1a2bcio8

I'm game! Providing the weather isn't too bad of course.

It's nice to know that we can agree about something

Awesome stuff. Very entertaining although I dislike that you're making me want to ride 24" again

Yeah fair enough, but tris began the tangent and I just continued it. Sorry but I'm not very good at being strict to the threads defined direction and I don't think it's particularly important either. I simply responded to what interested me the most. Regarding 8 year olds knowing what is best for them, to be honest, I don't know. I would assume that transgender treatment is more effective the earlier it occurs? Puberty is the point where certain physical differences between males and females becomes more prominent and differentiated. Choir boys at one time in history were castrated (affecting hormone levels) to avoid a deepened voice. So I'm assuming that certain methods (hormone treatment?) could inhibit other more masculine traits from developing which would probably be difficult or even impossible to alter (bone structure?) later in life. It may also be possible that with the same confidence that we can self identify with being male, transgenders or transexuals (which is the right term?) even at age 8 can identify themselves as female in the way we are considering. I don't know. I guess we could go some way of establishing this likelihood by knowing how older transgendered people felt at that age? Presumably trained psychologists are involved who would have some reference to the likelihoods involved? Seems like it would be a balancing act though. Personally I need more evidence to form any strong opinion on the matter. Is it nature or nurture? Something that has a genetic basis or is thought up/learnt in development? It could even be a mixture of both. I guess the point is, like you seem to recognise, it's very real for the person going through it regardless of the underlying cause. It sounds as though you're blatantly homophobic though? To be honest, I'm not sure how much I would care if the transexual was perceivable as a woman - if I saw her as I do a natural women, so to speak. The girl on the first page was very convincing as a female. And if I enjoyed the experience at the time with the false impression that this person was born female, would it matter if later I found out that the situation was otherwise? I think this would only be an issue if my self image felt threatened with the suggestion that it meant I was gay or something. I don't feel that such a label matters but if I know myself otherwise and aren't really too bothered about what others 'might' think, then obviously I wouldn't care. Why do we have to care about such things? We worry over so many things that we simply don't have to and would make for a much more pleasant world if we were to stop. I feel that people feeling differing ways about their gender or sexuality is normal. Existence has caused this. These individuals cause no inescapable harm such as physical violence onto others. The problem is with others and the way they choose to react. Of course you're also entitled to feel how you do edit: Just watched it. Very interesting but leaves some very difficult questions regarding what is appropriate

Out of curiousity, why do you feel it wrong? What if we considered this in terms of brain physiology and imagine a male being born with, in part, a 'female' brain meaning that they felt female despite having a male body. We might empathise with this situation by considering how we might feel if suddenly we 'inhabited' a female body yet held onto our current male self-identification. It might be a bit uncomfortable living with male desires in a female body. Of course, it would probably be fun for a short while given some male desires Regardless of cause these people feel that in some way that they are of the opposite gender to the body they possess. If the best and perhaps only means of them finding some kind of happiness is by aligning their body image with their emotional/self identity would you not want these individuals do that in order to feel happy? Isn't that the most important thing rather than fulfilling some random idea of what 'natural' is. And in fact it's probably 'nature', especially if they were born with the condition, that has caused such a situation. Of course, it really depends on how we want to define the word, 'nature'. Often people define that which is natural in terms of what they think they understand and doesn't scare them because of that understanding. Conversly, often people are scared of what they don't understand and class it as unnatural. When we call something natural or otherwise, I think it's a label that it worth reflecting upon regarding our motivations for using it.

Yes, I understand things are different and certainly better regarding our ability to gain knowledge but it doesn't change our being limited subjects in a vastly complex existence. There are a multitude of additional affective factors to consider beyond just saying that our methods are great, theirs were bad. If you want to be absolutely confident in your views, be my guest. Have you still not understood that I subscribe to evolution though? And actually I have studied some evolution. No, I'm not an expert. Are you? Is your signature directed at me? Yes you are antagonistic but unfortunately, if it is meant for me, I sincerely enjoy this type of debate/discussion so I'm happy for the excuse to write something as I sorely lack it away from the forum.

definitely

None taken I can see why you would call this pedantry but I feel it antidotal. I accept your definition of fact (probably because it's the same as mine) but I believe fact to have taken on an absolute meaning for most people to the point of promoting dogma. "Scientific fact is divine knowledge!" or something like that. I really feel that science suffers the same overextended faith that religion so often does. Anyhow, I do disagree that you wouldn't get anything done on my basis because I think that I am saying the same as you are. I would choose the path that fell under a set likelihood (like 95%). However, I think maintaining some reservation to promote a readiness for an alternative view would actually aid medical progress if something were to change. You can still be reserved in mind whilst acting on the 95% in reality. But we can close our availability to new, potentially better ideas, if we decide that the current one is 'definitely' right. Isn't it true that differing experiments that contradict one another can both carry high statistical likelihoods in their respective positions? Such is the issue of science. I want to mention again that I do the things I am critical in others for. However, I don't see this as a reason not to mention those things.

And as I have repeated about 20 times that is exactly how I do live my life Just because there is that small amount of ambiguity doesn't mean that every time I come to make a decision, I can't. I act according to what seems most likely and this works just fine. It seems that regardless of how many times I state the fact, unless I state it as an absolute subscription, nobody really accepts that I subscribe to evolution. I do! It's just at the same time I choose to consider other factors which impinge on the judgement that says evolution is definitely right (although it may well be definitely right). Is it understandable that I can subscribe to something but retain an apprehension of its certitude? It sounds like you recognise this for apples not being cyanide (haha) but can you possibly apply the same to evolution? I guess I happen to believe that not thinking in absolutes is quite beneficial for the purposes of modesty, adaptation to change, and sanity. Sanity because I believe this kind of agnosticism to utilize relavant evidence (history) which offers a good structural aproximation of the relationship between human knowledge and 'things'. We get it wrong, a lot. This is self-referential and so I also accept that I may be wrong edit: I forgot to mention about the earth. My point about knowing the earth as spherical from space was just to illustrate the best evidence for that 'fact' absent of the same amount of issues involved with the theory of evolution. Identifying the earth as spherical is still deductive however (If... then...) - If the earth is such and such a shape and the definition of sphere is such and such a shape then if these two factors correlate, we may say that the earth is a sphere. This line of reasoning is rudimentry and pretty much fool proof carrying less assumptions than the deduction involved in the theory of evolution which relates masses of varying compartments of life.

You cannot test any experiment to its complete end. Unless there were an end to time. We experiment for a limited time and take the conclusion from that time and infer it to other times. I guess it is a bit different with material which, relative to certain structures (animals, money, etc.), have some sort of limit. Still, the nature and capabilities of scientific experimentation is such that it doesn't/can't look at the entire range with which it applies its theory/fact to. This is only one sense with which science is problimatic and not definite. The structure of language, within itself and relative to the world it describes, has certain ramifications for science as does underlying unconscious/conscious philosophical assumptions which influence reasoning and experimentation. Our subjective states are of great importance to our 'objective' assessments. There are so many variables which make the scientific process prone to error. This doesn't stop science being an awesome means of coming to understand, to some degree, the part of material reality that it relates to. And that's your scientific faith... I would suggest that we'll probably be seen as stupid from the eyes of people in the future

We differ in opinion then. I feel I would be overevaluating my ability to comprehend the future if I were to say anything to 100%. Why do I even need to? Life is easily managable on knowledge probabilities. It's also, I think, a lot more accurate to our limitations to comprehend. Can you appreciate though that individuals of past probably felt similar to yourself with regard to other ideas that have now been discarded?

Can you elaborate what you mean by fact? It's just I feel that it's commonly used to define something that is definitely true? I understand a scientific fact, in reality, to be a strong conclusion supported by strong scientific process (observation, reason, etc.). Not definite but strong and strong enough act thereafter as if true. Yep. Every scientific conclusion is based on limited evidence. You cannot test to infinity regarding space and time. Science tests on a limited sample range and generalises the results to untested variables which it is (deductively) reasoned to be applicable. This is the inductive process of science and is fallible because it always works on untested assumptions.

