Harkness

Someone just answered a question in part:

"I can't remember her name but a scientist who studies DNA said a person's DNA changes when they become Christian..."

I'm a bit surprised, I would have thought: no, Christians do not have different DNA than other people. But, what do I know? I'm not a DNA scientist.

Does anyone have any citations for this scientist or her work? Or descriptions of exactly how Christian DNA "changes."

In the future, are there going to be DNA testing kits available to determine whether you are a "true" Christian or not?

Link: /question/index?qid=20140...

Of course, given R&S that answerer could be a troll. But sometimes it's hard to tell.

It came up in the fictional random Deepak Chopra quote generator which puts together fictional quotes "generated from a list of words that can be found in Deepak Chopra's Twitter stream randomly stuck together in a sentence."

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

I was just clicking on the "receive more wisdom..." link over and over for the lulz and that quote came up. It struck me as almost true.

Personally I'd say "Experiential truth expresses your own self-beliefs" is more true, but "self-knowledge" is close. The idea of either quote seems to me to strike at what religion is founded on, especially those who rely on personal testimonies to rationalize their faith.

Do you agree with either quote, or do you believe experiential true (however you define that) is objective in some way?

Someone asked if atheists were willing to surrender their imaginary souls to Satan. So I did.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201312...

And today I got Best Answer. How should I thank God for the 10 points?

I admit this is a weird question since I believe the points are more real than God, but, it can't hurt to thank God for points just in case.

BQ: Do Christians accept my testimony that I surrendered my soul to Satan on R&S and consequently got 10 points as evidence for the existence of Satan? I know atheists would not.

Another user, who I will not identify, has sent me a private message encouraging me to leave my atheist ways and "cry out to Jesus now and He will love you back to life again!"

Also being a gay guy, I have absolutely no problem with Jesus loving me back to life again. Figuratively. Or maybe I mean euphemistically? It just made be think of this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201310...

and I just thought the whole "loving me back to life" idea sounded potentially like a really good time. I'm really not into anonymous...um...loving, but then Jesus is a god and maybe there's some free wine afterwards. Also, I'm totally free tonight.

So, how do I get Jesus to love me back to life again?

Assuming that when people say to me "May God have mercy on your soul" they are referring to my god, the great and almighty FSM, what would be an appropriate response?

Perhaps: "May His Noodly Appendage touch you too" ? Is that appropriate?

Don't they have any respect for the victims?

In all seriousness, an elderly couple came to my door this morning. They told me they were doing "Christian work" and wanted to know how I felt about all the disasters and terrible events happening in the world today. I rarely have religious people come to my door, perhaps once a year or less, so this was unusual.

I told them I am an atheist and not interested, and they said good bye, thanked me for answering the door, and left. Afterwards I started to think about what they were saying and the timing of their visit.

It strikes me as rather poor taste to recruit followers by taking advantage of a tragedy like the devastation caused by the OK tornado. Even if they had long planned to go door to door in my neighborhood today, you'd think they postpone just for appearance's sake.

Do Christians simply lack any sensitivity to the pain of others and the inappropriateness of using such events for their own purposes?

Are Christians out in force today trying to spin the OK tragedy into a reason to join their churches, or is this an isolated incident?

Someone made this statement in a response to a question: "Scientific proof is a man-made construct and is, by definition, subject to error. Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Php 1:27; 2Th 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. …" Note: I don't exactly agree with this definition, but that's what this person claims.

The argument here is obviously trying to dismiss science as a source of truth because science is "subject to error." But isn't a "persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true" also subject to error? Think of all the spouses that have been cheated on, the faith (according to the definition above) the Catholic church once had that the sun orbited the Earth, and anything else you once trusted to be true (Santa Claus) but found out later your trust was wrong.

I'm not quite sure why this person claims science is subject to error "by definition." Perhaps it's because of the claim that science is a "man-made construct." If that is true, then isn't anything humans do fallible (which I would agree with)? Including making up your mind that something is true by faith?

Seems to me that because science recognizes the potential for human error, and even attempts to measure all sources of error, and has in place customs and practices to eliminate and identify error, that science would generally be significantly less prone to error and significantly more likely to determine truth (at least about objective reality) than a mere "persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true" or faith.

So, is faith subject to error, or is it somehow without error?

The answer I'm referring to (longest response): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArKD2...

In a question I answered (here in R&S), someone commented:

"Well...... the only thing that makes sense is that god is real, explain the fact that the bible is the only religious book that mentioned giants roaming earth and there are giant skeletons founds all over asia and europe... explain it....

Wow look it up and get some education before you just jump out call it bs..... giants were here it's undeniable. misinformed idiot." See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvwRR...

Ignore the logical problem that even if giants roamed the Earth, just because some ancient book mentioned it doesn't mean the whole book is literally true, or the book didn't get it right by coincidence. Also, I don't think the person asking the question was thinking about sports teams.

What is the "undeniable evidence" that giants once roamed the Earth? This wasn't taught when I was in college, nor have any of the science documentaries I've watched or magazines I've ever read mentioned that any giants walked the Earth. I read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, published in 2010, and if giants roamed the Earth you think he would have tackled that thorny question. But he makes no mention of giants. Perhaps this evidence is less than 2 years old?

For the giant experts among us:

Is there peer-reviewed research for giants roaming the Earth?

Is there a large museum where I can see these skeletons of the giants who roamed the Earth?

Is there a reputable scientist that claims to have DNA evidence of these roaming giants of the Earth?

Are there ruins of giant settlements or giant villages or giant cities where these giants lived, or were they mainly roaming? Did they have a giant culture?

Do we have giant archeological evidence of any kind?

When did the giants roamed the Earth? Why did they die out, or do they still live somewhere on Earth?

Where were the giant roaming grounds?

What are the closest evolutionary cousins to these roaming giants? Human? Neanderthal? Australopithecus?

And, most important, how giant were these giants? 10ft? 20ft? 30ft tall? Is "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman" an accurate representation of these giants?

Someone commented on an answer I left (in which I wrote about withholding belief until a claim is proven true) and wrote this in response: "The very word believe means to accept as true something which cannot be proved."

That seems to me to be wrong and absurdly narrow. I wouldn't even define "faith" that narrowly. I define faith as belief without evidence, but not necessarily about something that is unprovable.

But that got me thinking, is the word 'believe' only applicable to accepting as true some proposition which simply has not been proven (although could be)?

So I looked up "believe" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and found this definition: "accept the truth or reality of (a proposition, etc.)." That seems right to me as it seems to leave open the point at which (i.e. the level of evidence shown) you choose to accept the truth of the proposition.

Then there is also the person tonight asking atheists about what invisable (sic) things atheists believed existed and when I answered the 2nd time I started to wonder what that poster's definition of "believe" was. Does that poster think believing is only applicable to something unproven to exist? Hence this question to everyone.

So, do you think believing has anything to do with the thing at issue (the proposition) being unprovable?

Do you think believing has anything to do with evidence tending to prove the proposition true?

If someone has some proposition and provides enough supporting evidence to prove that proposition true beyond any doubt, is acceptance of that proposition as true "belief" or is some other word more appropriate? In other words, does use of the word 'believe' carry the connotation that there is insufficient evidence to prove the proposition?

I would think America makes better Jesus statues than Brazil or Poland. Or does best-construction not matter when the Jesus statues come to life and battle it out?

Since things that do not exist tend to be very, very quiet.

First, I'm atheist myself, I'm in law school, and currently taking a class in Evidence, which is about what kinds of things and statements can be admitted in a trial to be considered by the jury). The issue of dying declarations came up and I thought it was kind of interesting, hence this question.

A dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule (which generally makes out of court statements inadmissible as evidence because of trustworthiness concerns and the fact that the person making the statement cannot be cross examined). The dying declaration exception allows statements made by a person while believing that his or her death is imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of of the person's (believed) impending death, into evidence at trial.

This rule dates back to 12th century England and is founded on a Christian belief that a person's fear of dying with an unabsolved mortal sin on his soul (here, a lie) would be enough to guarantee the trustworthiness of the statement (sufficient to be admitted into evidence into trial). In contrast, the textbook offers an excerpt that claims the rule never worked well in India (during British occupation) because of cultural ideas that conclude the opposite.

Modern courts struggle with a secular rationalization of the rule. My professor stated that one rationale would be that it would be odd for a dying person to blame someone else for their death instead of who they truly thought to be responsible. Of course you can imagine some scenarios in which a vindictive person would do something like that.

Back to my question: as an atheist who doesn't believe in an afterlife or god(s), would you regard a dying declaration to be more trustworthy than regular testimony? Less trustworthy? Or prone to the same sorts of concerns (trustworthiness, sincerity, etc) that all testimony faces?

Personally, I would need other evidence to make a conclusion whether a dying declaration is truthful or not. I wouldn't automatically think that imminent death (a requirement for meeting the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule) necessarily makes a statement more trustworthy. I don't think such statements should be admitted into court just based on the fact that they were made when the person faced imminent death.

What do you think?

If he can't then he's obviously not all-powerful.

So, if he did cause himself to cease to exist, could he, while non-existing, cause himself to come back into existence? Seems that the answer would have to be yes. Which begs the question:

If God can pop himself in and out of existence like a strobe light, then what's the problem with a godless universe popping itself into existence with the big bang?

I have a friend who is on a gluten free diet. He likes pale ales, like Sierra Nevada. Does anyone know of a gluten free beer he might like?

While pulling into my garage, I accidentally scraped the side of the garage door frame with the front left front bumper of my car. I have white paint from the garage door frame on the bumper (which is dark blue like the rest of the car). What's the best way to remove the white paint with minimal damage to the car finish?

Several years ago when I remodeled my condo, I pulled up the carpet to paint the baseboard (was going to replace the carpet anyway) and found coins in each corner of each room underneath the carpet. They were normal US change, different amounts, sometimes one, sometimes several. I thought that was kind of weird. Every single corner covered by carpet had at least one coin stuck underneath.

Is there a myth or some sort of folklore or wives' tale that could explain this? Or the work of a previous owner who was just crazy? I have heard that a previous owner did have a reputation to be a bit mentally unstable. But I only met her once and didn't think to ask about the coins. I search the internet at the time but didn't find anything.