So I have a bunch of friends who are Atheists. Some are more into it than others; I tend to avoid the ones who are really into it, because honestly it creeps me out a little.
Maybe it's because I wasn't raised particularly religious, and had almost no childhood exposure to organized religion.
Maybe it's because I was raised in the relatively religion-neutral Pacific Northwest. I don't really have anything to react against.
But I completely don't understand identifying oneself based on something that doesn't exist. I can't even really wrap my head around it. What does it mean? Hey guys I'm not a person who believes in a thing that doesn't exist!
I guess technically I'm an atheist; I don't believe in a god per se, although I do believe in my own existence and the existence of biological systems and therefore I suppose I believe in the great ecosystem of which we are a part, which is, in a sense, god. To me.
I'm not really sure what god is or what it means, outside of the religions which spell out what it means. I don't believe in those. I wouldn't call myself an atheist (because that makes absolutely no sense to me) but I'm not religious. However, I don't generally define myself by what I'm not. There are far, far too many things that I am not than things that I am, and unlike the God that Atheists define themselves by not believing in :? most of those things actually exist.
One of my friends/rivals, a crazy nascent biologist and slightly scary Atheist dude, is actually taking a class on Atheism this term. I am thinking that maybe I should take that class, it might explain a few things for me, about these people who define themselves by not believing in something that doesn't exist.
On a scale of 1-5 (1= God is Real, 5 = LOL GOD) Most Atheists are about 4-4.5 anyone who says they're a 5 I do no business with them. If you're a different shade of Agnostic then that's completely different. You should totally take the class though. Just hope your body is prepared for the smugness that plagues that community.
I see atheism as a positive statement of belief: "I believe there is no God." The safest path, if presented with "maybe there is a God and if there is he wants to to worship him as part of this religion" is to go along with it on the off chance that they're right (assuming there's nothing outrageous about the religion beyond believing in a sky pixie). Atheism means deliberately taking the less safe path, because you're all being ridiculous and seriously, you guys. As obnoxious as loud atheists are, they're not much louder than converts to other beliefs.
I know God exists. I got my tongue stuck in a printer once.
Anyway, I think the idea of a class on this is either going to be 169% WIN or 169% FAIL. It will either examine atheism (WIN) or preach it (May as well have enrolled at Liberty University at that rate).
I'm a little surprised that there is a class on atheism. Lesson 1: God does not exist. Lesson 2: God does not exist. etc. Maybe that's oversimplifying atheism, but I don't see what there is to learn about it. Or why books are written about it, or what have you. Some people don't believe in gods. Cool.
I see what you're saying Nigel. It's like if I were to define myself as a non-extraterrestrial whose profession is not plumbing.
There's a bit of me that thinks maybe there's a god, like a character or whatever. There's an even smaller bit of me (370 neurons approx) that thinks the character might exists and be exactly like he is in one of the books. The rest just thinks it's plain silly and someone who bases life decisions on fifth-hand accounts of what this fellow might be up to is pretty ridiculous and (more importantly) funny as shit.
I used to be an angry atheist, like these assholes were telling me stuff I had to do and stuff I wasn't allowed to on account of god and that pissed me off. And another part of me took offence to the precise level of dumb but then I mellowed and jaded and shit and nowadays I don't tend to get pissed off at retardedness much. There's too much of it and not enough rage. Laughing at any bits I come across is a much more enjoyable way to spend existence.
... or may god strike me down
-
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2013, 07:34:33 PM
If you asked me my religious affiliation, I would say atheist-agnostic.
However, I don't strongly identify as such because, in all honesty, religion does not have that big an impact on how I live my life.
This might change, since I now live in a far more religious country. But probably not. I assign religion a low importance, and since atheism clearly relates to that, it gets a low ranking as well.
This! I sure as hell don't identify myself as anything, hindu, muslim, athiest whatever. Anyone asks me my spiritual beliefs - I don't have any. Simple
Some people's religion is so awful it should probably be illegal to teach it to children. That is where I imagine most of the really enthusiastic atheists come from. I mean, can you imagine being raised by Michelle Bachmann and Ted Cruz? That's bound to leave some mental scars.
A disturbing number of children are brought up being told that the universe was, in a nutshell, created by a child molesting sky fairy who loves his children so much he will throw them down in his rape basement and sodomize them with his fire cock for ever and ever if they don't love him back hard enough. And also, (little billy/suzie), we love him more than we love you, because he says so.
I imagine some of them have some kind of PTSD or something caused by the childhood trauma of being raised by crazy people. They may even have some underlying genetic disorder. I have had a theory for a while that religious denominations tend to attract people of particular genetic mental predispositions. The beliefs of some of these denominations tend to discourage people from marrying outside the church, so they breed with other people with similar genetic predispositions. The resulting children then inherit this genetic predisposition and hand it down to their children. It's natural selection for crazy.
Quote from: Emo Howard on September 30, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
I have had a theory for a while that religious denominations tend to attract people of particular genetic mental predispositions.
I wanted to say something else, but when i read this i completely forgot what i wanted to say.
Seriously? genetic mental predispositions? I have a book on genetics you really should read.
Anyway, If asked about my religion i would now say "Go away" or "Leave me alone".
I identify as an atheist. I am not, of course, completely atheist. It's just that the word "atheist" tends to shut down conversation, which is the fastest way to approximately (though not really accurately) convey the sentiment "nothing you can say to me about your beliefs will mean anything to me, so please don't try." Maybe that's an intellectually violent way to put it, but I'm comfortable enough with my experience with religious people to assume they do not hold any new or intriguing information.
As for what I actually believe, I can only refer to a line of thinking, not to anything like a final conclusion. I know there is more to reality than what I can sense directly. That in fact there are whole universes that I cannot even imagine, let alone experience, as a 3-and-a-half-dimensional biped. It is precisely this fact that makes all human religions seem completely asinine. Why the fuck would a God who transcends everything be even remotely similar to humans? There's no possible way we can quantify such a being, if we're being honest, much less use that quantification as any reasonable basis for our behavior.
Quote from: Sad Sack on September 30, 2013, 06:33:24 PM
I see atheism as a positive statement of belief: "I believe there is no God." The safest path, if presented with "maybe there is a God and if there is he wants to to worship him as part of this religion" is to go along with it on the off chance that they're right (assuming there's nothing outrageous about the religion beyond believing in a sky pixie). Atheism means deliberately taking the less safe path, because you're all being ridiculous and seriously, you guys. As obnoxious as loud atheists are, they're not much louder than converts to other beliefs.
Damning with faint praise? :lol:
I guess the fact that atheism isn't "less safe" in my region has a lot to do with my bafflement. I mean, most people assume that you're not religious unless you say you are.
The idea of going along with religion in case they're right doesn't really make sense to me. People apply that principle to
virtually no other aspect of life.
Quote from: Reverend What's His Bear on September 30, 2013, 06:31:04 PM
On a scale of 1-5 (1= God is Real, 5 = LOL GOD) Most Atheists are about 4-4.5 anyone who says they're a 5 I do no business with them. If you're a different shade of Agnostic then that's completely different. You should totally take the class though. Just hope your body is prepared for the smugness that plagues that community.
My body is not ready. I mean, what am I supposed to say? "Congratulations"?
Quote from: Emo Howard on September 30, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
Some people's religion is so awful it should probably be illegal to teach it to children. That is where I imagine most of the really enthusiastic atheists come from. I mean, can you imagine being raised by Michelle Bachmann and Ted Cruz? That's bound to leave some mental scars.
A disturbing number of children are brought up being told that the universe was, in a nutshell, created by a child molesting sky fairy who loves his children so much he will throw them down in his rape basement and sodomize them with his fire cock for ever and ever if they don't love him back hard enough. And also, (little billy/suzie), we love him more than we love you, because he says so.
I imagine some of them have some kind of PTSD or something caused by the childhood trauma of being raised by crazy people. They may even have some underlying genetic disorder. I have had a theory for a while that religious denominations tend to attract people of particular genetic mental predispositions. The beliefs of some of these denominations tend to discourage people from marrying outside the church, so they breed with other people with similar genetic predispositions. The resulting children then inherit this genetic predisposition and hand it down to their children. It's natural selection for crazy.
Somewhere there's a fascinating talk by Robert Sapolsky, who in fact shares at least significant portions of your opinion. It's pretty well-documented that there's a heritable component to many psychological disorders, including schizophrenia, which is relevant because the families of schizophrenics are more likely to hold irrational beliefs and show other signs of what has been named "Schizotypal Personality Disorder". It's not really a mental illness per se, but it does fit into a particular niche where a person is pretty much fully functional, but has beliefs that are clearly delusional. Socially-acceptable, perhaps eccentric, but delusional. The problem, of course, is that there is a spectrum effect and it's really really hard to say "This is where normal ends and schizotypal begins". Sapolsky's hypothesis is that, indeed, religion and similarly delusional beliefs are generated by this sort of mild madness, and then there is a sort of confirmation of popularity effect; you get enough slightly mad but functional and well-respected people believing the same delusional belief, perhaps you get a community leader who is charismatic and visionary (and slightly mad), and other people who aren't necessarily susceptible to delusions will start suspending their disbelief and going along with it, you get groupthink.
This talk is, of course, very controversial for a number of different reasons. It really pisses people off. I'll try to find it.
I'm kinda in a similar situation to OP, in that i don't worship any gods, yet i dont identify myself as an atheist. Despite not worshipping any particular deity(does invoking Eris in order to troll a wiccan circle count?), I recently became a member of the Unitarian Universalists. How do i justify this? My view is, that there is no inherent meaning in the universe, only that which we create from the chaos that surrounds us. each of us makes up a story about how the world is as we go, based on what we think about the stuff we're exposed to. In this view, just about anything anybody believes is probably true to them, insofar as they really believe it and aren't just doing it to fit in.
So gods are pretty much ideas that influence people, and through people, the world. It doesn't matter if there actually is a big bearded guy in the sky somewhere, for as much as it affects what i can interact with, sometimes the belief is enough. Studies have shown that faith and religion can actually have measurable effects on mood; membership in an organized religion has been linked to higher levels of life satisfaction and happiness. So if praying to Odin helps a soldier stay alive one more day in Afghanistan, who am I judge? Why should i take that away, if it works for him? That's what i don't like about certain atheists, those that share that same instinct of OMG I MADE A LIFE DECISION FOR MYSELF AND NOW YOU NEED TO MAKE THE SAME ONE! COME READ OUR INFORMATIVE PAMPHLETS-I MEAN RESEARCH STUDIES!
I am an Atheist, I just happen to not give a fuck if anybody knows it or not, and really could care less about the religion of others. I mean, I think it's pretty silly to get worked up over phantom sky-faeries, but if it makes people happy, meh , who am I to ruin their fun?
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 30, 2013, 10:22:16 PM
Quote from: Sad Sack on September 30, 2013, 06:33:24 PM
I see atheism as a positive statement of belief: "I believe there is no God." The safest path, if presented with "maybe there is a God and if there is he wants to to worship him as part of this religion" is to go along with it on the off chance that they're right (assuming there's nothing outrageous about the religion beyond believing in a sky pixie). Atheism means deliberately taking the less safe path, because you're all being ridiculous and seriously, you guys. As obnoxious as loud atheists are, they're not much louder than converts to other beliefs.
Damning with faint praise? :lol:
I guess the fact that atheism isn't "less safe" in my region has a lot to do with my bafflement. I mean, most people assume that you're not religious unless you say you are.
The idea of going along with religion in case they're right doesn't really make sense to me. People apply that principle to virtually no other aspect of life.
It was one of the popular arguments for religion for a while. It doesn't work so well anymore, in part because we're more open to the idea that maybe brown people or our ancestors aren't COMPLETELY fucking idiotic, but also because Christianity has fragmented so hard that the odds you pick the right deity
and denomination aren't much better than if you don't bother to participate in the lottery.
The husband is a loud atheist. There are times I wish he was not.
I hear the "religion is bad and here's why" argument sometimes, but then I look around at other human systems and note that it really doesn't seem to be specific to religion at all.
I'm apolitical because of how many wars politics keeps causing. I think we should stop teaching politics to our children.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 30, 2013, 11:00:49 PM
I hear the "my religion was bad and here's why i'm going to vent my lingering frustrations with the traditions i was brought up in to you " argument sometimes, but then I look around at other human systems and note that it really doesn't seem to be specific to religion at all.
Fixed :lulz:
I consider myself a Gnostic these days. Which is basically playing Russian Roulette with whomever is manning the Prayer Desk at a particular moment. You never know who you're gonna get, and this weekend was a prime example of that: I win the Street Painting Festival, and then I get a kidney stone that puts me in the hospital. That to me sounds like Loki had the white courtesy phone this time.
However, my big issue with Atheists is their form of activism. I do not agree with the petitioning and abuse of the ACLU in order to remove something with a cross on it that's been standing since before they were born (We have a memorial in Woonsocket from WWI that is a marble cross. Atheists, from NOT EVEN RHODE ISLAND from like, Cleveland, tried to sue the city to have it removed. O_O) I don't agree with them goading fights for the sake of doing it. In my opinion, an Atheist should acknowledge and respect that others around them have religious faith and simply respecting that. Taking it to the next level of offending people is just wrong.
I flip so hard back and forth and all over the place. when it comes to picking a faith its like trying to pick a starter pokemon, half way threw the game I just delete everything and start over to get a new one. sometimes the same one I got before. Im trying REALLY hard to stop the pattern but... I like the struggle I guess. I dont think a person can even be a religion its impossible for two people to look at something the same. I cant echo any metaphysical beliefs. discord strikes a hell of a cord with me.
I think I was an Atheist once but it didn't do anything for me, I'd much rather pretend to be a God even if I was making it up.
Quote from: Pæs on October 01, 2013, 12:19:10 AM
I'm apolitical because of how many wars politics keeps causing. I think we should stop teaching politics to our children.
:lulz:
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 01, 2013, 12:40:09 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 30, 2013, 11:00:49 PM
I hear the "my religion was bad and here's why i'm going to vent my lingering frustrations with the traditions i was brought up in to you " argument sometimes, but then I look around at other human systems and note that it really doesn't seem to be specific to religion at all.
Fixed :lulz:
Yeah, I think you about nailed it. And I think that possibly I don't "get" atheism because I wasn't raised religious.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 01, 2013, 01:26:26 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 01, 2013, 12:40:09 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 30, 2013, 11:00:49 PM
I hear the "my religion was bad and here's why i'm going to vent my lingering frustrations with the traditions i was brought up in to you " argument sometimes, but then I look around at other human systems and note that it really doesn't seem to be specific to religion at all.
Fixed :lulz:
Yeah, I think you about nailed it. And I think that possibly I don't "get" atheism because I wasn't raised religious.
I was raised by Anglicans. Religion is something you do behind closed doors, and you wash your hands afterward. So, yeah, nothing to rebel against.
1st reply pre-thread-read (i did read OP though)
What i do not like about atheism is its inherent vindictiveness... to me it personally reeks of angry teenager that is trying to "ill-show-you-people!!!". It's more a matter of tone rather than posture, I can emphatize with "silent atheists" that don't run amok among the world preaching it or thinking they are so special and "radical" thinking their belief makes them better people.
In fact the goddamn tone of of "holier than thou" directly parallels to "smarter than thou" which each respective clan generally represents... "oh, im a miserable fuck bordering on sociopathy, but im religious so that makes me righteous" contrasted to "oh, im so intellectually superior, me is uber-menschen!!!"... NO, BOTH OF YOU, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I dont care what your belief system is (anymore), what i care about is what you DO, not what you SAY. If being religious, or being a-religious gives the same conclusion of you being a monster then what difference does it make?
I'm agnostic, because believing god doesnt exist is as good in the scale of critical thinking as believing god exists. Stop bothering me with your silly answers to silly questions, monkeys, im KIND OF busy doing things that dont pertain to invisible unperceptible beings!
The reason I WISH I was an atheist...
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/hostage1.jpg)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2013, 07:31:44 PM
I used to be an angry atheist, like these assholes were telling me stuff I had to do and stuff I wasn't allowed to on account of god and that pissed me off. And another part of me took offence to the precise level of dumb but then I mellowed and jaded and shit and nowadays I don't tend to get pissed off at retardedness much. There's too much of it and not enough rage. Laughing at any bits I come across is a much more enjoyable way to spend existence.
See this is kind of what i was refering to, ex-angry-atheist grew out of it.
Not mocking you, just meta-referencing my above comment.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 02:22:09 AM
The reason I WISH I was an atheist...
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/hostage1.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: The Johnny on October 01, 2013, 02:19:33 AM
1st reply pre-thread-read (i did read OP though)
What i do not like about atheism is its inherent vindictiveness... to me it personally reeks of angry teenager that is trying to "ill-show-you-people!!!". It's more a matter of tone rather than posture, I can emphatize with "silent atheists" that don't run amok among the world preaching it or thinking they are so special and "radical" thinking their belief makes them better people.
In fact the goddamn tone of of "holier than thou" directly parallels to "smarter than thou" which each respective clan generally represents... "oh, im a miserable fuck bordering on sociopathy, but im religious so that makes me righteous" contrasted to "oh, im so intellectually superior, me is uber-menschen!!!"... NO, BOTH OF YOU, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I dont care what your belief system is (anymore), what i care about is what you DO, not what you SAY. If being religious, or being a-religious gives the same conclusion of you being a monster then what difference does it make?
I'm agnostic, because believing god doesnt exist is as good in the scale of critical thinking as believing god exists. Stop bothering me with your silly answers to silly questions, monkeys, im KIND OF busy doing things that dont pertain to invisible unperceptible beings!
haha. bolded is pretty much where I stand. I describe myself as a hardcore agnostic for reasons that are- it winds up the uber-atheism crowd, and I'm pretty much seen by theists and atheists as a secular humanist, being as I don't know, can't prove either argument and I think the world at large has have more important things to think about, like STOP BEING DICKS TO EACH OTHER. I used to be pretty fucking outlandishly pagan though until about 18 months before I went talky head gremlin crazy and occams razor'd my way through the bonkers using SCIENCE.
Both my religious acquaintances and my atheist friends think my stance is weird tho. they are all BUT ORIGINS! WHY ARE WE HERE? and I'm all quit your navel gazing and encourage people to be less of a dick. Incidentally this is why I like Buddhism and Taoism but without the woo, as it's about ethics.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 30, 2013, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's His Bear on September 30, 2013, 06:31:04 PM
On a scale of 1-5 (1= God is Real, 5 = LOL GOD) Most Atheists are about 4-4.5 anyone who says they're a 5 I do no business with them. If you're a different shade of Agnostic then that's completely different. You should totally take the class though. Just hope your body is prepared for the smugness that plagues that community.
My body is not ready. I mean, what am I supposed to say? "Congratulations"?
Nigel them hard if they start foaming at the mouth. Maybe the community is harmless their in Portland. To clarify any misunderstandings ,Nigel the elective hard as usual.
I think it boils down to agnosticism for me really. Although I will say that, although I am not certain whether or not there is a God, I can say with absolute certainty that if there is one, it is nothing at all like the Abrahamic religions portray it. There's just no possible way that the ultimate power in existence is a petty, grumpy old codger with a serious and peculiar distaste for such specific behaviors.
I believe Atheism requires just as much faith as any other religion. In the end it is still a belief.
that said, I choose to believe in God. I don't exactly know what sort of God I believe in, but I believe God exists. I guess the God I believe in is beyond knowability and it is fallacy to try to completely understand. I choose this because I can't deal with the existential crisis that comes with believing there is no God. I am aware that this may not be rational, but I'm ok with that.
On the topic, without getting too preachy - I had some seriously hard shit to deal with happen to me last summer. I decided to start going to church. I think it really helped me cope and I felt like it was a good idea. I don't go anymore, but I might start going back. I do have serious problems with organized religion as I feel that many, if not all, prey on the weak minded. I continue to think about it and I think that's all anyone should do.
I do have major problems with people that try to push their beliefs onto other people whatever they may be. I think if you find something that works for you and makes you happy, then go with it. But, it's important to realize that someone else may have found something different that works for them and makes them happy. Leave them alone. Compare notes and experiences if you like, but respect the other person's choice.
Agnostics are all filthy fence-sitters who are gonna BURN BURN BURN!
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 04:49:18 AM
Agnostics are all filthy fence-sitters who are gonna BURN BURN BURN!
I have done WAAAY too much LSD to be an (absolute) atheist.
On the other hand, I have also seen too much Current Events coverage to believe in any kind of God who's worth consideration.
Agnosticism is all I have left.
Quote from: V3X on October 01, 2013, 04:58:48 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 04:49:18 AM
Agnostics are all filthy fence-sitters who are gonna BURN BURN BURN!
I have done WAAAY too much LSD to be an (absolute) atheist.
On the other hand, I have also seen too much Current Events coverage to believe in any kind of God who's worth consideration.
Agnosticism is all I have left.
If you consider God malevolent, all the contradictions disappear.
Just saying.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 05:01:12 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 01, 2013, 04:58:48 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 04:49:18 AM
Agnostics are all filthy fence-sitters who are gonna BURN BURN BURN!
I have done WAAAY too much LSD to be an (absolute) atheist.
On the other hand, I have also seen too much Current Events coverage to believe in any kind of God who's worth consideration.
Agnosticism is all I have left.
If you consider God malevolent, all the contradictions disappear.
Just saying.
If God is malevolent, he's already second-best. Hard to imagine a deity wreaking more havoc than we do to ourselves and each other.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 05:01:12 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 01, 2013, 04:58:48 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 04:49:18 AM
Agnostics are all filthy fence-sitters who are gonna BURN BURN BURN!
I have done WAAAY too much LSD to be an (absolute) atheist.
On the other hand, I have also seen too much Current Events coverage to believe in any kind of God who's worth consideration.
Agnosticism is all I have left.
If you consider God malevolent, all the contradictions disappear.
Just saying.
Your avatar improves the quality of this post.
Quote from: V3X on October 01, 2013, 05:09:44 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 05:01:12 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 01, 2013, 04:58:48 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 04:49:18 AM
Agnostics are all filthy fence-sitters who are gonna BURN BURN BURN!
I have done WAAAY too much LSD to be an (absolute) atheist.
On the other hand, I have also seen too much Current Events coverage to believe in any kind of God who's worth consideration.
Agnosticism is all I have left.
If you consider God malevolent, all the contradictions disappear.
Just saying.
If God is malevolent, he's already second-best. Hard to imagine a deity wreaking more havoc than we do to ourselves and each other.
Never read Genesis, have we? :lol:
God also could be stunningly inept, or trying to answer everyone's prayers such that unintended consequences occur.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 01:27:32 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 01, 2013, 01:26:26 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 01, 2013, 12:40:09 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 30, 2013, 11:00:49 PM
I hear the "my religion was bad and here's why i'm going to vent my lingering frustrations with the traditions i was brought up in to you " argument sometimes, but then I look around at other human systems and note that it really doesn't seem to be specific to religion at all.
Fixed :lulz:
Yeah, I think you about nailed it. And I think that possibly I don't "get" atheism because I wasn't raised religious.
I was raised by Anglicans. Religion is something you do behind closed doors, and you wash your hands afterward. So, yeah, nothing to rebel against.
Those are basically the same as Episcopalians, right? Pacifists, ecumenical, anti-bigotry, generally emphasize kindness and keeping out of everyone's face? Yep, nothing to rebel against, really. My ex-husband brought his Episcopal priest home to try to convert me, once. We had a nice conversation and it ended with the priest saying "I see your perspective, and it's valid".
Quote from: The Johnny on October 01, 2013, 02:19:33 AM
1st reply pre-thread-read (i did read OP though)
What i do not like about atheism is its inherent vindictiveness... to me it personally reeks of angry teenager that is trying to "ill-show-you-people!!!". It's more a matter of tone rather than posture, I can emphatize with "silent atheists" that don't run amok among the world preaching it or thinking they are so special and "radical" thinking their belief makes them better people.
In fact the goddamn tone of of "holier than thou" directly parallels to "smarter than thou" which each respective clan generally represents... "oh, im a miserable fuck bordering on sociopathy, but im religious so that makes me righteous" contrasted to "oh, im so intellectually superior, me is uber-menschen!!!"... NO, BOTH OF YOU, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I dont care what your belief system is (anymore), what i care about is what you DO, not what you SAY. If being religious, or being a-religious gives the same conclusion of you being a monster then what difference does it make?
I'm agnostic, because believing god doesnt exist is as good in the scale of critical thinking as believing god exists. Stop bothering me with your silly answers to silly questions, monkeys, im KIND OF busy doing things that dont pertain to invisible unperceptible beings!
Yes.
Quote from: Pixie on October 01, 2013, 03:51:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on October 01, 2013, 02:19:33 AM
1st reply pre-thread-read (i did read OP though)
What i do not like about atheism is its inherent vindictiveness... to me it personally reeks of angry teenager that is trying to "ill-show-you-people!!!". It's more a matter of tone rather than posture, I can emphatize with "silent atheists" that don't run amok among the world preaching it or thinking they are so special and "radical" thinking their belief makes them better people.
In fact the goddamn tone of of "holier than thou" directly parallels to "smarter than thou" which each respective clan generally represents... "oh, im a miserable fuck bordering on sociopathy, but im religious so that makes me righteous" contrasted to "oh, im so intellectually superior, me is uber-menschen!!!"... NO, BOTH OF YOU, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I dont care what your belief system is (anymore), what i care about is what you DO, not what you SAY. If being religious, or being a-religious gives the same conclusion of you being a monster then what difference does it make?
I'm agnostic, because believing god doesnt exist is as good in the scale of critical thinking as believing god exists. Stop bothering me with your silly answers to silly questions, monkeys, im KIND OF busy doing things that dont pertain to invisible unperceptible beings!
haha. bolded is pretty much where I stand. I describe myself as a hardcore agnostic for reasons that are- it winds up the uber-atheism crowd, and I'm pretty much seen by theists and atheists as a secular humanist, being as I don't know, can't prove either argument and I think the world at large has have more important things to think about, like STOP BEING DICKS TO EACH OTHER. I used to be pretty fucking outlandishly pagan though until about 18 months before I went talky head gremlin crazy and occams razor'd my way through the bonkers using SCIENCE.
Both my religious acquaintances and my atheist friends think my stance is weird tho. they are all BUT ORIGINS! WHY ARE WE HERE? and I'm all quit your navel gazing and encourage people to be less of a dick. Incidentally this is why I like Buddhism and Taoism but without the woo, as it's about ethics.
Also yes.
Quote from: rong on October 01, 2013, 04:45:54 AM
I believe Atheism requires just as much faith as any other religion. In the end it is still a belief.
that said, I choose to believe in God. I don't exactly know what sort of God I believe in, but I believe God exists. I guess the God I believe in is beyond knowability and it is fallacy to try to completely understand. I choose this because I can't deal with the existential crisis that comes with believing there is no God. I am aware that this may not be rational, but I'm ok with that.
On the topic, without getting too preachy - I had some seriously hard shit to deal with happen to me last summer. I decided to start going to church. I think it really helped me cope and I felt like it was a good idea. I don't go anymore, but I might start going back. I do have serious problems with organized religion as I feel that many, if not all, prey on the weak minded. I continue to think about it and I think that's all anyone should do.
I do have major problems with people that try to push their beliefs onto other people whatever they may be. I think if you find something that works for you and makes you happy, then go with it. But, it's important to realize that someone else may have found something different that works for them and makes them happy. Leave them alone. Compare notes and experiences if you like, but respect the other person's choice.
I think that churches in the form of active communities that support one another and further a dialogue about treating people right are useful. Any form of active community that furthers that dialogue is useful. I also see horribly dogmatic churches that view anyone not a member of their church as a lesser human being, and those are harmful regardless of the basis of that community. I see a lot of special-interest groups in that light, including some atheist and "science" communities such as Facebook groups.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 01, 2013, 08:07:09 AM
Quote from: rong on October 01, 2013, 04:45:54 AM
I believe Atheism requires just as much faith as any other religion. In the end it is still a belief.
that said, I choose to believe in God. I don't exactly know what sort of God I believe in, but I believe God exists. I guess the God I believe in is beyond knowability and it is fallacy to try to completely understand. I choose this because I can't deal with the existential crisis that comes with believing there is no God. I am aware that this may not be rational, but I'm ok with that.
On the topic, without getting too preachy - I had some seriously hard shit to deal with happen to me last summer. I decided to start going to church. I think it really helped me cope and I felt like it was a good idea. I don't go anymore, but I might start going back. I do have serious problems with organized religion as I feel that many, if not all, prey on the weak minded. I continue to think about it and I think that's all anyone should do.
I do have major problems with people that try to push their beliefs onto other people whatever they may be. I think if you find something that works for you and makes you happy, then go with it. But, it's important to realize that someone else may have found something different that works for them and makes them happy. Leave them alone. Compare notes and experiences if you like, but respect the other person's choice.
I think that churches in the form of active communities that support one another and further a dialogue about treating people right are useful. Any form of active community that furthers that dialogue is useful. I also see horribly dogmatic churches that view anyone not a member of their church as a lesser human being, and those are harmful regardless of the basis of that community. I see a lot of special-interest groups in that light, including some atheist and "science" communities such as Facebook groups.
I fully agree. I live in the boonies and there is a neighborhood bible church that I went to for awhile. On one hand, I really like the church because it is essentially all my neighbors and they are good neighbors and there are always snacks and socialization afterwards. But, I have such a hard time listening to some of the members talk about how they take everything in the bible to be the Truth verbatim, that it makes it hard for me to keep going back.
I'm always amazed of the sisters of charity that help and continue feeding,clothing, and healing the poor in Mexico in spite that socialism was suppose to take care of that.
-
A bunch of born-again freaks tried to brainwash lead me to the light, when I was in my early teens. I took offence and was a kneejerk-athiest for a good while after that :argh!:
I don't really care if God, or gods, exist, and wouldn't worship or bow down to Him or them if they did.
Fuck them, they don't understand the profundity of my lack of self-respect.
Quote from: Waffleman on October 01, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
I don't really care if God, or gods, exist, and wouldn't worship or bow down to Him or them if they did.
I've never met a god who could beat me in a fight - that's my one criterion for a deity to have me worship them.
Overheard in Dunkin Donuts on Sunday-----------------
Beardo wearing a wolf shirt was explaining the world to his friend:
"Here's how I see it --- if you say you don't believe in something, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Because if it didn't exist, why bring it up? It has to exist in order for you to say you don't believe in it. Atheists are essentially hypocrites."
:judge:
CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS
Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2013, 03:11:32 PM
Overheard in Dunkin Donuts on Sunday-----------------
Beardo wearing a wolf shirt was explaining the world to his friend:
"Here's how I see it --- if you say you don't believe in something, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Because if it didn't exist, why bring it up? It has to exist in order for you to say you don't believe in it. Atheists are essentially hypocrites."
:judge:
CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS
Seemed like he was onto a good idea there for a moment. What should have come out of his mouth after why bring it up should have been something along the lines of "there's no point in debating about something that you don't believe in with someone who refuses to also not believe."
I was brought up in a WASP's nest. Raised episcopalian. Was dragged to church every Sunday until I was 15. As a teenager, I went through a series of costume changes.
When you say you're not a christian anymore, people ask "Well then, what DO you believe? What ARE you?" There is an expectation that you have some kind of team affiliation. Sort of like political affiliation. If you're not liberal, you must be conservative. If you're not religious, you must be an atheist.
It's weird though, I hear you -- atheist should refer to somebody that just doesn't have any religious beliefs, or doesn't believe in a god. But it's slowly becoming another group with beliefs and champions.
It's interesting that the definition of atheist has changed over the centuries. Originally it meant "against god", ie, TEAM SATAN
Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2013, 03:19:32 PM
I was brought up in a WASP's nest. Raised episcopalian. Was dragged to church every Sunday until I was 15. As a teenager, I went through a series of costume changes.
When you say you're not a christian anymore, people ask "Well then, what DO you believe? What ARE you?" There is an expectation that you have some kind of team affiliation. Sort of like political affiliation. If you're not liberal, you must be conservative. If you're not religious, you must be an atheist.
It's weird though, I hear you -- atheist should refer to somebody that just doesn't have any religious beliefs, or doesn't believe in a god. But it's slowly becoming another group with beliefs and champions.
It's interesting that the definition of atheist has changed over the centuries. Originally it meant "against god", ie, TEAM SATAN
I thought it meant without god(s) originally? I could see it being used that way in the Middle Ages, but I think the ancient use of the term was similar to ours.
I think though, that there is something about the group identity as far as religious beliefs go that has had an effect on modern atheism. Not only are atheists kinda herded together by theists because everyone needs to be lumped in a group, but people for some reason see it as their business what you believe. Religion and politics are those two things where if someone is something other than you, you become incredulous, question their mental stability and see the need to challenge their beliefs as much as possible. But then there's the flip side of that, if they're the ones doing the preaching. It's real easy to dislike Richard Dawkins (aside from the fact that he's always putting his foot in his mouth) because he's a proselytizer. You don't really see people getting mad at Neil DeGrasse Tyson's agnosticism, because he's not the one bringing it up, says he's agnostic, and moves on.
My parish as a kid didn't really have too much socializing after Mass, so I never really got that community angle afterward. We were just a bunch of Irish people all trying to get out of the same parking lot in order to drive 3 or 4 blocks.
I was actually pretty surprised that that sort of thing exists, when I discovered it. I went to see a friend ordained in an Orthodox Mass, and there was coffee and talking and such afterward. Same thing when I went to church with my Lutheran friends when I was visiting them. Same thing when for a paper and presentation, I went to a Unitarian Universalist service. Coffee and socializing.
To be fair, my parish also ran an elementary school, which hosted other events for the parish, but it was always a "Mass has ended, now get the fuck out of here" sort of thing. I probably would have liked church more if I could get a bunch of free coffee and talk to people.
-
Quote from: Twigel on October 01, 2013, 03:30:23 PM
I thought it meant without god(s) originally? I could see it being used that way in the Middle Ages, but I think the ancient use of the term was similar to ours.
There was atheist thought in ancient times, most definitely -- but I think the word atheist itself didn't start getting tossed around until the 16th century
QuoteI think though, that there is something about the group identity as far as religious beliefs go that has had an effect on modern atheism. Not only are atheists kinda herded together by theists because everyone needs to be lumped in a group, but people for some reason see it as their business what you believe.
While the tribal politics are regrettable, I do think it's good for atheists to be established and visible.
Because I think people need to understand that not everybody is religious. I'd rather have a moment of silence than a moment of prayer. For some reason, you need a group identity for those demands to seem valid. Lots of people assume that if you just make the religious references vague enough (ie "in God we trust") nobody will be left out.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 01, 2013, 03:30:23 PM
I thought it meant without god(s) originally? I could see it being used that way in the Middle Ages, but I think the ancient use of the term was similar to ours.
There was atheist thought in ancient times, most definitely -- but I think the word atheist itself didn't start getting tossed around until the 16th century
QuoteI think though, that there is something about the group identity as far as religious beliefs go that has had an effect on modern atheism. Not only are atheists kinda herded together by theists because everyone needs to be lumped in a group, but people for some reason see it as their business what you believe.
While the tribal politics are regrettable, I do think it's good for atheists to be established and visible.
Because I think people need to understand that not everybody is religious. I'd rather have a moment of silence than a moment of prayer. For some reason, you need a group identity for those demands to seem valid. Lots of people assume that if you just make the religious references vague enough (ie "in God we trust") nobody will be left out.
True.
Also do they have free coffee?
Twid,
Can pretend to be atheist, secretly worship Juan Valdez
The local Unitarian church has a bunch of atheists. They might be a reasonable final destination for your spiritual adventures, since there's coffee and they give zero fucks what you worship or how.
Quote from: Sad Sack on October 01, 2013, 04:08:59 PM
The local Unitarian church has a bunch of atheists. They might be a reasonable final destination for your spiritual adventures, since there's coffee and they give zero fucks what you worship or how.
Funny enough, I thought to eventually sign on as a UU so there's a building to put my coffin in at some point, and the lack of fucks they give would be appropriate.
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2013, 03:42:42 PM
QuoteI was brought up in a WASP's nest.
I was brought up in an actual wasp's nest. You either believed in the Great Hornet Skygod, whose representative on Earth is the hive queen, or you get out.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 01, 2013, 03:30:23 PM
I thought it meant without god(s) originally? I could see it being used that way in the Middle Ages, but I think the ancient use of the term was similar to ours.
There was atheist thought in ancient times, most definitely -- but I think the word atheist itself didn't start getting tossed around until the 16th century
QuoteI think though, that there is something about the group identity as far as religious beliefs go that has had an effect on modern atheism. Not only are atheists kinda herded together by theists because everyone needs to be lumped in a group, but people for some reason see it as their business what you believe.
While the tribal politics are regrettable, I do think it's good for atheists to be established and visible.
Because I think people need to understand that not everybody is religious. I'd rather have a moment of silence than a moment of prayer. For some reason, you need a group identity for those demands to seem valid. Lots of people assume that if you just make the religious references vague enough (ie "in God we trust") nobody will be left out.
That's a valid point.
I have this debate with my wife quite a bit. She's fairly more rabidly atheist than I am. She tends to take any mention of God as a direct personal offense. She wants all references to God, religious texts and traditions, everything removed from public spaces. She will immediately hate a person if they break or even disagree with these points (hopefully myself excluded). Personally, I don't care too much. Public prayer, posting the 10 Commandments, baby Jesus and his crew set up in the park during Christmas time, I don't really consider that enforced religion. It's more cultural than spiritual. The line for me is when those things stop being symbolic and ornamental, and start being the basis for actual public policy.
Quote from: V3X on October 01, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
I have this debate with my wife quite a bit. She's fairly more rabidly atheist than I am. She tends to take any mention of God as a direct personal offense. She wants all references to God, religious texts and traditions, everything removed from public spaces. She will immediately hate a person if they break or even disagree with these points (hopefully myself excluded). Personally, I don't care too much. Public prayer, posting the 10 Commandments, baby Jesus and his crew set up in the park during Christmas time, I don't really consider that enforced religion. It's more cultural than spiritual. The line for me is when those things stop being symbolic and ornamental, and start being the basis for actual public policy.
Your wife is the type of Atheist I can't stand. Sorry.
Quote from: Suu on October 01, 2013, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 01, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
I have this debate with my wife quite a bit. She's fairly more rabidly atheist than I am. She tends to take any mention of God as a direct personal offense. She wants all references to God, religious texts and traditions, everything removed from public spaces. She will immediately hate a person if they break or even disagree with these points (hopefully myself excluded). Personally, I don't care too much. Public prayer, posting the 10 Commandments, baby Jesus and his crew set up in the park during Christmas time, I don't really consider that enforced religion. It's more cultural than spiritual. The line for me is when those things stop being symbolic and ornamental, and start being the basis for actual public policy.
Your wife is the type of Atheist I can't stand. Sorry.
Yeah, she's the type of atheist I can't stand either, but we work it out. We have way more interesting things to fight about anyway.
Here's that Sapolsky lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI
Worth noting:
QuoteTo Dr. Robert Sapolsky, the question of religion isn't whether "God" or gods exist. It's more along the lines of, as he says, "How would a stridently atheistic scientist use neurobiology to make sense out of religion?
"This is irresistible for a neurobiologist," he continues, "but it would be just as easy to try to make sense out of atheism."
(from http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/neurobiologist-robert-sapolsky-spreads-the-good-word-about-brains-and-religion/Content?oid=2652816)
I like nativities (and menorahs) on public spaces, but public prayer and commandments bother me a lot. I guess the way I see it is that the public space is there to be used by the public, and it's a dick thing to tell people YOU CAN'T SET UP BABY JEEBUS BECAUSE OTHER FOLKS MIGHT HAVE FEELS, but posting the commandments in a courthouse or having a public official leading a prayer is more the government and its representatives endorsing a specific religion (or family of religions).
A lot of how I feel about this has already been said. The idea of GAWD just never enters my life until someone else brings it up.
Krishnamurti say: belief and disbelief are both acts of ignorance, each actively ignoring the possibility of the other.
Quote from: Sad Sack on October 01, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
I like nativities (and menorahs) on public spaces, but public prayer and commandments bother me a lot. I guess the way I see it is that the public space is there to be used by the public, and it's a dick thing to tell people YOU CAN'T SET UP BABY JEEBUS BECAUSE OTHER FOLKS MIGHT HAVE FEELS, but posting the commandments in a courthouse or having a public official leading a prayer is more the government and its representatives endorsing a specific religion (or family of religions).
Both the Senate and the House have chaplains that lead a daily non-denominational prayer to an unmentioned "Lord." Remember, the 1st only says that Congress shall make no law regarding the free practice of religion, and cannot favor one religion over another. There is actually nothing written in the Constitution that states, directly, the total separation of church and state. That phrase from what I understand was yanked from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. A non-denominational prayer doesn't bother me, I kind of have more important things to worry about than somebody else's Invisible Sky Man. Hell, in theory, even an atheist could say that their "lord" is science.
It's a lot of gray area, actually. We had this discussion in my Religious Studies class already.
Quote from: :regret: on September 30, 2013, 08:35:12 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on September 30, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
I have had a theory for a while that religious denominations tend to attract people of particular genetic mental predispositions.
I wanted to say something else, but when i read this i completely forgot what i wanted to say.
Seriously? genetic mental predispositions? I have a book on genetics you really should read.
Anyway, If asked about my religion i would now say "Go away" or "Leave me alone".
You might want to check out that lecture I just posted, and also http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm
QuoteThe largest genome-wide study of its kind has determined how much five major mental illnesses are traceable to the same common inherited genetic variations. Researchers funded in part by the National Institutes of Health found that the overlap was highest between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; moderate for bipolar disorder and depression and for ADHD and depression; and low between schizophrenia and autism. Overall, common genetic variation accounted for 17-28 percent of risk for the illnesses.
"Since our study only looked at common gene variants, the total genetic overlap between the disorders is likely higher," explained Naomi Wray, Ph.D. External Web Site Policy , University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, who co-led the multi-site study by the Cross Disorders Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC), which is supported by the NIH's National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). "Shared variants with smaller effects, rare variants, mutations, duplications, deletions, and gene-environment interactions also contribute to these illnesses."
Quote from: Suu on October 01, 2013, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: Sad Sack on October 01, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
I like nativities (and menorahs) on public spaces, but public prayer and commandments bother me a lot. I guess the way I see it is that the public space is there to be used by the public, and it's a dick thing to tell people YOU CAN'T SET UP BABY JEEBUS BECAUSE OTHER FOLKS MIGHT HAVE FEELS, but posting the commandments in a courthouse or having a public official leading a prayer is more the government and its representatives endorsing a specific religion (or family of religions).
Both the Senate and the House have chaplains that lead a daily non-denominational prayer to an unmentioned "Lord." Remember, the 1st only says that Congress shall make no law regarding the free practice of religion, and cannot favor one religion over another. There is actually nothing written in the Constitution that states, directly, the total separation of church and state. That phrase from what I understand was yanked from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. A non-denominational prayer doesn't bother me, I kind of have more important things to worry about than somebody else's Invisible Sky Man. Hell, in theory, even an atheist could say that their "lord" is science.
It's a lot of gray area, actually. We had this discussion in my Religious Studies class already.
It rubs me the wrong way, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional or should be banned.
Quote from: Sad Sack on October 01, 2013, 05:25:40 PM
Quote from: Suu on October 01, 2013, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: Sad Sack on October 01, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
I like nativities (and menorahs) on public spaces, but public prayer and commandments bother me a lot. I guess the way I see it is that the public space is there to be used by the public, and it's a dick thing to tell people YOU CAN'T SET UP BABY JEEBUS BECAUSE OTHER FOLKS MIGHT HAVE FEELS, but posting the commandments in a courthouse or having a public official leading a prayer is more the government and its representatives endorsing a specific religion (or family of religions).
Both the Senate and the House have chaplains that lead a daily non-denominational prayer to an unmentioned "Lord." Remember, the 1st only says that Congress shall make no law regarding the free practice of religion, and cannot favor one religion over another. There is actually nothing written in the Constitution that states, directly, the total separation of church and state. That phrase from what I understand was yanked from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. A non-denominational prayer doesn't bother me, I kind of have more important things to worry about than somebody else's Invisible Sky Man. Hell, in theory, even an atheist could say that their "lord" is science.
It's a lot of gray area, actually. We had this discussion in my Religious Studies class already.
It rubs me the wrong way, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional or should be banned.
Well, appealing to the Emperor of the Universe for his blessing on republican undertakings is a pretty strange custom when you think about it. It should rub you the wrong way.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 01, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 30, 2013, 08:35:12 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on September 30, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
I have had a theory for a while that religious denominations tend to attract people of particular genetic mental predispositions.
I wanted to say something else, but when i read this i completely forgot what i wanted to say.
Seriously? genetic mental predispositions? I have a book on genetics you really should read.
Anyway, If asked about my religion i would now say "Go away" or "Leave me alone".
You might want to check out that lecture I just posted, and also http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm
QuoteThe largest genome-wide study of its kind has determined how much five major mental illnesses are traceable to the same common inherited genetic variations. Researchers funded in part by the National Institutes of Health found that the overlap was highest between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; moderate for bipolar disorder and depression and for ADHD and depression; and low between schizophrenia and autism. Overall, common genetic variation accounted for 17-28 percent of risk for the illnesses.
"Since our study only looked at common gene variants, the total genetic overlap between the disorders is likely higher," explained Naomi Wray, Ph.D. External Web Site Policy , University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, who co-led the multi-site study by the Cross Disorders Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC), which is supported by the NIH's National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). "Shared variants with smaller effects, rare variants, mutations, duplications, deletions, and gene-environment interactions also contribute to these illnesses."
Interesting link! I may take the time to watch that lecture later, not now though.
Alright, i must concede the existence of genetic mental predispositions. Thinking about it some more.
Quote from: Sad Sack on October 01, 2013, 05:25:40 PM
Quote from: Suu on October 01, 2013, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: Sad Sack on October 01, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
I like nativities (and menorahs) on public spaces, but public prayer and commandments bother me a lot. I guess the way I see it is that the public space is there to be used by the public, and it's a dick thing to tell people YOU CAN'T SET UP BABY JEEBUS BECAUSE OTHER FOLKS MIGHT HAVE FEELS, but posting the commandments in a courthouse or having a public official leading a prayer is more the government and its representatives endorsing a specific religion (or family of religions).
Both the Senate and the House have chaplains that lead a daily non-denominational prayer to an unmentioned "Lord." Remember, the 1st only says that Congress shall make no law regarding the free practice of religion, and cannot favor one religion over another. There is actually nothing written in the Constitution that states, directly, the total separation of church and state. That phrase from what I understand was yanked from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. A non-denominational prayer doesn't bother me, I kind of have more important things to worry about than somebody else's Invisible Sky Man. Hell, in theory, even an atheist could say that their "lord" is science.
It's a lot of gray area, actually. We had this discussion in my Religious Studies class already.
It rubs me the wrong way, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional or should be banned.
I totally agree, but it is what it is. Though the concept of total separation of church and state has come up before, and although plausible, it would create some serious issues involving taxation and quite a bit of red tape. It could also effect things such as city and town decorations at holidays, even something as simple and secular as a strand of lights. I can see the Grumpy Cat Atheists going, "GOOD!" over something like that, but is it really worth the time and effort to remove shiny things from public spaces? In other words: If it's not broke, don't fix it. our system isn't flawless, but it could be worse, A LOT worse, and it costs money to pass an amendment, especially one that is coming at a really sensitive time in the country. We can't even balance a budget and you want separation of church and state on the books? Ech. Not to mention, the oppositional arguments would be a thing of LEGEND. A mumble of a non-denominational invocation at the beginning of a Congressional session and a Menorah in Downtown Providence are really very low on my list of priorities. The fact that the Commissary is closing indefinitely because of this fucking shutdown, however...
Related to the 'biology/belief' connection discussion on the first page, here's an interesting take on it by Michael Shermer from 'Skeptic' magazine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o
I come from a similar boat as Nigel in this regard (which is hilarious, considering every other aspect of our backgrounds are from alternate universes). I was raised without any real sense of a religion to rebel against.
I had some adolescent flailings around with different belief systems, including atheism. But I just sort of felt that, after a while, I'd made my point about "not believing" and there wasn't anything more to say on the matter. I couldn't build my identity around rejecting something that hadn't been a part of my life in the first place. Discordianism and its ilk offered a lot more to talk about, once you got past the pinealfnord23 part.
I live my life in the manner of an atheist, with a lowercase "A," because thoughts of a deity don't factor into how I make my decisions, large or small.*
The labels I've found to best describe my thinking (specifically my thinking, rather than describing me) are apatheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism) and ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism). Apatheism describes my day-to-day thinking, and ignosticism describes my philosophical perspective when I'm cornered into a theological discussion about the concept of a deity as described in most major religions.
(btw I totally skipped most of this thread so if someone else already brought these up my apologies)
*Unless it's a REALLY trivial decision, in which case I sometimes invoke an appropriate deity just because
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 01, 2013, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 01, 2013, 01:27:32 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 01, 2013, 01:26:26 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 01, 2013, 12:40:09 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 30, 2013, 11:00:49 PM
I hear the "my religion was bad and here's why i'm going to vent my lingering frustrations with the traditions i was brought up in to you " argument sometimes, but then I look around at other human systems and note that it really doesn't seem to be specific to religion at all.
Fixed :lulz:
Yeah, I think you about nailed it. And I think that possibly I don't "get" atheism because I wasn't raised religious.
I was raised by Anglicans. Religion is something you do behind closed doors, and you wash your hands afterward. So, yeah, nothing to rebel against.
Those are basically the same as Episcopalians, right? Pacifists, ecumenical, anti-bigotry, generally emphasize kindness and keeping out of everyone's face? Yep, nothing to rebel against, really. My ex-husband brought his Episcopal priest home to try to convert me, once. We had a nice conversation and it ended with the priest saying "I see your perspective, and it's valid".
Anglicans are more "Religion is for Sunday, and the vicar had best not talk a bunch of piss, even then."
Anglican services are more a reminder "God is there", than a set of instructions or indoctrination.
At least Canadian Anglicans. Results may vary.
So I was raised as a crazy JW... at the age of 6, I was hospitalized with a kidney problem. I had an operation with no blood transfusion permitted. In the days following the operation, the Doctor said that my blood count was dangerously low and that without a transfusion I may die. My parents refused and I recall vividly, crying and telling the Doctor that I would die faithful to Jehovah and 'please don't give me blood'. That, among many other experiences should probably have made me a screaming atheist. It didn't. After I left the JW's, I became a pagan, studied Wicca and was looking at initiation... but I couldn't get past the obvious BS involved in that. I bounced around several systems, and fortunately for me, I read the PD and it all suddenly became completely clear. That was followed up by Quantum Psychology, Angel Tech, Prometheus Rising etc and it led me to the position I now hold. Which basically boils down to 'I don't know, you don't know... but these moldy old books and scrolls are full of contradictions, errors and outright lies... therefore, we can discount them.
Everything else, seems pretty easily explainable by God being a Crazy Woman. :lulz:
As for the believers, I figure they can believe what they want, its all about embracing their nonsense, as well as the scientific sense ;-)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 02, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
So I was raised as a crazy JW... at the age of 6, I was hospitalized with a kidney problem. I had an operation with no blood transfusion permitted. In the days following the operation, the Doctor said that my blood count was dangerously low and that without a transfusion I may die. My parents refused and I recall vividly, crying and telling the Doctor that I would die faithful to Jehovah and 'please don't give me blood'. That, among many other experiences should probably have made me a screaming atheist. It didn't. After I left the JW's, I became a pagan, studied Wicca and was looking at initiation... but I couldn't get past the obvious BS involved in that. I bounced around several systems, and fortunately for me, I read the PD and it all suddenly became completely clear. That was followed up by Quantum Psychology, Angel Tech, Prometheus Rising etc and it led me to the position I now hold. Which basically boils down to 'I don't know, you don't know... but these moldy old books and scrolls are full of contradictions, errors and outright lies... therefore, we can discount them.
Everything else, seems pretty easily explainable by God being a Crazy Woman. :lulz:
As for the believers, I figure they can believe what they want, its all about embracing their nonsense, as well as the scientific sense ;-)
Holy shit. I knew you were a JW but that's some fucked up shit.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on October 02, 2013, 04:05:11 AM
Related to the 'biology/belief' connection discussion on the first page, here's an interesting take on it by Michael Shermer from 'Skeptic' magazine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o
Hmmm I think I've seen that one before, I'll have to re-watch it after class.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 30, 2013, 06:18:12 PM
So I have a bunch of friends who are Atheists. Some are more into it than others; I tend to avoid the ones who are really into it, because honestly it creeps me out a little.
Maybe it's because I wasn't raised particularly religious, and had almost no childhood exposure to organized religion.
Maybe it's because I was raised in the relatively religion-neutral Pacific Northwest. I don't really have anything to react against.
But I completely don't understand identifying oneself based on something that doesn't exist. I can't even really wrap my head around it. What does it mean? Hey guys I'm not a person who believes in a thing that doesn't exist!
I guess technically I'm an atheist; I don't believe in a god per se, although I do believe in my own existence and the existence of biological systems and therefore I suppose I believe in the great ecosystem of which we are a part, which is, in a sense, god. To me.
I'm not really sure what god is or what it means, outside of the religions which spell out what it means. I don't believe in those. I wouldn't call myself an atheist (because that makes absolutely no sense to me) but I'm not religious. However, I don't generally define myself by what I'm not. There are far, far too many things that I am not than things that I am, and unlike the God that Atheists define themselves by not believing in :? most of those things actually exist.
One of my friends/rivals, a crazy nascent biologist and slightly scary Atheist dude, is actually taking a class on Atheism this term. I am thinking that maybe I should take that class, it might explain a few things for me, about these people who define themselves by not believing in something that doesn't exist.
I haven't read any of the replies yet, so please forgive me if what I'm about to post is largely cock and repost.
I do consider myself an atheist, but I don't go around defining myself publicly as such, and honestly don't think about it all that much. I decided around the age of 13 that I truly didn't believe, in my heart, in a god. At that time I wanted to believe, but just didn't... I do not hold that wish for belief anymore.
The reason I think there are more and more "out" atheists is because there has been a major turnaround in christianity in the last 15 years, roughly just before the Bush administration by my reckoning*. Many of these hardcore christians hold positions of power and influence. If people who could control my life one way or the other didn't believe in their God, and also believe that their God had a say in how I ran my life, it would be a moot issue, and would likely never come up. I also do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, but people making public policy rarely do either, so it's all good.
If someone ever asks me what I believe, I am an atheist, and the rabid in-your-face atheists don't frighten me away from the word. And maybe some day belief in some thing in the sky will fade away and I will not be called on to define myself based on something which does not exist.
*Or, possibly that's when I grew aware enough about global culture to become aware of something which has always been around. Though, from my reading there seems to have been a general swing toward heavier Christianity around the Carter administration, which carried over into Reagan, and then steadily climbed from there.
Quote from: Pixie on October 01, 2013, 03:51:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on October 01, 2013, 02:19:33 AM
1st reply pre-thread-read (i did read OP though)
What i do not like about atheism is its inherent vindictiveness... to me it personally reeks of angry teenager that is trying to "ill-show-you-people!!!". It's more a matter of tone rather than posture, I can emphatize with "silent atheists" that don't run amok among the world preaching it or thinking they are so special and "radical" thinking their belief makes them better people.
In fact the goddamn tone of of "holier than thou" directly parallels to "smarter than thou" which each respective clan generally represents... "oh, im a miserable fuck bordering on sociopathy, but im religious so that makes me righteous" contrasted to "oh, im so intellectually superior, me is uber-menschen!!!"... NO, BOTH OF YOU, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I dont care what your belief system is (anymore), what i care about is what you DO, not what you SAY. If being religious, or being a-religious gives the same conclusion of you being a monster then what difference does it make?
I'm agnostic, because believing god doesnt exist is as good in the scale of critical thinking as believing god exists. Stop bothering me with your silly answers to silly questions, monkeys, im KIND OF busy doing things that dont pertain to invisible unperceptible beings!
haha. bolded is pretty much where I stand. I describe myself as a hardcore agnostic for reasons that are- it winds up the uber-atheism crowd, and I'm pretty much seen by theists and atheists as a secular humanist, being as I don't know, can't prove either argument and I think the world at large has have more important things to think about, like STOP BEING DICKS TO EACH OTHER. I used to be pretty fucking outlandishly pagan though until about 18 months before I went talky head gremlin crazy and occams razor'd my way through the bonkers using SCIENCE.
Both my religious acquaintances and my atheist friends think my stance is weird tho. they are all BUT ORIGINS! WHY ARE WE HERE? and I'm all quit your navel gazing and encourage people to be less of a dick. Incidentally this is why I like Buddhism and Taoism but without the woo, as it's about ethics.
Atheism and agnosticism are not answering the same question though. Most people don't seem to get that. You can be both. In fact you should be both, if you self-define as atheist, since by definition you simply
cannot know.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2013, 03:11:32 PM
Overheard in Dunkin Donuts on Sunday-----------------
Beardo wearing a wolf shirt was explaining the world to his friend:
"Here's how I see it --- if you say you don't believe in something, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Because if it didn't exist, why bring it up? It has to exist in order for you to say you don't believe in it. Atheists are essentially hypocrites."
:judge:
CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS
Ohhhh how I wish I had been there.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2013, 06:08:34 PM
Quote from: Pixie on October 01, 2013, 03:51:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on October 01, 2013, 02:19:33 AM
1st reply pre-thread-read (i did read OP though)
What i do not like about atheism is its inherent vindictiveness... to me it personally reeks of angry teenager that is trying to "ill-show-you-people!!!". It's more a matter of tone rather than posture, I can emphatize with "silent atheists" that don't run amok among the world preaching it or thinking they are so special and "radical" thinking their belief makes them better people.
In fact the goddamn tone of of "holier than thou" directly parallels to "smarter than thou" which each respective clan generally represents... "oh, im a miserable fuck bordering on sociopathy, but im religious so that makes me righteous" contrasted to "oh, im so intellectually superior, me is uber-menschen!!!"... NO, BOTH OF YOU, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I dont care what your belief system is (anymore), what i care about is what you DO, not what you SAY. If being religious, or being a-religious gives the same conclusion of you being a monster then what difference does it make?
I'm agnostic, because believing god doesnt exist is as good in the scale of critical thinking as believing god exists. Stop bothering me with your silly answers to silly questions, monkeys, im KIND OF busy doing things that dont pertain to invisible unperceptible beings!
haha. bolded is pretty much where I stand. I describe myself as a hardcore agnostic for reasons that are- it winds up the uber-atheism crowd, and I'm pretty much seen by theists and atheists as a secular humanist, being as I don't know, can't prove either argument and I think the world at large has have more important things to think about, like STOP BEING DICKS TO EACH OTHER. I used to be pretty fucking outlandishly pagan though until about 18 months before I went talky head gremlin crazy and occams razor'd my way through the bonkers using SCIENCE.
Both my religious acquaintances and my atheist friends think my stance is weird tho. they are all BUT ORIGINS! WHY ARE WE HERE? and I'm all quit your navel gazing and encourage people to be less of a dick. Incidentally this is why I like Buddhism and Taoism but without the woo, as it's about ethics.
Atheism and agnosticism are not answering the same question though. Most people don't seem to get that. You can be both. In fact you should be both, if you self-define as atheist, since by definition you simply cannot know.
The only difference between a gnostic and an agnostic is that the gnostic is certain in his unprovable position. I consider myself an agnostic theist.
I'm an gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
I'm an gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
People who think that their ability to do nice things derives from some cosmic wristslapper.
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
I'm an gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
People who think that their ability to do nice things derives from some cosmic wristslapper.
MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.
The ENTIRE basis of Judeo/Christian beliefs is FREE WILL. It's the whole Goddamn point of the exercise. You do good works because you WANT to, and in the end you are judged on the intentions you had behind the acts driven by your free will...And free will used specifically to gain stature, etc, DON'T COUNT. MML&J was very clear on that point, as was Acts I & II, and most of the friggin' Torah and Talmud.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
I'm an gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
People who think that their ability to do nice things derives from some cosmic wristslapper.
MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.
The ENTIRE basis of Judeo/Christian beliefs is FREE WILL. It's the whole Goddamn point of the exercise. You do good works because you WANT to, and in the end you are judged on the intentions you had behind the acts driven by your free will...And free will used specifically to gain stature, etc, DON'T COUNT. MML&J was very clear on that point, as was Acts I & II, and most of the friggin' Torah and Talmud.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think its funny that some people think Earth would fall into a state of savagery without a god telling us which choices to make, and then applying free will to those, with the implication that without gods to tell them what is nice and what is not nice, they themselves would choose to behave in completely self-serving, non-altruistic ways. It's an admission that they're closet sociopaths.
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 06:25:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
I'm an gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
People who think that their ability to do nice things derives from some cosmic wristslapper.
MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.
The ENTIRE basis of Judeo/Christian beliefs is FREE WILL. It's the whole Goddamn point of the exercise. You do good works because you WANT to, and in the end you are judged on the intentions you had behind the acts driven by your free will...And free will used specifically to gain stature, etc, DON'T COUNT. MML&J was very clear on that point, as was Acts I & II, and most of the friggin' Torah and Talmud.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think its funny that some people think Earth would fall into a state of savagery without a god telling us which choices to make, and then applying free will to those, with the implication that without gods to tell them what is nice and what is not nice, they themselves would choose to behave in completely self-serving, non-altruistic ways. It's an admission that they're closet sociopaths.
Sorry was talking about that sort of person, not you. My bad.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:27:11 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 06:25:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
I'm an gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
People who think that their ability to do nice things derives from some cosmic wristslapper.
MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.
The ENTIRE basis of Judeo/Christian beliefs is FREE WILL. It's the whole Goddamn point of the exercise. You do good works because you WANT to, and in the end you are judged on the intentions you had behind the acts driven by your free will...And free will used specifically to gain stature, etc, DON'T COUNT. MML&J was very clear on that point, as was Acts I & II, and most of the friggin' Torah and Talmud.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think its funny that some people think Earth would fall into a state of savagery without a god telling us which choices to make, and then applying free will to those, with the implication that without gods to tell them what is nice and what is not nice, they themselves would choose to behave in completely self-serving, non-altruistic ways. It's an admission that they're closet sociopaths.
Sorry was talking about that sort of person, not you. My bad.
No probs, the misinterpretation was mine.
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 02, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
So I was raised as a crazy JW... at the age of 6, I was hospitalized with a kidney problem. I had an operation with no blood transfusion permitted. In the days following the operation, the Doctor said that my blood count was dangerously low and that without a transfusion I may die. My parents refused and I recall vividly, crying and telling the Doctor that I would die faithful to Jehovah and 'please don't give me blood'. That, among many other experiences should probably have made me a screaming atheist. It didn't. After I left the JW's, I became a pagan, studied Wicca and was looking at initiation... but I couldn't get past the obvious BS involved in that. I bounced around several systems, and fortunately for me, I read the PD and it all suddenly became completely clear. That was followed up by Quantum Psychology, Angel Tech, Prometheus Rising etc and it led me to the position I now hold. Which basically boils down to 'I don't know, you don't know... but these moldy old books and scrolls are full of contradictions, errors and outright lies... therefore, we can discount them.
Everything else, seems pretty easily explainable by God being a Crazy Woman. :lulz:
As for the believers, I figure they can believe what they want, its all about embracing their nonsense, as well as the scientific sense ;-)
Holy shit. I knew you were a JW but that's some fucked up shit.
Some of the most fucked up experiences I recall though were the people at the door. My parents and I were doing the door knocking thing one Saturday. My mom was about 6 months pregnant. The lady at the door was very rude and told us to leave. My mom smiled and said "OK, well have a nice day." The lady came flying out of the door screaming "I WILL NOT HAVE A GOOD DAY" and then pushed my mom off of the porch. My dad was about three or four steps down and caught her before she bounced down the stairs. We quickly headed back to the car. Then the woman's husband came out of the barn with a corn cutter and started chasing us, waving it around. We got into the car and he began hitting the tr4unk of the car with the cutter screaming and yelling.
They were well known as very good Christians.
Another time, I was in the car and a teenage girl with her mom were walking up to the door. Before they could get there, the man opened the door, released a doberman and shut the door. They tried running back to the car, but the girl got attacked and by the time the men in the car got her free we had to take her to the hospital and her face was scarred for the rest of her life.
He was a lay preacher for one of the local churches.
I think its difficult to decide which is worse, parents risking the life of their kids because of some idiot belief, or people so violently opposed to a different religion that they would risk harming or killing people over it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 02, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
I'm an gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
People who think that their ability to do nice things derives from some cosmic wristslapper.
MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.
The ENTIRE basis of Judeo/Christian beliefs is FREE WILL. It's the whole Goddamn point of the exercise. You do good works because you WANT to, and in the end you are judged on the intentions you had behind the acts driven by your free will...And free will used specifically to gain stature, etc, DON'T COUNT. MML&J was very clear on that point, as was Acts I & II, and most of the friggin' Torah and Talmud.
Basically you can't lie, or buy your way into heaven.
I have a feeling of something to say, but I'm not sure if it relates to the OP.
Unsure if a new post is required.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 03, 2013, 03:38:00 AM
I have a feeling of something to say, but I'm not sure if it relates to the OP.
Unsure if a new post is required.
I think Rat's posts alone deserve their own thread.
Not only because he had to face death by choice because of faith (albeit, as a child) but because JW's apparently are treated extremely badly by outsiders. Honestly, I didn't know it could get that bad. I always thought at worst it was a "fuck off assbag" sort of deal.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 03, 2013, 03:38:00 AM
I have a feeling of something to say, but I'm not sure if it relates to the OP.
Unsure if a new post is required.
Give it a shot!
Ok. Gonna need a bit.
Actually, this captures it pretty well. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30498.0.html)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 03, 2013, 03:09:48 PM
Actually, this captures it pretty well. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30498.0.html)
This also touches on a point of many religions which needles me, this idea that this world is simply a vale of tears to be suffered through, and that TRUE life begins after you're dead. I mean, shit, i don't know what happens when someone dies, but I know what happens when they lose a part of their brain. They become fundamentally different people. Pretty much instantly.
Eating can turn people into different people. Scrooge knew that, over a hundred and fifty years ago.
So, this idea that we have some core "me" which can survive after the brain dies... once you know that, there is no turning back. Death isn't a something, like LMNO's quoted play said. It's the nothing.
It bothers me that so many people are effectively wasting their lives, thinking that something better will come after, when the likelihood that
nothing at all comes after is staggering. I know it's their life, and they can waste it if they want to, but dammit... I care about those stupid fuckers.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
So, this idea that we have some core "me" which can survive after the brain dies... once you know that, there is no turning back. Death isn't a something, like LMNO's quoted play said. It's the nothing.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The hypothesis is not testable.
However, given that we don't know, the only rational behavior is to have as much fun here and now as circumstances may allow.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:51:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
So, this idea that we have some core "me" which can survive after the brain dies... once you know that, there is no turning back. Death isn't a something, like LMNO's quoted play said. It's the nothing.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The hypothesis is not testable.
However, given that we don't know, the only rational behavior is to have as much fun here and now as circumstances may allow.
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:51:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
So, this idea that we have some core "me" which can survive after the brain dies... once you know that, there is no turning back. Death isn't a something, like LMNO's quoted play said. It's the nothing.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The hypothesis is not testable.
However, given that we don't know, the only rational behavior is to have as much fun here and now as circumstances may allow.
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
Saying a "soul" can't change is to accept the concept of original sin, which is the lazy man's way of getting out of rolling in the gutter like the rest of us.
Your little-a agnosticism runs deep, Roger.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:51:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
So, this idea that we have some core "me" which can survive after the brain dies... once you know that, there is no turning back. Death isn't a something, like LMNO's quoted play said. It's the nothing.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The hypothesis is not testable.
However, given that we don't know, the only rational behavior is to have as much fun here and now as circumstances may allow.
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
Saying a "soul" can't change is to accept the concept of original sin, which is the lazy man's way of getting out of rolling in the gutter like the rest of us.
Where did I say a soul can't change? I thought I was refuting the very notion of a soul.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 03, 2013, 05:00:07 PM
Your little-a agnosticism runs deep, Roger.
I'm just saying, you know, if you can't observe an outside experiment without changing the results, how can you possibly examine yourself without changing yourself? You can't tell if there's a soul in there without opening the box, right? And when you open the box, you either know...or you stop existing. But here's the kicker: Only you get to see the answer. Everyone has to do the experiment for themselves, sooner or later.
I propose an experiment, LMNO. You put me in a box with a bottle of bourbon for one hour, without looking in the box. After an hour, fuck off, I'm drunk.
See? It's all about SCIENCE and it's utter inapplicability to religious questions. And VICE-VERSA. Oil & friggin' water. You can't take your God detector instrument to a no-God zone to zero it, after all. So I fail to see any difference between the idiots trying to "scientifically prove" God's existence, and those who try to use science to disprove his/her existence, because the two do not touch at any point.
It is perfectly possible for science to be right in all things, and to explain all things, without having any implications on the existence or non-existence of a god.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:51:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
So, this idea that we have some core "me" which can survive after the brain dies... once you know that, there is no turning back. Death isn't a something, like LMNO's quoted play said. It's the nothing.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The hypothesis is not testable.
However, given that we don't know, the only rational behavior is to have as much fun here and now as circumstances may allow.
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
Saying a "soul" can't change is to accept the concept of original sin, which is the lazy man's way of getting out of rolling in the gutter like the rest of us.
Where did I say a soul can't change? I thought I was refuting the very notion of a soul.
And I am pointing out that your refutation merely implies that a soul could just as easily be mutable, based on the scenario you provided. It also implies that the soul may or may not be connected to your cognition.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:51:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
So, this idea that we have some core "me" which can survive after the brain dies... once you know that, there is no turning back. Death isn't a something, like LMNO's quoted play said. It's the nothing.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The hypothesis is not testable.
However, given that we don't know, the only rational behavior is to have as much fun here and now as circumstances may allow.
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
Saying a "soul" can't change is to accept the concept of original sin, which is the lazy man's way of getting out of rolling in the gutter like the rest of us.
Where did I say a soul can't change? I thought I was refuting the very notion of a soul.
And I am pointing out that your refutation merely implies that a soul could just as easily be mutable, based on the scenario you provided. It also implies that the soul may or may not be connected to your cognition.
Ok, that's possible, yes. But if your soul isn't you, than who is it?
Wait, sorry, this is now veering way off topic. Sorry Nigel. But yes, that's an interesting point Roger, I hadn't considered that.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 04:51:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
So, this idea that we have some core "me" which can survive after the brain dies... once you know that, there is no turning back. Death isn't a something, like LMNO's quoted play said. It's the nothing.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The hypothesis is not testable.
However, given that we don't know, the only rational behavior is to have as much fun here and now as circumstances may allow.
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
Saying a "soul" can't change is to accept the concept of original sin, which is the lazy man's way of getting out of rolling in the gutter like the rest of us.
Where did I say a soul can't change? I thought I was refuting the very notion of a soul.
And I am pointing out that your refutation merely implies that a soul could just as easily be mutable, based on the scenario you provided. It also implies that the soul may or may not be connected to your cognition.
Ok, that's possible, yes. But if your soul isn't you, than who is it?
Wait, sorry, this is now veering way off topic. Sorry Nigel. But yes, that's an interesting point Roger, I hadn't considered that.
One theory I had was that the "good" part of your "soul" is the only part that moves on to whatever.
So Gandi shows up at about 80%.
Buddha, probably 99%.
Hitler shows up in heaven as a flatworm. Or Rebecca Black. Something like that.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
as long as we're out here in bat country, let me play devil's advocate for a sec
maybe consciousness isn't a product of the brain, but is facilitated by it
like maybe consciousness is like a television signal being broadcast from somewhere - our particular neural hardware is the receiver, like a television antennae
then brain damage is just a bent antennae, the signal is fine, but it's being interpreted as static and noise
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 05:20:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
as long as we're out here in bat country, let me play devil's advocate for a sec
maybe consciousness isn't a product of the brain, but is facilitated by it
like maybe consciousness is like a television signal being broadcast from somewhere - our particular neural hardware is the receiver, like a television antennae
then brain damage is just a bent antennae, the signal is fine, but it's being interpreted as static and noise
Equally possible. Also kinda fun. Also explains Ernie's belief.
TGRR,
Driving his remote control meat around with a low battery and cell phone interference.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 05:20:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
as long as we're out here in bat country, let me play devil's advocate for a sec
maybe consciousness isn't a product of the brain, but is facilitated by it
like maybe consciousness is like a television signal being broadcast from somewhere - our particular neural hardware is the receiver, like a television antennae
then brain damage is just a bent antennae, the signal is fine, but it's being interpreted as static and noise
But what about feedback? You need a transmitter in your brain too, not just a receiving antenna, so your sensory input can reach your "soul".
That means when you die, the brain's transmitter is broken, and your soul is stuck in limbo with no means to perceive anything or communicate with the outside world
:horror:
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 03, 2013, 05:24:02 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 05:20:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
as long as we're out here in bat country, let me play devil's advocate for a sec
maybe consciousness isn't a product of the brain, but is facilitated by it
like maybe consciousness is like a television signal being broadcast from somewhere - our particular neural hardware is the receiver, like a television antennae
then brain damage is just a bent antennae, the signal is fine, but it's being interpreted as static and noise
But what about feedback? You need a transmitter in your brain too, not just a receiving antenna, so your sensory input can reach your "soul".
That means when you die, the brain's transmitter is broken, and your soul is stuck in limbo with no means to perceive anything or communicate with the outside world
:horror:
Or it goes back to whatever it was doing before it decided to play meat puppet races.
Or it grabs another one and jumps back in the race.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 05:20:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
as long as we're out here in bat country, let me play devil's advocate for a sec
maybe consciousness isn't a product of the brain, but is facilitated by it
like maybe consciousness is like a television signal being broadcast from somewhere - our particular neural hardware is the receiver, like a television antennae
then brain damage is just a bent antennae, the signal is fine, but it's being interpreted as static and noise
I'm reading Philip K Dick's Exegesis right now, slowly, and your post merges with what he writes about, to the point of... :ohnotache:
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 03, 2013, 05:24:02 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 05:20:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
as long as we're out here in bat country, let me play devil's advocate for a sec
maybe consciousness isn't a product of the brain, but is facilitated by it
like maybe consciousness is like a television signal being broadcast from somewhere - our particular neural hardware is the receiver, like a television antennae
then brain damage is just a bent antennae, the signal is fine, but it's being interpreted as static and noise
But what about feedback? You need a transmitter in your brain too, not just a receiving antenna, so your sensory input can reach your "soul".
That means when you die, the brain's transmitter is broken, and your soul is stuck in limbo with no means to perceive anything or communicate with the outside world
:horror:
It's not quite that nice. What actually happens is you stay conscious, as you are now, fully aware just unable to move or talk or act in any way. All you can do is lie there and feel and smell and taste yourself rotting.
Cremation is worse.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 03, 2013, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 03, 2013, 05:24:02 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 05:20:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
as long as we're out here in bat country, let me play devil's advocate for a sec
maybe consciousness isn't a product of the brain, but is facilitated by it
like maybe consciousness is like a television signal being broadcast from somewhere - our particular neural hardware is the receiver, like a television antennae
then brain damage is just a bent antennae, the signal is fine, but it's being interpreted as static and noise
But what about feedback? You need a transmitter in your brain too, not just a receiving antenna, so your sensory input can reach your "soul".
That means when you die, the brain's transmitter is broken, and your soul is stuck in limbo with no means to perceive anything or communicate with the outside world
:horror:
It's not quite that nice. What actually happens is you stay conscious, as you are now, fully aware just unable to move or talk or act in any way. All you can do is lie there and feel and smell and taste yourself rotting.
Cremation is worse.
This is why I'm going to a "corpse farm".
I'd love to work at one of those. I'd go out before my coworkers and hide in one of the wrecked cars. Then I'd jump out, yelling "BRAINS!"
Or I'd just leave tape recorders here and there, saying "HELP ME! WHERE AM I? OH GAAAAAWD!"
I want to go to a corpse farm because IMO it's bullshit for all that perfectly good meat to just go to waste.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on October 03, 2013, 06:12:53 PM
I want to go to a corpse farm because IMO it's bullshit for all that perfectly good meat to just go to waste.
Yep. And there's no Nigel/TGRR futures market, so off to the corpse farm we go.
I keep telling people that my will has a recipe for a stew to be made with my body, so everyone at my wake will have to eat me.
I should probably talk to ECH about a good flavor profile.
from what i've heard, human flesh is like well-marbled pork, so i've imagine you wanna go for something rich and savory . :D
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 03, 2013, 05:24:02 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 05:20:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 03, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
If you mean that the core "me" dying with the brain is untestable, I'd point to studies of people with severe brain trauma. They become completely different people, often disgusted by who they were before. That seems reasonably to indicate that who we are is largely based on our genetics and the chemicals flowing through our brain, doesn't it? Or am I misreading your point?
as long as we're out here in bat country, let me play devil's advocate for a sec
maybe consciousness isn't a product of the brain, but is facilitated by it
like maybe consciousness is like a television signal being broadcast from somewhere - our particular neural hardware is the receiver, like a television antennae
then brain damage is just a bent antennae, the signal is fine, but it's being interpreted as static and noise
But what about feedback? You need a transmitter in your brain too, not just a receiving antenna, so your sensory input can reach your "soul".
That means when you die, the brain's transmitter is broken, and your soul is stuck in limbo with no means to perceive anything or communicate with the outside world
:horror:
This assumes some standard/mainstream notion of the nature of one's soul. I have no idea whether souls (as such) exist or not, there is no really convincing evidence one way or another as to whether consciousness is derived entirely from biology. It may be that the traditional definition of "soul" -- that a person's specific consciousness emanates from some higher reality where it is as dissimilar to other "souls" as its representation here is to other souls' representations here -- is entirely false. Maybe there is only one "soul," and it experiences itself by fragmenting and being displayed through little receivers that are unaware of the process.
On one hand, as Hoopla has pointed out, every outward (and possibly inward) sign of consciousness depends on the biological matter processing that consciousness. Brain damage and brain disease can fundamentally alter everything about consciousness, including the ability to tell whether or not anything has changed.
On the other hand I think our modern, "scientific" consensus worldview tends to willfully ignore things that can't be readily explained. I'm not a fullblown hippie or anything but I see no reason not to entertain the notion of the kind of "broadcast consciousness" that Cram mentions. I listen to crackpots all the time, and for some reason I'm told that while crackpots in general are bad, it's better to listen to crackpots like CEOs and Department Managers and Politicians, than to crackpots like shamans and consciousness explorers and LSD Believers. I don't buy into the "massive intentional conspiracy" thing, but I do think there's something to the idea that the way we experience reality and our own places in that reality is artificially limited to a subset of possible experiences. Like a TV that's not allowed to show more than 2 or 3 channels when there may be hundreds it could receive.
How this relates directly to religion and an afterlife is uncertain for me, except to say that it seems awfully short-sighted to immediately write off everything that is not already explained when the means we use to explain things is inherently and admittedly incomplete. Even most of the fundamental bases for science are rough approximations and working hypotheses.
In Peter Carrols model, he uses the metaphor of the 'Kia' which is a singularity. In order to experience, the Kia spins off bits of itself which become the duality of existing life. That life experiences and then at death, return to the Kia with the experiences.
