they were before the who's occupied palestine
ie.... that divide and break from brittish rule was inspired by what was happening in the middle east
read up on gandhi
Learning to become an Atheist
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
they were before the who's occupied palestine
ie.... that divide and break from brittish rule was inspired by what was happening in the middle east
read up on gandhi
The two parties are defined by religion, the only reason India and Pakistan are not the same country.
like palestine, there was peace between the groups (brittain caved in when the US government/and private funding began supporting the migration and zionist began bombing brittish interest all over the world; the original usage of the term "terrorist', in the modern age, is from this 'history')
it began when a burden of the migration into palestine ruined the balance, that the line began to develop ALL OVER THE WORLD to the extent of countries, such as israel, pakistan and india began to isolate themselves from their very brethren
that is not opinion, that is history
(and all three are armed to the teeth)
wrong thread for this stuff
Wrong thread, but I do not agree. Pakistan is Muslim, India is largely Hindu. Palestinians are largely Muslim, Israelis are Jews. Differences in religion define these conflicts.
Why are human languages, laws, rules, rituatls, logic representation, belief systems, etc. not natural?
Here is a good starter that demonstrates the social/support structures of elephants:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/unforgettable-elephants/echos-family-tree/4488/
Of course many other social animals (aside from humans and elephants) have social/support structures.
If there is a particular part of the definition thats problematic then we can address that; however, the criticism is vague and I can't really work with that.
None of the people you listed fall outside the scope of the definition I provided, so I am not sure where you are getting hung up.
Ok... then maybe answer the question?
Correct. Its the difference between sapient intent vs. how.
You will see that people ask subjective questions and think they are really asking objective questions.
Hence it is correct to say that "humans often fart".
Because they are "designed" by humans, you can't find them on trees.
Elephants don't care about other species social interactions and/or level of intelligence, yet we do.
I did not claim that they haven't. I said theirs (social structure, communication, intelligence and everything else) are natural, ours is not. Comparing their social codes with ours is like comparing bacteria with mammals. Ours is like our computers: Designed, coded; so they can be changed according to human decisions, not according to random mutations of evolution.
No, don't do that. Define "human nature" first, then we will see if it is clear or vague... Define it first: Human nature, what is it?
I am sorry, but these people are happened to be one of our species. And you didn't make a definition of "human nature" in the first place. If you don't, you can not claim that human nature or human system was natural. If you do make a definition, make sure it covers these or other people as well. By the way, make sure you have a perception of what is natural (or definition of nature) or what is not. "Everything is natural" is not accepted. Because I can easily claim that everything is atom, which wouldn't make any sense at all...
intellect/instinct
Registered Member
Athiesm and religion aren't so different. The religious believe the origins of the universe are supernatural and beyond matter even that which is massless. Athiests appear to believe that what is came to be from "nothing" or out of nothingness.
Atheists have no particular position on the origin of the universe, but it did appear to come from nothing. That premise is supported by physics.
intellect/instinct
Registered Member
Athiests should have, or at least attempt to have or be obtaining (which I believe takes place) a position on the origins of the universe should they not? It would be very discrediting if they did not. If indeed physics proves that everything has come from nothing it is equally as hard to believe that everything came from an infinite omnipotent source outside of all of that is imaginable or explicable or tangible.
Even if physics proves that everything has come from "nothing" which is in fact indefinable, it would be interesting to speak to the physicists who can explain this, it would also be interesting to ask them about their perception of a post space/time/matter is; and why something that is in fact inexplicable does not or can not exist on some level.
Even if physics proves that everything has come from "nothing" which is in fact indefinable, it would be interesting to speak to the physicists who can explain this, it would also be interesting to ask them about their perception of a post space/time/matter is; and why something that is in fact inexplicable does not or can not exist on some level.
I like how nothing is in quotes...because physics does not claim that the universe came from nothing at all, we just as of yet do not have the capacity or technology to understand the creation of the universe in great detail, and I'm sure when we do there will be more questions to be answered and more after that.
