"you're the retarded offspring of 5 monkies having butt sex with a fish squirrel, congratulations" lmao priceless

Is there anywhere I can go to see the rest of this now that youtube is off limits?

There are a couple of stories out there that YouTube has or is negotiating a deal with Comedy Central and that they've put some content back up.

I would have thought you'd put up the parts in the episode that make fun of Richard Dawkins and atheism?

Yes, actually I thought so as well :) Come on Norm! Give us the bit about Mr. Dawkins :)

This just wasn't a funny episode. I was looking forward to it but South Park has gone, well, south.

Plus, South Park is so misanthropic they don't really know what they are making fun of anymore.

South Park is rarely funny, but that was a nice change of pace.

South Park relies on toilet humour and it's the cat's meow.

South Park uses toilet humour to make current issues look absurd and it's teetering on the brink.

South Park develops chemistry with its characters and uses toilet humour while developing a conscience and it's gone downhill.

South Park becomes a hallmark of this generation and it's rarely funny.

Somewhere along the line I just stopped listening to people.

http://tvlinks.julepalme.dk/

and www.allsp.com

They both have links to all 10 south park seasons as well as about 40 other shows.

"Is there anywhere I can go to see the rest of this now that youtube is off limits?"

My favourite place,

http://cartman-2000.ath.cx/html/

SouthPark is lame. Just try to make conflict and toliet humor or low humor and there you go.

I laughed my ass off when Dawkins was banging "Mrs." Garrison. That was truly a lewd and hilarious sight

this episode was really stupid. they could bring it around with part two, i dunno where theyre going with it quite. but so far the over-arching points have just been stupid, and they are "debunking" claims ive never heard dawkins say, such as if religion were eliminated all wars would end. or that evolution proves that god doesnt exist. its just stupidly reactionary.

I thought that while the episode wasn't all that funny, the point(s) they were trying to make (IMO) were pretty good. Mrs. Garrison didn't believe in evolution, and sold it as a ridiculous idea. Then she did believe in it, and used evolution alone as absolute proof that there is no God. I thought this was something that people at OGM would appreciate. Ignorance is not exclusive to religious people. That's what I thought the point was. Not whether Dawkins actually wants to do away with religion altogether or not. You can be an atheist and still be ignorant. You can be religious and still be intelligent. I took the episode to be saying that atheism is not the end-all solution to the problems we see (as some people seem to tout it). Ignorance is the real core problem behind it all. If we were to convince every person in the world that there was no supernatural force at work in the world, those people who were ignorant before would still be ignorant. I thought that was what the issue was at the end of the episode. We will always find things to disagree with each other about hate each other for.

Anyway, sorry if you already understood this stuff and felt like this was a worthless post. It just seemed to me like a lot of people missed the point. Toilet humor aside, I thought there were some relevant points brought up in the episode.

DING! We have a winner!

dsioso hit the nail on the head. Southpark rarely takes sides on issues. They typically make both sides look absurd simply by pointing out how we tend to latch onto our side of an issue, and defend it at all costs while ignoring any points made by the other side.

I think Southpark's success lies in thier ability to make thought-provoking points, while still entertaining the majority of its audience, who are completely ignorant to the message.

The side South Park took this time was utterly ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong, their episodes were funny (like Dawkin's and Garrison's sex scene...LMAO!), but making the claim that people would fight in the name of disbelief is asinine to say the least. Oh yeah, I can see it now, a group of atheists blow themselves up in an embassy because they're lack of tenants told them to.

In part II, they called Richard a 'dick' for questioning belief. If that's being a dick, then we're all assholes for questioning the Bush Administration or flatearthers. It strikes me odd they would completely mock Scientology, yet bend over backwards for Christianity. They might as well come out and draw a South Park character getting pounded in the ass by Jesus so that we know where they're coming from.

People would fight in the name of science like they do in the name of a god because one group will always find a reason why their view of god/science/etc... is superior to another groups. And some people aren't satisfied with debate, they have to kill those who don't agree with them. Furthermore, how were they (Matt and Trey) bending over backwards for Christainity? The episode was about faith in a god (not Jesus specifically) vs. faith in science. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on faith. Everyone has faith in something, they just have faith in different things (Jesus, Buddah, the Universe, Science, Allah, etc...). I think this was one of the point of the show. This show has never bent over backwards for Christianity. They take Jesus' name in vain at least once an episode. I actually though it was pretty funny and original how the future athiests substituted science in for God and Jesus in the curses they said. And, in case you forgot, the halloween episode had Catholic Priests holding ropes with naked slave children tied to them. I don't see that as bending over backwards for Christianity. I don't see how anyone could believe what you said unless they are a close-minded athiest or scientologist. And they didn't say Dawkins was a 'dick' for questioning belief. They said he turned into someone hwo acted like a 'dick' to all those who didn't agree with what he believed. It's cool to have your own beliefs, and to share them, just don't force them on others - unless their necessary for the proper functioning of society (i.e. don't murder, don't steal, etc...)

People would fight in the name of science like they do in the name of a god because one group will always find a reason why their view of god/science/etc... is superior to another groups. And some people aren't satisfied with debate, they have to kill those who don't agree with them.

Science describes a method for understanding the nature of the universe, not a belief-system. Science does not require beliefs at all. It does not produce anything except knowledge. Science, if you were not aware by the way, means knowledge. (It comes from the Latin term scientia.) Science cannot create problems. We do not need to go that far in time, like they did in the episode, to see if science would make people kill each other. Science and scientific thought have existed for quite some time now and wars have not been waged because of it. It takes people of belief, ignorance, or greed to use the fruits of its knowledge in devastating ways. It does not come from coincidence that ever since our religious-right government took power in 2000, that they have suppressed scientific knowledge, while at the same time accelerated the growth of faith-based initiatives. The people who make political-religious decisions serve as the aim for blame, not scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, how were they (Matt and Trey) bending over backwards for Christainity? The episode was about faith in a god (not Jesus specifically) vs. faith in science. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on faith.

I understand their attempt to criticize both sides; however I’ve yet to see a defense for absurdities like Scientology. I doubt we would get that, mostly in part due to a vast majority of believers. You’re right that the monopoly doesn’t just rest in Jesus; however, the monopoly on monotheism and its origins goes back to the Judeo-Christian-Islamo religions. Most religions at the time of these three major religion’s beginnings were polytheistic. This idea that one god may be possible stems from these religions and then is just diluted for a philosophically sophisticated crowed—which is not a large percentage by the way. Again you say ‘faith in science’. Although some scientists do believe their theories, it has no requirement at all. Yes science produces confidence because the repeatability of the tests confirm a hypothesis (probability). Thinking in terms of probabilities allow scientists to make reliable (but not absolute) predictions about the world, all without requiring beliefs. For example, I don't have to test every day the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. I know this because we have a record of reliable scientific observation that makes this prediction. I consider all beliefs to be problematic, though some beliefs can go from being fundamentally catastrophic down to very benign forms of belief like an un-institutionalized belief in God (though still irrational).

Everyone has faith in something, they just have faith in different things (Jesus, Buddah, the Universe, Science, Allah, etc...).

‘Everyone has a faith in something.’ Many a believer, religious and atheist alike, will become astonished at any statement against belief, if for no other reason because they believe and the people around them have beliefs. They tend to form a belief-of-its-own that projects beliefs onto others. However, simply because most people own beliefs does not necessarily follow that all people require the concept of belief. To claim the knowledge that everyone on earth believes in something portends an astonishing statement. It would require an omniscient ability to see into the minds of every human on earth. Moreover, many people fail to understand that belief requires conscious acceptance. People who own beliefs (unless they lie) do not deny them. Quite the contrary, people who believe, admit their beliefs quite readily. Furthermore, few people stop to ask what we mean by beliefs or understand that one can replace belief with other forms of "thinking." Either I don't know, I have a guess (a hypothesis), or I know (with relatively high probability). Nowhere do I require the ownership of a belief or absolutes.

I think this was one of the point of the show. This show has never bent over backwards for Christianity. They take Jesus' name in vain at least once an episode. I actually though it was pretty funny and original how the future athiests substituted science in for God and Jesus in the curses they said. And, in case you forgot, the halloween episode had Catholic Priests holding ropes with naked slave children tied to them. I don't see that as bending over backwards for Christianity. I don't see how anyone could believe what you said unless they are a close-minded athiest or scientologist.

Now I’m close-minded because I thought they’re points were ridiculous? Although many theists may become offended at South Park’s portrayal at religion and belief, I am not offended at they’re portrayal at science or atheism simply because I hold no beliefs in neither. Atheism is essentially nothing. I have yet to come across a philosopher who summed up their worldly views as simply ‘atheism’. It’s just an identifier because to theists, because to them we are a-theists. So my criticism wasn’t based on hurt feelings. I just found it moronic how they think anyone could ever fight in the name of disbelief.

Although religion does not produce all the hostile actions people do to each other, it does serve as one of the most powerful causes (something onegoodmove reader Dionysus finds hard to understand).

Homo sapiens are not hostile by our nature. We have to be taught to hate. We have to be taught how to kill. It comes from social conditioning that causes humans to act violently against each other, not biological nature. Moreover, not all societies are hostile. Some are peaceful others are violent; it depends on their particular belief system or lack of beliefs.

The archeological and historical record shows that human violence increased after the monotheistic religions came into existence. The scripts derived from Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions depend on war and violence. It's not surprising that religions that don't have violent scripts are far more peaceful (such as Jainism or Buddhism, for example).

Furthermore, secular humanists and atheists as a group have shown that they are far less violent than religious groups. It is well known, for example, that jails are filled with religious minded people, with very few atheists. Ever hear about an atheist war?

On the contrary, it is naive to think that violence wouldn't decrease without Christianity (or Islam, Judaism, etc.). The evidence is strongly against your view (and South Park’s for that matter).

And they didn't say Dawkins was a 'dick' for questioning belief. They said he turned into someone hwo acted like a 'dick' to all those who didn't agree with what he believed. It's cool to have your own beliefs, and to share them, just don't force them on others - unless their necessary for the proper functioning of society (i.e. don't murder, don't steal, etc...)

Force them onto others?! Are you seriously out of your marbles. Honestly! How is Dawkins “forc[ing] them on others” as you claim? If writing a book and engaging in debate, in your mind, equals the bigotry, intolerance, hatefulness, and suffering religious beliefs have caused to others as a result, then you have seriously lost it. I blame TV! No, but seriously with all jokes aside, how about putting people ABOVE beliefs did that ever cross your mind? Who says we shouldn't confront and question beliefs that trigger or cause violent action? It describes one thing to say that people have a right to exist, but since when do beliefs in-themselves have that right? Instead of respecting the beliefs over the lives of people, how about respecting people over beliefs?

Consider this, the fact that some people pick and choose which beliefs to accept while ignoring other beliefs (found in the Bible or other religious scripts) should send out a red flag in showing that we have proven to be far above such intransigent, dangerous beliefs. Some give religion credit for our morality yet we have shown to be above such corrupt beliefs by our very rejection of them. Here is an interesting read on what is being studied currently about ethics.

As for an un-institutionalized belief in God, it is true that this isn’t the God that is getting people killed. Neither is believing in tooth fairies or Loch Ness monsters. Yet I fail to see how we would be dicks in throwing them into discussion and questioning, and labeling this as ‘forcing beliefs’ on others. Very imaginative thinking Corporealbeing.

Erick,

Hey bro, well written response ... thought provoking. Sorry I called people who believed what you wrote “close-minded”. I admit that was uncalled for (argumentum ad hominem) and I apologize. I don’t like when people do that to me, so I need to be more cognizant not to do that to others. Even though I disagree with your analysis of the situation, it is refreshing to see someone who appears to actually think! I think that is one of the problems of this society – that too many people lack any sort of intellectual bent.

In order to present why I tend to think the way I do about the issues in question I’ll present you with a few points to consider.

1. From your original post it appeared to compare belief in God (or a higher intelligence) with proponents of a flat earth. If this is not the case then please disregard the following statements in this point… Athiests sometimes compare Christians to flat earth proponents. According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for theological reasons that the earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the earth is actually a sphere, most Christians acknowledged their mistake, but a few continue to persist in their outmoded belief. The story is false. It began as fiction, and it was elevated to a historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it as a weapon to ridicule Christians. The ancient Greeks knew the shape of the earth was spherical. Additionally, Christian theologians contended that the earth was spherical. The only two who are known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century writer, Cosmas Indicopleustes. These were really second-stringers. The more influential theological minds of that period were Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Augustine — none of whom thought the earth was flat. A major promulgator of the flat earth myth was the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus had been opposed by people who not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a pretty good idea of how big it was - but who knew nothing of the Americas and thus thought a voyage to the Far East would take too long and cost too much. The flat earth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Two of Darwin’s followers then elevated it to a historical claim in books defending Darwinism and attacking Christianity: John Draper’s: The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White’s: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). For more info regarding the flat earth myth, see Jeffrey Burton Russell’s (Professor of History, University of California at Santa Barbara), Inventing the Flat Earth.

2. I agree with your assessment that science produces knowledge. That why I love science, because I also love knowledge. I would contend that science does require at least some presuppositional beliefs as Michael Guillen a PhD who taught theoretical physicists at Harvard points out: i.e. The principle of sufficient reason – the assumption that every mystery has an explanation, the principle of the excluded middle – the assumption that every imaginable proposition is either true or false, the principle of Occam’s Razor – the assumption that the simplest explanation that describes all of the observations is always the best. I would add that the faith in the logic and reason of humanity is a necessary presupposition of science [as a side note, Bahnsen and Van Til have actually argued quite eloquently that without God there would be no possibility for reason or logic in the universe.] I like Einstein’s quote: “I think science without religion is lame and, conversely, religion without science is blind.”

3. I still don’t see a defense for Christianity specifically in the episode. Jesus wasn’t even in the episode. It was about faith in a higher being vs. faith in science. Scientology was defended inasmuch as it is simply another system of belief in a higher power (very powerful aliens in their case). The Judeo-Christian god was not defended in the episode. And as I aforementioned, I have seen the opposite in the previous episodes – they have had the tendency to mock and ridicule belief systems (Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, and now Secular Humanism). Which is cool as long as there are consistent in their mockings, and this demonstrated that they seem to be. Also the points that I brought up before about the Halloween episode just the week before was obviously derogatory toward Catholicism. I think you kind of sidestepped those facts in your previous post.

4. Not just people of belief (I assume you are referring to belief in a god here) and ignorance, but people of lacking belief in a god and people of intelligence can use knowledge in devastating ways as well, just look at Stalin. According to conservative estimates, from 1917 to 1991, atheist governments massacred close to 100 million people (some of the worst offenders -- USSR: 20M, China: 65M, N. Korea and Cambodia 2M each).

5. You wrote: “To claim the knowledge that everyone on earth believes in something portends an astonishing statement. It would require an omniscient ability to see into the minds of every human on earth.” As I’m sure you realize, we are non-omniscient beings, and therefore we are wholly incapable of making any exhaustive truth claims. Everything we say is based upon probabilities. As you alluded, only an omniscient being can make a universal truth claim. This is one reason why your statement, “science and scientific thought have existed for quite some time now and wars have not been waged because of it” is problematic, because it would also require all knowledge of all wars and the underlying causes of said wars. And even if it hasn’t happened, doesn’t meant that it can’t/won’t.

6. You stated: “Although religion does not produce all the hostile actions people do to each other, it does serve as one of the most powerful causes”. Religion is a powerful tool, and like any powerful tool it can be used for great good or great evil depending on who wields it. A couple of facts to consider in defense of religion’s beneficial effects:

7. in a study of 21,204 adults spanning a decade, it was found that people who attended church @ least once a week lived 7 years longer than those who did not, and for African Americans the disparity was even more stunning – 14 years!
8. In God, Faith and Health Jeff Levin details how those with intelligence and faith in a god heal faster from illness and surgery, recover more easily from substance and alcohol abuse, cope better with stress, trauma and emotional loss, be less likely to suffer from depression, and be more likely to feel happy and optimistic.

9. Most of the initial hospitals (1st hospital in U.S. New York’s Bellevue Hospital), universities (Harvard, Yale, etc., etc.), and public service groups were founded by churches or religiously motivated people. In a 2002 edition of Non-profit Times the 7 financially largest publicly supported philanthropies in the U.S. were: YMCAs, Red Cross, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Goodwill, United Jewish Communities, and Boys and Girls Club. All of which have religious foundings.

10. You stated “Homo sapiens are not hostile by our nature. We have to be taught to hate. We have to be taught how to kill.” I think that by simply looking at the actions of a baby one can see that a baby doesn’t have to be taught to be selfish, as they grow, hopefully, the parents will teach them to be less selfish, and to be more loving, humble, and caring. It is the inherent selfishness that leads to the desire to “get what I want at any costs”, even if it means hurting someone else to obtain it.

11. You stated: “Furthermore, secular humanists and atheists as a group have shown that they are far less violent than religious groups. It is well known, for example, that jails are filled with religious minded people, with very few atheists.” Interesting point, I didn’t realize this. Thank you for this piece of information. Where did you obtain this info? I think that non-thinkers tend to just semi-align themselves with what they believe everyone else believes. I don’t have data to support this, but from personal experience I would have to say that, agnostics and atheists are generally more intellectual than those who profess a faith (percentage wise). I would say that this is by necessity since those who lack belief in a higher power are in the minority, and they most likely have to defend their view more often. I mention all that to say that I believe that intellectual people tend to not get themselves into situations that would lead to incarceration (whether they believe in a divine being or not). I would further argue, that if those people in prison had followed the basic tenets of, say, Christianity, that are highlighted by most churches (love God, love your neighbor as yourself, be humble, give of yourself, etc…), they wouldn’t be in prison. Just because someone professes a particular faith/belief doesn’t mean that they follow it with their actions.

12. “Force them onto others?! Are you seriously out of your marbles. Honestly! How is Dawkins “forc[ing] them on others” as you claim?… how about putting people ABOVE beliefs did that ever cross your mind? Who says we shouldn't confront and question beliefs that trigger or cause violent action? It describes one thing to say that people have a right to exist, but since when do beliefs in-themselves have that right? Instead of respecting the beliefs over the lives of people, how about respecting people over beliefs?” Actually, now that you mention it, I don’t know where my marbles are. I used to have a big coffee can of them that I used to play with when I was a youngster… maybe I’ll have to check on that the next time I head to see my parents. But seriously, it seems I wasn’t clear enough in my previous post, and I think some concepts got lost/skewed in transmission. I wasn’t stating that Dawkins was forcing his beliefs (in the real world that is), but that in the episode they (Dawkins and Garrison) essentially forced everyone to abandon any faith except in Science. Although an argument could possibly be made for naturalistic humanists forcing their beliefs on others, but I’m not going to go there. Forcing beliefs is also seen in some of the variations of the religions of the world, so even if it is true it wouldn’t make humanism and worse than other belief systems. I’m all about examining beliefs. I agree with Socrates that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. I also fully agree that we need to respect people, and the beliefs that encourage that should be the ones that are maintained. It’s just a matter of debate as to which ones best serve to help people. Perhaps one day these matters will be resolved, but obviously not today – and probably not tomorrow ;-)

13. You seem to believe that non-institutionalized religion is the only acceptable form. Perhaps you are implying that all institutional religions incite that which is evil. To state this would also require omniscience (see above discussion). As one would have to have all knowledge of institutional religions. With thousands, and probably more, institutional religions in existence this would be a near impossibility. Without significant study, I would contend that it would even be very difficult to make a statistically valid assertion of the same.

14. “Very imaginative thinking Corporealbeing.” Thanks, you too.

Well, this response has grown considerably longer that I intended. I have a tendency to be long winded on occasion . In closing, once again, I’m sorry if anything I said offended you [not being sarcastic]. I liked how you encouraged me reconsider my positions and presuppositions. Southpark is nothing if not thought provoking and conversation provoking. If you would like to continue discussions in a better venue (email) let me know and I’ll give you my email address, or you can post yours. Keep thinking bro, I like it!

Corp: "I like Einstein’s quote: “I think science without religion is lame and, conversely, religion without science is blind.”"

Einstein's definition of religion is about 180 degrees from yours. Einstein was an atheist. Please don't try to justify your faith by misinterpreting an atheist.

Corporealbeing, you do recall that the Church prosecuated Copernicus and Galileo for going against the long held Church view that the sun revolves around the Earth?

Second, you do know that the founders of the major religions did not create anything resembling institutionalised religion in their day.

The Protestant Movement arose partly to loosen the hold of institutionalised religion over religious knowledge, so that common people can have direct access to such knowledge.

I'm not too sure what are the other points you are trying to make in your last post actually, though I note that you tried hard to sound reasonable?

In response to Carn: Did Einstein actually ever say that he was an athiest? From what I've read of him it would seem that he could more accurately be described as an deist (someone who doesn't believe in a personal God, but rather some form of higher power) or possibly an agnostic. One of his quotes that especially makes me think that he wasn't an atheist was when he said: "I can not prove to you that there is no personal God...". As I mentioned, he said he didn't believe in a personal god, but he also said that he couldn't prove it - and this qoute doesn't even address his belief in the existence of a non-personal god. If you are an athiest I'm sure you are aware that athiest comes from the greek Theos (meaning god or God) and the "a" acts as a negator. Therefore atheos (athiest) essentially means there is no god. I have not seen where Einstein has ever said that there is no god, nor have I seen an instance wherein he referred to himself specifically as an athiest. If you could produce one of these two pieces of proof, you could change my mind on the matter (assuming he didn't renig on his statement later in life). From my experience, everyone (with you being the exception) with which I have conversed has seemed to view Einstein as a Deist.

If I may intervene corporealbeing…

In response to Carn: Did Einstein actually ever say that he was an athiest? From what I've read of him it would seem that he could more accurately be described as an deist (someone who doesn't believe in a personal God, but rather some form of higher power) or possibly an agnostic.

Actually Einstein has stated that he admired Spinosa’s God. Spinosa was a pantheist, not a deist like Voltaire or Diderot for example. Here’s the statement:

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. (Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.)

To review what a pantheist is for our onegoodmove readers, a pantheist does not actually believe in a supernatural God. A pantheist uses the word “God” as a non-supernatural, non-metaphysical synonym for Nature or the Universe. Deists, unlike pantheists, actually believe in some form of cosmic intelligence rather than utilize the word poetically or metaphorically for the laws of the universe.

One of his quotes that especially makes me think that he wasn't an atheist was when he said: "I can not prove to you that there is no personal God...". As I mentioned, he said he didn't believe in a personal god, but he also said that he couldn't prove it - and this qoute doesn't even address his belief in the existence of a non-personal god. If you are an athiest I'm sure you are aware that athiest comes from the greek Theos (meaning god or God) and the "a" acts as a negator. Therefore atheos (athiest) essentially means there is no god. I have not seen where Einstein has ever said that there is no god, nor have I seen an instance wherein he referred to himself specifically as an athiest.

This strikes me as odd because Richard Dawkins, to use one example, is a vocal atheist—a self-proclaimed atheist mind you—and in his new book he says he cannot disprove God. I mean, he even has a chapter in his book The God Delusion (Chapter 4) titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God.” One of the common mistakes is that people tend to think that it is up to the atheist to disprove all absurdities people adhere to. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. The word atheism shouldn’t even exist. I mean, we don’t have words for people who are not alchemists. We don’t have words for people that don’t stick to the belief in Santa, the tooth fairy, or the Loch Ness monster. Atheism is about rejecting any and all belief in theism. Agnosticism is about not having knowledge (gnosis) of god (or gods). Therefore, it is possible to be both an agnostic atheist. Many atheists, like Sam Harris, don’t even like to use the word themselves as they find it utterly useless. Others, like Einstein, used it for the purpose of flowery language.

One can easily define God, however, to mean something completely different than the most common definition used. The concept of god depends on what you mean by the word. If you define god as nature or the universe it only substitutes a religious word for a scientific one. The universe appears to us in physical ways and science describes its properties. Religion based on superstition can never hope to understand nature. However, if by god, you mean a Spirit or Supreme Creator, as the way the Bible describes it, of course one cannot prove it without evidence. How can one prove something that does not exist? Proof only applies to things which exist in either matter-energy or from logical constructs (such as mathematics). If you believe in a God, then I demand the proof from you. So far, not a shred of evidence throughout the history of mankind has shown the existence of any god, spirit, or ghost. Neither have we evidence for goblins, Loch Ness monsters, or alien spacecraft. If, on the other hand, we receive valid evidence of these claims, we can then determine the validity of their existence.

Let me sum up Einsteinian religion in one more quotation from Einstein himself:

To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. (Einstein's speech 'My Credo' to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932)

In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that ‘cannot grasp’ does not have to mean ‘forever ungraspable.’ But I do not prefer to call myself religious because it is misleading since to the vast majority of people ‘religion’ means ‘supernatural’.

Carl Sagan put it well: ‘…if by “God” one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying…it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.’

Sort of gives new meaning to the statement you provided: “I think science without religion is lame and, conversely, religion without science is blind.”

If you could produce one of these two pieces of proof, you could change my mind on the matter (assuming he didn't renig on his statement later in life). From my experience, everyone (with you being the exception) with which I have conversed has seemed to view Einstein as a Deist.

I don’t know whether I’ve convinced you or not; however, the evidence should speak for itself regardless of your own personal beliefs and convictions. Hypothetically placing ourselves in a world in which Einstein did in fact believe in a God—and for the sake of argument we’ll say a personal God—this would still fall under the category of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Simply because someone is a scientist who is brilliant in many areas does not mean we should take his or her word on everything simply based on their authority alone, as these people earned their status by convincing others of the nature of the universe through facts and findings.

To use the argument Sam Harris made in one of his recent articles recent articles:

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

You make the claim that Einstein wasn’t an atheist because he never made the statement that he was. Though, by your logic, where is a statement that he said he was a deist?

I await your evidence.

Erick,

Your comment about Einstein being a pantheist reminded me of a funny story that highlights the problem some have with such terms.

http://www.onegoodmove.net/anecdotal/2002/07/02/how-sad/

I wasn't aware of a OMG.net. Is this another site you run?

It is. A more appropriate place to post the more personal and sometimes more sappy stuff I write.

Corporealbeing said: - in a study of 21,204 adults spanning a decade, it was found that people who attended church @ least once a week lived 7 years longer than those who did not, and for African Americans the disparity was even more stunning – 14 years!

If the study spanned a decade, did the subjects change their diet or exercise patterns?

Btw, there was an exhaustive study that prayer does not have sick people about 6-8 months back.

Kes, I could be wrong but I think the prayer study you're talking about was conducted in 2005 by the American Heart Journal where bypass surgery patients who were aware that they were being prayed for developed more complications than patients who were unaware of prayers on their behalf, and patients who were unaware that they were being prayed for had more major complications than those who were not prayed for as part of the study.

A fun site that mentions this is whywontgodhealamputees

Hi Erick, yes that's the research I was referring to i.e. more prayers lead to graver illnesses.

Here's anotehr surprising turth.

A Surprising Secret to a Long Life: Stay in School

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/health/03aging.html?th&emc=th

James Smith, a health economist at the RAND Corporation, has heard a variety of hypotheses about what it takes to live a long life — money, lack of stress, a loving family, lots of friends. But he has been a skeptic.

Yes, he says, it is clear that on average some groups in every society live longer than others. The rich live longer than the poor, whites live longer than blacks in the United States. Longevity, in general, is not evenly distributed in the population. But what, he asks, is cause and what is effect? And how can they be disentangled?

... “If you were to ask me what affects health and longevity,” says Michael Grossman, a health economist at the City University of New York, “I would put education at the top of my list.” ...

Sorry for the typos:

Here's another surprising truth.

Hey Norm, did you get the post I submitted (it was either yesterday - the 3rd - or the day before - the 2nd) in response to Erick?. Just wondering if it made it through or not - if I possibly made a mistake. btw, thanks for doing the work to keep this site up, it's a cool site.

Corporealbeing,

I didn't see it. I suspect you failed to type in the challenge word or mistyped it. In that case they go into the junk folder. I don't ususally check it since it captures mostly spam comments.

Thanks for the reply Norm. Sorry about the mixup. Well, I didn't save the reply, and I don't have the desire to retype it all, so I'll synopsize... Erick, basically what I said in the last post was that I don't have a big problem with thinking of Einstein as a pantheist. But there are some things that Einstein said that would still have me lean toward seeing him as not being a pure pantheist. And as a side note I didn't require Carn to produce evidence that Einstein said he was an athiest, but simply to produce proof that he should be viewed as such (i.e. through quotes). Thanks for the info though Erick. I liked your reference to Voltare, I didn't realize that he was a deist. I had heard of him, but I hadn't read Voltare before. For some reason I was thinking that he was an athiest - probably someone told me that in error, and I never researched the matter. I read a little of him after your post, and I found him to have some interesting ideas. Thanks again.

Hi corporalbeing, you seem to imply that Einstein was a pantheist or he saw no conflict between God and science.

I will like to challenge your claim, if this is so, with quotes from Einstein that indicate a non-existent belief in God.

Einstein does not see any conflict between science and philosophies/religions like Buddhism, which is not a theistic religion i.e. with a belief in God.

Here are some sources and personal quotes from Einstein on this subject.

Not once did Einstein mention the three letter word i.e. God.

Was Einstein a Buddhist?

http://home.btconnect.com/scimah/einstein.htm

Examples:

1] Quantum physics and the EPR ( Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox )

'...Basically, what quantum theory says is that fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities. They have no inherent existence from their own side and do not become 'real' until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. Whenever and wherever there is no mind there is no meaning and no reality...'

2] Computer science and Artificial Intelligence

'...According to Buddhist philosophy this [limitation of Artificial Intelligence] is hardly surprising, as the Mother of All Algorithms is itself NOT an algorithm and never could be programmed. The Mother of All Algorithms is the formless mind imputing meaning onto its objects (i.e. imputing meaning on to the sequential and structural components of the algorithm as it is being written).. '

3] Mathematics

'.....in the final analysis the entire number system has been generated by the play of mind on emptiness, in the complete absence of the need to refer to any material thing, or things, which are being counted. Numbers do not exist by reference to physical reality, nor are they self-existent, abstract 'things in themselves'...'

4] Emergent phenomena

'...One interesting aspect of emergent phenomena is the different causal and organisational relationships which appear at different levels of investigation. For example, ecology emerges out of biology, which emerges out of chemistry, which emerges out of physics, which emerges out of mathematics, which emerges out of the mind contemplating the empty set. Each level of investigation has its own explanatory relationships, yet if we check carefully there is no 'added extra' coming from the side of the objects. (Everything is algorithmically compressible without remainder, there are no mysterious ingredients added as we progress from lower levels to higher levels). Emergent phenomena emerge from the mind of the observer, not from the object being observed...'

5] Evolution and taxonomy

'....The biological species concept does not reflect any underlying reality. A species is purely a snapshot of an interbreeding population of organisms at a particular epoch in time, and as time progresses the characteristics of that population will gradually change in response to selective pressures....Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading . Buddhist philosophers consequently rejected the Platonic idea of production from 'ideal forms' as being the fallacy of 'production from inherently existent other'. ...there is nothing whatsoever that is inherently or independently existent..'

6] Psychology

'...And so we continue along the via negativa - examining everything that could possibly be the root cause of what we are, including our beliefs, expectations, attachments, memes, mental processes, habits, evolutionary history, instincts, memories, childhood traumas and so on - and discarding each in turn. Eventually, when all things and all relationships have been exhausted, we become aware of the emptiness of our Self. It isn't nothingness that we become aware of, it is pure formless mind , which is empty of any defining or determining essence...'

7] Formless mind

'...The fact that the mind is formless means that it is unconstrained, and hence has immense potential. The mind can comprehend all objects including its own creations. The description of the root mind as 'formless' doesn't just refer to its non-material nature, but it emphasises that it is unlimited, non-mechanistic and totally free from any structure and all the other algorithmic constraints . In Buddhist psychology the root mind is non-physical and non-algorithmic. The mind cannot be understood in terms of circuit diagrams and flowcharts. It is pure awareness...'

8] Cosmology

'..Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives..'

9] Life the Universe and everything

'...We see the world in terms of 'things' because our genes are telling us to grab resources. But if we take a step back and view the universe in terms of geological and cosmic timescales, it is apparent that there are no inherently existent things, only processes of continual change. All phenomena are dependently-related and empty of any defining essence....Individuals, buildings, artifacts, species, continents, planets and stars are transient phenomena caused by the temporary coming together of parts....'

====

Einstein makes utterly no reference to the belief in God and that all things are in the Bible.

In fact, Einstein challenges the Christian perspective of reality using insights from science and philosophies.

It's easier to think of Einstein as a nihilist who seems to deny all real existence.

Kes,

actually it was Erick that proposed that Einstein was probably a panthiest based on his reference to Spinoza's God. I simply thought about his points after he posted them. Interesting points in your post though! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. As for the pantheist/buddish argument perhaps Erick can respond to your arguments with his own to show why he thinks that Einstein is more pantheistic that Buddistic (if that's what he was actually arguing)?

Oh yeah, and one more thing to kes... You said that Einstein never mentined God, but he actually did say that God doesn't play dice ("God does not play dice with the universe."), and that he'd like to know how God created the world ("I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."). he actually used the word god many times. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement? He also seemed to refer to a superior spirit and intelligence in quotes like the following: "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." & "The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

I'm interested to know how you interpret these quotes. To me they seem to lean towards more of a spiritual worldview.

And as far as the Bible goes, I never mentioned that. I would never make the mistake of classifying Einstein as a person who follows the Bible, although he did have some kind words for Jesus among other spiritual personalities ("What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind.")

Thanks for taking the time to converse with me. I appreciate you inputs!

I think you confused corporalbeing for me. I was the one who said Einstien was a pantheist in my argument and provided a quote from Einstein himself. Look at my comment on Jan. 2, 2007 2:24 AM on this page. He also did mention the three letter word "God", just didn't believe in one.

In the first chapter of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion:

I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.

-Albert Einstein

Hi Erick, my mistake.

But the quote you provided confirm to my opinion of Eintein as an nihilistic atheist theogh

Hey Norm, I posted 2 times last night (early this morning), did those make it through?

Hi corporalbeing, I realisd my mistake.

However, my quotes support my view that Einstein does not subscribe to a theistic view on the UNiverse when it comes to various topics about science and the universe.

I've read the quotes you provided but until you can provide me with the context from where they are delivered, it's hard to take them seriously as an indication that Einstein believed in God.

He may be making some general comments or pollitically correct statements at some function.

My quotes come with the specific topics that he was addressing and they clearly showed no reference to the belief in the hand of God when it comes to how the universe was formed.

Hey kes,

Thanks for the reply. Actually it seems that what you posted were not actually quotes from Einstein, but rather you cut and pasted from the link you supplied. I didn't see where it said that Einstein said these things. The people referenced on that page (the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox page) were as follows: Lindley, David; Buchanan, Mark; and Penrose, Roger. So I can't take these to be necessarily representative of what Einstein thought. I contend that the quotes I provided have more force behind them in that they are actually credited to him.

As for the context in which the quotes I provided were given here is one I turned up in a quick web search - you can probably turn up the rest with a little Googling:

the one about the vastly superior spirit in the universe came from [Letter to a child who asked if scientist pray, January 24, 1936; pg. 152 Calaprice]

Also here is an interesting site I just turned up that would support Erick's contention that Einstein was a pantheist http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm

By Einstein mentioning a superior spirit and a intelligence that was vastly superior to that of man, this leads one to conclude that he did have a belief in a spiritual aspect to the universe. Although he saw that superior spirit/intelligence as being impersonal, and not having an affect on an afterlife of human beings.

Thanks again for the reply.

Hey all. I've enjoyed my discussions on this board. I was wanting to get some inputs from you guys if you'd be interested. I had these questions posed to me, and they are definietly thought provoking. Since I'm confident that as athiests you would have answers that differ significantly from my own, I am very interested to know how you guys might answer them. This isn't fodder for a debate, and I'm not trying to trip you up or anything, I'm just interested to learn a little bit more about your worldviews. Here are the questions:

• Is evil personal or social?
• Is it external to me, or is it internal, a part of me?

– How do we find happiness? – How do we find wholeness? – What goals are really worthy of pursuing? – What is life “for”?

Looking forward to any inputs you all may have!

testing

Hi Corporalreal being, my quotes are from the first 6 links on the reference page that I cited as the source for the URL:

http://home.btconnect.com/scimah/einstein.htm

The 6 links are:

http://home.btconnect.com/scimah/einstein.htm

http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/

http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/slam/buddhism/1/c16.htm

http://www.lanka.com/dhamma/misc/science2.htm

http://www.dharma-haven.org/tibetan/buddhism.html

http://www.spiritualworld.org/perspectives/buddhist.htm

http://www.lacnet.org/suntimes/000702/plus9.html

I'm afraid that you did not read my source and link carefully.

These sources made it clear the specific context where Einstein made his nihilistic and atheist views clear with regards to specfici topics in science, meta-physical topics and with regards to the nature of the universe.

Corporealbeing, I have to say that you should refrain from doing a cut and paste job without reading through what you are quoting or referencing.

And by the way, you originally give no source for the quotes that you attributed in the first place.

Second, pure googling is sloppy research.

For example, some people would have noticed that I did not use this quote about Einstein and Buddhist that is most often cited.

""Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."

This was not an actual quote by Einstein.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm

==============

I also notice that you are still not giving any answers for the context from which your quotes are given, which is something that I did from the start.

The only source that you gave in the last post actually supports my point that Einstein has no belief in God or the Christian perspective of reality.

http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm

"... Einstein always said that he was a deeply religious man, and his religion informed his science. He rejected the conventional image of God as a personal being, concerned about our individual lives, judging us when we die, intervening in the laws he himself had created to cause miracles, answer prayers and so on. Einstein did not believe in a soul separate from the body, nor in an afterlife of any kind.

But he was certainly a pantheist. He did regard the ordered cosmos with the same kind of feeling that believers have for their God. To some extent this was a simple awe at the impenetrable mystery of sheer being. Einstein also had an urge to lose individuality and to experience the universe as a whole.

But he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science. In describing these factors he sometimes uses the word God, and sometimes refers to a divine reason, spirit or intelligence. He never suggests that this reason or spirit transcends the world - so in that sense he is a clear pantheist and not a panentheist. However, this reason is to some extent anthropomorphic, and to some extent involves Einstein in a contradiction.

His religious thinking was not systematic, so he never ironed out this discrepancy. But it seems likely that he believed in a God who was identical to the universe - similar to the God of Spinoza. A God whose rational nature was expressed in the universe, or a God who was identified with the universe and its laws taken together. His own scientific search for the laws of this universe was a deeply religious quest..."

====

The first paragraph supports my case and is more factual in tone and manner.

The rest of the paragraphs are far less assertive with no substantiation on the claim that Einstein is a pantheist.

In fact, several of the claims made in these subsequent paragraphs are in direct conflict with what Einstein actually said on various scientitic and metaphysical topics.

KIndly note that statements like God does not play dice is not just meant to be a simple statment on belief.

They can easily be simple metaphors or analogies.

Confusing these metaphors, fables or analogies as statements of faith hardly enhances any understanding on the subject.

Just take a look at the problems of Bible literalism by taking what the Bible said is utter truth when most of it were just stories and fables designed to teach people moral lessons.

Hey Kes, good to hear from you again bro! Thanks for providing me with a little more info. Sorry for the confusion – it seemed like the site you cut from last time didn’t quote Einstein specifically since it didn’t list him as a source. But I checked one of the links you provided this time, and it does attribute those quotes to him.

-----Corporealbeing, I have to say that you should refrain from doing a cut and paste job without reading through what you are quoting or referencing.-----

Thanks for the advice, but in all fairness all I “cut and pasted” were a few common quotes in support of my view of Einstein, so they were in context of our discussion.

-----And by the way, you originally give no source for the quotes that you attributed in the first place.-----

You’re correct, I didn’t give sources at first. Since I believed them to be relatively common Einstein quotes I didn’t feel it necessary to site a source, especially considering that this venue has more of a conversational tone than a formal research paper for a peer reviewed journal.

-----Second, pure googling is sloppy research.-----

Agreed, I never advocated doing pure googling for research. I simply recommended that if you wanted to find the source for the quotes you could probably find them on the web.

-----I also notice that you are still not giving any answers for the context from which your quotes are given, which is something that I did from the start.-----

As mentioned, in your last post one of the pages you listed did get me to the quotes as being attributed to Einstein himself … thanks.

-----The only source that you gave in the last post actually supports my point that Einstein has no belief in God or the Christian perspective of reality.-----

I don’t see how that quote (the one where he mentioned the vastly superior spirit) proves Einstein had no belief in God. And as for the Christian perspective of reality, I have never once tried to use either Christianity or the Bible as a basis for any of my arguments. I mentioned the Bible only once in reference to your post where you asserted that “Einstein makes utterly no reference to the belief in God and that all things are in the Bible.” In fact, you have mentioned Christianity and the Bible many times, and I have only mentioned either of them 1 time (in the Einstein conversation) in a response agreeing with you that Einstein didn’t adhere to the Bible. I started by saying that Einstein denied the existence of a personal God. I was arguing for his belief in a non-personal (what some may call a Buddhist kind of God), not a personal Christian God, or a personal Muslim, Mormon, Greek Mythological, or Jewish God for that matter.

-----"... Einstein always said that he was a deeply religious man, and his religion informed his science. He rejected the conventional image of God as a personal being, concerned about our individual lives, judging us when we die, intervening in the laws he himself had created to cause miracles, answer prayers and so on. Einstein did not believe in a soul separate from the body, nor in an afterlife of any kind.

But he was certainly a pantheist. He did regard the ordered cosmos with the same kind of feeling that believers have for their God. To some extent this was a simple awe at the impenetrable mystery of sheer being. Einstein also had an urge to lose individuality and to experience the universe as a whole.

But he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science. In describing these factors he sometimes uses the word God, and sometimes refers to a divine reason, spirit or intelligence. He never suggests that this reason or spirit transcends the world - so in that sense he is a clear pantheist and not a panentheist. However, this reason is to some extent anthropomorphic, and to some extent involves Einstein in a contradiction.

His religious thinking was not systematic, so he never ironed out this discrepancy. But it seems likely that he believed in a God who was identical to the universe - similar to the God of Spinoza. A God whose rational nature was expressed in the universe, or a God who was identified with the universe and its laws taken together. His own scientific search for the laws of this universe was a deeply religious quest..."-----

I don’t have any problems accepting the above statements.

-----The first paragraph supports my case and is more factual in tone and manner.

The rest of the paragraphs are far less assertive with no substantiation on the claim that Einstein is a pantheist.

In fact, several of the claims made in these subsequent paragraphs are in direct conflict with what Einstein actually said on various scientitic and metaphysical topics.

KIndly note that statements like God does not play dice is not just meant to be a simple statment on belief.------

I only used this quote to prove that he did say the “3 letter word” – God. Not to necessarily prove that he believed in one.

-----They can easily be simple metaphors or analogies.

Confusing these metaphors, fables or analogies as statements of faith hardly enhances any understanding on the subject.

Just take a look at the problems of Bible literalism by taking what the Bible said is utter truth when most of it were just stories and fables designed to teach people moral lessons.-----

Once again, I have not tried to make an argument for the Bible, and have not even mentioned it outside of a single comment in reply to a comment you had made.

I still contend that the statements I provided support my claim that Einstein believed in a non-personal God that existed within the universe. I never argued that he believed in a theistic God who exists outside of the universe. I suppose that we may just have to agree to disagree on this matter?

Thanks for taking the time to reply again. If you get a chance, I’d really like to get your inputs on the other post I made regarding the worldview questions.

Hi corpoeralbeing, Your post is kind of long, so I will respond to specific points.

One, if you provide a quote, you have the responsibility to know the context for that quote, so that the people you talk to knows if it is a statement, an opinion or purely a metaphor. This is a common practice for any intellectual discourse. I find it odd that you expect people to find out the context for themselves.

It’s a issue of personal responsibility. I have shown you how easily one can end up using a false quote by just googling. As I said, context does matter.

Second, I felt that the source that you provided does not really support the view of Einstein as a pantheist. Some of the things it mentions support my position that he is an atheist and a nihilist. The rest seems to be a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the writer with no substantiation for his claims.

You do realize that while I have presented primary evidence about Einstein using quotes directly attributed to him, you are trying to prove Einstein is a pantheist with secondary writings by a writer with no credible primary sources.

My comment about Bible literalism is to highlight that one should not mix up personal statements or fact with metaphors or analogies in a discussion. That’s why you need to provide the context for the quotes you stated for the sake of clarity.

I also note that your source does not really support your other case that Einstein believed in a non-personal God that existed within the universe.

The Buddhists does not believe in a non-personal god as well. Its concern is with the moral perfectability of man i.e. it does not matter whether we are born sinners or evil as what matters is that we can learn to better ourselves.

The idea of a non-personal god however is present in Chinese and Confucian culture. The idea of Tian or Heaven is that it does not involve itself in the affairs of humanity beyond certain things i.e. the moral compass in man.

Beyond this, I’ll rest my case. As for the questions you raise, I have no comment as they are personal questions which demand uniquely personal answers. There is no right or wrong answer in this case.

Kes, thanks for the discourse. I think I learned a little bit, and my thoughts have been refined. Hopefully you benefitted from the discussions as well. Sorry for the length of the last post, it did get a little bit long didn't it? As far as the question of Einstein's spiritual leanings I'll rest my case on the matter as well.
If you change your mind on the worldview questions I'd still like to know your personal opinions/views, regardless of whether there may be a right or wrong answer to them.

corporalbeing, you're welcome.

I don't really think there really is a right or wrong answer to many personal questions.

Everything's so relative these days.

Here are some examples.

The first love of my life was tall, lanky and pretty.

A few years later, my better half was short, a little dumpy but busty and normal looking.

If you ask me what type of girl I'm looking for, I will probably tell you that I have utterly no idea at this point.

Every girl to me feels like both a can-do and a cannot.

Another exanmple. For the first 25 years of my life, I had my heart set to be on being a boring academic.

When I lost everything nearly 6 years ago, I couldn't make myself think straight anymore.

So I went into the creative industry where I never thought I could work in, which did not require me to think straight.

I never saw myself as a creative person but now it feels right for me to be one and to enjoy being one.

I guess I want to say that people's preconceptions of what's right or wrong for them changes all the time.

Today, it may feel right to get a cute Wlesh Corgi puppy like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bebLZfd1Ulc

Tomororow it may be the case that I feel the right thing to do is to get a rabbit that can open letters like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmroaYVD_so

Hey Kes,

sorry to hear about the rough time you had in your life. I went through a similar situation when I was about 25 years old too. I was out of work for about a year. But after I went through this time of trial I realized that I really needed that time to reassess my life, and I lok back on that time as one of the best growth periods of my life (although it was sometimes depressing when I was going through it).

The Corgi puppy is cool, but I gotta recommend an Australian Labradoodle, I have 1 and he is an awesome puppy!

You mentioned that, "Everything's so relative these days." I definitely agree that our tastes and preferences can change from time to time as you mentioned. For a long time I wanted a sportbike motorcycle (like a ducati), but now I think I'd rather have a dual-sport (maybe a BMW) so I can ride it off-road too (I used to ride all the time when I was younger, but "free time" is not so prevalent now). Do you think that the relativism you mentioned is just a symptom of today's society that seems to be thinking in a more relativistic manner, or do you think that there actually are no absolutes? If there aren't we would probably have to reassess our reliance upon the laws of logic, the axioms of mathematics, etc...
So you work in the creative industry, are you a painter or artist of some kind? I wanted to be an artist when I was younger because I love art, but I decided to go the engineering route instead. I also may pursue a 'boring academic' role in the future. I have been thinking that I'd like to be a teacher/professor for a while, and I just took the Birkman assessment and college professor was at the top of my list for careers they recommended for me.

Anyhow, good to hear from you again! Have a good one :-)

Hey Cl, Australian Labradoodle? That’s new to me. Is there a link you can point me to? Any relation to the Labrador?

Btw, I saw that “rough time” as a formative period as I was able to become fully expressive in 2 spoken and written languages, enough to allow me to become a bilingual copywriter who has won awards for both Chinese and English advertisements. Where’s there’s pain, there’s also possible gain.

I think more importantly, the loss made me emptier. As an empty vessel bereft of its moorings, I took in more knowledge and insights than I could before, as I previously saw the world as it through the lens of an academic. Presently, I get hunches and intuitive flashes all the time while reading new materials while my gut instincts prompt me to pursue approaches to work and life that inevitably proves fruitful.

My mind expanded as I started memorizing or associating different things in 2 languages to double my mental space.

And now my mind operates so differently from an academic these days. It takes in knowledge and files them in so many ways in my mind that I’m not aware of it. And it always points me to interesting fact or approach when I’m confronted with a challenge. Formulas and concepts no longer lead my way. My instincts do.

Simply put, change is not a bad thing.

More often than not, people who embrace absolutes are those who cannot tolerate change or fear it.

"Everything's so relative these days."

This relativism is more than just a symptom of today's society that seems to be thinking in a more relativistic manner. Nor is it the case that there are actually are no absolutes.

It is a human failing for us to determine what is absolute or not. For example, a mountain may look eternal to us but it also ages albeit along a far longer sense of time continuum.

Even our laws are not as immutable or absolute as they seem.

Examine these 2 universal laws from Chinese culture.

1] wu-ji-bi-fan: An object or force when reaches its extreme invariably will move to its opposite. This is quite similar to Einstein’s law of relativity but its focus is to imply that that there is no absolute point for the forces and elements of this world will try to evade this breaking absolute point.

Just look at water, which covers 2/3 of the face of the world. It does not cling to its original liquid state as the temperature rises or falls but adopts a form relative to its temperature and surroundings.

Even water understands the dangers of holding to an absolute form or nature.

2] Gan bu nen jiu, rou bun eng shou: A force cannot be strong or hard eternally while a force cannot maintain a weak or soft nature without defeat.

Take this example for why things cannot try to be strong or hard all the time. Keep sharpening a stick without pause. The point would fall off. Keep hitting a blade as if you are a sword smith and the blade’s metal will eventually become brittle.

Taken this as the soft example. No matter how vast the sea is, it cannot stop the entry of a single pebble. No matter how devastating a cyclone is, its presents an open door to the things it pulls in for it is permeable.

How do you apply this in life?

Many Westerners have become enarmoured with Eastern kung fu and stunts and tried to practice it or study it in a mechanistic way i.e. apeing the moves while building up their muscles.

Their focus is too singularly focused on the strong aspect of things i.e. yi-wei-jiu-gang.

Unfortunately when these Westerners become older, their joints will fail along with their strength as such moves takes a toll on one’s body because of the strength of the force behind the moves.

The Chinese has a saying. Lian wu bu lian gung zao wang it chang kong. It means you will end up with nothing if you keep practicing Wu without practicing Kung.

Wu or pugilism is nothing more than an empty house façade for the true spirit of martial arts. The stances and moves are nothing more than a shallow attempt of man in trying to ape the forces or nature.

Gong is the serious attempt to align one’s energy and harmonise one’s senses with nature and universe such as birds who innately know which way is North.

There are breathing, meditative and philosophical exercises that has to be practiced if one wishes to grow old but continues to become more formidable than he was in his youth.

====

Btw, I’m the wrong guy to ask when it comes to career choices. You can either seek your heart’s calling or avoid doing what you love most as emotions can clog up your work.

Kes,

Here's a link to labradoodles. They are a relatively new breed that were selectively bred using labradors and poodles to give the temperment of labradors, the intelligence of labs and poodles, and the nonallergenic properties of poodles' hair (since they shed less). We actually have 2 right now (a brown one and a white one), but we are getting rid of the white one pretty soon. If you go to this site http://www.rompindoodlesusa.com/picgal.html it has some pictures. Our brown one (his name is Oscar) looks most like "Macy" on this page (although we'd never put a sweater on him ;-)). Our white female (Daisy) looks closest to "Angel" on this page http://www.rompindoodlesusa.com/media.html

You discussion on Kung Fu was interesting. I used to practice the internal martial arts of Kung Fu and Tai Chi - although I was self taught off of videos and books. I also have had formal instruction by instructors (not books and videos) on external martial arts such as: The Way of the Tiger (I know how to say the name but not how to spell it - it's something like "ooh tao" -- since you know Chinese maybe you know how to spell it better), Tae Kwon Do, general self defense, Combat Hapkido, and most recently Muay Thai. In the near future I'd like to take BJJ also. I do think that the development of the internal spiritual aspects and of the external physical aspects are both important. Do you take (or have you taken) Kung Fu? Have you ever seen a practitioner do anything that would seem to defy logic, or anything that would seem supernatural? Do you think there is a universal spiritual "force" that gives extra strength and insight, or do you think the acts that the practitioners perform are just the result of using their physical selves the most optimally?

Thanks for the info. You have an interesting viewpoint.

Hi corporealbeing, you are referring to Wu-Tao or the way of Pugilism.

First thing first. Internal martial arts i.e. breathing and inner cultivation of qi cannot be self-taught. What you see on tapes are merely shallow imitations that are useless at best or may disrupt your internal meridians at worst. You need a master to guide you and you need to be familiar with all 360 nerve meridians for your energies needed to channels through them.

Such tapes and books are just as heavily diluted as the Tai Chi that Chinese teaches foreigners, which are just heavily diluted forms of the original stances, which is more than healthy exercise. Actual stances have immense offensive capabilities, as well as formulas for attacks and defenses. As long as you are not a Chinese nor belong to the particular family who possesses the secrets, you will not be taught the secrets.

I’m sorry if this is harsh but the Chinese has learnt the hard way that foreigners only know how to take and steal from the Chinese and the Chinese is by nature a selfish ethnic race.

Just as importantly, foreigners do not believe that they are of minute importance to the world and universe, which was not created for human beings for the first place, and is thus unable to appreciate the cosmic order of things. How then can you assimilate yourself to the ebbs and flows of the undercurrents of the universe?

What is considered supernatural to foreigners is nothing more than common sense to us.

Such as healing an internal injury by laying on hands on the skin above the injured part for hours and the person is almost healed the next day.

Or healing someone without touching him via qi-gong or Ki healing. This may seem miraculous but it’s not because air is a ready conductor for heat and heat is a key element in qi qong and you can see it as an advanced form of heat treatments. This force is cannot be seen as just spiritual or physical for it is as latent in every living being as one’s life force.

Animals use this force inside them to enhance their senses such as weather sense, direction sense and danger sense.

For human beings, our overt dependence on conscious thought has separated us from our intuitive grasp of this inner force. That’s why we have to resort to exercises to recover this intuitive grasp.

I make no recommendations on what you should learn, but I will say this. When the time comes that you learn any real martial arts, someone will appear to point the way. It has always been this when someone truly puts his heart and soul to learning martial arts for intrinsic reasons.

=============

Thanks for the links on the labradoodles. I’m not sure if they are my type though as they look a little bit like that famous bear with the curly hair.

I like corgis because they look cute when they are small and when they are big, as well as rabbits which can stay roughly the same if your buy the right type.

"foreigners do not believe that they are of minute importance to the world and universe, which was not created for human beings for the first place, and is thus unable to appreciate the cosmic order of things." hi kes, i'm hoping you're not too pissed off at me from our "discussions" of the arab/israeli conflict to answer a question on this statement of yours. i'm certainly no expert on chinese thought. in college my best friend was chinese (from taiwan). i made some cursory, western style examination of chinese thought as a philosophy major, so i have some superficial familiarity with taoism, confucianism, buddhism, etc. i took kung fu for a year with a black/chinese teacher from bermuda, and still practice the stretching exercises and some of the basic forms. as you know my main focus since then has been jewish thought, and the idea that the world was created for humans is basic to that thought. this idea, as you have implied, has influenced western thought, for better or worse, in a very powerful way. i just don't remember,from my (admittedly superficial)studies any chinese thinker even addressing this issue, and i wondered if you would be interested in fleshing it out just a little bit for one who,as an outsider has always had the greatest respect for chinese philosophies.

jonathan, I'm pissed only if people are dishonest or play games with others.

No Chinese philosopher ever proposed that the world was created for human beings and that we are God's chosen.

Our culture does not have a personal god or a god-centric focus. Only an impersonal entitiy called Heavens, which will not aid you directly in your life.

Our philosophies and religions does not embrace God as well.

The Chinese believed that each and everyone of us forms part of the universe and our sense of fulfilment lies in uderstanding and appreciating the order of things.

That's all I want to say on this topic to you.

If you are interested in anything, you should try to read up on it.