The Kia is a metaphor, which can be further embellished like God or Source Energy or whatever. However, Kia itself is just a symbol to represent the whatever.
I find the failure of this model is the fact that I end up envisioning imported cars which look like ghosts driving human bodies around.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 03, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
In Peter Carrols model, he uses the metaphor of the 'Kia' which is a singularity.
Which is a what, now?
I think it's a brand of automobile
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/2011_Kia_Sportage_EX_--_10-12-2010.jpg)
Terrible resale value.
Thanks, god.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 03, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
In Peter Carrols model, he uses the metaphor of the 'Kia' which is a singularity.
Which is a what, now?
A metaphor which was created by a super dense pile of recycled automobiles, compacted to the point that they created a black hole.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 03, 2013, 07:24:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 03, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
In Peter Carrols model, he uses the metaphor of the 'Kia' which is a singularity.
Which is a what, now?
A metaphor which was created by a super dense pile of recycled automobiles, compacted to the point that they created a black hole.
Okay.
Quote from: Alty on October 03, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
Terrible resale value.
Thanks, god.
seriously, its a miracle if mine breaks 1k for a trade in
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 03, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
In Peter Carrols model, he uses the metaphor of the 'Kia' which is a singularity.
Which is a what, now?
Taking SRS stab:
Singularity. As far as we can directly imagine it, it is infinity. The sum of absolutely everything, which is limitless. But, it is not necessarily
really "infinity." It is "infinity" in the same sense that a block of cheese is infinitely tall from the perspective of a 2-dimensional being. There is no concept of height in two dimensions, so any height other than 0 is infinite. This kind of thing exists for us, too. For example, time. It goes on and on and on forever. There is no point before which time did not exist, from our perspective, because if there was no time then nothing would have begun. There is no point after which time will cease to exist, as far as we can easily comprehend, because if time was erased, then it would be impossible to experience it as the very act of experience is defined by noticing what changes from one moment to the next.
But, of course, just because it is hard to imagine doesn't mean it isn't real. Just like some 2-dimensional being might be unable to comprehend a block of cheese, and may try to evaluate that block of cheese based on a subset of experiences that can never really amount to an understanding it, we imagine a Singularity, which to us is infinite but may really be just another object somewhere, outside the reach of our experience and thus outside our comprehension.
Thank you, V3X.
Quote from: V3X on October 03, 2013, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 03, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
In Peter Carrols model, he uses the metaphor of the 'Kia' which is a singularity.
Which is a what, now?
Taking SRS stab:
Singularity. As far as we can directly imagine it, it is infinity. The sum of absolutely everything, which is limitless. But, it is not necessarily really "infinity." It is "infinity" in the same sense that a block of cheese is infinitely tall from the perspective of a 2-dimensional being. There is no concept of height in two dimensions, so any height other than 0 is infinite. This kind of thing exists for us, too. For example, time. It goes on and on and on forever. There is no point before which time did not exist, from our perspective, because if there was no time then nothing would have begun. There is no point after which time will cease to exist, as far as we can easily comprehend, because if time was erased, then it would be impossible to experience it as the very act of experience is defined by noticing what changes from one moment to the next.
But, of course, just because it is hard to imagine doesn't mean it isn't real. Just like some 2-dimensional being might be unable to comprehend a block of cheese, and may try to evaluate that block of cheese based on a subset of experiences that can never really amount to an understanding it, we imagine a Singularity, which to us is infinite but may really be just another object somewhere, outside the reach of our experience and thus outside our comprehension.
Nice :)
In the model, Carrol basically refuses to detail the Kia, as any sort of description, identification or label is just more metaphor. But, for the term singularity, I think you nailed it.
Here's my belief system of the day, please dismantle it
Consciousness is the product of a signal being broadcast by the whole universe at once
They tell me that's how gravity works too -- every piece of mass in the universe is simultaneously attracting every other piece of mass in the universe (to varying degrees). My tiny almond-shaped pineal gland is being very subtly pulled by every atom in the entire crab nebula. I've always found something awesomely romantic about that.
We have unique hardware, and that hardware is in a unique environment (and at a certain level of magnification, the border between hardware and environment is very blurry), and this generates a subjective experience of consciousness -- ie, our individual points of view.
But basically, a rat's consciousness and a human's consciousness come from the same source, but they interpret that signal very differently. Maybe a plant's consciousness is the same too - but it's like, their receiver can only handle a small slice of the signal. They get radio, we get television.
I dig the "whole cloth" explanation of the universe, it's all one cloth, there is very little which distinguishes you from me from the chair I'm sitting on. All the things in the universe directly or indirectly influence my experiences and in turn my decisions. Sure, the nigh-imperceptible light from Sirius is not a big factor in my decision making, but it's there. (see also: the blanket scene from I Heart Huckabees)
And this is why I try to be a good guy -- because I'm in an energy circuit with everything else. If I blast somebody, that energy does damage. Maybe not to the part of the world I perceive as the self. But it is the self. That's what Yonkers, New York is like - it's a city that is angry at the parts of the city which are angry. You get back service at a diner, you pass it forward to the guy at the convenience store, who passes it forward to the next customer. The negativity spreads along the blanket, not stopping at the imaginary borders of the self.
Hegel says what we really want is to see our consciousness reflected in the universe. You want to see things you identify with, it reenforces your sense of self and your will.
There are two ways of going about this. Hegel talked about the way where you forge the world using your will, you become a creator, you become a citizen, and you identify with things by influencing them.
I think there's another way too--which is to stop treating consciousness as an individual experience, but something we're all sharing. If we were all on the same boat, you'd do your best not to piss everybody off, because we're stuck together. We are all on the same boat, but it's the size of the entire universe, so you forget.
Me and you are just different expressions of the same signal. We're robots receiving identical instructions, but our interpreters are built slightly differently.
I can get on board with that, mostly, but the question remains what happens to this signal after the interpreter keels over.
Is there any part of you, that you are aware of, or that you can develop an awareness of, that will still be around when the rest of you is dead?
When your router breaks, what happens to the internet signal?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 08:43:38 PM
When your router breaks, what happens to the internet signal?
It gets stuck in my laptop. :tgrr:
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 08:43:38 PM
When your router breaks, what happens to the internet signal?
It doesn't even notice anything happened.
the signal keeps coming, yes
but the internet is a little bit different now; you're not on it anymore
so the signal does change
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 08:23:34 PM
Here's my belief system of the day, please dismantle it
Naw.
But in this metaphor, the signal isn't sentient. So what we're describing as "conciousness" or possible "soul" is strictly in the realm of the living carrier. Which is functionally no different than saying "when you die, that's it."
It's the same as the Thermodynamic argument-- energy can't be created or destroyed, so "your" energy continues. But energy isn't sentient either. So there is no "you" that endures.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 03, 2013, 09:10:34 PM
But in this metaphor, the signal isn't sentient. So what we're describing as "conciousness" or possible "soul" is strictly in the realm of the living carrier. Which is functionally no different than saying "when you die, that's it."
It's the same as the Thermodynamic argument-- energy can't be created or destroyed, so "your" energy continues. But energy isn't sentient either. So there is no "you" that endures.
Which is the basis of my question about whether it's possible to "develop" an awareness of that more fundamental state of being. We give Buddhists and hippies a whole lot of shit for their constant "everything is One" spiel, but maybe there's something useful to that. If we can tap into that energy and become aware of it in a strongly personal sense, then at the very least it would provide a way to see everything as basically an outward expression of a higher truth that can't be altered.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 03, 2013, 09:10:34 PM
But in this metaphor, the signal isn't sentient. So what we're describing as "conciousness" or possible "soul" is strictly in the realm of the living carrier. Which is functionally no different than saying "when you die, that's it."
It's the same as the Thermodynamic argument-- energy can't be created or destroyed, so "your" energy continues. But energy isn't sentient either. So there is no "you" that endures.
notice I didn't say anything about the soul!
In this model, consciousness is the interplay between the individual hardware and the, I dunno what to call it, whatever is sending the signal. Everything else in the universe.
And I would say that the self is both the signal and the hardware. When you die, the hardware is done, your subjective experiences are over, and that part of the self is dead. But the signal which provided the input for You is still being sent everywhere, all the time.
<--- Map Territory ---->
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 09:27:38 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 09:07:56 PM
Naw.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 09:22:30 PM
<--- Map Territory ---->
it's almost like you have something to say :lol:
Naw. You'd just keep talking around me anyway, like you've been doing all day.
So, you know, I'll just stick with
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o22/niqua230/GiFS/IMUPINTHISTHREADANDIAINTREADINGSHIT.gif)
If you ask me if there's something beyond what I can get my puny brain around and call that "God" or whatever, then yeah, I believe.
If you ask me if I believe in a sky daddy spun from peoples' misunderstanding of badly translated Hebrew texts, then no. Fuck no.
Quote from: stelz on October 03, 2013, 09:35:16 PM
If you ask me if there's something beyond what I can get my puny brain around and call that "God" or whatever, then yeah, I believe.
If you ask me if I believe in a sky daddy spun from peoples' misunderstanding of badly translated Hebrew texts, then no. Fuck no.
I'm reasonably certain it's not a server room, either. :lol:
Anyway, 800-4000 years of recopying and/or translating MAY have SLIGHTLY upped the error factor. Just a smidge.
:lulz:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 09:29:19 PM
Naw. You'd just keep talking around me anyway, like you've been doing all day.
So, you know, I'll just stick with
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o22/niqua230/GiFS/IMUPINTHISTHREADANDIAINTREADINGSHIT.gif)
:?
I'm ignoring you? That's news to me.
And in response to this perceived offense, you've decided to shit on my posts?
that's great, thank you
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 03, 2013, 09:29:19 PM
Naw. You'd just keep talking around me anyway, like you've been doing all day.
So, you know, I'll just stick with
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o22/niqua230/GiFS/IMUPINTHISTHREADANDIAINTREADINGSHIT.gif)
:?
I'm ignoring you? That's news to me.
And in response to this perceived offense, you've decided to shit on my posts?
that's great, thank you
I AM REALLY SLOW. I CAN BE TREATED IN ANY MANNER YOU SEE FIT, AND IF I *DO* HAVE A QUICK MOMENT AND PICK UP ON IT, YOU CAN JUST CLAIM THAT IT'S ALL IN MY HEAD.
\
:whack: <--- kinda stupid, doncha know.
Oh, and you're welcome.
no honestly, what the fuck are you talking about
if I was a dick, let me know what I did and I'll be happy to apologize
right now I am in the dark about why you're being personally rude me.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 09:43:54 PM
no honestly, what the fuck are you talking about
if I was a dick, let me know what I did and I'll be happy to apologize
right now I am in the dark about why you're being personally rude me.
I spoke to you multiple times throughout the day. I was not worth responding to, from what I can gather. This is disappointing, because I was rather hoping all that shit was behind us.
In any case, I feel I've made my point. I will stop spagging Nigel's thread up, now.
I'm not ignoring you, and to be completely frank, I have no beef with you whatsoever. I was even joking around with you about the kia thing on the last page of this thread.
If it appears that I was ignoring you, I apologize, and I assure you it was not my intent to do anything of the sort.
That being said, after deciding that I was being rude, your FIRST move wasn't to talk to me about it, but to troll my posts and quick draw "didn't read lol" gifs---which shows me loud and clear that you actually do have some issue with me.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 03, 2013, 10:24:23 PM
I'm not ignoring you, and to be completely frank, I have no beef with you whatsoever. I was even joking around with you about the kia thing on the last page of this thread.
If it appears that I was ignoring you, I apologize, and I assure you it was not my intent to do anything of the sort.
That being said, after deciding that I was being rude, your FIRST move wasn't to talk to me about it, but to troll my posts and quick draw "didn't read lol" gifs---which shows me loud and clear that you actually do have some issue with me.
Well, I didn't see much point in talking to you, since you had ignored every earlier attempt to talk to you.
Then this:
Quoteit's almost like you have something to say
Sorta spurred things on a bit.
Cram, I may have hollered at you, I may have been a jerk (warranted or not), but I have never treated you as anything less than a human being, even if you were a human with whom I was - for whatever reason - angry.
So when you returned this time, and seemed to be more or less friendly, I was hoping that the past bullshit was over with (sneering at me over WOMP, etc), and I was ready to let all that go. I was rather eager to let all that go.
But now I feel like a fucking fool, after a solid day of speaking to you and having you more or less turn your back.
You say that was not your intention; I shall take you at your word.
But if you were wondering why I did what I did as a FIRST move, consider that from my point of view that was the only move available.
You could have PM'd me or talked to me like two friends/adults trying to resolve a miscommunication, but your "only move available" was to troll me and press my buttons? give me a break.
I wasn't avoiding you, and I've already apologized for any unintentional slight, so what do you want from me? I am not here to have drama with you or anybody. Do you really think I am carrying around some secret grudge? Up until you started trolling me, I HONESTLY figured everything between us was cool. Now I know that's not the case, you're paranoid about me, harboring hostility, and are itching to escalate it.
I'm genuinely sorry if that's the way you feel. I love you, man.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 04, 2013, 04:00:44 PM
You could have PM'd me or talked to me like two friends/adults trying to resolve a miscommunication, but your "only move available" was to troll me and press my buttons? give me a break.
<snip>
Now I know that's not the case, you're paranoid about me, harboring hostility, and are itching to escalate it.
Walking away at this point.
...um.... hello....?
Not like I want to get embroiled in something, but I thought I'd slop my two cent-flax into the discussion, such as it is.
I used to consider myself a regular lightning-defying Atheist, at least partially as part of being defiant of authority in general and partly of having grown up in the Moral Majority '80s. I ripped on Swaggart and the 700 Club, crossed "IN GOD WE TRUST" off on my money with a black marker, and voraciously read anti-creationist texts.
Ultimately this led to picking up humanist/atheist magazines... and while the Xtian bashing in American Atheist Magazine was indeed entertaining, they went on to bash everyone who had a religion of any kind as weak and stupid. Then I came across True Christians like the Berrigan brothers, the Plowshares protesters, and Father Oscar Romero, and I realized that atheists, just like the ones they criticized, could be just as fundamentalist and intolerant as believers. Denying that religion could ever have a positive effect on someone is just as stupid as denying that the "wrong" religion could ever have a positive effect. So, that was that.
At the moment I'd consider myself a Deist, maybe - I do believe there are Gods, at least in the sense of something more powerful than humanity, only I don't necessarily believe they need or want adulation and/or worship. (And in my darker moods, I'm of a more Lovecraftian mind; you don't WANT to draw Their attention by praying...)
Eris is about the only deity I take seriously, and that's entirely because She tells you NOT to take Her seriously.
Hi Pere Ubu!
That was a great introductory post, thanks for joining the fray!
Also, bold choice of screen names. You from Ohio, by any chance?
Thanks muchly for the welcome, and no, the 'nym is more Alfred Jarry than Dave Thomas.
But then, isn't 'pataphysics pretty much the scientific extension of Eristic principles? ;)
there are many fascinating ideas in this thread. Do any mods think a split is warranted?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had. I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension. i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line. Where is this line? it is in a plane. Where is this plane? etc. This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions. In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion about humans being antennae or what have you for the greater common consciousness has prompted me to share an idea that a friend told me about - and I had another idea I want to share on the same topic.
a) my friend told me he had an idea that there are many more dimensions in reality than the ones that we perceive. He thought maybe that certain processes in our brains happen in these dimensions that we don't perceive. He felt that would be a good explanation for why we humans can't seem to develop A.I. - we are only modelling the processes that we can perceive when, perhaps, there are many other processes going on that we just can't measure or perceive.
b) I think the idea that we are all antennae transmitting and receiving signals from the greater common consciousness is pretty neat - but, why does there only have to be one? Wouldn't it be interesting if there were two (or more) "common consciousnesses" - some people are tuned into one, some people are tuned into the other one. Maybe some people are tuned into nothing - these would be the "robot" people. Anyhow, just an idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, on the subject of Agnosticism. A few months back I had an idea to compile some sort of essay or book that I wanted to call the Truth about God
The basis for the writing would be that, it is impossible to know if the God you choose to believe in is real, or just a delusion. But even given this uncertainty, certain truths can be arrived at.
For example. "thou shalt not test God" - if God is real, you can certainly find examples of scripture that tell you not to test God. But let's say God is a delusion - if you test your delusion, you give your delusion an opportunity to fail and then you will lose faith in your delusion. If you want to maintain your faith in your belief - you should not test it lest it fail - whether your belief is "correct" or a delusion.
Another "truth" might be that - God will be with you if you want [him] to be. Again, whether or not [he] is real doesn't matter.
I am curious if anyone would be interesting in collaborating on a list of truths in this vein.
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had. I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension. i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line. Where is this line? it is in a plane. Where is this plane? etc. This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions. In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.
The hidden assumption in that line of thought is that questions imply answers. "Where is X?" implying that there is a Y for X to be in. You might as well ask "What color are God's shoes?" and derive from question that not only the existence of a god but also that a god wears shoes that have a color. Or you could ask "What is not the answer to this question?" to prove that paradoxical entities are real, and paradoxical entities imply that all statements are true and all statements are false at the same time. If there is a statement that is true but not false, or false but not true, that implies that there is at least one question which does not have an answer.
As far as dimensions specifically, you can certainly
construct arbitrarily many dimensions, but it's hard to argue that any of those dimensions "exist" in any real sense. The so-called "Real Numbers", for example, are constructed mathematically as groupings of countably infinite dimensional vectors of rational numbers. (Rational numbers are 2-dimensional vectors of integers: <numerator, denominator>). You can make a case that 2, pi, square root of 7, whatever are all real entities in our universe, or at least describe relationships between real entities. But then you have Real Numbers that are noncomputable, which is to say that no algorithm defined with a finite number of symbols could calculate them. I don't mean numbers like pi and square root of 2 - those are irrational and have have infinitely many non-repeating decimal points, but you can write simple algorithms that produce ever-closer approximations of them and then declare that finding the limit of those approximations is equivalent to calculating the number. There are countably-infinite such finite-symbol algorithms, and power-set of countably-infinite Real Numbers, so the definition of Real Numbers allows for numbers that can't come from any algorithm. Such a "noncomputable" number would have to contain infinitely many bits of information, so any real relationship that it described would have infinite physical potential energy. It's hard to make the case that noncomputable numbers are really existing thing in the same way that 1, 2, pi, sqrt(7) are.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 06, 2013, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had. I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension. i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line. Where is this line? it is in a plane. Where is this plane? etc. This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions. In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.
The hidden assumption in that line of thought is that questions imply answers. "Where is X?" implying that there is a Y for X to be in. You might as well ask "What color are God's shoes?" and derive from question that not only the existence of a god but also that a god wears shoes that have a color. Or you could ask "What is not the answer to this question?" to prove that paradoxical entities are real, and paradoxical entities imply that all statements are true and all statements are false at the same time. If there is a statement that is true but not false, or false but not true, that implies that there is at least one question which does not have an answer.
As far as dimensions specifically, you can certainly construct arbitrarily many dimensions, but it's hard to argue that any of those dimensions "exist" in any real sense. The so-called "Real Numbers", for example, are constructed mathematically as groupings of countably infinite dimensional vectors of rational numbers. (Rational numbers are 2-dimensional vectors of integers: <numerator, denominator>). You can make a case that 2, pi, square root of 7, whatever are all real entities in our universe, or at least describe relationships between real entities. But then you have Real Numbers that are noncomputable, which is to say that no algorithm defined with a finite number of symbols could calculate them. I don't mean numbers like pi and square root of 2 - those are irrational and have have infinitely many non-repeating decimal points, but you can write simple algorithms that produce ever-closer approximations of them and then declare that finding the limit of those approximations is equivalent to calculating the number. There are countably-infinite such finite-symbol algorithms, and power-set of countably-infinite Real Numbers, so the definition of Real Numbers allows for numbers that can't come from any algorithm. Such a "noncomputable" number would have to contain infinitely many bits of information, so any real relationship that it described would have infinite physical potential energy. It's hard to make the case that noncomputable numbers are really existing thing in the same way that 1, 2, pi, sqrt(7) are.
you are correct and I concede that my questions presume answers. I think my assumption is that the universe is "somewhere" - but I'll have to think about it for awhile.
I follow what you are saying about real numbers not necessarily being "real" but I don't understand how that relates to my belief that there are infinitely many dimensions.
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
a) my friend told me he had an idea that there are many more dimensions in reality than the ones that we perceive. He thought maybe that certain processes in our brains happen in these dimensions that we don't perceive. He felt that would be a good explanation for why we humans can't seem to develop A.I. - we are only modelling the processes that we can perceive when, perhaps, there are many other processes going on that we just can't measure or perceive.
Does he mean processes that we can't perceive because we haven't figured out how, or processes that are fundamentally impossible to perceive? If it's the first one, let's wait 200 years. It took quite a long time for humans to figure out all the processes involved in powered flight, and the early attempts attempting to mimic bird wings with no understanding of the processes that made bird wings work were hilariously bad and doomed to failure, but we've definitely figured it out
now.
Saying something is fundamentally impossible to perceive is equivalent to saying that it fundamentally can't exist. Let X be such an unobservable thing. Let U+X be a universe like ours universe except with one extra X, and U-X be a universe like ours except missing all instances of X. Any differences between U+X and U-X are perceivable effects of X. If there are no perceivable effects of X, than U+X is no different from U-X, and so the U+X is actually the same universes as U-X, which makes X a pretty meaningless thing if +X and -X are the same.
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 06:37:45 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 06, 2013, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had. I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension. i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line. Where is this line? it is in a plane. Where is this plane? etc. This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions. In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.
The hidden assumption in that line of thought is that questions imply answers. "Where is X?" implying that there is a Y for X to be in. You might as well ask "What color are God's shoes?" and derive from question that not only the existence of a god but also that a god wears shoes that have a color. Or you could ask "What is not the answer to this question?" to prove that paradoxical entities are real, and paradoxical entities imply that all statements are true and all statements are false at the same time. If there is a statement that is true but not false, or false but not true, that implies that there is at least one question which does not have an answer.
As far as dimensions specifically, you can certainly construct arbitrarily many dimensions, but it's hard to argue that any of those dimensions "exist" in any real sense. The so-called "Real Numbers", for example, are constructed mathematically as groupings of countably infinite dimensional vectors of rational numbers. (Rational numbers are 2-dimensional vectors of integers: <numerator, denominator>). You can make a case that 2, pi, square root of 7, whatever are all real entities in our universe, or at least describe relationships between real entities. But then you have Real Numbers that are noncomputable, which is to say that no algorithm defined with a finite number of symbols could calculate them. I don't mean numbers like pi and square root of 2 - those are irrational and have have infinitely many non-repeating decimal points, but you can write simple algorithms that produce ever-closer approximations of them and then declare that finding the limit of those approximations is equivalent to calculating the number. There are countably-infinite such finite-symbol algorithms, and power-set of countably-infinite Real Numbers, so the definition of Real Numbers allows for numbers that can't come from any algorithm. Such a "noncomputable" number would have to contain infinitely many bits of information, so any real relationship that it described would have infinite physical potential energy. It's hard to make the case that noncomputable numbers are really existing thing in the same way that 1, 2, pi, sqrt(7) are.
you are correct and I concede that my questions presume answers. I think my assumption is that the universe is "somewhere" - but I'll have to think about it for awhile.
What happens if that "somewhere" is "the universe"?
Q1: "Where is GA?"
A1: "At GA's apartment."
Q2: "Where is GA's apartment?"
A2: "At GA's apartment."
Q3: goto Q2
(edit - not ignoring the parts I haven't quoted, they just have their own responses and I'll get to them separately if I get around to it.)
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 06, 2013, 06:50:09 PM
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
a) my friend told me he had an idea that there are many more dimensions in reality than the ones that we perceive. He thought maybe that certain processes in our brains happen in these dimensions that we don't perceive. He felt that would be a good explanation for why we humans can't seem to develop A.I. - we are only modelling the processes that we can perceive when, perhaps, there are many other processes going on that we just can't measure or perceive.
Does he mean processes that we can't perceive because we haven't figured out how, or processes that are fundamentally impossible to perceive? If it's the first one, let's wait 200 years. It took quite a long time for humans to figure out all the processes involved in powered flight, and the early attempts attempting to mimic bird wings with no understanding of the processes that made bird wings work were hilariously bad and doomed to failure, but we've definitely figured it out now.
Saying something is fundamentally impossible to perceive is equivalent to saying that it fundamentally can't exist. Let X be such an unobservable thing. Let U+X be a universe like ours universe except with one extra X, and U-X be a universe like ours except missing all instances of X. Any differences between U+X and U-X are perceivable effects of X. If there are no perceivable effects of X, than U+X is no different from U-X, and so the U+X is actually the same universes as U-X, which makes X a pretty meaningless thing if +X and -X are the same.
I think he meant processes we can't perceive because we haven't figured out how. In other words, I think he was saying that, we are aware that neurons communicate with each other by synapses firing, but that there are also other "synapses" that fire not in the dimensions we are used to but, rather, say - the 5th and 6th dimensions if you like. Since those processes are happening "behind the scenes" we have no way (yet) to observe them and incorporate them into our models.
I think where we may differ in opinion is that, supposing this extra-dimensional processes do exist - I am not convinced we will ever actually be able to observe them. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. To put it another way, germs existed before the microscope was invented. Supposing that humans never existed, or developed the ability to observe germs via a microscope - this does not alter the existence of germs.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 06, 2013, 06:54:19 PM
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 06:37:45 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 06, 2013, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had. I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension. i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line. Where is this line? it is in a plane. Where is this plane? etc. This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions. In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.
The hidden assumption in that line of thought is that questions imply answers. "Where is X?" implying that there is a Y for X to be in. You might as well ask "What color are God's shoes?" and derive from question that not only the existence of a god but also that a god wears shoes that have a color. Or you could ask "What is not the answer to this question?" to prove that paradoxical entities are real, and paradoxical entities imply that all statements are true and all statements are false at the same time. If there is a statement that is true but not false, or false but not true, that implies that there is at least one question which does not have an answer.
As far as dimensions specifically, you can certainly construct arbitrarily many dimensions, but it's hard to argue that any of those dimensions "exist" in any real sense. The so-called "Real Numbers", for example, are constructed mathematically as groupings of countably infinite dimensional vectors of rational numbers. (Rational numbers are 2-dimensional vectors of integers: <numerator, denominator>). You can make a case that 2, pi, square root of 7, whatever are all real entities in our universe, or at least describe relationships between real entities. But then you have Real Numbers that are noncomputable, which is to say that no algorithm defined with a finite number of symbols could calculate them. I don't mean numbers like pi and square root of 2 - those are irrational and have have infinitely many non-repeating decimal points, but you can write simple algorithms that produce ever-closer approximations of them and then declare that finding the limit of those approximations is equivalent to calculating the number. There are countably-infinite such finite-symbol algorithms, and power-set of countably-infinite Real Numbers, so the definition of Real Numbers allows for numbers that can't come from any algorithm. Such a "noncomputable" number would have to contain infinitely many bits of information, so any real relationship that it described would have infinite physical potential energy. It's hard to make the case that noncomputable numbers are really existing thing in the same way that 1, 2, pi, sqrt(7) are.
you are correct and I concede that my questions presume answers. I think my assumption is that the universe is "somewhere" - but I'll have to think about it for awhile.
What happens if that "somewhere" is "the universe"?
Q1: "Where is GA?"
A1: "At GA's apartment."
Q2: "Where is GA's apartment?"
A2: "At GA's apartment."
Q3: goto Q2
(edit - not ignoring the parts I haven't quoted, they just have their own responses and I'll get to them separately if I get around to it.)
I see what you are doing here and I can't really disagree. Except I'm more comfortable answering:
"GA's apartment is in GA's apartment building"
Where is that?
GA's city.
Where is that?
GA's state
Where is that?
GA's country
.
.
.
Where is that?
The Universe
Where is that?
The I'm not sure
Where is that?
The I'm not sure + 1
Where is that?
The I'm not sure + 2
.
.
.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 02, 2013, 07:09:57 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 02, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
So I was raised as a crazy JW... at the age of 6, I was hospitalized with a kidney problem. I had an operation with no blood transfusion permitted. In the days following the operation, the Doctor said that my blood count was dangerously low and that without a transfusion I may die. My parents refused and I recall vividly, crying and telling the Doctor that I would die faithful to Jehovah and 'please don't give me blood'. That, among many other experiences should probably have made me a screaming atheist. It didn't. After I left the JW's, I became a pagan, studied Wicca and was looking at initiation... but I couldn't get past the obvious BS involved in that. I bounced around several systems, and fortunately for me, I read the PD and it all suddenly became completely clear. That was followed up by Quantum Psychology, Angel Tech, Prometheus Rising etc and it led me to the position I now hold. Which basically boils down to 'I don't know, you don't know... but these moldy old books and scrolls are full of contradictions, errors and outright lies... therefore, we can discount them.
Everything else, seems pretty easily explainable by God being a Crazy Woman. :lulz:
As for the believers, I figure they can believe what they want, its all about embracing their nonsense, as well as the scientific sense ;-)
Holy shit. I knew you were a JW but that's some fucked up shit.
Some of the most fucked up experiences I recall though were the people at the door. My parents and I were doing the door knocking thing one Saturday. My mom was about 6 months pregnant. The lady at the door was very rude and told us to leave. My mom smiled and said "OK, well have a nice day." The lady came flying out of the door screaming "I WILL NOT HAVE A GOOD DAY" and then pushed my mom off of the porch. My dad was about three or four steps down and caught her before she bounced down the stairs. We quickly headed back to the car. Then the woman's husband came out of the barn with a corn cutter and started chasing us, waving it around. We got into the car and he began hitting the tr4unk of the car with the cutter screaming and yelling.
They were well known as very good Christians.
Another time, I was in the car and a teenage girl with her mom were walking up to the door. Before they could get there, the man opened the door, released a doberman and shut the door. They tried running back to the car, but the girl got attacked and by the time the men in the car got her free we had to take her to the hospital and her face was scarred for the rest of her life.
He was a lay preacher for one of the local churches.
I think its difficult to decide which is worse, parents risking the life of their kids because of some idiot belief, or people so violently opposed to a different religion that they would risk harming or killing people over it.
I hope it's not against the JW religion to press charges, but I'm guessing that it is. Were any of those assholes punished at all for that shit?
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on September 30, 2013, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on September 30, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
Some people's religion is so awful it should probably be illegal to teach it to children. That is where I imagine most of the really enthusiastic atheists come from. I mean, can you imagine being raised by Michelle Bachmann and Ted Cruz? That's bound to leave some mental scars.
A disturbing number of children are brought up being told that the universe was, in a nutshell, created by a child molesting sky fairy who loves his children so much he will throw them down in his rape basement and sodomize them with his fire cock for ever and ever if they don't love him back hard enough. And also, (little billy/suzie), we love him more than we love you, because he says so.
I imagine some of them have some kind of PTSD or something caused by the childhood trauma of being raised by crazy people. They may even have some underlying genetic disorder. I have had a theory for a while that religious denominations tend to attract people of particular genetic mental predispositions. The beliefs of some of these denominations tend to discourage people from marrying outside the church, so they breed with other people with similar genetic predispositions. The resulting children then inherit this genetic predisposition and hand it down to their children. It's natural selection for crazy.
Somewhere there's a fascinating talk by Robert Sapolsky, who in fact shares at least significant portions of your opinion. It's pretty well-documented that there's a heritable component to many psychological disorders, including schizophrenia, which is relevant because the families of schizophrenics are more likely to hold irrational beliefs and show other signs of what has been named "Schizotypal Personality Disorder". It's not really a mental illness per se, but it does fit into a particular niche where a person is pretty much fully functional, but has beliefs that are clearly delusional. Socially-acceptable, perhaps eccentric, but delusional. The problem, of course, is that there is a spectrum effect and it's really really hard to say "This is where normal ends and schizotypal begins". Sapolsky's hypothesis is that, indeed, religion and similarly delusional beliefs are generated by this sort of mild madness, and then there is a sort of confirmation of popularity effect; you get enough slightly mad but functional and well-respected people believing the same delusional belief, perhaps you get a community leader who is charismatic and visionary (and slightly mad), and other people who aren't necessarily susceptible to delusions will start suspending their disbelief and going along with it, you get groupthink.
This talk is, of course, very controversial for a number of different reasons. It really pisses people off. I'll try to find it.
I wold appreciate that. Hopefully, he is considering the possible effects of selective pressure on the genetics of the group due to the religion as well. I'd love to see a study on that.
Quote from: Emo Howard on October 06, 2013, 07:14:03 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 02, 2013, 07:09:57 PM
Quote from: Twigel on October 02, 2013, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 02, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
So I was raised as a crazy JW... at the age of 6, I was hospitalized with a kidney problem. I had an operation with no blood transfusion permitted. In the days following the operation, the Doctor said that my blood count was dangerously low and that without a transfusion I may die. My parents refused and I recall vividly, crying and telling the Doctor that I would die faithful to Jehovah and 'please don't give me blood'. That, among many other experiences should probably have made me a screaming atheist. It didn't. After I left the JW's, I became a pagan, studied Wicca and was looking at initiation... but I couldn't get past the obvious BS involved in that. I bounced around several systems, and fortunately for me, I read the PD and it all suddenly became completely clear. That was followed up by Quantum Psychology, Angel Tech, Prometheus Rising etc and it led me to the position I now hold. Which basically boils down to 'I don't know, you don't know... but these moldy old books and scrolls are full of contradictions, errors and outright lies... therefore, we can discount them.
Everything else, seems pretty easily explainable by God being a Crazy Woman. :lulz:
As for the believers, I figure they can believe what they want, its all about embracing their nonsense, as well as the scientific sense ;-)
Holy shit. I knew you were a JW but that's some fucked up shit.
Some of the most fucked up experiences I recall though were the people at the door. My parents and I were doing the door knocking thing one Saturday. My mom was about 6 months pregnant. The lady at the door was very rude and told us to leave. My mom smiled and said "OK, well have a nice day." The lady came flying out of the door screaming "I WILL NOT HAVE A GOOD DAY" and then pushed my mom off of the porch. My dad was about three or four steps down and caught her before she bounced down the stairs. We quickly headed back to the car. Then the woman's husband came out of the barn with a corn cutter and started chasing us, waving it around. We got into the car and he began hitting the tr4unk of the car with the cutter screaming and yelling.
They were well known as very good Christians.
Another time, I was in the car and a teenage girl with her mom were walking up to the door. Before they could get there, the man opened the door, released a doberman and shut the door. They tried running back to the car, but the girl got attacked and by the time the men in the car got her free we had to take her to the hospital and her face was scarred for the rest of her life.
He was a lay preacher for one of the local churches.
I think its difficult to decide which is worse, parents risking the life of their kids because of some idiot belief, or people so violently opposed to a different religion that they would risk harming or killing people over it.
I hope it's not against the JW religion to press charges, but I'm guessing that it is. Were any of those assholes punished at all for that shit?
Sadly no. JW's will often not press charges because they don't want to reflect badly on the religion in the community. Its not forbidden, and they may encourage it now, I dunno. I've been gone for over a decade.
Quote from: Emo Howard on October 06, 2013, 07:17:18 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on September 30, 2013, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on September 30, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
Some people's religion is so awful it should probably be illegal to teach it to children. That is where I imagine most of the really enthusiastic atheists come from. I mean, can you imagine being raised by Michelle Bachmann and Ted Cruz? That's bound to leave some mental scars.
A disturbing number of children are brought up being told that the universe was, in a nutshell, created by a child molesting sky fairy who loves his children so much he will throw them down in his rape basement and sodomize them with his fire cock for ever and ever if they don't love him back hard enough. And also, (little billy/suzie), we love him more than we love you, because he says so.
I imagine some of them have some kind of PTSD or something caused by the childhood trauma of being raised by crazy people. They may even have some underlying genetic disorder. I have had a theory for a while that religious denominations tend to attract people of particular genetic mental predispositions. The beliefs of some of these denominations tend to discourage people from marrying outside the church, so they breed with other people with similar genetic predispositions. The resulting children then inherit this genetic predisposition and hand it down to their children. It's natural selection for crazy.
Somewhere there's a fascinating talk by Robert Sapolsky, who in fact shares at least significant portions of your opinion. It's pretty well-documented that there's a heritable component to many psychological disorders, including schizophrenia, which is relevant because the families of schizophrenics are more likely to hold irrational beliefs and show other signs of what has been named "Schizotypal Personality Disorder". It's not really a mental illness per se, but it does fit into a particular niche where a person is pretty much fully functional, but has beliefs that are clearly delusional. Socially-acceptable, perhaps eccentric, but delusional. The problem, of course, is that there is a spectrum effect and it's really really hard to say "This is where normal ends and schizotypal begins". Sapolsky's hypothesis is that, indeed, religion and similarly delusional beliefs are generated by this sort of mild madness, and then there is a sort of confirmation of popularity effect; you get enough slightly mad but functional and well-respected people believing the same delusional belief, perhaps you get a community leader who is charismatic and visionary (and slightly mad), and other people who aren't necessarily susceptible to delusions will start suspending their disbelief and going along with it, you get groupthink.
This talk is, of course, very controversial for a number of different reasons. It really pisses people off. I'll try to find it.
I wold appreciate that. Hopefully, he is considering the possible effects of selective pressure on the genetics of the group due to the religion as well. I'd love to see a study on that.
I posted links on the last page or so.
Quote from: rong on October 06, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
The discussion about humans being antennae or what have you for the greater common consciousness has prompted me to share an idea that a friend told me about - and I had another idea I want to share on the same topic.
a) my friend told me he had an idea that there are many more dimensions in reality than the ones that we perceive. He thought maybe that certain processes in our brains happen in these dimensions that we don't perceive. He felt that would be a good explanation for why we humans can't seem to develop A.I. - we are only modelling the processes that we can perceive when, perhaps, there are many other processes going on that we just can't measure or perceive.
b) I think the idea that we are all antennae transmitting and receiving signals from the greater common consciousness is pretty neat - but, why does there only have to be one? Wouldn't it be interesting if there were two (or more) "common consciousnesses" - some people are tuned into one, some people are tuned into the other one. Maybe some people are tuned into nothing - these would be the "robot" people. Anyhow, just an idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, on the subject of Agnosticism. A few months back I had an idea to compile some sort of essay or book that I wanted to call the Truth about God
The basis for the writing would be that, it is impossible to know if the God you choose to believe in is real, or just a delusion. But even given this uncertainty, certain truths can be arrived at.
For example. "thou shalt not test God" - if God is real, you can certainly find examples of scripture that tell you not to test God. But let's say God is a delusion - if you test your delusion, you give your delusion an opportunity to fail and then you will lose faith in your delusion. If you want to maintain your faith in your belief - you should not test it lest it fail - whether your belief is "correct" or a delusion.
Another "truth" might be that - God will be with you if you want [him] to be. Again, whether or not [he] is real doesn't matter.
I am curious if anyone would be interesting in collaborating on a list of truths in this vein.
I found a lot of these ideas interesting so excuse me while i try to organize my thoughts for each one in turn.
A)First thoughts about the whole common consciousness thing reminded me of the Alan Watts lectures my friend got my into recently(I know a lot of you have prolly heard of him, and may even be sick of him, but i've just heard him so he's news to me :p) But basically he is a very entertaining Tao Buddhist, and one of the things he asserts is that the ego is an illusion, that we are all extensions of a universal consciousness, and that the separateness between you and I is false. Or to put it another way," I am me, as you are me, and we are all together. Koo koo katchoo."
B)As i said before, My current conception of gods is something like what occultists refer as egregores; ideas that have taken on a life of their own. Whether the judeo-christian god ACTUALLY crafted the universe himself out of nothing in 7 days and created mankind in his own image is irrelevant, what matters is that the story perpetuates, that the meaning isn't lost, because thats how stories(and gods are essentially stories) reproduce in the mind. People tell the stories of their gods, and what the stories mean, and those meanings are passed on to their kids and grandkids and whatever converts the religion surrounding the god gets. I once had a Norse friend of mine argue that the actions of the Christian church to stamp out or subvert the norse religion were actually planned by Loki, but that's a fun story for another day. My point is, from this perspective, some of the directives of organized religion make more sense. Imagine you are an entity that seeks to reproduce by having your story told and passed down. You would want to have your story passed down as much and by as many people as possible, and you would be in competition with other entities for the right to reproduce. so you'd make sure that part of your story includes the importance of passing the story on to others and discouraging the telling of alternative stories to maximize your chance of survival. You would necessarily change and adapt your story in order to fit the people you want to tell your story and the time in which its being told.
Sound familiar?
There is evidence to support that stories are how our minds encode meaning into easily understood and transmitted segments, they're the easiest way for us to construct meaning from our random chaos of experiences. So whether or not God or Loki or Eris is simply a story isn't the issue, the issue is what effects those encoded meaning have on our world. Gods influence and move people in certain ways every single day, whether they pray to them or not. Whether they're trying to follow their command, or in the case of hardcore atheists, rebelling against them, people finding meaning in things that may or may not have it seems to be what we do: we spend so much time either creating, consuming, or evaluating created meanings in the forms of shows, books, songs, really all forms of culture. Even taking culture out of the equation, science and philosophy have grappled for millenia to find absolute meaning in the universe, some truth that sits in the center of everything like a Peach Pit of Creation, but now we're finding that the universe may be more subjective than that. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been quoted saying that the universe created us to help the universe understand itself. or to put THAT another way, The universe tells us what we are, and we tell the universe what it is.
To touch on one very small part of what you've said, it isn't even possible to take cultures out of the picture, as we all inherently filter every single piece of information we collect through our cultural egregore.
I think what Chelagoras is true. In our North American culture its almost irrelevant whether or not the Judeo-Christian god is real or not, because we act like it is, either way. As much as the separation of church and state is an ideal (and it isn't even where I live. Canada doesn't even try to deny that this is a Christian nation. Derp) the whole bible issue is jerked into situation after situation where it should have no place whatsoever. And again, this is why I think there are so many people who feel they need to define themselves against an idea.
Speak for yourself, white man.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Speak for yourself, white man.
What part of what I wrote did you disagree with?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 08, 2013, 09:09:56 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Speak for yourself, white man.
What part of what I wrote did you disagree with?
Partly the "we" thing, and partly just being tongue-in-cheek. Because, as I've mentioned before, the culture in the NW is very NOT "we act like God exists whether he does or not". So, there's some YMMV stuff in there.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:00:57 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 08, 2013, 09:09:56 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Speak for yourself, white man.
What part of what I wrote did you disagree with?
Partly the "we" thing, and partly just being tongue-in-cheek. Because, as I've mentioned before, the culture in the NW is very NOT "we act like God exists whether he does or not". So, there's some YMMV stuff in there.
There's no swearing on a bible in court? Or does that not happen anymore? Does your Pledge of Allegiance not mention the ultimate Big Brother?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 04:16:57 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:00:57 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 08, 2013, 09:09:56 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Speak for yourself, white man.
What part of what I wrote did you disagree with?
Partly the "we" thing, and partly just being tongue-in-cheek. Because, as I've mentioned before, the culture in the NW is very NOT "we act like God exists whether he does or not". So, there's some YMMV stuff in there.
There's no swearing on a bible in court? Or does that not happen anymore? Does your Pledge of Allegiance not mention the ultimate Big Brother?
I have never actually heard the Pledge of Allegiance in person, and they don't say it at my children's schools. I know they say it as an optional thing in some schools, I just haven't encountered it.
There's no bible in court! :lol:
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 04:46:30 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 04:16:57 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:00:57 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 08, 2013, 09:09:56 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Speak for yourself, white man.
What part of what I wrote did you disagree with?
Partly the "we" thing, and partly just being tongue-in-cheek. Because, as I've mentioned before, the culture in the NW is very NOT "we act like God exists whether he does or not". So, there's some YMMV stuff in there.
There's no swearing on a bible in court? Or does that not happen anymore? Does your Pledge of Allegiance not mention the ultimate Big Brother?
I have never actually heard the Pledge of Allegiance in person, and they don't say it at my children's schools. I know they say it as an optional thing in some schools, I just haven't encountered it.
There's no bible in court! :lol:
I guess my info is well outta date. Oh well, what do I know...
It says "in god we trust" on the money though, which is pretty stupid. But we don't print that, and it doesn't specify which god anyway. Considering how much strife money generates, I'll just assume it's Eris.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 04:47:39 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 04:46:30 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 04:16:57 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:00:57 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 08, 2013, 09:09:56 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Speak for yourself, white man.
What part of what I wrote did you disagree with?
Partly the "we" thing, and partly just being tongue-in-cheek. Because, as I've mentioned before, the culture in the NW is very NOT "we act like God exists whether he does or not". So, there's some YMMV stuff in there.
There's no swearing on a bible in court? Or does that not happen anymore? Does your Pledge of Allegiance not mention the ultimate Big Brother?
I have never actually heard the Pledge of Allegiance in person, and they don't say it at my children's schools. I know they say it as an optional thing in some schools, I just haven't encountered it.
There's no bible in court! :lol:
I guess my info is well outta date. Oh well, what do I know...
Or things really are like that in states like Alabama and Mississippi, and it's just that the culture in Oregon and Washington are different from a lot of other places in the US.
I remember the Bible thing in Perry Mason, so maybe they used to do that and it's become part of the "American Courtroom" trope.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 07:31:58 AM
To touch on one very small part of what you've said, it isn't even possible to take cultures out of the picture, as we all inherently filter every single piece of information we collect through our cultural egregore.
Very true, it's impossible for a scientist to objectively separate himself from his cultural biases 100% of the time, and even if he could, how often are his observations wrong due to the fact that everything he hears, sees and experiences is filtered through a highly flawed series of nerve endings and monkey brains?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on October 09, 2013, 05:08:05 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 07:31:58 AM
To touch on one very small part of what you've said, it isn't even possible to take cultures out of the picture, as we all inherently filter every single piece of information we collect through our cultural egregore.
Very true, it's impossible for a scientist to objectively separate himself from his cultural biases 100% of the time, and even if he could, how often are his observations wrong due to the fact that everything he hears, sees and experiences is filtered through a highly flawed series of nerve endings and monkey brains?
Recognizing cultural bias in scientists has been a significant and startlingly recent advance in science.
Speaking of cultural biases....
(http://i.qkme.me/3619sv.jpg)
Quote from: Bu☆ns on October 11, 2013, 01:06:23 AM
Speaking of cultural biases....
(http://i.qkme.me/3619sv.jpg)
That's not really fair, all atheists eat babies. That's like blaming a particular jewish person for chewing off foreskins.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 04:46:30 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 04:16:57 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:00:57 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 08, 2013, 09:09:56 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 08, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Speak for yourself, white man.
What part of what I wrote did you disagree with?
Partly the "we" thing, and partly just being tongue-in-cheek. Because, as I've mentioned before, the culture in the NW is very NOT "we act like God exists whether he does or not". So, there's some YMMV stuff in there.
There's no swearing on a bible in court? Or does that not happen anymore? Does your Pledge of Allegiance not mention the ultimate Big Brother?
I have never actually heard the Pledge of Allegiance in person, and they don't say it at my children's schools. I know they say it as an optional thing in some schools, I just haven't encountered it.
There's no bible in court! :lol:
Yes, in Mass the kids said the pledge WITHOUT "under god", in Texas they have to say it, of course. :horrormirth: Well, maybe they can't legally force them, but if you made a stink over it you'd have a bunch of outraged ignorant yahoos seeking even more revenge than they normally do.
But no bible in court, not even here. You do have to raise your hand and get sworn in, but no god stuff.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 11, 2013, 01:36:57 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on October 11, 2013, 01:06:23 AM
Speaking of cultural biases....
(http://i.qkme.me/3619sv.jpg)
That's not really fair, all atheists eat babies. That's like blaming a particular jewish person for chewing off foreskins.
:spittake: