Nanker Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Show me all the atheists forcibly trying to convert others. Show me all the atheists killing in the name of...uh...nevermind. To me, it's a welcome sign of the times that the Lincoln Tunnel sign is up. Perhaps thinking critically and rationally is becoming more mainstream and acceptable. And speaking of moral highground, again from the article: Hardcore athiest conversion campaign: http://www.newjersey...ebrates-atheism Pot, meet kettle: 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? Onward Atheist Soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Reason going on before. Science our royal Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle see Our banners go!... You're as big a pusher Gene as are the Seventh Day Adventists hawking their copies of Watchtower. At least they walk around and show up on our doorsteps uninvited. You're incessantly in-your-face pugnacious about your beliefs and feel superior to others that have dissimilar beliefs. What a piece of work. Because it's the result of an evolutionary mechanism that is no longer critical to human survival. It's time to show some backbone and capacity for critical thought before some whack job blows up something really big and important for no good reason, IMO. You're a little late for that. I'd say by about nine years, three months and twelve days.
Magox Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 To be Fair, Gene doesn't constitute "all", but he definitely represents a faction of the louder side.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 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. But what if you were instructed by Gene to question it? Better yet, what if Ricky Gervais gave that instruction?
RkFast Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Better yet, what if Ricky Gervais gave that instruction? Id replay his stupid clip from Sesame Street with Elmo and tell him to shut the !@#$ up.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/ky_creationist_theme_park_gets_preliminary_approva.php?ref=fpb The Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority has granted preliminary approval for a creationist theme park to get up to $37 million in tax incentives, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports.
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/ky_creationist_theme_park_gets_preliminary_approva.php?ref=fpb What the !@#$ is a "Creationist Theme Park"? 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. I can't believe I haven't received one.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) I can't believe I haven't received one. You should at least get royalties. I heard when Ricky Gervais applied for a grant they said: You're an idiot! and denied the grant application. I'm thinking they owe you. Edited December 23, 2010 by ieatcrayonz
whateverdude Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) It's funny to me that most people accept and think they understand the concept of infinity, meaning in simple terms going on forever something without end. If you accept this you must also accept that infinity has no beginning or creation also. Edited December 23, 2010 by whateverdude
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) 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. 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. 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. I always enjoy your responses and think you should post here more often. I've thought a lot about the question of free will, and I don't think there is a good way to definitively prove or disprove predetermination either way. In the case where god exists, if god is omniscient and omnipotent, how can we possibly have free will? It seems to me that time is simply a variable and moving backward in time means returning the universe to the exact state it was at that time. Conversely, it seems to me that moving forward in time means advancing the universe to the exact state that it "will be" at that time. In other words, were it possible to travel backward and forward in time at will, then time is continuous and the state of the universe is predetermined at any point in time. If that's the case, there is no case for free will, just our perception of free will. It probably can't be answered either way, but I don't think you need god to have predetermination, just cause and effect. Here's an experiment that I find fascinating - I think I've linked to it before. It's from an episode of Radio Lab on NPR - the entire series of podcasts is amazing. There's also a nice explanation of Relativity (in the beginning of the episode) as a bonus: (the explanation of the experiment starts at the 15:00 mark) http://www.radiolab....no-special-now/ It's funny to me that most people accept and think they understand the concept of infinity, meaning in simple terms going on forever something without end. If you accept this you must also accept that infinity has no beginning or creation also. Infinite what - time? I don't think anyone's claiming that time doesn't have a beginning. What the !@#$ is a "Creationist Theme Park"? A desperate cry for validation in the wake of numerous ID and Creationism beat-downs in courts of law. Edited December 23, 2010 by Gene Frenkle
whateverdude Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Infinite what - time? I don't think anyone's claiming that time doesn't have a beginning. If time is infinite then it does not have a beginning. I don't believe time has an end or beginning.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 If time is infinite then it does not have a beginning. I don't believe time has an end or beginning. It doesn't matter what you believe. Time started with the Big Bang.
Magox Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 It doesn't matter what you believe. Time started with the Big Bang. and before that?
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 If time is infinite then it does not have a beginning. I don't believe time has an end or beginning. Absolutely not true. By way of example: the set of positive integers is infinite, but has a definite beginning; namely, 1. 'Infinite' only requires a set to be unbounded in one direction, not all. and before that? Unknowable, by definition.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 and before that? Are you seriously asking me what happened before time began? What does that even mean? Ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Magox Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Are you seriously asking me what happened before time began? What does that even mean? Ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You miss the point Gene. I happen to believe that time is what I call circular, with no beginning point. So I reject the notion that there was something "before" time. In my view, and I've thought about this extensively, time has always existed, in a circular modeled pattern.
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 You miss the point Gene. I happen to believe that time is what I call circular, with no beginning point. So I reject the notion that there was something "before" time. In my view, and I've thought about this extensively, time has always existed, in a circular modeled pattern. Not an emipirically supportable theory...and I'll have to check, but I believe the best current evidence weighs slightly against it. (I also believe - again, I'd have to check - that's a tenet of Hinduism.)
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 You miss the point Gene. I happen to believe that time is what I call circular, with no beginning point. So I reject the notion that there was something "before" time. In my view, and I've thought about this extensively, time has always existed, in a circular modeled pattern. Unfortunately this is not a fiscal issue, so your belief in time as circular with no beginning (and supposedly no end) is kind of irrelevant, no? That is, unless you have some math to back it up I guess. Given your background, you are probably better at math than me. It's always so strange to me what these "religious" topics Evolve into (pun intended).
Magox Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) If one believes that Time had a starting point. Then you obviously would have to believe that there was a vacuum. That nothing ever existed before Time started. So if you believe in this concept, then rationally speaking, you would HAVE to believe in a greater force to create time and open the vacuum for matter to exist and evolve. The question is, is this "greater force" merely energy or is it something greater than that? If it was merely just a random energy force that opened the vacuum to create time, then how is it possible for an energy force to exist without time? Unfortunately this is not a fiscal issue, so your belief in time as circular with no beginning (and supposedly no end) is kind of irrelevant, no? That is, unless you have some math to back it up I guess. Given your background, you are probably better at math than me. It's always so strange to me what these "religious" topics Evolve into (pun intended). No it's not irrelevent, it is my opinion and since you or I or even Tom (don't get too cocky) can't prove otherwise, it is all conjecture. This wasn't meant to be a "religous" topic, I am simply following what logic tells me. Edited December 23, 2010 by Magox
whateverdude Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Absolutely not true. By way of example: the set of positive integers is infinite, but has a definite beginning; namely, 1. 'Infinite' only requires a set to be unbounded in one direction, not all. Unknowable, by definition. Ok - and + infinity for math. But, when talking metaphysically it's just infinity, right.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 If one believes that Time had a starting point. Then you obviously you would have to believe that there was a vacuum. That nothing ever existed before Time started. So if you believe in this concept, then rationally speaking, you would HAVE to believe in a greater force to create time and open the vacuum for matter to exist and evolve. The question is, is this "greater force" merely energy or is it something greater than that? If it was merely just a random energy force that opened the vacuum to create time, then how is it possible for an energy force to exist without time? The Big Bang Theory says that there was a singularity, a single point containing all matter in the universe. The point eventually expanded into what we see today. The universe did not expand "into" anything (no vacuum). Think of it like a balloon being blown up. You are a two-dimensional point on the surface of that balloon. The surface of the balloon is expanding, stretching and it appears to you that every other point is expanding away from you. What is that two-dimensional surface expanding into? The three-dimensional concept is often explained using a raisin loaf of bread expanding while being baked. Each raisin in the loaf is moving away from every other raisin in the loaf - the space between them is expanding, much like galaxies I guess. Maybe I'm not explaining that very well, which is not surprising because of it's mind-bending nature, so I'll link to another podcast I listen to (Astronomy Cast) which answers the question: What is the Universe Expanding Into... http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-28-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/ As far as what happened before time started, it's not likely knowable and I'm not even sure what the question means.
Recommended Posts