Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
Oh there is *waves*There's always one.
but it's still an overly simplistic one regardless and hardly a good example of emergent behaviour. Context is everything. Indeed basic processes interacting with each other don't cause unpredictable effects. These processes are eminently predictable, unless one throws in magical thinking to explain it away. Two wet things in separate states making a wet thing in a particular state is a damn near a given. Two dry things in any state making a wet thing in one or any is the more interesting to think about. Chaos theory only gets us so far. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
If Brad Pitt appears in front of you P, you know you've been tangoed. God, taking the piss for 15 billion years. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Ouchies, you just caused a mass extinction of my pride
So ignore the glib remarks, then. I have little interest in the moral high ground. It's rocky and the pH is way too low. That still leaves several points which require you to adjust or abandon your arguments. I suppose it's possible that, in your haste to get defensive and butthurt, you missed them. That's hardly surprising, I mean they were all flanked by one-liners, and anyone could make the mistake of assuming the much larger paragraph between them was more of the same and not bother reading it.
It's just that by not responding to valid points, such as your ignorance of general science, atheism, agnosticism and a couple more I forget because man am I sleepy after doing science and thinking of sassy remarks all day long, you sort of make it look like you haven't the faintest idea how to deal with them. I know, it's crazy, and I feel silly for even bringing it up. But now I've reminded you about those points you missed I can look forward to the cut and thrust of your informed and reasonable rebuttals.0 -
-
-
Oh there is *waves* but it's still an overly simplistic one regardless and hardly a good example of emergent behaviour. Context is everything. Indeed basic processes interacting with each other don't cause unpredictable effects. These processes are eminently predictable, unless one throws in magical thinking to explain it away. Two wet things in separate states making a wet thing in a particular state is a damn near a given. Two dry things in any state making a wet thing in one or any is the more interesting to think about. Chaos theory only gets us so far.
Up to a point, and in small numbers, these things are predictable, yes. You can look at a DNA sequence and predict what kind of protein sequence it encoded. But the protein's actual function? Depends on the shape of the thing after it folds up into a blob. You have to do all sorts of complicated calculations to figure out which way that will happen, and that still takes high-end computer clusters a long time, and they're still just educated guesses without a tonne more experimentation and analysis. By which time the process that protein mediated is long over. If you want to be pedantic then fine, it's all predictable given enough time.
They quickly lose their predictability the more there are. I was at a robotics.expo in London last year, and one of the exhibits was a dozen little robots with very simple instructions for sensing each other and interacting based on relative position and distance. Two of them in the display box, no problem predicting their movements. 4-5 was tougher, but still possible to predict. By the time all of them were in the box interacting with eachother, the designers had no idea how they'd move. The increase in complexity with numbers of robots was exponential.
That's a dozen little robots, with reaction/response rules far simpler than the most specialised biological cell, and the people who made them could spend months or years trying to work out why they did what they did when left together for one day. Indeed, they'll do just that, because they were attempting to model insect swarm behavior with the project. Predictable, probably. To a certain accuracy, anyway, and given a year or two study.
Now, if there were a few hundred million of the little buggers you could still argue that since their behaviour individually follows simple rules, their behavior as a group is also predictable. But the universe will probably have died its heat death by the time the calculations are done. And assuming no outside force jostled their arrangement. Theoretically yes, you can predict the pattern for a slice of time. Practically, not a hope in hell.
So it is with the 20,000-odd genes and myriad outside forces affecting a single cell. So it is with the hundred million such cells in a brain. I recall reading recent evidence to suggest each neuron in the human brain actually has a slightly different genome, adding another layer of complexity. Magical thinking isn't required at all to explain that such a complex system, predictable in only the most impractical sense, will eventually end up laughing at pictures of cats on the internet.
I'm leaving out all that quantum goodness with adds genuine unpredictability to the mix. Best you can do at that level is work the probabilities. But they're never fully predictable, and that effect will trickle up to other levels. Hey, maybe humanity will crack that theory of everything and this last paragraph will become false, but right now? Unpredictability arises out of interactions between systems that, on their own, might be predictable.
Christ, I hope nobody locked the thread while I was typing this on my phone, it took ages. This wall o' text stuff isn't worth the effort, Wibbsy old boy, let's dial this sh*t back a notch or three.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
I'm not singling you out P, but since you're herephilologos wrote: »(Philippians 1:6). (2 Corinthians 5:17),(Romans 6)
What I've always found interesting about Christians, particularly the born again folks is that they rarely quote Jesus in these things, 9 times outa 10 we get Paul. They're more Paulians than Christians.
Then again that's what the religion became. Paul tweaked a local and exotic Jewish religion for mass consumption in the Greco-Roman world. The Romans loved their exotic gods. Everywhere they conquered or traded with they brought back a god or goddess, for the craic like. He was well placed to do so, having a foot in both camps. You can see evidence of this tweaking all over the place. Christians aren't directed by dogma to go around snipping bits off babies willies, nor have they any food restrictions. Both notions that were considered barbarous by the Romans and especially the Greeks. Even today, try separating a leg of pork from an Italian and you've a fight on your hands. Damn right too. Paul removed enough of the "ahh that's a bit too exotic for our tastes" stuff from the original. The Roman church later codified such changes and added their own to make it fit better. The elevation of Mary a good example. The original texts make little mention of her. Clearly Jesus loves her as his mum, but he ignores her entreaties too. The Church organisation itself followed the Roman military and organisational model. Jesus himself doesn't seem to enamoured with your average clergy of his time. I suspect if he was dropped into the 10th century church world he'd be outside the vatican kicking in the doors. Of course the biggest irony of all is the state apparatus that killed him was the one who later bannerised him. Of course they added in a nice little piece about blaming the Jews. Ties up loose ends. *
As well as quoting Paul the more conservative snake handling nutbags tend to quote the fire and brimstone of the old testament and for your real polyester suited bible thumpers you have Revelations. Always gets them sweaty in the pews with talk of beasts and many titted whores. And fair enough. Feck all of the actual Jesus in it mind you.
It was ever thus. The Catholic church the same. Pop along to a mass and look at the liturgy. If the mass was a movie, Jesus would only make a short cameo appearance. The readings are from Paul, the rite itself has but a vague connection to the first century Jewish preacher and when he does enter the stage in the Gospel reading it's a remarkably small rotation of the same passages.
Never mind too many Christians not doing "what Jesus would do", the faith itself has little enough of him in it.
*actually the trial of Jesus is an interesting one. The Romans never released prisoners on local feast days. Pilate existed, but wouldn't have been arsed with dealing with that kind of local matter. The Romans were generally too sensible to get bogged down with that kinda thing. The choice between Jesus and Barabbas is also an interesting one. Barabbas means son of the father. His full name is given as Jesus Bar Abbas. Hmmmm indeed.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
I'm not singling you out P, but since you're here What I've always found interesting about Christians, particularly the born again folks is that they rarely quote Jesus in these things, 9 times outa 10 we get Paul. They're more Paulians than Christians.
Paul's words are consistent with those of Jesus. Indeed, I could have quoted Peter in respect to the logical conclusion of Jesus' death and resurrection, because they are on the same page.
Jesus makes clear that the Holy Spirit will guide the Apostles, and Jesus also makes clear that the Spirit will inform them of truth (John 16). This includes Paul, and it includes all the other Apostles.
I don't subscribe to the idea that Paul's writings are inconsistent with Jesus, because there isn't a good reason to suggest such. Peter commends Paul in the Gospel and commends his words in the following manner:2 Peter 3:15-16 wrote:And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
The idea that we should ignore the rest of the Bible other than Jesus, is simply put in and of itself not what Jesus would Himself advocate.0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
That's highly debatable. Certainly the people who actually knew Jesus including his brother James had serious issues with Paul and some of those issues survive down to this day, even with the later "editing". If you bring in non canonical stuff the roman church wasn't too happy with this goes double.philologos wrote: »Paul's words are consistent with those of Jesus.
Paul was as much an apostle as I am.Jesus makes clear that the Holy Spirit will guide the Apostles, and Jesus also makes clear that the Spirit will inform them of truth (John 16). This includes Paul, and it includes all the other Apostles.
They also had a right barney at Antioch.I don't subscribe to the idea that Paul's writings are inconsistent with Jesus, because there isn't a good reason to suggest such. Peter commends Paul in the Gospel and commends his words in the following manner:
Indeed not, however the bible Jesus referenced was the old testament/torah, not the later additions. The "oh I'll guide you later so that's all cool" seems just a tad convenient. Did he not say he wasn't here to change the old law? I quote the lad: Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." You'll notice the bold part. Jesus was born and lived as a devout Jew. He was circumcised, had his bar mitzvah, observed the sabbath, preached as a rabbi to fellow Jews and was brought as a Jew to other Jews to answer and explain his mission as he saw it. The earliest church of his peers before Saul/Paul stuck his oar in was a new sect within existing Judaism. In which case how come you can eat a ham sandwich, have a willy turtleneck and worship the sabbath on a different day and in a very different way? Later revelation though terribly convenient just doesn't bring with it any semblance of truth for me. I suppose that's where that nebulous and highly personal faith comes into it. BTW fair play on that score. Whatever gets ya through the night is cool by me, particularly if it helps to spread some joy in the place, even if I think that joy misplaced. THat's my issue not yours or others, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist or whatever(Paraphrase Simpsons quoteThe idea that we should ignore the rest of the Bible other than Jesus, is simply put in and of itself not what Jesus would Himself advocate.).
True. There does seem to something unusual going on when current equipment shows zero activity and the person is "dead". Of course this does not mean something extranatural is taking place, but that there are things we can't get a handle on yet. It is interesting to me on that score as there have been a few cases which seem to defy current explanations of what death and consciousness is. In one way it's also terrifying. Terrifying because we may declare someone as dead and they actually are or are in the process of death, but are "superconscious" in some way. *shudder*.nozzferrahhtoo wrote:Says you, citations please, from actual studies and not blogs.
Plus define exactly what you mean by "Brain Dead" as you will find that "Brain Dead" as measured by some machines does not mean entirely Brain dead, it just means that the particularly activity being measured has stopped. The lay public put way too much stock in the phrase "brain dead".
I'll add in a personal experience. I've had one such near death experience when I was in my teens. Long story, but suffice to say it felt very real, even hyper real, not at all like a dream. Though my mind tells me it was a reaction of a stressed and near dying brain, I can well understand those who have gone through similar and think it real in a spiritual sense. I'd also add that being/feeling disembodied is a very fcuking surreal experience. Even if it's a trick of the mind, bloody hell it's well effin odd looking down on your own body, even in the imagination.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement