| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Slartibartfast 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
 Posted: September 01 2010 at 20:47 |
 Dean wrote:
All animals communicate in someway or other, and that communication cannot cross species - a dog can communicate with a wolf because they are the same species, but it cannot communicate with a coyote, a fox or a dingo because they are different species of the canine family. Our verbal language allows us to do two things that non-verbal language cannot do - transfer ideas between ourselves and to question. |
Yeah, my cat goes meow meow meow. I meow back at her and she just looks at me like I'm crazy. I'm guessing she's just a good judge of character.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 01 2010 at 20:48
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 01 2010 at 20:47 |
Dean wrote:
The question I would ask is why look for proof or evidence either way? If I had conclusive irrefutable incontrovertible proof there would still be a huge number of people who wouldn't believe me.
|
Some people yes, it happens everywhere.
In Puno daily 10 or 20 kids die due to the pneumonia caused by extreme cold, they have viabe and 100% proof vaccines, but despite the evidence (Maybe 0.1% will have any reaction), a politician said that they are killing their sons, and now despite heir sons keep dying and the ones vaccinated are protected, people reject the doctors.
Show me the incontrovertible evidence, and then we will talk
Dean wrote:
You know my personal "beliefs" - I don't call that faith, I don't call it truth, it requires neither belief nor disbelief because it is non-theism rather than atheism. |
That's your option, and absolutely valid.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 01 2010 at 20:48
|
|
|
|
tuxon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 03:52 |
The theory that God excists can't be falsified, and therefor the theory is faulted.
The theory that God doesn't excist can't be falsified either  |
|
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 04:02 |
According to the UK media, BBC etc, ''Stephen Hawking: God did not create the universe'':
Of course, Hawking isn't actually quoted correctly. What he does say is that ''It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going''. Apparently the law of gravity can produce spontaneous creation from nothing. None of the articles I've seen explain where particles come from though.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 04:57 |
|
Had my own little anti-religion moment yesterday when I was given a poster advertising my school's Christian group to put up in my room. I refused to do it on the grounds that I don't believe a school should promote religions. This was accepted by the management and I've unwittingly triggered a snowball effect where more than half of the rest of the staff have done the same as me. But I don't feel that good about it because I'm sure this has hurt the feelings of the woman who runs the club.
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 05:06 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
According to the UK media, BBC etc, ''Stephen Hawking: God did not create the universe'':
Of course, Hawking isn't actually quoted correctly. What he does say is that ''It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going''. Apparently the law of gravity can produce spontaneous creation from nothing. None of the articles I've seen explain where particles come from though. |
He reminds of the Dalai Llama, who has become a celebrity for Buddhisim, so has Hawking for Mensa. Thats all I'm going to say about that
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 05:08 |
Textbook wrote:
Had my own little anti-religion moment yesterday when I was given a poster advertising my school's Christian group to put up in my room. I refused to do it on the grounds that I don't believe a school should promote religions. This was accepted by the management and I've unwittingly triggered a snowball effect where more than half of the rest of the staff have done the same as me. But I don't feel that good about it because I'm sure this has hurt the feelings of the woman who runs the club. |
You were too damn politically correct  The school was not supporting religion, the wall was.
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 05:30 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
That's perfectly fine and perfectly acceptable. Faith is good for religion. It's no good for science. |
I say faith, not faith alone neither blind faith.
We try to find the truth, we search the posibilities, we study he altenatives, and if we can reach two different conclusions, equally possible, we go with the one that complements my faith and persopnal experience.
|
The two positions are not equally possible. Neither can be proven or disproven. What we can do is find some arguments to substantiate the claims. You have your arguments, I have mine. Based on how see it, I conclude that it's much more likely that there are no Gods than that any one of the specific God claims of Theists is true. So even though I can't be certain, I'll go with that I find more plausible.
Iván wrote:
Until today nobody is able to prove beyond doubt that God exists or doesn't exist, but some atheists shout that God is a fake, a fairytale, a lie, delusion, etc; when they have the absolutely same evidence than us about God's existence...Why can't we rach the opposite conclusion if haven't been proven false?
Iván |
They shout that they believe that God is a delusion. The term "strong Atheism" was created because the claim to know that there are no Gods goes beyond the typical Atheist position. BTW: You can reach any conclusion you like. But that doesn't mean that it is equally likely as my conclusion. There are many logical arguments which suggest that my position is more plausible than yours. You can reject or ignore some of those arguments, which would make your conclusion more probable *from your point of view*, but it will still remain to be more probable *from my point of view*.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 02 2010 at 05:35
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 05:37 |
Textbook wrote:
Had my own little anti-religion moment yesterday when I was given a poster advertising my school's Christian group to put up in my room. I refused to do it on the grounds that I don't believe a school should promote religions. This was accepted by the management and I've unwittingly triggered a snowball effect where more than half of the rest of the staff have done the same as me. But I don't feel that good about it because I'm sure this has hurt the feelings of the woman who runs the club. |
Did she tell you that she was offended by your decision? If so, she's the one who "threw the first stone" by asking you to put up that poster.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 05:46 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
According to the UK media, BBC etc, ''Stephen Hawking: God did not create the universe'':
Of course, Hawking isn't actually quoted correctly. What he does say is that ''It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going''. Apparently the law of gravity can produce spontaneous creation from nothing. None of the articles I've seen explain where particles come from though. |
Well, they don't explain where they come from because M-Theory is incomplete, but they do say where they come from ... Nothing.
The question is where does the gravity come from that creates them. Gravity is the force that acts between two masses - if there are no masses there can be no gravity. String-theory (of which M-Theory is the Mother-Theory) is an attempt to unify general relativity (which is all about gravity) with quantum physics (which deal with the other three fundamental forces) and thus create a Theory of Everything which would include a quantum theory of gravity - to do this the have to move beyond the three+one known dimensions (x,y,z & t) and add six or seven new dimensions to those four. This does my head in and I can't begin to explain it - but if you go back to Pat's post on Flat Earth gravity you can see that as we (hypothetically) decrease the number of dimensions from 3+1 to 2+1 then gravity gets really complicated. These extra dimensions are not real to us because we can only experience the 3+1 dimensions we live in. Now, back to gravity - in quantum physics each of the three fundamental forces (apart from gravity) has a messenger particle attached to it - in the case of electromagnetic force we can see that particle because it is a photon - photons are massless in our 3+1 dimensions, but have mass in the other dimensions. It is predicted (ie hoped) that a similar messenger particle exists for the force of gravity and it will be massless in our 3+1 dimension but have mass in the other dimensions - the problem with gravity is that it is stupidly and ridiculously weak so the particle will be stupidly and ridiculously small (even by comparison with bosons and gluons) and in the other dimensions its mass will also be stupidly and ridiculously small - so it will be stupidly and ridiculously difficult to find.
Edited by Dean - September 02 2010 at 10:11
|
|
What?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 06:03 |
|
Mike: No she hasn't spoken to me about it. The posters were handed out by management, not her in person. She possibly never will talk to me as I don't think she knows I started it but I'm sure she is aware that teachers (including a couple of Christians actually) have given the Christian Club the thumbs down by not putting up the poster. All the same, though I don't regret doing it, she's not a bad person, means well and is probably quite bummed out that a club she began with the best of intentions is getting such a rough reception so I feel sorry for that. I oppose organised religion and I wish there were ways to fight it without upsetting the practitioners but I think that there probably aren't. I can't really see how you can say to a theist "Hey, your entire world view is childish made-up nonsense" without ruffling any feathers.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 09:28 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
That's perfectly fine and perfectly acceptable. Faith is good for religion. It's no good for science. |
I say faith, not faith alone neither blind faith.
We try to find the truth, we search the posibilities, we study he altenatives, and if we can reach two different conclusions, equally possible, we go with the one that complements my faith and persopnal experience.
|
The two positions are not equally possible. Neither can be proven or disproven. What we can do is find some arguments to substantiate the claims. You have your arguments, I have mine. Based on how see it, I conclude that it's much more likely that there are no Gods than that any one of the specific God claims of Theists is true. So even though I can't be certain, I'll go with that I find more plausible. |
Mike, what you are saying here is that none of both options can't be proven or disproven, and you conclude your position uis more plausible as I conclude about my position...This is perfect, you have y0ur point of ciew and I have mine.
What you shouldn't do is to attack us with so much ange5r and superiority when all you have toi support your claim is your opinion, being that what you say can't be proven.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Iván wrote:
Until today nobody is able to prove beyond doubt that God exists or doesn't exist, but some atheists shout that God is a fake, a fairytale, a lie, delusion, etc; when they have the absolutely same evidence than us about God's existence...Why can't we rach the opposite conclusion if haven't been proven false?
Iván |
They shout that they believe that God is a delusion. The term "strong Atheism" was created because the claim to know that there are no Gods goes beyond the typical Atheist position.
BTW: You can reach any conclusion you like. But that doesn't mean that it is equally likely as my conclusion. There are many logical arguments which suggest that my position is more plausible than yours. You can reject or ignore some of those arguments, which would make your conclusion more probable *from your point of view*, but it will still remain to be more probable *from my point of view*.
|
I say the same to you...."You can reach any conclusion you like. But that doesn't mean that it is equally likely as my conclusion. There are many logical arguments which suggest that my position is more plausible than yours. You can reject or ignore some of those arguments, which would make your conclusion more probable *from your point of view*, but it will still remain to be more probable *from my point of view*."
And of course my logical conclusion is that God exists.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 09:35 |
Textbook wrote:
I oppose organised religion and I wish there were ways to fight it without upsetting the practitioners but I think that there probably aren't. I can't really see how you can say to a theist "Hey, your entire world view is childish made-up nonsense" without ruffling any feathers. |
Well, umm. You could start by not ridiculing their beliefs, I'm sure that would help. I can understand your opposition to organised religion - I was opposed to that for many years myself, even when I was still a christian and some members of organised religions are none to keen on other denominations of organised religion even when they are of the same "faith".
It's kind of like trying to choose between McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, TGI Friday's, Gourmet Burger Kitchen and home-made cooked over mesquite chips in your back yard, all well and good if you like burgers and it's all a matter of personal taste (theist) - it could be that you prefer steak and are indifferent to burgers (agnostic) or you are a vegetarian (deist) or vegan (atheist). As a vegan you could campaign against fast-food restaurants because of their ethics or how they manage their business, or you could become an all-out militant and rally against all meat-eaters and all vegetarians who eat eggs and dairy and even those who only eat fish and those who will eat white meat. One will upset everyone who isn't a vegan (including some vegans too), the other only those who like fast-food. (here the analogy ends because I love GBK, will eat TGI and occasionally have a McD or BK, but I'll never set foot in a church, even to look at the architecture and stained-glass).
I am more radical in my views than Mike for example - he is prepared to countenance the possibility that gods may exist and probably won't categorically rule it out because he cannot proved that they don't, even Richard Dawkins has this view. I have the view that they never existed and therefore cannot exist, so trying to prove it one way or the other is futile. We both (in our way) examine the veracity of the proofs provided for belief and find them lacking. He will state that we don't know because all of us do not have all the facts (ie we all are ignorant of the facts), I say we cannot know because there are no facts to know. Yet he attracts all the criticism and abuse and I merrily post away with barely causing a ripple. (That's not to say I don't get into arguments - I've had some great arguments in all these religious threads - none of them have "proved" anything, but they have been enormous fun). This is because I do not attack the core beliefs, only the systems that support them - I accept that Iván, Juan, Rob, Tom, the two Chris's, Jay and all the other theists and deists have beliefs that they hold dear, I respect those beliefs and what they mean to them, even when I have no beliefs of my own.
Tolerance is a two-way street but someone has to make the first move.
Edited by Dean - September 02 2010 at 09:38
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 09:35 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Had my own little anti-religion moment yesterday when I was given a poster advertising my school's Christian group to put up in my room. I refused to do it on the grounds that I don't believe a school should promote religions. This was accepted by the management and I've unwittingly triggered a snowball effect where more than half of the rest of the staff have done the same as me. But I don't feel that good about it because I'm sure this has hurt the feelings of the woman who runs the club. |
Did she tell you that she was offended by your decision? If so, she's the one who "threw the first stone" by asking you to put up that poster.
|
This is evidence of how you reach wrong conclusions from nothing: You ask if she got offended and inmefdiately you claim she threw the first stone without waiting for the reply to your question.
In first place, asking a favour is not throwing a stone, she was not forcing Textbook or threatening him, she was only asking him (indirectly through the management) to support her activity, he could have said yes or no, he decided to say no and it was all OK.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 09:45 |
|
Well put Dean. I see no need to denigrate someone's beliefs just because I don't happen to share them.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 09:55 |
Can I get an AMEN for bother Dean!!!  is there an "amen" emoticon?
Edited by Trademark - September 02 2010 at 09:55
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 10:07 |
|
Everything is seeming so civil in here. What happened?
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 10:16 |
|
I just go with the flow.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 10:37 |
This is my stumbling block with alien encounters and communication with higher order beings. For all our smarts we cannot communicate with lower order beings - sure we can train some animals to respond to human commands and we can get a general idea of "mood" from the noises some animals make, but those are not dialogues, they are all one way. If we should ever meet a more intellignent lifeform our language will be nothing more than meowing. With projects like SETI we vainly hope that we can commuicate through our "language" of mathematics and physics because they are universal (literally), but even that will be primative and simplistic and won't necessarily be a two-way dialogue. Food for thought... though we may only be allowed to eat it at the sound of a bell. 
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 02 2010 at 10:38 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Had my own little anti-religion moment yesterday when I was given a poster advertising my school's Christian group to put up in my room. I refused to do it on the grounds that I don't believe a school should promote religions. This was accepted by the management and I've unwittingly triggered a snowball effect where more than half of the rest of the staff have done the same as me. But I don't feel that good about it because I'm sure this has hurt the feelings of the woman who runs the club. |
Did she tell you that she was offended by your decision? If so, she's the one who "threw the first stone" by asking you to put up that poster.
|
This is evidence of how you reach wrong conclusions from nothing: You ask if she got offended and inmefdiately you claim she threw the first stone without waiting for the reply to your question.
In first place, asking a favour is not throwing a stone, she was not forcing Textbook or threatening him, she was only asking him (indirectly through the management) to support her activity, he could have said yes or no, he decided to say no and it was all OK.
Iván
|
First of all: I said "if". Second of all, I probably shouldn't have said "threw the first stone", because I wasn't necessarily thinking of something violent. I simply meant that schools shouldn't engage in proselytizing. It's not necessarily illegal (it would be in some countries if it was a public school), but even then I still think it's wrong for any school to mix education and indoctrination.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
