Reason's Greetings

[Chef Jim]

The ignore button is your friend. I'd be sad, but I would get over it eventually.

 

As not to bore you all, I'll stay out of this for a while (again)...

 

The ignore button is the chicken way out.

 

</staying-out-of-this-for-a-while>

Actually, I have mostly religious friends. Remember, that doesn't make them all bad people.

<staying-out-of-this-for-a-while>

 

I imagine it's safer to say you like them despite their terrible shortcomings. Me, I highly respect their belief.

[Adam]

This discussion is why our system of government is the best- when it is working, of course. It avoids tyranny by majority, despite the fact that some still believe that majority should rule in this country.

 

I have stated numerous times that I do not hate any religion- religion is something that can light a fuse, but so is politics or so many other things. Something is inherently wrong with the people that have committed attrocities over the centuries. They just fall back on religion as an excuse.

 

I find the DaVinci Code/Angel and Demons series to be very interesting. Sure, it uses Christianity, but you could substitute any religion and have the same movie. It was made in America, where Christianity is the majority, so that made sense. The people who did evil in it were trying to defend their religion from those who had different ideas- people who really didn't pose a threat to them.

[OCinBuffalo]

Deepak Chopra has an interesting take on God. He says that we don't understand God because we think of "him" as a person, but God is not a person, but rather a process (paraphrasing).

That's because Deepak Chopra is perhaps the greatest scam artist of all time.

 

By the time you understand WTF he he is saying and you understand "him as a person", you realize that whoever the f paid for the conference and the lunch you are eating at it, has probably had their money taken not by a person, but by a process....and has now financially committed to "Chopra takes my money" process.

 

They can't stop it now, because admitting that Chopra is a clown, after sinking 10s of thousands of personal, and 100s of thousands of the firm's money, would literally cause them a conniption. Luckily for you, you get a free lunch, and you got to fly home a day early, and you will be hitting the bar before rush hour even starts...so Chopra isn't completely worthless.

 

Edited December 30, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[RI Bills Fan]

I wish I could nail SE Cupp, but she does a FINE job of nailing Frenkle and his ilk in this piece:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/12/29/2010-12-29_the_arrogance_of_the_atheists_they_batter_believers_with_smug_certainty.html

 

Okay, her father was a good man and she isn't very impressed with the opinions of loud-mouthed athiests. How exactly do those two simple & undeniable facts nail Frenkle, or anybody?

 

And considering her admiration for her father's decisions in life, I believe she would be disgusted by your opening remark.

[Gene Frenkle]

Thanks for the nice words. I understand your thoughts about predetermination and whether it is consistent with the concept of God. There are certainly some points there which need to be addressed for believers. I have my thoughts but have no illusions that they could ever be proven.

 

Maybe I missed it in your post, but I personally cannnot come to grips with free will even being possible in a universe without God (an atheist universe if you will). I am interested in your thoughts about that. To me, if someone is an atheist, they simply must be someone who believes in predetermination. I'm not clear whether you believe that. I am not trying to set up some trap, just interested in your thoughts. If you even believe free will is a remote possibility, how could it be without God?

That's an awfully big question.

 

I tried to answer your question, but I guess my response wasn't very clear. The short answer is (just like with god): I don't know and I don't think there's a way to know for certain. It's closely related to the god question of course, so since you seem interested, I'll give my thoughts related to the two scenarios:

 

If there is a god:

God has chosen to give us free will, somehow, someway. This, of course, is the classic 'god did it' argument. As usual, there is not much more to say when invoking this argument, so there it is.

 

EXCEPT...

 

Assuming god is omniscient and omnipotent, how can we actually have free will? God knows exactly what we have done, are doing and will do forever. Of course, the 'god did it' argument trumps that line of reasoning because god is omnipotent.

 

 

 

If there is no god, there is not 'god did it' argument, so we are bound by physics:

Assuming time is continuous, it may be possible to move backward and forward through time at will. At any given point in time, all of the atoms the universe are in a very specific state.

 

Let's say 'ten seconds ago', the state of all of the atoms in the universe is represented by S-10.

Let's say 'right now', the state of all of the atoms in the universe is represented by S00.

Let's say 'ten seconds from now', the state of all of the atoms in the universe is represented by S10.

 

If there is only one timeline (a big assumption), moving backward from S10 to S-10 should find all of the atoms in the universe back to the exact state they 'were in' at that particular time. Also, moving from S-10 to S10 should find all of the atoms in the universe back to the exact state they 'will be in' at that particular time. In this case, there can be no free will, only cause and effect. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well.

 

So there is no free will.

 

UNLESS...

 

One subscribes to multiverse theory, which states that all possible "states" of the universe at any given time are represented in some parallel universe. Whenever a 'decision' is made (free will), a new universe is created or maybe just entered to accommodate that decision. I think of this like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. In this case, free will is actually possible because you are choosing your own path in a sense. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well either.

 

 

In the end, I'm not sure we'll ever know or if it even matters. We all have the intuitive sense that we have free will, and that seems to be enough. It will certainly twist one's head in knots thinking about it.

 

A description of a very interesting experiment related to this can be found here. Please press play, then fast forward to the 17:00 mark:

http://www.radiolab....no-special-now/

 

I imagine it's safer to say you like them despite their terrible shortcomings.

Terrible shortcomings is a too harsh. I don't think most people have allowed themselves to go down the rabbit hole far enough to fully objectively question the dogma that's been pounded into their heads since birth. There's a great deal of fear associated with most religions which makes it tough when someone starts to question his or her faith, IMO.

[OGTEleven]

If there is no god,

 

 

So there is no free will.

 

UNLESS...

 

One subscribes to multiverse theory, which states that all possible "states" of the universe at any given time are represented in some parallel universe. Whenever a 'decision' is made (free will), a new universe is created or maybe just entered to accommodate that decision. I think of this like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. In this case, free will is actually possible because you are choosing your own path in a sense. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well either.

 

 

In the end, I'm not sure we'll ever know or if it even matters. We all have the intuitive sense that we have free will, and that seems to be enough. It will certainly twist one's head in knots thinking about it.

 

 

I can buy into a multiverse theory which says every action we make based on a decision "creates" a parallel universe. I actually have thought a lot about this with God. Without God I still come to the same conclusion (only bigger?). I create trillions upon trillions of universes by deciding to blow my nose or turn left/right. At the end of this thought process, I still come back to the free will itself being an illusion. It doesn't matter if trillions of "me" think they have free will or even if some me's were created by other me's.

 

Every decision I make spins out a universe. Meanwhile you are making a decsion. If both our decisions are yes/no, then the result is 4 universes more than an instant ago. There are billions on earth with free will and not every decision is yes/no, so the number of universes is staggering. This is before we even account for decisions being made in other worlds we have yet to discover. I can actually buy off on this no matter how big the number, but not with free will as part of the equation. If there are trillions of me, but each is subject to the laws of the multiverse which involve predictable interactions of matter and energy, then there is still zero free will by definition. Zero times a trillion-trillion is zero.

 

I still come to the same conclusion that an atheist must be resigned to predetermination. That's ok because as you say the illusion of free will may be enough. I just think it has to be recognized as an illusion by atheists.

 

I tried the link and I can get it to play but am having a hard time with the fast forwarding. I'll try it again when I have more time.

[Chef Jim]

I can buy into a multiverse theory which says every action we make based on a decision "creates" a parallel universe. I actually have thought a lot about this with God. Without God I still come to the same conclusion (only bigger?). I create trillions upon trillions of universes by deciding to blow my nose or turn left/right. At the end of this thought process, I still come back to the free will itself being an illusion. It doesn't matter if trillions of "me" think they have free will or even if some me's were created by other me's.

 

Every decision I make spins out a universe. Meanwhile you are making a decsion. If both our decisions are yes/no, then the result is 4 universes more than an instant ago. There are billions on earth with free will and not every decision is yes/no, so the number of universes is staggering. This is before we even account for decisions being made in other worlds we have yet to discover. I can actually buy off on this no matter how big the number, but not with free will as part of the equation. If there are trillions of me, but each is subject to the laws of the multiverse which involve predictable interactions of matter and energy, then there is still zero free will by definition. Zero times a trillion-trillion is zero.

 

I still come to the same conclusion that an atheist must be resigned to predetermination. That's ok because as you say the illusion of free will may be enough. I just think it has to be recognized as an illusion by atheists.

 

I tried the link and I can get it to play but am having a hard time with the fast forwarding. I'll try it again when I have more time.

 

Whoa dude............

[/board stoners]

[ieatcrayonz]

Whoa dude............

[/board stoners]

Is he stoned again? Because it sounds like he's stoned again. He can go through all that blah blah blah about trillions of universes but he can't get the fast forward to work?

[Chef Jim]

Is he stoned again? Because it sounds like he's stoned again. He can go through all that blah blah blah about trillions of universes but he can't get the fast forward to work?

 

Ok, now YOU just blew my !@#$ing mind.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Chef Jim

[Gene Frenkle]

I can buy into a multiverse theory which says every action we make based on a decision "creates" a parallel universe. I actually have thought a lot about this with God. Without God I still come to the same conclusion (only bigger?). I create trillions upon trillions of universes by deciding to blow my nose or turn left/right. At the end of this thought process, I still come back to the free will itself being an illusion. It doesn't matter if trillions of "me" think they have free will or even if some me's were created by other me's.

 

Every decision I make spins out a universe. Meanwhile you are making a decsion. If both our decisions are yes/no, then the result is 4 universes more than an instant ago. There are billions on earth with free will and not every decision is yes/no, so the number of universes is staggering. This is before we even account for decisions being made in other worlds we have yet to discover. I can actually buy off on this no matter how big the number, but not with free will as part of the equation. If there are trillions of me, but each is subject to the laws of the multiverse which involve predictable interactions of matter and energy, then there is still zero free will by definition. Zero times a trillion-trillion is zero.

 

I still come to the same conclusion that an atheist must be resigned to predetermination. That's ok because as you say the illusion of free will may be enough. I just think it has to be recognized as an illusion by atheists.

 

I tried the link and I can get it to play but am having a hard time with the fast forwarding. I'll try it again when I have more time.

Yes, you know exactly what I'm talking about then.

 

With the link, you have to let it buffer to the fast forward point before you fast forward. I've noticed that it kind of screws up if you don't wait. It shouldn't take long. On the plus side, there's a really nice explanation of Relativity in the first part of that episode. Radiolab itself is an amazing podcast and there are lots of past episodes to listen to if you happen to like it.

 

He can go through all that blah blah blah about trillions of universes but he can't get the fast forward to work?

[LeviF]

Whoa dude............

[/board stoners]

Which board are they stoning?

[GG]

You know what's funny about this thread, on this day of happy revelry, without reading a single post?

 

Without disclosing my theological bearings or religious foundations I can unequivocally state that in my life & times, more often than not, the people that I'm around who are committed to a God are much nicer people to be around than who are not. So take it for what that unscientific poll is worth.

 

Happy New Year.

[Peace]

You know what's funny about this thread, on this day of happy revelry, without reading a single post?

 

Without disclosing my theological bearings or religious foundations I can unequivocally state that in my life & times, more often than not, the people that I'm around who are committed to a God are much nicer people to be around than who are not. So take it for what that unscientific poll is worth.

 

Happy New Year.

 

This is my second post in this thread. I find the opposite to be true. The ungodly are much kinder both in both action and mind, although they sure do lecture about it a lot less.

 

There's my unscientific poll.

[GG]

This is my second post in this thread. I find the opposite to be true. The ungodly are much kinder both in both action and mind, although they sure do lecture about it a lot less.

 

There's my unscientific poll.

 

I guess the action & mind is subject to interpretation.

[/dev/null]

You know what's funny about this thread, on this day of happy revelry, without reading a single post?

 

Without disclosing my theological bearings or religious foundations I can unequivocally state that in my life & times, more often than not, the people that I'm around who are committed to a God are much nicer people to be around than who are not. So take it for what that unscientific poll is worth.

 

Happy New Year.

 

 

This is my second post in this thread. I find the opposite to be true. The ungodly are much kinder both in both action and mind, although they sure do lecture about it a lot less.

 

There's my unscientific poll.

 

In my experiences, I think that you are both wrong. And you are both right.

 

I've met devout Christians and Jews that all have a heart of gold. I've also met quite a few sanctimonious arseholes who use their faith to excuse their own myopic world views.

 

I've also met Atheists, Agnostics, Wiccans, and Deists whose virtue and generosity would be envied by any person of faith. I've also met Atheists, Agnostics, Wiccans, and Deists who are self righteous arseholes that smugly point out the flaws in Judeo-Christian Theology and the reasons their belief system is superior.

 

Wow, UConn just returned an INT. Maybe this won't be a blowout

[Gene Frenkle]

You know what's funny about this thread, on this day of happy revelry, without reading a single post?

 

Without disclosing my theological bearings or religious foundations I can unequivocally state that in my life & times, more often than not, the people that I'm around who are committed to a God are much nicer people to be around than who are not. So take it for what that unscientific poll is worth.

 

Happy New Year.

I guess the action & mind is subject to interpretation.

In my experiences, I think that you are both wrong. And you are both right.

 

I've met devout Christians and Jews that all have a heart of gold. I've also met quite a few sanctimonious arseholes who use their faith to excuse their own myopic world views.

 

I've also met Atheists, Agnostics, Wiccans, and Deists whose virtue and generosity would be envied by any person of faith. I've also met Atheists, Agnostics, Wiccans, and Deists who are self righteous arseholes that smugly point out the flaws in Judeo-Christian Theology and the reasons their belief system is superior.

 

Wow, UConn just returned an INT. Maybe this won't be a blowout

 

We're starting the new year off with a very nice illustration of why anecdotes aren't worth a crap when it comes to making meaningful statements about what is and isn't. I'd say it's more likely that some people are happy and nice while others are sad, angry and mean and it doesn't much have to do with what they believe, provided they're not currently struggling with what to believe. It would be nice to have a double-blind study for confirmation however.

 

Happy New Year!

[Peace]

I guess the action & mind is subject to interpretation.

 

Maybe the mind. But it goes to show the value of anecdotal evidence.

[GG]

We're starting the new year off with a very nice illustration of why anecdotes aren't worth a crap when it comes to making meaningful statements about what is and isn't. I'd say it's more likely that some people are happy and nice while others are sad, angry and mean and it doesn't much have to do with what they believe, provided they're not currently struggling with what to believe. It would be nice to have a double-blind study for confirmation however.

 

Happy New Year!

 

Yes, Gene.

 

As you go on to the new year, look around your personal anecdotes and see how many of the people that you know who are struggling, not the straw men that you create, but the actual live human beings in your life, and wonder if the position that they're in are due to misfortune, dumb luck, discrimination, or just stupid decisions they happen to make time & time again. Then let's have a discussion about it.

[/dev/null]

It would be nice to have a double-blind study for confirmation however.

It would also be nice for the Fiesta Bowl to be competative. But it's 27-10 in the 3rd.

*Edit. A minute or so after I submitted this reply, Oklahoma returned an INT for a TD to make it 34-10 in the 3rd

 

Keep ringing your cowbell

If wishes were fishes, your mom would smell like a wish

Edited January 2, 2011 by /dev/null

[Gene Frenkle]

Yes, Gene.

 

As you go on to the new year, look around your personal anecdotes and see how many of the people that you know who are struggling, not the straw men that you create, but the actual live human beings in your life, and wonder if the position that they're in are due to misfortune, dumb luck, discrimination, or just stupid decisions they happen to make time & time again. Then let's have a discussion about it.

I'll skip to the chase and say all of the above, though not equally of course. This isn't a political discussion. Many people seem to confuse politics and religion, so your error is understandable. What's it like to run out of New Year's resolutions?