The joys of life without God

[superluminal]

super

Once upon a time A man invented a word, this word was invented so that it could explain away an infinite number of events otherwise unexplainable by modern science.

This word is 'coincidence'

It is just a word.

The events occurred before that word came into being. The law of coincidence did NOT exist before that word.

Thus all the experiences men had that told them that other worldy forces we did not understand were at work were once valid and when that word came into being..invalid. It's just a word.

Sorry, but WTF?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Sorry, but WTF?

it's my latest angle

I do not believe in anything more than you, rather I believe in one thing less than you. I do not believe in 'coincidence'. You do.

"Coincidence literally describes two or more events or entities occupying the same point in space or time, but colloquially means two or more events or entities possessing unexpected parallels, such as thinking about someone and then receiving an unexpected phone call from that person, when it is clear that there is no ordinary causal connection.

The index of coincidence can be used to analyze whether two events are related. A coincidence does not prove a relationship, but related events may be expected to have a higher index of coincidence. From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. The odds that two people share a birthday, for example, reaches 50% with a group of just 22 [1] (see the Birthday paradox).

Remarkable coincidences sometimes lead to claims of psychic phenomena or conspiracy theories. Some researchers (see Charles Fort and Carl Jung) have compiled thousands of accounts of coincidences and other anomalous phenomena."

obviously it is is the remarkable not the unremarkable that interests me and that which is NOT coincidence. It is just a convenient word, nothing more.

 

[superluminal]

it's my latest angle

I do not believe in anything more than you, rather I believe in one thing less than you. I do not believe in 'coincidence'. You do.

Cool! In a wierd, lame sort of way. But still cool!

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Cool! In a wierd, lame sort of way. But still cool!

I try
meanwhile

I'm trying to figure out how sterile neutrino's fit into the origin of life thing. any ideas?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I try
meanwhile

I'm trying to figure out how sterile neutrino's fit into the origin of life thing. any ideas?

bah this is the question to end all questions. Pants and shabbahhh

 

[superluminal]

I try
meanwhile

I'm trying to figure out how sterile neutrino's fit into the origin of life thing. any ideas?

You mean as opposed to fertile neutrinos? I would say that sterile neutrinos would have very little to do with the origin of life. Unless these so-called sterile neutrinos are actually asexual budding entities. If an asexual "sterile" neutrino could bud off a baby neutrino then we'd have something. But this has not been shown in any conclusive way. The fertile neutrino, now, that's another story. Never been detected, but it could nicely explain the origin of life on earth and the universe. They would be able to penetrate deep into anything they encountered and thus spawn life almost anywhere.

Those are my ideas.

 

[(Q)]

Once upon a time A man invented a word, this word was invented so that it could explain away an infinite number of events otherwise unexplainable by modern science.

This word is 'coincidence'

Modern science does not attempt to explain coincidences since they are merely events that seem arranged but were purely accidental.

The events occurred before that word came into being. The law of coincidence did NOT exist before that word.

Many things existed before the word that describes them did.

Thus all the experiences men had that told them that other worldy forces we did not understand were at work were once valid BUT when that word came into being......they immediately became to the 'follwers of that word' invalid. It's just a word. You can believe in that word if you like, it is your choice, as inadequate as it is.

So, in your humble opinion, no event ever could have been accidental, every event that ever occured was pre-arranged by your "forces?"

 

[looking_forward]

So the logic is that if there are many processes, call them a, b and c, or perhaps even a1, a2, a3 etc since they are all contain similar elements, and if they all claim that they are beneficial and truthful, then there is something obviously wrong those claims - like for instance if there are several brands of headache tablets, and they all have similar ingredients (and perhaps even identical ones) and they all claim to help against headaches, there is something obviously flawed with their claims?

bad analogy light. First, the headache medicines all have the same or at least very similar ingredients; they don't blatantly didagree on which ingredients should be used. Second, no headache medicine claims to be the ONLY one that works. while they may claim to be better, and they may emphasize certain unique qualities of their individual product which make theirs special and appealing to certain people, they do not deny that oteh rporducts work. If Christians were for example to say that the Jewish and the Muslims and the Hindus and all other religions were following the same God as them, but that they were jsut doing it in a different way that isn't as good as ours, then religion would be a lot more beleievable. But since they have contradictory claims and each states that it is the ONLY correct religion, their case is therefore weakened not only by teh atheist argumenet but by the argument of all the otehr religions as well. If teh theists were even somehat reasonable and reaaly wanted to achieve their goal of wiping out the thinkrs on the planet in order to brainwash everyone, they would unite, or at least pretend to unite and agree on just one fairy tale so that it gains more credibility.
Finally, i find it very ironic that you unintentionally compared religion to a drug, which i think is a very good representation for religion. It intoxicates the minds of the weak; it is addictive to the point where those addicted will do anything to appease their god, be it killing people or blowing up abortion clinics, and will be just as determined to infest others with their disease. But religion isnt even like a real medicine, it is a placebo. It works because the mind is a powerful thing and it can convince the body and the rational part of your brain that it is true when it is actually not. I think that the mind can do many things and is so amazing that it can actually trick itself.
Light, your second analogy was much better, about how religion is a drug. I thought maybe you had seen the truth for a second but i guess you made that analogy unintentionally. I really like it though if that counts for anything

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

Highschool drop outs also argue there is no credible testimony to the existence of electrons

The difference is that there are atheists who have extensively studied religion and the so-called evidence of God and still found it wanting. Whereas there seems to be nobody who has extensively studied physics and yet still believes electrons do not exist.

I think your idea of religion is bereft of a foundation of theoretical knowledge of the relationship between god, the living entity, the material world, the spiritual world, and the nature of illusion.

So, educate me. Explain rather than simply asserting.

What do I need to know in order to be convinced that God exists?

It seems to me that if there is a God, then he has many better things to do, judging by the number of innocent and worthy people who die every die or suffer great misfortune. What I wonder is why you think prayer works at all. What does prayer actually achieve, according to you? And how can you tell?

Define innocent
Define worthy

You're a smart guy (or girl perhaps? Probably a guy, I'm guessing). I'll leave you to work it out.

Here is something anecdotal - when eistein discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity it was investigated by the royal british astronomy society (at that time britain was the most powerful country in the world, and the society was highly credible, with links back to newton etc). The head speaker for the society made a press release that this was the most important discovery of the century - when the news reporters asked what it was that he had discovered the speaker was adamant that there was no way for the general public to understand the exact nature of what einstein had discovered - in other words the ontological nature of einsteins discovery was fully dependant on the epistemology of astronomy - persons who had no insight into the epistemology had no insight into the ontology - and this accepted as good science.

I would be interested to know exactly which of Einstein's discoveries you are referring to.

I wonder whether the speaker you refer to was really talking about epistemology and ontology at all, or whether he was merely saying that without training the relevant physics and mathematics it would be difficult to understand Einstein's work.

I can include the consciousness of god in the definition of the star as a more complex item of observation

But there seems to be no need for that in a complete description of a star. Once you know enough about fundamental forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces) and you know the basic composition of a star (from observations), you know or can deduce many things about the star. But there's no requirement for God to step in at any point in the life of a star, as far as I can tell.

No. God is always a possibility. No science has yet found it necessary to invoke God as an explanatory mechanism or causal agent yet, though.

how convenient

It's not so much a matter of convenience as how things are. Science leads where it leads. It has never led to God.

Do you really think Islamic terrorism, to take one example, is linked to atheism?

Many muslim scholars establish that islamic terrorism operates out of a corrupt epistemology - take it up with Samckdey if you don't believe me

That's dodging the question. I agree that Islamic terrorists follow a corrupted version of Islam. But what I asked you was whether atheism fits into this picture anywhere.

Suppose God suddenly said "From now on, murder is good, not evil." Do you think it would then be morally right to murder?

If someone shot your wife and was coming at you with a rifle would it be moral to shoot him first?

Again, you dodge the question. Are you afraid to commit to an answer?

Because if things are evil only because God says so, then morality is fairly arbitrary.

First you have to establish that god is arbitrary and that you are not

You misunderstand. All I mean is that if God dictates what is right or wrong, then he can dictate according to his whim. If he decided at some point that murder was right, or loving your family was wrong, then they'd be right and wrong. Wouldn't they?

Good and evil are surely easy enough to discern. We can start from "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Then why is it impossible for you to situate yourself on this ideal?
Why do you sit idley while other people's family members are starving for want of food while your family members are (hopefully) well fed?

Complex questions. Often, it is difficult to do the right thing, even when you know what the right thing would be. Also, few individuals have the resources to make all the changes in the world that they would like to see.

Religious people do no better than atheists in this regard, though. Do you disagree?

So you admit that humanity is incredibly limited in the endeavour to restore moral balance in the world (assuming that they could even agree in which direction moral balance lies)

What do you mean by "moral balance"? What makes you think the world is not "morally balanced" as things are? And why do you think moral balance is a good thing, anyway?

I assume you mean Shermer. He doesn't have a vendetta against theistic scientists. He points out that the theory of Intelligent Design in not science. That's all.

They have a religious agenda - so does he - what's the difference?

What do you think Shermer's religious agenda is?

The Creationist split between macro- and micro- evolution is an attempt to set up a false dichotomy. Basically, micro-evolution + lots of time = macroevolution.

ok thats the theory - where is the evidence?

In the fossil record. In the genetics of all life on Earth. In the taxonomy of living things. etc.

Do you have an alternative theory?

so the creationists have a theory - the macro-evolutionists have another - why are they not on an equal status?

Depends in what field you are trying to establish status. If you're working in the sciences, then Creationism is worthless as a scientific theory. It is unscientific - as a court in the United States recently acknowledged.

As a religious idea, Creationism obviously has high status. It is interesting to speculate why that might be...

There's an entire thread there titled about the correct epistemology - basically it has the same rquirements as any other epistemology - the first requirement is a qualified teacher

Who is a qualified teacher then? You? If so, what are your qualifications? If not, who should I go to?

God is not an objective phenomenon. Ask different people and they all have different conceptions of what God is and is not.

Just like fire, smoke and light are all contrary phenomena for one bereft of knowledge of fire

But anybody can go outside and light a fire. Anybody who does so will agree on the attributes of fire. People across the world agree about fire. The same cannot be said about God. If people go outside looking for God, some find no God. Others find different Gods.

What is the objective evidence for God, according to you?

Before there is discusions of ontology there must be a clear epistemological process - we are back at the einstein anecdote

I already asked you to explain your epistemology. A brief summary would be a good start.

Did I advocate iran's system?

You advocated an "official" religion in a nation. Or am I mistaken?

Do you believe in separation of church and state, or do you think a state-sanctioned church would be a good move?

Shermers agenda is to get religion relegated to academia

Even if that were true, it is unlikely to happen. People worship together and in private, all over the world. That can't be stopped. The Russian communists tried it, but it didn't work.

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

The difference is that there are atheists who have extensively studied religion

Ok then suppose they were a university drop out instead of a high school drop out - in other words is it sufficient to declare that something is false simply because many people have looked for it and not found it? And is this premise not even more shaky when one cannot establish the correct epistemology for such a search in the first place?

and the so-called evidence of God and still found it wanting. Whereas there seems to be nobody who has extensively studied physics and yet still believes electrons do not exist.

So in otherwords correct epistemology leads to ontology
The same holds true of theistic pursuit, hence not all theists "mature" in their development to become atheists

What do I need to know in order to be convinced that God exists?

The same with any field of knowledge - the correct epsitemology

I wonder whether the speaker you refer to was really talking about epistemology and ontology at all, or whether he was merely saying that without training the relevant physics and mathematics it would be difficult to understand Einstein's work.

How do you propose to separate training from epsietmology?
How do you propose to seperate epistemology from ontology?


“ I can include the consciousness of god in the definition of the star as a more complex item of observation ”

But there seems to be no need for that in a complete description of a star. Once you know enough about fundamental forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces) and you know the basic composition of a star (from observations), you know or can deduce many things about the star. But there's no requirement for God to step in at any point in the life of a star, as far as I can tell.

If that's whats required for a star, what to speak of a crayon picture of a star. As for the requirement of intelligence to justify the stars existence, I guess I find it amazing that you cannot conceive of a crayon picture of a star without intelligence but are prepared to make that leap of faith with a star that has a composition and infrastructure countless billions of times more complex than a crayon picture - do you have any experience of anything that is composed of complex structures, or for that matter any structure, thats cause is not traced to consciousness (or a type of cause that has "mysterious" scientific foundations)

It's not so much a matter of convenience as how things are. Science leads where it leads. It has never led to God.

Instead it leads to causes that are "mysterious"

“ “ Do you really think Islamic terrorism, to take one example, is linked to atheism? ”



Many muslim scholars establish that islamic terrorism operates out of a corrupt epistemology - take it up with Samckdey if you don't believe me ”



That's dodging the question. I agree that Islamic terrorists follow a corrupted version of Islam. But what I asked you was whether atheism fits into this picture anywhere.

It is answering the question - do you think corrupted scientific epistemologies (like pseudo science for instance) establishes the proper foundations for science?

“ “ Suppose God suddenly said "From now on, murder is good, not evil." Do you think it would then be morally right to murder? ”



If someone shot your wife and was coming at you with a rifle would it be moral to shoot him first? ”



Again, you dodge the question. Are you afraid to commit to an answer?

I thought I did - murder has its moral applications

“ “ Because if things are evil only because God says so, then morality is fairly arbitrary. ”



First you have to establish that god is arbitrary and that you are not ”



You misunderstand. All I mean is that if God dictates what is right or wrong, then he can dictate according to his whim. If he decided at some point that murder was right, or loving your family was wrong, then they'd be right and wrong. Wouldn't they?

God indicates the correct applications of morals - morals are not absolute, that is they change under time place and circumstance, but morals performed under the direction of god are absolute
I will give you an example so you won't think I am a suicide bomber
According to scripture, it is sinful for a king to not enforce the law (which may involve killing) - in other words he is forbidden to avoid confrontation at the right time, since the resulted effects of his peace would result in more violence (theives would attack and torment his citizens)
A priest, on the other hand is forbidden to fight

Both of them however, are required to cultivate a mood of surrender to god

Understanding the application of scripture requires knowledge to discriminate between a principle and detail (something both atheists and religious fanatics are famous for getting stumped on)

“ “ Good and evil are surely easy enough to discern. We can start from "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ”



Then why is it impossible for you to situate yourself on this ideal?
Why do you sit idley while other people's family members are starving for want of food while your family members are (hopefully) well fed? ”

Complex questions. Often, it is difficult to do the right thing, even when you know what the right thing would be. Also, few individuals have the resources to make all the changes in the world that they would like to see.

So by your own moral definitions you are not moral

Religious people do no better than atheists in this regard, though. Do you disagree?

Religion however has the notion that the universe is god's property - basically the problem with your attempts at morality (and the attempts of others like yourself) is that we (humans) are not potent enough to do anything (I think it was einstein who said something like "the intelligence that goes into solving our problems has to be greater than the intelligence that went into creating them) - its just like trying to nourish every leaf on a tree with a watering can - the intelligent option is that by watering the root all the leaves are nourished

- inotherwords the highest "morality" of religion is not charity, etc, but displaying the right attitude to god (worshipping god in a mood of love and surrender)

So of course to do that you have to have a clear notion of the source or rot, and that pursuit is the pursuit of theism (developing a clearer and clearer concept of god)

“ So you admit that humanity is incredibly limited in the endeavour to restore moral balance in the world (assuming that they could even agree in which direction moral balance lies) ”



What do you mean by "moral balance"? What makes you think the world is not "morally balanced" as things are? And why do you think moral balance is a good thing, anyway?

You are the one who said do unto others as you want them to do to you - doesn't that indicate an imbalance, the very fact that you have to "aim" for this ideal

What do you think Shermer's religious agenda is?

To relegate religion to a more inferior status than what it is currently operating out of

ok thats the theory - where is the evidence? ”



In the fossil record. In the genetics of all life on Earth. In the taxonomy of living things. etc.

Do you have an alternative theory?

Fossil record is just fossils - its not evidence but theory - at the very least it is not evidence that life evolved from matter

Where is the evidence that life evolved from matter?

“ so the creationists have a theory - the macro-evolutionists have another - why are they not on an equal status? ”

Depends in what field you are trying to establish status. If you're working in the sciences, then Creationism is worthless as a scientific theory. It is unscientific - as a court in the United States recently acknowledged.

So in other words to determine whether something is "scientific" it is sufficient to pass it through court?
What happens if the court had a different decision 50 years ago?
Or if they have a different decision in the next 50 years?
Inother words you are not establishing a very scientific definition of scientific.

As a religious idea, Creationism obviously has high status. It is interesting to speculate why that might be...

Equally interesting how the idea of life coming from matter is atractive to atheists

In otherwords it seems to indicate a clash of values more than anything else

“ There's an entire thread there titled about the correct epistemology - basically it has the same rquirements as any other epistemology - the first requirement is a qualified teacher ”



Who is a qualified teacher then? You? If so, what are your qualifications? If not, who should I go to?

There are stacks of descriptions in scriptures such as

A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.


- its quite a big topic and perhaps represents over 60% of the struggle in spiritual life

“ “ God is not an objective phenomenon. Ask different people and they all have different conceptions of what God is and is not. ”



Just like fire, smoke and light are all contrary phenomena for one bereft of knowledge of fire ”



But anybody can go outside and light a fire. Anybody who does so will agree on the attributes of fire. People across the world agree about fire. The same cannot be said about God. If people go outside looking for God, some find no God. Others find different Gods.

Fire was just an analogy - I didn't say discovering the objective nature of god is as easy as discovering the objective nature of fire - just like there is no argument about fire from persons who have understood fire, there is no argument about god from persons who have understod god - if there seems to be a lot of argument it probably indicates that persons are still struggling with the evidence that fire is smoke, fire is heat, fire is light, and arguably there might also be a few false epistemologies inthere to make it more interesting like fire is soft and fire is wet - so in such an environment isn't argument natural?

I already asked you to explain your epistemology. A brief summary would be a good start.

You can read the opening post here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085&page=8&pp=20

“ Did I advocate iran's system? ”



You advocated an "official" religion in a nation. Or am I mistaken?

Does that automatically mean that others are exterminated?

Do you believe in separation of church and state, or do you think a state-sanctioned church would be a good move?

Seperation of church and state is a god move if the church is not qualified - inother words its not a question of me forcing my ideas of having a church run state, its a matter of it being the natural alternative when people in general see the value in it - in otherwords it is arrived at through education instead of legislation - and of course, as history has proven, when a church becomes disqualified, it can legislate all it wants but it won't help them if the people are dissatisfied with them

“ Shermers agenda is to get religion relegated to academia ”



Even if that were true, it is unlikely to happen. People worship together and in private, all over the world. That can't be stopped. The Russian communists tried it, but it didn't work.

Relegating to academia is a more subtle attack and more devastating - for instance in the communist era the gov't was reluctant to publicly brand underground religious movements as bad because they knew that the public would automatically assume they must be god if the gov't said they were bad -lol

If however religion is relegated to academia, that is it becomes sufficient to determine who is religious by dint of their scholarship of scripture as opposed to actually being a practioner, the whole thing becomes hollow since the field becomes bereft of actual practioners - as for this being unlikely to happen, it is already happening and has picked up tempo with the industrial revolution

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

Ok then suppose they were a university drop out instead of a high school drop out - in other words is it sufficient to declare that something is false simply because many people have looked for it and not found it?

It's more a case of concluding that there's no reason to believe it is there if many people have looked and not found.

You are saying "But wait! You have to look in the right way (with the right epistemology)!"

That's like saying if you squint your eyes enough and eat some magic mushrooms, you will be able to see the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Isn't it?

How do you propose to separate training from epsietmology?
How do you propose to seperate epistemology from ontology?

I don't propose to do that. Not here, anyway.

If that's whats required for a star, what to speak of a crayon picture of a star. As for the requirement of intelligence to justify the stars existence, I guess I find it amazing that you cannot conceive of a crayon picture of a star without intelligence but are prepared to make that leap of faith with a star that has a composition and infrastructure countless billions of times more complex than a crayon picture - do you have any experience of anything that is composed of complex structures, or for that matter any structure, thats cause is not traced to consciousness (or a type of cause that has "mysterious" scientific foundations)

First, remember it was you who could not conceive of a crayon drawing without an intelligence behind it. I suggested several possibilities.

Second, I know of many complex things whose cause is not traced to consciousness. The weather patterns around your home today are very complex, but explainable and predictable using known science. The variety of life is very complex, but explainable using the theory of evolution. Crystals are often very beautiful, but their formation without intelligence is well understood. So is the formation of stars, by the way.

It's not so much a matter of convenience as how things are. Science leads where it leads. It has never led to God.

Instead it leads to causes that are "mysterious"

There's no problem with that. Did you read the entire Shermer interview? He makes the point that you don't have to know everything about everything. Scientists admit there is a lot they don't know, and that's ok. They work away to find out more, all the time.

The fact that there is much that is currently "mysterious" in our world doesn't mean things will always be that way, or that we must ascribe every unknown to some kind of "God of the Gaps". 100 years ago, we didn't know what we know now. 100 years from now, we'll certainly know a lot more than we do now, and some of the "mysteries" will be solved.

Why do religious people feel like they already have all the answers?

By the way, there's no problem with God being involved in a process like evolution, as Shermer says. But "God did it" is not a very useful explanation for how life arose. The obvious next question is "How did God do it?" What laws of nature did God use or invent to get the job done?

It is answering the question - do you think corrupted scientific epistemologies (like pseudo science for instance) establishes the proper foundations for science?

Look, never mind. Your original point was that the influence of atheism has caused a lot of problems in the world, such as violence. My point in reply was that I don't think you can attribute Islamic violence, to take one example, to atheism.

It seems you concede the point, so we'll leave it there.

God indicates the correct applications of morals - morals are not absolute, that is they change under time place and circumstance, but morals performed under the direction of god are absolute.

God indicates the application of morals. Interesting. So, God says things are wrong because they are wrong. That, to me, says that things are right or wrong independently of what God says.

Again, I think I've made my point, since you seem to agree with me. God is not necessary for morality.

Understanding the application of scripture requires knowledge to discriminate between a principle and detail (something both atheists and religious fanatics are famous for getting stumped on)

I agree. There are many people who wrongly apply the scripture they claim to be following, due to having a poor understanding of what it actually means or says.

So by your own moral definitions you are not moral

I'm not perfect, I admit. I try to do the best I can, in moral terms. What more can anybody ask? I don't have infinite resources to right all the wrongs in the world. Nobody does - except perhaps God. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Religion however has the notion that the universe is god's property - basically the problem with your attempts at morality (and the attempts of others like yourself) is that we (humans) are not potent enough to do anything....

Again, we seem to be in agreement.

You are the one who said do unto others as you want them to do to you - doesn't that indicate an imbalance, the very fact that you have to "aim" for this ideal

I agree there is evil in the world. Whether that means there is an "imbalance", I don't know. I'm still not sure what you mean by balance.

Fossil record is just fossils - its not evidence but theory - at the very least it is not evidence that life evolved from matter

Where is the evidence that life evolved from matter?

Fossils are real objects. They exist. They contain information which has to tell us something.

When you talk about life evolving from matter, do you mean life from non-living matter? That is a problem known as abiogenesis - a well recognised one in science. The theory of evolution is irrelevant when we start to talk about abiogenesis. Evolution tells us how life developed the many forms we see today, not how it started in the first place.

Abiogenesis is one of those areas where any scientist will admit that we don't have all the answers yet. But just because we don't know how it happened doesn't automatically mean God must have done it.

So in other words to determine whether something is "scientific" it is sufficient to pass it through court?
What happens if the court had a different decision 50 years ago?
Or if they have a different decision in the next 50 years?
Inother words you are not establishing a very scientific definition of scientific.

I wasn't trying to establish the court system as an arbiter of scientific truth. I agree, of course, that it is not. Specifically, I said that a court acknowledged, on the advice of scientists, that the theory of intelligent design is not scientific.

Courts have done bad science in the past. So have some scientists, for that matter. But that doesn't mean there's no difference between science and non-science.

Equally interesting how the idea of life coming from matter is atractive to atheists

Where else could it come from?

None of the atoms in your body, taken individually, can be said to be "alive". But put them together in the right combination and we get you. So, obviously life is built out of non-living things. The question of how the first living thing arose is a puzzle.

I agree that atheists who absolutely deny that God might have had a role are as wrong as the theists who absolutely deny that it couldn't have happened by natural processes.

You can read the opening post here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...85&page=8&pp=20

I will take a look.

You advocated an "official" religion in a nation. Or am I mistaken?

Does that automatically mean that others are exterminated?

No, of course not. But historically that is what has often happened when states adopt a particular religion. That suggests to me that it is generally a bad idea.

If however religion is relegated to academia, that is it becomes sufficient to determine who is religious by dint of their scholarship of scripture as opposed to actually being a practioner, the whole thing becomes hollow since the field becomes bereft of actual practioners - as for this being unlikely to happen, it is already happening and has picked up tempo with the industrial revolution

This seems inconsistent to me. On the one hand, you say that people need to be appropriately qualified to truly appreciate religion and God, but then you say that educating people about religion in an academic manner is a bad thing.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

You mean as opposed to fertile neutrinos? I would say that sterile neutrinos would have very little to do with the origin of life. Unless these so-called sterile neutrinos are actually asexual budding entities. If an asexual "sterile" neutrino could bud off a baby neutrino then we'd have something. But this has not been shown in any conclusive way. The fertile neutrino, now, that's another story. Never been detected, but it could nicely explain the origin of life on earth and the universe. They would be able to penetrate deep into anything they encountered and thus spawn life almost anywhere.

Those are my ideas.

you are winding me up, never mind

I just found this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030128075950.htm

"Neutrinos are invisible, uncharged, nearly massless particles that, unlike other kinds of radiation, speed through the universe unhindered by planets, stars, magnetic fields or entire galaxies. The particles are emitted by phenomena scientists believe can help them understand the origins of the universe. "


and this for your reference re 'sterile' neutrino's

"The possibility of sterile neutrinos — neutrinos which do not participate in the weak interaction but which could be created through flavor oscillation (see below) — is unaffected by these Z-boson-based measurements, and the existence of such particles is in fact supported by experimental data from LSND. The correspondence between the six - currently known - quarks in the Standard Model and the six leptons, among them the three neutrinos, provides additional evidence that there should be exactly three types. However, conclusive proof that there are only three kinds of neutrinos remains an elusive goal of particle physics."



They are the 'missing ingredient' of that I am sure.

I'll copy this to evolution thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

Nope, it's evasion. You too, like most theists, evade questions posed when you make extraordinary or imaginary claims.

But, that's ok, no need to explain yourself, I'll settle with igneous flatulence and move on. Ta.

Who's avoiding?

I've said if you want to examine the basis of how to perceive god go to the other thread where I deal with that subject specifically - do you expect to cut and paste it here for your leisure?

If you can't be bothered to enter the thread aren't you .....

.....a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

“ Ok then suppose they were a university drop out instead of a high school drop out - in other words is it sufficient to declare that something is false simply because many people have looked for it and not found it? ”



It's more a case of concluding that there's no reason to believe it is there if many people have looked and not found.

You are saying "But wait! You have to look in the right way (with the right epistemology)!"

That's like saying if you squint your eyes enough and eat some magic mushrooms, you will be able to see the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Isn't it?

And doesn't the epistemology become credible if it innvolves following in the footsteps of persons who have successfully applied the epistemology (which BTW actually innvolves avoiding all intoxicants rather than utilising them for special effects)

First, remember it was you who could not conceive of a crayon drawing without an intelligence behind it. I suggested several possibilities.

all of them involve consciousness however

On the contrary it is you who have conceived of such crayon drawings of stars that manifest without consciousness

We can't conclude either that the crayon drawing OR a star are a result of intelligence a priori

.
and also

In the case of crayon drawings, it seems that an intelligence almost always crops up - usually a child.

but are yet to give an example of one

Second, I know of many complex things whose cause is not traced to consciousness.

Now lets see whether you can trace the causes of their existence to phenomena to something singular, or whether they are just relative causes - in other words lets see if you can actually determine the cause of these things or whether it ends up in mystery (remember I am asking you for an example of something of a complex structure that does not owe its existence to some cause that is not either mysterious or conscious, and thus you could use that for a extrapolative model for saying that a star is not designed by intelligence)

The weather patterns around your home today are very complex, but explainable and predictable using known science.

What causes weather patterns?

The Crystals are often very beautiful, but their formation without intelligence is well understood.

What causes them to form?

So is the formation of stars, by the way.

What causes them to form?

It could be a bit labourious to run with all these three so feel free to choose any one (preferably not the star one because you are trying to provide an example of something that could act as a model for the tentative suggestion that stars can form without intelligence)

There's no problem with that. Did you read the entire Shermer interview? He makes the point that you don't have to know everything about everything. Scientists admit there is a lot they don't know, and that's ok. They work away to find out more, all the time.

So how does the idea of intelligence in the universe inhibit their investigations? Particularly since they have more to learn ...

The fact that there is much that is currently "mysterious" in our world doesn't mean things will always be that way, or that we must ascribe every unknown to some kind of "God of the Gaps". 100 years ago, we didn't know what we know now. 100 years from now, we'll certainly know a lot more than we do now, and some of the "mysteries" will be solved.

The problem is that the relative mysteries are solved by discovering more relative information, and on the strength of these relative findings atheistic science attempts to manipulate some suggestion that intelligence is not intrinsic to creation, despite evidence to the contrary (its not like they have traced causes of material effects to an absolute material cause)

Why do religious people feel like they already have all the answers?

Why do atheists feel that things of complex structures can manifest themselves, when crayon pictures of the before mentioned structures cannot?

By the way, there's no problem with God being involved in a process like evolution, as Shermer says. But "God did it" is not a very useful explanation for how life arose. The obvious next question is "How did God do it?" What laws of nature did God use or invent to get the job done?

Then the theists argue that if there is intelligence in the universe there is purpose - in other words there is an inextricable link between design and purpose, and therefore understanding the purpose helps unlock the design, and understanding the design helps unlock the purpose - atheistic science however does not even begin to allow any movement in the direction of "How god did it?"

“ It is answering the question - do you think corrupted scientific epistemologies (like pseudo science for instance) establishes the proper foundations for science? ”

Look, never mind. Your original point was that the influence of atheism has caused a lot of problems in the world, such as violence. My point in reply was that I don't think you can attribute Islamic violence, to take one example, to atheism.

It seems you concede the point, so we'll leave it there

Actually I was advicating the opposite - I thought it was obvious
Just like pseudo science advocates a type of anti-science by corroding the epistemology of science, islamic terrorists act under atheistic premises (after all they are not actually asserting god's authority - they are asserting their own, which is what an atheist tends to do with or withouot explosives strapped to their body) - its ironic however, that they do that in the name of religion

God indicates the application of morals. Interesting. So, God says things are wrong because they are wrong. That, to me, says that things are right or wrong independently of what God says.

Actually my point was that there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about anything, since even a "good" thing can be utilised for a bad result and a "bad" thing can be utilised for a good result

Again, I think I've made my point, since you seem to agree with me. God is not necessary for morality.

Without god centralising the applications of "morals" you just have unqualified persons attempting to centralise the application of morals for their own personal benefit (you you could argue that god also does the same - however the difference is that when god does it he is actually acting in his constitutional position as universal maintainer and when we do it, no matter how atheistically pious we assume we are, we are acting out of an illusory position - ie selfishness) that's why despite your moral stance of doing unto others it is obvious that you don't (not because you are a miser etc etc but because it is constitutionally impossible for you to do unto others)

“ So by your own moral definitions you are not moral ”



I'm not perfect, I admit. I try to do the best I can, in moral terms. What more can anybody ask? I don't have infinite resources to right all the wrongs in the world. Nobody does - except perhaps God. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Or it could be that the mistakes we perceive are results of us not wanting to obey what god wants - like for instance if god gives a process how to live happily in this world, but we think it is better to create industry and manipulate 3rd world countries, the environment etc to make money to pay for a plethora of useless things etc etc - who is being the slacker?

“ You are the one who said do unto others as you want them to do to you - doesn't that indicate an imbalance, the very fact that you have to "aim" for this ideal ”



I agree there is evil in the world. Whether that means there is an "imbalance", I don't know. I'm still not sure what you mean by balance.

If there wasn't the threat of "imbalance" why go to any pains to do unto others - it would make more sense to do as I damn well please (unfortunately many don't see a problem with this outlook)

“ Fossil record is just fossils - its not evidence but theory - at the very least it is not evidence that life evolved from matter

Where is the evidence that life evolved from matter? ”



Fossils are real objects. They exist. They contain information which has to tell us something.

What they tell us is theoretical however - the fossils are a fact - what they tell us is an educated guess.

When you talk about life evolving from matter, do you mean life from non-living matter? That is a problem known as abiogenesis - a well recognised one in science. The theory of evolution is irrelevant when we start to talk about abiogenesis. Evolution tells us how life developed the many forms we see today, not how it started in the first place.

Evolution is just another way to pass the buck on the big question how life evolved - and in the presence of this buck passing ideology it becomes a contentious issue whether abortion is actually killing a child

Abiogenesis is one of those areas where any scientist will admit that we don't have all the answers yet. But just because we don't know how it happened doesn't automatically mean God must have done it.

So there is no evidence of life coming from matter, but it must be seriously entertained until we can establish that life comes from life?

“ Equally interesting how the idea of life coming from matter is atractive to atheists ”



Where else could it come from?

You mean you have seen life come from something other than life?

None of the atoms in your body, taken individually, can be said to be "alive". But put them together in the right combination and we get you. So, obviously life is built out of non-living things. The question of how the first living thing arose is a puzzle.

Then why can't life be constructed out of these atoms - is there a shortage of building materials? You can hardly walk 3 meteres without squashing a thousand living entities - surely it wouldn't be too hard to locate a few popping out of matter if that was how it really worked?
And why are there perfectly well constructed combinations of dead living entities - why is one considered dead and another alive if they have identical atomic constructions?

“ “ You advocated an "official" religion in a nation. Or am I mistaken? ”



Does that automatically mean that others are exterminated? ”



No, of course not. But historically that is what has often happened when states adopt a particular religion. That suggests to me that it is generally a bad idea.

Actually it depends on the nature of the leader - there are historical incidents of theocratic liberals (muslim ones too BTW) as well as examples of theocratic tyrants

“ If however religion is relegated to academia, that is it becomes sufficient to determine who is religious by dint of their scholarship of scripture as opposed to actually being a practioner, the whole thing becomes hollow since the field becomes bereft of actual practioners - as for this being unlikely to happen, it is already happening and has picked up tempo with the industrial revolution ”



This seems inconsistent to me. On the one hand, you say that people need to be appropriately qualified to truly appreciate religion and God, but then you say that educating people about religion in an academic manner is a bad thing.

There is a distinction between an academic and a practioner - an academic sees only the intellectual value in their subject matter where as for a practioner it becomes more dynamic and essential.
The qualifications of a practioner are not academic but existential (I mean that a practioner's knowledge is determined by his behaviour/character/attitude)

 

[lightgigantic]

Looking Forward (watch yer step now )

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So the logic is that if there are many processes, call them a, b and c, or perhaps even a1, a2, a3 etc since they are all contain similar elements, and if they all claim that they are beneficial and truthful, then there is something obviously wrong those claims - like for instance if there are several brands of headache tablets, and they all have similar ingredients (and perhaps even identical ones) and they all claim to help against headaches, there is something obviously flawed with their claims?

”

bad analogy light. First, the headache medicines all have the same or at least very similar ingredients; they don't blatantly didagree on which ingredients should be used.

The same is obvious to persons who actually study world religions - only atheists offer superficial arguments to the contrary

Second, no headache medicine claims to be the ONLY one that works. while they may claim to be better, and they may emphasize certain unique qualities of their individual product which make theirs special and appealing to certain people, they do not deny that oteh rporducts work. If Christians were for example to say that the Jewish and the Muslims and the Hindus and all other religions were following the same God as them, but that they were jsut doing it in a different way that isn't as good as ours, then religion would be a lot more beleievable.

This is actually a view getting advocated at many world religion conventions -

But since they have contradictory claims and each states that it is the ONLY correct religion, their case is therefore weakened not only by teh atheist argumenet but by the argument of all the otehr religions as well.

I can only gather that you are not well informed in theism

If teh theists were even somehat reasonable and reaaly wanted to achieve their goal of wiping out the thinkrs on the planet in order to brainwash everyone, they would unite, or at least pretend to unite and agree on just one fairy tale so that it gains more credibility.

perhaps not too well read either

Finally, i find it very ironic that you unintentionally compared religion to a drug, which i think is a very good representation for religion

I love to use it - I like to see people make a clod of themselves by advocating dead communist ideals

. It intoxicates the minds of the weak;

sure you don't mean MTV?

it is addictive to the point where those addicted will do anything to appease their god,

This is MTV right?

be it killing people or blowing up abortion clinics, and will be just as determined to infest others with their disease.

I gotta get ma blink blink bro

But religion isnt even like a real medicine, it is a placebo. It works because the mind is a powerful thing and it can convince the body and the rational part of your brain that it is true when it is actually not.

And you accuse religion of fairy tale philosophy? Are you sure that your mind hasn't convinced the rational part of your brain to say such things in the absence of evidence?

I think that the mind can do many things and is so amazing that it can actually trick itself.

So does this special knowledge of the minds ability make a person immune from its imaginative powers - for instance how are you sure that you are not imagining that there is no god is not a sign of fallibility?

Light, your second analogy was much better, about how religion is a drug. I thought maybe you had seen the truth for a second but i guess you made that analogy unintentionally. I really like it though if that counts for anything

Nope you walked straight into it like dog stool

 

[(Q)]

Who's avoiding?

YOU are, that is blantanly obvious, as many are pointing out.

I've said if you want to examine the basis of how to perceive god go to the other thread where I deal with that subject specifically - do you expect to cut and paste it here for your leisure?

There was no explanation in that other thread either. Are you to support one vacuous claim with another?

If you can't be bothered to enter the thread aren't you .....

.....a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I've already told you I've seen THAT thread, there is nothing that explains the process you've claimed in THIS thread. Hence, I am a person waiting for you to explain said process, like most others here.

If I'm intolerant, it's not to people, it is to their religious ideologies. And since I, and many others here, have already objectively considered those ideologies time and again, there is no prejudice.

And since you've yet to offer your explanation of the process you claim, then one cannot be viewed as prejudice to that which doesn't exist.

Again, you are avoiding/evading.

 

[looking_forward]

exactly what about my comment suggests that i know nothing of theism? The part that they have conrtardictory claims and each claims to be the only correct view? I happened to be one of teh unfrotunate kids who was indoctrinated into christianity for most of my youth, luckily i broke free from it. One of the things i remeber was a quote written in huge letters on the wall of teh church

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

Does it say "People can come to the father throught me or any other religious figure"? NO. It says only Jesus is teh way to teh father (the alleged god taht you claim all religions agree on). Taken from your own book (and teh "correct" half of it for taht matter). And your rebuttal....

 

[looking_forward]

And Light, what is with teh MTV discussion. How is taht relevant at all. When was the last time someone killed someone in teh name of MTV? I try to bring up relevant points liek this and all you can do is avoid them and talk about "blink blink" which i dont even know what that is (maybe "bling bling" as in tacky pompous jewelry? if so i dont see how that is relevant at all other tahn some kind of silly comment to distract people from the relaity taht you have no response to these questions).

Come on light

 

[superluminal]

Shameless repost to get lightgigantic's attention.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not like I've kept it a secret is it? ”

Yet you can't even paraphrase it in a simple sentence or two. Sounds like intentional obfuscation on your part.

What's the process? Does it really take a five page short story to say the same thing we say about science?

You observe something interesting. You then make a guess as to what it might be or what's causing it. Then you make some tests to confirm or deny your idea. If the tests support your idea, you've learned something potentially new about the universe. Bada boom.

How's yours work?

And your claims about epistemology and how you need the correct epistemology, just like physicists do to understand physics, are useless here. Physicists use the above simple epistemology that anyone can comprehend. The esoteric details are of no interest to most people but most people can understand the results of almost any scientific discipline and benefit from many of them.

Are you claimimg (in the other thread with the billions of 20 page epistemological meanderings) that god is too hard to come to or perceive without extreme training and lifelong sacrifice in the pursuit of this deistic epistemology? Well, for a god of the people, that sounds pretty lame.

So, what's the simple epistemology that anyone can easily apply to percieve god? You know, like the simple epistemology scientists use to percieve nature?

Easy, right?

Challenge: A simple few sentences that illuminate the process that we can all easily understand.

 

[S.A.M.]

Shameless repost to get lightgigantic's attention.



Yet you can't even paraphrase it in a simple sentence or two. Sounds like intentional obfuscation on your part.

What's the process? Does it really take a five page short story to say the same thing we say about science?

You observe something interesting. You then make a guess as to what it might be or what's causing it. Then you make some tests to confirm or deny your idea. If the tests support your idea, you've learned something potentially new about the universe. Bada boom.

How's yours work?

And your claims about epistemology and how you need the correct epistemology, just like physicists do to understand physics, are useless here. Physicists use the above simple epistemology that anyone can comprehend. The esoteric details are of no interest to most people but most people can understand the results of almost any scientific discipline and benefit from many of them.

Are you claimimg (in the other thread with the billions of 20 page epistemological meanderings) that god is too hard to come to or perceive without extreme training and lifelong sacrifice in the pursuit of this deistic epistemology? Well, for a god of the people, that sounds pretty lame.

So, what's the simple epistemology that anyone can easily apply to percieve god? You know, like the simple epistemology scientists use to percieve nature?

Easy, right?

Challenge: A simple few sentences that illuminate the process that we can all easily understand.

I think baum has expressed it pretty well in his thread.