God, science, and...being nice. [kill em with kindness]

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
God, science, and...being nice. [kill em with kindness]

Hi everyone. I'm continuing my discussion with curious_george here. So far, she seems to genuinely want to learn and understand our worldview (yeah, shocking, I know), so be nice. 

curious_george wrote:
That's cool....so the Big Bang is basically the same as Einstien's idea of "white holes"??? A white hole is the opposite of a black hole...I found this definition  "Instead of collapsing inward, matter (and space itself) would expand outward from a "white hole". When matter inside the white hole moves past the boundary, the boundary begins to shrink inward. Eventually the radius shrinks to zero and the white hole disappears, leaving behind all of the matter which it originally contained. However, the first material out would have aged millions or billions of years while the last material out may only have aged a matter of days." Am I right...or is the Big Bang something else?

Well, currently, we're not even sure if white holes exist. But yes, there are hypotheses that the Big Bang was a kind of cosmological white hole. In particular, it's sometimes theorized that the matter that falls into a black hole is fed into other dimensions, where they then exit via a white whole. Could our own universe have originated this way?

I really don't know.

curious_george wrote:
What evidence?? The transitional forms? I have seen the charts...like the one in that first video...what was it of?? Clams of some sort, I think. And all those clams looked the same to me...they were different sizes, but they all looked like the same shell/clam thing to me. And why did the guy use the example of a creature that didn't exist instead of one that does...if there are a bunch of examples why didn't he choose an actual creature?? Is there other evidence?
 

Why did he use a hypothetical example? I think it was because he was just trying to explain how evolution worked in that video. I think he presents more evidence in the next video of his series.

It's this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc

Is there other evidence? Yes, there's a lot. Embryology. Morphology. Genetics. Transitional fossils. Geographical distribution. Etc.  However, exactly why most of these things is such strong evidence requires explanation. It's complicated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

curious_george wrote:
What about Pastuer?? Didn't he prove that life couldn't come from non-life?

I've never heard of that. Do you have a source?

I only know him for his work in germ theory.

curious_george wrote:
(Sigh) It's a long story, very personal. It's very complicated, but in essence...I was a very messed up young lady...and my Mom ( who hates my guts, kicked me out of the house and I went to live with my Grandparents) They put me in this little Chistian school THAT I DESPISED. But gradually, I changed. I know it was God because there was no one else around. It was God I was confronted with everyday in my schoolwork, in my home-life (my Grandparents are very religious), and in discussions with a teacher. It was God I felt the closest when I lay in bed at night crying...it was He who cared for me. He saved me from RAGE. I would have killed someone if I hadn't changed. It's that simple...and that complicated.

Hmmm, that's about what I expected. 

I can't deny that you experienced what you experienced, but neither does it seem to contain any objective evidence that anyone else could use. 

curious_george wrote:
Is adaptation for the sake of survival the same as mutation??

Eh, no.

You have mutation, which is just a mistake during genetic replication (did I say that already?), and then you have natural selection, which is probably the most important selective mechanism. I would say that, by definition, adaption and evolution are almost the same thing while the combination of mutations, natural selection, and other variables results in evolution.

curious_george wrote:
Okay. I understand that from the first video ( the other one wasn't working)...but I still don't understand. (Confused?? Me too)

It wasn't?

Um, here it is again. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

curious_george wrote:
A horse begets a slightly genetically altered horse which begets a slightly more genetically altered horse, and so on, until eventually it becomes so genetically altered it doesn't even look the same...but is it not still a horse?

Well, what's a horse? 

In the same way that Plato might refer to a perfect triangle, we often imagine all members of a species having some perfect essence unique to that species. In other words, there is some form or idea that would be the model for every entity that we see, and in this case, this 'form' would be Horse. As in, it wouldn't be a horse; it would be THE horse, the horse that all other horses are based on. Creationists assume that there is such a thing every time they make the micro but not macro argument, that a horse can 'adapt,' but it can never not be a horse. Ignoring for now the fact that genomes don't make such a distinction, in biology, there is no Horse. There are only horses, many different four-legged mammals galloping around. Then, what we define to be a horse is merely a calculated average of what we have observed. In several thousand years or several thousand years ago, the middle of the bell curve of horse was/might be be slightly different. 

So, is it still a horse? I think what you're asking is will it ever be something different enough such that that organism wouldn't be able to breed with the horses that currently exist. The answer to that, unless we purposely breed horses to stay the way they are, is yes. Over time, populations of organisms evolve. When they are given more time to evolve, the change is more dramatic. 

curious_george wrote:
Thank you. It is important to me. Everyone always tells me "You're too nice" I don't believe that such a thing is possible, but I do appreciate it when someone is as polite to me as I am to them.

 

Oh, I don't know if I can be as polite as you are, but I'll do my best.  

 

You don't have to look very hard to find a thread where I've insulted someone. Although, I'd argue, that it was 'warranted' in most cases.

 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:What??

curious_george wrote:
What?? That's weird.

Not really. Here you go : www.healing-arts.org

curious_george wrote:
The website that I was on has a note at the top that says it is in affiliation with the University of Arizona College of Medicine and is overseen by Dr. Lewis Mehl-Meldrona--who works for the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine. It has on some of its pages a logo looking thing that says Autism research. It has a mission statement:

"Our mission is to provide the most comprehensive site available for the discussion of medical and physical therapies for the treatment of brain-injured children, hence creating a networking structure for parents and physicians alike. This website will provide viewers a new way of looking at neuro/metabolic disease, and offer a creative opportunity for involvement in the exploration of medicine and healing. "

My point is, for it to be "non-biased", wouldn't it need to feature both sides of the argument ? I looked, and I didn't find anything on the site itself, so I found some other links for you :

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/09/vaccine-skeptics-vs-your-kids

And this report by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization finds the concerns raised by people like Dr Mehl-Madrona to be "purely theoretical" :

http://www.autism-watch.org/news/thimerosal_canada.shtml

Read all those, then look for some more. After having absorbed all that information, you'll be able to form a non-biased opinion.

And when you get the chance, google Dr Mehl-Madrona as well. He seems to think that sweat lodge ceremonies are a viable treatment for cancer.

curious_george wrote:
Oh well. Its not like it really matters on the grand scale of things.

Actually, it does matter. Just read the first link.

curious_george wrote:
I'm not trying to prove I'm right, just describe why I believe vaccines are bad for you. My gift is not persuasion. Smiling I may get fired up and passionate about the things I believe, but I always do so slowly and always have good reasons behind my beliefs. My good reasons may be another persons bad reasons, and because of that I would NEVER force something I believe on someone else.

I see. So when you have children, you will make sure they get all their shots ?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The anti-vaccination push is

The anti-vaccination push is a great danger to our society. The arguments against vaccination are unscientific.

For example, they keep repeating nonsense about mercury and autism, even though autism rates have continue unchanged or even risen, despite mercury compounds (mainly thimerisol ) in vaccines  having been eliminated or greatly reduced since 2001 because of the fears expressed. A new study here confirms that it is not a factor, yet the anti-vaxers will continue to parrot this crap.

When the level of vaccination falls too low in a community, some nasty diseases will come back, like these examples demonstrate:

http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20090123/hib-outbreak-kills-unvaccinated-child.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/vandenhof.htm (rubella)

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=2839 (measles)

This anti-vaccination crap is truly harmful nonsense, more explicitly and provably so even that your silly God stuff.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:And for

curious_george wrote:
And for that...where did our morals come from??

http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_does_sugar_have_to_do_with_murder 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/myth_sexuality_and_culture

I view morality in a very different way than you. I see morality as nothing more than an abstraction of what humans feel is "good" or "bad." I believe morality is man made, based mostly on our instincts and partly on culture.

Our instincts came from our development as a social species. We are predisposed, to a certain extent, to behave in different ways around different people. This is why so many of our instincts seem to be in such conflict; humans can simultaneously sacrifice themselves for their kin, committing seemingly altruistic acts, while committing terrible atrocities against foreigners. Natural selection favored those that were nice to their ‘in-group,’ family, friends, neighbors, and less nice against those in ‘out-groups,’ strangers, hostile tribes.

curious_george wrote:
I mean as we slowly developed from cavemen how did they realize right and wrong?? Wouldn't they have just killed eachother and other horrible things?? How did they survive without morals.

Well, why don’t sharks just bite each other’s tails off for fun? Why don’t worker ants massacre other worker ants in the same colony? Why don’t piranhas eat each other? Because if they did, then they wouldn’t exist. If there were species of organisms that developed widespread cannibalism, they would become extinct. They exist for the very reason that they don’t kill each other.

For atheists, humans are just animals; we are the most intelligent animal, but animals nonetheless. And, as I said before, morality is just an abstraction of what we feel is right or wrong based mostly on our instincts. Without a referent, the term, “morality,” is ultimately meaningless. Naturally, all the animals that I named, and ‘cavemen’ had instincts. Thus, they are predisposed do to certain things, like not kill each other, because of their genes.

curious_george wrote:
Look at our society today...it is slowly losing all moral value. Women walk around in next to nothing...and its okay. Violence on Tv is okay. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy CSI as much as the next person..but isn't that errosion of our moral values?

Our moral values cannot be “eroded” because we cannot change our DNA by taking away religion. From my perspective, we always had these morals; then, competing religions came on to the scene and tried to justify these innate traits by attributing them to their respective belief systems.

That said, because what is instinctively ‘good’ isn’t necessarily the best choice, I think we have to make a distinction between what we only feel is good, and what is also fair and logically sound. For example, you said, “Women walk around in next to nothing...and its okay.” I ask you, why is this immoral?

curious_george wrote:
Some would argue that without religion there would be no morals...I can see their point. As religion errodes and more and more people believe in no God, in no "higher being" of any sort, so to, does our morals. ( I think I found my soap box..long rant?...I think so)

Have our morals eroded? I don’t think so.

While women are wearing thongs and lingerie, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is shooting people in the head with sawed-off shotguns, the industrialized world has banned slavery and established equality between gender and race. People are living longer and more comfortably, and they give more to charities than ever before. Heinous crimes are quickly cracked down upon. Etc. etc. etc.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:So I

curious_george wrote:
So I have realized. I am such a horrible arguer....lol....my sister wouldn't agree. I always beat her. She's just a push-over though (hope she doesn't read this)...(wince)

Lol, haha........I find that I have a much better time if I pretend like I'm discussing something with a friend. I'm getting better, I still often fail, sometimes I get mad, but I try.

curious_george wrote:
I'm with Hitler there...microevolution makes perfect sense...its macroevolution that doesn't make sense to me. LOL!! I'll get it someday. Actually, I don't even have a problem with macroevolution so much as abiogenesis and how evolution started. But I am reading the third book from the library Origins so hopefully that will answer those questions. However, I think that I am going to start asking questions about dinosaurs....lol.

Yeah, people get hung up on this a lot. 

Typically, micro and macro are defined as "change within a species" and "change between species," respectively. But, these are poor definitions, and, to my knowledge, biologists usually don't even use these terms. "Change between species" is particularly misleading because one species does NOT change into another currently existing organism. If this just means that the species shall evolve enough such that it cannot procreate with the ancestral species (what it used to be like), then there is no difference in mechanism between micro and macro at all. The only difference is time scale, as indicated by the prefixes. If you have a lot of micro, you get macro, because a lot of small changes equals a big change.  

curious_george wrote:
Thirdly, Do you think that people that believe in God could believe in evolution also??

There are more theists who accept evolution than there are atheists. There are also biologists who believe in God and evolution.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/23200/Almost-Half-Americans-Believe-Humans-Did-Evolve.aspx 

curious_george wrote:
We don't actually own anything and they let us believe that we are free when we are not.

Well, lol, they gave you exactly all the same rights that you would have if you were actually free so there isn't any difference. And how would they take these rights away now if they wanted to? And who is they?

curious_george wrote:
Which reminds me of another question: How do talents evolve...or do they? 

Uuh, I'm not sure what you're asking. What is a talent? That just means you're good at something, right? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

curious_george wrote:
What?? That's weird.

Not really. Here you go : www.healing-arts.org

curious_george wrote:
The website that I was on has a note at the top that says it is in affiliation with the University of Arizona College of Medicine and is overseen by Dr. Lewis Mehl-Meldrona--who works for the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine. It has on some of its pages a logo looking thing that says Autism research. It has a mission statement:

"Our mission is to provide the most comprehensive site available for the discussion of medical and physical therapies for the treatment of brain-injured children, hence creating a networking structure for parents and physicians alike. This website will provide viewers a new way of looking at neuro/metabolic disease, and offer a creative opportunity for involvement in the exploration of medicine and healing. "

My point is, for it to be "non-biased", wouldn't it need to feature both sides of the argument ? I looked, and I didn't find anything on the site itself, so I found some other links for you :

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/09/vaccine-skeptics-vs-your-kids

And this report by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization finds the concerns raised by people like Dr Mehl-Madrona to be "purely theoretical" :

http://www.autism-watch.org/news/thimerosal_canada.shtml

Read all those, then look for some more. After having absorbed all that information, you'll be able to form a non-biased opinion.

And when you get the chance, google Dr Mehl-Madrona as well. He seems to think that sweat lodge ceremonies are a viable treatment for cancer.

curious_george wrote:
Oh well. Its not like it really matters on the grand scale of things.

Actually, it does matter. Just read the first link.

Vaccines don't always prevent you from getting the illness you were vaccinated for. I got all my shots growing up, I still got the chickenpox. I got it bad, too...even had one on my eye...couldnt see for weeks. That article did make me wonder, though. Why would Dr.'s recommend shots to everyone, and then not give their own children the shot?? As the article said, they should have known better.

anonymouse wrote:
curious_george wrote:
I'm not trying to prove I'm right, just describe why I believe vaccines are bad for you. My gift is not persuasion. Smiling I may get fired up and passionate about the things I believe, but I always do so slowly and always have good reasons behind my beliefs. My good reasons may be another persons bad reasons, and because of that I would NEVER force something I believe on someone else.

I see. So when you have children, you will make sure they get all their shots ?

If I am married, it will be thier father's decision. If I am a single mother, they won't get their shots until they are old enough to decide if they want to take them or not. Children can't decide something like that until they are more mature. Maturity isn't about age, its about decision-making. And if you're wondering if I'll tell them vaccines are bad, I won't. When they are old enough, they can decide for themselves. But that is jumping the gun a little. I probably won't even have children.

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The anti-vaccination push is a great danger to our society. The arguments against vaccination are unscientific.

For example, they keep repeating nonsense about mercury and autism, even though autism rates have continue unchanged or even risen, despite mercury compounds (mainly thimerisol ) in vaccines  having been eliminated or greatly reduced since 2001 because of the fears expressed. A new study here confirms that it is not a factor, yet the anti-vaxers will continue to parrot this crap.

When the level of vaccination falls too low in a community, some nasty diseases will come back, like these examples demonstrate:

http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20090123/hib-outbreak-kills-unvaccinated-child.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/vandenhof.htm (rubella)

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=2839 (measles)

This anti-vaccination crap is truly harmful nonsense, more explicitly and provably so even that your silly God stuff.

But it is still my point of view. And people can still get the disease even if they have already had the vaccination. Know that from experience.

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:< ...

curious_george wrote:

< ... >

anonymouse wrote:
curious_george wrote:
I'm not trying to prove I'm right, just describe why I believe vaccines are bad for you. My gift is not persuasion. Smiling I may get fired up and passionate about the things I believe, but I always do so slowly and always have good reasons behind my beliefs. My good reasons may be another persons bad reasons, and because of that I would NEVER force something I believe on someone else.

I see. So when you have children, you will make sure they get all their shots ?

If I am married, it will be thier father's decision. If I am a single mother, they won't get their shots until they are old enough to decide if they want to take them or not. Children can't decide something like that until they are more mature. Maturity isn't about age, its about decision-making. And if you're wondering if I'll tell them vaccines are bad, I won't. When they are old enough, they can decide for themselves. But that is jumping the gun a little. I probably won't even have children.

The problem is,  vaccination decisions do not just affect the individual. If a significant number of children are not vaccinated in a community, it starts to dramatically raise the risk for every child in that community. And where this involves diseases that are typically caught by young children, putting the decision off till they are old enough to decide for themselves is way too late.

Some children cannot be vaccinated for various genetic and other reasons, and these kids have to rely on 'herd immunity', ie a high level of immunity in the rest of the children in the community to keep the diseases from spreading to those they are in contact with.

So your attitude is putting other peoples' children at risk. Does that not concern you? Even if you don't have children, you should not be encouraging other people to adopt such an irresponsible or ignorant attitude to vaccination. 

This is not an imaginary scenario. It is happening now, as more communities reduce their rates of vaccination, due to either personal liberties attitudes or response to the anti-vaccination campaigners. This is killing children now.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So your

BobSpence1 wrote:

So your attitude is putting other peoples' children at risk. Does that not concern you?

No... not really... why should it?

 

What does concern me, is letting weak children live long enough to reproduce... thereby reducing our "herds" strength in the long run, rather then the short one (which is what everyone, always seems to care about). Ah well, just a thought

What Would Kharn Do?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

So your attitude is putting other peoples' children at risk. Does that not concern you?

No... not really... why should it?

 

What does concern me, is letting weak children live long enough to reproduce... thereby reducing our "herds" strength in the long run, rather then the short one (which is what everyone, always seems to care about). Ah well, just a thought

Allowing the 'selection out' of those with higher susceptibility to viruses is not necessarily going to be very effective. We are in an 'arms race' with these organisms - they evolve faster than we do. Far better to reduce the prevalence of these organisms to insignificant levels or wipe 'em out 'in the wild', as has been done with smallpox and close to with polio, thanks to vaccination.

Evolution in response to particular strong pressures is typically at the expense of more useful general improvement in ability to handle other stresses. We see this in specially bred or genetically-engineered organisms - they often can only thrive in our managed environments.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lol, Doomy, some Christian

Lol, Doomy, some Christian is going to think you're serious and use it as proof that atheists are immoral.

Wait..........you're not serious, right?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Allowing

BobSpence1 wrote:

Allowing the 'selection out' of those with higher susceptibility to viruses is not necessarily going to be very effective. We are in an 'arms race' with these organisms - they evolve faster than we do. Far better to reduce the prevalence of these organisms to insignificant levels or wipe 'em out 'in the wild', as has been done with smallpox and close to with polio, thanks to vaccination.

Evolution in response to particular strong pressures is typically at the expense of more useful general improvement in ability to handle other stresses. We see this in specially bred or genetically-engineered organisms - they often can only thrive in our managed environments.

 

*The following is a purely fictional representation of Doomy's point of view, which may or may not contain any actual fact, or well thought out meaning*

 

Ah yes... "Over specialize, and you breed in weakness"

 

Do you not see any parralels between "they often can only thrive in our managed environments" and what humans are so intent on doing to themselves, with wide array's of vacinations bombarded upon all members of society from a young age, till death?

 

If a child NEEDs a flu vaccine every year just to survive the common cold, should they be allowed to reproduce if their children would possess the same weakness? Then what? an ever increasing population of humans who can only survive the most basic of illness by controlled measures. Wonderful!

What Would Kharn Do?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Lol,

butterbattle wrote:

Lol, Doomy, some Christian is going to think you're serious and use it as proof that atheists are immoral.

Wait..........you're not serious, right?

 

You never really know what i believe, or when im serious about something...

I am serious about this, but possibily not in the way that i directly portraid

 

And Christians cant use me as proof as i am a Khornate "worshipper"

What Would Kharn Do?


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

curious_george wrote:
And for that...where did our morals come from??

http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_does_sugar_have_to_do_with_murder 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/myth_sexuality_and_culture

I view morality in a very different way than you. I see morality as nothing more than an abstraction of what humans feel is "good" or "bad." I believe morality is man made, based mostly on our instincts and partly on culture.

Our instincts came from our development as a social species. We are predisposed, to a certain extent, to behave in different ways around different people. This is why so many of our instincts seem to be in such conflict; humans can simultaneously sacrifice themselves for their kin, committing seemingly altruistic acts, while committing terrible atrocities against foreigners. Natural selection favored those that were nice to their ‘in-group,’ family, friends, neighbors, and less nice against those in ‘out-groups,’ strangers, hostile tribes.

But we are encouraged today to accept everyone. Many don't and when they don't they are racist, sexist, or just generally small-minded. Small-mindedness is looked down upon, even though it could be argued(I'm not arguing this)that these people are just holding to their belief systems. Who can condemn that?

butterbattle wrote:
Well, why don’t sharks just bite each other’s tails off for fun? Why don’t worker ants massacre other worker ants in the same colony? Why don’t piranhas eat each other? Because if they did, then they wouldn’t exist. If there were species of organisms that developed widespread cannibalism, they would become extinct. They exist for the very reason that they don’t kill each other.

For atheists, humans are just animals; we are the most intelligent animal, but animals nonetheless. And, as I said before, morality is just an abstraction of what we feel is right or wrong based mostly on our instincts. Without a referent, the term, “morality,” is ultimately meaningless. Naturally, all the animals that I named, and ‘cavemen’ had instincts. Thus, they are predisposed do to certain things, like not kill each other, because of their genes.

That doesn't make sense to me. Because genes are developed, so there would have to be a time when they didn't have that gene...right? Where does that survival of the fittest instinct come from? It had to develop, right? So there was a time when they didn't have even the most basic instinct, right?

butterbattle wrote:
Our moral values cannot be “eroded” because we cannot change our DNA by taking away religion. From my perspective, we always had these morals; then, competing religions came on to the scene and tried to justify these innate traits by attributing them to their respective belief systems.

That said, because what is instinctively ‘good’ isn’t necessarily the best choice, I think we have to make a distinction between what we only feel is good, and what is also fair and logically sound. For example, you said, “Women walk around in next to nothing...and its okay.” I ask you, why is this immoral?

Our morals are in our DNA? So there goes free choice. My children will be sexual predators because my dad was one?

butterbattle wrote:
curious_george wrote:
Some would argue that without religion there would be no morals...I can see their point. As religion errodes and more and more people believe in no God, in no "higher being" of any sort, so to, does our morals. ( I think I found my soap box..long rant?...I think so)

Have our morals eroded? I don’t think so.

While women are wearing thongs and lingerie, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is shooting people in the head with sawed-off shotguns, the industrialized world has banned slavery and established equality between gender and race. People are living longer and more comfortably, and they give more to charities than ever before. Heinous crimes are quickly cracked down upon. Etc. etc. etc.

But the point is that there are heinous crimes...more than ever before..or so it seems to me.

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
curious_george

curious_george wrote:
Vaccines don't always prevent you from getting the illness you were vaccinated for.

Yes, I know. A vaccine simply prepares your immune system to fight off a potentially deadly disease.

curious_george wrote:
I got all my shots growing up, I still got the chickenpox. I got it bad, too...even had one on my eye...couldnt see for weeks.

But your immune system was able to defeat the disease. Thanks to the vaccine.

curious_george wrote:
That article did make me wonder, though. Why would Dr.'s recommend shots to everyone, and then not give their own children the shot??

Uhm...the child wasn't born yet. The doctor caught the disease from an unvaccinated person while she was pregnant.

curious_george wrote:
As the article said, they should have known better.

She did know better. But other people didn't want to know. So now her baby has permanent lung damage.

curious_george wrote:
they won't get their shots until they are old enough to decide if they want to take them or not.

By then it will be too late. I'm sorry, but you will have to make the decision for them.

And the point is, if you don't give them the shots, you're not just putting your own kids in danger, but other people's children as well.

Why would you want to do that ?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:Where

curious_george wrote:

Where does that survival of the fittest instinct come from?

There is no such instinct. It isn't even a good description of what makes evolution work.

The basic principle is that those life-forms that have a genetic makeup that tends to help them have more offspring will pass those genetic characteristics on, so those genes will tend to spread through the local group of interbreeding individuals. NOT 'fitness', having more kids is what makes natural selection work. Survival long enough to reproduce is obviously important, but beyond reproductive age, not so much.

Any critter which had little or no reaction to threats, IOW did not run away, would be less likely to survive. This is why we have an instinct to avoid threats. Such things only need to have a bit of random variation to allow such an impulse to start to show up, and natural selection will do the rest.

Regarding morals, serious studies and comparisons point to less nasty crimes being committed, than in previous eras, at least in more advanced countries. Such countries no longer support the oppression of women, slavery, child labour, torture (apart from such religiously motivated fools as GW Bush), burning people alive, stoning to death, etc . None of those things is condemned in the Bible, you will note.

Perception of seriousness of bad behaviour is a bit complicated by the availability of modern weapons and other technology, which allows one or a few deranged people to cause a lot of damage and death.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:But we

curious_george wrote:
But we are encouraged today to accept everyone. Many don't and when they don't they are racist, sexist, or just generally small-minded. Small-mindedness is looked down upon, even though it could be argued(I'm not arguing this)that these people are just holding to their belief systems. Who can condemn that?

Uuuhh, who can condemn what? People that are racist, sexist, etc? I can?

I'm not sure I follow you.

curious_george wrote:
That doesn't make sense to me. Because genes are developed, so there would have to be a time when they didn't have that gene...right? Where does that survival of the fittest instinct come from? It had to develop, right? So there was a time when they didn't have even the most basic instinct, right?

The earliest life forms would have had some method of asexual reproduction, and that would have been all that was needed. As organisms increased in complexity, they would develop more characteristics to help them survive to reproduce. However, they would not need to suddenly possess a "survival of the fittest instinct" because there is no such thing. You have instincts that cause you to fear death. You have instincts that cause you to avoid pain. You have instincts that tell you to eat when you're hungry and drink when you're thirsty, etc. etc. etc. However, these do not correspond to specific genes either because it doesn't work that way. 

curious_george wrote:
Our morals are in our DNA? So there goes free choice.

Oh.......you're not going to like this, but I don't believe in free will either. I think there are atheists that do believe in support free will, but this website is pretty unanimous that it is nonsense.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/problems_notion_nonmaterial_aspect_conscious_process

http://www.rationalresponders.com/free_will_why_we_don039t_have_it_and_why_that039s_good_thing

Obviously, we seem to have the freedom to make decisions i.e. it feels like we are “free” simply because we do what we want to do and think what we want to think. However, given what know about the brain in the 21st century, there is simply no point at which our decisions and thoughts are not caused by our physical state.

It just means that there’s nothing ‘immaterial’ or ‘supernatural’ in the process. You do not control your brain and body. You are your brain and body. Your brain, developed via your genes, environment, chemical processes, etc., controls you. Or, to make it even clearer, there is no ‘essence’ or ‘form’ or ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ or ‘free will’ of ‘butterbattle.’ There is no ‘butterbattle’ at all apart from the total output of all the billions(?) of bacteria, cells, organic molecules, and chemical interactions.

curious_george wrote:
My children will be sexual predators because my dad was one?

It’s not that simple. If it were, you’d be a sex offender too. You’re not a child molester, right? 

Whether or not someone will be a sexual predator is determined by their personal beliefs, how they were raised, their environment, etc. Genes can be a factor, but not directly, since there’s no “sexual molestation” gene, lol. I’m kind of guessing now, but I suppose a person could possess a stronger physical attraction to others. They could also have a more aggressive personality, perhaps?

curious_george wrote:
But the point is that there are heinous crimes...more than ever before..or so it seems to me.

Does it really seem like humanity is worse off than it was several hundred years ago to you?

Think about it.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sorry it took me so long to

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I am in the process of moving, so I've been packing and dealing with crisis situations of all sorts. My boss has me working six days a week. So, been pretty busy...every night I lay in bed going dang! I need to get online and check my mail. Happy Thanksgiving, BTW. Its my favorite holiday. Hope that you enjoy yours. This year I am thankful for friends and my job. I have it good.

butterbattle wrote:

curious_george wrote:
But we are encouraged today to accept everyone. Many don't and when they don't they are racist, sexist, or just generally small-minded. Small-mindedness is looked down upon, even though it could be argued(I'm not arguing this)that these people are just holding to their belief systems. Who can condemn that?

Uuuhh, who can condemn what? People that are racist, sexist, etc? I can?

I'm not sure I follow you.

I meant who can condemn people holding to thier belief systems? Who am I to tell someone what they believe is wrong, even if it is. Besides that, how can you say they are wrong if you don't even understand what they believe. That in itself is small-minded. Sexism, racism are wrong..pure and simple..I would never argue that they're not, but in some cultures women are not equal to men and are treated like dirt simply because that is what they believe is okay. And storming in telling these people that they are wrong, won't change what they believe, won't even prove they are wrong. So, whats the point? Accepting everyone means accepting the small-minded too, and yet we look down on the small-minded....which makes us small-minded, which makes us hypocrits. My point is that everyone believes something different. Even different Christians believe different things about God. Maybe I'm wrong (its happened before) but I don't think going around telling everyone that they are wrong just because its not what you believe is a good thing to do. I try not to, sometimes I do, but I always apologize when I realize I am wrong. I tell people what I believe if they ask....most people ask why I am so happy all the time.

butterbattle wrote:
curious_george wrote:
That doesn't make sense to me. Because genes are developed, so there would have to be a time when they didn't have that gene...right? Where does that survival of the fittest instinct come from? It had to develop, right? So there was a time when they didn't have even the most basic instinct, right?

The earliest life forms would have had some method of asexual reproduction, and that would have been all that was needed. As organisms increased in complexity, they would develop more characteristics to help them survive to reproduce. However, they would not need to suddenly possess a "survival of the fittest instinct" because there is no such thing. You have instincts that cause you to fear death. You have instincts that cause you to avoid pain. You have instincts that tell you to eat when you're hungry and drink when you're thirsty, etc. etc. etc. However, these do not correspond to specific genes either because it doesn't work that way.

Oh. Okay. I didn't know that. I thought instints where something that couldn't be helped, something that you were born with.  

butterbattle wrote:
curious_george wrote:
Our morals are in our DNA? So there goes free choice.

Oh.......you're not going to like this, but I don't believe in free will either. I think there are atheists that do believe in support free will, but this website is pretty unanimous that it is nonsense.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/problems_notion_nonmaterial_aspect_conscious_process

http://www.rationalresponders.com/free_will_why_we_don039t_have_it_and_why_that039s_good_thing

Obviously, we seem to have the freedom to make decisions i.e. it feels like we are “free” simply because we do what we want to do and think what we want to think. However, given what know about the brain in the 21st century, there is simply no point at which our decisions and thoughts are not caused by our physical state.

It just means that there’s nothing ‘immaterial’ or ‘supernatural’ in the process. You do not control your brain and body. You are your brain and body. Your brain, developed via your genes, environment, chemical processes, etc., controls you. Or, to make it even clearer, there is no ‘essence’ or ‘form’ or ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ or ‘free will’ of ‘butterbattle.’ There is no ‘butterbattle’ at all apart from the total output of all the billions(?) of bacteria, cells, organic molecules, and chemical interactions.

How depressing. I am not me, because I cannot choose to be me. My thought patterns are genetic...which scares me. I have lots of sexual predators and drug addicts in my family. I don't want that for me. I could end up bipolar, because my mom has it.  I don't want that for me. Free will is hope to me.

butterbattle wrote:
curious_george wrote:
My children will be sexual predators because my dad was one?

It’s not that simple. If it were, you’d be a sex offender too. You’re not a child molester, right? 

Whether or not someone will be a sexual predator is determined by their personal beliefs, how they were raised, their environment, etc. Genes can be a factor, but not directly, since there’s no “sexual molestation” gene, lol. I’m kind of guessing now, but I suppose a person could possess a stronger physical attraction to others. They could also have a more aggressive personality, perhaps?

Smiling NO. I am not, nor will I ever be a child molester. But my personal beliefs are not my own, because I do not have free will to choose what I believe. And maybe there is no gene, but I was raised in an evironment that was not good for development all the time. By all standards, I should be one messed up girl. But I'm not, I'm very balanced ( I think, lol)

butterbattle wrote:
curious_george wrote:
But the point is that there are heinous crimes...more than ever before..or so it seems to me.

Does it really seem like humanity is worse off than it was several hundred years ago to you?

Think about it.

...........maybe not.

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:Happy

curious_george wrote:
Happy Thanksgiving, BTW. Its my favorite holiday. Hope that you enjoy yours. This year I am thankful for friends and my job. I have it good.

Happy Thanksgiving! 

Christmas is my favorite holiday though.  

curious_george wrote:
Sexism, racism are wrong..pure and simple..I would never argue that they're not, but in some cultures women are not equal to men and are treated like dirt simply because that is what they believe is okay. And storming in telling these people that they are wrong, won't change what they believe, won't even prove they are wrong. So, whats the point?

I agree....kind of. In real life, I've learned that it's a good idea to keep my opinions to myself. I have no problem with telling people that they're wrong, as long as it's done politely. It's just…there’s not much point in trying to pick a fight; it’s not worth it.

But, for me, it's different when beliefs lead to human rights abuses. Even if there are people out there that can't change...doesn't it ever get to the point where you feel like they just need to be stopped? I mean, like when teenage girls in Muslim countries get stoned to death by a mob for committing adultery (i.e. getting gang raped). Shouldn't we try to stop these things? Shouldn't we try to help? People have the right to believe what they want, but they don't have the right to take away the rights of others using their false beliefs as justification. Our beliefs don't always exist in a void; they affect how we think and what we do.    

curious_george wrote:
I thought instints where something that couldn't be helped, something that you were born with.

Well, you are born with them, but they're not something that "can't be helped" in the sense that you are not forced to do anything. You merely possess a desire to do things. 

curious_george wrote:
How depressing. I am not me, because I cannot choose to be me. My thought patterns are genetic...which scares me. I have lots of sexual predators and drug addicts in my family. I don't want that for me. I could end up bipolar, because my mom has it.  I don't want that for me. Free will is hope to me.

I think I can understand that. Many of my beliefs are often considered depressing, hopeless, barren, dangerous, etc. by those who disagree, and they’re not really incorrect. Who wants to think that morality is just a human concept, an abstraction to explain our instincts? Who wants to think that death is the end, that your consciousness will disappear forever, and you’ll just decompose like any other animal? Who wants to accept that there will never be justice for those who commit heinous crimes and get away with it? However, the bottom line is that these things don’t make a claim any more or less credible. So, I personally find it extremely suspicious when people’s belief systems cater to exactly what they want, and they argue against other belief systems with appeals to consequences. Free will is hope to you? That’s fine, but that doesn’t make free will any more likely to exist. Of course, you didn’t explicitly make that claim, but it is a fallacy that is committed time and time again, so I think it helps to know it.

curious_george wrote:
But my personal beliefs are not my own, because I do not have free will to choose what I believe.

Right. There isn’t some immaterial aspect of you that independently believes things and makes decisions, but I’m not sure what you mean by ‘your beliefs are not your own.’ You’re probably thinking something along the lines of, ‘I am controlled by molecules,’ and while this isn’t really incorrect, it would be better to say that, ‘You ARE your molecules,” because, of course, you are.

Regardless of whether your thoughts and actions are completely determined by natural processes, you are autonomous, and you feel like you have control, so for practical purposes, there’s really no difference. You don’t want to be a child molester? Well then…….don’t be a child molester.

Let’s say you choose to eat a muffin. Either your decision to eat the muffin was determined by some “soul/free will spirit” or “natural processes” or a combination of the two. Whatever it was, there’s no way to tell the difference.

Sigh…I’m having a hard time explaining this.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Happy

butterbattle wrote:

Happy Thanksgiving! 

Christmas is my favorite holiday though.  

Christmas is okay. I just don't like the greed that comes out around Christmas. I want....I want...me...me...me. It seems so selfish. I'd rather be thankful for what I already had. Smiling I do enjoy the opportunity it gives me to spend time with my family. I have five brothers and three sisters all younger than me...and  I adore them all. I get to give them surprises and watch their faces light up when they open them...There is nothing better than seeing that joy and knowing you chose something that they loved. Better to give than to recieve...is so true in my life...I hate getting gifts. I love giving them.

 

butterbattle wrote:
I agree....kind of. In real life, I've learned that it's a good idea to keep my opinions to myself. I have no problem with telling people that they're wrong, as long as it's done politely. It's just…there’s not much point in trying to pick a fight; it’s not worth it.

I so agree. It is so hard to let it go sometimes. I have to humble myself and let the other person be right. It's so frustrating, especially if I am sure I am right. But I can for the sake of peace. Humility and peace go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other. But if you continue to argue your point and in the end prove you are right, but in the process have crushed the other person, its just not worth it.

butterbattle wrote:
But, for me, it's different when beliefs lead to human rights abuses. Even if there are people out there that can't change...doesn't it ever get to the point where you feel like they just need to be stopped? I mean, like when teenage girls in Muslim countries get stoned to death by a mob for committing adultery (i.e. getting gang raped). Shouldn't we try to stop these things? Shouldn't we try to help? People have the right to believe what they want, but they don't have the right to take away the rights of others using their false beliefs as justification. Our beliefs don't always exist in a void; they affect how we think and what we do. 
 What are you going to do about human rights abuses? What have you done about it? What can you do about it? I am not saying those things in a mean-spirited way, what I mean is that yes those things are horrible, but you can't change them. We could send troops in to stop it, but that would just start another war...more death, more hatred. It wouldn't really solve anything. In the end, you have taken more lives than you've saved.  I want it stopped, but the change has to happen in thier hearts. Something that I believe is that the attitude you experience is your choice. I don't think you will agree with this, but let me explain. Love is a choice. Anger is a choice. Hatred is a choice. Joy is a choice. Humility is a choice. In every situation you put yourself in you have choices to make. If you are in a situation where you get angry with someone. You chose to be angry at that person. You can stop by just choosing to not be angry by choosing love. It is the hardest thing to do, because you are putting yourself aside and letting go of your way. In Muslim countries, they choose to think that women are dirt...and stone them for stuff that isn't there fault, but those women choose to stay in that country. They choose to believe that way. They suffer for it. The only way to stop it is by a change in choice--- In the hearts of the men of the country. That's part of what I believe, theres more to it than just that. 
butterbattle wrote:
I think I can understand that. Many of my beliefs are often considered depressing, hopeless, barren, dangerous, etc. by those who disagree, and they’re not really incorrect. Who wants to think that morality is just a human concept, an abstraction to explain our instincts? Who wants to think that death is the end, that your consciousness will disappear forever, and you’ll just decompose like any other animal? Who wants to accept that there will never be justice for those who commit heinous crimes and get away with it? However, the bottom line is that these things don’t make a claim any more or less credible. So, I personally find it extremely suspicious when people’s belief systems cater to exactly what they want, and they argue against other belief systems with appeals to consequences. Free will is hope to you? That’s fine, but that doesn’t make free will any more likely to exist. Of course, you didn’t explicitly make that claim, but it is a fallacy that is committed time and time again, so I think it helps to know it.

If you don't believe in free will, do you believe in choice? And are they the same thing?

butterbattle wrote:
Right. There isn’t some immaterial aspect of you that independently believes things and makes decisions, but I’m not sure what you mean by ‘your beliefs are not your own.’ You’re probably thinking something along the lines of, ‘I am controlled by molecules,’ and while this isn’t really incorrect, it would be better to say that, ‘You ARE your molecules,” because, of course, you are.

No, I meant that I can't choose what I believe because it is already in me? I was born believing what I am going to believe my whole life?

butterbattle wrote:
Regardless of whether your thoughts and actions are completely determined by natural processes, you are autonomous, and you feel like you have control, so for practical purposes, there’s really no difference. You don’t want to be a child molester? Well then…….don’t be a child molester.

Let’s say you choose to eat a muffin. Either your decision to eat the muffin was determined by some “soul/free will spirit” or “natural processes” or a combination of the two. Whatever it was, there’s no way to tell the difference.

So..it doesn't really matter???? And it seems to me a little bit contradictory.

butterbattle wrote:
Sigh…I’m having a hard time explaining this.

Its okay. Just stick with it. I am interested to know.

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:What

curious_george wrote:
What are you going to do about human rights abuses? What have you done about it? What can you do about it? 

Me? Haha, very little. Pretty much nothing.

curious_george wrote:
I am not saying those things in a mean-spirited way, what I mean is that yes those things are horrible, but you can't change them. We could send troops in to stop it, but that would just start another war...more death, more hatred. It wouldn't really solve anything. In the end, you have taken more lives than you've saved.  I want it stopped, but the change has to happen in thier hearts.

I agree that we should always try to change people’s minds first, but I don’t think force is always pointless.

If people cannot be convinced that what they’re doing is wrong and allowing them to continue their actions will lead to further human rights abuses, then, there are some cases (e.g. holocaust) where I see nothing wrong with fighting back with force; a lot of times, the perpetrators can be subdued. Often, there will be more death, but often, we can save more lives, and the life of one innocent person who just wants to be left alone is worth more to me than the lives of 100 rampaging suicide bombers. The bloodshed doesn’t always come back equally like some category error of Newton’s third law; it really does work a lot of the time.

curious_george wrote:
Something that I believe is that the attitude you experience is your choice.  I don't think you will agree with this, but let me explain. Love is a choice. Anger is a choice. Hatred is a choice. Joy is a choice. Humility is a choice. In every situation you put yourself in you have choices to make. If you are in a situation where you get angry with someone. You chose to be angry at that person. You can stop by just choosing to not be angry by choosing love. It is the hardest thing to do, because you are putting yourself aside and letting go of your way.

I agree, actually. You’re saying, we can’t always choose our circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them, right?

curious_george wrote:
If you don't believe in free will, do you believe in choice? And are they the same thing?

---

No, I meant that I can't choose what I believe because it is already in me? I was born believing what I am going to believe my whole life?

Oh…I don’t know. I never use the term ‘choice’ non-colloquially. How do you define it?  

Your beliefs can change. They’re ‘determined’ by natural processes, but they’re not ‘predetermined,’ in that they haven’t happened yet.

curious_george wrote:
So..it doesn't really matter????

To me, it’s like “destiny” in this sense. Either you are destined to do things or you aren’t. But, if you don’t know what you’re destined to do, what exactly are you going to do differently for either case?

curious_george wrote:
And it seems to me a little bit contradictory.

How?

curious_george wrote:
Its okay. Just stick with it. I am interested to know.

Okay, thanks.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
 curious_george wrote:I am

 

curious_george wrote:
I am not saying those things in a mean-spirited way, what I mean is that yes those things are horrible, but you can't change them. We could send troops in to stop it, but that would just start another war...more death, more hatred. It wouldn't really solve anything. In the end, you have taken more lives than you've saved.  I want it stopped, but the change has to happen in thier hearts.

butterbattle wrote:
I agree that we should always try to change people’s minds first, but I don’t think force is always pointless.

If people cannot be convinced that what they’re doing is wrong and allowing them to continue their actions will lead to further human rights abuses, then, there are some cases (e.g. holocaust) where I see nothing wrong with fighting back with force; a lot of times, the perpetrators can be subdued. Often, there will be more death, but often, we can save more lives, and the life of one innocent person who just wants to be left alone is worth more to me than the lives of 100 rampaging suicide bombers. The bloodshed doesn’t always come back equally like some category error of Newton’s third law; it really does work a lot of the time.

Okay, I see your point. Sometimes force is needed. Like when you are training your child....you eventually have to punish them for bad behavior...even if you dont want to.  So, yes, it makes sense. But trying to change the minds of an entire civilization...or culture..or religion...is usually futile, even when using force. You just have to let them be who they are, and (unless they start the next holocaust) trust the Lord for it, and pray....(thats what I would do). Maybe that response is unlogical, but I have to accept that I cant change anyones mind...I just let them be who they are and live what they believe. They let me be who I am, I can extend the same courtesy to them. That doesnt stop me from being a friend, and being kind to them.

 A little bit off subject, but What would you do if the United States started putting Christians into concentration camps for what they believe? Or African Americans for their color? Or Ashkonozi Jews for being Ashkonozi?

curious_george wrote:
Something that I believe is that the attitude you experience is your choice.  I don't think you will agree with this, but let me explain. Love is a choice. Anger is a choice. Hatred is a choice. Joy is a choice. Humility is a choice. In every situation you put yourself in you have choices to make. If you are in a situation where you get angry with someone. You chose to be angry at that person. You can stop by just choosing to not be angry by choosing love. It is the hardest thing to do, because you are putting yourself aside and letting go of your way.

butterbattle wrote:
I agree, actually. You’re saying, we can’t always choose our circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them, right?

and our attitude about them, yes, that is exactly what I mean.

curious_george wrote:
If you don't believe in free will, do you believe in choice? And are they the same thing?

---

No, I meant that I can't choose what I believe because it is already in me? I was born believing what I am going to believe my whole life?

butterbattle wrote:
Oh…I don’t know. I never use the term ‘choice’ non-colloquially. How do you define it?
 

It may not be the dictionary definition, but when I say choice I mean deciding how you will respond to something or which direction you will take your life or which thing to do is the right thing and which is the wrong and which you will do.  

butterbattle wrote:
Your beliefs can change. They’re ‘determined’ by natural processes, but they’re not ‘predetermined,’ in that they haven’t happened yet.
  Okay, that kind of makes sense. If you grew up going to church you are more likely to believe in God...not necessarily be a Christian but believe in God. If you were born into a Jewish home you are more likely to be Jewish...or Amish if you are born into an Amish home. Right?

curious_george wrote:
So..it doesn't really matter????

butterbattle wrote:
To me, it’s like “destiny” in this sense. Either you are destined to do things or you aren’t. But, if you don’t know what you’re destined to do, what exactly are you going to do differently for either case?

I see what you mean...but it isnt free will that makes you decide what you are going to do....or choose what you are destined to do, its chemical process?

curious_george wrote:
And it seems to me a little bit contradictory.

butterbattle wrote:
How?

It did when I wrote that, but I dont remember how now....LOL. should have written it then.

*******

Merry Christmas!! I hope that you have a good Christmas break. I am going to be very busy these next few weeks, and I suspect you will be too. I am headed to Florida to visit my dad before moving to New Mexico. (which keeps getting put off later and later because things keep coming up) Have a Happy New Year also!!

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Merry Christmas,

Merry Christmas, curious_george! And Happy New Year! I hope you’re having fun in Florida.

I’m writing this on Christmas Eve, lol. I can’t wait for everyone to open their presents!

curious_george wrote:
But trying to change the minds of an entire civilization...or culture..or religion...is usually futile, even when using force. You just have to let them be who they are, and (unless they start the next holocaust) trust the Lord for it, and pray....(thats what I would do). Maybe that response is unlogical, but I have to accept that I cant change anyones mind...I just let them be who they are and live what they believe. They let me be who I am, I can extend the same courtesy to them. That doesnt stop me from being a friend, and being kind to them.

Haha, we always disagree with on some topic. If I pushed away every friend that I disagreed with on something, then I wouldn’t have any friends. And, I would never try to take away someone’s freedom of belief, as long as they don’t trespass on the rights of others.

Um, I think you can change individuals. People change their beliefs all the time because of things that they experience. Of course, it depends on the person, and it probably won’t happen right away, but it happens.

curious_george wrote:
A little bit off subject, but What would you do if the United States started putting Christians into concentration camps for what they believe? Or African Americans for their color? Or Ashkonozi Jews for being Ashkonozi?

Probably petition. Protest. Etc.

If I had a friend who was Christian or African American or an Ashkonozi (what is Ashkonozi?) Jew, I would probably try to protect them.

curious_george wrote:
It may not be the dictionary definition, but when I say choice I mean deciding how you will respond to something or which direction you will take your life or which thing to do is the right thing and which is the wrong and which you will do.

Okay, then yes, you have a choice. As long as we establish what “you” is referring to.

curious_george wrote:
Okay, that kind of makes sense. If you grew up going to church you are more likely to believe in God...not necessarily be a Christian but believe in God. If you were born into a Jewish home you are more likely to be Jewish...or Amish if you are born into an Amish home. Right?

Uuuuhhh……..right?

Let’s recap. I don’t believe that we have souls or spirits; I believe that we are purely the grand total of many natural processes. Our beliefs are influenced by genes, thoughts, and environments. So, I think that everything is determined, at least at the macro level, including what you believe.

All I’m saying is that it’s possible that we are controlled by “destiny” or “fate,” but not exactly in the way that people usually use the term. As in, if you could somehow analyze the behaviors and interactions of every elementary particle in a person’s body throughout the next thirty years and all the particles that had an effect on the person, then, theoretically, you’ll be able to predict everything about them in 30 years with 100% accuracy. The natural processes that culminate in your choices do not obey any different physical laws than a baseball falling towards the Earth; the former is just a lot more complicated. So, of course, your beliefs can change, but whatever you choose to believe, you choose because of who you are, and who you are is completely the result of natural processes. You are not born with your beliefs “in you” because that would imply that genes are the only the factor nor do you always go with what your parents believe because that would imply that your parents are the only factor. But anyways, it’s possible that everything that has ever happened in the universe led up to you believing what you believe in a completely non-random chain of events.

However, the way it’s different from the traditional understanding of fate is that we can’t know that something is inevitably going to happen. To me, that would be ridiculous. As Nicholas Cage said in the move, “Next,” “The funny thing about the future is that it changes every time you look at it, because you looked at it.” The very knowledge that something bad is going to happen would affect your choices, causing you to avoid that bad thing. If Julius Caesar had taken the soothsayer’s warning seriously, he could have avoided Brutus and Cassius on the ide of March.

Ergo, I don’t think it’s possible to know your “fate,” as that would allow you to avoid it. However, if you don’t know your fate, it’s silly to think about it all the time, since you don’t know what it is! This is why I think the question of free will is pointless for any practical purpose.

curious_george wrote:
I see what you mean...but it isnt free will that makes you decide what you are going to do....or choose what you are destined to do, its chemical process?

I’m not sure what you mean. When we get deep into this stuff, we really have to clearly define everything.

If free will is just whatever makes us decide what we decide, then free will exists. It’ll be synonymous with your brain.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I&rsquo;m

butterbattle wrote:

I’m writing this on Christmas Eve, lol. I can’t wait for everyone to open their presents!

Christmas Eve!! Lol...you must've been bored. Get anything exciting for Christmas??

butterbattle wrote:
Um, I think you can change individuals. People change their beliefs all the time because of things that they experience. Of course, it depends on the person, and it probably won’t happen right away, but it happens.
I completly agree with that.

curious_george wrote:
A little bit off subject, but What would you do if the United States started putting Christians into concentration camps for what they believe? Or African Americans for their color? Or Ashkonozi Jews for being Ashkonozi?

butterbattle wrote:
Probably petition. Protest. Etc.

If I had a friend who was Christian or African American or an Ashkonozi (what is Ashkonozi?) Jew, I would probably try to protect them.

Thats a relief. I thought you might be up in arms to destroy me....lol. The Ashkonozi (Ashkenazi, apparently I spelt it wrong..I'm a horrid speller) Jews:  http://www.wisegeek.com/who-are-the-ashkenazi-jews.htm Some people think that they are a group of people that (after the capture and scattering of the Jews) decided that they wanted to be Gods chosen people, and so they took the name Jew...these people originated in the Ashkenazi Mountains, hence Ashkenazi Jews. However, I haven't found anything with that story online.

curious_george wrote:
It may not be the dictionary definition, but when I say choice I mean deciding how you will respond to something or which direction you will take your life or which thing to do is the right thing and which is the wrong and which you will do.

butterbattle wrote:
Okay, then yes, you have a choice. As long as we establish what “you” is referring to.

you as in the universal you.

curious_george wrote:
Okay, that kind of makes sense. If you grew up going to church you are more likely to believe in God...not necessarily be a Christian but believe in God. If you were born into a Jewish home you are more likely to be Jewish...or Amish if you are born into an Amish home. Right?

butterbattle wrote:
Uuuuhhh……..right?

Let’s recap. I don’t believe that we have souls or spirits; I believe that we are purely the grand total of many natural processes. Our beliefs are influenced by genes, thoughts, and environments. So, I think that everything is determined, at least at the macro level, including what you believe.

All I’m saying is that it’s possible that we are controlled by “destiny” or “fate,” but not exactly in the way that people usually use the term. As in, if you could somehow analyze the behaviors and interactions of every elementary particle in a person’s body throughout the next thirty years and all the particles that had an effect on the person, then, theoretically, you’ll be able to predict everything about them in 30 years with 100% accuracy.

Wow. That would be really impressive.
butterbattle wrote:
The natural processes that culminate in your choices do not obey any different physical laws than a baseball falling towards the Earth; the former is just a lot more complicated. So, of course, your beliefs can change, but whatever you choose to believe, you choose because of who you are, and who you are is completely the result of natural processes.
OH!! OH!! Natural processes NOT genes?!...??
butterbattle wrote:
You are not born with your beliefs “in you” because that would imply that genes are the only the factor nor do you always go with what your parents believe because that would imply that your parents are the only factor.
 but those factors together equal natural processes?
butterbattle wrote:
But anyways, it’s possible that everything that has ever happened in the universe led up to you believing what you believe in a completely non-random chain of events.
Huh? You lost me there....What you believe is the sum of everything that has ever happened in the universe...but that is non-random...which means it was destined...or pre-ordained...which takes away free will entirely...which is what your point was in the first place. By Jove, I think I've got it....have I?

butterbattle wrote:
However, the way it’s different from the traditional understanding of fate is that we can’t know that something is inevitably going to happen. To me, that would be ridiculous. As Nicholas Cage said in the move, “Next,” “The funny thing about the future is that it changes every time you look at it, because you looked at it.”
I am going to interrupt here to say that I think that it is totally spot on that you quoted Next... I'm a movie buff, I quote movies all the time...anyways...
butterbattle wrote:
 The very knowledge that something bad is going to happen would affect your choices, causing you to avoid that bad thing. If Julius Caesar had taken the soothsayer’s warning seriously, he could have avoided Brutus and Cassius on the ide of March.

Ergo, I don’t think it’s possible to know your “fate,” as that would allow you to avoid it. However, if you don’t know your fate, it’s silly to think about it all the time, since you don’t know what it is!

 Okay. Looking at it from your point of view this makes sense.
butterbattle wrote:
 This is why I think the question of free will is pointless for any practical purpose.
This does not compute. You think the question of free will is pointless because...oh scratch that...I understand now.

curious_george wrote:
I see what you mean...but it isnt free will that makes you decide what you are going to do....or choose what you are destined to do, its chemical process?

butterbattle wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean. When we get deep into this stuff, we really have to clearly define everything.

If free will is just whatever makes us decide what we decide, then free will exists. It’ll be synonymous with your brain.

 

  okay. What an interesting way of looking at life. Do you think its all pointless then? Just a meaningless chain of events?

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
curious_george

curious_george wrote:
Christmas Eve!! Lol...you must've been bored.

Lol, writing about atheism at midnight on Christmas Eve. That has to be a sin.

curious_george wrote:
Get anything exciting for Christmas??

Lots of stuff. Clothes. Chocolates. Etc. A coffee maker!

Of course, the best part was watching my girlfriend open one of her presents from me. It was like a dolphin statue thingy.

curious_george wrote:
Thats a relief. I thought you might be up in arms to destroy me....lol.

Aww...are you kidding? No, I would never do anything like that. I don't know anyone on this website that would go, uuuhh, destroy you. 

curious_george wrote:
Wow. That would be really impressive.

Yep, but also really really hard. In fact, so hard that it'll most likely only ever be possible in theory.

curious_george wrote:
OH!! OH!! Natural processes NOT genes?!...??

Well, genes ARE the result of a natural process.   

curious_george wrote:
but those factors together equal natural processes?

Uuuhh, yes? Maybe I'm confusing the issue with this talk about natural processes. All I'm saying is,

- Our choices are based on many different variables. Complex algorithms?

- As far as we know, there’s nothing random about it. Maybe chaotic? (I’d rather not talk about quantum mechanics).

- And there’s, as far as we know, nothing supernatural about it. 

curious_george wrote:
Huh? You lost me there....What you believe is the sum of everything that has ever happened in the universe...but that is non-random...which means it was destined...or pre-ordained...which takes away free will entirely...which is what your point was in the first place. By Jove, I think I've got it....have I?

Pretty much.

curious_george wrote:
This does not compute. You think the question of free will is pointless because...oh scratch that...I understand now.

Right. At first, it may seem like the individual who knows that they are fated to do something, but doesn’t know what it is has quite an interesting puzzle to solve. But, really, this person might as well go on with his/her business. It wouldn’t be justified to say, “Oh, I know fate is coming my way, so I better do something different.” If it’s fate, then whatever you end up doing is whatever you were supposed to do.

curious_george wrote:
okay. What an interesting way of looking at life. Do you think its all pointless then? Just a meaningless chain of events?

Yep. I do not believe there is any intrinsic ‘meaning.’ Similarly, I do not believe in objective morality.  I believe these are human concepts, abstractions of intuitions and feelings that we weren’t able to understand.

If someone asked me what the purpose of life was, my response (seriously) would be that I couldn’t answer the question because ‘purpose’ is ill-defined and ‘life’ is ambiguous.

Life, as in the biological process, has no ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose.’ Purpose requires reason, desire, a conscious intent. Life has nothing like that. We are often tempted to say that the purpose of life is to reproduce, but even this is a bit of a fallacy, as life is not ‘trying’ to reproduce. I think it would be better to say that this is a function of life.

The only entities we know of that have purpose or assign meaning (maybe a few other vertebrates?) are humans, and different humans have different purposes. So, to me, searching for meaning (as well as morality) isn’t much different, in a logical sense, than finding something that appeals to you aesthetically.

So, what’s the meaning of life? Well, what kind of ice cream do you like?

Oh, here. You’re not an atheist, but this is related to what we’re talking about.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/new_atheists_really_all_there

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Aww, where are you

Aww, where are you curious_george? I was enjoying this conversation too much.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
sorry...

butterbattle wrote:

Aww, where are you curious_george? I was enjoying this conversation too much.

Packing and what-not...every night I lay in bed going...dang! I forgot to get on again. I'm gonna go reply to your other post now. Laughing out loud

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Lol,

butterbattle wrote:

Lol, writing about atheism at midnight on Christmas Eve. That has to be a sin.

Lol, I don't think so...I don't even think Christmas is a Christian holiday....

curious_george wrote:
Get anything exciting for Christmas??

butterbattle wrote:
Lots of stuff. Clothes. Chocolates. Etc. A coffee maker!

mmmm.....coffee...which reminds me...I haven't had mine yet.

butterbattle wrote:
Of course, the best part was watching my girlfriend open one of her presents from me. It was like a dolphin statue thingy.
Yeah, the best part is watching the gifts you got for your family/friends get opened.  Nothing like the look on thier face. I have five brothers and three sisters, and it is always such a joy to see them open their gifts from me.

curious_george wrote:
Thats a relief. I thought you might be up in arms to destroy me....lol.

butterbattle wrote:
Aww...are you kidding? No, I would never do anything like that. I don't know anyone on this website that would go, uuuhh, destroy you. 

Most of me was kidding. Some of me was serious. But don't worry I always write the serious part of me off as crazy...lol 

curious_george wrote:
but those factors together equal natural processes?

butterbattle wrote:
Uuuhh, yes? Maybe I'm confusing the issue with this talk about natural processes. All I'm saying is,

- Our choices are based on many different variables. Complex algorithms?

- As far as we know, there’s nothing random about it. Maybe chaotic? (I’d rather not talk about quantum mechanics).

- And there’s, as far as we know, nothing supernatural about it

 

 

-ok. (shuddering at the word algorithms)

-I will join your lets not talk about quantum mechanics club.

-ok.

curious_george wrote:
Huh? You lost me there....What you believe is the sum of everything that has ever happened in the universe...but that is non-random...which means it was destined...or pre-ordained...which takes away free will entirely...which is what your point was in the first place. By Jove, I think I've got it....have I?

butterbattle wrote:
Pretty much.

YES!!!!!!! I GOT IT!!!!!! ( doing a happy dance)

curious_george wrote:
This does not compute. You think the question of free will is pointless because...oh scratch that...I understand now.

butterbattle wrote:
Right. At first, it may seem like the individual who knows that they are fated to do something, but doesn’t know what it is has quite an interesting puzzle to solve. But, really, this person might as well go on with his/her business. It wouldn’t be justified to say, “Oh, I know fate is coming my way, so I better do something different.” If it’s fate, then whatever you end up doing is whatever you were supposed to do.

Do you take decisions as seriously, then? When you were trying to decide what college you were going to go to did you put a lot of thought and time into that decision?

curious_george wrote:
okay. What an interesting way of looking at life. Do you think its all pointless then? Just a meaningless chain of events?

butterbattle wrote:
Yep. I do not believe there is any intrinsic ‘meaning.’ Similarly, I do not believe in objective morality.  I believe these are human concepts, abstractions of intuitions and feelings that we weren’t able to understand.

So where do our feelings(emotions) come from?

butterbattle wrote:
If someone asked me what the purpose of life was, my response (seriously) would be that I couldn’t answer the question because ‘purpose’ is ill-defined and ‘life’ is ambiguous.
I actually agree that this is a pointless question. One that no man will ever be able to answer. I do believe that each person has a purpose. Not life itself.

butterbattle wrote:
Life, as in the biological process, has no ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose.’
Right. I agree. But the person living has meaning and purpose.
butterbattle wrote:
Purpose requires reason, desire, a conscious intent. Life has nothing like that.
Again, the person experienceing life has reason, desire, and intent.
butterbattle wrote:
We are often tempted to say that the purpose of life is to reproduce, but even this is a bit of a fallacy, as life is not ‘trying’ to reproduce. I think it would be better to say that this is a function of life.

right. I agree with that too.

butterbattle wrote:
The only entities we know of that have purpose or assign meaning (maybe a few other vertebrates?) are humans, and different humans have different purposes.
Wait. Do you believe that different people have different purposes? Or are you saying that they assign meaning to having a purpose but each one chooses a different purpose they think means more. 
butterbattle wrote:
 So, to me, searching for meaning (as well as morality) isn’t much different, in a logical sense, than finding something that appeals to you aesthetically.

So, what’s the meaning of life? Well, what kind of ice cream do you like?

I find that statement very odd. The meaning of life is chocolate ice cream. I actually find that kind of brilliant in a hilarious way.

So then, when you love someone...is that pointless too? And are humans even capable of love...or is it just a desire to reproduce? People are always searching for joy. They are always searching for love. Always searching for peace. Ask the people who have lived, the elderly, the wise-ones. what did they spend their life searching for...what is the most important thing in life...and a good majority will answer love. Because with love comes joy, and peace. What do you search for?

I will try to get back on before I move. I am leaving March 22 to move...and I wont have a computer untill I get settled and even then it will probably be at the library.

 

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 curious_george wrote:Lol,

curious_george wrote:
Lol, I don't think so...I don't even think Christmas is a Christian holiday....
 

Lol. I can understand that.

curious_george wrote:
-ok. (shuddering at the word algorithms)

-I will join your lets not talk about quantum mechanics club.

-ok.

Actually, I should probably qualify my statement about nothing being random because this partly reflects my own bias on the topic. So, I'll mention quantum mechanics again (sorry).

Plagiarizing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random#In_the_physical_sciences 

There are some processes we've observed that are at least ostensibly random: the decay of a single atom or genetic mutations. However, in some "interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random." I disagree with that. I don't know much about quantum mechanics yet, so it's possible that I'm only maintaining this stance tentatively because I'm motivated by determinism and because it's much more intuitive, but to me, that there is some more fundamental description/variable we haven't discovered yet seems more logical than that quantum events are simply random. 

*sigh* Actually, I take everything back. Just forget everything I said about randomness and quantum mechanics.   

curious_george wrote:
Do you take decisions as seriously, then? When you were trying to decide what college you were going to go to did you put a lot of thought and time into that decision?

Oh, of course. Yes, I take decisions seriously.

curious_george wrote:
So where do our feelings(emotions) come from?

I think it comes from our brains. Before that, I think our mental states are caused by our environment, our brain chemistry, etc. Before that, it’s caused by our genes, our environment, etc. 

curious_george wrote:
I actually agree that this is a pointless question. One that no man will ever be able to answer. I do believe that each person has a purpose. Not life itself.

Right. I agree. But the person living has meaning and purpose.

Again, the person experienceing life has reason, desire, and intent.

Yes, exactly.  I agree.

curious_george wrote:
right. I agree with that too.

Yay!

curious_george wrote:
Wait. Do you believe that different people have different purposes?

Yes.

curious_george wrote:
Or are you saying that they assign meaning to having a purpose but each one chooses a different purpose they think means more. 

Eh…I’m not sure what you mean.

Yes, I think we assign “meaning” and “value.” We give our purposes meaning. Not everyone assigns the same value to the same things.

curious_george wrote:
 find that statement very odd. The meaning of life is chocolate ice cream. I actually find that kind of brilliant in a hilarious way.

It’s kind of funny, because I actually got that analogy from someone who was using it to criticize moral subjectivism. Here, the argument is that what we consider morally right or wrong is analogous to our personal preference of ice cream flavors is simply unacceptable. Therefore, moral subjectivism must be wrong. I've bitten the bullet on this long before I heard the ice cream analogy, so I really liked the analogy even though it was supposed to be bad because it explains my position perfectly. 

To me, the soundness of moral subjectivism almost seems obvious at this point. I feel like I would only need a few premises to construct a sound deductive argument for subjectivism. 1) There is nothing intrinsically normative about anything in nature. 2) Humans are something in nature. 3) There is nothing intrinsically normative with regard to humans. QED. But, in a certain sense, it’s not even a real ethical system, since it doesn’t tell you what you ought to do. In fact, it tells you that there is nothing that you absolutely ought to do. In a way, it’s really more like a lack of an ethical system?

For convenience, though, there are still some general guidelines that I like to follow with regard to morality. 1) Don’t justify my actions using invalid logic or false claims. Whenever possible, use sound logic and evidence. 2) Rely on my instincts; this is, ultimately, the only source of morality, so I have to do this. However, I should recognize what my instincts are urging me to feel, think, and do. Don’t allow them to impair my thinking. 3) Be open-minded. 

As a result of applying these three rules, I also like to apply a lot of other ideas, more roughly. For example, I like the negative golden rule, ‘don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you,’ and, ‘if you don’t know what others want or don’t want to be done to them,’ ask first. I also kind of like virtue ethics when judging people, and some convenient version of utilitarianism when judging actions. 

Your response to the idea is actually really refreshing. Usually, I get something like, ‘So, why don’t you just go out and murder people?” or “Then, what right do you have to say that Hitler is wrong?”

curious_george wrote:
So then, when you love someone...is that pointless too? And are humans even capable of love...or is it just a desire to reproduce? People are always searching for joy. They are always searching for love. Always searching for peace. Ask the people who have lived, the elderly, the wise-ones. what did they spend their life searching for...what is the most important thing in life...and a good majority will answer love. Because with love comes joy, and peace. What do you search for?

I search for happiness. Happiness is my word of choice. I suppose love is a part of that.

Is it pointless? In an absolute sense, yes. In the long run, I don't think anything you do matters. Unless you accomplish some great things and become famous, in a thousand years, everyone will probably have forgotten you.

So then, some people would ask what's the point in searching for happiness. The answer to that is, well, because I want to be happy. I like being happy, so I'm going to try to be happy. That's really all there is to it.   

Edit: Are humans capable of love? I don't know. That probably depends on how you're defining love. I do know that we are capable of more than just a desire to reproduce. We can have a desire for companionship, to have a friend that's always there for us; we can appreciate someone for their personality, kindness, intelligence, etc.

This is a bit irrelevant, but it's interesting to mention. Evolution selects for genes that would make sex pleasurable because people that like having sex will be more likely to do it, and thus, reproduce. Notice, however, that what is being selected is not strictly a desire to reproduce, but a desire to have sex, to engage in the act that results in reproduction. There's simply no biological function in place which can tell if a person, in having sex, will actually reproduce. Thus, humans can now, using birth control, enjoy the natural pleasure of having sex without actually reproducing.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Pillowpants
atheist
Pillowpants's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2010-01-20
User is offlineOffline
"So, let me get this

"So, let me get this straight (I'm a little slow...stick with me) horse as we think of them now aren't the same as horses originally...but it was still a horse, right? I mean it wasn't a deer...and then over thousands of years became a horse...It was a horse ancestor that became the horse that we think of today. So, a horse will never be a non horse? There are no in-between phases because it happens everyday...and you can't use fossils as evidence because that would require DNA testing? Or you can but nobody is smart enough to check the DNA to see if it is mutating. Seems like it would be a simple thing to prove. All you would have to do was pick an animal, any random animal, run DNA tests on it. Then breed it, and run DNA tests on that. ect. Right?? So, if we came from apes we could breed with them? (YUCK!!)"

 

What he was saying was that biology itself makes no distinction of horses, humans, or dogs.  Horses are simply what we call the animal that looks like a horse.  We have a pretty well documented evolution from a fox like creature to a horse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

There is no limit to the amount of of variation that can occur, but after a while a whole new species is created.  The biblical and creationist term "kind" or "type" is not a scientific term.  And no science supports that a rat like creature could not possible evolve into primates.  Since creationists are really the only ones the use "kind" as a scientific term they can change the meaning whenever they want.  For instance Answers is Genesis once said that all finches were of the same "kind"  While on a separate occasion they said all dinosaurs were of the same kind and all fish were of the same kind.  If creationists would acknowledge some of the evidence for evolution I bet they would just lower the bar and say that all mammals are of the same kind, still disproving evolution in there minds.  Scientists were barely able sequence the Neanderthal genome (Samples roughly 50-30 thousand years old)  So we can't DNA test transitional fossils that we find.  DNA does mutate though, that is why there is a new flu shot every season,  human DNA mutates too, that is why we have ethnicity.  If black people and white people stayed out of contact of each other for another 100,000-300,000 years we would be separate species after some time.  In the modern world however seems unlikely that humans while diverge into separate species any time in the foreseeable future.  While chimpanzees and humans have less DNA difference between them than a horse and zebra, which are able to breed. I believe that is because the male chromosome for chimps and humans are at least 30% different.  It's very unlikely that humans could breed with chimps because of the large differences of chromosome Y.

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Creationists who talk about

Creationists who talk about "macro-evolution" being unproven or impossible are obliged to demonstrate any evidence for some mechanism that continually checks the DNA, to make sure it doesn't get too far away from some reference standard, which would be necessary to define a 'species', or perhaps a 'kind'. Without something like that, there is nothing to stop variations of DNA by various observed processes of gene duplication, deletion, swapping, and simple copying error, from drifting indefinetely far from the "original".

Where in the cell is the unchanging reference that is always copied perfectly since 'creation', that limits evolution to "micro"?

[Edited for minor typos and punctuation]

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pillowpants
atheist
Pillowpants's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2010-01-20
User is offlineOffline
 @ Bob SpenceTell Kent

 @ Bob Spence

Tell Kent Hovind that, he will not listen.  I guarantee it.


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:
.

 

 

butterbattle wrote:
Edit: Are humans capable of love? I don't know. That probably depends on how you're defining love. I do know that we are capable of more than just a desire to reproduce. We can have a desire for companionship, to have a friend that's always there for us; we can appreciate someone for their personality, kindness, intelligence, etc.
I believe they are. For me...sometimes it overflows. I would die for each and every one of my siblings...i have 5 brothers and 3 sisters....i would, no second thoughts...it would come naturally. Theres more to it than that but that is the strongest way I can think to describe the depth of love I feel...for people in general.

 

Actually, I should probably qualify my statement about nothing being random because this partly reflects my own bias on the topic. So, I'll mention quantum mechanics again (sorry).

Figures. Time to head to the library to check out a quantum mechanics book.

butterbattle wrote:
Plagiarizing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random#In_the_physical_sciences 

There are some processes we've observed that are at least ostensibly random: the decay of a single atom or genetic mutations. However, in some "interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random." I disagree with that. I don't know much about quantum mechanics yet, so it's possible that I'm only maintaining this stance tentatively because I'm motivated by determinism and because it's much more intuitive, but to me, that there is some more fundamental description/variable we haven't discovered yet seems more logical than that quantum events are simply random. 

*sigh* Actually, I take everything back. Just forget everything I said about randomness and quantum mechanics.

*Stares blankly at screen* Umm...I can't wait to start my science classes.... I think that I would agree with you about the quantum events not being random. (I hope thats what you were saying)   Its been my experience that (God or no God) everthing has an order and a purpose in that order. Our bodies wouldn't work right without our heart. Leaves wouldn't be green without chlorophyll. We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon-dioxide, plants inhale carbon-dioxide and exhale oxygen. Its the circle of life. Even Cellular mitosis and meiosis have an order. 

curious_george wrote:
Or are you saying that they assign meaning to having a purpose but each one chooses a different purpose they think means more. 

butterbattle wrote:
Eh…I’m not sure what you mean.

Yes, I think we assign “meaning” and “value.” We give our purposes meaning. Not everyone assigns the same value to the same things.

Thats what I meant. But I'm a girl; and we take the long way of saying things.

curious_george wrote:
 find that statement very odd. The meaning of life is chocolate ice cream. I actually find that kind of brilliant in a hilarious way.

butterbattle wrote:
It’s kind of funny, because I actually got that analogy from someone who was using it to criticize moral subjectivism. Here, the argument is that what we consider morally right or wrong is analogous to our personal preference of ice cream flavors is simply unacceptable. Therefore, moral subjectivism must be wrong. I've bitten the bullet on this long before I heard the ice cream analogy, so I really liked the analogy even though it was supposed to be bad because it explains my position perfectly. 
Tee hee!! Lucky you!

butterbattle wrote:
To me, the soundness of moral subjectivism almost seems obvious at this point. I feel like I would only need a few premises to construct a sound deductive argument for subjectivism. 1) There is nothing intrinsically normative about anything in nature. 2) Humans are something in nature. 3) There is nothing intrinsically normative with regard to humans. QED. But, in a certain sense, it’s not even a real ethical system, since it doesn’t tell you what you ought to do. In fact, it tells you that there is nothing that you absolutely ought to do. In a way, it’s really more like a lack of an ethical system?
Okay...I think I might maybe understand that. no...no...I'm confused. Please expand this.

butterbattle wrote:
For convenience, though, there are still some general guidelines that I like to follow with regard to morality. 1) Don’t justify my actions using invalid logic or false claims. Whenever possible, use sound logic and evidence. 2) Rely on my instincts; this is, ultimately, the only source of morality, so I have to do this. However, I should recognize what my instincts are urging me to feel, think, and do. Don’t allow them to impair my thinking. 3) Be open-minded. 
1)What do you do when its not possible to use sound logic and evidence? Does that ever happen? 2) So in other words, have self-control. 3) I respect that.

butterbattle wrote:
As a result of applying these three rules, I also like to apply a lot of other ideas, more roughly. For example, I like the negative golden rule, ‘don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you,’ and, ‘if you don’t know what others want or don’t want to be done to them,’ ask first. I also kind of like virtue ethics when judging people, and some convenient version of utilitarianism when judging actions. 
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Thats in the Bible. I could go look up the verse, but you probably already know where it is and I dont want to go search through boxes for my Bible...LOL   Could you define judging...the word has such a negative connotation....

butterbattle wrote:
Your response to the idea is actually really refreshing. Usually, I get something like, ‘So, why don’t you just go out and murder people?” or “Then, what right do you have to say that Hitler is wrong?”

Well those are just childish ploys to make themselves feel smarter. I can picture the look on their faces now. LOL...And the answer to those questions are painfully obvious.

curious_george wrote:
So then, when you love someone...is that pointless too? And are humans even capable of love...or is it just a desire to reproduce? People are always searching for joy. They are always searching for love. Always searching for peace. Ask the people who have lived, the elderly, the wise-ones. what did they spend their life searching for...what is the most important thing in life...and a good majority will answer love. Because with love comes joy, and peace. What do you search for?

butterbattle wrote:
I search for happiness. Happiness is my word of choice. I suppose love is a part of that.

Is it pointless? In an absolute sense, yes. In the long run, I don't think anything you do matters. Unless you accomplish some great things and become famous, in a thousand years, everyone will probably have forgotten you.

Its not about who knows of you in the future, its about who you affect in the present. Fame is fleeting anyways.

butterbattle wrote:
So then, some people would ask what's the point in searching for happiness. The answer to that is, well, because I want to be happy. I like being happy, so I'm going to try to be happy. That's really all there is to it.
  Interesting. *rubs chin, pretending to have a beard* Very interesting.

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


curious_george
curious_george's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
 curious_george wrote:"So,

 

curious_george wrote:
"So, let me get this straight (I'm a little slow...stick with me) horse as we think of them now aren't the same as horses originally...but it was still a horse, right? I mean it wasn't a deer...and then over thousands of years became a horse...It was a horse ancestor that became the horse that we think of today. So, a horse will never be a non horse? There are no in-between phases because it happens everyday...and you can't use fossils as evidence because that would require DNA testing? Or you can but nobody is smart enough to check the DNA to see if it is mutating. Seems like it would be a simple thing to prove. All you would have to do was pick an animal, any random animal, run DNA tests on it. Then breed it, and run DNA tests on that. ect. Right?? So, if we came from apes we could breed with them? (YUCK!!)"

 

pillowpants wrote:
What he was saying was that biology itself makes no distinction of horses, humans, or dogs.  Horses are simply what we call the animal that looks like a horse.  We have a pretty well documented evolution from a fox like creature to a horse.
Yes...so I now see.

pillowpants wrote:
There is no limit to the amount of of variation that can occur, but after a while a whole new species is created.  The biblical and creationist term "kind" or "type" is not a scientific term.  And no science supports that a rat like creature could not possible evolve into primates.  Since creationists are really the only ones the use "kind" as a scientific term they can change the meaning whenever they want.  For instance Answers is Genesis once said that all finches were of the same "kind"  While on a separate occasion they said all dinosaurs were of the same kind and all fish were of the same kind.
Yes... but they are different kinds of kinds.
pillowpants wrote:
 If creationists would acknowledge some of the evidence for evolution  I bet they would just lower the bar and say that all mammals are of the same kind, still disproving evolution in there minds.  
How does this logically follow? I don't understand. 
pillowpants wrote:
Scientists were barely able sequence the Neanderthal genome (Samples roughly 50-30 thousand years old)  So we can't DNA test transitional fossils that we find.  DNA does mutate though, that is why there is a new flu shot every season,  human DNA mutates too, that is why we have ethnicity.  If black people and white people stayed out of contact of each other for another 100,000-300,000 years we would be separate species after some time.  In the modern world however seems unlikely that humans while diverge into separate species any time in the foreseeable future.
I wouldn't think so either. 
pillowpants wrote:
 While chimpanzees and humans have less DNA difference between them than a horse and zebra, which are able to breed. I believe that is because the male chromosome for chimps and humans are at least 30% different.  It's very unlikely that humans could breed with chimps because of the large differences of chromosome Y.
That is super interesting! I collect random facts. I didn't know that....cool.

 

 

 

 

 

2
"Oh say I'm happy!!"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
curious_george wrote:*Stares

 

curious_george wrote:
*Stares blankly at screen* Umm...I can't wait to start my science classes.... I think that I would agree with you about the quantum events not being random. (I hope thats what you were saying)
 

Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying. Although the topic is still being debated and researched, I think a majority of physicists now hold that there is some inherent randomness to the universe. I find the idea to be nonsensical, but that may just be because it's extremely counterintuitive.   

curious_george wrote:
Its been my experience that (God or no God) everthing has an order and a purpose in that order. Our bodies wouldn't work right without our heart. Leaves wouldn't be green without chlorophyll. We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon-dioxide, plants inhale carbon-dioxide and exhale oxygen. Its the circle of life. Even Cellular mitosis and meiosis have an order.

While I'm rather skeptical about the idea, I don't think all causality would be lost IF the universe had some fundamentally random characteristics. I do think it's possible that such fluctuations would cancel out at larger sizes.

What do you mean by "order?" My problem with this quantum randomness idea is that if it is true, then the universe isn't really 'deterministic.' That doesn't seem to be what you mean here? Is it?

curious_george wrote:
Okay...I think I might maybe understand that. no...no...I'm confused. Please expand this.

Okay.

Well, I wrote two different things here. 

First, I stated that I think I can construct a sound deductive argument for moral subjectivism. But, I suppose it's debatable; or at least, people do debate about it. It's at least valid. Obviously, if the premises are true, then it's sound. The argument was that if we assume that there is nothing intrinsically special about humans, and we're just animals, then there clearly aren't any absolute morals. Is it wrong for colonies of ants to wage war on each other? Is it wrong for the moon to orbit around the Earth? 

Second, I said moral subjectivism was more like a lack of a moral theory. What I mean is that usually, people construct moral theories to try to figure out what you absolutely should do and what you absolutely should not do. Meta-ethical relativisms, like subjectivism, come and say there is nothing that you absolutely should or should not do. Essentially, it's saying that there are no true moral theories, and there can't be.   

curious_george wrote:
1)What do you do when its not possible to use sound logic and evidence? Does that ever happen?

Yes, it happens. I can only use logic and evidence to an extent, to make sure that my beliefs do not contradict reality. In the end, I always have to rely on my instincts, because, in a sense, these morals aren't actually found in reality.

curious_george wrote:
2) So in other words, have self-control.

Eh….sort of?

I think of it as, in quite a few words, simply recognizing and reflecting on what you’re naturally predisposed or culturally conditioned to do and feel.

Here’s a hypothetical example that came up on this forum. Suppose that my family has a dog, an old Labrador Retriever. One day, the dog dies of age. My family could have buried him in the backyard or cremated him and placed his ashes next to the fireplace or something. However, since we’re Chinese, someone suggests that we should ground his body up and use him to make dog and celery dumplings!

Now, if you’re like most Americans, your immediate response to this is probably disgust. Your next emotion might be sadness or even anger. With 2), what I would want you to do is to, unlike most Americans (most people, in fact), really ask yourself why you’re disgusted and sad/angry, etc? The dog was dead, and the family did love the dog, so why is it wrong? Is it callous? Irresponsible? If you saw the family eating the dog, what might you say?

My conclusion to this is that it is not cruel. It is not unfair. It is not necessarily disrespectful. I’m simply conditioned and/or predisposed to feel that eating some kinds of pets is wrong.

(Yes, I’m Chinese. No, I’ve never eaten dog.)

curious_george wrote:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Thats in the Bible. I could go look up the verse, but you probably already know where it is and I dont want to go search through boxes for my Bible...LOL

Lol. I did know it was in the Bible, but I couldn’t remember where, so I had to look it up. Btw, you can just search for it on google.

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Luke 6:31

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12 

curious_george wrote:
Could you define judging...the word has such a negative connotation....

I just mean, say, "Forming an opinion about someone or something."

I think, when used negatively, judging means forming an unfavorable opinion about someone based on their physical appearance or other external traits.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Usually,

butterbattle wrote:
Usually, I get something like, ‘So, why don’t you just go out and murder people?” or “Then, what right do you have to say that Hitler is wrong?”

curious_george wrote:
Well those are just childish ploys to make themselves feel smarter. I can picture the look on their faces now. LOL...And the answer to those questions are painfully obvious.

Oh, I wish it was as obvious for most people as it is for you.

My response to the first one would be, "I don't want to." To the second one, I would say, "I don't have any 'right,' but I'm going to do it anyways." 

curious_george wrote:
Its not about who knows of you in the future, its about who you affect in the present. Fame is fleeting anyways.

Right! 

curious_george wrote:
Yes... but they are different kinds of kinds.

...

How does this logically follow? I don't understand. 

Yep, they are different kinds of kinds. That's exactly the point. 

The fact that populations of organisms change is so obvious that virtually anyone who is skeptical of evolution will probably hold that organisms can only change to a certain extent. So, Creationists will often say that organisms can only change within their own "kind." But, in order for this claim to be evaluated, we need a precise definition for "kind," and Creationists seem to be very reluctant to offer one.

They can't simply give examples of "kinds," like a dog, a cat, etc. This doesn't tell us anything about what a "kind" actually is, giving us no criteria for determining other kinds, not to mention that unscientific animal groups like "dogs" and "cats" are ambiguous. A lot of times, they refer to the Old Testament, pointing out that God made all living creatures after their own "kind," or *insert scripture of choice.* This simply becomes circular, and, again, gives us no tools for determining what is a kind.   

If a kind is just a species, a group of organisms that can interbreed, then we know that organisms can change into other kinds. We have documented, observed examples of speciation. But, typically, Creationists don't want to admit they're wrong, so they will simply retreat to any arbitrary intuitive grouping where they don't think the evidence would pile up too much against them, which is why we get, "It's still a virus," "It's still a finch," "It's still a dog (Note: As in the canidae family, because someone presented evidence for the domestication of wolves.)," "It's still a fish," etc. (I have personally observed people making all four of these comments, including the last one.) And, in the end, even all this ad hocing doesn't completely keep them safe, which I find quite hilarious.

Mudskipper website

It's still a fish...that's walking on land?

Wired

It's still an animal...that makes chlorophyll?

National Geographic

It's still a dinosaur...with feathers? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare