South Park joke won't air in Sweden

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

As far as I know the Nazis just packed people in those trains. On what basis did they decide if they are Jews or not?

 

[DataPacRat]

Saving lives is important. Saving souls is more important.

If souls exist, that is true.

Once a person is opened to the idea that he has a soul a new "science" is being
opened to him and we refer to this science as "religion" or "Islam" (if you wish
to connect yourself to other religions you are of course welcome, however, since
Islam is the only religion which is open to receive the correct things from the other
religions while the other religions are currently not Islam is perfect and hence is
the right place to go to).

Once one extends his point of view from an attempt to predict physical things
to an attempt to understand, to the best of his ability, spiritual things the benefits
are quite uplifting.

However, there is a certain distinct lack of evidence, of the sort on which predictions can be based, about the existence and nature of the soul. (Another topic well worth a thread of its own...) Given that lack of evidence, most legal systems are not based on any particular religion's ideas of the soul; and every religion's claim, including Islam's, about being the one and only true religion, is given equal credence, and so laws tend to only be based around matters of the physical, material world, and leave matters of the soul to individual conscience.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[DataPacRat]

I did not say that the holocaust itself is not a big deal - and this is not what is implemented from what I say.

I say that the question of wether the people who died in the holocaust were Jews or not is, at best, meaningless.

They were people. That's the end of it.

As far as I know the Nazis just packed people in those trains. On what basis did they decide if they are Jews or not?

The Nazis didn't kill just Jews.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

You may wish to start by reading the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust , to get an overview.

Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' systematic murder of millions of people in other groups, including ethnic Poles, Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents.[5] By this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims would be between 11 million and 17 million people.[6]

Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Ahhm....If souls exist? Lolll this is funny.

Are you alive? Do you dispute the fact that you are alive?
Do you need proof for that?

Also. Why do you dream? Why do you sleep? From a physical
point of view this is a complete waste of time. Isn't it?

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

The Nazis did not kill Jews they killed human beings. Jew is just a meaningless bureaucratic title in this case.

 

[DataPacRat]

Ahhm....If souls exist? Lolll this is funny.

Are you alive? Do you dispute the fact that you are alive?
Do you need proof for that?

The idea that living things are made of some essentially different 'stuff' from non-living things started vanishing some time ago, the first time a chemist was able to synthesize urea, a biological chemical.

Also. Why do you dream? Why do you sleep? From a physical
point of view this is a complete waste of time. Isn't it?

Not at all. I suggest you look up 'anabolic' and 'catabolic' states, and perhaps 'sleep-dependent memory consolidation'.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Long words which means nothing. I can read a lot of academic babble all day long.

The real question is if I can verify it. I cannot and so do most people I know. Therefore
we believe these types of things. Thus, I will believe that I have a soul, use this soul
to help other people with theirs and any person who wishes to believe he does not
because he takes the word of some scientists which for some reason want to convince you
otherwise - it is each persons individual choice.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

That is - believe contrary to knowing (like sometimes people think).

If you tell me that technology is an evidence for this. Well, for me technology
is pure magic. I do not know how this computer works and have not seen a reasonable
explanation so far.

 

[DataPacRat]

Long words which means nothing. I can read a lot of academic babble all day long.

The real question is if I can verify it. I cannot and so do most people I know. Therefore
we believe these types of things. Thus, I will believe that I have a soul, use this soul
to help other people with theirs and any person who wishes to believe he does not
because he takes the word of some scientists which for some reason want to convince you
otherwise - it is each persons individual choice.

That is - believe contrary to knowing (like sometimes people think).

If you tell me that technology is an evidence for this. Well, for me technology
is pure magic. I do not know how this computer works and have not seen a reasonable
explanation so far.

Well, I /do/ know how this computer works, to a sufficient degree that, if I wanted to put the time into it, I could build a computer from scratch; or reprogram this one to do anything I care for it.

As long as you think that the things I'm saying are "babble", then you will be among the intellectually disadvantaged - that is, those who don't /want/ to learn, and thus don't acquire the knowledge that lets them accomplish their goals.

Here's a short essay, "Twelve Virtues of Rationality"; each virtue the authour praises is only a paragraph or so, and while he does use some complicated words, I think that he expresses his ideas well enough that you can figure out the overall idea of each... and thus why it is in your own self-interest to figure out how to figure things out.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

My criticism is hardly about what you are saying. My criticism was against the quotation you made. I actually respect you. However, what you said is a quotation.

You quoted a research. Quoting is an action of belief.

It was not you who made the research. If it was you - I could ask you questions about it and then we can verify if what you say is true or not.

You quoted a group of scientists which also quote a bunch of others which quote others...and
so on and on...and you believe that all through this long chain of quotation they did not do
any one mistake.

Ahhm...my knowledge of human nature teaches me that this is a very weird belief.

In fact - I think that science is filled with a lot of cover ups and people which say "well,
I do not know what I am talking about however my colleague also has no idea what
he is talking about - so it's ok".

On the other hand - when a believer quotes the Quran he quotes the source .
It is perfect - there is no endless chain of human intervention in this, contrary to science.

Personally, I think that as good our technology is today - it could be much better in the future
if science would not be so stuck up on issues like ego and would really want to
improve the condition of humanity - not just justifying receiving a noble prize at the age of 90.

 

[DataPacRat]

It is not you are saying. I actually respect you. However, what you said is a quotation.

You quoted a research. Quoting is an action of belief.

You quoted a group of scientists which also quote a bunch of others which quote others...and
so on and on...and you believe that all through this long chain of quotation they did not do
any one mistake.

Ahhm...my knowledge of human nature teaches me that this is a very weird belief.

In fact - I think that science is filled with a lot of cover ups and people which say "well,
I do not know what I am talking about however my colleague also has no idea what
he is talking about - so it's ok".

On the other hand - when a believer quotes the Quran he quotes the source .
It is perfect - there is no endless chain of human intervention in this, contrary to science.

Personally, I think that as good our technology is today - it could be much better in the future
if science would not be so stuck up on issues like ego and would really want to
improve the condition of humanity - not just justifying receiving a noble prize at the age of 90.

It seems that you have some very basic and profound misunderstandings of what science involves.

Scientists don't just rely on what someone says, who relies on what someone else said, and so on. The core idea about science, the thing that makes it so astonishingly useful, is that once someone makes a scientific claim, /anyone/ can test it. The person who made the claim. Another scientist. Me. You.

You can do quantum physics experiments in your own kitchen or basement, and collect data, and prove or disprove ideas. You can do psychology experiments with your friend, your family, or even just yourself. You can do biology experiments in your backyard.

Whether you know it or not, you're /already/ a scientist. At most, you just need a bit of training so that you can write down your results in a formal way, and to learn what some of the common mistakes of setting up an experiment, which can limit the usefulness of the results, are.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Experiments do not validate a claim - they just strengthen our belief in it.

When it comes to human claims my belief is always limited as it should be - because human beings, by their nature, make a lot of mistakes!

As far as I understand scientific experiments they are utterly useless for any
other purpose than validating a prediction - and this is something you said
by yourself.

However - You said that we dream because of some scientific physical idea.
This idea is only an experiment which for me has not given a reasonable explenation
to why we sleep - at best you can give me some insight about the physical
procedure of sleeping - which personally I am not interested in at this point.

My interest is with people who are spiritually sleeping - while they are physically awake.

As for my understanding of science - how many scientists really check what other scientists say? Frankly, did you check the experiment you quoted?

 

[Cyph0n]

Do you /really/ want a list of the references to, and jokes about, the Holocaust which South Park has already made?


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

Great news then, they ridiculed the Jews already - so what? As long as they keep censoring episodes depicting our Prophet, let them do whatever they please.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Good point CyphOn.

 

[DataPacRat]

Experiments do not validate a claim - they just strengthen our belief in it.

When it comes to human claims my belief is always limited as it should be - because human beings, by their nature, make a lot of mistakes!

As far as I understand scientific experiments they are utterly useless for any
other purpose than validating a prediction - and this is something you said
by yourself.

Experiments have another purpose - and some say it's actually the most important purpose: /falsifying/ an idea, rather than validating it. To prove an idea wrong. To prove /lots/ of ideas wrong. To prove as many ideas wrong as possible... so that we can find what few ideas remain which /might/ be true.

Aristotle said that when you drop something, it falls at a constant speed. Galileo did an experiment, and proved him wrong - falling objects accelerate. People used to believe that light was a wave in a "luminiferous aether", and the Michaelson-Morley experiment falsified that. People used to believe that the shape of your head was correlated with your personality; when they actually did experiments, they disproved that.

Even Einstein is quoted as having said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

However - You said that we dream because of some scientific physical idea.
This idea is only an experiment which for me has not given a reasonable explenation
to why we sleep - at best you can give me some insight about the physical
procedure of sleeping - which personally I am not interested in at this point.

My interest is with people who are spiritually sleeping - while they are physically awake.

As you might guess, my interest is with that which can be tested to be true or false.

As for my understanding of science - how many scientists really check what other scientists say?

Lots. Quite likely all of 'em. In the social world of modern scientists, you gain enormous status from proving an existing theory wrong; but in order to do that, the one who tries to prove the existing theory wrong has to understand it well enough to design a good experiment, so they have to keep checking what the other scientists are writing in the journals.

Frankly, did you check the experiment you quoted?

... Er, which experiment? Off the top of my head, I've measured acceleration due to gravity, performed the double-slit experiments, done some work with lenses and prisms and the nature of light, created compounds from other compounds, measured acidity, fiddled with artifacts of biological perception, programmed a neural network - mostly the sort of stuff that you can do in high schools or local science centres. I'm currently studying some of the more advanced electronics required to upgrade my ham radio license, and once I have legal permission to build my own radio circuits, that's going to involve a /lot/ of trial-and-error experimentation...


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

"likely all of them" - you see - you are not so rational after all.

You believe in science - that is in a sense your religion. This is ok.

However, in my opinion it is a very partial religion as it pertains only to things
which are provable - as you quoted from Mr. Einstein - in which he himself says that the truth can never be scientifically proved and therefore you believe in a religion which finds the truth, at
best meaningless (for the simple reason that it does not want to deal with it). - and you still believe these people on everything else
they say. I find it hilarious.

Please find me an experiment that proves that you are alive. If you can I
would be glad to see this experiment.

Ok - so you want through all the scientific walkthrough "science museum propaganda
stuff" - but did you verify the experiment about the dreams - the one you quoted
before?

Or do you think that, for you, because you verified some generic scientific experiment about
some fancy issue like "Quantum physics" that anybody else has verified and belongs
to mainstream it also validates any other scientific experiment that any other
person does?

At the end result - you did quote an experiment or a scientific research which you have not verified (the one about the dreams). This is a problem as it means that I can not trust what you say.

I do not want to be harsh - but I do want to make a point.

You can say that there is a limit to what you can personally verify and at some point
you have to believe other people - but I would say that it is completely the point
I am trying to make.

In fact - this is also the importance of religious education - because a truly religious
person tend to be much more honest than a non-religious person because a religious person
sees himself as a part of a community while a non-religious person does not.

 

[DataPacRat]

"likely all of them" - you see - you are not so rational after all.

You believe in science - that is in a sense your religion. This is ok.

However, in my opinion it is a very partial religion as it pertains only to things
which are provable - as you quoted from Mr. Einstein - in which he himself says that the truth can never be scientifically proved and therefore you believe in a religion which finds the truth, at
best meaningless (for the simple reason that it does not want to deal with it). - and you still believe these people on everything else
they say. I find it hilarious.

Please find me an experiment that proves that you are alive. If you can I
would be glad to see this experiment.

Ok - so you want through all the scientific walkthrough "science museum propaganda
stuff" - but did you verify the experiment about the dreams - the one you quoted
before?

Or do you think that, for you, because you verified some generic scientific experiment about
some fancy issue like "Quantum physics" that anybody else has verified and belongs
to mainstream it also validates any other scientific experiment that any other
person does?

At the end result - you did quote an experiment or a scientific research which you have not verified (the one about the dreams). This is a problem as it means that I can not trust what you say.

I do not want to be harsh - but I do want to make a point.

You can say that there is a limit to what you can personally verify and at some point
you have to believe other people - but I would say that it is completely the point
I am trying to make.

In fact - this is also the importance of religious education - because a truly religious
person tend to be much more honest than a non-religious person because a religious person
sees himself as a part of a community while a non-religious person does not.

Gabriel, the issues you are now raising are those of epistemology - the branch of philosophy dealing with what we can know, and how we know what we know. I think I can answer a lot of your questions by describing the form of epistemology I use, and where it has led me.

Epistemology is based on metaphysics; and metaphysics are based on assumptions, or axioms. These axioms are neither provable nor disprovable - they simply /are/, and at best, lead to a framework which turns out to be better or worse at helping you figure things out. After a good deal of consideration, I've managed to reduce my axioms to just one: "Thinking about the evidence of my senses can lead to useful conclusions". Some of the most basic ideas that come from this axiom are that I exist, that the universe exists, that other people exist, and that logic is useful.

Usually, if someone tries to pull the argument that I can't "prove" they exist, or I exist, or the universe exists I respond with the Stick argument - I start whapping them with a stick. If I don't exist, then nobody's whapping them, so they don't need to duck. Shall I start whapping you to prove I really exist?

Once this initial framework is in place, then it's possible to examine various forms of argument and "proof", and decide whether or not they really /do/ prove what they're claimed to prove, or are instead logical fallacies. This is "epistemology". Some forms of evidence turn out to be better than others; some turn out to have nothing to do with anything. The truth is what it is; some aspects of it can be learned more easily than others, some can't be learned at all (as Godel and Heisenberg discovered), but it's out there, just waiting for us to go looking for it.


I have, personally, experimentally verified that putting an electric current into water results in the generation of hydrogen and oxygen gases; and that this H and O can be combined into water. Water is H2O - this is a fact, proven to me by myself, and proven innumerable times and innumerable ways by other people. I have, personally, validated a number of other predictions of the theory that matter is made of atoms, that those atoms fit into the periodic table, and chemistry in general.

I have, personally, verified some of the predictions of the current consensus theories about particles smaller than atoms. For example, I own a thingummy, which contains a certain amount of tritium gas, which decays at a predictable rate, releasing electrons; the inner surface of this thingummy is lined with phosphor, which absorbs electrons of a certain sort, and releases energy in the form of photons, with energy that puts them in the range of visible light. (I call it my "nuclear keychain".) I've done other experiments various parts of this field, as well... hm, let me put it this way: I've played with a Geiger counter.

Taking chemistry in another direction leads to geology; I live in a geologically interesting area, and regularly go hiking, and base my predictions of what I will find based on this science. Companies make billions of dollars based on figuring out where to find mineral resources.

Taking chemistry in another direction, we develop astronomy: the general nature of the solar system, the existence of other stars, the fact that our sun is inside a galaxy called the Milky Way, the existence of other galaxies, Hubble's discovery that other galaxies are receding from us in a certain way, and from that last item, realizing that all the galaxies we can see used to be smooshed together around 13 billion years ago. What happened before then? Insufficient data to be sure. (My own pet theory: Observing any given volume of empty space closely enough reveals 'quantum fluctuations', where particles pop into existence from nothingness, along with their anti-particles, all the time, and usually the particle/anti-particle pair bump right back into each other and disappear... but sometimes, they don't, and enter into a relatively stable existence as 'real' particles. The kicker is, there isn't any theoretical upper limit to how much energy in any such quantum-fluctuation... in other words, it's possible that our whole universe is the result of one such fluctuation, which spontaneously appeared out of the ocean of quantum chaos.)

Taking chemistry in yet another direction, we get into biochemistry, and biology. The existence of cells; the observation that the frequencies of genetic variations change in populations over time; the observation of evolution in progress; the similarities and differences in genetic codes of various organisms suggesting common descent; the whole schmear. (Eugenie Scott recently put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.")

From biology, we can narrow our focus into neurology, neuro-psychology, and psychology: the science of the mind, including the limitations of our senses, our in-built cognitive biases, and so on, thus allowing me to account for these limitations in my thinking and overcome them. (A good self-instruction manual on these in-built mental limitations is "Mind Hacks: Tips & Tools for Using Your Brain" by Tom Stafford and Matt Webb.)

From psychology, the existence of more than one mind leads to the science of sociology: how different minds interact. And, once some sociological data has been collected, it is possible to develop a set of rational ethics for how such individuals can interact with each other. My own baseline ethical standard is that 'good' is 'the preservation and promotion of sapient life', occasionally adding the clause '(particularly my own life)'. Given that we haven't encountered any aliens or uplifted any animals, 'sapient life' is very closely cognate, but not quite identical, to 'human life'. From this core ethical principle can be derived virtues such as self-reliance, productiveness, integrity, honesty, (rational) pride, justice, benevolence, and courage. Once an ethical system is developed, it is possible to apply it to the field of politics, and come up with the idea that initiation of force is bad, certain rights should be supported (to life, to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness, to the ownership of property, to free speech, to self defense), the necessity of having some government to allow for the peaceful resolution of disputes of ownership, that certain governmental systems are better than others (laissez-faire capitalism, classical-liberal democracy, constitutionalism, separation of powers, checks and balances), to having opinions on particular political issues.

And, finally, once we have all of the above established, we can start looking at certain other items, about which people claim certain things, and considering the evidence for or against them. For many of them, the available scientific literature is that which one would expect for false premises: out of a large number of studies, a very small number report they work, but the better the studies, the fewer report any significant effect. Some of these claims include: acupuncture; chiropractic medicine; colon cleansing; detoxification; ear candling; folk and herbal remedies; holistic medicine; homeopathy; iridology; naturopathy; osteopathy; astral projection; curses; exorcisms; faith healing; ghosts; magick; psychics; vampires; voodoo; witchcraft; astrology; dowsing; dream interpretation; feng shui; hypnosis; numerology; UFOs; and miscellaneous others. One of the prime pieces of evidence here is the million-dollar prize offered by James Randi for anyone who can demonstrate the supernatural (in such a way that ordinary illusionists' magic tricks are ruled out)... for which not a single application has passed the most preliminary tests. These are the results that would be expected if the supernatural does not exist at all; and thus, based on that evidence, that is the conclusion I have reached.


Given what I have personally investigated and discovered, and what has been verified by thousands of other people, I hope you don't take it badly if I take your opinion on how poor and awful "science" is and that it can't /really/ discover anything and so on to be so much codswallop. Fortunately, there's an easy cure for belief in codswallop, and it's the same as the cure for any other form of ignorance: curiosity. Unfortunately, if you don't have any curiosity, and can't see the benefits of having it, there isn't much else I can do to give it to you. But I can hope that you will be able to figure out on your own that H. L. Mencken was right when he said, "I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Too fast for me.

You say that you understand by your method that you exist + that other people exist.

That was too fast. I have no problem with using rationality - I just want it in my pace and slowly so that I can see that between the rational arguments there is no gap. Some people just do it to fast!

(I do understand however the charm science can have for a persons ego. This is understandable as it is human nature. Actually, contrary to what you think - I like science. I like it even more when it is devoid of ego)

Do you understand that other people exist in the same way that you exist? Or are the other
people just equal to the physical movement of the trees, trains, cows around you?

Do you acknowledge that they are of the same existence as you have? How do you know they
are not all robots?

Your whipping example just shows that you do not understand the issue of human existence. If
you whip me with a stick I would agree that you physically exist (this does not require proof) -
but can you prove to me that you have a life experience like I do in my eyes?

I have not yet seen an experiment like that. Nor would we ever.

About astronomy - if you would take the time to study about ancient cultures (which gave a lot of
credit to religion) you would say that contrary to the common belief they had a very good astronomical
knowledge - not very far from the one we have today.

You also keep on quoting things you haven't verified (Quantum Chaos??) - how do you want me to take
that? Can I verify this claim? Does it make any sense to me? I do not even understand what you said.

Again - you are too fast for me...two minds interact? Didn't you tell me that you do not believe in a soul and
now you are talking like a mystic suddenly!

Please decide - either you do not have a soul and then you are alone in the world interacting with other
physical things like you.

On the other hand if you have a soul you can start speaking about other minds interacting. This is because in
order to have two minds interacting as far as I understand it you have to have some non-physical spiritual
connection connecting them.

Could you please refer me to a scientific explanation of what this non-material connection is? what its laws are?
I haven't seen such a discussion in scientific literature.

However - if you would open Quran or Hadith I think you would find plenty!

 

[جوري]

Great news then, they ridiculed the Jews already - so what? As long as they keep censoring episodes depicting our Prophet, let them do whatever they please.

The previous atheist fellow linked us to the alleged episode where they 'ridiculed the jews' in fact they were ridiculing 'the passion of the christ' and 'mel gibson'
it takes a certain wit to appreciate the satire in shows such as south park, I think perhaps the atheists are banking that no one is as 'smart as they are'? be that as it may a double sided hypocrisy doesn't nullify itself, I believe the anti-defamation league spelled it out best:
It was also praised by the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish newspaper The Forward, which called it "perhaps the most biting critique of 'The Passion' to date."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Jew

pls. don't take an atheist word as if set in stone, they are ridiculous people with nonsensical agenda and insights!

 

[DataPacRat]

Too fast for me.

You say that you understand by your method that you exist + that other people exist.

Close enough. The difference between my philosophy and solipsism, or other pseudo-philosophies which don't assume or conclude I exist, tend not to be able to offer any framework that allows useful predictions, or even any hints of whether any given actions are right or wrong.

That was too fast. I have no problem with using rationality - I just want it in my pace and slowly so that I can see that between the rational arguments there is no gap. Some people just do it to fast!

If you'd like to read through one person's development of a similar philosophy, which I agree with in a number of ways (though I disagree on a few details), you could do worse than to start at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Main.html and http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_Main.html, then once you've gotten those basics, move to the next section on epistemology, and then to ethics, and so on.

(I do understand however the charm science can have for a persons ego. This is understandable as it is human nature. Actually, contrary to what you think - I like science. I like it even more when it is devoid of ego)

One thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that scientists are humans, and they don't stop being humans and turn into Vulcans when they pull on their labcoats and start doing experiments. Science is a very human endeavour.

Do you understand that other people exist in the same way that you exist? Or are the other
people just equal to the physical movement of the trees, trains, cows around you?

Do you acknowledge that they are of the same existence as you have? How do you know they
are not all robots?

Your whipping example just shows that you do not understand the issue of human existence. If
you whip me with a stick I would agree that you physically exist (this does not require proof) -
but can you prove to me that you have a life experience like I do in my eyes?

I have not yet seen an experiment like that. Nor would we ever.

What you're describing is an age-old philosophical problem involving what are called "philosophical zombies", which gets into the whole idea of whether people can have the same qualia as each other.

It's true that, as you say, in a certain sense the problem is insoluable. However, treating the philosophical matter more practically, we can use the evidence to conclude that people act /as if/ they really do have minds and are real; and, based on that, we can make predictions based on that assumption, and those predictions tend to give better results than assuming that people don't have minds.

About astronomy - if you would take the time to study about ancient cultures (which gave a lot of
credit to religion) you would say that contrary to the common belief they had a very good astronomical
knowledge - not very far from the one we have today.

I /have/ studied ancient astronomy - mostly Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek, but also checking into everything from Australian to Mayan. Modern astronomy is /very/ different from ancient astronomy; we know that the wandering stars are actually planets, that they have moons, that the sun doesn't orbit the Earth, that there are planets invisible to the naked eye, that the whole solars system is just one among millions in the Milky Way, that our own galaxy is one among countless others, and that there are a whole host of weird and wonderful things in the heavens that we didn't expect to find until we found them.

You also keep on quoting things you haven't verified (Quantum Chaos??) - how do you want me to take
that? Can I verify this claim? Does it make any sense to me? I do not even understand what you said.

Do you /want/ to know?

If you do, then you have all you need to find the answers. If you don't, then no answer I give will matter to you.

Again - you are too fast for me...two minds interact? Didn't you tell me that you do not believe in a soul and
now you are talking like a mystic suddenly!

Please decide - either you do not have a soul and then you are alone in the world interacting with other
physical things like you.

On the other hand if you have a soul you can start speaking about other minds interacting. This is because in
order to have two minds interacting as far as I understand it you have to have some non-physical spiritual
connection connecting them.

Could you please refer me to a scientific explanation of what this non-material connection is? what its laws are?
I haven't seen such a discussion in scientific literature.

However - if you would open Quran or Hadith I think you would find plenty!

I have investigated the hypothesis that that which makes a person themself, which makes them a unique individual, is some sort of non-physical thingummy, along the lines of what is described as as a 'soul'. What I have learned is that mind is what brain does; damaging certain areas of the brain leads to predictable deficits in memory, skills, and personality, which seems to contradict the idea that what makes a person themselves is non-physical. I have also learned of a number of limitations of the mind, many based on physical limitations of the brain - to learn some of them yourself, you could do worse than to read the book "Mind Hacks", by Stafford and Webb, described at http://www.mindhacks.com/book/.

If you don't want to read the book, then you should at least learn what 'emergent properties' are, and how a simple set of rules can lead to unpredictable and complex behaviour of a whole new level. One good way to start learning this is Conway's "Game of Life", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life, and once you've absorbed the basic principles there, go on to other forms of cellular automata, fractals, and chaos theory and complexity theory.