Reason's Greetings

[....lybob]

The Universe as we know it is space and time and our thinking is within space and time.

our thinking may be within the normal 3 dimensions of space and the dimension of time but the thinking about the universe by physicists is not so limited.

[ieatcrayonz]

I hate seeing all you dudes argue like this. I think it is important that we keep to the topic of why we don't all listen to the almighty Ricky Gervais. Physicists and clerics and historians and scholars be damned. We should all heed the word of the comedy writer.

[whateverdude]

our thinking may be within the normal 3 dimensions of space and the dimension of time but the thinking about the universe by physicists is not so limited.

Well than you know they are just at the beginning to define "god" and "his" work through M-Theory p-branes. Ok now this concludes pulling it out of my ass posts for the year

Edited December 23, 2010 by whateverdude

[Gene Frenkle]

Well than you know they are just at the beginning to define "god" and "his" work through M-Theory p-branes. Ok now this concludes pulling it out of my ass posts for the year

Yes, but what or WHO created the branes?

[whateverdude]

Yes, but what or WHO created the branes?

we can not know that because "he" exist outside of that system.

[Magox]

Ralph Wilson?

Oh looky, Adam made a funny.

 

I'm so proud of you

[Adam]

Oh looky, Adam made a funny.

 

I'm so proud of you

On a serious note, this arguement could go on forever, because science and religion are equally flawed for obvious reasons

[DC Tom]

our thinking may be within the normal 3 dimensions of space and the dimension of time but the thinking about the universe by physicists is not so limited.

 

What a load of crap. Doesn't matter how many dimensions you add, under modern theory they're either space, or time.

 

On a serious note, this arguement could go on forever, because science and religion are equally flawed for obvious reasons

 

Another load of crap. Neither is "flawed", both are merely based on unprovable axioms (respectively, the value of empiricism and the existence of the unperceivable). Arguing either or both is "flawed" is just a coward's way out of discussing it.

[Magox]

Another load of crap. Neither is "flawed", both are merely based on unprovable axioms (respectively, the value of empiricism and the existence of the unperceivable). Arguing either or both is "flawed" is just a coward's way out of discussing it.

As if you should be surprised by Adam's noncommittal stance.

[OGTEleven]

After 12 years of indoctrination and much struggle, I've obviously reached my conclusions. It wasn't easy, but instead rather scary, and all started with the type of questioning that you're referring to. I think that you don't just change somebody's mind about deeply held beliefs. It's a process which starts with a seed of doubt. The seed sometimes grows and leads to disbelief, which is where I ended up. Sometimes I think it's just too much for people to leave behind. In the end, to me, the truth is more important than anything else such as feeling you are special or that you and your loved ones will be reunited in the afterlife. Once I got past the scary part, I was able to find meaning, purpose and morality in my life with no need for supernatural beings upstairs watching my every move. My sometimes militant approach to this subject is intended to plant seeds of doubt using reason and logic. I feel like I owe a few people a great deal for doing the same for me and I intend to pass it on.

 

Question everything. What are you basing your belief on?

 

I am what some people would consider religious and others would not. I believe in God or at least I would be perceived to believe in God. I am aware that being religious, and/or belief in God requires faith. I have that faith. I can see a reasonable person having no faith in the existence of God. I can EASILY see someone not wanting to be religious or be affiliated with and organized religion.

 

Here is where I differ with you. Whether it is God as described by Catholics, Muslims or Jews, some other kind of God, or something altogether different, I do think that humans generally feel a connection to something. Basically, consciouseness makes us feel we are in control of things. We feel as if have free will. I can decide to sit down and watch the Bills play on Sunday for example. In the mind of an atheist, what is that consciouseness? How is it described? Is it real or is it an illusion?

 

I am wondering if the conclusions you've reached include a perception that you (and all of us) have free will. To me that notion is inherently inconsistent with atheism. If there is no God, then when all is said and done, the universe is made up of energy and matter. The reactions between this energy and matter, although complex, can be predicted. Over time we have learned, about light, gravity, chemistry and myriad other disciplines with increasing accuracy. We haven't met something we don't feel can be predicted (although we've met things we can't predict yet). This means all of the chemistry that goes on in our brains and triggers actions in our speech and movement and every other aspect of what we call life, can be predicted. It just can't be predicted by us. Basically, this amounts to predetermination. It really isn't too complex, but my perception of atheists is that not all of them subscribe to predetermination. Why not? How can there be free will; real free will without a real consciouseness. Is that consciousenss "God"?

 

Since you're into spreading seeds of doubt, here is an attempt to spread one to you.

 

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic."

 

You gave the thumbs up to that. Let me ask you something.

 

Why don’t I believe in free will? No, no no, why do YOU believe in free will? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.

 

Question everything. What are you basing your belief on?

 

How can I question anything without free will?

 

 

 

 

I really have no idea why this topic is the one that seems to draw me in to posting. It is getting pretty annoying.

[DC Tom]

As if you should be surprised by Adam's noncommittal stance.

 

This is where I miss conner. Who else here could misconstrue my post so badly as to respond "You're just anti-science and hate facts, go back to watching Fox News", while completely forgetting I'm a dedicated and self-avowed empiricist? No one. Everyone else here is at least tenuously existing in the same reality (whether or not we're all grounded in it, that's another question).

 

Not conner...his surreal idiocy makes him the Joker to my Batman. With him, I'm a superhero. Without...just some weird schmuck in a funny costume.

 

Surely the burden of proof is on the believer.

 

This is one of the most retarded semantic and logical constructs possible. "Prove" "belief"? Think about that.

[Adam]

What a load of crap. Doesn't matter how many dimensions you add, under modern theory they're either space, or time.

 

 

 

Another load of crap. Neither is "flawed", both are merely based on unprovable axioms (respectively, the value of empiricism and the existence of the unperceivable). Arguing either or both is "flawed" is just a coward's way out of discussing it.

They are both flawed, as they are created by the flawed race of man. But, they also are both necessary.

 

I find people who think that you have to go with one or the other to be as foolish as those who think democrat and republican are the only things that exist.

 

Both come at the same thing from different angles and don't always need to be in opposition. Funny thing is that both are equally resistant to changing when proved wrong.

[LeviF]

How can I question anything without free will?

I don't care much for arguing about free will (FWIW, I'm a compatibilist), but I had to comment on this. You can still question something without free will, it's just that you don't have a choice in whether or not you question it.

[Magox]

This is where I miss conner. Who else here could misconstrue my post so badly as to respond "You're just anti-science and hate facts, go back to watching Fox News", while completely forgetting I'm a dedicated and self-avowed empiricist? No one. Everyone else here is at least tenuously existing in the same reality (whether or not we're all grounded in it, that's another question).

 

Not conner...his surreal idiocy makes him the Joker to my Batman. With him, I'm a superhero. Without...just some weird schmuck in a funny costume.

[DC Tom]

They are both flawed, as they are created by the flawed race of man. But, they also are both necessary.

 

I find people who think that you have to go with one or the other to be as foolish as those who think democrat and republican are the only things that exist.

 

Both come at the same thing from different angles and don't always need to be in opposition. Funny thing is that both are equally resistant to changing when proved wrong.

 

You're an idiot. Not in conner's league...but still, an idiot.

 

For using some preternaturally stupid definition of "flawed", for starters. Then for not understanding **** about the scientific method: "resistant to changing when proved wrong"? That's just !@#$ing ignorant.

[Magox]

I don't care much for arguing about free will (FWIW, I'm a compatibilist), but I had to comment on this. You can still question something without free will, it's just that you don't have a choice in whether or not you question it.

[Adam]

You're an idiot. Not in conner's league...but still, an idiot.

 

For using some preternaturally stupid definition of "flawed", for starters. Then for not understanding **** about the scientific method: "resistant to changing when proved wrong"? That's just !@#$ing ignorant.

Pardon me for not being the most eloquent person in the world. Sure, maybe my meaning of flawed is different than yours, but I think what I meant got across.

 

Sure, many use the scientific method to disprove current knowledge, but people are usually very resistant to changing what they have learned over time.

 

Am I an idiot? Sure I am, I won't disagree. That's why I enjoy engaging in discussions like this one. I learn a lot from both sides, whether I agree or not. Laugh at that if you want.

 

As far as taking a stand for my personal beliefs, Magcox, I don't feel the need to. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. Neither of us will persuade the other to change their minds, and I am completely at peace with that.

[DC Tom]

I don't care much for arguing about free will (FWIW, I'm a compatibilist), but I had to comment on this. You can still question something without free will, it's just that you don't have a choice in whether or not you question it.

 

I question this...but then, I realize that if my questioning it is predestined and not an act of free will, that I'm confirming it by questioning it. Therefore, I can only question this by not questioning it (thereby exercising free will counter to predestination)...which disproves the hypothesis, and therefore leads me to question it...

 

...and we have now reached the end of the metaphysical thought process. I'm going to go have a cookie.

[Booster4324]

Not conner...his surreal idiocy makes him the Joker to my Batman. With him, I'm a superhero. Without...just some weird schmuck in a funny costume.

 

There there. Joker goes to Arkham and Batman has more than one nemesis.

[LeviF]

...and we have now reached the end of the metaphysical thought process. I'm going to go have a cookie.

There, doesn't that feel good?

 

I still can't !@#$ing believe they give out multi-million dollar grants to places to do something similar to what you just did, only for a longer time.