No, atheism is not a religion, only a position on theism, so it need not include a doctrine on the origin of the universe. Are there plausible naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe? Yes, there are. Particles seem to arise spontaneously in space and then cancel each other out. Since they are balanced, they do not violate the law of conservation of energy. The positive energy in the universe (mass/energy) is balanced by gravitational potential energy, meaning the total energy is zero, which means it looks as it should if it came from nothing. How did it come from nothing? One possible explanation is through quantum tunnelling from another universe that runs opposite in time to our own.
Note, that few things can really be proven apart from mathematics. Scientists are extremely skeptical about the word prove. What they usually mean by it is, "shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt".
Note, that few things can really be proven apart from mathematics. Scientists are extremely skeptical about the word prove. What they usually mean by it is, "shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt".
descriptions
physics; is math to describe
has nothing to do with the bottom line
ie... they say we all randomly uncertainly began by chance (basically that life got lucky in a bowl of soup)
which is about as funny as 'from mud'
neither have the perfect answer when it comes to life, the beginning or even what the simple questions like what is 'consciousness'...
science evolves far quicker than belief
intellect/instinct
Registered Member
in response to "shich....."
I'm definately not qualified to discuss the validity of "nothing" I'm not sure anyone is, whether or not the word should exist is questionable; but one does have to wonder if there is/was an alternative to what is or even an alternative to the preconditions/ immediate preconditions to what is not to mention and the space which now seems to be definable yet massless which serves as the medium for what is to be.
I personally believe the questions will never end, even if the human race lives to see the sun cease to allow our existance in which case we'd better have figured out a way to survive and continue to search.
Just out of curiousity when you said "creation" did you mean formation?
I'm definately not qualified to discuss the validity of "nothing" I'm not sure anyone is, whether or not the word should exist is questionable; but one does have to wonder if there is/was an alternative to what is or even an alternative to the preconditions/ immediate preconditions to what is not to mention and the space which now seems to be definable yet massless which serves as the medium for what is to be.
I personally believe the questions will never end, even if the human race lives to see the sun cease to allow our existance in which case we'd better have figured out a way to survive and continue to search.
Just out of curiousity when you said "creation" did you mean formation?
intellect/instinct
Registered Member
Spidergoat
I’m amazed by your knowledge thank you for the information. I do however hope you realize the ramifications of mentioning another/ other universes and that the same questions can be applied to them.
We are in complete agreement about the findings of science and proof, the word proof makes discussion a lot easier.
I realize athiests are literally not thiests, I would simply like to make the point that some of them might be better off calling themselves agnostics if they have no position on the origins. If some of them are in fact they are not seeking the truth, why then this does greatly discredit them. I believe this to be one of life's greatest questions, whether or not the supernatural exists.... and lack of proof like so many athiests argue is their reasoning for athiesm I believe is a non-sequitur.
I’m amazed by your knowledge thank you for the information. I do however hope you realize the ramifications of mentioning another/ other universes and that the same questions can be applied to them.
We are in complete agreement about the findings of science and proof, the word proof makes discussion a lot easier.
I realize athiests are literally not thiests, I would simply like to make the point that some of them might be better off calling themselves agnostics if they have no position on the origins. If some of them are in fact they are not seeking the truth, why then this does greatly discredit them. I believe this to be one of life's greatest questions, whether or not the supernatural exists.... and lack of proof like so many athiests argue is their reasoning for athiesm I believe is a non-sequitur.
Last edited:
I see, so you're drawing the line at "designed" things as being "unnatural". Does this mean honeycombs, spears, and buckets are unnatural because they are made by other animals (and insects)? Maybe you're limiting it specifically to "designed behaviors"?
Which supports... what?
Aren't our natural behaviors/desires what motivate us to "design"? Isn't evolution responsible for our natural behaviors/desires? Don't our "designs" make us more adaptable; thus, being 100% evolution compatible (i.e. survival of the most adaptable)?
I already defined it, but I'll paraphrase it here in more detail:
"Human nature is the process of collecting energy and persisting with a specific set of genetic adaptations labeled 'human'."
If you think it is incorrect then please show how.
See above.
The reason claiming "everything is atom" would not make any sense is because I can point out an instance of *something* that is an atom while pointing out an instance of *something* that isn't (ex. a magnetic field). The word "natural" is often a delineation. In your case you *appear* to make it at things that are not created by other life forms; hence, you have a binary state of natural vs. artificial. Other people make the delineation on things that are not of our reality; hence, another binary state of natural vs. supernatural. There are other dilenations as well and some people may combine them. As you have noted, I really don't make any delination. Whether you have a rock or a playstation II, both are the result of a never-ending causal chain. It is the laws of physics at work. Now, if there was an instance of a non-causal chain, a paradox, or some other violation of physics, then I might very well employ the use of the word "not natural"; however, there is no evidence that any such beast exists.
Absolutely not .
Physics does not support in any way that the universe came from nothing ( zero thing ).
A scenario is suggested by which the universe and its laws could have arisen naturally from "nothing." Current cosmology suggests that no laws of physics were violated in bringing the universe into existence. The laws of physics themselves are shown to correspond to what one would expect if the universe appeared from nothing. There is something rather than nothing because something is more stable.
-- Victor Stenger, preliminary summary for the forthcoming book, Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? The Self-Contained Universe
-- Victor Stenger, preliminary summary for the forthcoming book, Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? The Self-Contained Universe
"Where did all the matter come from?"
E = mc^2 says matter and energy are the same entity. Since E = 0, the total matter of the universe is zero. Zero does not have to come from anything.
Now, if by "matter" you just mean the equivalent of rest energy, then that came from gravitational energy during the expansion in the early universe.
Now, if by "matter" you just mean the equivalent of rest energy, then that came from gravitational energy during the expansion in the early universe.
-- Vic Stenger, having been asked for a simple explanation to the question, "Where did all the matter come from?" in a letter to Cliff Walker (September 13, 2001)
T: Philosopher William Lane Craig has argued that the universe had a beginning, therefore it must have had a cause. That cause is God.
A: Quantum events can happen without cause. Perhaps our universe was a quantum event in a larger universe that always was.
T: You have no evidence for this.
A: You have no evidence against it. Current physics and cosmology allow for such a scenario.
T: How could this happen? Where did the matter and energy of the universe come from?
A: Matter was created from energy in the early universe. Observations indicate that the positive energy of matter is exactly balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. Thus, the total energy of the universe is zero and no energy (or very little--just the amount allowed by quantum mechanics) was required to produce the universe.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vstenger/seminar_freethinkers.htm
A: Quantum events can happen without cause. Perhaps our universe was a quantum event in a larger universe that always was.
T: You have no evidence for this.
A: You have no evidence against it. Current physics and cosmology allow for such a scenario.
T: How could this happen? Where did the matter and energy of the universe come from?
A: Matter was created from energy in the early universe. Observations indicate that the positive energy of matter is exactly balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. Thus, the total energy of the universe is zero and no energy (or very little--just the amount allowed by quantum mechanics) was required to produce the universe.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vstenger/seminar_freethinkers.htm
Exactly.
No they are natural. Because they are not designed by intentional work.
No, quite opposite, I include everything produced by humans. If you insist on "limit", I limited the concept of "designed" to humans. Other animals can learn things, like a newborn elephant can learn things from its elders. Other animals can establish... hang on a minute, since you introduced honeycombs, Karl Marx already explained what I was trying to say in a much better fashion 140 odd years ago:
Let's continue:
Whenever a biologist, or behavioural psychologist try to rise the notorious "nature vs. nurture" debate, they end up accepting average 50-50 share of both. If you don't do that, I mean, if you intentionally put everything into nature, you are also implying that those people have been doing this debate and making experiments on the origins of behaviour, they are simply wrong: Because there is no such a distinction. You have to draw a line in order to collect data. Your line can be wrong, or can be right, yet the only way to test or understand the correctness of line you should just keep doing experiments. Your experiment objects are happened to be "human" and "nature".
