Further Research (response) (NoHN)

I am responding to the post here.

You would be surprised by how much science and Christianity line up. Many people refuse to look into the similarities because they are driven by a great disliking for other opinions.

I have a biased opinion, but I do believe the more advanced humans get technologically the closer they get to   the ideas set forth in the Bible. Social ailments hinder people from getting closer to the idea, but there is a connection.

i.e.

Scientists Used to Believe	But Now Science Shows	The Bible Always Said
Only between one thousand and twelve hundred stars in the whole universe.	Trillions upon trillions of stars; they cannot be counted by man!	Jeremiah 33:22a "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered..."
The Earth is flat.	The Earth is round.	Isaiah 40:22a "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth..."
Light does not move, it is just there.	Light moves - and has physical properties; "light waves" or photons.	Job 38:19a "Where is the way where light dwells? ..."
The Steady State Theory, the stars are just out there.	Each star is unique, and two of the star constellations have gravitational binding.	Job 38:31 "Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"
Bad blood should be bled out, to make a person well.	Blood is vital to life, sometimes a  transfusion is needed  to add blood.	Leviticus 17:11a "For the life of the flesh is in the blood:..."
Air has no weight, it is just there.	Oxygen, nitrogen, carbon-dioxide have respective atomic weights that can be measured.	Job 28:25a "To make the weight for the winds..."
Winds blow straight across the Earth.	Air currents move in large circular patterns.	Ecclesiastes 1:6b "... and the wind returns again according to his circuits."
The Earth is carried on someone's back.	The Earth floats free in space.	Job 26:7b "... and hangs the earth upon nothing."
People just get sick; hand washing is not important.	Many diseases spread by contact; wash your hands in running water.	Leviticus 15:13b "... and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water..."
The stars are all similar to each other.	Each and every star is actually unique.	I Corinthians 15:41b "...for one star differs from another star in glory."
Something from nothing for no reason - "The Big Bang" model - poof, look a universe!	Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; that is real science.  Cause and effect; input is needed to make output.	Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

taken from 

These are taken out of context at times, even I realize that, but it does show that people are trying to find some similarities. The Bible teaches people about morality and ethics, something science does not. A big issue is the whole creationism versus evolution thing. The Bible never said that animals did not evolve, it just proves that humans did not, so people can still talk about evolution in the context of actual animals, not the human created, "biologically proven" definition.  The Bible, in my limited understanding, does not go into detail about some of the things science comes up with. A religious individual would say that God designed a lot of the things being discovered in science. The issue with that is some people don't believe in God. That's where science and religion can't convene.


~Ama-Bemma

Vegetarianism vs. Vegan-ism (response) (NoHN)

I am responding to the post here.

As a person who has been a lacto-vegetarian (drinks milk but does not eat eggs) for about 5 years I feel as if I can answer this from a personal viewpoint. In the context of this class it is not enough to be a vegetarian. A person can choose to not eat meat but they may have no ethical reasons for why they are doing it. they may say that they are doing it to be healthy or to cut back on their meat consumption. However, people who look at vegetarianism as an ethical pursuit are the ones who get the most out of it, in my opinion. The main driving point of vegetarianism is to treat animals humanely, veganism is an extreme of it (not in a bad way though). There is some middle ground. i.e.a  lacto-vegetarian drinks milk but not eggs, an octo-vegetarian eats eggs but does not drink milk. The whole point is that no animal should have been harmed in the making of the things you eat. There's a branch of veganism that does not eat meat nor do they wear animal products. There are vegetarians like that as well.  I think that the unborn question you posed is interesting. My opinion is that it deserves the same amount of humaneness as the living. However, if it was never going to be born (some people believe that eggs never grow into chicks) then go ahead, enjoy. It's all about the mindset and if your mindset is one that is humane and if that is your backing for being a vegetarian, then that is enough.

~Ama-Bemma

Question (NoHN)

 Is it possible for an individual to be separate from the idea of a group and for a group to be separate from the idea of an individual? Are all individuals simply a part of a group and lying to themselves when they consider themselves to be an individual?

I brought up this question because it was brought up in class and I thought it was an interesting question. This was also in terms of my ideas on the nature of human nature. I think that a large part of people's natures are their identity within a group and/or individually I think that people are individuals who make up a group, something which is pretty obvious. However, the question came up in class as to whether or not groups exist without individuals. I instantly thought that no, that's not possible, however after thinking about it, can't individual mean somebody that is truly an individual (as in they don't follow the status quo) this would then make it possible for groups to not have individuals. 

Is there any scientific proof for the link between evolution and ethics? (NoHN)

Is there any scientific proof for the link between evolution and ethics?

So many people, I have realized, are rash to believe something if and only if there is scientific evidence for it. My question, along those same lines is if there is any scientific proof for the connection between evolution and ethics. We discussed it briefly in class and I am unsure as to whether that is simply speculation or something that can be backed up with proof. 

I understand that evolution, although I doubt evolution has anything to do with humans, but in the contexts for this class, attempts to prove that evolution can and perhaps has changed human psychology. However, does the psychology of one individual instantly determine their morals? Perhaps it does, i'm unsure. 

~Ama-Bemma 

Rejecting Sex Drive-Response-(NoHN)

I am responding to the post here :)


I think that using the word sex drive is what makes people disagree with this idea. I think that perhaps stating that humans, just like animals, look for a mate/partner and do what they need to do to find the perfect one. So perhaps the search for a partner (aka sex drive I suppose) is what causes people to do what they do. This is a more naturalistic way to think about it rather than the vulgar way in which society has presented sexual relations. I also think that Freud went a bit overboard with his idea.

~Ama-Bemma

It's there but we can't see it (NoHN)

In chapter 11, Freud's Theory of Human Nature: Pansexuality and Psychoanalysis, there was a section on dreams. While discussing that section we began talking about the human consciousness and how much people are actually aware of. Something was brought up that struck my interest.  There are things that exist but because our minds can't comprehend them we see them as different things or we just don't see them.

A very obvious question popped into my mind; Isn't it totally possible for their to be things all around us right now that we can't see? If it's something that seems as if it can't exist in our 3-Dimensional world and our brain changes it appearance or makes it invisible, then who is to say that something, for example God, doesn't exist? In class somebody brought up a really great point that contradicts my thoughts. He said something along the lines of, if we can't see it then we shouldn't automatically start acting on something that might not be real.  Yes, that's a really valid point. However, how silly would it be to totally ignore the idea of things being around us that we can't see? They could be affecting us all the time. If things are going on that we don't understand and that science can't accurately explain, then who is to say that it's not the "fault" of these things our brains can't understand therefore we don't see?

I don't know. It just seems like an interesting concept...and totally possible.


~Ama-Bemma

Response (NoHN)

This is a response to this.

 "Someone offers to do the paper for the group project, the whole group agrees, and then every benefits from one person's A work.  Someone offers to pay for your coffee from behind you in line, you get a free coffee."

I'm not sure if this is the same thing as being a free-loader. I looked up the definition, and it seems to me as if there are two different types of a free-loader. The type who takes advantage of generosity and the other that mooches off of the hard work of others. Although I don't think that taking advantage of the good will of others makes one a free-loader, i'm starting to think that the only reason I think that is because the term free-loader has become such a negative one in society. If a free loader is somebody who simply takes advantage of the things around them then, as you said in your post, we're all free-loaders but in varying severity.