Depends on which neurons are being artificially stimulated via electroshock.

(And this is not something I invented after seeing the Matrix, I ran across it a while before that movie in a sci fi novel called "Caverns of Socrates". Good read, I recommend it.)

I always find it interesting that people are astonished when presented with the idea that "Mother Teresa" was a self-serving evil bitch.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/490/theresa.htm for an interview with Christopher Hitchens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQejG7-sGk4 for Hitchen's "Hell's Angel"

Actually, there are anectodes of him being very abusive.

Also, you fail at trolling.

Really? had no idea.
also How the **** can I fail at Trolling when I started this fucking thread?!?

*Note: belligerent use of cuss words*

Um, how the hell can you compare Fred Phelps to Mother Theresa??? I honestly can't think of two more different people.

That's right. Mother Teresa caused much more suffering in the world the Fred Phelps ever will.

What the ****?!! I'm speechless, seriously wtf?! I never heard about any of this. How the hell did THIS get covered up?

The RCC has more power in media and government than most people realize, that's all I can guess. The fact that Mother Teresa actually only helped people to suffer instead of healing them and it didn't make it to mainstream media shows this.

I always find it interesting that people are astonished when presented with the idea that "Mother Teresa" was a self-serving evil bitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQejG7-sGk4 for Hitchen's "Hell's Angel"

IF that's true (I'm still not 100% ready to accept it) it would be every bit as surprising as finding out that Richard Dawkins and the Pope are secretly the same person. Actually they might be, did you ever see them together EVER :P.

Since it is very difficult not to introduce bias in one's work, and since Hitchens presumably did not operate under scientifically rigorous conditions, I expect that even if he was completely honest, his account is probably skewed (it is difficult, for instance, in comparing accounts from different sources, to avoid your own bias affecting the decision). I do not know whether he was completely honest. I do know that he is not the only critic. From this site (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7173):

Teresa journeyed the globe to wage campaigns against divorce, abortion, and birth control. At her Nobel award ceremony, she announced that “the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” And she once suggested that AIDS might be a just retribution for improper sexual conduct.

Teresa emitted a continual flow of promotional misinformation about herself. She claimed that her mission in Calcutta fed over a thousand people daily. On other occasions she jumped the number to 4000, 7000, and 9000. Actually her soup kitchens fed not more than 150 people (six days a week), and this included her retinue of nuns, novices, and brothers. She claimed that her school in the Calcutta slum contained five thousand children when it actually enrolled less than one hundred.

Teresa claimed to have 102 family assistance centers in Calcutta, but longtime Calcutta resident, Aroup Chatterjee, who did an extensive on-the-scene investigation of her mission, could not find a single such center.
I have read parts of Aroup Chatterjee's account (http://www.meteorbooks.com/index.html), and it's rather disturbing.

But honestly, is it not damning enough that someone with that kind of political clout would say the the world at the Nobel ceremony that the greatest enemy of peace in the world is abortion? (This at least is not evidence that's likely to be falsified!) And (here (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14122))

When someone asked Teresa how people without money or power can make the world a better place, she replied, "They should smile more," a response that charmed some listeners. During a press conference in Washington DC, when asked "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" she said "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
(Emphasis added.)

I know what you mean mate. It's a variation on the following story:-

(Everyone here, i suspect, has heard a similar version of this story. But, this actually happened. I can't prove it, so just be nice!)

A cousin of an old Uni friend of mine, got run over and was put in hospital. This kid was about 10, i recall and was in a coma for about 3 weeks. When he came out of the coma. His family was called and the first thing my friends aunt did was start praising God for returning her son to her!
My friend hit the roof when he heard this. He wanted to know, where was God when the kid got run over?!?!?!

"Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy."
..........Ambrose Bierce

your friend and your aunt are both retarded. It is not god has nothing to do with the child being struck by a car, it has to do with somebody letting him play in the god damn street, where the cars are. Honestly now, use a fucking brain, its why god gave them to us.

How do you know he was playing on the street? Even if he was, even if his parent were careless for letting him, would you allow him to be hit by a car if you could prevent it?

Depends, I've seen some kids I'd run over myself if I could drive. Also Merck, you've managed to miss the point with the nimbleness of a ballet dancer on oil. Gratz.

use a fucking brain, its why god gave them to us.

Actually brains evolved over millions of years from simpler structures. There no evidence they were "given" to people.

OK, I didn't read the whole thing, but are we supposed to be debating the existence of god, the existence of a specific god/God, or the merits of a particular religious denomination? Because there seems to be a whole lot of all three, and they are kinda separate discussions. I'll gladly address any of the three, calmly and rationally (at least, I will be calm and rational).
To pick up on one recent statement, Virus, you asked if one would prevent a child from being hit by a car. Would you, and if so, why? (granted, you will probably answer "species preservation," but I think you would have to stretch to find any similar case in any other species, the child not being your own young).
Can you give any non-theistic foundation for the function of morality, and, if not, an explanation for why you choose to follow at least the major societal conventions of morality? (actually, that's an open question, not just to Virus).
More open questions:
Is there a purpose or meaning to life, and, if not, why do people who claim this continue to live as if their life does have value and meaning?
Can anyone give account for (with proven science, not theoretical "god-chemicals") a priori knowledge?
How did the universe come into being, and, if it is eternal, how is this possible (contradicting the law of entropy)?
And, finally, how does all that exist remain in existence, that is, with all things having a cause (being dependant), on what do they rely to exist (a Necessary being or force)?

If anything is unclear, I'd also be glad to expound on any of my statements or questions.

calmly and rationally (at least, I will be calm and rational).
Can you give any non-theistic foundation for the function of morality, and, if not, an explanation for why you choose to follow at least the major societal conventions of morality? (actually, that's an open question, not just to Virus). .

Morality is a social convention. What might be moral in one society at a particular point in time many time is immoral in another. Why do I follow the current social morality? How about jail sucks.



Is there a purpose or meaning to life, and, if not, why do people who claim this continue to live as if their life does have value and meaning? .

Why does life need to have a purpose or meaning? I don’t believe that life in general does, however, my life has a lot of value and meaning to me!



How did the universe come into being, and, if it is eternal, how is this possible (contradicting the law of entropy)? .

The correct answer to part one is “I don’t know”. The big bang is the known starting point of the universe as we know it. That doesn't mean there was nothing before then, but that it is a point in space/time that we currently see beyond. Part two is nonsensical as there is no way to know if the universe is eternal or not. So much for you being rational.



And, finally, how does all that exist remain in existence, that is, with all things having a cause (being dependant), on what do they rely to exist (a Necessary being or force)? .

This is another nonsensical statement. You present “all things having a cause” as a fact with no proof , then proceed ask a deep question based on the supposed fact.

Your grasp of science is weak. Science does not and can not explain “why”. It can only give answers to “how”. These answers are not truth with a capital “T”. They are merely the best explanation based on the available facts and knowledge. As knowledge increases the answers may change, or not, as the case may be.

Morality is a social convention. What might be moral in one society at a particular point in time many time is immoral in another. Why do I follow the current social morality? How about jail sucks.

So, then, you have no problem with murdering someone to get what you want, or raping someone, so long as you are not caught? And it is not inherently wrong, say, for someone to steal from you, only personally offensive?




Why does life need to have a purpose or meaning? I don’t believe that life in general does, however, my life has a lot of value and meaning to me!
Ok, so from whence does it derive that meaning? Is it meaningful only to you?





The correct answer to part one is “I don’t know”. The big bang is the known starting point of the universe as we know it. That doesn't mean there was nothing before then, but that it is a point in space/time that we currently see beyond. Part two is nonsensical as there is no way to know if the universe is eternal or not. So much for you being rational.
Ok, the big bang is a theory. I was asking for personal opinions, and "I don't know" is a fine answer. The big bang theory, in itself, does not posit a source for all of the matter and energy, just a starting point. The question does remain, if not created, where does it come from? Part two was an attempt to engage what is often the answer to part one (i.e., many people will claim that the universe is eternal.) Coincidentally, we can know that the universe is, in fact, not eternal, because of those fun Laws of Thermodynamics. Personal attacks don't help.





This is another nonsensical statement. You present “all things having a cause” as a fact with no proof , then proceed ask a deep question based on the supposed fact.
name one object or event without an antecedent.


Your grasp of science is weak. Science does not and can not explain “why”. It can only give answers to “how”. These answers are not truth with a capital “T”. They are merely the best explanation based on the available facts and knowledge. As knowledge increases the answers may change, or not, as the case may be.
you seem to be under the impression that I am opposed to science, or, that I even addressed it directly in my post. I am not opposed to science, but I am opposed to poor research, and the adoption of theories as "capital T truth"

Coincidentally, with your statement about said "Truth," do you beleive that there are any absolutes, of truth or otherwise?

To pick up on one recent statement, Virus, you asked if one would prevent a child from being hit by a car. Would you, and if so, why? (granted, you will probably answer "species preservation," but I think you would have to stretch to find any similar case in any other species, the child not being your own young).
Not that hard. Dolphins are the prime example, who seem respond so strongly to the stimulus of a mammal in trouble that they even help members of another species...


Can you give any non-theistic foundation for the function of morality, and, if not, an explanation for why you choose to follow at least the major societal conventions of morality?
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", as the Buddha and Confucius said, and Jesus later is alleged to have repeated... It's really just a cultural version of what ethologists call reciprocal altruism; it benefits me to help others because it increases the chance of others helping me. On a higher level, I recognise that other people are rather like me, and see no reason to deny them the same moral status as myself; I should, then, grant them the same opportunity for making decisions, 'the pursuit of happiness', and so on.


Is there a purpose or meaning to life, and, if not, why do people who claim this continue to live as if their life does have value and meaning?
To life in general? Only in the 'as-if' sense: Living creatures behave as if the purpose of their lives were to propagage their genes -- because creatures that behave in such a manner are the ones (the only ones) whose genes will be propagated... But 'purpose' and 'meaning' are concepts properly associated only with conscious agents; only a conscious agent assigns a purpose to anything. There can, then, be a purpose to a life if the one living it assigns it one.


Can anyone give account for (with proven science, not theoretical "god-chemicals") a priori knowledge?
What exactly do you mean by "a priori knowledge"? In this context, I don't get the term.


How did the universe come into being[?]
As the physicist would say -- "We don't know...but we're working on it."


...and, if it is eternal, how is this possible (contradicting the law of entropy)?
Is it eternal? What does it even mean for it to be eternal? What would it mean for the universe not to be eternal? Would a 'non-existent' universe (whatever that means) be in a lower state of entropy than our universe as it is?

(And of course some hypotheses on the eventual outcome of the universe are very much in line with what we would expect from increasing entropy -- the 'heat death' model with universally maximised entropy, for instance.)


And, finally, how does all that exist remain in existence, that is, with all things having a cause (being dependant), on what do they rely to exist (a Necessary being or force)?
Why would they cease to exist? In fact, how does a thing have a cause? An event has a cause.


More importantly, what are all these questions supposed to lead up to? Some of them are difficult questions better suited for cosmologists than keyboard warriors, but I'm left with a resounding feeling of So what? -- is the implication "We don't have all the answers; therefore, God exists?" If so, I shouldn't even need to point out what a weak argument that is (and how many questions, and how great, are left unanswered and even more mysterious, with no positive evidence in favour of this hypothesis). If not, I've no idea what you're driving at.

Ok, the big bang is a theory.
This sentence reeks to me of an implicit "just" or "only". Please tell me that my sense of smell mislead me, because we don't need to rehash that yet again...


The big bang theory, in itself, does not posit a source for all of the matter and energy, just a starting point. The question does remain, if not created, where does it come from?
And the question still remains if you posit (for no apparent reason) that it was 'created' (by, presumably, some creator): Where does it come from? You've just added more questions: Where does the creator come from, and how did he create it?


you seem to be under the impression that I am opposed to science, or, that I even addressed it directly in my post. I am not opposed to science, but I am opposed to poor research, and the adoption of theories as "capital T truth"
Maybe they don't deserve a capital T in some contexts, but they're the best and most solid truths we have access to. If not scientific theories, then what?