You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

iceman700

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have personally experienced my dreams. doesn't mean that rambling old hotel in louisiana, that i got lost in last night trying to find my room exists.

Doesn't mean it does not either, or never did.

nozzferrahhtoo

Exactly. Which is why we then need a methodology by which to distinguish between things we dream up and imagine..... that turn out to actually exist..... and those that turn out not to exist. The problem then being that this god you imagine.... you have presented when asked exactly zero argument, evidence, data or reasoning that it is anything but something in your imagination. Simply moaning instead that we are too logical. All I can safely say is that if you are appealing to a LACK of logic to get to your conclusions, you are on your own. I will not be walking that path with you either.

iceman700

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Exactly. Which is why we then need a methodology by which to distinguish between things we dream up and imagine..... that turn out to actually exist..... and those that turn out not to exist. The problem then being that this god you imagine.... you have presented when asked exactly zero argument, evidence, data or reasoning that it is anything but something in your imagination.

I have already freely admitted, that I can not present evidence for the existence of God by the strict parameters of science and logic.


Simply moaning instead that we are too logical. All I can safely say is that if you are appealing to a LACK of logic to get to your conclusions, you are on your own.

Not really, by your own yard stick of measurement, you have also failed to come up with any evidence for the existence of love, but you will never admit that.
You now have to throw love in the same box of doesn't exist, as God.
Good luck explaining that one, to your partners, if they exist.
Second option, you could possible think there maybe some things that exist, that logic and science dont register, but that wont happen, because cracks may start to appear in the very foundation of your beliefs.

I will not be walking that path with you either.

Nobody was ever invited, to walk my path.
Good luck gentlemen, it was an eye opener, and thank you all once again for your input, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

pearcider

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes. Nachos are chemicals and chemicals can be measured.


Gustatory Cortex.
We have a very good idea of what chemically makes up taste and how our brain receives it. We have a fair idea of what makes those tastes good to some people and bad to others (genetics and upbringing effect what you enjoy the taste of).
You are going to have provide some evidence that science is pointing to the consciousness not living inside the brain, because I'm calling BS on that.


If it is programmed to use nachos as fuel then it will, subjective to it's programming, prefer nachos to other items it is given to it.


How is it impossible to prove we have subjective experiences? It is eminently obvious to the point of not needing measurement that our experiences are subjective (we are different people). But we can prove that we experience things differently with things like MRIs to show different brain responses to the same stimuli.


It involved observation, which pop-sci and pseudo-science sometimes likes to interpret as the same as human consciousness, but that hasn't been proved to be the case at all.

You are still missing the point about nachos. Yes their chemical makeup can be sensed with sensors and fed into a computing machine but this will not give us the information we need to tell us what it feels to taste one. You need a conscious observer to tell you about their experiences and what’s more you need to know every single conscious observers experience of tasting nachos to complete the physical picture.

On top of that you will still not have a complete picture of the taste of nachos because there will always be information outside the computing system you choose that is unknowable and not computable. Now you can choose to simply not believe in so called qualia and the problem of consciousness like for example Dan Dennet but his argument against them is rather weak and unsatisfactory. He essentially just ignores it which is a common tactic by atheists when presented with mysterious truths.

Regarding the MRI, you still need a conscious observer to read the data otherwise it’s meaningless noise. Conciousness is the most familiar and by far the most mysterious aspect of our lives. In many ways conciousness is the process of tuning into something that is much greater than ourselves. In this view the universe has invented a way to know itself which is even more miraculous than a God who has created us in his own image.

There is nothing pop sci about the Copenhagen convention. It is what it is. It’s either that or many worlds theory. Choose your poison but don’t pretend to me that science has dismissed God. It has done no such thing. If anything science has shown us that physical reality is even more fantastical than we could have imagined (and we have so far imagined it well) and that there is either only one existence, namely the one we currently inhabit or there is every possible existence in infinite and parallel series with each other. I choose to believe the former but I have no problem if you believe the bleak and meaningless vision of the latter.

Bannasidhe

pearcider wrote: »

You are still missing the point about nachos. Yes their chemical makeup can be sensed with sensors and fed into a computing machine but this will not give us the information we need to tell us what it feels to taste one. You need a conscious observer to tell you about their experiences and what’s more you need to know every single conscious observers experience of tasting nachos to complete the physical picture.

On top of that you will still not have a complete picture of the taste of nachos because there will always be information outside the computing system you choose that is unknowable and not computable. Now you can choose to simply not believe in so called qualia and the problem of consciousness like for example Dan Dennet but his argument against them is rather weak and unsatisfactory. He essentially just ignores it which is a common tactic by atheists when presented with mysterious truths.

Regarding the MRI, you still need a conscious observer to read the data otherwise it’s meaningless noise. Conciousness is the most familiar and by far the most mysterious aspect of our lives. In many ways conciousness is the process of tuning into something that is much greater than ourselves. In this view the universe has invented a way to know itself which is even more miraculous than a God who has created us in his own image.

There is nothing pop sci about the Copenhagen convention. It is what it is. It’s either that or many worlds theory. Choose your poison but don’t pretend to me that science has dismissed God. It has done no such thing. If anything science has shown us that physical reality is even more fantastical than we could have imagined (and we have so far imagined it well) and that there is either only one existence, namely the one we currently inhabit or there is every possible existence in infinite and parallel series with each other. I choose to believe the former but I have no problem if you believe the bleak and meaningless vision of the latter.

Then surely science has also not dismissed gods - it is just as probable that The Dagda, or Zeus, or Danu, or Freya, or Ganesh exist - are we made in their likeness? I notice you said 'his' likeness btw - is that 'his' generic or literal?

Are you arguing for the existence of a specific God or merely the possibility that there may be a God - or Gods?

I'm not buying the nacho analogy - If I brought a packet of nachos to India and asked two random people to taste it they would experience 'nacho' - but if I asked them about 'god' they may believe in many gods, no god(s), one god ( who may be Jehovah or may be Allah) and while they may agree on nacho having just experienced it - they could violently disagree about 'god' - I could then bring the packet of nachos to Japan, where the nacho experience would remain as the nacho experience but the god 'experience' would differ greatly.

nozzferrahhtoo

Please when replying to my posts, do not change my words by putting your words inside mine. You just "QUOTED" me saying a whole lot of things I never said.

iceman700 wrote: »

I have already freely admitted, that I can not present evidence for the existence of God by the strict parameters of science and logic.

So by that admission your "evidence" is illogical. Glad you admit that.

iceman700 wrote: »

Not really, by your own yard stick of measurement, you have also failed to come up with any evidence for the existence of love, but you will never admit that.

I clearly stated I do not think "love" is an actual thing that actually exists. I know you admit to wanting to be illogical. But it is certainly not logical to ask me to evidence the existence of something I blatantly and clearly said I do not think exists.

Are you even TRYING to make sense anymore? Or do you like to just score imaginary points by pretending people will not "admit" to things they do not actually, and never have actually, said or thought?

iceman700 wrote: »

Second option, you could possible think there maybe some things that exist, that logic and science dont register, but that wont happen, because cracks may start to appear in the very foundation of your beliefs.

There is nothing there to register. I have no doubt there are many things that exist, that I currently do not know exist. I have never not admitted to that. I am sure there are plenty of things I have, and have not, imagined that I currently do not think exist but actually do.

That lends no credence whatsoever to any one particular thing someone just makes up however. You god still remains in the category of things that absolutely COULD exist, but we CURRENTLY have no reason whatsoever on offer (least of all from you) to think it does.

iceman700 wrote: »

Nobody was ever invited, to walk my path. Good luck gentlemen, it was an eye opener, and thank you all once again for your input, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Excuse me if I do not say goodbye, as I once invented a tongue in cheek "law" that turned out to actually be true more often than it has been false. It is called Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forum posting. It states that the probability a user on a forum will post again goes UP each time they say something that indicates they are finished posting. So.... see you when you get back

nthclare

I'm not a believer in the Abrahamic faith or the God they pushed in schools, if I was to write a script and it was like a Marvel or DC production but only about different God's

As I said before the Abrahamic God would be a sand demon from the middle east, bent on war, torture and damnation.

I don't need to argue my own paganism because Im into nature and the elements.
Well they're all the one anyhow.

Would any of you label yourselves as Pagan or Heathen ?

Or just Athiests, humanist ?

nozzferrahhtoo

I do not even tend to use the word "Atheist" to describe myself, except where context demands, or prose warrants it. It is not a label I really identify by or with. I always avoid labels that define what I am NOT rather than what I am.

But even then actually I generally try not to label myself at all. Mainly because labels are never a 100% fit and run the risk therefore of attributing attributes to me that I do not actually have. Almost invariably in the past when I identified with a label, it was not long before someone ascribed a position to me I do not hold.

Similarly I have heard many people identify as "Catholic" but later I found them to have absolutely diverse ideas of what that even means. A surprising % of Catholics recently identified as not having a belief in god for example. Which I, seemingly in my ignorance, had previously considered quite a low bar to qualify for the label.

Usually when people ask me what my label is, or how I identify, I simply ask them to pick a topic, ask me my exact position on it, and they can label it any way they see fit after that. But I rarely deign to label it myself.

Bannasidhe

nthclare wrote: »

I'm not a believer in the Abrahamic faith or the God they pushed in schools, if I was to write a script and it was like a Marvel or DC production but only about different God's

As I said before the Abrahamic God would be a sand demon from the middle east, bent on war, torture and damnation.

I don't need to argue my own paganism because Im into nature and the elements.
Well they're all the one anyhow.

Would any of you label yourselves as Pagan or Heathen ?

Or just Athiests, humanist ?

For me 'athiest' simply means I literally do not believe there is a god.
It does not mean I believe A, B, or C - or whatever people decide the label means at any given moment.
I am a- thiest.
Don't believe there is a god or gods.
It's that simple.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

I'm not a believer in the Abrahamic faith or the God they pushed in schools, if I was to write a script and it was like a Marvel or DC production but only about different God's

As I said before the Abrahamic God would be a sand demon from the middle east, bent on war, torture and damnation.

I don't need to argue my own paganism because Im into nature and the elements.
Well they're all the one anyhow.

Would any of you label yourselves as Pagan or Heathen ?

Or just Athiests, humanist ?

While I consider myself an atheist I also think as a word it says very little about me. I don't follow football, but I wouldn't label myself as a non-football fan. In terms of my attitudes towards religion, I reckon secularist is probably a more useful term, as this lets people know I'm happy for anyone to worship whoever or whatever they want just so long as they don't try to push their beliefs on others.

What I think most theists get wrong about atheists is they consider them to be a generic group, analogous to a religion without a god or a philosophy such as humanism. This isn't the case, as atheists by definition haven't anything in common other than not believing in a god or gods. Some atheist organisations or prominent individuals might argue that atheists do in fact have a shared world view, but I'd assert they're wrong in doing this as they've no mandate to speak for atheists in general and their numbers represent a relatively small proportion of the atheist population. You also regularly see theists on this forum capitalising the word atheist, to suggest that Atheist as a proper noun is somehow distinct from people who just don't believe in a god or gods. I'd also say this is divisive nonsense. My take on religious identity is people get to call themselves whatever they want. Someone calls themselves a Christian, Pagan, atheist or whatever, that's good enough for me. Where I'd have a problem is where someone else tries to apply a label to someone else and use that to make more general comments about them. e.g. smacl is an atheist therefore a fan of Dawkins and wears a goatee. Jimmy is a Christian and therefore a flat earther. Jane isn't a Christian because she voted to allow abortion. Jehovah's witnesses aren't Christian because they're non-trinitarian etc...

Mark Hamill

iceman700 wrote: »

Either can you, but you claim to have experienced it.

I did define it. Love is a collection of emotions. I will go into more specifics after you make an attempt to define it.

iceman700 wrote: »

Many people get engaged, married have children, but are not in love, going by your definition maybe you just think your in love.

Em...no? I don't even know what you are saying here. My definition doesn't say other people can't love.

iceman700 wrote: »

How could you possible know, I have mis-attributed anything.

If you claim to have experienced something which could not possibly have existed, then either you hallucinated your experience (i.e. experienced nothing) or you are mis-attributing your experience to the wrong cause.

iceman700 wrote: »

Not by your narrow, strict, bible of logic and science

So you admit that assuming persona experience proves something exists is illogical?

To put it simply -
Lots of people claim contradictory personal experiences to you.
You can't all be right.
Just repeating the claim cannot tell anyone who is right.
So how do you determine who is right without trying to determine objective truths about any claims?

Mark Hamill

pearcider wrote: »

You are still missing the point about nachos. Yes their chemical makeup can be sensed with sensors and fed into a computing machine but this will not give us the information we need to tell us what it feels to taste one. You need a conscious observer to tell you about their experiences and what’s more you need to know every single conscious observers experience of tasting nachos to complete the physical picture.

I am not missing the point about nachos, you are just wrong. Nachos are the sum of their chemical parts, you don't need every possible observers experience to say that. That each observer has different "equipment" (biology of their taste senses, past experiences of the food) to experience that taste doesn't change anything.

pearcider wrote: »

On top of that you will still not have a complete picture of the taste of nachos because there will always be information outside the computing system you choose that is unknowable and not computable. Now you can choose to simply not believe in so called qualia and the problem of consciousness like for example Dan Dennet but his argument against them is rather weak and unsatisfactory. He essentially just ignores it which is a common tactic by atheists when presented with mysterious truths.

What part of the taste of nachos is unknowable? What are qualia?

pearcider wrote: »

Regarding the MRI, you still need a conscious observer to read the data otherwise it’s meaningless noise. Conciousness is the most familiar and by far the most mysterious aspect of our lives. In many ways conciousness is the process of tuning into something that is much greater than ourselves. In this view the universe has invented a way to know itself which is even more miraculous than a God who has created us in his own image.

So are you admitting that it is possible to prove that we have subjective experiences?

pearcider wrote: »

There is nothing pop sci about the Copenhagen convention. It is what it is. It’s either that or many worlds theory. Choose your poison but don’t pretend to me that science has dismissed God. It has done no such thing. If anything science has shown us that physical reality is even more fantastical than we could have imagined (and we have so far imagined it well) and that there is either only one existence, namely the one we currently inhabit or there is every possible existence in infinite and parallel series with each other. I choose to believe the former but I have no problem if you believe the bleak and meaningless vision of the latter.

The universe existed before humans were around to observe it. Reality exists even when your eyes are closed.
Science dismisses all non-falsifiable claims as they are untestable and therefore their existence is indistinguishable from non existence.
Why is the multiverse theory bleak and meaningless?

pearcider

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am not missing the point about nachos, you are just wrong. Nachos are the sum of their chemical parts, you don't need every possible observers experience to say that.


What part of the taste of nachos is unknowable? What are qualia?

Actually the taste of the nachos bears no resemblance to the shape of the molecules of nachos. Their taste is a completely subjective experience and has nothing to do with the information processing of our cognitive systems. How they taste simply cannot be defined in this way. I do not experience the same taste that you do. Qualia are defined as instances of concious experience and their study is not beyond the realm of science at all. They are widely studied. Any proposed theory of consciousness will be able to make falsifiable claims so there’s no need to worry there. But any physical theory of the mind must account for subjective experiences.

Why is the multiverse theory bleak and meaningless?

Because it presupposes that the existence of our world is an accident rather than the purpose of the creation in the first place? As Paul Davies says “invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.”

So as I said you can choose your poison but do not preach to people who believe in God that your philosophy rules him out. It does no such thing. You can believe that the universe has a purpose or you can believe it has no purpose but to say that current scientific consensus suggests that it has no purpose is wrong.

pearcider

Further to the point about the quantum theorists being faced with the breakdown of materialism at the beginning of the 20th century.

Max Planck, the father of the quantum said this,

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.“

Erwin Schrödinger, who formulated the equation that governs particles at the quantum level said,

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else".

His book “what is life?” is recommended to believers and atheists alike.

Werner Heisenberg who gives his name to the uncertainty principle that seemingly underpins physical reality said,

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things"

These men buried both materialism and reductive analysis insofar as it was a philosophical way of looking at life over a century ago. But atheists still think we live in a clockwork universe. We don’t. We live in something far more mysterious and astounding than that.

Bannasidhe

pearcider wrote: »

But atheists still think we live in a clockwork universe. We don’t. We live in something far more mysterious and astounding than that.

Atheists do not believe there is a god or gods.
That is it.

To claim any otherwise is extremely arrogant imo, particularly as it has been pointed out that there is no common set of beliefs, no hive mind, no tenets.
There is just the lack of belief in the existence of a deity - or deities.

When an individual makes a statement they are speaking only for themselves - not from some imaginary 'atheist handbook'. You cannot extrapolate from any post here that 'this is what atheists believe.'

It is astounding that you cannot seem to grasp this one simple fact.

nthclare

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Atheists do not believe there is a god or gods.
That is it.

To claim any otherwise is extremely arrogant imo, particularly as it has been pointed out that there is no common set of beliefs, no hive mind, no tenets.
There is just the lack of belief in the existence of a deity - or deities.

When an individual makes a statement they are speaking only for themselves - not from some imaginary 'atheist handbook'. You cannot extrapolate from any post here that 'this is what atheists believe.'

It is astounding that you cannot seem to grasp this one simple fact.

Supposedly Atheists and Thiests brains are wired differently, I don't know much about it to be honest.

Something to do with Thiests being more engaging in shape's and pictures when they look at something. Let's just say an Athiest has a big Oak door and their friend is a thiest.

The Athiest walks past that door every day, and one day the Atheist brings a thiest in for some tea. The thiest needs to go to the loo, look's at the door and the grain of the wood looks like a demons head...

I've Eddie from Iron Maiden on one door, a scary looking nun on the other, and a woman carrying a baby in my bedroom door all knots in timber..but it I took a photo and put them all on Facebook with a circle around them you'd see the similarity.

Yes I've see the dog's arse that looks like Jesus in case anyone wants to throw it up here...

Bannasidhe

nthclare wrote: »

Something to do with Thiests being more engaging in shape's and pictures when they look at something.
.

And yet so many many visual artists are atheist.

nthclare

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet so many many visual artists are atheist.

I'm not taking about the comparisons between Atheists and Theists ability to out perform each other with creativity, more like tricks of the mind.

I'm not posting about who's better than who at art, this is about how the brain's are firing differently etc

It's interesting how you point out to me, many visual artist's are Atheists....

Many good writer's are Atheists too, so are many good gardener's, and poet's, scientists and technicians.

But there's one thing that stands out to me between the two, you'll get a lot more religious people who are top class athletes, boxer's, and partake other pursuits that rely on physical endurance

This isn't a comparison, or me saying one is better than the other.

Just an observation, so it's pointless to start going down the rabbit hole comparing the two.

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

But there's one thing that stands out to me between the two, you'll get a lot more religious people who are top class athletes, boxer's, and partake other pursuits that rely on physical endurance

you have any stats on that? or is it just that people are generally more likely to be religious anyway?

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

you have any stats on that? or is it just that people are generally more likely to be religious anyway?

I'd say people are genuinely likely to be religious anyway, neither persuasion makes anyone a better athlete.

It's just religious people might suggest god helped them and the media may focus on that.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

The Athiest walks past that door every day, and one day the Atheist brings a thiest in for some tea. The thiest needs to go to the loo, look's at the door and the grain of the wood looks like a demons head...

Hmmm, just had a look at a knot in my bog door that I'd always taken to be a friendly aardvark kind of thing



I just noticed if you turn it sidewards it's actually Cthulhu



Bad news Christians, Muslims and Pastafarians, looks like you've been praying to the wrong guy all these years! :pac:

So far as I'm aware from my limited studies in AI and computer vision, when the brain sees a pattern, it fills out missing bits based on what it knows most. Same idea as Rorschach tests. If demons are you're thing, demons is what you get. How I became an aardvark loving atheist is more of a mystery.

storker

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is astounding that you cannot seem to grasp this one simple fact.

Many believers seem to have this inability to conceive of atheism as something other that a different religion pretending it isn't.

This may be party due to a limited France of reference, but it's probably also party the fault of some atheists.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ Also not helped by legal cases where for example the court decided to treat atheism as a religion in order to parse/execute a law. Which theists on occasion have cited to me as if the court in question declared atheism TO BE a religion.

The nuance between "X is Y" and "X in this one context needs to be treated as Y for legal purposes" seemingly entirely lost on them.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Hmmm, just had a look at a knot in my bog door that I'd always taken to be a friendly aardvark kind of thing



I just noticed if you turn it sidewards it's actually Cthulhu



Bad news Christians, Muslims and Pastafarians, looks like you've been praying to the wrong guy all these years! :pac:

So far as I'm aware from my limited studies in AI and computer vision, when the brain sees a pattern, it fills out missing bits based on what it knows most. Same idea as Rorschach tests. If demons are you're thing, demons is what you get. How I became an aardvark loving atheist is more of a mystery.

Surely, on the evidence (and we can't argue against the evidence) you are now a Cthulhu-loving atheist?

nthclare

storker wrote: »

Many believers seem to have this inability to conceive of atheism as something other that a different religion pretending it isn't.

This may be party due to a limited France of reference, but it's probably also party the fault of some atheists.

first one looks like a Man bending over looking into a big crystal ball,you can see his muscle's, shoulder etc head its atlas, you can even see his hair flowing backwards,

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

But there's one thing that stands out to me between the two, you'll get a lot more religious people who are top class athletes, boxer's, and partake other pursuits that rely on physical endurance

Guessing that if the above is true you'd have to factor in the proportion of the population they're drawn from is religious. So for example, I'd expect to see a high proportion of African and Southern European athletes to be religions, not so much Russians and Chinese.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely, on the evidence (and we can't argue against the evidence) you are now a Cthulhu-loving atheist?

Funny enough, I'm a life long sci-fi fan, so not a million miles off. Never actually read Lovecraft but this could be a pivotal moment

nthclare

smacl wrote: »

Guessing that if the above is true you'd have to factor in the proportion of the population they're drawn from is religious. So for example, I'd expect to see a high proportion of African and Southern European athletes to be religions, not so much Russians and Chinese.

Exactly, the Russians and Chinese rely more on science the Africans seem to be living on higher altitudes and probably will adapt to having better endurance and for thousands of years they ran everywhere, perhaps they ran more than they walked..

So their DNA and gene's are better than ours for endurance

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

Hmmm, just had a look at a knot in my bog door that I'd always taken to be a friendly aardvark kind of thing

I see a Lion Cub playing with itself and about to fall over.

If I turn it the way you seen Cthulhu, what I see is the decay of a human skull rapidly.

So far as I'm aware from my limited studies in AI and computer vision, when the brain sees a pattern, it fills out missing bits based on what it knows most. Same idea as Rorschach tests. If demons are you're thing, demons is what you get. How I became an aardvark loving atheist is more of a mystery.

And this is quite comon, it is very noticeable when people are driving or other things that require alot of info to be processed and reacted upon quickly and continuously. Their brain fills out parts that they have to look at but deep down they haven't percieved a threat from, hence they see an empty road with an oncoming cyclist/,motorcyclist. They will often say I didn't see you, but the truth is, they didn't actually look, but they think they did. It is very fascinating.

storker wrote: »

Many believers seem to have this inability to conceive of atheism as something other that a different religion pretending it isn't.

+1, I have nothing in common with the posters on here other than we post on an internet forum, sin e. I don't have a different belief system, I simply do not have one. I did when I was younger, and I was pretty full on with it. I can see the benefits for some people of having one. I could see the benefits for me if I had one, but I don't and that's it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ Also not helped by legal cases where for example the court decided to treat atheism as a religion in order to parse/execute a law. Which theists on occasion have cited to me as if the court in question declared atheism TO BE a religion.

The nuance between "X is Y" and "X in this one context needs to be treated as Y for legal purposes" seemingly entirely lost on them.

As a scientist, I really despise people using, typically US cases, as some sort of proof of point. Judge finds against giant company in favour of low paid worker that chemical/drug gave them cancer and awards them 1million dollars. People take this as proof that the drug gave them cancer. In reality, the case often has numerous experts who categorically state that there is no link between the drug and cancer and the person who regrettably got this illness is simply one of the many people who statistically were going to get this type of cancer. The judge recognises the ability of the larger company to cover this cost, for a worker in their employee for example who worked hard, got paid little and needs some comfort. It is not proof, it is just a ruling in a civil, not criminal (very important due to the burden of proof required), case.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

Exactly, the Russians and Chinese rely more on science the Africans seem to be living on higher altitudes and probably will adapt to having better endurance and for thousands of years they ran everywhere, perhaps they ran more than they walked..

So their DNA and gene's are better than ours for endurance

Agreed, but that suggests religion isn't a causal factor to becoming a great athlete, it's just happens to correlate with the athletes demographic background.

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

Exactly, the Russians and Chinese rely more on science the Africans seem to be living on higher altitudes and probably will adapt to having better endurance and for thousands of years they ran everywhere, perhaps they ran more than they walked..

So their DNA and gene's are better than ours for endurance

it's not 'the africans' per se who dominate long distance running, it's a specific region which dominates the sport.
https://populous.com/born-to-run-why-do-east-africans-dominate-long-distance-running-events

Peregrinus

CramCycle wrote: »

. . . +1, I have nothing in common with the posters on here other than we post on an internet forum, sin e. I don't have a different belief system, I simply do not have one . . .

Nitpick: I'd be fairly confident that you do have a belief system. It's just that your belief system is not religious.

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not 'the africans' per se who dominate long distance running, it's a specific region which dominates the sport.
https://populous.com/born-to-run-why-do-east-africans-dominate-long-distance-running-events

Supposedly the seal tribes in Scotland back in the day could run for hour's especially if they're trying to hunt someone down, so it's probably demographic alright...

CramCycle

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: I'd be fairly confident that you do have a belief system. It's just that your belief system is not religious.

Apologies, I thought it was clear that when I referred to a belief system I meant in a religious context, silly me.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

I just noticed if you turn it sidewards it's actually Cthulhu

Getoutofit! That's Karl Marx that is.

Mark Hamill

pearcider wrote: »

Actually the taste of the nachos bears no resemblance to the shape of the molecules of nachos. Their taste is a completely subjective experience and has nothing to do with the information processing of our cognitive systems. How they taste simply cannot be defined in this way. I do not experience the same taste that you do.

Change any chemical in a nacho and you change the taste. You are mistaking the taste of something with someones enjoyment of that taste. Your enjoyment of a taste is subject to your biology and experiences. The nacho is still the same nacho regardless of whether you enjoy it or not.

pearcider wrote: »

Qualia are defined as instances of concious experience and their study is not beyond the realm of science at all. They are widely studied. Any proposed theory of consciousness will be able to make falsifiable claims so there’s no need to worry there. But any physical theory of the mind must account for subjective experiences.

And what is the issue with qualia?
You drop a pebble in a pond and it will sink in a different manner to a different pebble dropped in the same pond, because of their different shapes, the exact part of the pond they fall into and the differences in weather when they are dropped. What part of those two pebbles subjective "experiences" cannot be described theoretically?

pearcider wrote: »

Because it presupposes that the existence of our world is an accident rather than the purpose of the creation in the first place? As Paul Davies says “invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.”

So as I said you can choose your poison but do not preach to people who believe in God that your philosophy rules him out. It does no such thing. You can believe that the universe has a purpose or you can believe it has no purpose but to say that current scientific consensus suggests that it has no purpose is wrong.

Again, accident presupposes some intent. If there is no creator, then we are not accidental, we are incidental. We exist because our universe happened to have the conditions suitable for our existence. I said this before.

Science dismisses all non-falsifiable claims as they are untestable and therefore their existence is indistinguishable from non existence. Hence science rejects the very question of god.

Mark Hamill

pearcider wrote: »

Max Planck, the father of the quantum said this,

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.“

Non sequitor. There is no reason to assume there is an intelligence behind the forces of the universe.

pearcider wrote: »

Erwin Schrödinger, who formulated the equation that governs particles at the quantum level said,

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else".

We don't have a complete understanding of the minutiae of consciousness, but we have a good knowledge of which parts of the brain house the different parts of your personality. Injuries to different parts of the brain, and taking of hallucinogenics can change peoples personalities. Your consciousness is a biological product of your brain and can be effected on a biological level.

pearcider wrote: »

Werner Heisenberg who gives his name to the uncertainty principle that seemingly underpins physical reality said,

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things"

That just says that atoms should not be treated as physical things like macro-scale objects. Materialism doesn't rule out the existence of non-matter, light and energy exists in materialism.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Getoutofit! That's Karl Marx that is.

Ya flippin' commie, ya!

Peregrinus

CramCycle wrote: »

Apologies, I thought it was clear that when I referred to a belief system I meant in a religious context, silly me.

It matters. I would never suspect it of you, but I have met atheists who insist that, in fact, as atheists, they don't have a belief system.

Which means, of course, that they're simply in denial about their belief system, and they haven't scrutinised their own reasons for holding the beliefs that they hold. Which is not a good thing.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Ya flippin' commie, ya!

Dammit - shudda said it was Robin Williams in Jumanji. Now I have blow my cover as sleeping agent of glorious Soviet republik :mad:

Odhinn

smacl wrote: »

Hmmm, just had a look at a knot in my bog door that I'd always taken to be a friendly aardvark kind of thing



I just noticed if you turn it sidewards it's actually Cthulhu



Bad news Christians, Muslims and Pastafarians, looks like you've been praying to the wrong guy all these years! :pac:

So far as I'm aware from my limited studies in AI and computer vision, when the brain sees a pattern, it fills out missing bits based on what it knows most. Same idea as Rorschach tests. If demons are you're thing, demons is what you get. How I became an aardvark loving atheist is more of a mystery.

https://www.entrelineas.org/pdf/assets/who-will-be-eaten-first-howard-hallis-2004.pdf

Hotblack Desiato

nthclare wrote: »

But there's one thing that stands out to me between the two, you'll get a lot more religious people who are top class athletes, boxer's, and partake other pursuits that rely on physical endurance

It can seem that way, but that's because the religious ones never bloody shut up about it.

nthclare wrote: »

Exactly, the Russians and Chinese rely more on science drugs

Fyp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Getoutofit! That's Karl Marx that is.

...holding a scythe :eek:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which means, of course, that they're simply in denial about their belief system

Or they are just using 'belief system' in the sense generally assumed in our society, which is to describe a religious belief system.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

. . . Or they are just using 'belief system' in the sense generally assumed in our society, which is to describe a religious belief system.

. . . which is a way of avoiding scrutiny of non-religious belief systems, and a support mechanism for those who are in denial about their own belief systems.

I mean, look at what Cram actually said here:

CramCycle wrote: »

. . . I have nothing in common with the posters on here other than we post on an internet forum, sin e. I don't have a different belief system, I simply do not have one.

Cram does have a different belief system, and so he has rather more in common with other posters on here than this statement would suggest.

is there such a thing as not having a belief system?

seems possible to me.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

is there such a thing as not having a belief system?

seems possible to me.

If you don't have any beliefs, you don't have a belief system.

But I don't believe (ha!) that it's possible to be a sentient, conscious, human person and yet have no beliefs.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you don't have any beliefs, you don't have a belief system.

But I don't believe (ha!) that it's possible to be a sentient, conscious, human person and yet have no beliefs.

But do those beliefs constitute a system?

that's the question, for me

"belief system" suggests a set of defined reference points that act as inputs/templates for decisions or actions

its not the same as, say, the scientific method, or querying things as they come up, or simply meandering about

yes, of course it's possible to have a belief system and not acknowledge it

but imo it's quite possible not to have one also

Peregrinus

If you have any beliefs, you must have some basis for adopting or holding them; why else would you hold them?

Some people's bases might be more organised or coherent than others; the purpose of acknwledging that you have a belief system and scrutinising it would be to consider such questions, to reflect on why you hold the beliefs that you do, and to decide if you are happy with that.

The scientific method certainly depends on a belief system (and, in my view, for what it is worth, a robust and coherent belief system). The discipline usually called the philosophy of science examines that belief system, and the axioms which underlie it. Those axioms are unproven (and unprovable) but, if you don't believe them to be true, then you can't appeal to the scientific method as a reliable way of knowing anything. Examining the belief system which underpins the scientific method is also important since it serves to identify the limits of the scientific method - as in, it serves to identify classes of questions which cannot be answered by the scientific method. That in turn leads you to reflect on how you seek to answer questions of that kind, and what belief system you employ for that purpose.

"Querying things as they come up, or simply meandering about" is also likely to require a belief system, though perhaps one which is less scrutinised and/or less structured.

I suppose you could argue that a totally unstructured belief system can't really be described as a system at all, and that people who chose their beliefs completely at random every time an occasion arises for acting on or expressing a belief have no belief system. But I seriously doubt that such people exist. Everyone has some degree of system to their beliefs, even if it's only a principle of consistency. ("If I believed yesterday that a woman has the right to choose abortion, I should believe the same thing today, unless I can point to some reason for changing my belief.")

nthclare

God and Religion are two different things.

Sometimes I think before one has a debate they have to lay out their versions of God before the match starts.

I have no interest in wiping the floor with Christianity,and throwing out the dirty rag afterwards, which I often seen done here and in other forums, I've done it myself that's for today.
But if I was having an off day I'd have no problem suggesting that the Abrahamic God is like a sand demon from the middle east (which is personified evil) it may not exist but the legend lives on and still infiltrates our culture and society, not so much now but it resonates in our law's and some peoples morals.
I'm a pagan, I don't need to prove why I'm a pagan or what type of pagan/heathen I am.
But it makes more sense than being a Christian, the book of genises suggests that the planet is for man's Dominion, and we should subdue it.

The pagan thinks it's for the plant's, animals and elements, and we share it, not control it...

Is there any pagans in the Atheism and Agnoticism forum ?

CramCycle

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . which is a way of avoiding scrutiny of non-religious belief systems, and a support mechanism for those who are in denial about their own belief systems.

I mean, look at what Cram actually said here:


Cram does have a different belief system, and so he has rather more in common with other posters on here than this statement would suggest.

Really? I clarified in the next post if you read it, I was referring to a religious belief system. I stand by my statement in regards other posters here. Other than I have no religious belief system, I don't have anything I know about in common with other posters here.