Saving Theists a Ton of Grief

[wayne_92587]

I ate a god and barfed it up.

This is a religion subforum in a science forum as SkinWalker has pointed out many times before. Discussions of religion here will be held up to scientific scrutiny just as are discussions in the physics subforum. For those of you who don't understand what that means, it means this. A statement or claim will be met with the following request:



"I ate a god and barfed it up."




A) Do you have evidence for this?

B) Please provide said evidence.



You can not eat God and barf he, she, or it up, simply because God is not a
person place or thing.

 

[superluminal]

I ate a god and barfed it up.

This is a religion subforum in a science forum as SkinWalker has pointed out many times before. Discussions of religion here will be held up to scientific scrutiny just as are discussions in the physics subforum. For those of you who don't understand what that means, it means this. A statement or claim will be met with the following request:



"I ate a god and barfed it up."


A) Do you have evidence for this?

B) Please provide said evidence.


You can not eat God and barf he, she, or it up, simply because God is not a
person place or thing.

To be specific, it was a plastic jesus-on-a-stick god replica. It did not agree with the rather large rabbit I had eviscerated earlier and swallowed whole. I barfed the whole mess up.

Do you not see that I am a ravening, mad dog?

 

[wayne_92587]

I ate a god and barfed it up.





To be specific, it was a plastic jesus-on-a-stick god replica. It did not agree with the rather large rabbit I had eviscerated earlier and swallowed whole. I barfed the whole mess up.

Do you not see that I am a ravening, mad dog?

Mad dog??? I would use a different term but choose to refrain from making a
coment.

 

[superluminal]

Mad dog??? I would use a different term but choose to refrain from making a
coment.

Why? Do you think you will offend me? Or is it because you are a good xian and have higher morals than me?

Self edited due to personal insult. Not very nice.

 

[lightgigantic]

There's no qualification needed for fantasy. Spirituality in the sense of mysticism, in the sense of religion is only fantasy. Spirituality in the sense of human emotions that's another whole field, and can be studied, analized though it's not science but it's psychology.

Godless

If we apply your logic to the scenario with the rocket scientist and his latest document presented to the joe on the street we could draw up a similar answer. "This rocket scientist just has a big sense of fantasy".

Actually you are jumping the gun because you assume you are qualified in the field - if you are qualified in the field of spiritual knowledge tell us what those qualifications are - and if you are not qualified why don't you just say so?

(Psychology however cannot measure consciousness - if it could the field of AI would be able to re-create basic functions of a living entity's consciousness.)

 

[Godless]

If we apply your logic to the scenario with the rocket scientist and his latest document presented to the joe on the street we could draw up a similar answer. "This rocket scientist just has a big sense of fantasy".

It only depends what level of education the 'joe' on the street has. i.e. if he be an ignorant theist, who believes he came from dirt, and some entity breathed the air of life to his ansesters. Then yea! we got a dilema.

Actually you are jumping the gun because you assume you are qualified in the field - if you are qualified in the field of spiritual knowledge tell us what those qualifications are -

Why do I have to give qualifications that I was an ignorant believer of fantasy? it's ok now though. I "grew" out of it.

Psychology however cannot measure consciousness

Neither could "spiritualism" otherwise why do such people exist, that believe this is utterly BULL SHIT!

if it could the field of AI would be able to re-create basic functions of a living entity's consciousness.)

Stick around kiddo! this may be coming sooner than you expect. click

Godless

 

[lightgigantic]

It only depends what level of education the 'joe' on the street has. i.e. if he be an ignorant theist, who believes he came from dirt, and some entity breathed the air of life to his ansesters. Then yea! we got a dilema.

Wow - its a bit of a fiery reply here godless - If you can keep things civil we can have a discussion but if you just want to straw target argument and launch into insult you will just reduce the discussion to a battle of wills -

Funny that you say its ajoke to think that we came from dirt since most scientific theories work on the same lines that we evolved from something in the mud

Why do I have to give qualifications that I was an ignorant believer of fantasy? it's ok now though. I "grew" out of it.

If you can make distinctions between the qualified and unqualified representatives you can discuss things otherwise you run the risk of calling on unqualified persons as representatives of a field

Neither could "spiritualism" otherwise why do such people exist, that believe this is utterly BULL SHIT!

Wow - sounds like something from the mouth of a joe on the street after he has just been handed a document on rocket technology

Stick around kiddo! this may be coming sooner than you expect. click

Godless

I don't know what the article was supposed to illustrate except that a lot of scientists interviewed read science fiction - there were even presentations on data by Isaac Asimov.lol

 

[superluminal]

Interesting.

 

[Godless]

Wow - its a bit of a fiery reply here godless

I don't recall calling anyone any names in that sentence. BTW you know that most people are a bit ignorant don't you? I mean no one is omnisicient. So we are all a bit ignorant of one thing or another. Most theistical minded individuals are very ignorant of science, and how science works.

If you can keep things civil we can have a discussion but if you just want to straw target argument and launch into insult you will just reduce the discussion to a battle of wills -

That happens here often, it's a way to weed out the dumbass theistical individual to the ones who actually use their brains. Got a few of those around here, but they don't last long. Though I still have few theist friends I communicate with, very intelegent indivduals despite their theological beliefs.

Funny that you say its ajoke to think that we came from dirt since most scientific theories work on the same lines that we evolved from something in the mud

Strange aint it? But it was not mud, but water. click

If you can make distinctions between the qualified and unqualified representatives you can discuss things otherwise you run the risk of calling on unqualified persons as representatives of a field

True here are my qualifications of spiritualism. I studied psychic books, I experimented & indulged in drugs for spiritual purposes, born to a deeply catholic family, became a christian by my early teens, then I went to babtism. By my early twenties I've had two nervous breakdowns, on drug overuse, and mild szchisophrenia, all that bs to discove and further understand spiritualism. I became an atheist. by the age of 22 quit doing drugs, quit believing in spiritual nonsense, and have lived happy ever since. Spiritualism, has two different meanings. One can be spiritualist and not religious the other, well seeks to find god within.

I don't know what the article was supposed to illustrate except that a lot of scientists interviewed read science fiction - there were even presentations on data by Isaac Asimov.lol

AI is a reality that is soon coming, that's what the article relates to. Read more on AI and see just how close we are to having the first computer that actually thinks for itself. Is Data sentient? Well we may soon find we create a model that may think itself sentient. BTW going to the moon hundred years ago, was science fiction. :bugeye:

Godless

 

[wayne_92587]

Why? Do you think you will offend me? Or is it because you are a good xian and have higher morals than me?

Self edited due to personal insult. Not very nice.

I was simply responding to you scientific declaration.

I am not an xian, I am an amoral atheist.

 

[Godless]

I am not an xian, I am an amoral atheist.

Your no atheist. Unless you made a mistake above? There's nothing "amoral" about atheism!

 

[leopold]

AI is a reality that is soon coming, that's what the article relates to. Read more on AI and see just how close we are to having the first computer that actually thinks for itself.
Godless

and it took intelligence to create it. it did not evolve out of nothing

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Is it even possible to be Amoral?

 

[leopold]

Is it even possible to be Amoral?

good question. i would consider head hunting and cannibalism amoral but there have been entire societies that practiced both.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Does that mean that people who practice cannabilism and headhunting are incapable of morality in other aspects of their lives?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

You seem to be relegating the sciences to the realm of mysticism. Why? What exactly is your definition of proof? There is "proof" in a court of law, and there is mathemetical "Proof" which is as close to absolute as you can get. Scientific proof is something far different and far more rigorous than legal proof, and yet not the absolute of mathemetical proofs. Science very rarely does not have proof for established theories and laws. The edges of science are always speculative, but that does not translate into "very rarely" regarding proof.

The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as (among other definitions)
Proof = something that induces certainty or establishes validity.

The basis of science is skepticism i.e. doubting everything, including it's own beliefs. That is it's strength! Theories are by definition falsifiable, and may be proved wrong by a single observation. Laws are only generalised by inductive logic from observed instances (e.g. the "white swans" argument).

Very little is certain in science therefore, which means that science can constantly adapt it's version of the world in the light of new findings. This is where it differs from e.g. Creationism, which must stick to certain core beliefs (in Genesis), which once disproved, disprove the whole belief system.

So, ironically, because very little is proved in science, it is probably a method that will bring us nearest to the objective truth.

Late Edit: I think what you are saying is that science can be used to prove certain facts or accociations e.g. Koch's postulates can prove a certain organism causes a certain disease. I agree. I eat my words!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Does that mean that people who practice cannabilism and headhunting are incapable of morality in other aspects of their lives?

You can be immoral by acting against a certain set of values, or amoral by claiming to have none yourself. People who practice cannabilism were probably acting morally in their own terms, just not in ours...

Your no atheist. Unless you made a mistake above? There's nothing "amoral" about atheism!

Why can't Wayne be an amoral atheist? He can be what he wants!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You can be immoral by acting against a certain set of values, or amoral by claiming to have none yourself. People who practice cannabilism were probably acting morally in their own terms, just not in ours...

I agree with the immoral example. About amoral though... claiming to be amoral is just a claim (it needs evidence to back it up). Is there a single instance of a human who has lived amorally? I suspect the notion of Amoral only exists in concept but not in practice.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't recall calling anyone any names in that sentence. BTW you know that most people are a bit ignorant don't you? I mean no one is omnisicient. So we are all a bit ignorant of one thing or another. Most theistical minded individuals are very ignorant of science, and how science works.

Actually you could say the same about scientists being ignorant how theism works - lol - actually you could even say that about theists being ignorant about how theism works -

Strange aint it? But it was not mud, but water. click

lol - so the big issue you had with religion was that they told you you came from mud and not water?

True here are my qualifications of spiritualism. I studied psychic books, I experimented & indulged in drugs for spiritual purposes, born to a deeply catholic family, became a christian by my early teens, then I went to babtism. By my early twenties I've had two nervous breakdowns, on drug overuse, and mild szchisophrenia, all that bs to discove and further understand spiritualism. I became an atheist. by the age of 22 quit doing drugs, quit believing in spiritual nonsense, and have lived happy ever since. Spiritualism, has two different meanings. One can be spiritualist and not religious the other, well seeks to find god within.

Using drugs for spiritual purposes? Actually drugs and the pursuit of any knowledge are not compatible - something I guess you can vouch for - I guess if drugs were intrinsically connected to your spiritual beliefs I can see why you gave up religion, but I would also add that drugs are not actually intrinsically related to spiritualism in the first place - what you say about seeking god within bears some truth - You are not required to add things (like drugs for instance) to your self to become spiritual - on the contrary it is a clearing away of artificial things (like our artificial impetuses that encourage to do things like take drugs) that constitutes spiritual life - and a person who has made great advancement in that field (of clearing away artificial demands of material life) is a qualified person in this field of knowledge - it is not dependant on one's birth in a religious family or one's denomination - although these things can be helpful

BTW - I am not advocating myself as a self realised soul - I am more in to establishing/defining and following the path of spiritual progress that leads to such a state - [/QUOTE]




AI is a reality that is soon coming, that's what the article relates to. Read more on AI and see just how close we are to having the first computer that actually thinks for itself. Is Data sentient? Well we may soon find we create a model that may think itself sentient. BTW going to the moon hundred years ago, was science fiction. :bugeye:

Godless[/QUOTE]

There are a lot of promises that go down in the name of science - Walt Disney left a will that his head be frozen so that science can re-create his body sometime in the near future too - anyway its still there in a freezer somewhere.

I think for the sake of discussion it is not conducive to talk about what science will be able to do in the future anymore than it is conducive to talk about who's going to go to hell in the name of religion

 

[leopold]

Does that mean that people who practice cannabilism and headhunting are incapable of morality in other aspects of their lives?

you asked if there was such a thing as 'amoral'
i replied with the cannibal/headhunter scenario
to such a society cannibalism/headhunting is not amoral

so i guess amorality depends on the society