This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Morgan Stanley Says Europe's Pandora's Box Has Been Opened

Tyler Durden's picture


Have a sinking suspicion that the way the Eurozone has handled the past week's Greek threat has set the stage for the collapse of the Eurozone (here's looking at you Italy, over and over) now that Merkozy has made the possibility of a country leaving the Eurozone all too real? You are not alone: Morgan Stanley's Joachim Fels has just sent a note to clients in which he not only commingles three of the catchiest and most abused apocalyptic phrases of our time ("Emperor has no clothes", "Water Pistol not Bazooka"  and "Pandora's Box") he also warns, in no uncertain terms, that "by raising the possibility that a country might (be forced to) leave the euro, core European governments may have set in motion a sequence of events which could potentially lead to runs on sovereigns and banks in peripheral countries that make everything we have seen so far in this crisis look benign." And when a major investment bank, itself susceptible to bank runs warns of, well, bank runs, you listen.

Full note (highlights ours):

The Emperor has no clothes. This coming week markets are likely to continue to grapple with the notion that the ‘comprehensive solution’ presented after the EU Summit on October 26 is neither comprehensive nor a solution. First, bank recapitalisation was always about curing the symptoms rather than the disease – sovereign risk. And by giving banks until mid-2012 to meet the capital ratio target, governments have likely set in motion a wave of deleveraging that could have severe economic and market consequences. Second, the leveraged EFSF may still turn into a bazooka, but so far it looks more like a water pistol. We continue to doubt that investors will find the insurance and SPIV constructs appealing, and as the G-20 meeting this Thursday and Friday made clear, non-European governments also stand to be convinced that co-investing with the EFSF make sense. But perhaps euro area finance ministers will unveil some more reassuring details on the construct after their meeting this Monday/Tuesday – don’t hold your breath though. Third, the Greek political saga continues and even though the prime minister won the confidence vote in the early hours of Saturday, the second bail-out and debt restructuring package still needs to be approved and likely new elections late this or early next year could spring additional uncertainties. And fourth, but not least, while the ECB cut rates on Thursday, ECB President Draghi made it clear in the press conference that the bond purchase  programme remains temporary and limited (see the quote of the week below), suggesting that hopes for large-scale monetary financing remain just that, at least for now.


Another Pandora’s Box opened? However, my main takeaway from last week and my main worry for the weeks and months ahead is that Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy, in response to the idea of a Greek referendum on the bail-out package, raised the possibility of a country leaving the euro – so far a taboo in European political circles. This is the second time in less than four months that European leaders could have  opened a Pandora’s Box: on July 21, the decision to involve the private sector in the Greek bailout signaled that euro area government debt is no longer risk-free and thus sparked massive contagion into Spanish and Italian debt markets. This past week, by raising the possibility that a country might (be forced to) leave the euro, core European governments may have set in motion a sequence of events which could potentially lead to runs on sovereigns and banks in peripheral countries that make everything we have seen so far in this crisis look benign. But maybe I’m too pessimistic after another long week.

And what is even more disturbing is that Germany itself is now demanding a referendum. According to Welt, 71% of Germans want a referendum, and want to to vote directly on important decisions for Europe and the Euro. Only 27% oppose the motion. And the same poll has found that 63% of Germans think Greece should be kicked out of the Euro, with just 32% believing the country can still be saved.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:22 | 1851010 Mike2756
Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:24 | 1851016 silver500
silver500's picture

I knew the rate cut would work.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:27 | 1851025 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

MS is looking to get long.  

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:08 | 1851130 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Is that like, "Getting sexual"?

I want to get long, baby!

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:17 | 1851146 Chris Jusset
Chris Jusset's picture

Every day is a NEW Eurozone crisis.  Every day Merkel and Sarkozy declare that they're on top of the latest crisis ... and every day the ongoing crisis gets just a little bit worse.

While this has a great deal of entertainment value, it is, nevertheless, really becoming tiresome ...

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:27 | 1851168 kito
kito's picture

As long as merkel doesnt open her pandoras box. It would be very fishy......

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:49 | 1851221 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

If it's Panodra's box, how did Merkel come to possess it?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:25 | 1851465 kito
kito's picture

Its that whole x y chromosome thing. Didn't you take sex ed?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:28 | 1851323 LMAO
LMAO's picture

I mean WTF?! We all know by now the Greek are broke, ergo;

Pandora's Box is empty!

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:07 | 1851573 vocational tainee
vocational tainee's picture

A greek default would trigger a row of CDS,that could finish UK and american big financial players....

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:17 | 1851148 Barbar
Barbar's picture

why don't they just sell the islands?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:24 | 1851310 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

I think you mean,

Why don't they sell the rest of the islands?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:50 | 1851372 LeonardoFibonacci
LeonardoFibonacci's picture

Treasonist cowards at MS with their constant manipulation. 
Erect the gallows.  Once a century or so, it becomes obvious its time to use them again.

Thu, 11/10/2011 - 12:43 | 1866335 secretargentman
secretargentman's picture

To repay debt in a fiat currency??


Why don't they just tell the Euro banks to go get stuffed?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:55 | 1851091 jekyll island
jekyll island's picture

The Greeks are like the family member that comes to your house, eats your food and drinks your beer and never leaves.  What would be the downside to throwing these losers out of the EU?  Don't give me that contagion BS, they are who they have always been.  Why keep the albatross around your neck?  



Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:16 | 1851143 KickIce
KickIce's picture

How many more are just like Greece?  Probably worry about the Domino effect and the CBs want them under their thumb.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:43 | 1851203 JohnG
JohnG's picture



You are describing "Borderline Personality Disorder."  Seems to fit.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:51 | 1851228 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

It's part of the illusion. Everything starts to unravel when the sleight of hand begins to fail.


Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:08 | 1851696 the 300000000th...
the 300000000th percent's picture

"The Greeks are like the family member that comes to your house, eats your food and drinks your beer and never leaves.  What would be the downside to throwing these losers out of the EU?  Don't give me that contagion BS, they are who they have always been.  Why keep the albatross around your neck?"  jekyll island


Because the only problem is that while they were at your house they also managed to borrow a shit ton of $$$$$$ 

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:06 | 1851123 The Big Ching-aso
The Big Ching-aso's picture

I think Pandora's Box here smells like rotten tuna.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 23:43 | 1851958 wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

And Merkel's?  Sauerkraut?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:23 | 1851012 Jump The Shark
Jump The Shark's picture

This is good for the dollar for today right? I'm do confused.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:07 | 1851126 paarsons
paarsons's picture

It should be.

But who knows.  Everything is fucked up.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:29 | 1851149 KickIce
KickIce's picture

if everything goes true to form there will be bank runs and PMs will drop because the dollar is gaining "strength".

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:24 | 1851018 achmachat
achmachat's picture

This is impossible.
It's sunday.
On sunday the world stops. Even God rests.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:28 | 1851029 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

Do people with IQ over 90 believe in God?  

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:38 | 1851042 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Are you asking out of curiosity as someone from the sub-90 club?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:05 | 1851109 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

I stopped believing in fairy tales and Santa Claus a long long time ago.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:06 | 1851121 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Define God for me. Most people don't actually understand the difference between a deity, God, and the fact that most religions worship deities, not God.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:12 | 1851136 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

Deity, God, Harry Potter, schizo's imaginary friends - it's just semantics.  

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:19 | 1851150 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

You're avoiding the question because you don't have an answer. If you can't tell me the difference between God and a deity then you don't know wtf you are saying exists or doesn't exist.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:36 | 1851493 Hot Apple Pie
Hot Apple Pie's picture

He's not answering because it's clear you're itching for a semantic argument as opposed to just accepting that an Atheist doesn't give a shit what you call your imaginary friend. Does a 7-year old care about the difference between Kris Kringle and Santa Claus? No, because they're both made up.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:00 | 1851555 fockewulf190
fockewulf190's picture

Smithovsky isn´t answering because currently Hot Apple Pie is in control of the joint brain they both occupy.  If your going to use an alter ego, please use the brains God gave you and seperate the creation date by more than one day. 

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 23:44 | 1851961 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

He's not answering because it's clear you're itching for a semantic argument 

The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. -wikipedia

And what is your point? He doesn't understand the difference between God and a deity. Is it an issue of semantics? Of course! but it is in how we draw meaning that we truly understand. All arguments are about semantics, so your point is entirely moot. Look at how I use the word God. I never speak of God in any context that would derive another person to believe I was refering to a "being", so why tell me I beileve in imaginary friends? It is obvious that you are associating God with deities. 

Does a 7-year old care about the difference between Kris Kringle and Santa Claus? No, because they're both made up.

Once again semantics isn't about two people using a diferent word to describe the same thing, semantics is about two people talking about the same thing but using entirely different meaning. Your analogy fails, Chris Kringle is Santa Clause, God does not exist as finite being hence the comparison to a deity is rather uneducated.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:42 | 1851507 fnord88
fnord88's picture

I beleive in GOLD. Is that close enough?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:21 | 1851594 espirit
espirit's picture

I believe in DOG.  He's my best friend -and- a reserve food supply.

Fixed it.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:49 | 1851526 guiriduro
guiriduro's picture

Quick search on wikipedia : deity comes through the Latin languages and god from the Germanic.  We might not be having quite the same discussion if we were spanish, for example (dios and dios.)  God's existence is a given, if god is available to think then it is (much like I am, cogito ergo sum), at least as an object of thought and therefore an existence as such.  Even an atheist would have to agree with that ;)  God exists in at least the same way unicorns do.  But I don't suppose that was the answer you were looking for?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:51 | 1851229 sunny
sunny's picture



Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:21 | 1851158 Mariposa de Oro
Mariposa de Oro's picture

If you've stopped believing in fairy tales, then why did you vote for Hope-N-Change?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:40 | 1851049 HoofHearted
HoofHearted's picture

Apparently you need an IQ under 90 to disbelieve...see Smithovsky, for instance.

This is all silly. It has nothing to do with IQ and everything to do with whether you think you are the biggest thing in the universe or if there is something bigger out there. Never mind...maybe it does have to do with IQ, ridiculous test that it is. (And before you start with your blathering about my IQ, it's several standard deviations above the mean.)

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:24 | 1851311 infinity8
infinity8's picture

Any human who doesn't realize there are bigger things/beings in the universe than his/herself is at least a little retarded. To say that something "bigger" must be "god" is also a little retarded, logic-wise.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:40 | 1851053 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

when we see the deception of man daily along with historical could you not at least question the whole religion, fear god thing...the richest motherfucker on the planet is "god"...if sweet ole warren is a crook what is god?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:46 | 1851069 sabra1
sabra1's picture

99% believe in God!

1% believe in the devil!

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:00 | 1851102 the tower
the tower's picture

God was invented by men, there is no god, simple as that.

Are we part of something bigger? Evidently, but we don't need a god for that.

God was invented to gain power, like money.



Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:04 | 1851119 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Then why go through all the trouble to capitalize?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:08 | 1851128 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

God wasn't invented by men any more than evolution was. Men simply personified God because people like to think they are God.

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 02:56 | 1852223 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Seriously!? I get five junks from people who can't read.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:07 | 1851270 junkyardjack
junkyardjack's picture

God was created by man on mushrooms. Joe Rogan Experience Bitchez!

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:41 | 1851763 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

God was seen by man on mushrooms (or, if you prefer, LSD).


Sun, 11/06/2011 - 23:57 | 1851992 Glass Steagall
Glass Steagall's picture

"If God dropped acid, would he see people?" ~ Steven Wright

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:30 | 1851327 JB
JB's picture

It's amusing to me that you fail to see the French philosophers 'killing God' in the 17th century, along with basically all the Christians being murdered resulted in a wicked, evil tyranny and one of the bloodiest revolutions in history.

History may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes, as Samuel Clemens once wrote.

Fast forward a few hundred years, and we've 'killed God' once again, are on the verge of another wicked, evil tyranny, and looking at worldwide bloody revolution.

Go figure...

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:33 | 1851622 covsire
covsire's picture

This is the kind of evidence I live by.  The righteous will live by faith, Christians believe that "proving" God exists is futile.  It's a faith problem.  Then you have the atheist wh says "you dont really still believe in God do you?!?!?!?!" who completely closes their minds on the brutal reality of history.  Men enslave men, that's a fact of history which will not change on it's own.  Men are inherantly evil to the core.  Some are born less so, and some much more so, but by law of averages, this world is filled with murderers, liars, thieves and your money is being guarded by all 3 variaties.  Your laws are being written by all 3 kinds and your housekeeper is probably one of them too.  You can replace faith in Jesus Christ with Barack Obama, or whoever the next flavor-of-the-month politician is, but you will be worse off for it, even if you have butterflies in your stomache when you cast your vote.  Men will kill, steal and lie to your face to get you under their thumb.  This is as sure as death and taxes.  The only hope is faith in God. 

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 22:11 | 1851806 Tree of Liberty
Tree of Liberty's picture

Tower you have your very own Holiday:  April Fool's Day!


Psalm 14

 1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

 3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:02 | 1851108 derek_vineyard
derek_vineyard's picture

i believe in the EU

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:19 | 1851152 bobert
bobert's picture

How many believe in both?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:52 | 1851537 oldman
oldman's picture

You'll be happier believing in both + the unkown universe that put them on the screen


Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:42 | 1851764 awkward squad
awkward squad's picture

Are you really a sabra, Sabra1? Or did you come in the 90s alyia? And btw, please refrain from pointing out our allegiences in front of all these goyim:)

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:47 | 1851074 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Do people who never needed a god believe in god?

I believe in god, but not in what the vatican made of it. To much gold, wealth and power over there.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 16:55 | 1851090 andybev01
andybev01's picture

Don't forget those fabulous gowns and lovely hats.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:20 | 1851156 bobert
bobert's picture

Martin Luther took this position also.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:36 | 1851631 covsire
covsire's picture

The Vatican mocks God.  They claim to believe in Christ, but elevate their own man-made laws above what the Bible, their self-professed road map, clearly says otherwise.  God called marriage good, but the Vatican says "hey priests, don't marry to satisfy your God-given urges, and oh spend lots of time with little boys unsupervised, where even the parents will think you are like God to them.  What could go wrong?"

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 23:48 | 1851970 zhandax
zhandax's picture

SD, the person who never needed a god never had a semi-automatic weapon pointed at their face.  But you are right, God is not what the vatican made of it; and largely for the reasons you name.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:11 | 1851134 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

It is not a matter of IQ but emotional and cognitive maturity.

Lots of people still need their ancient sky daddy and sky wizard. They want to be told what the rules are and live their lives as a follower of a leader.

They are horrified by the possibility that they are neither unique nor is there an overarching universal purpose to their lives or to homo sapiens in general.

They do not wish to think for themselves nor consider the possibility that their existence is just an emergent property of interacting complex systems. They are too shallow to create their own life purpose and reason for continuing their existence.

They think "if this is all there is then I am disappointed."

I think " if this is all there is then it is still pretty fucking amazing."

The only correct stance of an enlightened mind is agnosticism.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:20 | 1851155 Barbar
Barbar's picture

what happens when you first hand interact with god?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:47 | 1851512 smiler03
smiler03's picture

When that happens you have really really lost touch with reality.

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 01:59 | 1852166 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

"When I find true enlightenment, I will let you know -- if letting you know is still important!" -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:31 | 1851174 Mariposa de Oro
Mariposa de Oro's picture

It is not a matter of IQ but emotional and cognitive maturity.

Lots of people still need their Libtardia and Kenyan Messiah. They want to be told what the rules are and live their lives as a follower of a leader.

They are horrified by the possibility that they are neither unique nor is there an overarching universal purpose to their lives or to homo sapiens in general.

They do not wish to think for themselves nor consider the possibility that their existence is just an emergent property of interacting complex systems. They are too shallow to create their own life purpose and reason for continuing their existence.

They think "if this is all there is then I am disappointed."

I think " if this is how most Americans 'think', we're screwed."

The only correct stance of an enlightened mind is support Ron Paul.

Just add a few small changes and look what we get.  >:-)

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:39 | 1851189 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture


This desire by the majority to be led and told the rules, living in the false comfort of a reified leader is how we end up with all these tragedies. War in particular.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 23:54 | 1851982 zhandax
zhandax's picture

First rule of banking: Rules are for those whose lives require them to give structure to their miserable existence.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:35 | 1851180 css1971
css1971's picture


The only correct stance of an enlightened mind is agnosticism.

So... Your stance on pink unicorns shitting gold M&Ms on the dark side of the moon, or flying spaghetti monsters  is ... agnosticism?

While agnosticism is logical, it is not rational. The only logical and rational stance is that is there is nothing without proof. Atheism.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:42 | 1851198 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Things may exist, and have existed, that we didnt know about nor could we prove until a later date.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:54 | 1851542 oldman
oldman's picture

Hey Top,

Try absence of mind              om

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:47 | 1851217 d_senti
d_senti's picture

There's a bit if a difference between "the belief in the causal necessity of a Prime Mover which must hold certain characteristics" and "crap I made up."

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:16 | 1851291 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

So you can prove the flying spaghetti monster is made up?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:34 | 1851336 d_senti
d_senti's picture

No, ut I have no reason to believe it exists. For God, on the other hand, I have ample evidence, both rational and personal.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:15 | 1851443 TerraHertz
TerraHertz's picture

Excellent! So please summarize your evidence in a paper, including a methodology for repeatable, independent experimental verification. Include a review of measurement errors, and the double blind regime adopted to ensure absence of observer bias. Have your paper published in a peer reviewed journal.

Then you may claim 'ample evidence'. Failing that, STFU.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:56 | 1851548 d_senti
d_senti's picture

You've made the juvenile mistake of assuming the only method of discovering truth is through the scientific method, which is manifestly false. Science itself rests upon a collection of philosophical assumptions to make it work (which is why it developed in the West instead of the East).

Philosophical proof of the causal necessity of a Prime Mover is on par with any mathematical proof. It's not a scientific conclusion, but a deductive one. Moreover, my personal experiences involving God, such as they are, are not subject to my personal whims (nor would anyone reasonably expect God to do whatever I feel like). As for scientific evidence, look at the origin of life argument below.

To sum up: you STFU.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:23 | 1851718 awkward squad
awkward squad's picture

Eeer, sorry to barge in here but I think you'll find deduction IS the basis for scientific conclusions. Perhaps you meant to say "...but an analytical one...". There can be no 'deductive' proofs of God's existance; how would you do all the experiments necessary?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 23:57 | 1851990 d_senti
d_senti's picture

You are confusing deductive and inductive. The first works from universals to particulars, the second works from particulars to universals.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:57 | 1851550 smiler03
smiler03's picture


One of the things that baffles me is that all these Christians have the same belief. How can they not comprehend that they have been brainwashed to think the same?

My own disbelief in the Christian God happened at age 6 when I wondered to myself something along the lines of, "what fucking bullshit is this?". I have never since felt the need to believe in any God.

Something else to ponder on is that Americans are religious in abnormally high numbers. Where else in the world would the majority think that "God" blesses their nation? Of course this in itself leads to the huge support for kicking the shit out of other nations because they aren't similarly blessed.

Bring on the junk.


Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:47 | 1851777 fockewulf190
fockewulf190's picture

Gott Mit Uns!

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 09:28 | 1852646 MadeOfQuarks
MadeOfQuarks's picture

Outside time and space there can be no causality, within time and space there can be no prime mover.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:56 | 1851387 Animal Cracker
Animal Cracker's picture

Clearly you have not been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Pesto be upon you.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:39 | 1851181 d_senti
d_senti's picture

Because anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusions as you just isn't thinking, I guess?

And too shallow to create their own purpose... philosophers have beaten this issue to death, and it's one of the few that both theists and atheists agree on. Discount the existence of a Creator, a universal and objective morality, and a teleological cause for the universe, and existence is meaningless by definition. Any "purpose" you would assign to it arbitrarily after that would merely be an illusion to keep yourself sane. There's a reason nihilism and atheism both grew in popularity at the same time.

One who rejects the existence of God cannot accept the existence of universal moral absolutes (like "murdering children is wrong"). Atheists still have a moral instinct and many live generally moral lives, but there is no logical defense for morality without the acceptance of an external universal standard for human conduct. Again, atheist philosophers largely agree with this.

Read men like Aquinas and tell me that his theology is merely a product of emotional immaturity. Show a little respect for people; dismissing others' beliefs because they are "immature" is exactly the kind of thought-killing exercise TPTB use to prevent real discussion of issues (that's racist, that's an extremist belief, etc.).

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:53 | 1851232 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Social living has been very adaptive for humans. Behaviors that promote social living are adaptive in aggregate for society. An inborn inhibition toward killing children may help one society survive and grow faster than a society of individuals without an inborn inhibition toward killing children. Cross fostering of young is even seen in some social anumals, or at least attwmpts.

It does not conclusively require a sky daddy to have some universally shared behaviors among humans. Other explanations may suffice and without proof they are all merely hypotheses. Your sky daddy being merely one of many plausible answers.

If you need to believe something without proof because of your own psychological issues then go ahead.

Needing to believe things without proof is the sign of a weak mind.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:01 | 1851257 d_senti
d_senti's picture

More insults. More of this "psychological defect" or "immaturity" nonsense. Do you realize how arrogant it is to chalk up the belief systems of 98% of humanity, including men vastly more intelligent and mature than you or me, to "weakness?" It's ridiculous.

And notice how nothing of what you said above is a moral statement. You said "not murdering children benefits the species," but you didn't say it was wrong. And to say it's wrong, you must say that it is right and good that humans flourish, that there is some net plus to existence that mankind continue. And that IS a moral judgment, the judgment that thus or that thing OUGHT TO exist. Which necessitates that there is a way, objectively speaking, that things ought to be. Which requires a Creator.

So rather than claiming that theism is a consequence of immaturity, it might be more prudent (in this case at least) to say that atheism is a consequence of not thinking things through.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:13 | 1851283 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

I am not an athiest.

Atheism also requires belief without proof.

Again a moral code handed down from god is not the only explanation for our behavior. Morality is just another post hoc construct.

Humans may just exist and thrive because our versions fit the current environment better.

You really need a universal moral code and a "higher" meaning and "purpose" to life.

Agnosticism is not nihilism. I find plenty to live for and plenty of optimism and I like the purpose for which I live my life.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:31 | 1851324 d_senti
d_senti's picture

Well, you at least have followed your thought process to it's natural conclusion. For you, life is objectively meaningless and there is no such thing as morality. Murdering children is merely one choice among many, and any moral outrage you have towards our corrupt rulers is surely feigned. Indeed you can't even blame them, since without an immaterial soul, our choices are an illusion and entirely deterministic, and they are not responsible for their abuses.
Nothing you do, now or ever, will possess any meaning. Your life is a deterministic, amoral chain of chemical reactions, your existence purposeless, the universe doomed to erase anything you ever do that possesses any meaning for you. But you won't care of course, as you will have fallen into oblivion, your mind and love, hopes and dreams, fury and joy all dashed to nothing.
There's a reason why the above is naturally repugnant to us, and to you, whether you admit it or not. But you would rather reject what is both llogical and universally known for your bleak worldview.

This is why theists feel pity.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:37 | 1851350 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

I can have a moral code without a belief in god.

I dont need rewards like heaven to behave well, nor punishments like hell to keep me from killing children, or stealing.

You may think life is purposeless without a god, and that sorta proves my original point. We can create our own purpose.

And Einstein also said "one life is enough." I am not terrorized by my temporary existence. I am grateful for it even if I am not immortal.

Fear of oblivion is childish in my judgment and is probably the lowest most primitive reason to want a god.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:52 | 1851376 d_senti
d_senti's picture

Okay, well you clearly don't understand philosophy then. I suggest reading some; even atheist philosophers affirm what I said above. Unless you accept that your beliefs are irrational, in which case you're fine.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:21 | 1851459 Pangasius
Pangasius's picture

Your "rationality" is a delusion. Your smugness is "real"

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 00:19 | 1852028 d_senti
d_senti's picture

A logical argument if I've ever heard one. Feel free to demonstrate where I'm wrong. I know (part of) the little atheist contingent here aren't too keen on having someone argue with their bald assertions, especially in a rational manner, but the big boys are trying to talk.
I've been nothing but calm and rational here, and I've tried to answer every serious question or point of debate raised here. I didn't start the off topic religious tangent, but I'm happy to discuss it, especially when people constantly spout anti-religious snipes.
I understand people disagree with me. I don't really expect to convince anyone I'm talking to here, though I'd be pleased if they were. I'm just presenting the other side of the debate from what I believe and using what I've learned in my philosophical studies. And if people want to cry about seeing an opinion different than their own or answer a real attempt at rational discussion with clicking a down arrow, they're free to do so. It sure impresses me.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:29 | 1851473 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Philosophy is not proof.
Logic depends on basic postulates which can neither be proven nor disproven.

The belief that a universal moral code proves the existence of god does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

But gotta go now. Been fun!

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:31 | 1851743 awkward squad
awkward squad's picture

Sorry to be such a pedant here, but logic is precisely the discipline where 'proof' is obtainable. Maths, anyone?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 23:36 | 1851938 sherryw
sherryw's picture

What has philosophy got to do with god?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:18 | 1851699 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Fear of oblivion is childish in my judgment and is probably the lowest most primitive reason to want a god.

Fear of oblivion is not part of Judeo/Christian beliefs.FEAR from separation from GODS presence IS,certainly not childish.

I do agree many people are as moral, some more so than many Christians.

But,their not saved.

There in lies the difference.( your statement belies your natural man), a carnal man cannot ascertain the things of the SPIRIT.

Only Believers can.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:28 | 1851737 awkward squad
awkward squad's picture

Actually, you can't have a 'moral' code without a belief in God. You can have a behaviourial code, which is in effect the same thing. It's just semantics. But you're correct; humanist ethics are in no way inferior a priori to any 'God Given' moral code. So you go, man!

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:08 | 1851575 smiler03
smiler03's picture

@ d_senti

"For you, life is objectively meaningless and there is no such thing as morality. "

People like you make me want to vomit. I'm assuming you're a Christian and therefore are one of the relatively few in the world with morals. Morals like backing the murder of millions of children in Iraq alone. Go fuck yourself and carry on pissing on others who don't believe the same as you. And reword it however you want but you're still a stupid ignorant shit with no reasoning abilities.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:26 | 1851608 d_senti
d_senti's picture

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I've specifically mentioned that many atheists live relatively moral lives and have a moral instinct like everyone else. I said they just have no rational backing for belief in an objective moral standard. And they don't. Moreover, you ridiculously assume that, because I'm Christian, I think America is some nation specially blessed by God or that the Iraq war was good, neither of which are true.
As for not being reasonable, you apparently don't understand what a reasonable argument is, as I've made about a dozen of them here. But you're obviously of the militant atheist type, so I won't bother responding to you anymore unless you can be civil and actually, you know, read.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 23:33 | 1851929 sherryw
sherryw's picture

'For you, life is objectively meaningless and there is no such thing as morality.'

d_senti, How can you say that for TCT life is objectively meaningless? It doesn't necessarily follow from his argument. How can anything you know be anything other than subjective?

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 00:03 | 1852002 d_senti
d_senti's picture

His life can be subjectively purposeful - as he mentioned, he can assign a purpose to his life and run with it - but to be objectively purposeful means involving universals about a purpose for humanity in general. That is impossible without a God of some sort. If humanity arose solely through unthinking physical processes, man has no purpose. To have an objective purpose, he has to be made FOR something. I'm not talking about what that purpose would be here, just that a humanity that arose by accident and not design would obviously not be made for a purpose. Hence, rejection of a Creator means mankind has no objective purpose.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:06 | 1851266 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Oh and BTW speaking of killing children the judeo christian sky daddy in the form of the holy spirit killed a bunch in egypt. I havent killed any yet.

You JC skydaddy is very narcissistic and thin skinned. He also gets mean and violent if people dont adulate and praise him enough.

Sounds like a rather nasty fellow. I dont roll with that kinda freak.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:35 | 1851490 TerraHertz
TerraHertz's picture

"Discount the existence of a Creator, a universal and objective morality, and a teleological cause for the universe, and existence is meaningless by definition. Any "purpose" you would assign to it arbitrarily after that would merely be an illusion to keep yourself sane."

What I find most quaint about Believers, is their assumption that 'God', being the creator of all, gets to assign an absolute, unquestionable Purpose to his creation. While individuals, who have to actually live in this reality, supposedly don't get any right to deduce or assign a purpose of their own choosing to their lives.

When an artist creates a Work, is the Purpose he had in mind at the time the only possible interpretation of the Work?

No, don't be stupid, of course it isn't. Not even if the artist writes it down and sticks 'his interpretation' on a plaque next to his creation. It's still just an opinion.

In the case of this existence, we have the problem that 'the artist' has apparently written thousands of different and often completely contradictory 'explanatory plaques' to his work. If we are to believe that each religion (aka cult) has some kind of 'word of God' connection to the source.

But they don't. It's all just crap made up by people fabricating meme-sets with the primary purpose of strengthening their political and economic power over others.

There is no human-centric 'God', as portrayed by any human religion. There may or may not be some universal purpose to this universe. In any case, it's your duty as a thinking being, to search for purpose, and if you cannot find evidence of a purpose in the way things are, then you may assign your own if you wish.

Personally, though I find no evidence of a God as such, I do find plenty of evidence in the way natural laws result in emergent properties like self-organizing complexity. It appears to me that the universe favors the arise of intelligence, and thus the accumulation of experience and knowledge. That's good enough for me, I'll happily accept that as my primary goal in life - along with necessary corollaries such as the individual freedom to pursue knowledge as I choose, and the value of appreciation of beauty in all forms, which is an attribute of perception and knowledge.

"There's a reason nihilism and atheism both grew in popularity at the same time."

That would be, that philosophy threw off the shackles of the Church, and it became possible to think freely without getting burnt at the stake?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:04 | 1851564 d_senti
d_senti's picture

You speak of making personal choices in contradiction to the notion of God, yet if you reject the existence of an immaterial soul, then you have no choice at all. Morality, choice, personal purpose - all of these necessitate the existence of a soul, of the spiritual. If we have no soul, life is deterministic. If it is deterministic, there is no free choice, and hence no moral responsibility, let alone the ability to assign to yourself a purpose arbitrarily.
Meanwhile the existence of God and an overarching purpose to humanity as a whole in no way means that there is no room for individual choices within that goal. You could still choose to do anything you wish with your life, so long as it fell within the broad range of the overarching purpose (can't be a serial killer but you can be a doctor, poet, whatever).

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:11 | 1851579 TerraHertz
TerraHertz's picture

Ha ha ha ha! 'Morality requires the existence of a soul' - says you! I fart in the direction of your grandmother, and also your sophist logical falacies.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:32 | 1851620 d_senti
d_senti's picture

Ok, you're right. There's no soul, no free will, no choice, no say in any of our actions - equating our entire lives to a falling rock or a chemical reaction - but there's still morality. Makes perfect sense, since falling rocks and chemical reactions are also morally bound. Doesn't matter that virtually every philosopher and ethicist in history, including the atheists, say you make no sense.

I guess logic is sophistry nowadays. Who knew?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:12 | 1851580 smiler03
smiler03's picture

You are the very worst of your kind. You spout utter bullshit with no meaning. You are a vacuous evit shit.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:47 | 1851519 fnord88
fnord88's picture

What a crock of shit. Morality does not require religion, it requires empathy. I don't kill small children because of the GOLDEN RULE: Do unto others.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:35 | 1851749 awkward squad
awkward squad's picture

So, why do you kill small children, fnord88?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:24 | 1851300 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



The only correct stance of an enlightened mind is agnosticism.

Oh really? 

Tell me shrink, do you believe in evolution, a theory that never has been proven and cannot be proven via true scientific method?

A true agnostic wouldn't accept any theory that hasn't been proven, meaning they wouldn't accept any theory at all, since a theory proven to be fact via scientific experimentation wouldn't be a theory anymore, it would be established fact. 

If we dig a little deeper I suspect we would find many theories you belive that never have been proven and cannot be proven. 

Hell, your entire profession operates on unproven and unprovable theories.  There's more unproven belief and less proven science in your profession than any other profession.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:42 | 1851359 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Love the crotch shot.

There is a lot of objective evidence consistent wirh evolution. More than I can find for the existence of some being waving a magic wand and creating us.

That said, no theory can be proven true, merely proven false.

I can never prove all swans are white, but a single black swan proves that all swans are not white.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:52 | 1851377 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



You're welcome re the crotch shot.  Actually it's supposed to be a nice cameltoe shot.

Re "objective evidence", bzzzzzzzttt, wrong answer.  "Objective evidence" ISN'T scientific experimentation.

"Objective evidence" can be anything someone wants to point at the EU pointing at EFSF saying it will save them.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:16 | 1851447 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Objective evidence in science are observations that are reproducible, consistent, and predictable.

We can even calculate how fast mutations occur and how long it takes for genetic variation to show up thanks to various episodes where an anumal species found itself isolated into various pockets and only breeding with other individuals in specific pockets.

A fish species in california survived the drying up of a lake bed in california 5000 years ago. It survived as isolated pockets in deep springs throughout the dry lake bed. Time of isolation is known. Genetic variability of these fish can be measured, and genetic variation over time can be calculated. Lots of examples of this and we have objective evidence that isolated pipulations of a species will drift apart genetically over time.

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 02:12 | 1852183 SheHunter
SheHunter's picture

I thought your name was horney-old-geezer {-:  just sayin'..........

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:48 | 1851521 Hot Apple Pie
Hot Apple Pie's picture

Tell me shrink, do you believe in evolution, a theory that never has been proven and cannot be proven via true scientific method?

So I take it you've never bothered to read even the most basic introductory texts on evolution? It has been proven, and proven in laboratories and documented that evolution occurs (on both the arbitrarily defined goalposts of the "macro-" and "micro-" scale). the only "unproven" aspect of evolution that the most knowedgable theists argue is that they say mankind is the one special animal that did not and does not evolve but was created whole by God. Of course without a time machine there is no way to prove that scientifically one way or another. evolution just happens to be the only explanation that is falsifiable and explains all evidence to date, and provides testable predictions for the future. Evolutionary theory predicted/required the existence of DNA half a century before DNA was actually discovered. How many actual tests can your theory predict the outcome of?

Also, it should be noted that the Theory of Gravity still has more unanswered questions than the Theory of Evolution does -- do you suggest we abandon the idea of Gravity and replace it with some notion of "Heavenly Pulling"?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:09 | 1851578 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



My response here is the same as this response below.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:27 | 1851731 sherryw
sherryw's picture

TCT's position doesn't preclude evolution. I take TCT's meaning of agnostic to be a little deeper than aceepting ot not accepting conclusiuons drawn by scientific mthod.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:36 | 1851343 JB
JB's picture

"The only correct stance of an enlightened mind is agnosticism."

Talk about cognitive dissonance! Rotfl!

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:09 | 1851418 Escapeclaws
Escapeclaws's picture

" emergent property of interacting complex systems"  that's this year's phrase.  Last year, or was it last decade? everything was programming and algorithms--our brains are programmed to "believe".  Before that, it was evolution--belief in God had survival value, even if ontologically unjustifiable. A couple of decades ago, it was, in effect, the ghost in the machine (Ryle);  the anthropologists say that it encapsulates the mores of the tribe which are externalized as a cult; the pscychologists say that it is wish fulfillment or sublimated sexuality or borderline schizophrenia--dementia praecox, the DSM IV would phrase it differently.  The agnostics say it is rather like this fence on which I'm sitting. The religionists, following Pascal, say that it is insurance "en cas ou"--we would call it a theistic collateralized debt obligation today.


Sun, 11/06/2011 - 21:21 | 1851711 sherryw
sherryw's picture

Indeed. Without wanting to split hairs TCT, you can take 'correct' out of the last sentence. Agnostic: 'unknown', and/or 'unknowable'. 

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 01:28 | 1851907 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Not disrespecting your point of view, just giving mine. It's not a matter of IQ, emotion, or cognitive maturity, or anything else. It is a matter of faith.     The rules given are a way to distinguish what is right and wrong, so that i may lead my life in the right way. Unique?  Actually each of us is unique. Purpose? If the scope of time is infinite, then our purpose is great.    "If this is all there is then I am disapointed. No, I agree with you that , "It is still pretty amazing. So amazing to me that it conjures the possibility of a creator. It is just to amazing to have just happened.   Agnosticism may not diminish one from intelligence or reasoning, but it gives no direction for these actions to go, for it cannot enact morality, this being arbitrary for each to consider. Thus the unknowable in the ways of agnostics is real truth. Real 'Enlightenment' is being enlightnened to what this truth is. 

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 02:26 | 1852181 SheHunter
SheHunter's picture

....."They are horrified by the possibility that they are neither unique nor is there an overarching universal purpose to their lives or to homo sapiens in general"....

That's it.  A conscious diety who watches each of our every moves and who blesses or condemns each of our every moves.  Sounds ludicrous doesn't it?  Mythical.  But without that clutching, hopeful recognition a majority of homo sapiens feel small, inconsequential, without purpose.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:16 | 1851144 bobert
bobert's picture

Do you reject things that you do not understand?

What's your IQ?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:24 | 1851162 d_senti
d_senti's picture

I know , right? Believers are all idiots, these guys like Newton, Aquinas, Plato, Aristotle, Galileo...really about 90% of all major historical figures in any field related to science and philosophy. I've been in "gifted" programs all my life and have a fairly high IQ, and am a devout believer. Atheists often accuse the religious of arrogance, but the most arrogant people I've ever met were all atheists.

Religion can be (and often is) used as a tool for manipulation and social control. That doesn't mean religion is evil. You might as well say hammers are evil because they're sometimes used to kill people.

Does anyone with an IQ under 130 believe in God? /sarc

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:41 | 1851195 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

Newton believed in alchemy.  Aquinas, Plato and Aristotle believed earth was the center of the univese.  

OK, if it wasn't obvious, my initial statement was purposely antagonistically worded to hit a nerve and get a response.  I just don't see how in this day and age, with everything we know about the universe, the history of religions and with all the historical and present-day evidence of god being a tool of unscrupulous and power-hungry beings, how anyone who can think for themselves can still believe.  It just amazes me how brain-washed the majority of this world still is.  

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:55 | 1851238 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

Your failure to understand how any critical thinker might believe in god speaks rather more of your failure to entertain and explore the concept of god than it does about his possible existence.

That being said, institutionalized religion designed as social engineering measures obviously do not describe the God I'm talking about - their deities have to be judgmental, vengeful, noncaring and so on, so that it can induce shame, hate and fear in the controlled population. Think beyond this very limited concept... also think beyond the individuation of god, which doesn't make sense if you look at God as the Everything. Some spiritualities have a firmer grasp on this concept, always underlining that their different deities are but mere aspects of him...

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:51 | 1851511 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

I had institutionalized religion in mind more than anything else when I first spoke.  

But about the other things you mention.

I can see why people have the need to come up with a simple 'god' solution when they try to wrap their heads around things such as the beginning of the universe, life, etc., but I'd rather keep questioning concepts I know I will never understand without putting the shortcomings of my human brain into a god box.  God is the effect of our inability to let a question stay a question.  

Infinity is scary but don't worry, god is at the end.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:18 | 1851293 d_senti
d_senti's picture

Time and scientific progress doesn't change the nature of causal necessity. And if science has shown anything, it is the incredible degree of balance and complexity in the universe, and in a way science cannot explain. Atheists sometimes speak of the "god of the gaps," but that was never the thinking man's God. God is found to be necessary by the five proofs, the existence of morality, even our own instinctive (or call it mystical if you like) sense of individuality, of free will.

And if you want evidence from science in support of God, the origin of life is a perfect example. The details are more than I'll go into here, as this isn't exactly the place to continue discussing theology, but the odds that merely 5% of the genetic material of the simplest lifeform would randomly synthesize is 1x10^12,000. There are 10^80 atoms in the known universe. The odds against the random synthesis of life, in fact, is the most certain number in science. And as science works exclusively with probability, what more could you expect?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:29 | 1851326 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

You are forgeting the number of trials which is unknown.

If flipping heads a thousand times is low probability, if I flip a few trilluon times I should have several runs in there. I am too lazy to calculate how many times I have to flip to get a fifty percent chance of a run of one thousand heads in a row.

All those atoms in the universe interact with each other in more repititions than are imaginable. Each of those interactions is a trial in statistics.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:41 | 1851356 d_senti
d_senti's picture

Except amino/nucleic acids are complex structures of limited quantity which exist only in very specific and rare environments. They are unstable outside of complex chains and hard to form in nature. Life on earth, by the standard scientific model, began circa 3.9 billion years ago, while earth was formed 4.3 billion years ago.
So an extremely rare, complex, unstable material in small quantities on earth spontaneously formed into life in an extremely brief window when the odds against it make the number of atoms in the universe look like child's play.

You, sir, have more faith than I.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:01 | 1851406 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

It may be low odds for life forming on this specific planet a priori.

However there are millions of earthlike plants out there most likely.

Out of all the gazillion combinations of chemicals on those millions of earths the odds may have been fairly high it would happen somewhere.

We are just lucky it was here.

Plus there are numerous experments creating amino acids. Check them out. Many used earthlike conditions before the world was full of oxygen.

Amino acids are even found in meteorites. They seem to be common and easily producible.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:10 | 1851428 d_senti
d_senti's picture

You do not understand large numbers. I can't blame you as they're nearly impossible to grasp. But it doesn't matter how many planets are involved, or how common they are (which they are not; finding a small quantity in a few locations is not common). The entire known universe could be filled with amino acids and have reactions continuing from the beginning of time and it would not happen. I'm not exaggerating here. 10^12000 is an obscene number. There is literally nothing in science even close to that certain. But you are rejecting the most certain thing science has ever found in favor of your supposed belief in science.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:22 | 1851461 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Your estimate of the probability of a certain complex chemical forming spintaneously is just an estimate. We dont really know the odds because according to you it has never happenned.

To develop odds for something happenning we have to see it happen and know the number of trials that took place.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 20:15 | 1851585 d_senti
d_senti's picture

We've seen individual amino acids in laboratory conditions combine with each other, and seen that there is no preference among them for one acid or another. If you know the odds of an individual connection of each type, and the final result, you can calculate the odds quite easily.

Let's say we were dealing with the four common nucleus acids, G, A, T, C, and we're looking for the pattern AATC. The odds of each step are 1 in 4, so (1/4)^4, or 1/256. The odds of a functional configuration, even part of one, are astronomical. So we have as good of a proof science can give us that it didn't happen naturally.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:14 | 1851439 d_senti
d_senti's picture

Oh, and the world was not ever "not full of oxygen." Oxygen makes up half of the physical mass of the earth. It is impossible that there was ever a time when there wasn't a fair amount of oxygen everywhere, including the atmosphere. The contrary belief mentioned in old and inaccurate textbooks is ridiculous.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:24 | 1851464 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

There has always been plenty of oxygen, not always in the form of 02

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:15 | 1851445 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



I have no problem with you nor anyone else believing what you want to believe.

But don't try to pass it off as fact your profession does.

As long as you acknowledge it as an unproven theory, fine, no problem.

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 09:52 | 1852743 MadeOfQuarks
MadeOfQuarks's picture

 "but the odds that merely 5% of the genetic material of the simplest lifeform would randomly synthesize is 1x10^12,000."

Those statistics assume the absence of evolution, that it all happened by chance.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 19:30 | 1851478 sherryw
sherryw's picture

People who believe, which is of the mind, do not know, which is of experience.

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 01:23 | 1852001 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Hey Smithey......Ever think brainwashing could work in your direction? Brainwashed minds usually don't.

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 06:38 | 1852344 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

The thing is, I have been surrounded by religion all my life - I came to the conclusion that there's no god by myself.  I just don't have the need to lie to myself to feel better about the fact that there's nothing after this life or that my tiny human brain will never understand how the universe originated or life came to be.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:48 | 1851212 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

~144, physics-trained here. Atheists don't understand the null hypothesis any more than theists do. The burden of proof weighs just as much on the statement of 'god doesn't exist' as it weighs on 'god exists'. The proper scientific stance is one of agnosticism, which usually comes with a sense of reverence for what is whether a god created it or not.

Of course, if you ask for my nonscientific opinion, I do think god exists, of course not the deities of religious institutions but rather the prime creator, of which many people have perfect subjective proof of this truth, attained through meditation, kundalini awakening, strong entheogenic drug experiences or whatnot. That is to say, I'm a pagan pantheist, the God (in those terms) that makes the most sense to me is the 'christ consciousness', the 'buddha nature' found in everything, that is the infinite creative mind of hermetic wisdom to which the whole universe is but a daydream, yet which invests part of itself in every level of its creation to experient itself subjectively - thus, of which we are necesarily part of.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 17:56 | 1851241 bobert
bobert's picture

It seems like you are a reasonable person and understand that you are not perfect and that perfection is yet something to strive toward.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:11 | 1851276 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

You pretty much grok my vibe. I strive to love and trust life and to be grateful for the growth opportunities that my experiences bring me, while avoiding judgment when the inevitable stumble happens once in a while. To me, life is growth, and I sure enjoy the ride!

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:27 | 1851317 bobert
bobert's picture

And, you are not perfect. It sounds like on occassion you srew up. (Fail or sin?)

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:39 | 1851353 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

Get a room you two.

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:51 | 1851373 bobert
bobert's picture

So Smith: You are tired of the discussion you started about two hours ago?

Sun, 11/06/2011 - 18:59 | 1851401 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

I've rather enjoyed it myself. Occassionally it's nice to have a discussion here that doesn't devolve into vitriol and name calling.

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 07:00 | 1852352 Smithovsky
Smithovsky's picture

My interest fizzled out pretty quickly as the useless/garbage comments from both sides started to greatly outnumber the interesting ones.  

I guess I only have myself to blame for that, I set a negative tone with the wording of my first statement.

I'm more apatheistic than anything else, just wanted some entertainment before I went to bed so I pushed a sensitive button.

Believe what you want to believe, people, that's your human right.  Just stop trying to convince others - this is where our world starts getting into serious problems.  

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 10:42 | 1852889 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

Of course I screw up. But I wouldn't even call it fail - because it is only a failure if you don't learn from it. I especially resonate with spiritualities that are nonjudgmental, such as buddhism, in which there is no good and evil, but rather only ignorance which generates suffering. There is nothing inherently bad about it, it is only suboptimal - and who would you blame, anyway? It sure isn't the person... but how much sense would it make to blame ignorance or unconsiousness? And if the blame is put on the ego (the original sin) it usually strengthens itself.
I really like Osho's stance about sin, in that sinning is to miss the point of life, no more, no less. It is not something to be ashamed or guilty about, but rather to be grown past.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!