Don't our designs make us more adaptable? If you are comparing "the adaptation strategies of natural DNA "alongside" (or using) evolution" vs human projects; and their capability of adapting us better to the nature, it's arguable: Because we don't organise our societies, families, unions, groups, traditions according to nature. We organise them according to human way of thinking, according to human projects. Our projects and achievements might look like too shiny, or too big; but again it is arguable that they are the best strategies. I know you haven't claimed that, but I rather want to reflect the other possibility: Our projects and achievements might actually be much better than what nature might allow us. Separation from nature is what we have been doing since last 100 thousand of years. This separation has been intensified and become an obvious reality since last 10 thousand of years of agricultural revolution -or the dawn of "civilization"-. Last 100 years, we have been forced (both by ourselves and by the rest of the nature) to the point of making a serious decisions about what policies and organisations we should design in order to overcome many problems that we have realised or just created out of nature.
That's why you can not define "human nature" for two basic reasons:
Firstly, just as there is no elephant nature; there are elephants, there is an elephant species vs. nature, and nature can kill them as certain conditions do/does not match the condition of elephants: A bacteria, lack of food, an asteroid, anything. Genes can not catch up and the "project elephant" goes extinct. It happened before, it can happen to any species to any time. However, we know that, elephant does not.
Secondly on the statement of "collecting energy and persistent with a specific set of genetic adaptations". This can be a definition for any creature of nature, yet it does not highlight anything about particular nature of any species. Such a gigantic generalisation says nothing but something similar to "everything made of atoms". What happened to capacities and differences of individual species? Are they not important because everything alive dies one day? So there is no existential difference between a moth and an elephant, or between a bacteria and human being. They all depend on same nature, and they all follow the same rule: "collecting energy and persistent with a specific... fart". It's fart, because as long as they all collect energy, what's the point having a specific set of genetic adaptations? And on top of that, nature does not happen by design, it just happens by itself. What about us? We don't even collect energy, we produce it, we transform forces of nature from their core, from atom. We can manipulate your "specific set of genetic adaptations" in human laboratories, we can detect and correct any deficiencies as much as we can. We can relieve our gadgets from earth's gravity. None of them has come from nature, none of the natural way allowed us to touch the very core of itself. Because the same nature did not give species such organs to see micro world or cosmic perspective. We evolved it through our human culture and technology.
This is one hell of a mouthful assumption. Because it uses the existing state (nature) and the existing being (human) in order to complement or entertain the idea of non-existent (supernatural). And it also highlights the "binary" opposition issue which is completely human conseptualization. Nature doesn't have binary oppositions. I can understand that our existence comes from nature; our organs, first social unions of hunter gatherers, our minds are all originated from nature. That's ok, but this is not the whole story. The other part, human universe of knowledge dependent existence, gets all material from human imagination, which is utterly against nature, since nature does not deal with non-existent things such as "eternity", "infinity", "supernatural", "God", "heaven", "zero", or numerous others. This power of imagination gave us mathematics which we consume to build computers, the ultimate project of artificial, design, calculation.
We already separated ourselves from nature for long time. We just couldn't find a proper name for it yet: For a while, during the age of religions, it had been "we are unique creatures of God, and everything else are created for us, to satisfy us, to be consumed by us, we as a species, and our world as an environment are the center of whole existence."
Today, we know that we are not. Science tells us where we are from and where we are going. Science tell us we are not unique in many ways. Yet it also hints that we are actually unique, since we can manipulate more than any other natural species again just because of science.
This sentence has been a complimentary logic to your initial generalisation of species. If you don't see any difference between a rock or playstation II, that means the existence of human has no significance at all. In this case you shouldn't have complain about my analogy of "everything is just an atom then!"
See, even nature itself refrain to exist in a total state: It takes different forms as atoms, DNA, species, planets, stars, forces, etc. Only a human can imagine such a total nature.
Just look at a mirror, listen to the radio, write down something... You will keep seeing it.
Last edited: