How the athiest thinks
Offline Person A (we are figuratively speaking here cuz i know you will probably cry about something) gets a PhD in the field of scientific studies. Person B gets the SAME EXACT PhD, yet person B uses his education in the glory of God and finds ample evidence of creation. These two people go through the same schooling, get the same degree, yet work in different fields. Then some athiest comes along and automatically assumes Person B has a lesser education than person A.
The Athiest glorifys a man because he has a piece of paper framed on his wall. They criticize a christian for believing what they read in a book or heard from somebody. Yet the athiest does the same thing, they believe what they read in a book, or what somebody tells them, but because its written of told to them from a certain point of view they forget that they are just as religious and deem it "science". They don't think for a minute, "how accurate is this?, could Person A have fudged these results just so he could get the outcome he wanted?, could Person A have lied about his research?" Because you studied it in a book how do you know its true? Because your teacher told you how do you know its true?
"WELL PERSON A GOT HIS DOCTORATE IN "X STUDIES" SO IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE HE WROTE ABOUT IT"
Bias is not 100% eliminatable, to what extremes would a person go to obtain the result they wanted?
Lets take this example. John Doe is researching homosexuals, if they are born that way or influenced somehow. (which btw, regardless of popular OPINION nothing has been proven on that) Ok, so what is John Doe's background, is he gay? is he straight? is he for/against homosexuality regardless of his own sexuality? does he have homosexual children? what kind of result is he initially looking for?
these are the kind of questions one should really ask themselves before taking anthing anybody says about anything into consideration.
and before you go and whine to me, yes there are Christians that are guilty of the same, because they go against what the Bible says and try to please man instead of God.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
- Login to post comments
So, you believe it's possible that the universe never had a beginning? Can you explain to me, logically, how that is possible, please? Because everything about my experience on this earth has a beginning... So, what you are proposing here seems quite outlandish to me. Hmmm... This truth, if it were in fact true, would seem quite illogical based on my current level of understanding about this world. It seems to me somebody mentioned another truth...one that involved something with no beginning and now end... BTW, the link didn't work for me.
Personally, I find the quotes in bold both inflammatory and rude, not to mention unfounded.
While the Mother Teresa comment may have been impolite, for you to jump all over it was just plain childish.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Common cosmological misconceptions
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Can you answer this question:
Is truth relative, or is truth absolute?
Here is my answer:
Truth is absolute.
Your turn.
The first is an mathematical axiom. It has no way of being proven true outside of mathematical system. For example, prove me wrong.. without using numbers or mathematical concepts.
Likewise, the latter three are logical axioms, (3 very similar ones I might add, if I understand them correctly), and could not be proven true outside of logical system. For example prove me wrong.. without using logic.
You might see where the problems are. And if you state.. 'show or prove to me one thing that is not logical' I would state 'show or prove to me one thing that does not have a beginning' (thanks sugarfree).
In anycase.. apologies for jumping in. I'm just poisoning the thread for my own understanding.
For the benefit of sugarfree:
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Logic is the basis of mathematics, so to say that something is mathematically true implies that it is logically true.
The point in the first place was to counter the notion that everything can be refuted by logic, and these are counterexamples.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
My one negative comment, doesn't make all atheists negative. It makes me negative.
It would be like judging every Christian based on the actions of the Phelps family.
I'm sorry, but ever time I hear some one say how great Mother Teresa was, I get a little bent out of shape. She let people suffer so she could feel good. If that's not the definition of a "sadistic bitch," I don't know what is.
Sometimes joking doesn't come across well via computer communication. You know, put a smiley face or something.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Indeed.. that is why it is called a 'mathematical axiom'-- axiom being a term of logic.
('logical axiom' is redundant, I think-- but I used it anyways. Heh..)
Yes. I realize that. But.. I believe.. that tod said 'argue' the aforementioned axioms.
And so I did. I used logic in order to posit that how do you prove these axioms 'if' logic does not apply?
For instance.. if nature and existence themselves are irrational. Granted.. we might not be able to comprehend this 'irrational' place.. but it is nonetheless a logically formulated argument and question.
Which.. is what he asked for.
Well.. heh, anyways, purely academics.
Tag. You're still it.
If you think truth is absolute, then it should not be any problem for you to prove god exists.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Tell that to scientist of the early ages which wanted to prove the earth revolved around the sun.
Absolute truth is not dependent on ones ability to prove it.
...just saying.
2 + 2 = 4 no matter where you go; America, Saudi Arabia, India, the moon, 2 + 2 = 4. And 2 + 2 = 4 has always been true. 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth.
In most parts of Saudi Arabia, god = allah. In most parts of India, god = .... lots of gods. Depending on what time and place you live, god = something else. So your presupposition that god = jesus, is not an absolute truth.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Hi. Back
Sugarfree, your logic is based on a school known as presuppositionalism, which is ridiculous. So ridiculous it should ot even be classed as real logic. If God=requisite, which your first claim was, than obviously God exists, insofar as you have ontologically failed to demonstrate that God is inherently a requiste for existence. In fact, many have failed before you (Paley, Aslem, Aquinas etc).
As to ex nihilo, The Big Bang was not the creation of the universe. It was the creation of matter as we define it. The mathematical equations can explain right up to approx 10 to the power of -44 seconds after the Big Bang, and before the Time Zero singularity, where we find an energy-gravitational asymptote spiralling elagently towards the Time Zero function. There is no ex nihilo involved.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Ok. As for the big bang. How was this a creation? It states that energy gather into a singularity(something simliar to a black hole) when it's mass got so compact, and so large it creates more heat, more and more until it can not hold it's form any more and blows out. Thats the big bang. Does that say anything was created? NO! Energy existed forever. Mass, matter, energy are all the same thing. Planck scale, they are all the same anyway. You argue, that gods energy is eternal, so why can't energy that this universe is made of be eternal? Are you possibly going to try and make a fucking moron out of yourself and argue your god energy is any more immortal then the energy we can see now?
Physics has proven energy can not me created, nor destroied. So if you believe in the big bang(which has mountain of evidence to have taken place) then you believe energy is eternal. If brain world, and string theory are correct then there is more then one universe. Think of it as a never ending ammount of space, filled with energy, energy gathers into certain spots due to gravity and explodes out. Brain world explains why gravity exists to pull energy into singularities, but thats another story.
Btw, go ahead and try to make yourself look idiotic by trying to say gods energy is eternal but not the energy of the universe.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
Atheists don't "glorify" anyone. They may have "respect" for an individual because of his "credentials" and how he presents himself and his perceptions in a "rational" manner but to glorify someone goes beyond considered human intercourse.
Rational [athiest?] persons don't believe everything they read. Of course we are going to obtain ideas and "facts" via the written media. It is one means of communication that humans use. Thus the real issue is not where the information or ideas come from, but how "sound" those ideas are, i.e ideas relating to observable and measurable "real world" phenomena; and any "atheist" or "rational" person should always be skeptical of other's ideas at least to the point that they can reason for themselves, "does the idea or ideas presented make sense as far as being supported by the "evidence" and are the ideas presented in a cogent manner.
Much of your idea as presented seems to accuse ahteists as being in error for accepting an "authorities" word [logical error of argument from authority] when probability has it that they have arrived at atheism through a rational process of evaluating the evidence for themselves, unlike "theists" who do in fact fall prey to the above mentioned logical error by accepting the existence of god merely by the word of another [bible].
Oh really? Since when? Did breaking news about such fail to reach me this morning? I do keep a hard eye out waiting for such evidence so I can give theists credulance for their claims - should they ever actually become credible.
Um... you don't know that evolution is a scientific theory - do you? Christianity would be mythology. Your belief in your religion is based SOLELY on faith. "Belief" in evolution requires as much "faith" as it would to "believe" in gravity.
"muck to man"? nice use of a pathetic and naive straw man! You know absolutely nothing of evolution - now would be a good time for you to cease embarassing your pathetic ignorance further.
Speculation? Take a course in biology before spouting such idiotic BS.
We have seen dogs (and, essentially ALL other creatures) give birth to mutated forms of their species. True it is - most mutations are counter-adaptive.
On the contrary - have you EVER seen your magical god create ANYTHING - EVER???
Oh good grief! As if there are no other dating methods than carbon dating! Your naive ignorance is beyond shocking! Evolution has always been scientifically coherant. Creation has always been scientifically absurd.
OH - where is my violin? I have atheist friends in the army and marines that care less about his avatar. Christ is a myth. We walk away from Christ just as you walk away from Horus, Mithras, and Prometheus.
Actually - I do not. I attend a Unitarian Universalist church - and I have many a Christian friend (most of them have learned it's a bad idea to debate with [or otherwise attempt to convert] me). I simply have a low tolerance for bullshit.
Ah... no true scottsman.
So... you mercilessly slaughter non-believers? (2 Chronicles 15:13, Luke 19:27) And refuse to put up a Christmas tree? (Jeremiah 10:2-4)
Respect for other people was introduced into Christianity by Humanism. Equality, honor, and respect for others are Humanist interpolations into barbaric Christian dogma.
You are a naive twit. Satan is a mythological character - nothing more.
And now you're being a total asshole.
Not to mention - you're being a completely arrogant prick.
Atheism does not specifically determin whether or not life has a purpose. Please cease your ignorant insults. If you are a determinist - you believe life has a purpose. The word "purpose" can mean either "function" or "intention". Whether god exists or not - the "function" of life is to eat, sleep, defecate, and procreate. Again - independant of the existence of a deity - there is no apparent "intention" of life, either way.
Why do theists bring this idiotic bullshit out? God gives life no more purpose, whatsoever.
Please, do your research. You will find it is the exact opposite. Suicide rates are MUCH higher among theists than atheists.
So here you have a real world example that is telling you ENERGY is ETERNAL. We, as human beings have ENERGY flowing thru us UNTIL we DIE...Where does that ENERGY go? Perhaps it simply disperses into the atmosphere. Perhaps it is encoded with the very ESSENCE of who we are and stays together in tact (which would mean...our soul, spirit, is essentially ENERGY). Do you think scientists understand each and every little nuance about energy? I am certain it has properties that we do not yet begin to understand.
"Energy is not created or destroyed". This is the conclusion scientists have come to. And it is THIS tidbit of science that led me to conclude, years ago, that we may IN FACT be eternal beings... We may be eternal because of this ENERGY coarsing thru our veins. What happens to that energy when we die? Neither you nor I know for sure, we have to make our BEST GUESS based on observation. My best guess is that we are eternal...your best guess, I suppose, is that our energy just disperses, and we lose our "self" (thus making us finite). However since YOU CAN'T KNOW for sure, why are you guys ALWAYS KNOCKING THEISTS?
This is a serious question. Because what I have pointed out above, to me, is the SERIOUS flaw in your atheistic arguments. You are ASSUMING you know we are not eternal, I am assuming I DO NOT KNOW, however, given the two options, I'm going with the eternal one because (I know you hate this argument), I've GOT TO PREPARE FOR THAT POSSIBILITY!! If I am right, none of you are prepared!! That is what deeply concerns me.
Finally, given the POSSIBILITY that I am an ETERNAL BEING, than an ETERNAL GOD is ALSO a POSSIBILITY. Given the SCIENCE of ENERGY (it is not created or destroyed), I do not see how you can possibly refute that. The only reason I see for you to completely take the God possibility off the table is because you simply do not like it.
I on the other hand, have kept the God card on the table, and have been actively seeking to understand this potentiality. My seeking has led me to Christianity. It is preparing me to live fruitfully for ETERNITY.
(Sorry for the CAPS, but I believe we have just gotten to the heart of the matter, and I'm trying with all my might to get to you hear me out on this.)
Your lack of understanding of physical processes and the energy transformation laws is simply outstanding... My apologies, I won't waste time explaining something you should have understood somewhere at the beginning of high school.
"What happens to that energy when we die? Neither you nor I know for sure" - yes, we do know for sure... it's only you that doesn't.
"your best guess, I suppose, is that our energy just disperses" - you suppose wrong.
"However since YOU CAN'T KNOW for sure, why are you guys ALWAYS KNOCKING THEISTS?" - we CAN AND DO KNOW for sure... THAT'S WHY we are always knocking theists!
We are not assuming we are not eternal, we do know for sure that we are not eternal in our physical state. You are assuming very rightly that you don't know, but that, however, is not an excuse, it is simply your admitted ignorance on the matter.
Perhaps you have also identified which part of you will survive for an eternity, because it is definitely not matter, and without any possible doubt it isn't "personal" energy either...
S'allright. If this is the main part of your faith, it is surprisingly weak.
So, now let's get to some demonstrating. I will not demonstrate the basic laws of physics (this, as I said, you should have learned and understood in high school), but I will go and show some problems with theist beliefs.
First, in order to not waste time, I suggest you lie down and read "A Ghost in the Machine", located at http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html. It's a huge essay, so make sure you've got enough time. It deals mainly with the concept of "soul" and why the author believes the soul simply doesn't exist (of course, doesn't exist as described by theists).
Also, to answer your question on "where does that energy go", a good start would be to check the wikipedia article on bacterial decay located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition
To understand how energy is "stored" in chemical form within cells, try the wikipedia article on adenosine triphosphate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate
...and the cycle of citric acid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle
If you still don't understand, perhaps try this: http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookATP.html
Because I anticipate questions, also study this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=223204
Come back when you're done and we'll talk more.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
If you are trying to impress me with your knowledge it is not working. For goodness sakes, you missed my whole point. Okay, let's start at an even more basic level.
WE ARE IGNORANT. There is so much UNTAPPED knowledge in this universe. If scientists thought like you, how would we ever make any new discoveries? Let me ask you this...do you feel you know a lot? Do you feel you are smart?
Let's put it into perspective. Can you explain each and every minute detail of this universe? If you had to, COULD YOU set all the environmental variables up right to create your own "mini big bang"? If so, let me know, because I want to be there. I want to see set an entire universe in motion. Seriously. Because if you know how to do that, than I am wrong about Jesus, and I should start worshipping you. I'm being serious.
The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. There is so much to know, it absolutely boggles the mind. This universe is so intricate, it is astounding and amazing. So, for me to assume that I KNOW even 100th of a hundreth of a percent of how this universe works, I am completely kidding myself. And if you think you know anymore than that, you are completely kidding yourself. (Or should I say, you are delusional.)
Here's the thing, we used to not understand energy at all, we couldn't harness it. Then, thru human ingenuity, we developed devices that allowed us to harness it. Does that mean we completely understand it? We understands bits and pieces, and we are continually learning more...but there is SO MUCH MORE. There could be types of energy out there that we currently are not capable of measuring. And the only way a scientist might discover it is by recognizing the possibility that something exists that he does not understand, and then trying to figure that something out.
Now, instead of putting down, assuming I am an idiot, and instead of trying to prove to me how you are so much smarter than me, I'm asking you this. DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS UNIVERSE? If you do not, than do not belittle me for speculating about that which NEITHER OF US understand.
Do you know what vacuum energy is? Well if you don't, it is the energy in a total vacuum. Well, you might think the vacuum has nothing in it, even space is completely full. This vacuum energy is extremely power. The space betwee the nucelus, and the electron in a hydrogen has 2.53*10^99 jules per gram of energy. That is, to put into perspective, 1 trillion times more energy then in all the stars, and mass for the next 20 billion light years. If you could tap into that, then a big bang is no problem. Now, scientists are trying to create a big bang. It involves a huge particle accelerator. Smashing atoms together at near light speed. Why is this important? Because if we can replicate something of a bang with this energy we have proven that a big bang can happen.
I'm sorry I forgot to post the second part of the law. Energy, can not be created, nor destroied, it can only be changed. If you have a device, which can read total energy input of a thing, or output, put someone in a vacuum let them die. If that energy, after the body is completely rotted away is still the same reading, just changed, you have proven a soul does not exist. You can not have an excess of power released for that soul. Btw, they did do simliar tests like this. Oh, and yeah there was no change in mass, or energy.
Believe in a god? Fine, believe in something you have no proof for. Believe in a religious god? Fine, but put yourself in a mental hospital please.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
I don't have anything enlightening to add to this thread, but I wanted to say thanks to Rigor for posting these links. Science was never my best subject so I am trying to play catch-up now. Rigor, if there are any other threads that expand this information please direct me or if you would like to start one, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! (Not all of us took physics in high school...I was busy studying literature and word origins - lol)
Sugarfree, your entire post is an "appeal to wonder" fallacy. The universe is cool, and we don't know everything, so that supports my conclusion somehow. It doesn't, though. It shields your conclusion in a fallacy. If you want to make the case for it rather than idly assure us that you believe it unconditionally, you have to expect the same level of scrutiny that's addressed to other claims. I shudder to imagine what would have happened if people consistently approached the world with such a disorganized and specious mentality as is afforded religion.
People have used science to learn a lot, but it's a much slower process than just making shit up.
Unfortunately for you, we are not impressed by ignorance.
You're the one who believes in things that have no evidence. Speculation is fine, but it's not to be believed until you have some evidence, and it certainly shouldn't be stubbornly clung to once it's disproven.
I think this is turning into Pascal's Wager, which has already been dealt with thoroughly. Read this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/refutation_of_pascals_wager_by_massimo_pigliucci
So, you stop learning and start guessing?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Oh lovely. 180 posts. This could be fun. Sure. > >
With this many responses, I'm just going to pop up wherever I feel like it.
Amusing. 95% of the time an atheist debates a theist, such a scenario is as far away from reality as it could possibly be.
Bullshit. I don't glorify anyone. I respect accomplishments, nothing more.
Pure lies. An atheist reads about science and can personally prove what has been said personally. A theist reads about religion and can never prove anything.
These are questions any scientist worth his education would ask, so your proposition is laughable(to be kind).
A quick look at christianity will give you an accurate idea of how far people will go to prove their lies.
More lies. Google "gay sheep" and you'll see plenty of irrefutable evidence that sexuality can be influenced by genetics.
Why does it matter? It has nothing to do with you. Turn the tv off if you get that annoyed. Turn and walk the other direction. You coming here and spouting all these lies annoys me a lot more than any homosexual could possibly annoy you. Get over yourself.
No, those are the kinds of questions a dictator asks himself when deciding how to subjugate his people. The average person has no business delving in the sexual activities of strangers. Get a life.
There is no god.
There is no evidence whatsoever.
No it isn't. Evolution is a fact. You are deluding yourself.
Lies. Evolution is proven.
That's impossible. And not evolution. Standard dumb ass theist makes up his own idea of evolution then argues against the impossible. I'm going to now completely ignore anything you say regarding evolution, since you don't even know what the word means.
Sucks to be you. Now I'm going to add something worse to my signature, since you are highly offensive to me. It will appear now, but I'll continue mocking this threads stupidity anyway.
More lies. You're here treating us like trash. What a hypocrite. And my views come from looking briefly at your bible, the immoral and racist work of weak fiction that it is. The christians that believe it merely reinforce my disgust with it.
Typical dumbass thing to say. Oh the demons!@@!#$!@!@$%()!@#!!!!!!!!
Have you ever seen a demon oh stupid one?
Twould be nice if you looked in the mirror and gave up your immoral perceptions of reality.
And more christians take their lives every day than atheists do in a year.
Laughable, and the last I'll bother with in this thread. The stupidity is threatening to overwhelm me.
We feel sorry for you, we don't hate you. We hate what you do, which is immoral and dictatorial. But we don't hate you. At least most of us don't. Any who do have good reason to, and you can look in the mirror for the cause.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I've been trying to quit attempting to impress theists, it only works with the very few that are open-mindedly enough to actually listen.
If no scientist were to think like me, then we'd indeed have Arhimede's lawas a principle, but no formula and no practical application of it. And if nobody ever thought like me, we'd have to reinvent fire every generation.
Knowing the initial status of all matter particles and of all available energy, and having a powerful-enough supercomputer, then yes, we could be able to accurately predict what the Universe looks like at ANY point... the only problem is that out of the two necessary things, we have neither.
In theory yes, we can create a new big bang right as we speak. In practice, though, we cannot create one yet, as we lack observation and containment methods and instruments, and we also lack the necessary energy to force-trigger one.
I'm not interested in your worship. Or any worship for that matter.
Well, your last post except for this one I'm replying to were live proof that I actually DO know more than you about the Universe.
Unlike you, I am not so keen with "the more I know, the less I actually know" phrase. I actually think that humans can (and will) come to understanding all the Universe, its principle, its mechanisms and inner makings in time. We already have a physical model that covers quite a big part of the Universe, and, although we will probably not be able to perfectly predict how the Universe will develop, nor will we be able to hold data about every single moving particle, we will have an accurate model of the Universe, we will know how it works, we will know what different events are triggered by and what their effect is, we will know how to avoid dangers and enlarge benefits.
Your argument from awe does nothing but state that you should study more.
Do we fully understand energy...
Potential energy (Ep)? Yes. Electric energy (W)? Yes. Thermal energy (Q)? Yes. Mechanical energy (L)? Yes. etc.
If you can point out any instance within the known Universe in which thermal energy, through no transformation into energy or particle generation, behaves any differently than thermal energy normally would, you should be nominated for the Nobel prize...
Of course, there is so much more... but so much less than you THINK there is...
If these energies produce absolutely no measurable or noticeable effect on our world, then there is no possible way we will EVER know about them, and absolutely no reason why we should be interested in spending resources on discovering them. This is equivalent to spending resources to find out what was before Big Bang...
Whoa there ! Stop attacking, brother, it is YOU who asked for it. Do you think that I've posted those links back there just because I had nothing else to do?
You gave a possibility of soul coming from our "personal" energy, and asked the question "where does all that energy go when we die?"
I gave you the Ebon Musings link to disprove your first theory, and the other links to answer your question. And the reason for which I did that is because I see no benefit in me repeating something that has already been studied and proven, when you can study for yourself. Did I do wrong in any way? Should I have done something else instead?
If you expect me to accept your belief, knowing full well that it is a result of ignorance on the topic (I'm sorry, but your post was live proof that it is), then stop hoping, because that isn't going to happen.
Fully welcome, jce. I always forget that educational systems are different. In mine, it is not optional to learn physics, biology, mathematics, chemistry, ... from year 5 to year 8 of schooling it's a kind of "preparatory" period, whereas year 9 to 12 are more in-depth. One is expected to know quite a lot when one finishes high school, even if the profile is languages.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I am talking about energies that potentially are affecting us, and are measurable, but we just have not discovered them yet.
Which isn't a substantiation of the belief in the soul, just a big shrug about whether evidence will appear. But let's be clear. I'm going to assume the soul and the spirit you describe elsewhere are similar, if not one in the same. Supposing this were true, this naive talk of energy doesn't describe consciousness, intelligence or life. Unless a soul is supposed to be unconscious heat or motion or electricity, there would have to be another complex dynamic at work to reflect the continuation of consciousness. Whether you describe consciousness in the physical world, or in a hypothetical, undiscovered and unsubstantiated world of "energy," there still has to be a means to establish what we call consciousness.
Only problem with the big bang tests, are they are dealing with vacuum energy. I already explained what that was. Anyway, the big bang either happened two ways, energy gathering into a singularity, which I think to be how it happened, since it has more evidence. Or a large ammount of vacuum energy release. Say a few atoms, if estimates are right, and the universe is 185 billion light years accross it would only take a few atoms releasing the energy, or converting instantly from vacuum to mass energy, or pure matter/energy we observe now. I don't really feel comfortable letting scientists try and recreate it, if vacuum energy is this powerful, how are you supposed to control the energy in just the vacuum of a atom. If the energy in just one atom yield enough energy to destroy, pretty much everything for the next 20 billion lightyears, and more, should we really trust them?
It was a big debate, but the scientists worked out the theory and said "it won't happen, probally.". I don't know but thats not enough for me. I would love to know if it's going to work or not for sure, but maybe something like this should be done after we can control this energy, or at the least until we can move the test to somewhere safe, say 20 billion lightyears away.
They have finally, measured the speed of gravity. Yeah, gravity has a speed, because nothing moves instantly. It turns out something does move faster then light, making Albert Einstein wrong. However they don't know the actuall speed of gravity completely, they do know it's between 2-35 times faster then light. Which means an object can move faster then light. What would happen to an object at that speed is said that the object could no longer hold it's shape, because it would heat up from friction and pretty much explode. Yes there is friction in space btw, enough to destroy anything we could send if we tried at light speed. That is if we could ever find a way to move faster, or at the same speed as light speed. Thats where vacuum energy comes in. The leading theory for moving faster then light is contracting the space infront of you, and expanding the space behind you, creating a sling shot effect. This space distoration would require the energy of a billion suns. Now if this vacuum energy is so powerful, then that would be no problem right? That is of course if you can find a way to control it completely and such.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
I claim no such honor on myself.
I cannot prove to you beyond any doubt that the Earth is round by taking you on a trip to the moon, because I do not have the necessary resources and support for that. However, that is:
1. not my fault, not yours and yet nobody's...
2. no excuse
If we come across a source of energy that's powerful enough for endeavours such as viable interstellar travel, then we might get close to that within our lifetimes. Considering current progress, I have no such high hopes. But it would be fun, though.
I have no desire to be humble and I see no value in that. I would respect a person who brags about his abilities and knowledge AND proves that they rise to his bragging expectations than one who simply keeps silent and conceals his capacities out of humility.
Society seems to put little emphasis on humility as well. See: politicians, spokespersons, military, job interviews, and the list can go on.
I have done mine. If you have any way to prove that a part of what I said is wrong (of course, not taking hypothetical or presumtory examples into consideration), then I'm willing to go back to the library. It has happened before, I'm not new to being wrong, I admit it when it happens and I try to correct myself. But if there's no reason why I should consider anything I said as false, then I don't.
I'm curious why I'm really bad at remembering exact numbers. I can draw a model and make predictions and measurements of my capacities, and I can trace reasons for that, but I lack the necessary techniques to actually improve something.
I'm also curious how humanity can fight reverse-transcript viruses (it is a topic in which I will freely admit lack of knowledge). I'm also curious about accurate historical society development (so far I've been able to trace and think some paths, many correct, but not all).
Etc. I don't claim to be omniscient.
Of course, I must give credit to you on this one, it is a perfectly valid topic in itself...
HOWEVER, associating it to the idea of a "soul" isn't as valid. The first article I gave you a link to deals with precisely that thing. It comes to the conclusion that no such "other energy" exists that holds our "selves". All major brain functions can be explained (and most can be influenced as well, not all though, since some require a degree of precision our instruments do not yet have) through what we already know. And there's no "soul" to fill in any gap.
OK, want a short version? Here it goes: if the human "soul" is something immaterial, our godly essence, then it comes to logical conclusion that it shouldn't be very sensitive to involuntary outside stimuli. I presume that you define "soul" as consciousness, if not please explain the term as you understand it. Unfortunately for the soul argument, consciousness can be altered (making hard-working and dilligent people lazy, unstable, angry and disrespectful, for example), split (callosal disconnection and AHS, for example, schizophrenia as another example), destroyed (Terri Schiavo case), incapable of communicating (aphasy, neural deafness, neural blindness), incapable of storing memories (retrograde or, even better, anterograde amnesia), well, to make it short, quite about anything can happen to it that reduces its posesor to... umm... let's say "less-than-heavenly" persons. Therefore is comes naturally that all workings of consciousness are derived from what we already understand. Applying Occam's razor, since a system can be explained in full using what we already know, there's no reason to introduce something that we don't already know. Obviously, since there are no gaps left to fill in, that something would be redundant.
So... if you explain to me how a simple physical accident can reduce a hard-working and dilligent person to a hellbound one after Christian standards WITHOUT INVOLVING THAT PERSON'S FREE WILL, as happened to Phineas Gage (hopefully spelled correctly), and STILL be able to maintain the idea of the soul (again please define: I'm assuming soul = consciousness as a divine part, if it means something different for you, please correct and we'll talk again), then you've won the argument. Unfortunately for you, nobody has ever been able to do that, to my knowledge.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Oh wow, sweet. LOL. That could make for one bad day. To bad the Darwin Awards would be destroyed too because that would be one for the books.
LOL, I love the Darwin Awards! What was your favorite. I liked the one where the idiot stole the ski-lift tower padding and used it to toboggan down the hill, only to slam into the same tower from which he had stolen the padding, thus causing him to break his skull.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thank you for answering my questions. I feel I know you better now.
Oh wow. That is funny. I mean...really horrible.
Actually, the only one I remember at the moment was an incident I heard about that qualifies for an award. It was a couple guys who went inside a huge helium balloon, presumably, because they thought it would make their voices all high and would be funny, but they ended up suffocating. I mean, it's bad that it happened, but...geez. I wonder if their family was embarrassed. What would you say at the funeral? "I'm sorry to hear about your son. He was...well, apparently, he was really stupid."
Wow. That's really, really stupid. I mean, I empathize with the family members, but this reminds me of the 19 year old kid who went to work at the vet clinic, and he was found dead by an orderly two hours later, wrapped around a liquid anaesthetic animal euthanasia chemical dispenser. Apparently, he had attempted to get high off the lethal anaesthethic and died immediately.
The worst part of the story was that the parents sued the clinic, claming they had not given him enought training. How much training do you need to avoid clearly marked bottles with stamped skull and crossbones and large label saying Liquid Euthanasia??
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
*Comes within a hair of spewing coffee all over the work PC*
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The fact of the matter is that every detail of what makes you and your consciousness can be altered and removed to a degree that would be impossible if there really was such a thing as a "soul". Take any part away and you become a completely different person. When you start to learn about how the brain works, the idea of a "soul" quickly crumbles. If you want to learn more about these things, I would strongly recommend picking up "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio. He also wrote "Decarte's Error - Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain", which goes in depth into Phineas Gage and related subjects relating to emotion and reason.
Oh, I'd surely wish to agree with you on this one... but I just can't, and I can't for several reasons:
1. if someone has Gage's condition from birth, or even better, from conception, would he/she still be qualified for heaven? Needless to say that there's not much to argue that cursing, swearing, instability, tendency to hurt people next to him/her are simply his/her nature, and he/she cannot do anything to control that. From that point of view, that person never was and never will bo "normal"... for him/her that's "normal"... where will he/she go?
2. imagine that a man with callosal disconnection and a severe case of AHS would go to a meeting and spot a pistol at the side of one of the participants. Imagine that he would pick that gun up with his right hand and start shooting, killing some before his right hand can interviene. Will that person be guilty of anything? Legally, he won't. Which half-consciousness will go to Hell?
3. imagine the case before again, but from the perspective of the shot guys. They were killed just like that, without being anyone's actual fault. Who is there to serve justice for these guys?
And these are just a few examples. What I want you to understand is that "normal" or "well" is not the right term to use. In the case of Phineas Gage, after the accident, his iritable, unstable and bad-tempered state BECAME "normal"... he was "well" in that state.
Consider number 1 above and answer again: will such a person go to Heaven or Hell? Will a person with a milder case that is not apparent and nobody thinks of examining that until the person dies qualify for Heaven or for Hell? Will a temporary malfunction of that brain part (which may lead, in cases of extreme stress, to very violent behavior) be considered a sin?
The "soul", that immortal part of us which is going to get judged, if it exists, can be influenced rather easy. Light stimuli to make one nervous and irritated, sound stimuli to drive people mad, electromagnetic stimuli with certain characteristics, well-made subliminal messages, viruses, etc., all change the "righteousness" of that person without the person's will or consent... yet that person is going to be judged exactly by what he did/thought... If this is the case, any last refuge for the concept of "divine justice" has vanished.
Also, altering of behavioral patterns, including even affiliation to the camp that kidnapped one (don't remember the affection's name... its one US city's or region's name, something like Manhattan Syndrome, but replace Manhattan accordingly) is possible.
I also recommend something: http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/ramapubs.html - a truckload of behavioral neurology and neurology experiment books written by Vilayanur Ramachandran, free for download and read.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/