Behaviour report by the London school of economics

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

We had, at school, teachers who were nuns. In sciences. Robert Winston is possibly the most public example of one who has faith yet is a famous scientist. And strikes me as a very decent person too.

edit: I could counter with some opinions of others cited in this thread, but I shan't

IIRC Stephen Hawking also believes in a god, but I'm less sure that he's defined what actual religion he leans towards.

wigglebeena

lemonjelly wrote: »

I'm not sure I can agree with the 2 of you on this one. You appear to be saying that you can completely delude yourself & lead a life of ignorance, but as long as you're happy, that is ok?

Surely if truth exists, we should not delude ourselves?

But religious believers (and atheists) see truth differently. If you ask me that's because they're both logically challenged, but that doesn't give me the right to dictate to them what to believe. Just as long as they don't try to use my taxes to teach my kids what they believe.

lemonjelly

treliac wrote: »

I'm happy there's a consensus that's moving in favour of women. Hope it catches on. :cool:

Perhaps men are starting to run scared now so many women play them at their own game. Monogamy in women was alway desired by men... as the only way to be sure they were bringing up their own children.

I've had debates with friends for some time now about how men are percieved within society now.

One thing that has particularly struck me is how they are portrayed in adverts. Some examples of the top of my head, the young chap in the washing powder advert who needs his shirt, hasn't got a clue how to use a washing machine, spills powder all over the floor, ends up wearing another shirt.

Another one that struck me is how families are portrayed. A lot of ads have a young(ish) family. The dad figure generally has a belly, may be balding a little, & is generally a useless bumbling clumsy figure, falling over, tripping up, incapable of basic tasks. Meanwhile they have a phenomenally gorgeous wife/partner, who multitasks about 10 jobs at once, & looks impeccable (& in my opinion, wouldn't touch the guy she's with in the ad in a million years!)

It strikes me as a little wierd...

wigglebeena

Ad agency creative directors tend to be male. Problem solved!

lemonjelly

wigglebeena wrote: »

But religious believers (and atheists) see truth differently. If you ask me that's because they're both logically challenged, but that doesn't give me the right to dictate to them what to believe. Just as long as they don't try to use my taxes to teach my kids what they believe.

You can't see truth in more than 1 way. It either is true, or it isn't.

Religious believers & atheists have beliefs, & these may be mistaken, misguided or affected by their presuppositions.

However truth is truth, whatever way you look at it. Looking at it from a different angle won't make it untrue, or different. It is still true.

Conversely, no matter how hard you examine something false, it remains false.

The_White_Horse

what if half the world had a similar condition to colour blindness and saw red as green. so they have no concept of red, only green. If you put a ball down that one half sees as red, but the other half see as green, is it red or is it green?

wigglebeena

lemonjelly wrote: »

You can't see truth in more than 1 way. It either is true, or it isn't.

Religious believers & atheists have beliefs, & these may be mistaken, misguided or affected by their presuppositions.

However truth is truth, whatever way you look at it. Looking at it from a different angle won't make it untrue, or different. It is still true.

Conversely, no matter how hard you examine something false, it remains false.

Which is why I say they're logically challenged...

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Stephen Jay Gould's books on evolution and natural history are recommended. He was an elegant and engaging writer who discussed his faith (Jewish) in relation to a lifetime of research on evolutionary theory, and debated a lot with Dawkins on academic points and also on how to counter the spread of creationism. A world apart from Dawkins' relentless and rather arrogant dogma.

I describe myself as an atheist because I don't belive in a god, rather than I believe there is no god. There is a difference surely?

lemonjelly

treliac wrote: »

Indeed.... there's so very much we really don't know or understand. After all it wasn't that long ago 'they' thought the world was flat!!

Read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society

treliac wrote: »

Mmm, and I do agree with you. Though I count myself as agnostic... cos I have no real proof!!

I find this interesting, akin to the earlier debate about nessie & existence.

Think about it this way, there isn't any proof that there is a monster in loch ness. However, clearly the idea exists. & if you visit places in the locality, there are souveniers, tshirts, cups & mugs & all the usual fayre with nessie on. There are pictures, alleged photos, descriptions, statements etc. Therefore the idea of nessie clearly exists. There are web pages etc dedicated to her (why is nessie a she?). So to what extent does nessie exist?

Think about it another way. I have a pain in my finger. Where is that pain? What does it look like? Can I put that pain in a test tube? Where exactly is it? If I strip away the skin cells, I can find muscles, blood vessels etc, but no pain. If I keep going, I come to bone, tendons, but I still can't find any pain. If I take everything down smaller, I find atomes, neutrons, electrons & particles, but I still can't find any pain.

Hmmm. So where is it? Is it in my brain? So why do I say I've a pain in my finger?

lemonjelly

By the way, I just thought I'd mention that I only started this thread for a giggle!

Seems to have got very deep & meaningful!:eek:

Who'dathunkit?:cool: