What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

[spidergoat]

The aspect of my atheistic worldview that would allow life to be beyond aging, disease, and death is the transfer of a conscious personality to a machine, or the creation of such a self aware machine. While I think such a complex program would still be subject to error, perhaps a virtual person would be easier to fix, and therefore be practically immortal.

 

[DaveC426913]

Still not clear whether you think inanimate objects can die.

I mean what is it precisely that a star is doing that a chair is not.

If one defines death in terms of life, then the death of inanimate objects is a metaphorical death. But one can also use a broader definition of death - for example the death of a an idea - which is perfectly valid.

What makes a star different from a chair or napkin is that the star is as much process as it is object. A star, by its nature, evolves and changes. You cannot have a star that does not do this.

Contrarily, a chair is, at its essence, inert. Though it is subject to external forces, like anything in the universe is, the chair does not evolve or have processes of any chairlike nature.

The processes of a star are what make it a star. No processes, no star. Thus, its processes can die.
If there are any processes happening to a chair that stop, it does not stop being a chair. There are no chair-esque processes that can die.

 

[wynn]

I find it ironic that, of all people, wynn - who started the 'What do atheists think it means to "know God"' thread - is speculating on how atheists think.

cuz he's got it wrong.

What do I have wrong?

If I may for a moment be so bold as to presume to know what other people think:
Most non-believers take heart in the fact that the universe is rational

Of course. This is the core of my argument.

(follows knowable laws, not the whim of some inscrutable spirit)

I've yet to meet a theist who actually believes that the Universe follows "the whim of some inscrutable spirit."

That chaos is mathematically describable

Then it is not chaos, if it can be mathematically described.

and beautiful.

Chaos is beautiful?

That is very New Age.

That unpredictable means we are masters of our own destiny.

As long, of course, you also firmly believe that you have your, body, your senses and your mind fully under your control.

That said - can you tell your fingernails not to grow, and they stop growing?
Can you tell your stomach not to demand food, and it stops demanding food?
Do you always remember everything you want to remember?

That the universe arises from a very very few fundamental principles, and the "miracle" of the universe's glory is that all this complexity we see is an emergent result of those simple principles.

There seems to be a striking similarity between scientism and New Age ...

 

[wynn]

The aspect of my atheistic worldview that would allow life to be beyond aging, disease, and death is the transfer of a conscious personality to a machine, or the creation of such a self aware machine. While I think such a complex program would still be subject to error, perhaps a virtual person would be easier to fix, and therefore be practically immortal.

And the machine would be made of what, and maintained by whom?

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know, it could be made of light and metal, or silicon. It could also be self-maintained.

 

[wynn]

I don't know, it could be made of light and metal, or silicon. It could also be self-maintained.

Would it be subject to decay?

 

[spidergoat]

Probably, but it could be modular, so that it could be endlessly repairable. Or you could circumvent aging through redundancy. Say if one copy of yourself breaks down, you just boot up another one.

 

[wynn]

Probably, but it could be modular, so that it could be endlessly repairable. Or you could circumvent aging through redundancy. Say if one copy of yourself breaks down, you just boot up another one.

Oh. You know, there is such a thing as "production and maintainance costs," not to mention the salaries of all the engineers who are needed to keep the whole thing running ...

 

[spidergoat]

Or perhaps in the future, medicine will advance to such a state that death will become obsolete.

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

I've yet to meet a theist who actually believes that the Universe follows "the whim of some inscrutable spirit."

So when the Bible says that the sun stopped in the sky that was not at god's whim? He didn't flood the whole Earth because he got mad? That all the miraculous things he is said to have done are not true? Welcome to reason!

Then it is not chaos, if it can be mathematically described.

It's called probability, it can generate a cloud of possible outcomes and assign lower and higher probability zones. Tests against what really occurs show we can describe it pretty well(but never with certainty). A simplified version can be applied to two decks of cards when playing Black Jack. A group of students(from MIT, IIRC)got into a lot of trouble by winning huge amounts of money using this type of math. A scientific demonstration of the principle is the two slit experiment with light.

There seems to be a striking similarity between scientism and New Age ...

We call that Rationalism, but the New Age reference belongs more in theism and spirituality, not in science. But I guess it's hard to find a group of people theists can say are even more irrational than they themselves are.

Grumpy

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



It is evidence ...(yada yada)

You are simply cherry picking the post to neglect answering questions you are hell bent to skirt around.
If you can't understand how this is not evidence, it appears you have something more to read up upon than wiki pages about "world view".

If you can't understand these two straightforward points, small wonder you can't understand that a discussion on the strength of supporting evidence (or even a lack of it) has absolutely no bearing on the existence of a world view.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

It all depends on how you want to define the words death and life. It's semantics. But according to our arbitrary human rules, for something to die, it must first be considered a separate thing, and undergo some kind of active process, either metabolism, or information processing, or nuclear fusion, or possibly just supporting your ass when you sit. But as a chair's process isn't that complex, it would be a stretch to say it can die. But, it's all a matter of definition, the origin of all particular things.

If its all a matter of semantics why don't biologists investigate the life cycles of stars, snowflakes, chairs and napkins?

 

[spidergoat]

I believe they do if there is a cycle interesting enough to study.

 

[lightgigantic]

If one defines death in terms of life, then the death of inanimate objects is a metaphorical death. But one can also use a broader definition of death - for example the death of a an idea - which is perfectly valid.

working with such a broad definition certainly widens things up considerably - it would effectively make everything subject to aging and death (and not just more conventional objects of "life") - you could even extend it to illness too since one could talk of an "ill idea" or the "ill ambience of the sun shining through a polluted sky" etc

What makes a star different from a chair or napkin is that the star is as much process as it is object. A star, by its nature, evolves and changes. You cannot have a star that does not do this.

Contrarily, a chair is, at its essence, inert. Though it is subject to external forces, like anything in the universe is, the chair does not evolve or have processes of any chairlike nature.

The processes of a star are what make it a star. No processes, no star. Thus, its processes can die.
If there are any processes happening to a chair that stop, it does not stop being a chair. There are no chair-esque processes that can die.

You are mistaken

the same processes or energy and mass that work on a star are also at work on a chair and they are all external

 

[lightgigantic]

I believe they do if there is a cycle interesting enough to study.

So the reason you don't find any biologists in the field is because its only guys who specialize in atmospheric sciences/physics that are boring enough to find the subjects interesting?

 

[spidergoat]

The separation between the fields of science is nothing more than an academic/ linguistic convention.

 

[lightgigantic]

The separation between the fields of science is nothing more than an academic/ linguistic convention.

Quite more than mere linguistics or the letters one has after one's name.

More than one physicist has run away from the field of biology with their tail between their legs ...

 

[spidergoat]

Someday it will all be unified.

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

Originally Posted by Grumpy
lightgigantic



It is evidence ...(yada yada)

You can't deal with what I said? You call this a reasoned reply? That's three or four times now you've pulled this cowardly and dishonest tactic, that you then accuse me of in the next sentence...

You are simply cherry picking the post to neglect answering questions you are hell bent to skirt around.

You don't even answer ANY of my post(after I quoted line and verse and responded to each point of yours)and I'm the one who's sidestepping? Dude, you just defined sidestepping with your perfect demonstration of the technique! Ah, the desperation of a LOSER:bawl:. You should know by now I plow right through stupidity, I sidestep nothing, and as long as the stupidity keeps coming, I will keep plowing.

Grumpy

 

[ughaibu]

This is the core of my argument.

What argument? On this thread you have asked what a subset of readers interpret a certain phrase to mean, without having given sufficient context for that phrase to have a meaning. That is not offering an argument. If you have an argument, spell it out. Present the premises and conclusion, in skeletonised form. Give reasons for your reader to consider your premises to be plausible and show that your conclusions are entailed by the premises.