great hullabaloo, That cosmic hoopla from which all hell broke loose. Never there was to punish one for not even knowing, Why you are here in this world so much growing, That become here all so willy-nilly going. As life’s rose, outspread your fragrance blowing! Whither flowing free,whether knowing, or not, Hitherto, I know not whence, but am whither going, Willy-nilly, hence that’s all there is to knowing… Hence thither forth I go on hither flowing to find That I was ever more free to be in body and mind. It is of Ovid’s “rude and indigested mass: The lifeless lump, unfashion'd, and unfram'd, Of jarring seeds; and justly Chaos nam'd. No sun was lighted up, the world to view; No moon did yet her blunted horns renew: Nor yet was Earth suspended in the sky, Nor pois'd, did on her own foundations lye: Nor seas about the shores their arms had thrown; But earth, and air, and water, were in one. Thus air was void of light, and earth unstable, And water's dark abyss unnavigable.” So it is that we the living might hereby agree, To live a being that is much more intense, To leap toward higher orders of actuality, To revel in the glories of this conscious life, To attain each minute a more euphoric joy… And to bring this forth to all, The increased intensity Of free experience, And build on it, etc.., Ever growing; Forever, amen The basis of the Universe was forever here, For nothing could make itself from Nothing at all; Such, a state of Nothing could never be, for there IS Something—reality that our being interprets. This then is the secret of the universe, Knowing of that which underlies all reality: Fundamental, absolute, indestructible, Everpresent, indeterminate, and pervasive.
	Send PM ·

Mong H Tan, PhD

Posted: Jul 19 2009, 06:07 PM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49

RE: Point of information: Beware of plagiarism!?

QUOTE (ToeQuestor @ Jul 5 2009, 10:24 PM)

Christopher Hitchens Pays Us a Suprise Visit

Until relatively recently, the argument between theists and atheists or (to adopt my own self-description) between theists and anti-theists, was largely based on two implicitly shared assumptions. The first was that science and religion belonged, in the famous words of Stephen Jay Gould, to “non-overlapping magisteria.” The second was that science and reason could not actually disprove the existence of a deity or a creator: they could no more than show that there was no good or sufficient evidence to justify such a belief.

One sometimes suspects that the acceptance of the “non-overlapping” verdict was a cause of some relief to many non-scientists such as myself, who prefer to argue with religion from different premises. But with the arrival on the scene of new information, the already-revived and extended argument for unbelief has undergone a sort of quantitative and qualitative acceleration. One side in this dispute is going to have to yield.

I’d like to say a word for the lay or non-scientist infidel community. Until 1834 the very word “scientist” was not in common circulation. Men like Sir Isaac Newton were considered, and considered themselves, to be “natural philosophers”: men of scientific bent to be sure, but men of a wider and deeper learning as well. Arguments about greater cosmic purposes were all of a piece with calculations and experiments, and the tyranny of specialization had not imposed itself on us. As a result, by the way, many scientists held completely “unscientific” views. Newton himself was a secret alchemist who believed that the Pope was anti-Christ and that the true dimensions of the Temple of Solomon might yield crucial findings. Joseph Priestley, the Unitarian discoverer of oxygen, was a devotee of the phlogiston theory. Alfred Russel Wallace liked nothing better than a good spiritualist séance.

It is not really until the figure of Albert Einstein (and perhaps Bertrand Russell also) that we start to find that very powerful synthesis between scientific method and a more general “humanism”; a synthesis basing itself upon reason and daring to make the connection between physical and natural evidence and the conclusion that an ethical life, as well as a rational one, is best lived on the assumption that there is no supernatural dimension.

In recent years, a number of scientists – physicists, biologists, neurologists, and others – have become, in effect, “public intellectuals”. They have transcended the bounds of their respective disciplines in order to defend the general proposition that free scientific inquiry, and the sort of society that can both support it and benefit from it, is worth defending from the assaults of ignorance and bigotry and terrorism. There is now a wide cultural resistance to those who would force stultifying creationist nonsense into the schoolroom, or those whose only interest in science is the plagiarism of technology for the purposes of criminal “faith-based” violence.

Attending a recent conference that included many such figures, I was interested to find that, when their experience of debating with the faithful was “pooled,” there was really only one argument from the other side that was considered to have any interest or bear any weight. This was the question of “why is there something rather than nothing?” with its attendant suggestion that the laws of physics and the universe have been somehow “fine-tuned” in order to create the conditions most optimal for life.

I first came across this “argument” in a book published in 1993. Credible Christianity: The Gospel in Contemporary Culture, was written by a man named Hugh Montefiore whom I slightly knew and rather liked. A senior bishop of the Church of England, he had been converted from Judaism as a schoolboy by the appearance of a white-robed figure who commanded him to “Follow Me.” Here is how the bishop phrased the matter:

For example, if the strong force which keeps the nucleus of an atom together had been only 2 per cent stronger, the universe would have blown up: if it were slightly weaker, nuclear fusion, which keeps the stars burning, would not have happened. There are many such coincidences, signal examples to the eyes of faith of the wisdom and providence of the Creator.

…There are fairly comprehensive rebuttals of this attempt to update the old argument from design, which was originally cast in more purely terrestrial terms by William Paley in his Natural Theology. It becomes ever-clearer that the scientific and the supernatural explanations of matters are not so much “non-overlapping” as doomed to overlap, and to contradict one another, or perhaps better say, to be incompatible or irreconcilable with one another.

Let me adduce a couple more examples of my own – or rather, adaptations of my own from the work of others – to support the case that the god hypothesis has actually been conclusively discredited. Suppose we take the hypothesis at face value for a moment. Edwin Hubble long ago demonstrated that the universe is exploding away from its “big bang” starting point. Persuaded by the “red light” evidence that this was indeed true, the scientific community nonetheless thought, for what might be called Newtonian reasons, that this rate of expansion would slow down over time. To the contrary, and as Lawrence Krauss had predicted, it has now been found that the universe is exploding away from itself at a rapidly increasing rate. Among the non-trivial consequences of this will be that we shall one day be unable to observe anything in the whirling galaxies that will any longer confirm that the “big bang” ever took place. Meanwhile, the Andromeda galaxy, already visible to the naked eye in the night sky, is headed directly towards our own and will collide with it in five billion years. What sort of “fine tuning” is this? (Perhaps the same tuning that has made all the other planets just in the tiny suburb of our own solar system either too hot or too cold to support life.) At least, however, it provides a good demonstration of how a great deal of “nothing” is all set to come out of our brief “something.”

Or take a quite different order of instance, again from the sort of scientific knowledge and discovery that has not been available to us for more than a few years. Now that we have mapped the human genome, we know that all our common ancestors left Africa about 60,000 years ago, and that we all share the genetic markers to prove it. Allow me to quote from an essay by Spencer Wells, the director of the Genographic Project at the National Geographic:

What set these migrations in motion? Climate change – today’s big threat –
seems to have had a long history of tormenting our species. Around 70,000
years ago it was getting very nippy in the northern part of the globe, with ice
sheets bearing down on Seattle and New York; this was the last Ice Age. At
that time, though, our species, Homo sapiens, was still limited to Africa; we
were very much homebodies. But the encroaching Ice Age, perhaps coupled
with the eruption of a super-volcano named Toba, in Sumatra, dried out the
tropics and nearly decimated the early human population. While Homo
sapiens can be traced to around 200,000 years ago in the fossil record, it is
remarkably difficult to find an archaeological record of our species between
80,000 and 50,000 years ago, and genetic data suggest that the population
eventually dwindled to as few as 2,000 individuals. Yes, 2000 – fewer than fit
into many symphony halls. We were on the brink of extinction.

Ponder this arresting finding, even with its misuse of the word “decimate” (which means “reduce by one tenth” rather than “eradicate”). There are, really, only two ways of assimilating and analysing it. The first way is to see the survival and escape and later population spread of the endangered 2,000 as a miracle: a form of the Exodus story that alas never managed to get written on any tablets or papyri. The second way is to remember something else that we didn’t know until recently: that almost 99 per cent of all species ever recorded as having lived on this planet DID become extinct. If you bear that in mind, then any author of any miracle must also have been the deliberate author of the ice-sheets and the Sumatran explosion – “the wisdom and providence of the Creator,” as Bishop Montefiore put it so fulsomely – and then have stayed his hand until just the point when the population of his preferred creatures dipped below the 2,000 mark. That could, I suppose, be called “fine tuning.” It could also be thought of as a very laborious and roundabout and inefficient and incompetent (and somewhat cruel and capricious) method of ensuring human survival.

In other words, none of these god-centred “hypotheses” can do any more than replace, or attempt to restate, the original fallacy of the “design” arguments. Meanwhile, our advances in knowledge and technique simply place these efforts under an ever more pitiless and skeptical gaze. Now we know roughly the age of our species. Richard Dawkins has put it as high as a quarter of a million years, while Francis Collins (the extremely genial and decent C.S. Lewis fan who oversaw the Human Genome Project) once in my hearing said that it could be as little as a hundred thousand. No matter. Let us take the lower figure, and use it to illustrate the truth of revelation. On this model, our species emerged and for tens of thousands of years cowered in the few climatic refuges of the globe that were hospitable to it:

Life expectancy? Perhaps a couple of decades.

Infant mortality? Extremely high.

Death from tooth decay or diarrhea? Commonplace.

Terror of micro-organisms in general? Intense.

Fear of death from earthquake, tsunami, volcano and flood? Extreme, and again compounded by ignorance.

Wars between tribes and clans, for food and territory? Grim and frequent.

Religion? Not known to us, but probably involving human and animal sacrifice to propitiate weird idols.

And for a minimum of ninety-five thousand years, heaven watches this with folded arms! Stony, lofty indifference attends the striving and the suffering and the agonising deaths of infants and innocents, to say nothing of the sadistic and genocidal violence and the worship of bogus shrines and false gods. And then, at long last, after nine thousand and five hundred decades or so (in instant in evolutionary time, to be sure, but quite a long time for frightened mammals), it is decided that heaven must intervene. By direct revelation. But only in certain illiterate and backward parts of the Middle East. As I say, you may choose to believe this if you so desire, but that is what you must now believe. Until an amazingly recent date, science would not have compelled you to face the absurd consequences of your faith in quite this way.

In any case, there is a big difference between being a deist and a theist. You may still, to your own satisfaction, decide that none of nature’s observable processes could have got under way without a prime mover. But alas, all your real work as a religious person is still ahead of you. How can you get from this prime mover or first cause to a deity who cares who you sleep with, what you eat, what holy day you observe or how you mutilate your own (or your children’s) genitalia? From the big bang of the great beginning to the small and sordid bang of the virgin-hunting suicide bomber is still quite a step. Nobody has even come close to showing how this step could ever be taken. And it is highly unlikely, now, that anybody ever will. The simple reason for this is that we have better and clearer and more impressive explanations for things, as well as explanations that are more beautiful, elegant and harmonious. To look the facts in the face is not to surrender to despair and nihilism: we know that the world will come to an end and we even know how, but it is only the religious who look forward to this event with relish and relief.

The challenge of our age is the same that confronted all previous ages. How shall we live the good life and how shall we know virtue? In the past millennia of primeval ignorance, pattern-seeking primates proposed a totalitarian solution to this question and threw all the responsibility onto a supreme dictator who demanded to be loved and feared at the same time. The story of human emancipation is the narrative of our liberation from this evil myth, and from the greedy, ambitious primates who sought (as they still seek) to rule in its name. Many forces have contributed to this emancipation, from philosophers to satirists, but it is perhaps to the natural and human sciences that we have come to owe the most..

(Thanks Christopher. Responders can yell at you, not me.[1])

1] Specifically, ToeQuestor, you need to be more specific when presenting your case: Is the post above, your view on Hitchens’ view on “science and religion” issues? Or you just copied and post Hitchens’ misguided view (en masse) on the issues!?

I would characterize Hitchens (as the literary polemicist in his book “God is Not Great”) as one of the 4 renowned (self-proclaimed) simpleton neo-atheists -- the other 3 being Richard Dawkins (their irrationalist-in-chief in his book “The God Delusion”), Daniel Dennett (the half-baked neo-Darwinist philosopher in his book “Breaking the Spell”), and Sam Harris (the half-baked Buddhist neuroscience polemicist in his book “The End of Faith”) -- all of whom I tried to categorically identify and describe in the “new humanism vs. irrationalism or new atheism or Dawkinsism” article above (GuardianUK; June 28) -- for their (persistently and consistently) incomprehensive world philosophies; abusive scholarships; and ill-attempted writings on the contemporary science, religion, socioeconomic and cultural issues, since their (shillingly and chillingly) rise to the post-9/11 (2001) simpleton (polemic) attacks on the (evermore complex) religionism of humanities, worldwide!

If you’ve had indeed copied Hitchens’ essay above from elsewhere, you need to present your source of reference to that article; otherwise, you would be just plagiarizing someone else’s writing -- including The Knowing post above!? -- and presenting herein (and elsewhere in this global PhysForum.com) as if it’s one of your own!? Caveat lector!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, scrutinizing, introspecting, and enlightening worldwide!

Best wishes, Mong 7/19/9usct1:09p; author Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; January 2006), and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since February 2006).

--------------------

1) “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” a simple blog "Wishing all of us, living in harmony, creatively and constructively, in this beautiful World of Today and beyond—we Each are primed by our shared DNA and associated Molecules, having only one Life to live; one Heart to beat and love; one Mind to cherish responsibly worldwide. Thank you."

2) “Gods, Genes, Conscience” a 2006 book with self-explanatory subtitle “A Socio-Intellectual Survey of our Dynamic Mind, Life, all Creations in Between and Beyond, on Earth—or, A Critical Reader’s Theory of Everything: Past, Present, Future; in Continuum, ad Infinitum” will guide Readers to your own soul-searching Answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how Inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on Earth, today and beyond.

3) “Decoding Scientism” a book I’m working on now since July 2007; meanwhile wishing all “Happy reading, scrutinizing, enlightening at all times!”

Send PM · Send email · Website ·

RobDegraves	Posted: Jul 19 2009, 06:19 PM Quote
Advanced Member Group: Power Member Posts: 1915 Joined: 31-August 08 Positive Feedback: 68% Feedback Score: 118	Mong H Tan Why are you still spamming this forum? Is it because you think you still have some shred of credibility? At this time I believe that you are a sham by the way. Where is your phd from? What pioneering work have you done in cancer research? Why is it that you are self published with no research work listed that I can find. For a "pioneer" that seems odd... don't you think? -------------------- "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. " Daniel Patrick “Pat” Moynihan
	Send PM · Send email ·

Mong H Tan, PhD

Posted: Aug 2 2009, 05:15 PM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49

RE: What’s mind (or never mind)!? -- Deciphering idiosyncrasies of scientific/religious rationalism vs. neo-Darwinist/ID-creationist irrationalism, in science and philosophy today!?

QUOTE (RobDegraves @ Jul 19 2009, 06:19 PM)

Mong H Tan

Why are you still spamming this forum?

Is it because you think you still have some shred of credibility?

At this time I believe that you are a sham by the way.

Where is your phd from?

What pioneering work have you done in cancer research?

Why is it that you are self published with no research work listed that I can find. For a "pioneer" that seems odd... don't you think?

Nice try, RobDegraves, you just confirmed yourself to be one of the irrationalists herein, whom I’ve tried to characterize before above (and more below). You need to do your own homework, before presenting your self-degrading irrationalist questions! Caveat lector!

Preamble: This brought out the current confusing issues of the day: Rationalisms vs. Irrationalisms -- as referenced above!

Over the past 3 years, since the start of this open thread, the “Dialogue and Reconciliation” on science and religion issues, I’ve been learning and reading and writing quite a bit, scientifically and philosophically, which may be summarized below:

1] Categorically, by itself and as an intellectual tool of enquiry: science or religion is pure mental rationalism; by separating the mentality of each idiosyncratic matters: science is an objective rationalism; whereas religion is a subjective (hence idiosyncratic) rationalism.

Furthermore, by comprehending and complementing both idiosyncrasies, the scientific and the religious rationalisms shall comprise the whole of humanism or humanities as a whole as one which shall embrace, encompass, and compose both scientific and religious self-rationalities inside, in each of our learned selves; and thus, the term scientific and/or religious self-rationalisms, as one which Albert Einstein (1879-1955) had had in the 1930s (prophetically, self-comprehensively, and wisely) rationalized that “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind;” and lived his self-rationalized (intellectual and spiritual) life and work thereof accordingly, productively, harmoniously!

2] Without understanding of each and/or both the scientific and religious rationalisms, one will certainly risk rejecting or confusing or mixing up all these conceptual boundaries of our mental objectivities and/or subjectivities within; and with a confused mentality on these issues, one will definitely (more often than not) try to project (irrationally) one’s inner incomprehension, confusions, apprehensions, fears, aggressions, etc against anyone else’s self-rationalisms; hence the term irrationalism shall be to characterize anyone’s confused mental state, be it in scientism, anti-religionism, anti-theism, or otherwise!

Please note: Atheism or agnosticism, as one of the philosophies of existentialism, is not integrally anti-theism, or irrationalism; whereas neo-atheism, one which has had been reducibly distorted and abused by misreading both science and Darwinism as an anti-religion or anti-theism tool, is unequivocally irrationalism, and/or scientism par excellence of the 21st century, as one neo-atheism, which is to be further analyzed and discussed below.

3] In the conventional scientific rationalism: the method of objective (or physical) reductionism is acceptable -- and fine -- in as long as it is applied to the physical objects, as those observable matters in physical sciences: of which one generally and normally shall include all subject matters of STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics).

Whereas the physical reductionism shall not be applied to the other matters of life and mind, such as spirituality in general and subjective religiosity in particular, especially the dynamic thinking mind of our human life and condition: the only living beings, that have had evolved to be able to accrue our existential (both physical and spiritual) experiences; unlimited knowledge; memories; religions; cultures; STEM; etc, so as to categorize and understand ourselves and our environments: all that we have had inherited, since over 50 thousand years ago on this unique planet Earth -- especially at a time when our innate (subjective) mental capacity and capability had begun to create, enquire, and accrue symbolism, survivalism or religionism as an existential rationalism that had had been dealing with, and adapting to, the then still primeval, hush, and yet-unknown existentialism, that had also begun to appear, aspire, inspire, accrue, communicate, transpire, grow, spread, and evolve in all the niches, whenever and wherever our humanities and creativities could survive, generate, settle, and populate, worldwide.

4] In the traditional religious rationalism: the method of self-revelation, or belief in one’s own faith, or subjective (spiritual) cognition and imaginative creation (or fantasy) may be used and/or justified (or satisfied) within oneself; whereas such idiosyncratic satisfactions of faith, or pursuing one’s own meaning and/or purpose of life, or existentialism, or spirituality, or religiosity, shall never be externally forced, coerced, or revealed by any of the scientific method, be it by physical reductionism and/or objective rationalism, at all (please see definition 3 above).

5] Consequently, any misguided or incomprehensive or insensitive scientists, scholars, and/or philosophers -- who try to pry into and/or dictate someone else’s faith matters, or religionism, or atheism, or agnosticism -- are dubbed the irrationalist, as one who’s attempting to practice scientism as science or humanism as a whole (please see definitions 1 and 2 above)!

Likewise irrational and adulterine: regarding the idiosyncratic subjective matters of religion, any misguided or insecure religionists or theologians -- who try to use, misuse, and/or abuse any scientific method and/or data, so as to bolster their own (spiritual) credibility or credulity in their religious creation narratives (or myths or memes) or religionism -- are all irrationalists as well, in attempting to plagiarize and/or co-opt or corrupt scientific, objective, material evidence: evidence which is completely irrelevant or inconsequential to their otherwise subjective, un-provable spiritualism in general and/or religionism in particular (please see definitions 3 and 4 above)!

Thus, both the neo-Darwinist reductionism -- such as Dawkinsian rhetoric meme or scientism, or his neo-atheism or Dawkinsism -- and the Intelligent Design (ID) creationist mythology (or creationism in disguise as science) of the natural (evolutionary) lifeform complexities, are all irrationalisms messed up as science and philosophy today!

Furthermore, as defined above, both the well-disciplined STEM and Darwinism, are all (totally) neutral on idiosyncratic religious (or spiritual) or faith matters; this is because the conventional scientific method -- including Darwin’s (scientific and macro) taxonomy: his 19th-century observations, data collections, analyses, syntheses, and writings on life species, or organisms, including humans -- may not be used, misused, and/or abused, so as to deny, define, and/or dictate anyone else’s innate (spiritual) existential inquiries of the “meaning,” “purpose,” and/or “existence” of life; of self; and of ME (mind and emotion) on Earth, including our “thinking,” “fantasizing,” “imagining,” and/or “creating” of God; gods; or no gods; etc!

Ergo, the neo-Darwinist reductionism (one that attempts to dogmatize Darwinism as in Dawkinsian genetic determinism or reductionist selectionism or evolutionism) is just as diabolic as the ID-creationism (one which insists on denying the 19th-century Darwinism as the 21st-century Dawkinsism or neo-atheism or anti-theism, while without realizing that both science and Darwinism are not consequentially anti-religious, at all)!

Indeed, scientifically and philosophically, the reductionist narrow-minded Dawkinsism, does not represent, nor could it advance, the insightful broad-viewed Darwinism, at all; whereas the creator-implied ID-creationism, is not a scientific endeavor, ether -- as they both (consistently and literally) try to belittle each other’s misuse and abuse of the G-word, the implied-first cause agency in science and/or philosophy: the unidentifiable, mysterious, Intelligent Designer (or God) vs. the improbable, mystifying, Immortal Replicator (or Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene” and “meme” fallacy) -- a bad/fad (anti vs. pseudo) science (first cause) derogatory rhetoric (of the 20th century) that even Charles Darwin (1809-82) had never trained to imagine; nor set himself up, and out, to mythologize, identify, prove, and/or disprove (empirically) in his entire scientific and intellectual life, ever since his (delightful and faithful) embarking on the (around the world) HMS Beagle voyage (1831-36); whereupon and whereby he dutifully served as a broad-minded, curiously self-inquisitive, young, naturalist-taxonomist: both observant and insightful; critical and agnostic; self-disciplined and scientific; etc -- never speaking ill nor mocking anyone else’s religions, including his (wife to be) Emma’s and the Beagle ship-captain’s Christian faiths, beliefs, and values, etc!

Thus, caveat lector: the scientific and critical Darwinism has never been about anti-religious or moral issues; but it’s about the solid (observable) taxonomic science of life species, or organisms, on Earth -- as Darwinism had never been about the first cause theory of life or theology: whether genes or God has had indeed created the life species, including humans, on Earth!

To read Darwinism otherwise, is to distort and/or abuse science and Darwinism; especially in Dawkinsism, where Darwinism has had been used (irrationally and unscientifically) to attack and/or ridicule religionism (please see Dawkins’ 2006 book “The God Delusion”); while the ID-creationists have had also (irrationally and uncritically) responded to Dawkinsism (especially of his 1976 book “The Selfish Gene”) by (irrelevantly and unscientifically) denouncing the 19th-century Darwinism as being (biochemically and molecularly) unscientific (please see Michael Behe’s 1996 book “Darwin’s Black Box”)!

In retrospect, Charles Darwin had never trained to study and observe life species, at the microbial level (nor from a fundamentalist-creationist perspective); let alone at the molecular, or biochemical, or spiritual level -- it was the armchair neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins, who has had (unscientifically and uncharacteristically) reduced Darwinism (of the grand broad evolutionary idea) to his self-misguided narrow-view; or molecular, or biochemical, or genetic “selectionism” or “evolutionism” of “The Selfish Gene” and his rhetoric “meme” fantasies of the 20th century!

As such, while without presenting any specific (underlying) biogenetic mechanisms of their first cause fantasies; while both (unscientifically and disingenuously) attempting to mislead their (respective) unsuspecting readers, so as to agonize, embitter, and belittle each other’s irrationalisms: in their self-degrading spirits and intellects; in ridicules and anguishes; in confusions and fears; in science and religion; etc -- putting their (science and philosophy) carts in front of their (readership) horses, so to speak -- whereas to the eyes of (rationally) self-disciplined and well-read observers, including theologians, religionists, scholars, scientists, philosophers, etc -- both the neo-Darwinist reductionism and the ID-creationism, are the twin diabolically antagonistic, self-contradictory, and self-defeatist irrationalisms (scientific, spiritual, and/or religious) that are (mutually and unconscionably) dehumanizing each other at most extremes, in our otherwise holistic humanist existentialism, in both science and religion matters; as one that Einstein had had envisioned in the 1930s (quoted above); and one that I’ve had been (persistently and consistently) analyzing and presenting in this open thread, as well as elsewhere in this dynamic PhysForum (PhysOrg.com); like one in the immediate post above, that is to be expanded and discussed below:

QUOTE (Mong H Tan @ PhD,Jul 19 2009, 06:07 PM)

RE: Point of information: Beware of plagiarism!?

I would characterize Hitchens (as the literary polemicist in his book “God is Not Great”) as one of the 4 renowned (self-proclaimed) simpleton neo-atheists -- the other 3 being Richard Dawkins (their irrationalist-in-chief in his book “The God Delusion”), Daniel Dennett (the half-baked neo-Darwinist philosopher in his book “Breaking the Spell”), and Sam Harris (the half-baked Buddhist neuroscience polemicist in his book “The End of Faith”) -- all of whom I tried to categorically identify and describe in the “new humanism vs. irrationalism or new atheism or Dawkinsism” article above (GuardianUK; June 28) -- for their (persistently and consistently) incomprehensive world philosophies; abusive scholarships; and ill-attempted writings on the contemporary science, religion, socioeconomic and cultural issues, since their (shrilly and chillingly) rise to the post-9/11 (2001) simpleton (polemic) attacks on the (evermore complex) religionism of humanities, worldwide!

While extending my dialogues on these matters elsewhere -- without the benefits of my preamble definitions 1-5 above -- my recent comments had still faced censorship (probably under the influence and censorship of the Dawkinsian and/or Daniel Dennett’s readership or fandom) such as one presented below; one which was probably a result of the links that I provided in a recent response here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/be...37-6dd5df1fec75 "When does fandom become religion? -- RE: It all depends on fans' wisdom!?” (GuardianUK; July 21), which is quoted en masse for readers’ convenience below:

QUOTE (MongHTanPhD 21 Jul 09 @ 11:20pm (with minor edits))

RE: When does fandom become religion? -- It all depends on fans' wisdom!?

As an independent science-philosophy writer-critic, I’ve been curious and trying to decipher how Richard Dawkins could turn his “science” into a religion or scientism for a while now -- perhaps since 2006 when I first post my query in Cif here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...f5-90c990610b03 "Sue Blackmore: The selfish gene's birthday" in which Dawkins prophesized that 'If something is true, [ie his reductionist selfish gene theory] no amount of wishful thinking will change it!'

As such, there are absolutely no boundaries -- in the freedom of scientific pursuit and religious inquiry -- that can constrain any astute purveyors of scientism as science or as truth; lest they would have had been self-consciously and well-disciplined enough, so as to realize that what they are prophesizing, is (in fact) turning their (readership) fandom into a religious following!?

In the Dawkins case, over the course of 30 years, he has had been successfully turning or churning his seductive neo-Darwinist reductionism rhetoric (such as "gene” and “meme" in his 1976 book “The Selfish Gene”) into his anti-religious Dawkinsism (as "neo-atheism without conscience" in his 2006 book “The God Delusion” and more publications elsewhere worldwide).

The Dawkinsian penmanship of churning the 19th-century critical, scientific Darwinism into his 21st-century anti-religious, scientistic Dawkinsism, is extraordinary in the English literature; and is utterly stunning and unparallel in the modern science and philosophy literary industry worldwide! Ergo, the overlaps (or transitions) between fandom and religion in the Dawkinsian (uncritical but popular) readership, will be hard to discern indeed, for at least in some time to come -- perhaps in a generation or so as I recently commented here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2032....html?full=true "Fern Elsdon-Baker: The Dawkins dogma -- RE: Separating wheat from the chaff -- Dawkinsism vs. Darwinism!?" (NewScientistUK; July 18).

Best wishes, Mong 7/21/9usct5:22p; author “Decoding Scientism” and “Consciousness & the Subconscious” (works in progress since July 2007), “Gods, Genes, Conscience” (iUniverse; 2006) and “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” (blogging avidly since 2006).

While reviewing the GuardianUK post above, I found that my comment to the NewScientistUK article, had been deleted -- of which a file copy is quoted below for your reference:

QUOTE (with edits in red)

RE: Separating wheat from the chaff -- Dawkinsism vs. Darwinism!?

This is an excellent commentary on the Dawkins dogma or Dawkinsism since the 1970s!

In retrospect, and philosophically, Mary Midgley has had been one of the first philosophers of human nature and conscience: who was able to catch the neo-Darwinist reductionism (or Dawkinsism) on the spot; as she once reviewed his first reductionist book The Selfish Gene (1976); and vehemently opposed to the fact that -- let me paraphrase her view herein -- genes are not organisms (!?), or living beings that could express consciousness, let alone selfishness!?

Whereas Midgley's [critical humanist] view was largely ignored and rejected by Dawkins as being unscientific! [In fact, it was Dawkinsism that has had been extraordinarily reductionist and unscientific -- nor with any philosophical depths at all -- as the next generation of readers will soon find out (and as I’ve tried to characterize Dawkinsism as an irrationalism and pseudoscience, in my preamble definitions 1-5 above; and more discussions below). Recently, Midgley further espoused on selfishness, in the British philosophy tradition, that Dawkinsism has had miserably missed here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/be...ins-selfishness “Hobbes's Leviathan, Part 3: What is selfishness? -- How Richard Dawkins went further than Hobbes and ended up ludicrously wrong!”]

As one of the next generation of scholar-philosophers of science and evolutionary theory, perhaps Fern Elsdon-Baker could eventually fill Midgley's shoe by continuing to restore the Darwin's legacy to its original integrity: the one critical and scientific thinking (or Darwinism) that has had indeed been so reducibly distorted -- and abused -- by Richard Dawkins since the 1970s! Caveat lector!

Best wishes, Mong 7/18/9usct1:41p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_de...isbn=0595379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).

Furthermore, a GuardianUK reader kindly pointed my attention to an excellent “the psychoanalyst vs. the philosopher” article by Carlo Strenger here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/be...fd-fe24df653c62 "You'd better believe it: Daniel Dennett argues that many religious people don't truly believe. But though I sympathise, it's a case of wishful thinking!” to which I enthusiastically responded with “Why reductionist-sophists will not realize their thoughts are not rational nor scientific nor enlightening!?”

However, within 2 hours of posting, I found that my acute response was deleted without a trace -- a copy of which is quoted below for your reference -- and this provided me an opportunity of time and self-reflection, so as to revise and expand my censored criticism on the subject matter (from one of highly psychological, to one of generally philosophical: especially please note the animal behaviorism metaphor of playing “dead” which is replaced by the more humanist and philosophical expression of “evolutionary self-enlightened;” of “thoughts” by “theories of life and mind;” of “rational” by “complementary holistic;” of “mentality” by “philosophy of unbelief or neo-atheism;” etc) as edited below:

QUOTE (MongHTanPhD 22 Jul 09 @ 8:30pm (with edits in red))

RE: Why reductionist-sophists will not realize their [theories of life and mind] are not [complementary holistic] nor scientific nor enlightening!?

I thought this is an excellent psychoanalytic piece on the Dennettan [philosophy of unbelief or neo-atheism]!

However [as most keen-eyed detractor-critics of his reductionist theory of mind or “consciousness” may have known:] being an entrenched neo-Darwinist polemicist in his misreading and abusing of science (as in his 2006 book “Breaking the Spell”) and of Darwinism (as in his 1995 book “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”), Daniel Dennett -- like his irrationalist-in-chief Richard Dawkins [the author of 1976 book “The Selfish Gene”] -- probably wouldn’t so easily turn over and play [evolutionary self-enlightened]!?

This is because all irrationalists in anti-religionism [and/or in scientism], have had committed their irrationalism to their very neo-Darwinist reductionism of “sociobiology,” [the reductionist theories of life and mind, that have had been proclaiming: i)] that their irrationalism is in their genes [(the fundamental tenet of their reductionist evolutionism or neo-Darwinist genetic determinism or geneticism -- please see also EO Wilson’s 1975 book "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis"); ii) that organisms (including humans) are just machines, so as to serve at the replicating pleasure of their genes (hence the reductionist geneticism rhetoric of meme or myth: the selfish replicators); and iii) that robots could eventually evolve to be “conscious” machines -- all these irrationalist sophisms, that have had committed and subscribed (since the 1970s) to their incomprehensive neo-Darwinist reductionism of algorithmic or robo-genetic evolutionism, by their (consistently and insistently) misreading and abusing modern biology and philosophy of science and ME (mind and emotion); while further claiming that their reductionist Darwinism, is the “universal acid” (Dennett’s 1995 term) that is one caustic neo-Darwinist acid, which could (and would) burn through (literally) everything, including religions. This is exactly why (since 2006) they have had been setting (themselves and their readership) up, and out, so as to use and abuse both science and Darwinism, as their anti-religious tool -- hence the universal acid of their scientism or neo-atheism -- one that has had been used and advanced (persistently, self-degradingly, and sophistically) in attacking and/or ridiculing other people’s religions, worldwide (please see also Dawkins’ 2006 book “The God Delusion”]!

And, that’s why both Dawkins and Dennett, will never realize that the whole premise of their scholarly works -- primarily based on their armchair reductionism of Darwinism on life sciences -- is [philosophically] irrational, nor scientific, nor enlightening; whereas, in fact, they have had been turning their own readership or fandom into a religion of their own -- neo-atheism without conscience -- as I recently commented here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/be...37-6dd5df1fec75 "When does fandom become religion? -- RE: It all depends on fans' wisdom!?" (GuardianUK; July 21). Caveat lector!

Best wishes, Mong 7/22/9usct2:32p; author “Decoding Scientism” and “Consciousness & the Subconscious” (works in progress since July 2007), “Gods, Genes, Conscience” (iUniverse; 2006) and “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” (blogging avidly since 2006).

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, scrutinizing, introspecting, and enlightening worldwide!

Best wishes, Mong 8/2/9usct12:17p; independent science-philosophy critic; author Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; January 2006), and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since February 2006).

This post has been edited by Mong H Tan, PhD on Aug 2 2009, 05:21 PM

--------------------

Send PM · Send email · Website ·

AlexG	Posted: Aug 2 2009, 05:56 PM Quote
Advanced Member Group: Power Member Posts: 5359 Joined: 8-September 06 Positive Feedback: 73.91% Feedback Score: 108	The bullshi*t is incredibly deep. -------------------- Its the way nature is! If you dont like it, go somewhere else.... To another universe, where the rules are simpler Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy Prof Richard Fyenman (1979) ..... God does not roll dice with the Universe" - A. Einstein "God not only plays dice with the Universe, He rolls them where you can't see" - N. Bohr
	Send PM · Send email ·

RobDegraves

Posted: Aug 2 2009, 07:35 PM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 31-August 08

Positive Feedback: 68%
Feedback Score: 118

So.. an incredibly long and philosophically random post.. and yet you have not answered a single question.

I will repeat them for you then...

QUOTE

Where is your phd from?

What pioneering work have you done in cancer research?

Why is it that you are self published with no research work listed that I can find. For a "pioneer" that seems odd... don't you think?

All you have done so far is try to use ad hominems and obfuscation to avoid answering any direct question.

You have no credibility... and are getting even less every time you post.

--------------------

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "

Daniel Patrick “Pat” Moynihan

Send PM · Send email ·

buttershug

Posted: Aug 2 2009, 11:24 PM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5763
Joined: 30-September 07

Positive Feedback: 88%
Feedback Score: 146

QUOTE (ToeQuestor @ Jul 5 2009, 10:24 PM)

[One sometimes suspects that the acceptance of the “non-overlapping” verdict was a cause of some relief to many non-scientists such as myself, who prefer to argue with religion from different premises. But with the arrival on the scene of new information, the already-revived and extended argument for unbelief has undergone a sort of quantitative and qualitative acceleration. One side in this dispute is going to have to yield.

Rock, Scissors, Paper isn't the way to go.

But I would suggest a competition where each side has to complete a challenge.

For scientists it can be something like demonstrating that scientific beliefs regarding pendulums are accurate.
For the other side they can request a fresh copy of the Ten Commandments. (preferably counted out so there is no confusion as how to divide up the 14 paragraphs into 10 commandments.

--------------------

If you want to keep believing in the Wizard, never look behind the curtain. You will be disappointed.

Send PM · Send email ·

Physfan

Posted: Aug 16 2009, 12:51 AM

Quote

Former member with a member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: 15-November 05

Positive Feedback: 70.83%
Feedback Score: 30

QUOTE

The bullshi*t is incredibly deep.

No, just a lot of the same crap. (Though I am impressed that so many words can be used to say nothing!)

Physfan

This post has been edited by Physfan on Aug 16 2009, 12:51 AM

--------------------

Fanning the flames of reason.
Scepticism is healthy; it may save your life.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." A. Einstein

Send PM · Send email ·

Physfan

Posted: Aug 16 2009, 01:48 AM

Quote

Former member with a member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: 15-November 05

Positive Feedback: 70.83%
Feedback Score: 30

Oh dear, this is the bit of the review of Wright's book that Mung Bean did not quote:

QUOTE

This sounds pro-religion, but don’t expect Pope Benedict XVI to be quoting from Wright’s book anytime soon. Wright makes it clear that he is tracking people’s conception of the divine, not the divine itself. He describes this as “a good news/bad news joke for traditionalist Christians, Muslims and Jews.” The bad news is that your God was born imperfect. The good news is that he doesn’t really exist.(my emphasis)

I wonder why?

Mung Bean, your pretensions of intellectuallism have no basis; you are a fraud!

Physfan

This post has been edited by Physfan on Aug 16 2009, 01:49 AM

--------------------

Fanning the flames of reason.
Scepticism is healthy; it may save your life.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." A. Einstein

Send PM · Send email ·

nopEda

Posted: Aug 23 2009, 06:45 PM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1986
Joined: 27-April 09

Positive Feedback: 34.29%
Feedback Score: -221

QUOTE (Mong H Tan @ PhD,May 5 2006, 05:36 AM)

Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!

The schism: Epistemologically, the religious self-contradictory misgiving over science could be traced back in history to a time when Pope Urban VIII used the Church Inquisition on Galileo for Galileo’s emergence of Science and Reason, from their then total submission of Faith to Catholicism (or Religionism) in the early 17th century. Poignantly, such religious attempts to misdirect or derail the progress of science have had even reverberated today, notably Creationism vs. Evolution

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.

Send PM · Send email ·

Physfan

Posted: Aug 24 2009, 07:24 AM

Quote

Former member with a member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: 15-November 05

Positive Feedback: 70.83%
Feedback Score: 30

QUOTE

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.

***?

Physfan

--------------------

Fanning the flames of reason.
Scepticism is healthy; it may save your life.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." A. Einstein

Send PM · Send email ·

nopEda

Posted: Aug 24 2009, 06:11 PM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1986
Joined: 27-April 09

Positive Feedback: 34.29%
Feedback Score: -221

QUOTE (Physfan @ Aug 24 2009, 07:24 AM)

***?

_________________________________________________________
Attempt to think realistically basics list:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.

5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.

6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.

7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.

8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.

9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.

12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.

13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.

14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)

15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.

17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.

Send PM · Send email ·

flyingbuttressman	Posted: Aug 24 2009, 06:27 PM Quote
noblesse oblige / nullius in verba Group: Power Member Posts: 5823 Joined: 8-June 09 Positive Feedback: 68.66% Feedback Score: 166	nopEda, What is your definition of god? If your definition is "a being more powerful than a human" then I definitely agree. Unfortunately, that is not the definition that 99.9% of humans use. Would you like to share with us your definition? -------------------- "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' " - Isaac Asimov Hall of Shame - "The days of correct spelling are over." - Whitewolf4869
	Send PM · Send email ·

Physfan

Posted: Sep 25 2009, 09:49 AM

Quote

Former member with a member

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: 15-November 05

Positive Feedback: 70.83%
Feedback Score: 30

QUOTE

What is your definition of god? If your definition is "a being more powerful than a human" then I definitely agree. Unfortunately, that is not the definition that 99.9% of humans use. Would you like to share with us your definition?

A full month and no response!
knobEda has pretensions of a higher level of discourse in the concept of god; sadly, it is meaningless cr*p.

Physfan

--------------------

Fanning the flames of reason.
Scepticism is healthy; it may save your life.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." A. Einstein

Send PM · Send email ·

NoamGR	Posted: Oct 1 2009, 05:55 PM Quote
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 1-October 09 Positive Feedback: 0% Feedback Score: 0	I found this forum after seeing some very strange posts from a certain Mong H Tan, "Phd" on a number of scientific blog articles. At first I thought it was some sort of prank, but soon enough I realized this guy is serious. Mong, first of all, you desperately need to watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y I know you won't. I also know you won't read this or any other post which is addressed to you. I mean really read it. I've read through about a hundred of your posts, and though you are quick to judge others' inability to think critically, you are yet to answer a single of the following pertinent questions: 1) You say you have a Phd. In what field, and from what institution? What year did you graduate? -- This has been asked of you for years, and you are yet to respond to this very simple question. -- A Phd in any scientific field entails substantial experience in research: where have your papers been published? 2) For a Phd, your posts are ripe with errors in punctuation, syntax, and grammar; not to mention the misuse of terms, the rebranding of words whose meaning is already well established (such as scientism), and unnecessary neologisms to replace pre-existing words. Are you a native English speaker? 3) Though you are happy to throw around pseudo-philosophical musings, I am yet to read a post of yours in which you demonstrate even a rudimentary understanding of science. Particularly Biology or medicine, which I assume would be your field of study considering you claim to have been involved in cancer research. -- Furthermore, a large portion of any scientist's undergraduate education consists of being trained to express one's ideas in unambiguous, succinct language. By graduate school, this is second nature to most. -- The way in which you formulate your arguments is a clear indication to me that you have not received any formal training whatsoever in any scientific field. Based on your posts here and elsewhere on the internet, I strongly believe that you are in need of psychological counseling. I don't know if you are actually deluded to the point where you really believe you have a Phd and participated in cancer research. You are yet to provide your credentials (which you so often demand of others, but note that merely writing "Phd" after your name does not constitute a credential); this leads me to believe that you are aware of the unsubstantiated nature of your claim, if only at a subconscious level. Possibly you are in a state of such deep denial that you simply ignore these questions. In your fantasy, and this is evident from your way of expressing yourself and addressing others, you seem to be playing the role of a spiritual teacher teacher of sorts. You do not address people as your equal. This to me is unprecedented behavior even from the most prestigious of scientists. Even at the undergraduate level, one is always treated as an equal. Science is a group effort, and though some individuals have certainly acquired higher levels of knowledge and understanding than others, there are no gurus in science. You speak of helping people on their path. Do you see yourself as a spiritual leader? Your delusions of grandeur, your broken logic, and your inability to engage in a true adult conversation (one which involves addressing the issues raised by the other individual), leads me to think that you are ill. Some part of you must suspect there is something wrong with you. Some part of you must be aware of the overwhelmingly negative responses all of your posts receive. What about the people in your life? Are there any? -- Please seek help; it's never too late, and there's no shame in mental illnes This post has been edited by NoamGR on Oct 1 2009, 06:24 PM -------------------- http://noamgr.wordpress.com
	Send PM · Send email ·

« Next Oldest | Creation / Evolution | Next Newest »

Pages: (191) « First ... 148 149 [150] 151 152 ... Last »