The summer 2011 totally legitimate and like official atheist thread, endorsed too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

God exists, you can't prove otherwise. God doesn't exist, you can't prove otherwise. I exist, therefore I am.

---

As far as I know, you are just an idea. Some might argue a bad one. :P

@macky: I am hoping Idol can expand on the concept he was putting out there. I would like to see if he can give it legs, or not...

I didn't realize that something needed concrete manifestation to exist. Take hope for example .Is hope real ? You can neither see nor touch it, only feel it. So real or not?
@ mjmacky by your same logic like Abybeats says, prove otherwise.

If something does not manifest then it is like hope. Just an idea or notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

I didn't realize that something needed concrete manifestation to exist. Take hope for example .Is hope real ? You can neither see nor touch it, only feel it. So real or not?

---

:no:

Don't cheat. Hope is a descriptive word about an abstract feeling. It's like asking whether Books or Unicorns exist. Pragmatic laws apply here. We use blanket words to direct attention or allude to concepts; the beauty of human language is the displacement and continuity of a concept mentioned in speech that passes by. Regardless, while I won't get into the many complexities of linguistic research in the modern day scientific community, you're committing a logical fallacy. Just because something has a name doesn't mean it has to exist, or has to continue existing. The laws of language allows for both the existent and the non-existent to be named.

I just mined a hypothetical stone that has a purple hemisphere sitting on top of a diamond encrusted slate pyramid and called it Johnny. Does Johnny exist? Not necessarily, but that doesn't stop me from naming the non-existent. Two Scientists can discover a mechanism at the same time, and each can name it differently. The referencing does not change the existential property of the process they observed. By the same logic, I can call Hope by a different term, such as Blurgh, but that doesn't change the property of that which I reference. It is still the worst of all evils. And we could both still experience it. This is without even going into cognitive and functional brain scans that can "show you" Hope with your own eyes.

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote. Not essentially a snipe at Aby, more like a general foot-note, that before people argue about existence and deities, they might want to read a rich history of over 2000 years of philosophical arguments on the matter, than limiting themselves to what they could come up with from sitting in front of television sets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Rings

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote.

---

Descarted said, "I think; therefore I am", but what AbyBeats said was "I exist; therefore I am."

Point was, given a variety of contextual meanings, you need to define what you are claiming to exist.

As far as proving a god exists or does not exist, you'd also have to examine what you mean by "exist". There's our physical world, a metaphysical world that some believe can interact with our physical world, and then there's the magical anything goes fantasia where objects (people/places/things) only exist as a concept. So if we use "exist" to mean things that occur in the physical world, and to grant some leeway things that exist in the metaphysical world, lets address the theory. If you want to state the case that god exists, you currently suffer the burden of absolutely no proof indicating god's existence. If you propose god does not exists, his absence is supporting proof of that claim. The absence of something doesn't outright prove something doesn't exist, but it's the only proof you can obtain by the design of the inquiry. The biggest confusion here is that people contextualize feelings or interpretations as proof of god's existence, and they're totally illegitimate. So as far as I can tell, god doesn't exists 1, god exists 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Rings

For the record, darkstate01, my mother insists she saw the virgin Mary. As did hundreds of thousands of others. The event is widely known: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm .

---

Total and utter nonsense,Proof would equal to a picture as a photographic picture of this virgin mary thousands of years ago,What the hell does she really look like? Photographs of the time were not even invented back then,Some human draws a picture of Jesus christ/Mary and everyone presumes that's what he/she really looks like thousands of years later,come on really, In Europe we think this middle eastern Jesus has blonde hair and blue eyes.

Having a bunch of believers saying that they saw there idle isn't proof to me. Neither is a glowing light above a church that's similar shape and design to any human designed statue,Saying that a virgin gave birth to a son of god is even more unbelievable.

In the Tudor time's in England,Henry's soldiers, headed by the brutalist Cromwell,went into churches and stole all the gold and silver they could and also uncovered that these churches were suckering there followers into believing that there statues were crying blood and what ever other liquid suited the time. Believe me when i say that some,not all,but some humans are very easily pushed over by so called proof that this or that is real, these god believers are among the easily suckered sadly to say.

DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE,do research then decide.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Rings

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote.

---

I don't know who Descrates is, or any other philosopher as such; except Laozi and Vivekananda. My pops kinda "locked" me out of anything related to philosophy; saying: "When you are mature enough, philosophy will enrich you. Until then, experience the world for yourself and keep an open mind" (something along those lines). The only philosophical discussion I ever do is, once every weekend with my father, while playing go. So ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

---

Sure I've heard the phrase casually thrown around. I have a feeling that you didn't quite comprehend what I wrote. What I explored was the design of the question and what kind of evidence could be used to test the theory. By design of the question, absence is the only evidence that could be used to support the theory of non existence in a general sense. It's faulted by design. In comparison, there are all types of evidence that could be used to support the existence of gods, however it is completely deficient of any evidence. So in regards to the theory that gods do not exist, we have absence of existence (which would negate the theory), absence of any evidence supporting antithesis, and no compelling logical reason to be believe they do exist. So even in its faulted design, the theory of non existence should be the more popular. This process is confined to a very limited space, so let's turn back to reality.

Now I don't think most invest that many brain cycles into their beliefs. I think for most it comes down to this:
believe --> if right, saved --> if wrong, none the wiser after death
don't belief --> if right, non the wiser --> if wrong, totally fucked

An atheist has more to lose if wrong, while a theist only has to hope they chose the right religion/god/cult. I have heard people approach their beliefs this way, and to me it's a cop out, but that's for pussies. All this bullshit that we experience here... if gods turned out to exist, I would rather spend my eternity as far away from them as possible. Even if my soul will be tormented for all that eternity, or I'm reborn as a goat or some shit.

If you are after proof, you have to wait; so that science (hopefully) advances to solve the ultimate questions relating to anything and everything. Or, you can contribute to the advancement by being a scientist yourself. Else, you can waste all the brain cycles you want; weaving and reasoning whatever you like. Also, you can start threads like this and argue with each other, where everyone throws their imaginations at each other. Is it fun? Yes. Anything conclusive comes out of it? No.

I pity the girl in that first post really. She makes fun of creationists, and yet she is a firm believer of the theory of evolution which she has no first hand knowledge of. What differentiates her from those creationists' out there? Oh wait, she must be a subscriber of American scientist, which makes her obviously right, right? People who preach what others have said to them are the lamest of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Sure I've heard the phrase casually thrown around. I have a feeling that you didn't quite comprehend what I wrote. What I explored was the design of the question and what kind of evidence could be used to test the theory. By design of the question, absence is the only evidence that could be used to support the theory of non existence in a general sense. It's faulted by design.

---

Proving absence of God is what the theory of non existence is trying to prove, Isn't it? How is it faulted by design?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

In comparison, there are all types of evidence that could be used to support the existence of gods, however it is completely deficient of any evidence.

---

Isn't that contradicting each other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

So in regards to the theory that gods do not exist, we have absence of existence (which would negate the theory),

---

We have absence of evidence of existence. Who proved they don't exist at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

absence of any evidence supporting antithesis, and no compelling logical reason to be believe they do exist. So even in its faulted design, the theory of non existence should be the more popular. This process is confined to a very limited space, so let's turn back to reality.

---

eh!?

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?":blink:

Quote:

---

A dog could be a god to a dyslexic

---

Bigboab, Circa 10a.m.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

A dog could be a god to a dyslexic

---

Only in English :naughty:

At one end of things, you are a collection of those types of people who hang together on internet boards anxiously awaiting a brave customer or two to come play cat/mouse.

You've had no takers.

At the other end of things, you argue amongst yourselves about the nature of a thing that is an opiate to great masses of people, a thing the base effect of which is (these days, at any rate) positive, it's entire cost born by it's adherents?

Really, now - tell us how we're an impediment to progress - it's water off a duck's back, friends.

http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/a...r9/ratbert.gif

I wrote post # 49 not 5 minutes before I passed out, there are some errors. Instead of fixing all of them, I'll just address your post directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

If you are after proof, you have to wait; so that science (hopefully) advances to solve the ultimate questions relating to anything and everything. Or, you can contribute to the advancement by being a scientist yourself.

---

I am a scientist, and even though what I do can sometimes feel pointless and mundane, I know better than to make a mockery of my efforts by trying to apply science to exploring the existence of gods. At best, I feel it only deserves a philosophical debate, leave the joke of treating it seriously only to those who believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

I pity the girl in that first post really. She makes fun of creationists, and yet she is a firm believer of the theory of evolution which she has no first hand knowledge of. What differentiates her from those creationists' out there? Oh wait, she must be a subscriber of American scientist, which makes her obviously right, right? People who preach what others have said to them are the lamest of all.

---

What are you claiming as first hand knowledge, and what do American scientists have to do with anything? Are you saying you feel sorry for someone who understands evolutionary theory and doesn't dispute it? I'm getting a vibe about you, please reveal more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

Proving absence of God is what the theory of non existence is trying to prove, Isn't it? How is it faulted by design?

---

The question is faulted because you can't prove what is essentially an infinite negative. Your only evidence to say that something doesn't exist in all time and all space. The only evidence able to provided is the absence in limited time and limited spaces. I feel I explained it poorly in my near slumber. I can ramble on more, but it feels like a redundancy of words, so I hope that covers it for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

In comparison, there are all types of evidence that could be used to support the existence of gods, however it is completely deficient of any evidence.

---

Isn't that contradicting each other?

---

Not exactly. There are a number of different ways you can provide evidence of gods existence. A photograph of god as he sits down at your dinner table, lecturing your daughter about abortions. An amateur porno film as one of the gods comes down in the "form" of a beast and rapes a woman. Actual miracles (miracles != low chance of success). All of our kitchen appliances start running around preaching the gospel, etc. They are almost infinite, yet not a single shred of ACTUAL evidence to provide for the existence of gods. So I think I cleared up the points I was trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

At one end of things, you are a collection of those types of people who hang together on internet boards anxiously awaiting a brave customer or two to come play cat/mouse.

You've had no takers.

At the other end of things, you argue amongst yourselves about the nature of a thing that is an opiate to great masses of people, a thing the base effect of which is (these days, at any rate) positive, it's entire cost born by it's adherents?

Really, now - tell us how we're an impediment to progress - it's water off a duck's back, friends.

---

I do this because I love discussion. I don't have any physical interest to go forth and disprove possibility of existence, "converting" others to disbelief. The discussion is fun, and for the most part, universal. There are all types of discussion I like to have, but I don't know anyone here I would discuss electron transfer processes leading to radical shifts (from cation to compound) and its stability as a catalyst, that raising PSI in the turbo leads to better gas mileage with the same driving practices, or that 9 reference frames vs. 5 reference frames is a rather pointless gain in bitrate efficiency. These things I discuss elsewhere. These things are also very limited in scope, thus I think I get more pleasure debating religion and spirituality than anything else.

So I'm not quite after the mouse. Have you ever had cats? Sometimes they just like to get a crazy look in there eyes and swat at the air. I actually find the question of existence to be insignificant myself, but I won't shy away from discussing it either. The more important questions I feel are: Does spirituality actually have a net positive effect (I think no)? Are our capabilities of managing and adapting morality with our system of laws and logic able to completely replace an imaginary system? Then again, they aren't that important either, to discuss them will really lead nowhere. But exploring your opinions, thoughts and logic on something always advances one's mind, and that can't be all that bad, can it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

At one end of things, you are a collection of those types of people who hang together on internet boards anxiously awaiting a brave customer or two to come play cat/mouse.

You've had no takers.

At the other end of things, you argue amongst yourselves about the nature of a thing that is an opiate to great masses of people, a thing the base effect of which is (these days, at any rate) positive, it's entire cost born by it's adherents?

Really, now - tell us how we're an impediment to progress - it's water off a duck's back, friends.

---

I do this because I love discussion. I don't have any physical interest to go forth and disprove possibility of existence, "converting" others to disbelief. The discussion is fun, and for the most part, universal. There are all types of discussion I like to have, but I don't know anyone here I would discuss electron transfer processes leading to radical shifts (from cation to compound) and its stability as a catalyst, that raising PSI in the turbo leads to better gas mileage with the same driving practices, or that 9 reference frames vs. 5 reference frames is a rather pointless gain in bitrate efficiency. These things I discuss elsewhere. These things are also very limited in scope, thus I think I get more pleasure debating religion and spirituality than anything else.

So I'm not quite after the mouse. Have you ever had cats? Sometimes they just like to get a crazy look in there eyes and swat at the air. I actually find the question of existence to be insignificant myself, but I won't shy away from discussing it either. The more important questions I feel are: Does spirituality actually have a net positive effect (I think no)? Are our capabilities of managing and adapting morality with our system of laws and logic able to completely replace an imaginary system? Then again, they aren't that important either, to discuss them will really lead nowhere. But exploring your opinions, thoughts and logic on something always advances one's mind, and that can't be all that bad, can it?

---

Aye to all of that, I guess, and I have four cats, including a Pet Sematary reclamation - my one in-house experiment with cloning.

I guess it's that I've been through this particular discussion so many times there is little for me to add, apart from the preceding view.

I mean, they even have their own 'course' Book.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you are not of similar mind, what you have to fear from a believer could fit in a thimble, and when it comes to fighting religion, start with the worst first.

EDIT-

Funny that you should use a "turbo" analogy; my life has momentarily been turned upside-down by the death of a snail about the size of my fist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I guess it's that I've been through this particular discussion so many times there is little for me to add, apart from the preceding view.

---

It's been a little while for me, and given circumstances felt it was time to revisit. I often find that even though my core viewpoints don't typically change, I'll often change the way I explain it, refining it and attempting to shorten it. Later on I'll sound even more like a pretentious intellectual. But with different people you can discover different perspectives, and indirectly pick up something by grabbing from the periphery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

my life has momentarily been turned upside-down by the death of a snail about the size of my fist.

---

Wait, what? How so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/a...r9/ratbert.gif

---

That shit isn't even remotely funny.

@macky: as a scientist, do you believe in the existence of dimensions beyond the 4 we are used to/can easily measure?


As for the idea that topics have been beaten to death, I disagree. While many of us have had these discussions here, and IRL, the argument could be taken to nearly any topic- and those who have spent more than a decade studying after high school would have little reason to discuss what they have learned. With a forum (a place to discuss topics of interest), it is valuable to open these things up, and see where they go.

That said, there also seems to be a growing anti-religion movement online. It appears to me popular to bash religion/God while online (not necessarily being done by the OP here, BTW).

I am personally moving in the direction of finding a place for religion, and possibly even Jesus, in my life. As someone who has now had the opportunity to attend two fantastic private universities, I have experienced what it means to be surrounded by people who live their lives in accordance to (many) of the teachings of JC. I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC. You subtract the Son of God aspects out, and His teachings are quite exceptional.

So, for me, I see value in revisiting these "old" discussions as a way to reassess my life, and whether or not I am willing to "drink the kool-aid". The idea of a life story, and the growing thoughts that mine is coming together (with tragedies, and successes) almost like a pre-written novel, have made me consider that there is not only more than I can see, but that there may be something influencing my life that is beyond my understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC.

---

But some philosophers such as St. Augustine and Descartes were religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC.

---

But some philosophers such as St. Augustine and Descartes were religious.

---

Being religious does not make you right. However, it is possible (as these guys did) to make valid points. JC has the most complete, usable teachings for life that I have come across. I'm saying that I believe there is certainly more for me to explore, and use. These teachings, may or may not, have "benefits" that extend beyond what we experience here. (This is where I stand at the edge of the cliff and ask myself if I want to take that "leap of faith". It is an unknown, and remains so.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

@macky: as a scientist, do you believe in the existence of dimensions beyond the 4 we are used to/can easily measure?

---

Well to start with, we don't make measurements in the 4th dimension, i.e. it's not an observational dimension. I am aware of its use in physical and computational chemistry, but strictly in a mathematical sense. If my first statement is incorrect to your knowledge, please address it as I'm all ears. That being said, I'll turn up the humility dial and say studying within 3 dimensions is hard enough, there's still an infinite amount of information we don't, and will never understand. I present it this way, folklore dictates that deities have supposedly acted within our 3 dimensions, but none of it is verifiable. I think it's a legitimate starting point to examine in our 3 dimensions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

As for the idea that topics have been beaten to death, I disagree. While many of us have had these discussions here, and IRL, the argument could be taken to nearly any topic- and those who have spent more than a decade studying after high school would have little reason to discuss what they have learned. With a forum (a place to discuss topics of interest), it is valuable to open these things up, and see where they go.

That said, there also seems to be a growing anti-religion movement online. It appears to me popular to bash religion/God while online (not necessarily being done by the OP here, BTW).

---

I'm as vocal about it in real life as I am on the forums. Though, I am personally restricted by my nature from being able to simply bash religion, both due to past perspective and chaotic mind. I think the trend is more reactionary to the realization that atheist perspectives aren't appreciated in dictating policy in secular governments. Atheist leaders do not have to subscribe to alternative ideologies like communism and marxism, as have been in the past. Why not have just a pragmatic, atheist, democratic leader? Well, democratic is the key adjective I guess. I'm yearning for a future with a diminished presence of spiritual ideology without the need of a replacement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I am personally moving in the direction of finding a place for religion, and possibly even Jesus, in my life. As someone who has now had the opportunity to attend two fantastic private universities, I have experienced what it means to be surrounded by people who live their lives in accordance to (many) of the teachings of JC. I have also studied a fair amount of philosophy (one class shy of a minor), I found contradictions, and failings in every one -with the exception of JC. You subtract the Son of God aspects out, and His teachings are quite exceptional.

---

I do see where you're going with this, but in the same manner you wouldn't be just limiting your influence to the JC himself are you? I appreciate the influence some of these historical figures can impart on us, while selectively removing the parts that just don't fit. The problem I feel is there are individuals, whether by majority or not, that feel everyone needs to adopt the entire narrative. There was a quote by Mohammed (that I'll butcher) that goes like this, "Praise be to Allah, but first tether your camel". It was quite significant to me at the time I heard it, as there was someone I knew that was allowing her faith to dictate her entire life, to her own detriment. It was incredibly saddening to see someone's faith wreck their life on a personal level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

So, for me, I see value in revisiting these "old" discussions as a way to reassess my life, and whether or not I am willing to "drink the kool-aid". The idea of a life story, and the growing thoughts that mine is coming together (with tragedies, and successes) almost like a pre-written novel, have made me consider that there is not only more than I can see, but that there may be something influencing my life that is beyond my understanding.

---

I too go through periods of reassessment, and perhaps I am at that place again. I live my life in focused phases, in nearly all aspects (food, beliefs, hobbies), maybe it's time to revisit this one... dunno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

But some philosophers such as St. Augustine and Descartes were religious.

---

WTF Oleg, make a point before you finish the post. You only pointed out that some people were religious, one of them a saint nonetheless. What are you implying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

But some philosophers such as St. Augustine and Descartes were religious.

---

WTF Oleg, make a point before you finish the post. You only pointed out that some people were religious, one of them a saint nonetheless. What are you implying?

---

I am implying that sometimes philosophy and religion can go hand in hand, and some people were religious philosophers. But megabyteme, as far as I understood, implied that philosophy contradicts religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Well to start with, we don't make measurements in the 4th dimension, i.e. it's not an observational dimension. I am aware of its use in physical and computational chemistry, but strictly in a mathematical sense. If my first statement is incorrect to your knowledge, please address it as I'm all ears. That being said, I'll turn up the humility dial and say studying within 3 dimensions is hard enough, there's still an infinite amount of information we don't, and will never understand. I present it this way, folklore dictates that deities have supposedly acted within our 3 dimensions, but none of it is verifiable. I think it's a legitimate starting point to examine in our 3 dimensions.

---

I've understood time to be the 4th dimension. Once you go beyond, it does get very weird. I was introducing the idea as a possibility that the existence of alternate, simultaneous dimensions (which has been expressed by many devout atheists such as Hawking) could contain unmeasurable, yet influential interactions- and possibly creation of our universe. We (our entire universe) very well be nothing more than pets on someone else's bedroom dresser. And, if we were "pets" it would not be to much of a stretch of the imagination to see how they might influence our lives.

I will throw this out as one of my most far-reaching thoughts that we may be FAR less significant than many would like to believe. Would this unseen force be what many would recognize as god-like? I think so. Would it explain why our prayers go unanswered? Perhaps.

I tend to dismiss the meddling of the church(es) in our attempt to understand what our existence means/represents/serves/is. I do not believe they have the answers. If they did, they would keep them to themselves, and keep the massive power they have over the masses. Fact: religious organizations are another government entity. Their influences (still) are extraordinary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I'm as vocal about it in real life as I am on the forums. Though, I am personally restricted by my nature from being able to simply bash religion, both due to past perspective and chaotic mind. I think the trend is more reactionary to the realization that atheist perspectives aren't appreciated in dictating policy in secular governments. Atheist leaders do not have to subscribe to alternative ideologies like communism and marxism, as have been in the past. Why not have just a pragmatic, atheist, democratic leader? Well, democratic is the key adjective I guess. I'm yearning for a future with a diminished presence of spiritual ideology without the need of a replacement.

---

Atheists are too much of a wildcard for most people. Immediately, when stating you are an atheist, there tends to be a wall created between "believers" and non-believers. When choosing "leaders", it is a much "safer" bet to go with someone who has a set of core beliefs that match the majority of the people. I don't know if atheist could ever have that kind of connection with the masses. Even among atheist, there is no common set of core values. Where would an atheist stand on abortion? Could be anywhere. Other issues that have spiritual-based, "established" (by the church) beliefs. It's just easier to "connect" with religious people- even if you are an atheist, at least you can expect certain things from those claiming to be religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I do see where you're going with this, but in the same manner you wouldn't be just limiting your influence to the JC himself are you? I appreciate the influence some of these historical figures can impart on us, while selectively removing the parts that just don't fit. The problem I feel is there are individuals, whether by majority or not, that feel everyone needs to adopt the entire narrative. There was a quote by Mohammed (that I'll butcher) that goes like this, "Praise be to Allah, but first tether your camel". It was quite significant to me at the time I heard it, as there was someone I knew that was allowing her faith to dictate her entire life, to her own detriment. It was incredibly saddening to see someone's faith wreck their life on a personal level.

---

I'm not going to dismiss everything I have learned, but am looking at the possibility of incorporating more of those ideas into my life. Forgiveness is an incredibly powerful, comforting element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I too go through periods of reassessment, and perhaps I am at that place again. I live my life in focused phases, in nearly all aspects (food, beliefs, hobbies), maybe it's time to revisit this one... dunno

---

One of the most beneficial things I have experienced is getting my core beliefs challenged, and after licking my wounds, realizing that there were other possibilities that were better than what I had previously held.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

I am implying that sometimes philosophy and religion can go hand in hand, and some people were religious philosophers. But megabyteme, as far as I understood, implied that philosophy contradicts religion.

---

OK, you needed to state that. That seems to bug you on the premise that you are assuming philosophy is infallible. Rather, it's quite the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Rings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

I didn't realize that something needed concrete manifestation to exist. Take hope for example .Is hope real ? You can neither see nor touch it, only feel it. So real or not?

---

:no:

Don't cheat. Hope is a descriptive word about an abstract feeling. It's like asking whether Books or Unicorns exist. Pragmatic laws apply here. We use blanket words to direct attention or allude to concepts; the beauty of human language is the displacement and continuity of a concept mentioned in speech that passes by. Regardless, while I won't get into the many complexities of linguistic research in the modern day scientific community, you're committing a logical fallacy. Just because something has a name doesn't mean it has to exist, or has to continue existing. The laws of language allows for both the existent and the non-existent to be named.

I just mined a hypothetical stone that has a purple hemisphere sitting on top of a diamond encrusted slate pyramid and called it Johnny. Does Johnny exist? Not necessarily, but that doesn't stop me from naming the non-existent. Two Scientists can discover a mechanism at the same time, and each can name it differently. The referencing does not change the existential property of the process they observed. By the same logic, I can call Hope by a different term, such as Blurgh, but that doesn't change the property of that which I reference. It is still the worst of all evils. And we could both still experience it. This is without even going into cognitive and functional brain scans that can "show you" Hope with your own eyes.

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote. Not essentially a snipe at Aby, more like a general foot-note, that before people argue about existence and deities, they might want to read a rich history of over 2000 years of philosophical arguments on the matter, than limiting themselves to what they could come up with from sitting in front of television sets.

---

Sorry I having been following along.As things get a little too weighty I generally compensate by going to the beach.

Anyway I didn't "cheat" .You are too much the pragmatist and not enough the poet.

Quote:

---

Just because something has a name doesn't mean it has to exist, or has to continue existing. The laws of language allows for both the existent and the non-existent to be named.

---

We use "God" as a word of convenience I think it speaks to too many multiple meanings for the "idea" be so easily defined by one word.
Anyway I spoke to the idea being the reality .Maybe that "is" God - the ability of faith to affect things.Or God may be simply the undefinable or unexplainable . Or as we all live in a prison of our own perceived reality who is to say what indeed is truly real anyway.You're clearly not as fat/thin as you think you .

Or maybe to quote someone not Descartes "A rose by any other name....."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

You are too much the pragmatist and not enough the poet.

---

With his frail, twisted fingers, he could never hold a quill pen. :noes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

I pity the girl in that first post really. She makes fun of creationists, and yet she is a firm believer of the theory of evolution which she has no first hand knowledge of. What differentiates her from those creationists' out there? Oh wait, she must be a subscriber of American scientist, which makes her obviously right, right? People who preach what others have said to them are the lamest of all.

---

What are you claiming as first hand knowledge, and what do American scientists have to do with anything? Are you saying you feel sorry for someone who understands evolutionary theory and doesn't dispute it? I'm getting a vibe about you, please reveal more.

---

1. First hand knowledge is when you do research yourself. Second hand knowledge is when you read and understand the research. Third hand knowledge is when you take the above two for granted (aka classroom learning), put trust in them, and then go around preaching without knowing jack shit. So, where along those lines did the last category of people turn into a blind believers (which the creationists are)? I'll leave it to you; to figure that out.

2. http://www.americanscientist.org/ is a science journal ...

3. Stay away from me you freak, I ain't gonna reveal anything, shu shu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I am a scientist, and even though what I do can sometimes feel pointless and mundane, I know better than to make a mockery of my efforts by trying to apply science to exploring the existence of gods. At best, I feel it only deserves a philosophical debate, leave the joke of treating it seriously only to those who believe.

---

I get it. You want a philosophical debate for which the source is nothingness; but, I like to sit on the fence and watch both sides destroy the imaginary philosophical castles. Lets part ways.

P.S: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I matured, my talks matured, my thoughts matured, my reasoning matured. Still the world is a mystery to me. Therefore, I can only hope there is another plane of thinking, to which I transcend, so as to make sense of another layer of abstraction. So said the Master Zen Guru, AbyBeats. (And yea, I know what you are going to write next megabyteme)

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

1. First hand knowledge is when you do research yourself. Second hand knowledge is when you read and understand the research. Third hand knowledge is when you take the above two for granted (aka classroom learning), put trust in them, and then go around preaching without knowing jack shit. So, where along those lines did the last category of people turn into a blind believers (which the creationists are)? I'll leave it to you; to figure that out.

---

From what I gathered then, based on your earlier message, you assume no one can rightfully speak on the subject of evolution unless they are directly affiliated with the research involved? Using your ranking, we should all aspire to be second hand learners. That same ranking doesn't apply to creationist "theory", as there is no evidence to support it. I may be tame regarding my objections to religion and spirituality, but creationist theory is garbage. It's not even comparable to asking whether or not god exists. Pitting evolution against creationism is the equivalent of pitting the law of gravity against the idea that everything in the world is being pushed to the ground by an army of invisible locusts (i.e. it's a joke). I wouldn't mind explaining evolutionary theory to someone who wants to know more, whether they be simple-minded or advanced. I would not explain it to a creationist though. Why? Because I won't talk to them, there are certain kinds of stupid I find too irritating to tolerate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

http://www.americanscientist.org/ is a science journal ...

---

So you're talking about American Scientist, the journal. The question remains, what does AmSci have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

I get it. You want a philosophical debate for which the source is nothingness; but, I like to sit on the fence and watch both sides destroy the imaginary philosophical castles. Lets part ways.

---

That's one way to pussyfoot around a topic. There's no such thing as "the fence", it's an illusion of neutrality that people put up to avoid having arguments directed at them. You have a preference that you're not disclosing. It wouldn't bother me if you keep it to yourself, but if you want something off your chest, feel free to unload.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

P.S: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I matured, my talks matured, my thoughts matured, my reasoning matured. Still the world is a mystery to me. Therefore, I can only hope there is another plane of thinking, to which I transcend, so as to make sense of another layer of abstraction. So said the Master Zen Guru, AbyBeats. (And yea, I know what you are going to write next megabyteme)

---

It's not possible to grasp every concept, there were always be mystery, even if they're understood by others. Seeking another plane? You've probably already been made aware of its existence, but just haven't acknowledged it yet. Other than that, you basically described aging, it's a natural occurrence, nothing really mysterious about it.

I don't know if you are sleep deprived, or if its failure on my part to make the points clear, but surely you are not comprehending what I have written from my 3rd post on. Even the pun on girl reading American Scientist went un-noticed :cry:

Also:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

That's one way to pussyfoot around a topic. There's no such thing as "the fence", it's an illusion of neutrality that people put up to avoid having arguments directed at them. You have a preference that you're not disclosing. It wouldn't bother me if you keep it to yourself, but if you want something off your chest, feel free to unload.

---

Yea right, I believe ya. My opinion in this matter is clearly and concisely presented in the very first post I made. But you say "neutrality" is an illusion. I say "taking sides" is another illusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

---

You say that like it applies to all scientists, that's disingenuous. Scientific method or experimental design is based around a hypothesis. Whether it could be lightly supported, heavily supported, or just creative thought, its validity is tested against observations. In fact, it takes a bit of faith to address a question. Even if the notion has no support, it is typically founded on logical and analogous reasoning. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher out there beating the same dead horse their entire career.

Having a well tested theory become outright discredited is rare. Many of the major falsehoods were based on coincidental observations, or metaphysical fantasy and even the bible. Some of them were sound attempts to describe what happens in our world (e.g. phlogiston). Aside from those highly famed but ultimately insignificant representations of scientific theory, when something doesn't match, there's a new factor that is identified and the theory is updated. That's in fact how we progress at all. So I'm saying that scientists who "steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic" is a poor reflection of the reality. If that was the case, science would be almost as bad as creationism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

I don't know if you are sleep deprived, or if its failure on my part to make the points clear, but surely you are not comprehending what I have written from my 3rd post on. Even the pun on girl reading American Scientist went un-noticed :cry:

---

I'm sticking to the less fun, more serious version of myself for this thread, sorry if I brush off the lighter comments.

Edit: If you feel your stance has been misinterpreted, nothing is stopping you from clarifying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abybeats

Yea right, I believe ya. My opinion in this matter is clearly and concisely presented in the very first post I made. But you say "neutrality" is an illusion. I say "taking sides" is another illusion.

---

Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Edit: If you feel your stance has been misinterpreted, nothing is stopping you from clarifying.

---

Nah, too much work. Re-reading when you are at peace or something will do, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.

---

Provided such a context, where your reasoning mind finds some logic for being biased. When there is none or when uncertainty plays a major factor, I feel comfortable sitting in the middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

P.S: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I matured, my talks matured, my thoughts matured, my reasoning matured. Still the world is a mystery to me. Therefore, I can only hope there is another plane of thinking, to which I transcend, so as to make sense of another layer of abstraction. So said the Master Zen Guru, AbyBeats. (And yea, I know what you are going to write next megabyteme)

---

Interesting how that seems to fit with the idea I threw out regarding additional dimensions. And I am talking about well-known physicists. I'll see if I can find descriptions of those other (apparently mathematically proven) dimensions. They are interesting to try to imagine, if nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

---

Example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Taking a side is pretty clear, whether or not it's being faked. Genuine apathy is another matter though. I still call bullshit on fencesitting. Not like there's a sharp divide, but that when provided a context there's always a bias.

---

Provided such a context, where your reasoning mind finds some logic for being biased. When there is none or when uncertainty plays a major factor, I feel comfortable sitting in the middle.

---

There's always a context, that's the point. It can't really be apathy either, for you've already posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Scientists want everything proven, consequentially they take nothing on faith .The irony is when something is "proven" they steadfastly hold to that fact beyond all logic forgetting that many things past "proven" have since been discredited.

---

Example?

---

Evangelical scientists? Actually there's another public figure biologist, can't recall his name though.