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

[OlegL]

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.

[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.)

[mjmacky]

@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.

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.

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.

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

[mjmacky]

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?

[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.

[megabyteme]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[mjmacky]

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.

[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?

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.

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....."

[megabyteme]

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

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

[A]

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.

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)