My religious beliefs, which aren't entirely of any particular religion, have nothing to do with my agnostic attitude toward scientific theory/fact. My 'religious' practice is that of meditation and yoga which leads me to have experiences that have little to do with science. I possess my attitude toward science through reason in reference to philosophy and history. I'm unsure how you can tell me that evidence for the theory of evoution will be supportive? You may think that it will be but this is only a thought and is not the reality of the future which we do not know of until it has happened. Although you could be right and you may be using good reasoning to arrive at such a conclusion. Good reasoning however is not infallible. Yep, I'm sure the earth is a sphere but I can't outrule the potential of things being well beyond my current comprehension and actually turning out to be perceived differently at some other date. This doesn't mean I don't live my life in accord with what seems 99.999999% likely. Evolution isn't as supported as the earth being a sphere however. In more obvious ways that are prone to error it contains inductive and deductive reasoning and is much more complex than simply saying the earth is a sphere with respect to observations from space. Evolution is a generalisation or inference taken from limited data, relative to the actual generalisation. That's not to say that generalising in this way isn't sensible and doesn't have at its base, good evidence leading to a strong conclusion. It's just to indicate that the process is open to error. Science never proves anything to completion. Scientific fact is essentially the best conclusion we have at this point in time with reference to certain data/observation/reasoning. Any theory or fact of science needs to be open to contradictory evidence in order to be scientific. If there could only be supportive evidence for evolution, it wouldn't really be scientific. As time goes by we may only find supportive evidence but there still has to be at least the potential for unsupportive evidence. None of us can say for sure that such evidence won't arise. What you have to understand is that just because I only say evolution is probable (I think highly likely) doesn't mean I'm denying its validity. There seems to be the attitude that unless I'm 100% on board with evolution that I'm not on board at all. This simply isn't true. As already stated, I choose to consider a recognition of my own and other peoples limited ability to definitely know. Existence is well beyond my complete comprehension and could easily throw some incomprehensible spanner in the works of something that seems very true. Unfortunately I feel we live in a culture that wants to view the world only in either/or values. Something is either this or is either that (is only true or false) and can't be somewhere between the two. This attitude sems to relate to Aristotelian logic and is a very deeply entrenched unconscious philosophy in our culture. New attitudes on knowledge probability, especially with the advent of modern physics, are beginning to form. We can accept knowing as something of degrees rather than only 0% or 100%. Thinking in probabilities helps me avoid the dogma that is so common to both religion and science. Although I often fail depsite my practice.

You may be and probably are correct. However, I feel that life is such that our comprehension is limited and that which seems so right at present may eventually, regarding a change of circumstances, be found as incorrect. That which exists outside of our current comprehension may disturb our current position but only when discovered in the future. This situation is intrinsic to the past and we are continually becoming the past. This is a reasoned choice which I attempt to relate to all knowledge forms. Thus I try to talk in maybes, probabilities, likelihoods, etc. It doesn't however mean I'm failing a knowledge form by introducing a degree of ambivalence to it. This also relates to my desire for a modesty in my views although, no doubt, I often fail at that practice. But I find it even easier to fail/forget if I talk in either/or language of definites and absolutes. I do personally appreciate your willingness to adjust to new evidence which is, of course anyway and as you indicate, a requirement of 'proper' science.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Scientific fact is always tentative, not absolute. The history of science shows the changing and discarding of theory/fact over time. I'm mostly with evolution but you never know what's going to happen in the future. And I'm not so keen on the word "fact" though as it seems to sound so absolute. The best I'm willing to say is that evolution is most likely correct (a high percentage chance) and creationism is most likely incorrect (a low percentage chance). Brought into that equation is a general consideration of history and the limits of human knowledge. It's simply a method of staying open to new evidence, argument, experience, etc. and I think the fairest way of assessing any knowledge form through considering broader factors involved in knowing.

I see nothing wrong with a tangent although I do think that most of what I said is applicable. My position is that the atheist (and evolution) vs. Creationist (Christianity, religion, etc. - it has become broad) argument, regarding the true nature of Christianity, is based on a several false premises and so is essentially a bit pointless/nonsensical. In that sense, I feel it is relavent. And anyway, discussions would be shorter and less interesting if tangents were prohibited. The point is regarding religion and experience, is that religion can be very effective at indicating certain truths about the nature of experience and reality. These are not the same truths found in science which is conceptual (language based). And although religion is communicated in concepts (language), those concepts are so structured to allows us to leave them behind (transcension). Religion often indicates practices such as meditation, prayer, chanting, etc. which helps break down certain perpcetions (and preconceptions relating to language) to reveal more fundamental ones. Now, I can actually comment on this relating to personal experience. This obviously convinces me moreso of the argument I'm putting forward. Do you realise that we mostly agree about a lot of what is being discussed? I don't agree with bashing believers of God as an entity and those who have a literal interpretation but I do agree that they are probably incorrect and that evolution is a more reliable description of the development of life. But like the rest of science, that description is meaningful only within certain limits. But the point is, if I am correct, the argument is rather pointless if both atheist and Christian alike are arguing over the belief that Christian myth is literally true. I am open to changing my view with regard to spirituality. I am not dogmatically attached to it but so far, my opninion is that the experiences I've had and the arguments I know of that make sense to me are in support of the view I'm putting forward. There is a lot of nonsense in spirituality, especially with the new age so I don't subscribe to all. However, I am yet to see any arguments that are strong enough to change my mind with regards to the specific points I'm putting forward. And I haven't just surrounded myself with arguments that support what I'd like to believe. On this argument, I have read on the constructivist view of mystical experience which sees mystical experience as entirely a product of culture and doesn't relate to any realisation true of all human experience. This is probably the strongest argument against but I feel that it fails for several reasons. Of course, I accept that I could be wrong. I just don't think that presently I am. I might accuse you of being romantically attached to science and evolution!

Is she's a mature student aged either 19 or 21 and over? And does she attend college more than 15 hours a week? If so, she should be entitled to Adult Learning Grant (ALG) which is £30 a week depending on proper attendence. There is a younger version of this as well but I know nowt about it. Also depending no how much you earn, you should be may be entitled to tax credits which can be fairly substantial. Certainly upto enough to pay your rent but this does depend on your earnings. The idea of these tax credits is that you are perceived as supporting her so you get funding. But yeah, search those out and asap. These services don't tend to be very quick in arranging payments...

No it's not religion but religion is what teaches us how to tune into it. The Buddhist asks, "who is the one that makes the grass green?" Unfortunately, due to people being fanatical, dogmatic and confused, Christianity generally hasn't really been allowed to change to become appropriate for this age. I'll admit I'm not into the stories contained in the bible. But there are other religions which talk a bit more directly about this subject rather than in the form of 2000 year old myth. Buddhism and especially the Zen sect, I find especially useful for teaching these ideas. Although in addition to those religions you have western mystics who express this subject in the most understandable and acceptable terms to the western mind. Religion is so not we tend to think it is in the first instance, simply because it's been continually hijacked for other purposes and so we easily end up identifying it as relating to war, profit, power, delussion, etc. It's a great shame to my mind because really it can ultimately allow for the discarding of those problems.

Ok fair enough. But I don't think myself 100% right. I think that what I'm refering to is currently the most convincing stance and as such I will argue for it. That is until or if new arguments/evidence emerges to contradict it. But as it stands, I've not been presented with any new arguments or evidence that encourage me to change my stance. And I am open to changing my stance because I have done in the past. And I should really take the time to better describe what I'm talking about. I have done this in previous threads but sometimes I'm lazy. So to redescribe my last post. I'm saying that science is great for thinking about reality (or the world), whereas religion is great for experiencing reality without thinking about it. Take riding trials for example. Science might be able to create some mathematics/ideas that describes the forces that are involved in riding but that description is completely different from the personal experience of actually riding. When you ride, no mathematics is involved in the experience. It's the actual riding that religion is about. How exactly are you experiencing your riding? Can you change your experience (feelings, emotions, awareness, etc.) to have a better ride? And what I mean by experience is the sensations, sights, sounds, etc.. No matter what science can say about these, that saying is the never the same as actually living them. The same difference is between imagining yourself riding and actually riding. That's why no matter what science says about religion, ultimately, this is quite irrelevant to religion. Although obviously sometimes in the name of religion, people make scientific statements (often silly ones) which science can say something about. But no matter what I say about my looking at an apple (science), my words never amount to the actual experience (religion). Is this distinction understood? I understand it's difficult to get our heads round this because the language we use seems to suggest that an object is the same as a word. But really, an apple is not an apple, it's an event that contains no words. But when I say "It is an apple" this seems to suggest that the event is the word. The consequence of this is that we come to unconciously believe our thinking/ideas/language about the world as the same as our experience of the world. I guess for that last point, if we imagine seeing the world from the perspective of an animal we can somewhat better understand what is meant by that events are not words, seeing as animals have no words for events of objects. An animal would not see an "apple" but would see only a shape with colours and so forth. Please ask me to explain again if I'm not being clear and you're actually interested. I love talking about all this stuff and that's why I always jump on these threads.

Well, that's an incredibly reductionist account of life and is a type of extended faith in the theory of evolution. You're confusing conceptual theory with actual subjective (non-conceptual) experience. My experience is not evolution although, no doubt, evolution plays a role in what my experience has come to be. But just because my car allowed me to reach the mountains, doesn't mean that my experiencing of the mountains is an experience of a car. Religion regards direct experience, per se and a scientific theory is about experience. Religion allows one to adapt their perception in accord with certain aspects of reality (monism) which cannot be contained within concepts (dualism and thus scientific theory). It's the difference between observing and talking about snowboarding (science) and actually snowboarding (religion). No matter how much you say or watch snowboarding it will never amount to actually doing snowboarding. Yet again, you have either not understood or taken the time to understand what I actually mean. Which in itself is fair enough. However to just label my ideas as waffle is a bit off. Not too disimilar to the methods that some of the Christians in this thread have been criticised for.

Likewise There's no (at least conscious) negative intent here, although there is some frustration on occassion but I'm sure we're all sharing that I can see where you are coming from if we contain Christianity within a literal interpretation and one that excludes transcendental (beyond or further) reality. But the alternative interpretation sees the moral choices as relating not to God as an entity but relate them to the here and now realisation of God. Meaning a realisation of the true nature of existence and all the qualities that flow from you as a consequence (love being one). It does not have to be about moral choice because God says so. This correlates with Buddhism, Yoga, etc. which have moral precepts that begin the path toward enlightenment. The emphasis is on the fact that morally bad choices enforce or increase delussion by crowding the mind with negative states. If I kill, rob, etc. that's where my mind is at (dealing with guilt, worry, etc.) and it's not free to really pay attention to what is true about reality. Put differently, we avoid certain behaviours to free up our ability to concentrate on the nature of reality because by doing so, we find new levels of well being - ones that extend a great deal beyond what most of us are currently possessing. I guess I am trying to bring an additional dimension into the fold but most likely I'm the only one that cares about mystical/perennial interpretation, separate to the non-literal part of my argument? I also guess that if we exclude that factor and assume it's not true then my argument falls much closer to the rest of you. I just happen to think it relates to the core of all religion. The trouble is it takes lots of motivation and practice to get to grips with it and not many people are interested, which is fair enough.

Well, that depends on how you think of religion. Not everybody considers its stories to be literal but rather a form of myth which can teach you about the problems and solutions of being human. On that basis, the truth of the religious myth needs to be judged, not on if the myth actually happened, but rather if by understanding it and applying it to our situation, if it helps us in some way. This changes the whole meaning of religion. Again, it is worth differentiating between the way people have interpreted a religion and what the religion is really supposed to mean. We need to judge each of these independently. Otherwise it's like judging 'blah' idea on the basis or your friends incorrect understanding of blah. Surely our best judgement of blah arises when we have properly understood what blah is actually supposed to mean?

I would say that there has been lots of undesirable things done in the name of religion but that religion is not the actual problem and so to blame it, is to miss the point. In the secular world, political ideology easily takes the place of religious ideology as a means of populace control, war, profit, etc. The issue that runs between the two is human confusion and motivation by negative states of being. Now, religion used correctly can dispel confusion which naturally leads to acting out of positive states of being (love). However, for the most part, like you say it hasn't been used like this. This is most unfortunate! But it's not the fault of what religion is supposed to be about - it's origins. And if it hadn't been religion, we would simply have been doing the same things using the name of some other system of thought. The quantity still doesn't affect the underlying relationship between the parts and wholes of a situation. Like I've just said, we would still be doing the same activities in the absence of religion, they would just relate to some other system of thought. But the fact is, religion used correctly, can stop the problems that you dislike religion so much for. I spent some time meeting with mormans recently. They were heavily commited to their religion and it was doing a great deal for them. They were motivated toward giving love and help to those around them, regardless of perceived differences between them. They were nothing like the type of Christian you describe that wants to kill somebody for not believing the same as them. There are differences between people in time and space. Then is not now, over there is not here. We need to differentiate and judge on that basis, not judge all from the basis of partial meaning. This doesn't mean putting down no religion but it does mean not choosing an either/or stance where religion is simply only good or bad. Why not have the same attitude toward Germans for the second world war? Or are you able to differentiate between differences in space and time with that situation?

You chaps are picking on aspects of religion and taking them as the whole of religion, missing the general core and most essential part. It's a gross misrepresentation, although there is obviously some truth to what you say. However, it's like saying that because i had bad experiences with some black people that all black people are bad. At best you're confusing the levels/generalisations at which events relate and at worst you're willfully ignoring facts and/or adopting a faith that all religion possesses only negative aspects. The latter of which is the same as what you so readily chastise other believers for. It's just the case, like everything in life, that we can use something either to good or bad ends. Religion, like a car, can be healthy or the opposite of that, unhealthy. A car can get me to the hospital in time when I'm ill or I can drive wrecklessly and cause a motorway pile up. Comparitively, religion can guide me in my attitude to life and allow for deeper realisation of the nature of reality or it can be used as a means of populace control, war, profit, etc. But just because both potentials exist doesn't make it one or the other. Yet there seems to be a desire to only represent religion with regards to how its been misused. You guys literally seem to just be out to bash religion, regardless of what religion actually means.

Thanks for trying though