• Generation X More Loyal to Religion
• Drink Water to Curb Weight Gain? Clinical Trial Confirms Effectiveness of Simple Appetite Control Method
• Capacity for Exercise Can Be Inherited: Finding Suggests Pharmaceutical Drugs  Can Be Used to Alter Activity Levels in Humans
• Do-Gooders Get Voted Off Island First: People Don’t Really Like Unselfish Colleagues
• ‘Charitable’ Behavior Found in Bacteria
• Attention, Couch Potatoes! Walking Boosts Brain Connectivity, Function
• Starvation Keeps Sleep-Deprived Fly Brain Sharp
• Eating Berries May Activate the Brain’s Natural Housekeeper for Healthy Aging
• Roots of Gamblers’ Fallacies and Other Superstitions: Causes of Seemingly Irrational Human Decision-Making

Generation X More Loyal to Religion: Generation X, the set of Americans who came of age in the late 1980s and early 1990s, is often branded as a rules-rejecting, authority-questioning group. But when it comes to religion, new research has revealed that Gen-Xers are surprisingly loyal to their faith — a finding that also suggests the rising non-religious tide in the United States may be leveling off. A new study showed that Gen-Xers are, in comparison with their Baby Boomer predecessors, far more likely to adhere to their religion. In fact, Boomers are 40 to 50 percent more likely than Gen-Xers to “disaffiliate” from their faith. As Generation X continues to grow older, this loyalty may translate into a more stable nation in terms of its religiosity, he said.
Though Generation X’s religious adherents are relatively durable, the generation as a whole is still more likely than previous ones to be raised with no religious preference, according to the research. Religious non-affiliation in the United States grew from between 6 percent and 8 percent in the 1970s and 1980s to nearly 16 percent by 2006.

Drink Water to Curb Weight Gain? Clinical Trial Confirms Effectiveness of Simple Appetite Control Method: Scientists report results of a new clinical trial confirming that just two 8-ounce glasses of water, taken before meals, enables people to shed pounds. “We found in earlier studies that middle aged and older people who drank two cups of water right before eating a meal ate between 75 and 90 fewer calories during that meal. In this recent study, we found that over the course of 12 weeks, dieters who drank water before meals, three times per day, lost about 5 pounds more than dieters who did not increase their water intake.”
“People should drink more water and less sugary, high-calorie drinks. It’s a simple way to facilitate weight management.” …Water may be so effective simply because it fills up the stomach with a substance that has zero calories. People feel fuller as a result, and eat less calorie-containing food during the meal. Increased water consumption may also help people lose weight if they drink it in place of sweetened calorie-containing beverages.
Diet soda pop and other beverages with artificial sweeteners may also help people reduce their calorie intake and lose weight. However, she advised against using beverages sweetened with sugar and high-fructose corn syrup because they are high in calories. A 12-ounce can of regular soda pop, for instance, contains about 10 teaspoons of sugar. Davy noted that that nobody knows exactly how much water people should drink daily. The Institute of Medicine, an agency of The National Academies, which advises the Federal Government on science, says that most healthy people can simply let thirst be their guide. It does not specify exact requirements for water, but set general recommendations for women at about 9 cups of fluids – from all beverages including water – each day, and men at about 13 cups of fluids. And it is possible to drink too much water, a situation that can lead to a rare, but serious, condition known as water intoxication.

Capacity for Exercise Can Be Inherited: Finding Suggests Pharmaceutical Drugs Can Be Used to Alter Activity Levels in Humans: Biologists have found that voluntary activity, such as daily exercise, is a highly heritable trait that can be passed down genetically to successive generations. Working on mice in the lab, they found that activity level can be enhanced with “selective breeding” – the process of breeding plants and animals for particular genetic traits. Their experiments showed that mice that were bred to be high runners produced high-running offspring, indicating that the offspring had inherited the trait for activity.
“Our findings have implications for human health. Down the road people could be treated pharmacologically for low activity levels through drugs that targeted specific genes that promote activity. Pharmacological interventions in the future could make it more pleasurable for people to engage in voluntary exercise. Such interventions could also make it less comfortable for people to sit still for long periods of time.”

Do-Gooders Get Voted Off Island First: People Don’t Really Like Unselfish Colleagues: You know those goody-two-shoes who volunteer for every task and thanklessly take on the annoying details nobody else wants to deal with? That’s right: Other people really can’t stand them. Four separate studies have found that unselfish workers who are the first to throw their hat in the ring are also among those that coworkers most want to, in effect, vote off the island. They found that unselfish colleagues come to be resented because they “raise the bar” for what is expected of everyone. As a result, workers feel the new standard will make everyone else look bad. It doesn’t matter that the overall welfare of the group or the task at hand is better served by someone’s unselfish behavior. What is objectively good, you see as subjectively bad.”
The do-gooders are also seen as deviant rule breakers. It’s as if they’re giving away Monopoly money so someone can stay in the game, irking other players to no end. The researcher would now like to look at how the do-gooders themselves react to being rejected. While some may indeed have ulterior motives, it’s more likely they actually are working for the good of an organization. Excluded from the group, they may say, “enough already” and simply give up. “But it’s also possible that they may actually try even harder.”

‘Charitable’ Behavior Found in Bacteria: In studying the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, the researchers found that the populations most adept at withstanding doses of antibiotics are those in which a few highly resistant isolates sacrifice their own well being to improve the group’s overall chance of survival. This bacterial altruism results when the most resistant isolates produce a small molecule called indole. Indole acts as something of a steroid, helping the strain’s more vulnerable members bulk up enough to fight off the antibiotic onslaught. But while indole may save the group, its production takes a toll on the fitness level of the individual isolates that produce it. “We weren’t expecting to find this. Typically, you would expect only the resistant strains to survive, with the susceptible ones dying off in the face of antibiotic stress. We were quite surprised to find the weak strains not only surviving, but thriving.” The fact that the full complexity of bacteria strains can now be more accurately understood has significant ramifications for the medical community. “Now, when we measure the resistance in a population, we’ll know that it may be tricking us. We’ll know that even an isolate that shows no resistance can put up a stronger battle against antibiotics thanks to its buddies.”

Attention, Couch Potatoes! Walking Boosts Brain Connectivity, Function: Even moderate exercise — in this case walking at one’s own pace for 40 minutes three times a week — can enhance the connectivity of important brain circuits, combat declines in brain function associated with aging and increase performance on cognitive tasks. Previous studies have found that aerobic exercise can enhance the function of specific brain structures, Kramer said. This study shows that even moderate aerobic exercise also improves the coordination of important brain networks. “The higher the connectivity, the better the performance on some of these cognitive tasks, especially the ones we call executive control tasks — things like planning, scheduling, dealing with ambiguity, working memory and multitasking.” These are the very skills that tend to decline with aging.

Starvation Keeps Sleep-Deprived Fly Brain Sharp: As anyone who has ever struggled to keep his or her eyes open after a big meal knows, eating can induce sleepiness. New research in fruit flies suggests that, conversely, being hungry may provide a way to stay awake without feeling groggy or mentally challenged. …The findings add a new wrinkle to the complex relationship between sleep and dietary metabolism. Scientists recognized about a decade ago that inadequate sleep results in obesity and contributes to the development of diabetes and coronary disease. Until now, no one had connected genes linked to lipids with regulation of the need for sleep. Like humans, flies deprived of sleep one day will try to make up for it by sleeping more the next day, a phenomenon referred to as sleep debt. Sleep-deprived flies also perform poorly on a simple test of learning ability.
Studies in other labs have shown that starvation or, in the case of human volunteers, fasting leads to less sleep. More recent research has also shown that starvation can change the activity levels of genes that manage storage and use of lipids. Scientists tested the starving, sleepless flies for two markers of sleep debt: an enzyme in saliva and the flies’ ability to learn to associate a light with an unpleasant stimulus. Both tests showed that the starving flies were not getting sleepy. “From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. If you’re starving, you want to make sure you’re on the top of your game cognitively, to improve your chances of finding food rather than becoming food for someone else.”

Eating Berries May Activate the Brain’s Natural Housekeeper for Healthy Aging: Scientists have reported the first evidence that eating blueberries, strawberries, and acai berries may help the aging brain stay healthy in a crucial but previously unrecognized way. Their study concluded that berries, and possibly walnuts, activate the brain’s natural “housekeeper” mechanism, which cleans up and recycles toxic proteins linked to age-related memory loss and other mental decline. Previous research suggested that one factor involved in aging is a steady decline in the body’s ability to protect itself against inflammation and oxidative damage. This leaves people vulnerable to degenerative brain diseases, heart disease, cancer, and other age-related disorders. “The good news is that natural compounds called polyphenolics found in fruits, vegetables and nuts have an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effect that may protect against age-associated decline.”
…Their past studies, for instance, showed that old laboratory rats fed for two months on diets containing 2 percent high-antioxidant strawberry, blueberry, or blackberry extract showed a reversal of age-related deficits in nerve function and behavior that involves learning and remembering. In the new research, they focused on another reason why nerve function declines with aging. It involves a reduction in the brain’s natural house-cleaning process. Cells called microglia are the housekeepers. In a process called autophagy, they remove and recycle biochemical debris that otherwise would interfere with brain function. “But in aging, microglia fail to do their work, and debris builds up. In addition, the microglia become over-activated and actually begin to damage healthy cells in the brain. Our research suggests that the polyphenolics in berries have a rescuing effect. They seem to restore the normal housekeeping function. These findings are the first to show these effects of berries.”
The study provides further evidence to eat foods rich in polyphenolics. Although berries and walnuts are rich sources, many other fruits and vegetables contain these chemicals ― especially those with deep red, orange, or blue colors. Those colors come from pigments termed anthocyanins that are good antioxidants. He emphasized the importance of consuming the whole fruit, which contains the full range of hundreds of healthful chemicals. Frozen berries, which are available year round, also are excellent sources of polyphenolics.

Roots of Gamblers’ Fallacies and Other Superstitions: Causes of Seemingly Irrational Human Decision-Making: Gamblers who think they have a “hot hand,” only to end up walking away with a loss, may nonetheless be making “rational” decisions. The study finds that because humans are making decisions based on how we think the world works, if erroneous beliefs are held, it can result in behavior that looks distinctly irrational. “The overarching idea is that there is typically structure in the world, and it makes sense that when we make decisions, we try to understand the structure in order to exploit it. One of the simplest kinds of ‘structure’ is when the outcome that just occurred tells you something about what is likely to happen next. Where people go astray is when they base their decisions on beliefs that are different than what is actually present in the world. In the coin example, if you toss a coin five times and all five times are heads, should you pick heads or tails on the next flip? Assuming the coin is fair, it doesn’t matter – the five previous heads don’t change the probability of heads on the next flip – it’s still 50 percent – but people nevertheless act as though those previous flips influence the next one.”
When things are actually independent over time, meaning they don’t have any structure, people will interpret results through possible structures, a way of thinking often seen among gamblers. For example, gamblers who win three hands in a row, may believe themselves to be “hot” and thus more likely to win the next hand. The research showed that similar behaviors are seen even in an optimal, fully rational computer learner given similar incorrect beliefs about the world. Furthermore, when the context of the task was changed so that subjects understood that the outcomes were actually independent, a drastic shift in their behavior was noted, with subjects all doing the “right” thing for the way the world actually worked. “This demonstrates that given the right world model, humans are more than capable of easily learning to make optimal decisions.”

Related posts

• More Groovy Science 4 (5)
• More Research and Studies To Interest You (3)
• More Groovy Science 5 (6)
• More Groovy Science 3 (5)
• The Science of Persuasion (2)

I heard about this on The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, episode 254, from May 26th. If you want to listen to Dr. Steven Novella talk about the three studies, start around the 23:30 minute mark. This segment goes to about 35:20, but the whole episode is good, of course.

The attitudes of parents toward the MMR vaccine and autism: The study concluded that parents had a significant bias toward believing information that they heard from other parents. The parents were mostly affected by their peers, and did not seem to be affected at all by what the scientific evidence said, and they seemed to inherently distrust information that came from the government. Not a surprising result.

Raising a general level of scientific literacy would be the best thing we could do to help this mess we’re in. My fear is that people are so anti-science and anti-intelligence these days that I don’t know how we could go about it, that people aren’t interested in learning anything that goes against their narrow world views. Another thing we could do (as recommended by Steven) is to change regulation so that it’s rational and evidence-based, not based on public opinion.

Popular Appeal vs Scientific Belief study using ESP: It concluded that people are much more likely to accept ESP based on whether they were told it was popular. And, when they were told that science rejects it versus accepts it, they were more likely to accept ESP if they were told scientists reject it. So they went against the scientific consensus.

The Rogues talked briefly about Social Norming, where you use peer pressure of contemporaries instead of scare tactics from authority figures on people (teens, youth, etc) to try to get kids or people to not do something harmful, like smoking or drugs. They also mentioned Scared Straight which didn’t work. People are influenced by social pressure, not rational arguments.

The last study (no working link): If people were presented with scientific evidence which dis-confirmed something they already believed, their response to that generally was to conclude that science itself is untrustworthy. Not just the science that they are being presented (in the study), but the scientific method in general. Therefore confronting people with tightly held beliefs with the scientific evidence, not only does that not work, it turns them off to science in general, even about unrelated topics. It has a huge negative influence.

A related study found that if you tell somebody, “here’s a myth and the myth is wrong”, three weeks later, a significant percentage of people remember the myth as being correct.

To me, science is so amazing and wonderful and exciting. Sure, the daily experiments can be dry and tedious, but it’s all worth it when the results come in. Discovery, observation, exploration, and the creation of new technologies and other neat things that improve our lives or somehow make life better in this universe, well that’s all just fantastic. Sure, we have to be careful to keep in mind that human beings are doing the science and can make mistakes. But that’s where peer review comes in, and other scientists verifying experiments, results and evidence.

It’s not perfect, but it’s the best thing we have to understand the universe and get the most out of our precious time in this world. I wish I could convey the excitement I get just walking through my yard, which I’ve seen for almost 6 years, when I find a new insect or see some plant that wasn’t there last year. That’s just mere observation. That’s not even experimentation or research, and yet still it’s exciting (ok, I’m a science geek, but that’s compliment, not an insult!)

But I guess if you don’t have science and the idea that the universe is a marvelous place in your mind, then how can we interest you? How can we make science exciting and fascinating and part of everyone’s lives? How can we show people that they use the scientific method in some form in their daily lives? Is there any way to turn things around and make science and scientific discovery fun and cool and exciting?

Related posts

• Your Tax Dollars Teaching Medical Students Pseudoscience (6)
• The Science of Persuasion (2)
• More Groovy Science 6 (0)
• More Groovy Science 3 (5)
• More Groovy Science – 1 (6)

Woo can be defined as anything supernatural, irrational or lacking in evidence. So it would include religion and any kind of pseudoscience.

On a side note, is there anything that could be defined as woo that you still believe in? If so, why?

For me, I’ve somehow whittled down my friend list from all woo-lovers to all skeptical atheists. I didn’t do this deliberately, but I guess with my skeptical talk and constant questioning (not aggressively, but I really did question all the woo I previously embraced), my woo-loving friends all went their separate ways and avoided me within months of when my quest for knowledge began.

I didn’t have many friends for awhile but then found the Morgantown Atheists where I found several people that have become good friends. Also, having HDC has let me meet new people who were rather like-minded as well.

With extended family, I still have to deal with woo, both religious and supernatural. They know Butch (my awesome husband) and I are die-hard atheists so we have come to an unspoken agreement that we don’t talk about religion. Or politics just to be safe and have nice dinners together.

I think I’m lucky in most respects. My skeptical atheist friends keep things lively by being smart and reason-based (most of the time, we’re not perfect, of course). And my extended family gives me an occasional glimpse into woo-land so I get to see what the majority of people are dealing with and believing. It’s enough.

I don’t avoid anyone based on their woo. But I tend to gently state my skepticism when I can so that I am not being dishonest about myself. Then people who are wrapped in woo tend to avoid me, not the other way around. I can’t emphasize enough that I am very nice about it, not aggressive or “militant” at all. I’m probably way too nice about it. The other evening, I let my sister-in-law go on about her visit to a psychic and only said two things about how cold readings work. When the other sister-in-law said the psychic (a 95 year old woman) insisted she give her her hand (she didn’t want a reading) and told her to never drive, to dump her boyfriend (who she just moved in with and is very happy with) and other negative things, I said a few things then. Mainly that it’s all made up and it’s nonsense and don’t let that upset her. But even though she said it was no big deal, she talked about it all night. I got the impression it really bothered her.

As you may know, I’m happily married to Butch (we’ve been together for 15 years). So I’m not looking to date anyone, of course. But if I did have to date, I think I would be pretty strict about how much woo my partner could be into and still be in a relationship with me. I think it would be such a clash of belief and skepticism that it would cause problems. I think I’d have issues with it.

Let us know what you think in the comments!

Related posts

• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Pure Atheism vs Skeptical Atheism (8)
• Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy (0)
• How To Talk To A True Believer About Atheism And Religion (32)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 1 – First Question (24)

This is great news! My first question is why it took Britain so long to make such a move. My second concern is that he will just come back over here where he is worshiped by idiots like McCarthy and her ilk. And my third concern is people will still worship him and continue to avoid getting their children properly vaccinated, causing suffering and even death for innocent kids everywhere.

LONDON — The doctor whose research linking autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella influenced millions of parents to refuse the shot for their children was banned Monday from practicing medicine in his native Britain.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 study was discredited — but vaccination rates have never fully recovered and he continues to enjoy a vocal following, helped in the U.S. by endorsements from celebrities like Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy.

“That is Andrew Wakefield’s legacy,” said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “The hospitalizations and deaths of children from measles who could have easily avoided the disease.”

Wakefield’s discredited theories had a tremendous impact in the U.S., Offit said, adding: “He gave heft to the notion that vaccines in general cause autism.”

In Britain, Wakefield’s research led to a huge decline in the number of children receiving the MMR vaccine: from 95 percent in 1995 — enough to prevent measles outbreaks — to 50 percent in parts of London in the early 2000s. Rates have begun to recover, though not enough to prevent outbreaks. In 2006, a 13-year-old boy became the first person to die from measles in Britain in 14 years.

“The false suggestion of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine has done untold damage to the UK vaccination program,” said Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. “Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that it is safe.”

On Monday, Britain’s General Medical Council, which licenses and oversees doctors, found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct and stripped him of the right to practice medicine in the U.K. Wakefield said he plans to appeal the ruling, which takes effect within 28 days.

The council was acting on a finding in January that Wakefield and two other doctors showed a “callous disregard” for the children in their study, published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet. The medical body said Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son’s birthday party, paying them 5 pounds (about $7.20) each and later joked about the incident.

The study has since been widely rejected. From 1998-2004, studies in journals including the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Pediatrics and BMJ published papers showing no link between autism and the measles vaccine.

Wakefield moved to the U.S. in 2004 and set up an autism research center in Austin, Texas, where he gained a wide following despite being unlicensed as a doctor there and facing skepticism from the medical community. He quit earlier this year.

Offit said he doubted Britain’s decision to strip the 53-year-old Wakefield of his medical license would convince many parents that vaccines are safe.

“He’s become almost like a Christ-like figure and it doesn’t matter that science has proven him wrong,” Offit said. “He is a hero for parents who think no one else is listening to them.”

In Monday’s ruling, the medical council said Wakefield abused his position as a doctor and “brought the medical profession into disrepute.”

At the time of his study, Wakefield was working as a gastroenterologist at London’s Royal Free Hospital and did not have approval for the research. The study suggested autistic children had a bowel disease and raised the possibility of a link between autism and vaccines. He had also been paid to advise lawyers representing parents who believed their children had been hurt by the MMR vaccine.

Ten of the study’s authors later renounced its conclusions and it was retracted by the Lancet in February.

At least a dozen British medical associations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust have issued statements verifying the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.

This verdict is not about (the measles) vaccine,” said Adam Finn, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School. “We all now know that the vaccine is remarkably safe and enormously effective… We badly need to put this right for the sake of our own children and children worldwide.”

Related posts

• Your Tax Dollars Teaching Medical Students Pseudoscience (6)
• People Trust Peers, Not Science (4)
• More Groovy Science 6 (0)
• Interesting, Enlightening Evolution (0)
• Drink When You’re Thirsty, Not 8 Glasses A Day (4)

Notice how in the demo clips it’s always about some materialistic thing like a bike or a necklace? How shallow and self-serving! Why don’t all believers in this stupid lie wish for world peace or clean drinking water for everyone? Or everyone to be disease free? Instead they have to have a new Shiny. Pathetic!

Oh, and see the waves of rays coming out of the peoples’ heads? That doesn’t happen. That’s a special effect. So when you wish for something your thoughts don’t actually leave your head. Just in case you were wondering. Don’t believe me? Ask a neuroscientist. They have proof your thoughts don’t leave your head by magic (they only leave your head when you speak, write something down or perform an action based on those thoughts)

Oh OH! And when you ask for something, then believe it’s already yours, there’s no invisible man in the sky that says to you, “Your wish is my command.” You know that, right? The Universe doesn’t have a log of every time you wish for that new Ferrari. It doesn’t wait for the wish requests to reach 1,000 before it has it shipped to you. (Don’t move your house because it will get delivered to your old address! LOL!)

Other posts about The Secret:

• The Law Of Attraction – And The Secret – Are Bullshit
• The Secret Divides
• The Secret Divides Part 2

Related posts

• The Law Of Attraction- And The Secret -Are Bullshit (114)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• How Far I’ve Come! (7)
• What Level Of Woo Would Make Someone Undateable? (20)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)

The one I found that I thought was amazing was Snake Oil?: Scientific evidence for popular health supplements. (That link takes you to the interactive version. See the static version here.) On the side is a show me button that flies out a list of  uses and types of supplements. Choose what you’re interested in to filter the results. The bigger the bubble, the more popular the supplement is. The higher on the chart, the more evidence there is that it works. Notice how many bubbles are below the Worth It line. Remember, the supplements are only good for the conditions listed inside the bubble, which you can see by hovering over it.

What David says about the evidence:

We only considered large, human, randomized placebo-controlled trials in our data scrape – wherever possible. No animal trials. No cell studies. Many of the health claims made by the $23 billion supplements industry are based on non-human trials. We wanted to cut through that.

This piece was doggedly researched by myself, and researchers Pearl Doughty-White and Alexia Wdowski. We looked at the abstracts of over 1500 studies on PubMed (run by US National Library Of Medicine) and Cochrane.org (which hosts meta-studies of scientific research). It took us several months to seek out the evidence – or lack of.

The information is generated from a Google Doc, so when new research comes out it can be easily updated. Very cool indeed. The data has web addresses to the source of the research so you can see it for yourself. It’s not just anecdotal evidence.

David also has a chart on caffeine and calories. He even shows how much exercise it will take to work off that large iced mocha you had for breakfast.

He does two interesting charts about politics. The Left vs the Right. A world version and an American version. These are chock full of information.

His 2012 chart is also great. The left describes the believers, the right describes the skeptics, with information refuting what the believers say. Sources are listed at the bottom, and are available in a Google Doc.

His climate change chart shows global warming deniers vs the scientific consensus.

He has many more on his site as well. That’s just a few of my favorites.

Related posts

• Your Tax Dollars Teaching Medical Students Pseudoscience (6)
• Sheeple: Studies About Social Conformity (11)
• Oh Jesus! (36)
• Not All Atheists Are Evolved Alike (17)
• No More Conversations With Craig the christian (18)

Here is Paul’s comment:

I have a couple of questions that I would like answered, and you seem like the type to answer questions. First of all, what are your thoughts on supernatural phenomena (weird stuff people claim happens, i.e., someone’s ear being cut off, and growing back on)? Is it all just a big hoax?

Secondly, I know that evolution details how the earth came to it’s present state, and the big bang, (do they still call it that?) started all that, but what could have caused the big bang? And how did whatever caused the big bang come into existence? As far as I know, science clearly states that nothing can be infinite, and all things have an end and a beginning. So, if nothing is infinite, than how did the universe get started? Wouldn’t something had to have caused time to exist first, something that wasn’t governed by time, and so couldn’t even be described by adjectives like infinite?

I just have these questions, and no one can really answer them, except with some lame thing like “It just goes on and on”. And what does happen when we die? I know our bodies clearly decompose, we can see that much easily.

But what about our consciousness? It seems to me that consciousness is somewhat of a mystery in and of itself. Scientists can make a body, and they can put blood and oxygen in it, but yet they can’t make it live? So, if a consciousness isn’t something like a body, something that decomposes, what happens when the consciousness dies? Does it really just cease to exist? I can’t even imagine not existing. It just seems so foreign, to not exist.

Lastly, I don’t really get the term “gnostic atheist”. From what I’ve read, gnostics claim to “know” something, that other people don’t. So, if you’re a gnostic atheist, does that just mean that you “know” hands down, that there is not, and has never been, any kind of god?

First, here is Johnny’s reply:

Related posts

• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Burden Of Proof Lies With The Claimant (11)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• We Are Lions! (4)