|
|
| Posted by Tronyn on 2010/02/13 00:57:11 |
This seems like such an obvious topic that it's probably been done before, but if so I don't recall it. Anyway. I've been making my views on religion known more than my relatively restrained usual lately, and I've come across some really smart people who disagree with basic premises of what I think. While I can definitely be persuaded on matters of semantics, the overall gist of the arguments I've seen - basically that disciplines other than scientific ones (say, philosophy, theology, even literature, etc) describe reality, that there is somehow a different sort of reality for them to describe, I can't be persuaded into thinking, at least not with the arguments I've met with so far. Whatever forces organize the universe are unlikely in my view to take human considerations (hey, isn't astrology a discipline to some people) into account when acting.
Anyway, I have gone many years with the (perhaps unjustified) assumption that most people on this board are atheists; but even if this is true there are likely to be disagreements about what the implications of this are. Lovecraft (an unapologeticaly elitist atheist) thought that voting rights should require an IQ test, for example. When I see Sarah Palin, I am tempted to agree. Intelligence does not mean that people won't be crazy it just makes it statistically less likely. Anyway that's enough from me, it's been a while since there was a good/new discussion thread on here so hopefully this goes somewhere. |
|
 |
 @Willem Pt. 2
#20 posted by Baker on 2010/02/13 17:29:57
When I see how religion has completely polluted the political system in this country (USA) it makes me sad. Braying sheep voting with their bibles instead of their brains is a ridiculous way to choose a leader.
I think much of this is a function of what is essentially a legally-sanctioned 2 party system in the USA.
The result of limited competition in a political system is collusion and collusion leads to each party making only a minimal effort to "lead" with strong built-in safeguards against reform and most "changes" are to enrich the actual participants in the political system -- which is the inevitable result of all forms of artificially limited competition.
 Yeah
#21 posted by megaman on 2010/02/13 18:09:29
Something is wrong in the world if you have to join a religion to wear your favorite hat to work.
I so agree. We always wanted to create a religion that grants you unlimited rights to free speech, masked protesting, etc.
#22 posted by - on 2010/02/13 18:52:24
Kraken, also called the Crab-fish, which is not that huge, for heads and tails counted, he is no larger than our �land is wide [i.e. less than 16 km] ... He stays at the sea floor, constantly surrounded by innumerable small fishes, who serve as his food and are fed by him in return: for his meal, if I remember correctly what E. Pontoppidan writes, lasts no longer than three months, and another three are then needed to digest it. His excrements nurture in the following an army of lesser fish, and for this reason, fishermen plumb after his resting place ... Gradually, Kraken ascends to the surface, and when he is at ten to twelve fathoms, the boats had better move out of his vicinity, as he will shortly thereafter burst up, like a floating island, spurting water from his dreadful nostrils and making ring waves around him, which can reach many miles. Could one doubt that this is the Leviathan of Job?
 Elephant Talk
#23 posted by madfox on 2010/02/13 20:21:50
the being of the creature has never been proven.
I can only think by the grace of remembering myself.
Does this implend consiousness?
I don't know, the feeling of the power to remember myself only gives me a sense of a God remembering it all.
Now I go looking what I was forgotten, because I membered myself to consiousness, while I can't remember...
 Obey
#24 posted by Vondur on 2010/02/13 21:16:16
To Lord Diabolus
 WotEVAR.
#25 posted by Shambler on 2010/02/13 22:18:50
Agnostic, approve of pastoral care, indifferent to religion, intolerant of extremism, open to the possibility of a lot that is beyond current scientific knowledge including god-equivalent beings.
#26 posted by Zwiffle on 2010/02/13 22:55:59
Wtf are "god-equivalent" beings?
 Simple.
#27 posted by Shambler on 2010/02/13 22:57:07
Beings that are so much more powerful than us with their interactions with reality, that we would term them gods.
#28 posted by Zwiffle on 2010/02/13 23:47:08
What's your definition of god (as there are many.)
 @Willem Pt 3
#29 posted by Baker on 2010/02/14 13:19:14
First, I have to say that I really love Shambler's thoughts on religion.
Back to Willem ...
See, Willem, the one thing that can't be ruled out is that the universe is some sort of entirely artificial scripted construct with possibly a stupid backstory.
Something akin to living a very complex story.
Our knowledge of the universe is incredibly finite.
Our limits:
1. We can't see "now" beyond our solar system due to the speed of light. Every star could have bloomed into a giant flower for all we know and the light would take years to reach us.
2. We can't see small scope. What is going on below the subatomic particle level is entirely unknown to us.
3. We do not even know how many dimensions there are (string theory suggests 11 dimensions, with the latter 7 being compressed).
4. We do not know the size of the universe. The answer isn't a radius of 15 billion light years, that's just how far light has had time to travel.
5. We do not know what happened before the beginning of the universe, some scientific theory suggests "pre-Big Bang" evidence of activity.
And if you read stuff like Deepak Chopera (I think he's half nutballs, but some of his ideas are bizarre but very unique as to an alternate idea of consciousness) or study some of the great philosophers, there are some radically wild ideas out there that are intriguing that suggest very stern limitations on the ability of perception.
For instance, what if we are not living in a static space-time universe? What if the past and present and future are always in flux and are not actually fixed but only fixed from our perception.
Most of the participants of this thread make maps, which is essentially building little worlds. On a grander scheme, you can't rule out that the universe wasn't artificially created by some sort of deity.
Police conduct thorough investigations to crimes committed just a week ago in a known place and sometimes can't even figure out a clear picture of what happened.
And yet with our limited information we are somehow supposed to have a great grasp of The "Answer To Life, The Universe and Everything"?
I think not.
Remember, if you are a scientific atheist that means that you view physics and chemical reactions as king. This means there is no free will and everything is fixed because A + B = C. And in that world, if there are people that believe in "magic elves" that was meant to happen and could have been extrapolated from a perfect model of the universe from day 1.
So those people that believe in "magic elves" were part of the universe's script.
But more importantly, that means there is a script. Which leads to a more interesting question, what is the origin of the script. I'm not implying a deity, I am pointing out the oddness that a pure atheist view logically examined must reach the logical conclusion of a "script".
Because in a world governed solely by physics, there is no chance ... it is a ride on rails. Eek!
 Baker
You seem to have only a very superficial understanding of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. According to relativity theory, there is no "now" - the mere idea of stating that something happens "now" somewhere in the universe is senseless. If two events appear to happen simultaneously from my point of view, they need not be simultaneous for other viewers.
Also, you cannot extrapolate the future behavior of the universe even if you knew some sort of "world formula" + the entire state of all matter. Which, btw, you could neither determine (uncertainty principle) nor store anywhere anyway because the universe cannot hold information about its own state (not enough memory - if the universe could store one byte, how can you store information about the 256 states of that byte?).
Not everything is fixed in the universe according to quantum theory. Far from it, really. Also, how "must" the atheist view reach such a conclusion?
#31 posted by JneeraZ on 2010/02/14 13:40:25
"Remember, if you are a scientific atheist that means that you view physics and chemical reactions as king. This means there is no free will and everything is fixed because A + B = C."
I don't think it means that at all. It simply means that actions and reactions are explainable and provable - it doesn't remove the notion of free thought.
 Hmm
#32 posted by nonentity on 2010/02/14 15:22:26
1) Quantum wave forms
2) Onus of proof
3) Agnostics are sophomoric cowards
 Baker
#33 posted by Zwiffle on 2010/02/14 16:47:50
A universal creator can't be 100% "ruled out" like Willem's butt elves can't be 100% ruled out - but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence against a creator, or at least against any creator that mankind has invented so it can sleep at night.
If there is a creator then why are there so many independent religions all with different creators, creation stories, their own myths, etc, and why does the most popular religion Christianity come in so many different flavors and borrow so many of its rituals and ideas from earlier religions??
How is there not a script if there is a being who KNOWS every single thing that will happen BEFORE it happen? If that being knows we will make choice C before we make it, how can there possible be a choice A or B? They would merely be illusions to make us think there is choice - an omniscient god rules out free choice.
Yes our knowledge is finite and I don't think it could ever be complete tbh - but science has done simply marvelous to help explain all that without any sort of magic space man to "explain" things for us.
 God.
#34 posted by Shambler on 2010/02/14 17:26:14
Going off at a tangent, I once asked one of these modern liberal non-dogmatic vicar types (I was banging his daughter at the time, well at the time that I met him, not at the time of the conversation...) what God was, particularly in a more modern view point. His answer was that it wasn't appropriate to think of god as a tangible, physical being who could be iconised by mankind, but more as the context for life and the universe to exist within - a background energy that provides the canvas upon which existence is painted. I quite liked that idea but curiously he didn't want to explain much further, maybe because he was "off duty".
#35 posted by Zwiffle on 2010/02/14 17:47:23
Now you're getting into "What I call god you just call existence" - arguably not the kind of god(s) we're talking about.
 No.
#36 posted by Shambler on 2010/02/14 18:13:50
I'm just mentioning an anecdote I found interesting.
As you were, gentlemen!
#37 posted by JneeraZ on 2010/02/14 18:38:19
"How is there not a script if there is a being who KNOWS every single thing that will happen BEFORE it happen? If that being knows we will make choice C before we make it, how can there possible be a choice A or B? They would merely be illusions to make us think there is choice - an omniscient god rules out free choice. "
I've had this conversation before. What happens now is that it's explained that although God knows what you're going to choose it doesn't remove free will. God doesn't see time in the same way that we do. To him, everything is happening at once - the past, the present and the future. It's all the same. He sees what you're going to do simply because he can look through the strands of time.
It starts getting a little heady but what it boils down to is that anything can be explained away because he's God.
 "well, Not At The Time Of The Conversation"
#38 posted by Tronyn on 2010/02/14 19:46:48
gold! lol
 Re 38
#39 posted by necros on 2010/02/14 20:52:25
but that would imply he was banging her the first time he met the guy.
 Gosh.
#40 posted by Shambler on 2010/02/14 21:49:10
I phrased that really badly, didn't I. Let's just say I met him socially through his daughter (who I happened to be involved with and who incidentally wasn't a member of the clergy).
 God Bangs The Highins
#41 posted by madfox on 2010/02/15 06:02:52
quantum flux => state of random
always been and will always be.
relativity theory => bang ...& then
starts somewhere and expands.
Einstein said that the knowledge of sciense could be a part of the real world, but it doesn't has to be. Maybe it is just an imaginairy tool man has created to explain the world.
Darwin is no God killer by concepting the world by evolution. Lennon named it a concept by which we measure our pain.
 Or
#42 posted by madfox on 2010/02/15 06:08:36
God came in the 0,00000000003 sec after the big bang and said there shall be an overwhelming power that will freeze mankind ever to discover my excistence in particals smaller than the first bits before this moment...
 Madfox Is Right
#43 posted by Drew on 2010/02/15 07:24:35
#44 posted by Drew on 2010/02/15 07:25:09
Thread can be closed now.
|
 |
|
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
|
|
Website copyright © 2002-2026 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.
|
|