NationStates Jolt Archive

Merriam Webster defines religion as:

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

In sense 4, any strongly held system of beliefs is a religion. A denial of a supernatural deity isn't necessarily a system.

But really, when we say 'religion' we are leaning more toward 1 and 2. Atheism doesn't really seem to be a 'system'. So it isn't a 'religion'. Do not mistake 'science' for 'atheism'.

Science is simply seeing a pattern in observed physical phenomena. This pattern is used to predict and derive new ideas which are then tested. Science is based on testing and observation.

Let's put it this way. While it is my right (in America) to hold a system of belief that denies the existence of the color blue, this doesn't make blue go away. "Blue" as it is defined being a certain wavelength of light, exists. So if you live in a sealed room and never see the color blue, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean it does. So, until you measure this 'blue', you really don't know one way or the other. That is science. Atheism says, "I don't believe in blue". Bluists say, "Blue exists". Science says, "Show me."

(And while we're on the subject of "God", I always have to ask... what do you mean when you say, "God"? There are so many different 'versions' of this entity. Is God the all-pervasive essence of existance? Is God the 'bearded old Father in the sky'? Is God the Sun? What IS God anyway? The Hindus don't think about God the same way you do. Define God and I'll tell you if I believe in it or not, and I might even give you a reason.)

What do I feel about dying? I am somewhat afraid. I fear leaving my loved ones behind. I am afraid of the pain that occurs when my body shuts down. I don't believe that there will be any "I" left when my body dies. I do not believe that what I perceive as "me" has any lasting essence beyond brain function. Does this bother me? In some ways it does, but if there is no 'me' after death, then there is no 'me' to be sad over the loss. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Infinity can not be grasped.

Then why do you seem to think you understand it so well?

PS. I editted a rather bad mistake in answer #6 in the exact same second that you posted.

And what do you think of my answers #1&2?

Second part first....

PERFECT answer to #1 and #2..! (No and No for all you folks keeping score.)

First part second....

I don't understand infinity,... I just "know it when I see it".

Like "porn", or "art",... or "it is".


Don't you just LOVE the "chasing your tail up your own posterior orifice" quality of this stuff..!?

Hmmmmm...

"The quest for god as an exercise in ouroboritic (http://www.crystalinks.com/ouroboros.html) circumflexion."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......!

:D

i'm an atheist and when it comes to dieing or however it is spelled, i don't want to die because i am enjoying life but if i did die i wouldn't really care. since i don't believe in an afterlife there would be no way of me knowing that i am dead and i won't be able to be angry or sad or anything. since i will have no senses or anything it is just nothingness and in nothingness i am okay.

Perfect..! :)

Excellent.

:)

(( And,... YES,.... I AM the final arbiter of "correct" answers in here..! ))


((( ..do I REALLY need to use the <sarcasm> tag..? )))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Infinity can not be grasped.

What is "grasped"? I have no problem with the concept of infinity and eternity, as in the universe(s). I find it rather comforting, really, knowing that even though I'll die, the universe(s) will go on forever. An infinite playground for life-forms.

OK,... you can "hold onto" the concept of infinity,... but you can't "understand" (yet MORE self-butt-chasing to occur shortly (http://www.crystalinks.com/ouroboros.html)) it.

I find the realization of the futility of it very freeing (comforting) myself.

Much like the suicidal person feels a "freedom" when they finally decide to commit to doing themselves in.

Now there's a cheery final rejoinder..! :)


OH YEAH..!
Congrats on being
#1500....!



Of course, you ALSO got #666 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6932483&postcount=666)..!

The same way everyone else feels about it, minus an afterlife.

Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

Speak for yourself

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enter nation here
The same way everyone else feels about it, minus an afterlife.



Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

.."For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."..

And what is your interpretation of this...? :)

OK,... you can "hold onto" the concept of infinity,... but you can't "understand" (yet MORE self-butt-chasing to occur shortly (http://www.crystalinks.com/ouroboros.html)) it.

I find the realization of the futility of it very freeing (comforting) myself.

Much like the suicidal person feels a "freedom" when they finally decide to commit to doing themselves in.

Now there's a cheery final rejoinder..! :)

You know, I've been hearing people tell me for years that I can't understand the concept of infinity, and yet I have no more problem with it than I do with the concepts of war, peace or life, itself. What is it I'm not supposed to grasp?


OH YEAH..!
Congrats on being
#1500....!


Thanks.

OK,... you can "hold onto" the concept of infinity,... but you can't "understand" (yet MORE self-butt-chasing to occur shortly (http://www.crystalinks.com/ouroboros.html)) it.

Cool link. Well researched, though it contains some mis-information.
There is another mention of the Ouroboros laying at the edge of "the sea which surrounds the world," called Pontus. The Ouroboros encircles the Universe; everything known and unknown is encompassed in its embracing coils, supporting and maintaining the earthly balance. It injects life into death and death into budding life. Its form suggests immobility with its locked jaws upon itself, yet at the same time it pushes the insistent message of perpetual movement through its twined coils. The first clues to this symbol go back as far as 1600-1700 BC in Egypt.
It's just the last line that is incorrect, and an earlier assertation that the symbol originated in Egypt. The Summerian Nammu is also the Ouroboros, a salt-water river encircling the earth at its edge; the same "deep" from whose depths God creates his universe. After her, there is salt-water Tiamat, whose body is used by her slayer Marduk to fashion the world and all life on it. The images of goddess as the symbol of eternal life date back to at least circa fifth millennium BC.

Wow, long read. Had to get some sleep in between.

First things first.
I'm an agnostic so technically the question doesn't address me anyway but who cares, the topic has been sidetracked many times as is :)

How do I feel about dying? It will have to happen. Just like being born was inevitable so will dying be (unless medical science finds a way for me to live eternally which I doubt). I worried about it when I was younger until I realised worrying was not going to change the fact that it would happen. All it would accomplish was that I would waste time to could be better spend doing other things (makes me wonder about this thread as well actually ;) ).

Now to thank some of the posters (in no particular order):

Willemana, great posts. Tries to make people think although I get the feeling the effort may be wasted on most.

Grave, again... great posts. Clear expression of thought makes it much easier to follow.

Iakeokeo, took me a couple of posts to get used to how he expresses himself but again somebody that tries to make others think (alas, I still think it's lost on many of them). Nice change to see somebody acknowledging the good thing others said. That seems to be a rare skill on message boards.

Now to take one of the questions posted and answer it (too many to answer them all).


DO you have an "imaginary friend" named Walter..?

If you do,.. what function does Walter serve for you..?

If you don't,.. why is the idea of Walter of any importance to you..?

I, personally, HAVE proof, to me, of my gods and my "big absolute thingy" (aka "it is").

They and it serve all sorts of functions for me.

You have yuor beliefs too, which server various functions for you.

Is the fact the today was preceeded by yesterday, REALLY proof that tomorrow will follow today..?

Do you believe in (like the idea of), and have faith (expect) that tomorrow will come..?

:)
One can believe and have faith that tomorrow will come but would be in for grave disappointment. After all, by it's own definition, tomorrow can never come.
That said, tomorrow is likely to always be there. At least for me, while I'm alive.

Ps, walter does exist. I have met him so I will accept that as fact.
That said, I don't know who's friend he is and who, if anybody, he doesn't like ;)

DO you have an "imaginary friend" named Walter..?

If you do,.. what function does Walter serve for you..?

If you don't,.. why is the idea of Walter of any importance to you..?

I, personally, HAVE proof, to me, of my gods and my "big absolute thingy" (aka "it is").

They and it serve all sorts of functions for me.

You have yuor beliefs too, which server various functions for you.

Is the fact the today was preceeded by yesterday, REALLY proof that tomorrow will follow today..?

Do you believe in (like the idea of), and have faith (expect) that tomorrow will come..?

There is no proof tomorrow will follow today. But whether it does or not is of no importance. If it doesn't, I'll deal with that when it comes. If it does, I'll deal with *that* as it comes.

I don't have 'faith' that tomorrow will follow today, because it doesn't matter whether it does or not. I have the 'assumption' it will, but that's based on semantics (whatever follows 'today' is, by definition 'tomorrow') and statistics, not what I hold as personal belief (because I *have* no personal belief regarding the coming of tomorrow).

And man, I need sleep. Sleep... and pizza.

Mmmpizza.

There is no proof tomorrow will follow today. But whether it does or not is of no importance. If it doesn't, I'll deal with that when it comes. If it does, I'll deal with *that* as it comes.

I don't have 'faith' that tomorrow will follow today, because it doesn't matter whether it does or not. I have the 'assumption' it will, but that's based on semantics (whatever follows 'today' is, by definition 'tomorrow') and statistics, not what I hold as personal belief (because I *have* no personal belief regarding the coming of tomorrow).

And man, I need sleep. Sleep... and pizza.

Mmmpizza.
If you think tomorrow will become today, based on your assumptions, semantics and statitistics, then you have a belief that tomorrow will "happen".

If you think tomorrow will become today, based on your assumptions, semantics and statitistics, then you have a belief that tomorrow will "happen".

I saw that as being that any time that the OP found themselves in a day that was previously supposed to be 'tomorrow' they would then be able to term it 'today' and deal with its existence as required by current conditions and prior occurences. You want to bring to the equation that a belief of what tomorrow brings, but I think it's closer to a guess (more certain for some people than others) than any faith-related item.

I think (as usual, unless I've actually seen the forecast) that tomorrow's weather will be a small varient on today's. That the weather can change drastically in a matter of hours (or minutes, on extreme high ground) doesn't negate my general assumption, and I would not term it a belief.

Believing that there is no tomorrow is something that is a definite matter of faith (and, it seems to me, a pretty short-lived on, given you can only believe this for a maximum of 24 hours straight then you're either proven wrong or no longer in a position to appreciate the wisdom of your belief). Dealing with the current day, named 'today', in the light of days that have gone by (all your yesterdays) and days that you assume occur in the future (tomorrows' worlds) is just getting on with life, from my POV. You don't generally have a crisis of faith just because one ex-yesterday turns out to be not what you expect. Faith in certain 'unchangables' may be shaken or broken in extreme circumstances, but the tomorrow is always 'another day' and accepted as such.

I suspect a lot is terminology, of course...

I saw that as being that any time that the OP found themselves in a day that was previously supposed to be 'tomorrow' they would then be able to term it 'today' and deal with its existence as required by current conditions and prior occurences. You want to bring to the equation that a belief of what tomorrow brings, but I think it's closer to a guess (more certain for some people than others) than any faith-related item.

I think (as usual, unless I've actually seen the forecast) that tomorrow's weather will be a small varient on today's. That the weather can change drastically in a matter of hours (or minutes, on extreme high ground) doesn't negate my general assumption, and I would not term it a belief.

Believing that there is no tomorrow is something that is a definite matter of faith (and, it seems to me, a pretty short-lived on, given you can only believe this for a maximum of 24 hours straight then you're either proven wrong or no longer in a position to appreciate the wisdom of your belief). Dealing with the current day, named 'today', in the light of days that have gone by (all your yesterdays) and days that you assume occur in the future (tomorrows' worlds) is just getting on with life, from my POV. You don't generally have a crisis of faith just because one ex-yesterday turns out to be not what you expect. Faith in certain 'unchangables' may be shaken or broken in extreme circumstances, but the tomorrow is always 'another day' and accepted as such.

I suspect a lot is terminology, of course...
I suspect a lot is terminology, as well, which is why I keep plugging away at it. :-) You express your thoughts clearly --I wish I could do as well. What is OP an anacronym of?

A "belief" can be as simple as trusting in second and third-hand knowledge --you trust that the weather man knows what he's talking about = you believe him. A "belief" is also trusting in processes, like those we have defined to establish "time" as a continuum, and so "believing" that tomorrow will "come" is not a guess --it's a trust, and therefore a belief. That is how I look at it.

I suspect a lot is terminology, as well, which is why I keep plugging away at it. :-) You express your thoughts clearly --I wish I could do as well. What is OP an anacronym of?
See below about terminology.
I don't always express as clearly (in fact I tend to ramble, see below) but if you think I did this time then thanks.
OP="Original Poster". (To be honest, by the time I'd started writing the response I'd forgotten who it was, that you were in reply to.)

A "belief" can be as simple as trusting in second and third-hand knowledge --you trust that the weather man knows what he's talking about = you believe him. A "belief" is also trusting in processes, like those we have defined to establish "time" as a continuum, and so "believing" that tomorrow will "come" is not a guess --it's a trust, and therefore a belief. That is how I look at it.
Fair enough. You see, that's why I was trying to avoid the word 'belief' and its derivatives before. I see 'believing' as ranging across a spectrum between (or perhaps even slightly beyond) the two terms of 'faith' and 'analysis' (no, not quite 'analysis', but I've momentarily lost the word I meant to use so that'll have to do, with reservations). I probably should have avoided it even more than I did.

Practically, compare an evangelical cry of "I believe in the power of our Lord God on hight!" and a courtroom prosecutor's statement of "I believe you are lying Mr Prendegast". Faith on the one hand and assumption/assessment/qualified certainty (still not the right words, but getting there) on the other. A qualified guess, perhaps. If it was a qualified guess about a non-boolean thing then I'd suggest 'estimate' would be a good word to use, but to "estimate" that tomorrow will arrive (a yes/no result) is wrong.

Anyway, that's how I see tomorrow. And, apart from anything else, I'm only ever going to be wrong about there being a tomorrow once, so I'm letting my money ride for the time being... :)

It will have to happen. Just like being born was inevitable so will dying be (unless medical science finds a way for me to live eternally which I doubt).
Even if science managed to completely defeat old age and disease, there would still be a 100% chance that you die by murder, accident, or natural disaster, sooner or later.

One can believe and have faith that tomorrow will come but would be in for grave disappointment. After all, by it's own definition, tomorrow can never come.
That said, tomorrow is likely to always be there. At least for me, while I'm alive.
What if I rephrase to say "The day that we now call tomorrow, will eventually come."?

Believing that there is no tomorrow is something that is a definite matter of faith (and, it seems to me, a pretty short-lived on, given you can only believe this for a maximum of 24 hours straight then you're either proven wrong or...
Somehow, I don't think this would stop some people from continuing to preach Nontomorrowism.

Iakeokeo: I'm a mathematician. Which means that not only can I understand infinity, but I can describe an infinite amount of infinities in painful detail.

Iakeokeo: I'm a mathematician. Which means that not only can I understand infinity, but I can describe an infinite amount of infinities in painful detail.

Ah, so would there then be room in your hotel for little old me and my infinite number of friends?

:)


(Only kidding. They aren't all my friends, only half of them... :) )

Ah, so would there then be room in your hotel for little old me and my infinite number of friends?
Sure. Bring me an infinite number of friends and I'll arrange accomodations for them.

(Only kidding. They aren't all my friends, only half of them... :) )
Are the other half your enemies? That would complicate matters. No matter how I arrange their lodgings, there will be an infinite number of places where a friend and an enemy of yours are neighbors. That probably wouldn't be very good for the peace. Of course, I could leave lots of lodgings empty as spacing, but that would be a terrible waste, and besides it wouldn't help much in the grand scheme of things. Of course, it would be easier to maintain order among the guests if I abandoned well-orders...

Ah, so would there then be room in your hotel for little old me and my infinite number of friends?

Totally off topic, but if I went in first, the existing residents would be asked to move one place on, I'd get room 1 then we'd all go to double our own room number (2, for me) to allow my friends to get rooms.

If I sent my friends in first, then everyone would move to double their room numbers then plus one (with my newly ensconced friends also moving) so I could get room 1.

I'm not saying anything stupid like (x+1).2 == (x.2)+1 (J. Random Resident would find himself in a different room in each circumstances) but, as a generalisation, maybe it's an interesting thought... However, I suspect it means nothing in real terms.

Totally off topic, but if I went in first, the existing residents would be asked to move one place on, I'd get room 1 then we'd all go to double our own room number (2, for me) to allow my friends to get rooms.

If I sent my friends in first, then everyone would move to double their room numbers then plus one (with my newly ensconced friends also moving) so I could get room 1.

I'm not saying anything stupid like (x+1).2 == (x.2)+1 (J. Random Resident would find himself in a different room in each circumstances) but, as a generalisation, maybe it's an interesting thought... However, I suspect it means nothing in real terms.
Yet another arrangement would occur if you joined your friends and checked in as a single group.

I guess the meaning is... order doesn't really matter, you could easily have gotten somewhere else and still be the same person. There is no reason why the person in lodging 1 should be treated any better than the person in lodging 3849769376346.

Even if science managed to completely defeat old age and disease, there would still be a 100% chance that you die by murder, accident, or natural disaster, sooner or later.
Good point. Not sure if it would be 100% but given enough time it will probably be close enough.


What if I rephrase to say "The day that we now call tomorrow, will eventually come."?
Then I'll say that based on my past experiences you're very likely to be right.
Even if you replace 'eventually' by 'withing the next 24 hours'.

Good point. Not sure if it would be 100% but given enough time it will probably be close enough.
Imagine that every day the chance of your suriving is some number X, say 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. Your chance of surviving two days is then X squared. Your chance of surviving three days is X cubed. Etcetera. Unless X is exactly 100% (which is impossible), the chance of you surviving forever will be X to the infinte power, which is 0%.

Oh, and good luck escaping the sun's supernova.

Imagine that every day the chance of your suriving is some number X, say 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. Your chance of surviving two days is then X squared. Your chance of surviving three days is X cubed. Etcetera. Unless X is exactly 100% (which is impossible), the chance of you surviving forever will be X to the infinte power, which is 0%.
Like I said, probably not 100% but close enough.


Oh, and good luck escaping the sun's supernova.
But surely in this hypothetical scenario where I'm able to have (almost) eternal life through medical science we will also have found ways to at least travel through the universe for indefinite periods of time if not colonise other planets ?

As I said before. I fully expect to die. Hopefully it won't be any day soon but alas, we don't get to decide that (unless we choose to end our life prematurely).

Like I said, probably not 100% but close enough.
No, you don't get it. The chance that you die withing any FINITE time is not 100%. However, the chance that you will die EVENTUALLY at some point is exactly 100% and can be mathematically proven to be such, as I did above.

But surely in this hypothetical scenario where I'm able to have (almost) eternal life through medical science we will also have found ways to at least travel through the universe for indefenit periods of time if not colonise other planets ?
I didn't say it's not possible. I wished you good luck with it.

Imagine that every day the chance of your suriving is some number X, say 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. Your chance of surviving two days is then X squared. Your chance of surviving three days is X cubed. Etcetera. Unless X is exactly 100% (which is impossible), the chance of you surviving forever will be X to the infinte power, which is 0%.
Forgot to say:
Formulas are funny. As much as your's may be correct my chances to die (or survive) any given day are always 50%.

No, you don't get it. The chance that you die withing any FINITE time is not 100%. However, the chance that you will die EVENTUALLY at some point is exactly 100% and can be mathematically proven to be such, as I did above.
You didn't. You have proven mathematically, that my chances of survival will aproach 0% more every day. You can aproach 0, not get there.

Forgot to say:
Formulas are funny. As much as your's may be correct my chances to die (or survive) any given day are always 50%.
In that case, your chance of surviving for one year would be slightly more than 10^(-110). Which means that I can be almost certain that I am now talking to a baby.

You didn't. You have proven mathematically, that my chances of survival will aproach 0% more every day. You can aproach 0, not get there.
I cannot predict with 100% certainty a particular day of which I am sure that you will be dead by then. I can, however, predict with 100% certainty that such a day will eventually come along.

In that case, your chance of surviving for one year would be slightly more than 10^(-110). Which means that I can be almost certain that I am now talking to a baby.It all depends on your reasoning behind the formula. Mathematically seen you'd be correct.

I cannot predict with 100% certainty a particular day of which I am sure that you will be dead by then. I can, however, predict with 100% certainty that such a day will eventually come along.
Again, with a certainty that aproaches 100%.. Never 100% exactly though. Granted, close enough for the difference to be considered to be neglectible yet that does not make it 100%

Again, with a certainty that aproaches 100%.. Never 100% exactly though. Granted, close enough for the difference to be considered to be neglectible yet that does not make it 100%
Okay, then calculate the difference for me. I don't care how many pages of digits it is.

Okay, then calculate the difference for me. I don't care how many pages of digits it is.
As a mathematician you should know there can never be enough pages for that calculation.

As a mathematician you should know there can never be enough pages for that calculation.
Physical resources are inconsequential to mathematics. And you don't need to show me the calculation. I'll be happy enough if you just give me the result.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers.

The other way round, surely? Atheism is for people who don't need someone else to hold their hand, watch over them and make up rules for them. Religion is for people who don't have the vision to think for themselves.

Physical resources are inconsequential to mathematics. And you don't need to show me the calculation. I'll be happy enough if you just give me the result.
Thanks, that makes it a lot easier.
Your result would be an infinite number of 0s followed by a single 1.
Like I said, neglectible but not 0.

Fair enough. You see, that's why I was trying to avoid the word 'belief' and its derivatives before. I see 'believing' as ranging across a spectrum between (or perhaps even slightly beyond) the two terms of 'faith' and 'analysis' (no, not quite 'analysis', but I've momentarily lost the word I meant to use so that'll have to do, with reservations). I probably should have avoided it even more than I did.

Practically, compare an evangelical cry of "I believe in the power of our Lord God on hight!" and a courtroom prosecutor's statement of "I believe you are lying Mr Prendegast". Faith on the one hand and assumption/assessment/qualified certainty (still not the right words, but getting there) on the other. A qualified guess, perhaps. If it was a qualified guess about a non-boolean thing then I'd suggest 'estimate' would be a good word to use, but to "estimate" that tomorrow will arrive (a yes/no result) is wrong.
This is a good place to insert a post I've been working on... :-)

I have carefully listened to people defining atheist, and some being corrected in their ideas. The best definition I have heard so far is "a disbelief in god(s)". I don't believe "no belief" is possible, because of how the human mind works. We take in data through our senses, calling it a first-hand knowledge of the world, experiencing the data. First-hand knowledge lays the foundation of our belief system as it gives us the initial basis on which to compare other things, from the moment of first consciousness (whenever that may be). We also take in data as related from others and from machines, which is second-hand knowledge. Second-hand knowledge becomes a part of our belief system when it is compated to what is already established in our memories. And we generate data from within the mind/heart/soul --thought/feeling concepts, imagination constructs, and other things --neither first-hand knowledge that comes from senses, nor second-hand knowledge that comes into our minds. Conclusions, understanding and belief are this type of data, as are the ideas termed psychic or intuitive. Belief is a type of "knowing": an understanding of data, which creates a reliance on data, based on trust of data. Trust, not evidence. The Scots have a nice word for this process of understanding: "to ken".

In our belief "system," new data is instantaneously, unconsciously, compared with existing data and an initial belief is set in place: either "yay" or "nay". Iakeokeo defines belief as "loving" the data --poetic and lovely person that he is --and I can see that in the way I think of it: as a "yay!" understanding of it, a positive kenning. Whether data gets a "yay" or "nay" in our belief system, we promptly own it --it becomes one of our beliefs. Then the mind begins a process that is entirely optional (free will), and consciously compares the new data to other things it knows, like morals, makes it grow into a stronger belief, creates (conceives) new beliefs about the first belief, or makes it die a quick and painful death. If all goes well, we either adapt to our belief of the new data, or promptly forget about it.

An atheist has a belief in god, or he/she could not call themselves an atheist; there has to be something to adjoin the label to. "No belief" in god equates to no knowledge of god, and therefore no reason to be wearing the label "atheist". To call oneself an atheist, there must be a fixed idea of what god is, of what the atheist is putting himself in opposition to. Therefore, "disbelief" is the better term to describe the atheist, because the idea of god is a "nay" in their belief system.

I used to have a disbelief of god, based on "common" sense. Then through reading about mythology and symbolism I came to a better understanding of what god is and in a flash of understanding (that knowing of a different sort) I understood that I had kenned what it was all along. It wasn't a moment of glory or ground-moving experience (although it did make me sit up straight), it was just a kenning of god.

Anyway, that's how I see tomorrow. And, apart from anything else, I'm only ever going to be wrong about there being a tomorrow once, so I'm letting my money ride for the time being... :)

Thanks, that makes it a lot easier.
Your result would be an infinite number of 0s followed by a single 1.
Like I said, neglectible but not 0.
Are you aware of the definition of real numbers? Or of any basic stochastics?

An atheist has a belief in god
Semantics nitpick: I would say "belief about" god. "Belief in" implicitly suggests that this belief is a yay.

Otherwise, nice post.

Are you aware of the definition of real numbers? Or of any basic stochastics?
oops, misread the first time.
It vaguely rings a bell and if I remember correctly (math has been ages ago) they are ways for us to deal with numbers we can't actually deal with (meaning f.i. decimals so small they aren't really worth mentioning in day to day use).
Still, that doesn't change the fact that you can't get to an exact 0 by division.

oops, misread the first time.
It vaguely rings a bell and if I remember correctly (math has been ages ago) they are ways for us to deal with numbers we can't actually deal with (meaning f.i. decimals so small they aren't really worth mentioning in day to day use).
"So small they aren't really worth mentioning" is a concept of physics. In mathematics even the smallest details are of utmost importance. However, "not really worth mentioning" is something else from "there is nothing to mention".

Still, that doesn't change the fact that you can't get to an exact 0 by division.
Ever heard of "limits"?

In TeX: $\lim_{n\to\infty}p^{n}=0$, where $p$ is any chance less than 100% (such as in our example, your chance of surviving any particular day).

Ever heard of "limits"?

In TeX: $\lim_{n\to\infty}p^{n}=0$, where $p$ is any chance less than 100% (such as in our example, your chance of surviving any particular day).
Again, a way to deal with something to small for us to want to deal with.
Show me how to get to an absolute 0 through division only, not involving a 0 as the number we try to divide.
(I'll also settle for a full 100% through multiplication. Same basic rule, not starting out with 100% ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
OK,... you can "hold onto" the concept of infinity,... but you can't "understand" (yet MORE self-butt-chasing to occur shortly) it.



Cool link. Well researched, though it contains some mis-information.
There is another mention of the Ouroboros laying at the edge of "the sea which surrounds the world," called Pontus. The Ouroboros encircles the Universe; everything known and unknown is encompassed in its embracing coils, supporting and maintaining the earthly balance. It injects life into death and death into budding life. Its form suggests immobility with its locked jaws upon itself, yet at the same time it pushes the insistent message of perpetual movement through its twined coils. The first clues to this symbol go back as far as 1600-1700 BC in Egypt.
It's just the last line that is incorrect, and an earlier assertation that the symbol originated in Egypt. The Summerian Nammu is also the Ouroboros, a salt-water river encircling the earth at its edge; the same "deep" from whose depths God creates his universe. After her, there is salt-water Tiamat, whose body is used by her slayer Marduk to fashion the world and all life on it. The images of goddess as the symbol of eternal life date back to at least circa fifth millennium BC.

Oook sat up with a jolt, from the dusty pelt he called his bed in the cave.

"Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat.....!!!!?" he said, annoyed but inquisitive.

"I said,... does MY BUTT LOOK BIG in this leopard pelt...!!?" said his mate in her usual scream.

"Yes,... it's HUGE..!" he said, still half asleep and obviously senseless.

"Is it ME or the PELT..!?" she responded.

"It's the PELT..! I can't see you..!" Oook said, coming more to his senses.

He laid back down as last night's hunting was very tiring.

"OK..." she screamed,.. "Does this lion pelt make my butt look big..!!?"

"YES,... it's huge..!" he said.

"Is it ME or the PELT..!?" she, once again, responded.

"It's the PELT..! I can't see you." Oook, once again, said.

"OK..." she continued. And continued. And continued.

Oook was VERY VERY happy when, two years later to the day, "lying" was invented, though the "might never end" ritual, and it's subsequent insights into the nature of the infinite were lost to his people for several generations.

Again, a way to deal with something to small for us to want to deal with.
Show me how to get to an absolute 0 through division only, not involving a 0 as the number we try to divide.
(I'll also settle for a full 100% through multiplication. Same basic rule, not starting out with 100% ).
Seems Iakeokeo was right about something. You DON'T understand infinity. Nor zero, apparantly.

That doesn't mean I don't, however.

Oook was VERY VERY happy when, two years later to the day, "lying" was invented, though the "might never end" ritual
There are only a finite number of cat species...

Semantics nitpick: I would say "belief about" god. "Belief in" implicitly suggests that this belief is a yay.

Otherwise, nice post.
Okay, good point.

...One can believe and have faith that tomorrow will come but would be in for grave disappointment. After all, by it's own definition, tomorrow can never come.
That said, tomorrow is likely to always be there. At least for me, while I'm alive.

Ps, walter does exist. I have met him so I will accept that as fact.
That said, I don't know who's friend he is and who, if anybody, he doesn't like ;)

Heh he he he he he he...! :D

"...It's only,... a day,..... a...........way!" <little-no-pupils-girl>

Rolf. Rolf is my so-called "imaginary" friend.

Rolf has his friends,... I have mine.

We have a very "OPEN" relationship...

..as is yours,... apparently. :)

Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Oook was VERY VERY happy when, two years later to the day, "lying" was invented, though the "might never end" ritualThere are only a finite number of cat species...
And all of them have the same "is my butt big??" attitude! LOL! He captures cats quite well.

It is the ritual that is never-ending. ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
DO you have an "imaginary friend" named Walter..?

If you do,.. what function does Walter serve for you..?

If you don't,.. why is the idea of Walter of any importance to you..?

I, personally, HAVE proof, to me, of my gods and my "big absolute thingy" (aka "it is").

They and it serve all sorts of functions for me.

You have yuor beliefs too, which server various functions for you.

Is the fact the today was preceeded by yesterday, REALLY proof that tomorrow will follow today..?

Do you believe in (like the idea of), and have faith (expect) that tomorrow will come..?


There is no proof tomorrow will follow today. But whether it does or not is of no importance. If it doesn't, I'll deal with that when it comes. If it does, I'll deal with *that* as it comes.

I don't have 'faith' that tomorrow will follow today, because it doesn't matter whether it does or not. I have the 'assumption' it will, but that's based on semantics (whatever follows 'today' is, by definition 'tomorrow') and statistics, not what I hold as personal belief (because I *have* no personal belief regarding the coming of tomorrow).

And man, I need sleep. Sleep... and pizza.

Mmmpizza.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh... "semantics".....

"Semantics" = "pizza"

(( "Proof" forthcoming..! ))

Do you like pepperoni on your semantics..?

I do,.. but it gives me gas.

Iakeokeo: I'm a mathematician. Which means that not only can I understand infinity, but I can describe an infinite amount of infinities in painful detail.


Excellent..!

Yes,... that WOULD be painful.

Painful, yet strangely pleasurable...

And you can do it over and over...

Infinitely,... Going deeper and deeper..!

And,.. wider and wider....

What is that sensation in my amygdala..!?

Oh,... my,............ GOODNESS..!!



<cough>



I DO love stimulating discussion.

((( How do you spell that noise that Homer makes while savoring a donut..? )))

Seems Iakeokeo was right about something. You DON'T understand infinity. Nor zero, apparantly.

That doesn't mean I don't, however.
I think Iakeokeo is right about a lot of things. That however does not make either of us wrong about the same thing. I think Iakeokeo may agree on that (then again, I could be wrong as I am not Iakeokeo so I can only try to make assumptions about what he thinks).

You argue math, I could argue chaos and uncertainty. A fun argument it would be but this is not the thread for it and unfortunately I don't have the time for it either.

You say I don't understand infinity nor 0, I say my point of view is different from yours. Don't get me wrong though, just because I don't agree with your point of view but that doesn't mean I don't respect it. It seems to work for you and that's the main thing. Like faith I guess... Hmmm, maybe we weren't too far off topic after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaidersNation
Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers.


The other way round, surely? Atheism is for people who don't need someone else to hold their hand, watch over them and make up rules for them. Religion is for people who don't have the vision to think for themselves.

Why would not having "gods" to play with mean that you need someone to hold your hand..?

If I don't have a Tonka Truck, does that mean I need someone to help me across the street..?

I DO agree with you that unexamined ways of looking at the world and uncompromisingly habitual response patterns to stimulae are a silly way to deal with life.

If that's what you REALLY meant.

:)

Sorry, this is off-topic, but I just have to share. The Infinite Cat Project (http://www.infinitecat.com/index.html)

Why would not having "gods" to play with mean that you need someone to hold your hand..?

If I don't have a Tonka Truck, does that mean I need someone to help me across the street..?

I DO agree with you that unexamined ways of looking at the world and uncompromisingly habitual response patterns to stimulae are a silly way to deal with life.

If that's what you REALLY meant.

:)
Um, sploddygloop claimed that religious people are the ones needing handholding and atheists don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E B Guvegrra
Fair enough. You see, that's why I was trying to avoid the word 'belief' and its derivatives before. I see 'believing' as ranging across a spectrum between (or perhaps even slightly beyond) the two terms of 'faith' and 'analysis' (no, not quite 'analysis', but I've momentarily lost the word I meant to use so that'll have to do, with reservations). I probably should have avoided it even more than I did.

Practically, compare an evangelical cry of "I believe in the power of our Lord God on hight!" and a courtroom prosecutor's statement of "I believe you are lying Mr Prendegast". Faith on the one hand and assumption/assessment/qualified certainty (still not the right words, but getting there) on the other. A qualified guess, perhaps. If it was a qualified guess about a non-boolean thing then I'd suggest 'estimate' would be a good word to use, but to "estimate" that tomorrow will arrive (a yes/no result) is wrong.

This is a good place to insert a post I've been working on... :-)

I have carefully listened to people defining atheist, and some being corrected in their ideas. The best definition I have heard so far is "a disbelief in god(s)". I don't believe "no belief" is possible, because of how the human mind works. We take in data through our senses, calling it a first-hand knowledge of the world, experiencing the data. First-hand knowledge lays the foundation of our belief system as it gives us the initial basis on which to compare other things, from the moment of first consciousness (whenever that may be). We also take in data as related from others and from machines, which is second-hand knowledge. Second-hand knowledge becomes a part of our belief system when it is compated to what is already established in our memories. And we generate data from within the mind/heart/soul --thought/feeling concepts, imagination constructs, and other things --neither first-hand knowledge that comes from senses, nor second-hand knowledge that comes into our minds. Conclusions, understanding and belief are this type of data, as are the ideas termed psychic or intuitive. Belief is a type of "knowing": an understanding of data, which creates a reliance on data, based on trust of data. Trust, not evidence. The Scots have a nice word for this process of understanding: "to ken".

In our belief "system," new data is instantaneously, unconsciously, compared with existing data and an initial belief is set in place: either "yay" or "nay". Iakeokeo defines belief as "loving" the data --poetic and lovely person that he is --and I can see that in the way I think of it: as a "yay!" understanding of it, a positive kenning. Whether data gets a "yay" or "nay" in our belief system, we promptly own it --it becomes one of our beliefs. Then the mind begins a process that is entirely optional (free will), and consciously compares the new data to other things it knows, like morals, makes it grow into a stronger belief, creates (conceives) new beliefs about the first belief, or makes it die a quick and painful death. If all goes well, we either adapt to our belief of the new data, or promptly forget about it.

An atheist has a belief in god, or he/she could not call themselves an atheist; there has to be something to adjoin the label to. "No belief" in god equates to no knowledge of god, and therefore no reason to be wearing the label "atheist". To call oneself an atheist, there must be a fixed idea of what god is, of what the atheist is putting himself in opposition to. Therefore, "disbelief" is the better term to describe the atheist, because the idea of god is a "nay" in their belief system.

I used to have a disbelief of god, based on "common" sense. Then through reading about mythology and symbolism I came to a better understanding of what god is and in a flash of understanding (that knowing of a different sort) I understood that I had kenned what it was all along. It wasn't a moment of glory or ground-moving experience (although it did make me sit up straight), it was just a kenning of god.


Quote:
Anyway, that's how I see tomorrow. And, apart from anything else, I'm only ever going to be wrong about there being a tomorrow once, so I'm letting my money ride for the time being...


Yet another aside...

I believe (!?) that the Scot's "ken" comes from the gaelic "ceann" (pronounced "kyown", sort of), meaning "head".

It's the same "head" as the nautical term, so I take it to mean "the part sticking out into the water".

So, when you've "ken'd" a thing, you've stuck your head out into it.

..or, more simply, you've "taken it to your head".

I like the "stuck your head out onto it" version, myself. :)

AND,... your definition of "atheist" as "disbeliever" is quite within keeping with my own concept of "once presented with 'GOD' one must make an active choice to believe or not-believe".

As Iaouda (Yoda) would say, "Believe... or believe not. There is no try."

He would also say, "And in your upgiving, a 'try' is."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandalm
Thanks, that makes it a lot easier.
Your result would be an infinite number of 0s followed by a single 1.
Like I said, neglectible but not 0.

Are you aware of the definition of real numbers? Or of any basic stochastics?

My stochastics hurt, because no matter how many times I flip them against the wall, they WILL not act predictably,.. so they get punished...!

And my imaginary numbers are always lording it over my real numbers, because, in their words, "We've got a special 'thingy'..!"

Of course, zero ends up playing referee,... as usual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Oook was VERY VERY happy when, two years later to the day, "lying" was invented, though the "might never end" ritual


There are only a finite number of cat species...


True,... but she would just start over again..!

She, like all of Oook's people's females, arranged her clothes in a circle around her "my stuff"-stick in her cave.

Which, by the way, is how they eventually developed the concepts of One and Zero.

And, obviously, the stick developed into "more than one stick", and the clothes developed in "infinity" (aka the endless and beginningless yet containable pile of laundry).

(( stick=1, clothes=0 ))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandalm
Again, a way to deal with something to small for us to want to deal with.
Show me how to get to an absolute 0 through division only, not involving a 0 as the number we try to divide.
(I'll also settle for a full 100% through multiplication. Same basic rule, not starting out with 100% ).

Seems Iakeokeo was right about something. You DON'T understand infinity. Nor zero, apparantly.

That doesn't mean I don't, however.

Hmmmm... I'm RIGHT about something..!? Cooooooooooooooooooool...

And as the wise Iaouda would say, "Zero, or not zero,... there is no try!"

My stochastics hurt, because no matter how many times I flip them against the wall, they WILL not act predictably,.. so they get punished...!
Actually, stochastic variables are one-use things. When you "flip them against the wall" once, they're going to give the same result forevermore. If you want a new result, you have to use "equally distributed stochasts".

And my imaginary numbers are always lording it over my real numbers, because, in their words, "We've got a special 'thingy'..!"
Imaginary numbers are useless by themselves. They can't even multiply each other. Now, complex numbers...

Of course, zero ends up playing referee,... as usual.
Ah yes, zero. The only number that is both real and imaginary, making him an excellent judge in the matter. I remember once he challenged all numbers to calculate the square root within their own tribes. First the real numbers had a go, and only half of them succeeded. The other half had to admit that they needed the imaginary numbers' help. The imaginary numbers laughed at the reals, until zero told them it's their turn. Not a single one succeeded, save for zero himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milostein
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Oook was VERY VERY happy when, two years later to the day, "lying" was invented, though the "might never end" ritual

There are only a finite number of cat species...


And all of them have the same "is my butt big??" attitude! LOL! He captures cats quite well.

It is the ritual that is never-ending. ;-)

The "might never end" ritual started off as as one guy showing another guy the wacky antics of his mate in choosing her clothes.

It was SO successful at bringing great hilarity, and male-bonding, to the tribe that it was institutionalized into a formalized ritual.

Eventually, the ritual was "revealed" to also carry the wisdom of the similarity of female behavior to the movement of the sun, and the rain and game coming back every year. Which lead to the guys having a feeling of euphoria while thinking of the endlessness and begininglessness of it all, which they took to be the presence of "god". (Of course it might be they were just dizzy and laughing too much.)

The original "version" (the informal one) only lasted until one of the guy's mate's saw them making fun of the girls and broke up the hilarity with great pummeling of guy-heads.

After it had become a formalized ritual, the girls waited for precisely 29 "rotations" then "relieved" the guys of the burden of acting like girls.

Ah yes, zero. The only number that is both real and imaginary, making him an excellent judge in the matter. I remember once he challenged all numbers to calculate the square root within their own tribes. First the real numbers had a go, and only half of them succeeded. The other half had to admit that they needed the imaginary numbers' help. The imaginary numbers laughed at the reals, until zero told them it's their turn. Not a single one succeeded, save for zero himself.
Beautiful! Now THAT is a myth of your own (that you own).

Eventually, the ritual was "revealed" to also carry the wisdom of the similarity of female behavior to the movement of the sun, and the rain and game coming back every year. Which lead to the guys having a feeling of euphoria while thinking of the endlessness and begininglessness of it all, which they took to be the presence of "god". (Of course it might be they were just dizzy and laughing too much.)
Is God's butt big?

Beautiful! Now THAT is a myth of your own (that you own).
Managed to find any deep meaning in it?

Managed to find any deep meaning in it?
Doesn't have to be deep to be important. :-)

It teaches, entertains and passes along the metaphor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sploddygloop #1535
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaidersNation
Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers.



The other way round, surely? Atheism is for people who don't need someone else to hold their hand, watch over them and make up rules for them. Religion is for people who don't have the vision to think for themselves.



Why would not having "gods" to play with mean that you need someone to hold your hand..?

If I don't have a Tonka Truck, does that mean I need someone to help me across the street..?

I DO agree with you that unexamined ways of looking at the world and uncompromisingly habitual response patterns to stimulae are a silly way to deal with life.

If that's what you REALLY meant.


Um, sploddygloop claimed that religious people are the ones needing handholding and atheists don't.

D'oh...! :)

Quite right,... just rearrange the parts to suit your needs. It's means the same thing...!

:D

re: (TAKE 2)

Why would [REMOVE: not] having "gods" to play with mean that you need someone to hold your hand..?

If I [REMOVE: don't] have a Tonka Truck, does that mean I need someone to help me across the street..?

I DO agree with you that unexamined ways of looking at the world and uncompromisingly habitual response patterns to stimulae are a silly way to deal with life.

If that's what you REALLY meant.

Doesn't have to be deep to be important. :-)

It teaches, entertains and passes along the metaphor.
Okay, so which metaphor did you see in it? What does it teach?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
My stochastics hurt, because no matter how many times I flip them against the wall, they WILL not act predictably,.. so they get punished...!


Actually, stochastic variables are one-use things. When you "flip them against the wall" once, they're going to give the same result forevermore. If you want a new result, you have to use "equally distributed stochasts".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And my imaginary numbers are always lording it over my real numbers, because, in their words, "We've got a special 'thingy'..!"


Imaginary numbers are useless by themselves. They can't even multiply each other. Now, complex numbers...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Of course, zero ends up playing referee,... as usual.

Ah yes, zero. The only number that is both real and imaginary, making him an excellent judge in the matter. I remember once he challenged all numbers to calculate the square root within their own tribes. First the real numbers had a go, and only half of them succeeded. The other half had to admit that they needed the imaginary numbers' help. The imaginary numbers laughed at the reals, until zero told them it's their turn. Not a single one succeeded, save for zero himself.

Actually the "flipping against the wall" is the stochastic (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Stochastic) part, not the actual thing that I flip,.. I just call them "stochastics" because that's all that I use them for.

And of course, you're right again,.. my little "lordly" things don't HAVE a "special thingy",... they ARE the "special thingy"..! :)

(( Undoubedly I will be wrong again,... but that's just OK...! ))

And I shall have to cogitate on the "saga of the square rooting",... as I've forgotten quite a few things....

Right,... so have we "pink-noise" walked this thread COMPLETELY off it's original intent, or what..!?

:)

Right,... so have we "pink-noise" walked this thread COMPLETELY off it's original intent, or what..!?

:)
So what? It's more economical than starting a new thread. :)

And as I stated before, everything that there is to be said on the original subject has already been said. Atheists believe that when they die, nothing more happens. What more is there to say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Eventually, the ritual was "revealed" to also carry the wisdom of the similarity of female behavior to the movement of the sun, and the rain and game coming back every year. Which lead to the guys having a feeling of euphoria while thinking of the endlessness and begininglessness of it all, which they took to be the presence of "god". (Of course it might be they were just dizzy and laughing too much.)

Is God's butt big?

God's WIFE'S butt is ENORMOUS...!!

But I'm not telling either of them...!

:D

That is (one reason) why god allowed lying to be invented.

Actually the "flipping against the wall" is the stochastic (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Stochastic) part, not the actual thing that I flip,.. I just call them "stochastics" because that's all that I use them for.
Now you've confused me.

A stochastic variable is like a coin that you don't know in advance what it's going to show, but after you flipped it once and got a heads or tails, every future flip of that coin is guaranteed to give the exact same result. However, if you obtain another copy of the same coin type and flip it, the result may be different - but that second coin, too, will consistently show the same value.

Originally Posted by Milostein
Ah yes, zero. The only number that is both real and imaginary, making him an excellent judge in the matter. I remember once he challenged all numbers to calculate the square root within their own tribes. First the real numbers had a go, and only half of them succeeded. The other half had to admit that they needed the imaginary numbers' help. The imaginary numbers laughed at the reals, until zero told them it's their turn. Not a single one succeeded, save for zero himself.

Managed to find any deep meaning in it?



*) It's GOOD to be the zero.
*) Even the utterly abstract can fail.
*) Everybody laughs, until it's THERE turn.
*) Even if your gang is infinite, half of them are still incompetent.
*) ....etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Actually the "flipping against the wall" is the stochastic part, not the actual thing that I flip,.. I just call them "stochastics (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Stochastic)" because that's all that I use them for.

Now you've confused me.

A stochastic variable is like a coin that you don't know in advance what it's going to show, but after you flipped it once and got a heads or tails, every future flip of that coin is guaranteed to give the exact same result. However, if you obtain another copy of the same coin type and flip it, the result may be different - but that second coin, too, will consistently show the same value.

See the "Natural Sciences" section of this "stochastics (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Stochastic)" link.

As I said,.. I'm most likely wrong here too,.. but I really don't care.

I just like to play with my stochastics. THey AMUSE me......

:D

*) It's GOOD to be the zero.
*) Even the utterly abstract can fail.
*) Everybody laughs, until it's THERE turn.
*) Even if your gang is infinite, half of them are still incompetent.
*) ....etc
Here's mine.

1. Always seek an impartial judge.
2. Two can often accomplish something together that neither of them could alone.
3. Don't laugh at someone else's failure unless you're sure you can do better yourself. (Essentially the same as your third one.)

And 4. Though the real (physical) can sometimes benefit from the imaginary (metaphorical), the imaginary is never useful without the real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milostein #1563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milostein
Ah yes, zero. The only number that is both real and imaginary, making him an excellent judge in the matter. I remember once he challenged all numbers to calculate the square root within their own tribes. First the real numbers had a go, and only half of them succeeded. The other half had to admit that they needed the imaginary numbers' help. The imaginary numbers laughed at the reals, until zero told them it's their turn. Not a single one succeeded, save for zero himself.

Managed to find any deep meaning in it?

*) It's GOOD to be the zero.
*) Even the utterly abstract can fail.
*) Everybody laughs, until it's THERE turn.
*) Even if your gang is infinite, half of them are still incompetent.
*) ....etc

OH YEAH,...

*) Zero is the "inside" referee and (the "biggest") Infinity is the "outside" referee..!

Originally Posted by Milostein
Ah yes, zero. The only number that is both real and imaginary, making him an excellent judge in the matter. I remember once he challenged all numbers to calculate the square root within their own tribes. First the real numbers had a go, and only half of them succeeded. The other half had to admit that they needed the imaginary numbers' help. The imaginary numbers laughed at the reals, until zero told them it's their turn. Not a single one succeeded, save for zero himself.Okay, so which metaphor did you see in it? What does it teach?
The metaphor is in the personification of the numbers (a visual metaphor) and in the relating of their functions as events of the type humans would engage in (a literary metaphor). As for the lesson, it may have been lost a bit on me. I learned that only half of real numbers can make a square root, and none of the imaginary ones can. But if real numbers mix with imaginary ones ...somehow, then they can find a square root. Now, not being a mathematician and having no need to practice it in the last 30 years, I've long forgotten what "real" and "imaginary" numbers are, but a lesson is still there. (For someone :))

See the "Natural Sciences" section of this "stochastics (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Stochastic)" link.

As I said,.. I'm most likely wrong here too,.. but I really don't care.
Your understanding of stochastichs is probably correct in some or other science. However, your claim was in reply to my post which was about the mathematical field of stochastics, therefore using any other science's definition of that word would be a marble car.

I just like to play with my stochastics. THey AMUSE me......

:D
Why do you punish those that amuse you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
*) It's GOOD to be the zero.
*) Even the utterly abstract can fail.
*) Everybody laughs, until it's THERE turn.
*) Even if your gang is infinite, half of them are still incompetent.
*) ....etc

Here's mine.

1. Always seek an impartial judge.
2. Two can often accomplish something together that neither of them could alone.
3. Don't laugh at someone else's failure unless you're sure you can do better yourself. (Essentially the same as your third one.)

And 4. Though the real (physical) can sometimes benefit from the imaginary (metaphorical), the imaginary is never useful without the real.


Excellent..!

Much better than mine.

Especially #4..!

:D

Now, not being a mathematician and having no need to practice it in the last 30 years, I've long forgotten what "real" and "imaginary" numbers are, but a lesson is still there. (For someone :))
Crash course.

Real numbers include such numbers as: five (natural), minus thirty-seven (negative integer), one half (non-integer rational), square root of two (irrational algebraic), and pi (trancendental). Basically, stuff you can measure on a ruler.

All positive real numbers have a square root, which is itself a real number. In fact, the have two: the square root of nine is both three and minus three. The number zero has exactly one square root, that being zero itself (you could say that it has two square roots like all other numbers, both of which are zero). But negative reals...? There is no real number that, when squared, results in a negative number.

Now define i as the square root of minus one. (Or rather, as one of the square roots of minus one - the other, of course, is minus i.)

An imaginary number is a real number multiplied by i. Such as 5*i, -37.6*i, etc.

A complex number is a real number plus an imaginary number. That is, a complex number is of the form x+y*i, where x and y are both reals.

Now, what is the square root of i? A little calculation will show that the answer is 0.5+0.5i (or -0.5-0.5i... I think you get the idea). Some more calculations will show that NONE of the imaginary numbers (except zero, which is 0*i) have a square root which is in itself an imaginary number. It's always a complex number.

Excellent..!

Much better than mine.

Especially #4..!

:D
Now, I have a challenge for you.

Find me a bad or undesirable moral that can be derived from my story. Go on, I want to see what you can come up with.

...Some more calculations will show that NONE of the imaginary numbers (except zero, which is 0*i) have a square root which is in itself an imaginary number. It's always a complex number.
Excellent! Now, see, the metaphors would be obvious to someone with a mind primed to recognize the lessons transmitted in this manner. Someone who, shall we say as an analogy, lived in the culture of math-land, went to the Church of Math, and grew up with the background.

But someone like me, primed to see metaphor but not familiar with the background, could still recognize it as a metaphor. And a good one (I knew there was a "real" lesson in there, even if I didn't know what it was).

Now, I have a challenge for you.

Find me a bad or undesirable moral that can be derived from my story. Go on, I want to see what you can come up with.
How warped! :-)

I am curious now to see what can be dreged from the depths of imagination. Something fierce, no doubt.

This is a good place to insert a post I've been working on... :-)

I have carefully listened to people defining atheist, and some being corrected in their ideas. The best definition I have heard so far is "a disbelief in god(s)". I don't believe "no belief" is possible, because of how the human mind works. We take in data through our senses, calling it a first-hand knowledge of the world, experiencing the data. First-hand knowledge lays the foundation of our belief system as it gives us the initial basis on which to compare other things, from the moment of first consciousness (whenever that may be). We also take in data as related from others and from machines, which is second-hand knowledge. Second-hand knowledge becomes a part of our belief system when it is compated to what is already established in our memories. And we generate data from within the mind/heart/soul --thought/feeling concepts, imagination constructs, and other things --neither first-hand knowledge that comes from senses, nor second-hand knowledge that comes into our minds. Conclusions, understanding and belief are this type of data, as are the ideas termed psychic or intuitive. Belief is a type of "knowing": an understanding of data, which creates a reliance on data, based on trust of data. Trust, not evidence. The Scots have a nice word for this process of understanding: "to ken".

In our belief "system," new data is instantaneously, unconsciously, compared with existing data and an initial belief is set in place: either "yay" or "nay". Iakeokeo defines belief as "loving" the data --poetic and lovely person that he is --and I can see that in the way I think of it: as a "yay!" understanding of it, a positive kenning. Whether data gets a "yay" or "nay" in our belief system, we promptly own it --it becomes one of our beliefs. Then the mind begins a process that is entirely optional (free will), and consciously compares the new data to other things it knows, like morals, makes it grow into a stronger belief, creates (conceives) new beliefs about the first belief, or makes it die a quick and painful death. If all goes well, we either adapt to our belief of the new data, or promptly forget about it.

An atheist has a belief in god, or he/she could not call themselves an atheist; there has to be something to adjoin the label to. "No belief" in god equates to no knowledge of god, and therefore no reason to be wearing the label "atheist". To call oneself an atheist, there must be a fixed idea of what god is, of what the atheist is putting himself in opposition to. Therefore, "disbelief" is the better term to describe the atheist, because the idea of god is a "nay" in their belief system.

I used to have a disbelief of god, based on "common" sense. Then through reading about mythology and symbolism I came to a better understanding of what god is and in a flash of understanding (that knowing of a different sort) I understood that I had kenned what it was all along. It wasn't a moment of glory or ground-moving experience (although it did make me sit up straight), it was just a kenning of god.

It's a nice theory... except that the 'atheist' doesn't really define god, now, does he/she?

The atheist doesn't start out by saying.... "Hmmm, think I'll not believe in any gods.... oh look, someone is introducing me to the concept of god... well, I won't accept it"

I would imagine most atheists reach the point through the route I did. They are taught what god is - maybe they are taught several concepts for god. They decide that they have no ability to accept that concept (eventually). Thus, their atheism is the end-point of their loss-of-belief... which means that atheism is a lack-of-belief state (the default once the 'belief' is lost), rather than an active belief.

So, yes - Atheists are 'nay' to god... but we differ about WHY that is.

Incidentally, for me, the exploration of mythology probes the roots of humanity, and the bases of our human-behaviour - but is only ever tangential to religion.

1. Can god do anything?
2. Can god violate god's own rules?

.....

6. Is the asymptotic reconciliation of questions #1 and #2 the very description OF god?

Sweet! :cool:

It's a nice theory... except that the 'atheist' doesn't really define god, now, does he/she?

The atheist doesn't start out by saying.... "Hmmm, think I'll not believe in any gods.... oh look, someone is introducing me to the concept of god... well, I won't accept it"
Of course they define "god". Else it's just meaningless consonant and vowel sounds. At some point, "god" data was inputted to them and either accepted or rejected. And to actually *think* about it would be the second step in the process. ;-)

I would imagine most atheists reach the point through the route I did. They are taught what god is - maybe they are taught several concepts for god. They decide that they have no ability to accept that concept (eventually). Thus, their atheism is the end-point of their loss-of-belief... which means that atheism is a lack-of-belief state (the default once the 'belief' is lost), rather than an active belief.

So, yes - Atheists are 'nay' to god... but we differ about WHY that is.
"They decide that they have no ability to accept that concept" ...thus belief turns into disbelief.

Incidentally, for me, the exploration of mythology probes the roots of humanity, and the bases of our human-behaviour - but is only ever tangential to religion.
Yeah. More's the pity.

Of course they define "god". Else it's just meaningless consonant and vowel sounds. At some point, "god" data was inputted to them and either accepted or rejected. And to actually *think* about it would be the second step in the process. ;-)


I think you are misunderstanding my meaning there.... I'm saying the ATHEIST doesn't define god... they are not the instigator of the "to god or not to god, that is the question" scenario. A person is given information about 'god' or 'gods'... thus, god is defined FOR them. If they accept that definition, they are (ostensibly, at least) a Christian, Muslim, Hindu... etc.
If they DON'T accept the definition (ESPECIALLY if they simialrly reject other 'god' concepts when exposed to them), then they are Atheistic.

I fear I am not my usual eloquent self today...


"They decide that they have no ability to accept that concept" ...thus belief turns into disbelief.


I'm agreeing with you here. ;)

Yeah. More's the pity.

Now, THAT is a curious statement.... It's a pity that religion is tangential to mythology.... or it's a pity that I feel that way?

You seem to have an uncanny knack for snagging hooks in my brain matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
See the "Natural Sciences" section of this "stochastics" link.

As I said,.. I'm most likely wrong here too,.. but I really don't care.


Your understanding of stochastichs is probably correct in some or other science. However, your claim was in reply to my post which was about the mathematical field of stochastics, therefore using any other science's definition of that word would be a marble car.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I just like to play with my stochastics. THey AMUSE me......


Why do you punish those that amuse you?

I must have missed the "marble car" metaphor, at some point. :)

I vaguely remember something about a Lego (tm) car, and a car MADE OF marbles, but I'm lost as to the context of either of those.

Anyway,... to the SPECIFIC question of why I should want to "punish" my amusing "stochastics":

Simple answer:

Because they behave VERY randomly (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stochastic). And the uncertainty that they bring is cause for either "praise" if I "win", or "punishment" if I "lose".

I tend to lose more than I win, which is kinda weird considering normal probability distributions, so they tend to get "punished" more than "praised".

And they really don't mind, as they "live" to see me lose, it seems..!

I'm, once again, probably doing something "wrong" to lose more than I win, so it's undoubtedly my own fault.

More complicated answer:

Something to do with "being spanked as a child then immediately rewarded" is what the "experts" tell me. :D

Now, I have a challenge for you.

Find me a bad or undesirable moral that can be derived from my story. Go on, I want to see what you can come up with.

Originally Posted by Milostein

Ah yes, zero. The only number that is both real and imaginary, making him an excellent judge in the matter. I remember once he challenged all numbers to calculate the square root within their own tribes. First the real numbers had a go, and only half of them succeeded. The other half had to admit that they needed the imaginary numbers' help. The imaginary numbers laughed at the reals, until zero told them it's their turn. Not a single one succeeded, save for zero himself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo #1572

*) It's GOOD to be the zero.
*) Even the utterly abstract can fail.
*) Everybody laughs, until it's THERE turn.
*) Even if your gang is infinite, half of them are still incompetent.
*) ....etc

.."Now, I have a challenge for you.

Find me a bad or undesirable moral that can be derived from my story. Go on, I want to see what you can come up with."..

*) It's BAD to be the zero.
*) The utterly abstract tends to fail.
*) Laugh it up, because you'll probably fail.
*) Even if your gang is infinite, half of them are still incompetent.
*) ...etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
This is a good place to insert a post I've been working on... :-)

I have carefully listened to people defining atheist, and some being corrected in their ideas. The best definition I have heard so far is "a disbelief in god(s)". I don't believe "no belief" is possible, because of how the human mind works. We take in data through our senses, calling it a first-hand knowledge of the world, experiencing the data. First-hand knowledge lays the foundation of our belief system as it gives us the initial basis on which to compare other things, from the moment of first consciousness (whenever that may be). We also take in data as related from others and from machines, which is second-hand knowledge. Second-hand knowledge becomes a part of our belief system when it is compated to what is already established in our memories. And we generate data from within the mind/heart/soul --thought/feeling concepts, imagination constructs, and other things --neither first-hand knowledge that comes from senses, nor second-hand knowledge that comes into our minds. Conclusions, understanding and belief are this type of data, as are the ideas termed psychic or intuitive. Belief is a type of "knowing": an understanding of data, which creates a reliance on data, based on trust of data. Trust, not evidence. The Scots have a nice word for this process of understanding: "to ken".

In our belief "system," new data is instantaneously, unconsciously, compared with existing data and an initial belief is set in place: either "yay" or "nay". Iakeokeo defines belief as "loving" the data --poetic and lovely person that he is --and I can see that in the way I think of it: as a "yay!" understanding of it, a positive kenning. Whether data gets a "yay" or "nay" in our belief system, we promptly own it --it becomes one of our beliefs. Then the mind begins a process that is entirely optional (free will), and consciously compares the new data to other things it knows, like morals, makes it grow into a stronger belief, creates (conceives) new beliefs about the first belief, or makes it die a quick and painful death. If all goes well, we either adapt to our belief of the new data, or promptly forget about it.

An atheist has a belief in god, or he/she could not call themselves an atheist; there has to be something to adjoin the label to. "No belief" in god equates to no knowledge of god, and therefore no reason to be wearing the label "atheist". To call oneself an atheist, there must be a fixed idea of what god is, of what the atheist is putting himself in opposition to. Therefore, "disbelief" is the better term to describe the atheist, because the idea of god is a "nay" in their belief system.

I used to have a disbelief of god, based on "common" sense. Then through reading about mythology and symbolism I came to a better understanding of what god is and in a flash of understanding (that knowing of a different sort) I understood that I had kenned what it was all along. It wasn't a moment of glory or ground-moving experience (although it did make me sit up straight), it was just a kenning of god.



It's a nice theory... except that the 'atheist' doesn't really define god, now, does he/she?

The atheist doesn't start out by saying.... "Hmmm, think I'll not believe in any gods.... oh look, someone is introducing me to the concept of god... well, I won't accept it"

I would imagine most atheists reach the point through the route I did. They are taught what god is - maybe they are taught several concepts for god. They decide that they have no ability to accept that concept (eventually). Thus, their atheism is the end-point of their loss-of-belief... which means that atheism is a lack-of-belief state (the default once the 'belief' is lost), rather than an active belief.

So, yes - Atheists are 'nay' to god... but we differ about WHY that is.

Incidentally, for me, the exploration of mythology probes the roots of humanity, and the bases of our human-behaviour - but is only ever tangential to religion.

.." The atheist doesn't start out by saying.... "Hmmm, think I'll not believe in any gods.... oh look, someone is introducing me to the concept of god... well, I won't accept it" "..

So you're saying (to distribute the negative over the applicable first clause):
"Hmmmm... Think I'll believe in gods... Oh look, someone is introducing me to something I believe in... well, I won't accept what I believe in." ...?

You might want to rephrase that. :)

Condensed:
.." (( As an Atheist... ))
*) They are taught what god is..
*) They decide that they have no ability to accept that concept.
*) Thus, their atheism is the end-point of their loss-of-belief..
*) ..which means that atheism is a lack-of-belief state (the default once the 'belief' is lost), rather than an active belief."..

So, they are introduced to the "god" concept, live with it for a while in contemplation, and actively decide to not-believe it.

That sounds about right. :)

We just disagree that "(conscious) lack-of-belief" is not actually "a belief".

God's WIFE'S butt is ENORMOUS...!!

So is mine. It's *good* to have something in common... :-)

I think you are misunderstanding my meaning there.... I'm saying the ATHEIST doesn't define god... they are not the instigator of the "to god or not to god, that is the question" scenario. A person is given information about 'god' or 'gods'... thus, god is defined FOR them. If they accept that definition, they are (ostensibly, at least) a Christian, Muslim, Hindu... etc.
I don't understand how this matters. It's more often the case that "god" is second-hand knowledge. Nevertheless, it is still knowledge that is taken into the person and compared with their knowledge; and then there's a conscious decision whether to believe; so what's the difference here?

If they DON'T accept the definition (ESPECIALLY if they simialrly reject other 'god' concepts when exposed to them), then they are Atheistic.
This I agree with.

Now, THAT is a curious statement.... It's a pity that religion is tangential to mythology.... or it's a pity that I feel that way?
"More's the pity" is just a figure of speech. :-) (the former)

=Bottle]not hard to work that out...you've decided you want to believe in Jesus, and lack either the emotional stability, intelligent, or honesty to examine that belief.

Wrong on all three counts, and its 'intelligence,' bottle, not intelligent.
Do you have any other trumped up charges?




working you out is roughly as difficult as working out the color of my own t-shirt (green). doesn't it ever bother you that you are so dull?

lol good coming from someone who calls themselves bottle, talk about your imagination coming to a shuddering halt :)

=Willamena]How do you know? How can you make that claim about a complete stranger on an anonymous Internet forum? How do you know what has been examined and what not?

Bottle the expert. :rolleyes:
A true bore.

I dare say, flinging insults rather demonstrates lack of emotional stability, intellect or honesty.

Especially when their not even very creative.

He answered later posts...

Sorry it was just too stupid to worry about, it was late.

Just for Milo. ;)

1. Does Jesus Christ exist?
Yes

2. Do the Hindu gods exist?
No, theres only one God.

3. Does the Invincible Pink Unicorn exist?
No, except in your head.

4. Does supernatural power not directly related to a divine intelligence exist?
No

5. Can faith in Jesus Christ allow one to levitate?
Yes

6. Can faith in the Hindu gods allow one to levitate?
No

7. Can faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn allow one to levitate?
No

8. Can faith in personal power not directly related to a divine intelligence allow one to levitate?
No.

6. Can faith in the Hindu gods allow one to levitate?
No

8. Can faith in personal power not directly related to a divine intelligence allow one to levitate?
No.
Then... HOW DO THE FAKIRS LEVITATE!?

I must have missed the "marble car" metaphor, at some point. :)

I vaguely remember something about a Lego (tm) car, and a car MADE OF marbles, but I'm lost as to the context of either of those.
I first introduced it here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6911194&postcount=47). The "car made of marbles" was probably from this post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7023107&postcount=1257) (and the one it was replying to). The main point is that it's a statue rather than the real thing, so lego would work in the metaphor just as easily as marble.

I think it's similar to what is called a "strawman argument". The difference being that I came up with the marble car myself.

Anyway,... to the SPECIFIC question of why I should want to "punish" my amusing "stochastics":

Simple answer:

Because they behave VERY randomly (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stochastic). And the uncertainty that they bring is cause for either "praise" if I "win", or "punishment" if I "lose".

I tend to lose more than I win, which is kinda weird considering normal probability distributions, so they tend to get "punished" more than "praised".

And they really don't mind, as they "live" to see me lose, it seems..!

I'm, once again, probably doing something "wrong" to lose more than I win, so it's undoubtedly my own fault.
The stochastics only determine a number. It is up to YOU which numbers you consider winning, and which you consider losing.

Also, there's a psychological phenomenon (long words make it sound important ;)) that people tend to remember failures longer than successes. So maybe you actually don't lose more than you win, it just seems that way.

But, most importantly of all...

If the game itself amuses you, then would that not mean that you always win, even if you lose?

Then... HOW DO THE FAKIRS LEVITATE!?

I think Jesus helps them.

I think Jesus helps them.
Even though they don't believe in him? Why would he do that?

And if Jesus helps also those that have no faith in him, then why have faith?

And if Jesus helps also those that have no faith in him, then why have faith?
One doesn't have faith in order to get reward treats ("here boy! good doggie!"). One has faith, and one gets rewards. It's a cause-and-effect thing.

One doesn't have faith in order to get reward treats ("here boy! good doggie!"). One has faith, and one gets rewards. It's a cause-and-effect thing.
From how you've explained your position about religion that makes sense.
However, from the christian point of view it doesn't seem to (no worshipping false idols, etc) so although the answer you give is correct (for you) it should be incorrect from Terminalia's point of view.

*waiting for Terminalia's view on this*

Even though they don't believe in him? Why would he do that?

And if Jesus helps also those that have no faith in him, then why have faith?

It could persuade people to have faith in him, Paul in the Bible was a persecuter of Christians and was known as Saul, he was struck blind by God on the road to Damascus and subsequently on being healed became a Christian, he didnt have faith in Jesus beforehand either.

Yes I hope god strikes me blind, because I'll love it so much then.

:rolleyes:

From how you've explained your position about religion that makes sense.
However, from the christian point of view it doesn't seem to (no worshipping false idols, etc) so although the answer you give is correct (for you) it should be incorrect from Terminalia's point of view.

*waiting for Terminalia's view on this*

Well from what Willamena said, that is not why I have faith, I expect no rewards at all, if having faith improves my life then I'll accept that as a cause and effect thing from following Jesus's teachings not because he thinks Im special and deserve a treat every now and then, there are millions of people worse off than I am who deserve special help from God.

Yes I hope god strikes me blind, because I'll love it so much then.

:rolleyes:

He was punished for persecuting Christians, and like I said, he was healed in more ways than one.

Now, I have a challenge for you.

Find me a bad or undesirable moral that can be derived from my story. Go on, I want to see what you can come up with.
if you never choose a side you can make yourself feel superior by mocking the deficiencies of each.

if you never choose a side you can make yourself feel superior by mocking the deficiencies of each.
*applause*

Good one!

Wrong on all three counts, and its 'intelligence,' bottle, not intelligent.
Do you have any other trumped up charges?


gee, i'm so sorry my type-o annoyed you. shall i go find all the ones you have made? people who have to correct the typing of those they argue with are generally doing so because they haven't any actual responses. not that i am saying that applies to you, or anything.


lol good coming from someone who calls themselves bottle, talk about your imagination coming to a shuddering halt :)
are you sure? would i necessarily be a more imaginary person if i made up some nonsense name, or is it just as creative and interesting to find many possible meanings in simple words? oh well, if you are going to try to evaluate my abilities based on the internet handle i use then i think the discussion is going to be a bit fruitless :P.


Bottle the expert.
A true bore.

on that we agree; it is quite boring for me to continually be right when "debating" with you, and i really wish you would provide a little challenge to me for the sake of variety.

All we are are organic pain collectors racing towards oblivion-dogbert, i'm an athiest, so death doesn't scare me very much, we ALL have to die eventully.

And if Jesus helps also those that have no faith in him, then why have faith?Well from what Willamena said, that is not why I have faith, I expect no rewards at all, if having faith improves my life then I'll accept that as a cause and effect thing from following Jesus's teachings not because he thinks Im special and deserve a treat every now and then, there are millions of people worse off than I am who deserve special help from God.
Actually, the idea proposed by Milostein was along the lines of giving god a treat (faith) in order to get him to do tricks for you. :-) Why have faith, he asked, if Jesus "helps" just anybody? --as if the faith was what causes Jesus to help you. He seems to be struggling with the relationship between the two ideas as presented in Christianity.

In my view, faith is not something you do, and what Jesus "gives" is not something he does. Faith is, not does. Jesus (one's concept of godhood) is, not does. The relationship is one of a concept feeding off another concept --the cause-and-effect takes place subjectively, not in the physical world. The reward is a spiritual and righteous one. Do we differ in belief, there, you and I?

Actually, the idea proposed by Milostein was along the lines of giving god a treat (faith) in order to get him to do tricks for you. :-) Why have faith, he asked, if Jesus "helps" just anybody? --as if the faith was what causes Jesus to help you. He seems to be struggling with the relationship between the two ideas as presented in Christianity.

In my view, faith is not something you do, and what Jesus "gives" is not something he does. Faith is, not does. Jesus (one's concept of godhood) is, not does. The relationship is one of a concept feeding off another concept --the cause-and-effect takes place subjectively, not in the physical world. The reward is a spiritual and righteous one. Do we differ in belief, there, you and I?

I think what Milo was really aiming at (this is the problem with a debate where not everyone is an active participant at the same time....) was the fact that... one of the basic tenets of Christianity is to accept no other gods, since they must be 'fake'.

In this situation, since the Fakir obviously believes his help to be coming from his OWN deity, rather than from 'God' (of Christian fame).... why would Jesus perpetuate the myth?

Following biblical precedent, 'god' discredits other 'fake' gods... he doesn't pretend to BE them.

Just figured I would throw my two cents in here.

In the dark ages, people genuinly believed in dragons, but they don't exist.

For quite some time people genuinly believed, hell they still do, in the loch ness monster, guess what doesn't exist.

When I was a little boy I believed in the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, and god. As far as I know these all share the same common goal, to give happyness, hope, or some other good feeling, as well as some sort of guide in how to act. But none of them exist, sorry.

Regardless of what you believe, it simply is not fair play to critique other people for their beliefs. You can believe what you want to believe, because noone can truly control your beliefs. Do as you will, and allow others to do as they may. Worship your god, or don't, either way don't infringe on my rights to worship as I will.

Everyone just quit trying to preach and answer the damn thread.
Anyways, the other thing I wanted to say was it's spelt "dying". Had to get that out before I blew up or something.

Huh? Please clarify. A description or definition should not contain any questions that it itself does not anwer.

Sorry to go grave-digging through the thread, but this one intrigued me.

It seems to me that any worthwhile (read 'personal') description or definition of the deity involves at least one implicit assumption. And any assumption is underlaid by at least one implicit, and unanswered, question (in its simplest form, "Is this assumption true or false?"). And so any description or definition of the deity should indeed contain a question that it itself does not answer. If that question is explicit, so much the better.

A definition should contain only answers. After the definition has been stated, you can ask the question of whether something matching this description exists, and you can assume that it does or doesn't. But this question is not part of the definition itself.

I think what Milo was really aiming at (this is the problem with a debate where not everyone is an active participant at the same time....) was the fact that... one of the basic tenets of Christianity is to accept no other gods, since they must be 'fake'.

In this situation, since the Fakir obviously believes his help to be coming from his OWN deity, rather than from 'God' (of Christian fame).... why would Jesus perpetuate the myth?

Following biblical precedent, 'god' discredits other 'fake' gods... he doesn't pretend to BE them.
We don't know what the Fakir believes --Terminalia simply stated she suspects it's Jesus "helping".

We don't know what the Fakir believes --Terminalia simply stated she suspects it's Jesus "helping".

lol

Actually, the idea proposed by Milostein was along the lines of giving god a treat (faith) in order to get him to do tricks for you. :-) Why have faith, he asked, if Jesus "helps" just anybody? --as if the faith was what causes Jesus to help you. He seems to be struggling with the relationship between the two ideas as presented in Christianity.

In my view, faith is not something you do, and what Jesus "gives" is not something he does. Faith is, not does. Jesus (one's concept of godhood) is, not does. The relationship is one of a concept feeding off another concept --the cause-and-effect takes place subjectively, not in the physical world. The reward is a spiritual and righteous one. Do we differ in belief, there, you and I?

Yes, only in how we see it but, I dont see it as 'feeding', more a giving thing.

A definition should contain only answers. After the definition has been stated, you can ask the question of whether something matching this description exists, and you can assume that it does or doesn't. But this question is not part of the definition itself.
Meh. I just thought it a neat way of collapsing the question immediately consequent to the definition into the definition itself. Like nested parameters, only more elegantly turned.

A definition should contain only answers. After the definition has been stated, you can ask the question of whether something matching this description exists, and you can assume that it does or doesn't. But this question is not part of the definition itself.
I see some validity in White Hat's observation. A definition uses as it's tool the language of man, and that is made of symbols (characters, words, phrases) whose origins are lost to time, so any definition, by definition, contains some hidden meanings. :)

Originally Posted by Willamena
We don't know what the Fakir believes --Terminalia simply stated she suspects it's Jesus "helping".lol
Sorry. I was responding to the gender of the handle, again. My bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I must have missed the "marble car" metaphor, at some point.

I vaguely remember something about a Lego (tm) car, and a car MADE OF marbles, but I'm lost as to the context of either of those.

I first introduced it here. The "car made of marbles" was probably from this post (and the one it was replying to). The main point is that it's a statue rather than the real thing, so lego would work in the metaphor just as easily as marble.

I think it's similar to what is called a "strawman argument". The difference being that I came up with the marble car myself.

Ahhhhhhh... "the map is not the territory"..!

Or, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

Though the "cigar" phrase is actually about something else entirely.

I think...(?)

Or is it..!! :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Anyway,... to the SPECIFIC question of why I should want to "punish" my amusing "stochastics":

Simple answer:

Because they behave VERY randomly. And the uncertainty that they bring is cause for either "praise" if I "win", or "punishment" if I "lose".

I tend to lose more than I win, which is kinda weird considering normal probability distributions, so they tend to get "punished" more than "praised".

And they really don't mind, as they "live" to see me lose, it seems..!

I'm, once again, probably doing something "wrong" to lose more than I win, so it's undoubtedly my own fault.


The stochastics only determine a number. It is up to YOU which numbers you consider winning, and which you consider losing.

Also, there's a psychological phenomenon (long words make it sound important ) that people tend to remember failures longer than successes. So maybe you actually don't lose more than you win, it just seems that way.

But, most importantly of all...

If the game itself amuses you, then would that not mean that you always win, even if you lose?

The heads win, the tails lose, and the edges mean "do over". Unless it's tuesday, then reverse it.

Except during leap weeks, or odd numbered tuesdays during non-leap weeks.

Fizbin anyone....?

And,... NO,... the drain on my bank account from "losing" (You have to pay the wall..! And occassionally the drain-grate.) is most assuredly NOT fun.

But then again, I could just stop playing, I suppose.

But I do so love the exhileration of the chase..!

..and the "clink" of the stochastics as they bounce off he wall..!

Thus is addiction.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
I think Jesus helps them.

Even though they don't believe in him? Why would he do that?

And if Jesus helps also those that have no faith in him, then why have faith?

Jesus is very generous. And he helps them PRECISELY to invoke questions like yours..!



And....


#1600
Congrats..!

A definition should contain only answers. After the definition has been stated, you can ask the question of whether something matching this description exists, and you can assume that it does or doesn't. But this question is not part of the definition itself.

Definitions:

1) Pwank: 3 blidgets

2) Blidget: A large oblong Pweek.

3) Pweek: A collection of Pwanks.

Questions:

How many Pweeks can I get in my glove-compartment (.4 cu.ft)?

How many angels can I get into 16 Pweeks (on a tuesday)?

Definitions:

1) Pwank: 3 blidgets

2) Blidget: A large oblong Pweek.

3) Pweek: A collection of Pwanks.

Questions:

How many Pweeks can I get in my glove-compartment (.4 cu.ft)?

As many as will fit.

How many angels can I get into 16 Pweeks (on a tuesday)?
I wouldn't be able to get any angels into any amount of Pweeks.
Not sure how many you could get in.

Definitions:

1) Pwank: 3 blidgets

2) Blidget: A large oblong Pweek.

3) Pweek: A collection of Pwanks.

Questions:

How many Pweeks can I get in my glove-compartment (.4 cu.ft)?

How many angels can I get into 16 Pweeks (on a tuesday)?

The answer to both is, obviously, zero... since the terms you set up contradict.

a=3b; b=c(lo); c=(x)a

x = a collection (implying more than one), but can only work in the example if it is a fraction (with a MAXIMUM of 1/3).

Or am I looking for logic where none was intended?

Sorry. I was responding to the gender of the handle, again. My bad.

Forgiven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Definitions:

1) Pwank: 3 blidgets

2) Blidget: A large oblong Pweek.

3) Pweek: A collection of Pwanks.

Questions:

How many Pweeks can I get in my glove-compartment (.4 cu.ft)?

How many angels can I get into 16 Pweeks (on a tuesday)?



The answer to both is, obviously, zero... since the terms you set up contradict.

a=3b; b=c(lo); c=(x)a

x = a collection (implying more than one), but can only work in the example if it is a fraction (with a MAXIMUM of 1/3).

Or am I looking for logic where none was intended?

It's somewhat like the question: "How many computer 'folders' could be shoved into a single computer 'folder' IF you could shove any number of folders into a single folder"..?

And of course the answer, as stated in the question, is "any number of them".

The logic used is dependent on the "realm" in which the "conditions" are set up.

Pwa=3(1(x(Pwa)))
1=3x
1/3=x

Which, as you said, is pretty much meaningless in the non-bizarro world..!

Or IS IT..!? :)

Definitions:

1) Pwank: 3 blidgets

2) Blidget: A large oblong Pweek.

3) Pweek: A collection of Pwanks.

Questions:
Note, the questions are after the definitions. Just like I said.

Now, let's do some math. It may be assumed that a collection contains at least one element, especially when taking into account that it it is "large" and oblong (a collection with no elements has a size of zero, which is the smallest size possible and thus clearly not large). Thus, a Blidget, as a type of Pweek, must consist of at least one Pwank. We then find that a Pwank equals at least three Pwanks. This means that ANY Pweek will have a size of infinity.

How many Pweeks can I get in my glove-compartment (.4 cu.ft)?
Since a Blidget is "large", we may assume a minimum size threshold that all Blidgets are larger than. Call it X cubic feet. Since there are an infinity of Blidgets in a Pweek, we deduce that a Pweek consists of at least infinity*X cubic feet, which is infinity cubic feet. Some discussion may be had on exactly what type of infinity this is, but it's clearly more than 0.4.

Hence, the answer to your question is zero. Not even a single Pweek will fit.

How many angels can I get into 16 Pweeks (on a tuesday)?
Depends on whether they cooperate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Definitions:

1) Pwank: 3 blidgets

2) Blidget: A large oblong Pweek.

3) Pweek: A collection of Pwanks.

Questions:

Note, the questions are after the definitions. Just like I said.

Now, let's do some math. It may be assumed that a collection contains at least one element, especially when taking into account that it it is "large" and oblong (a collection with no elements has a size of zero, which is the smallest size possible and thus clearly not large). Thus, a Blidget, as a type of Pweek, must consist of at least one Pwank. We then find that a Pwank equals at least three Pwanks. This means that ANY Pweek will have a size of infinity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
How many Pweeks can I get in my glove-compartment (.4 cu.ft)?

Since a Blidget is "large", we may assume a minimum size threshold that all Blidgets are larger than. Call it X cubic feet. Since there are an infinity of Blidgets in a Pweek, we deduce that a Pweek consists of at least infinity*X cubic feet, which is infinity cubic feet. Some discussion may be had on exactly what type of infinity this is, but it's clearly more than 0.4.

Hence, the answer to your question is zero. Not even a single Pweek will fit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
How many angels can I get into 16 Pweeks (on a tuesday)?

Depends on whether they cooperate.

Yeah,... Questions AFTER def's..!! Not in or before,.. or,... NO SOUP FOR YOU..!!

Infinite sized Pwanks. Yes. But is it "real number infinite" sized or "all number infinite" sized Pwanks..?

And what does this say about being buried in a Blidget..? Since that's what they're REALLY for, you know (oblong container!!?).

Although how a "large oblong collection of things" can be described as a "container" I've always been a little fuzzy on....

:D

And exactly 128/0 (cooperative) angels can fit in 16 pweeks.

Only 64/0 (uncooperative) angels can fit in 16 pweeks, because of the "elbowing" factor.

Infinite sized Pwanks. Yes. But is it "real number infinite" sized or "all number infinite" sized Pwanks..?
All that can be deduced from the given information is that this infinity has the property that it equals its own triple. In particular, this means that it cannot be an ordinal, meaning that Pwanks cannot be well-ordered. However, we can't say much more than that.

And what does this say about being buried in a Blidget..? Since that's what they're REALLY for, you know (oblong container!!?).

Although how a "large oblong collection of things" can be described as a "container" I've always been a little fuzzy on....
God question. Where did I mention anything about a container?

And exactly 128/0 (cooperative) angels can fit in 16 pweeks.

Only 64/0 (uncooperative) angels can fit in 16 pweeks, because of the "elbowing" factor.
But is that now, or on a tuesday?

....
And exactly 128/0 (cooperative) angels can fit in 16 pweeks.

Only 64/0 (uncooperative) angels can fit in 16 pweeks, because of the "elbowing" factor.

I never got the whole 'angel' debate.... surely it depends in part on the size of the angels? I mean, maybe there aren't any midget angels, but are we meant to assume they're all exactly the same size? and what size is that?

Man, my brain itches. Time for sleep (seriously this time though)

The same way everyone else feels about it, minus an afterlife.

By that you imply that everyone else believes in an afterlife? I'm not atheist, yet I don't choose to believe in an afterlife. Generalising that anybody who isn't atheist must be Christian is silly.

I don't really follow any specific faith but I do believe it's possible that some kind of superior force, be that outside out plane of reference or within exists - it just doesn't make sense that all this happened by chance. I guess that makes me agnostic.

An infinite number of monkeys couldn't have come up with existance as we know it, since they haven't had an infinite amount of time yet :D

Anybody heard the song by Muse - 'Thoughts of a dying atheist'... pretty much sums it up for atheism.

An infinite number of monkeys couldn't have come up with existance as we know it, since they haven't had an infinite amount of time yet :D
Umm, you need either an infinite number of monkeys OR an infinite amount of time. You don't need both.

And frankly, I think that the size of the universe and how long it has been in existance are both sufficiently close to infinity to explain our existance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Infinite sized Pwanks. Yes. But is it "real number infinite" sized or "all number infinite" sized Pwanks..?

All that can be deduced from the given information is that this infinity has the property that it equals its own triple. In particular, this means that it cannot be an ordinal, meaning that Pwanks cannot be well-ordered. However, we can't say much more than that.

I can't even say that...! :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And what does this say about being buried in a Blidget..? Since that's what they're REALLY for, you know (oblong container!!?).

Although how a "large oblong collection of things" can be described as a "container" I've always been a little fuzzy on....

God question. Where did I mention anything about a container?

You didn't. I did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And exactly 128/0 (cooperative) angels can fit in 16 pweeks.

Only 64/0 (uncooperative) angels can fit in 16 pweeks, because of the "elbowing" factor.

But is that now, or on a tuesday?

Uh,... let's say it's monday...! Heh he he he he he he.....

I'm losin' it..!

Poink..!

He was bold and brash, and showed himself to everyone he met. And he had strong legs, too ...I imagine everyone did in those days.
I've noticed that he seems to tell everybody that he heals "see that no man know it". And then there's Matthew 10:5, and 16:20, and 17:9...

Harharharharhar, sorry but I'm just imagining Noah cramming all the Earth's animals into one ark, pure comedy. :)

Ever watched Dr Who?

Ever watched Dr Who?

See, it all becomes possible, if Noah was a Timelord....

Curious that the bible scholars neglected to mention that the final stage of construction, was carving the letters T.A.R.D.I.S. on the side...

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:


I'm not an atheist but I do feel that when you die, you cease to exist. Period.

BTW, it's dying. ;)

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]See, it all becomes possible, if Noah was a Timelord....

I meant the Ark must have been bigger on the inside somehow.

Curious that the bible scholars neglected to mention that the final stage of construction, was carving the letters T.A.R.D.I.S. on the side...

Its the only explanation I can find, I believe its credible too, as God can

make anything possible.

They reckon the Ark is in Turkey still on the side of Mt Arafat, the same

mountain mentioned in the Bible, but some conspiracy has prevented people

from having proper access to it, wonder why that could be?

I'm not an atheist but I do feel that when you die, you cease to exist. Period.
BTW, it's dying. ;)

But that doesnt make sense, you say your not an atheist, but you dont

believe in any afterlife either?

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

Theists like yourself are just as narrowminded, completely denying the possibility of things like evolution and the big bang.

Theists like yourself are just as narrowminded, completely denying the possibility of things like evolution and the big bang.

I believe God created both.

I meant the Ark must have been bigger on the inside somehow.
Its the only explanation I can find, I believe its credible too, as God can
make anything possible.
They reckon the Ark is in Turkey still on the side of Mt Arafat, the same
mountain mentioned in the Bible, but some conspiracy has prevented people
from having proper access to it, wonder why that could be?

First: The only explanation you can find? I have another.... the 'ark' is a plot device in a very old story... and most people back then were sufficiently simple-minded and uneducated enough not to even question when you gave a big boat, and then said all the animals could fit in it.

Second: Since the biblical version obviously plagiarises the much-earlier Babylonian version, we can assume about the Genesis account the same thing it says in the Babylonian version... i.e. that it is talking about a visible area... the land as far as the eye can see. Thus, it doesn't have to be all the animals... just all the ones that were near to where the story was written... it may have been 3 sheep and a duck, for all we actually know.

Third: The mountain you mean is Ararat.... although the Arafat thing is going to keep me amused for days.

Fourth: It's a shadow. The same as the face on mars. I've seen multiple angle shots of the 'ark' site on Ararat (somehow, your 'global conspiracy' doesn't work on cameras), and it is quite obviously the shadow of a rock.

Go check it out for yourself, Terminalia.

Honestly, do you EVER research ANYTHING you post?

The universe will continue to exist long after humans are gone, we are pointless creatures with the afterlife myth floating around giving gullible individuals the belief that a lack of success in life will lead to a wealth in heaven. When you die the last bit of energy your body contains is recycled back into nature and you will never know it.

With that said, Death scares the shit out of me.

I hate death

The universe will continue to exist long after humans are gone, we are pointless creatures with the afterlife myth floating around giving gullible individuals the belief that a lack of success in life will lead to a wealth in heaven. When you die the last bit of energy your body contains is recycled back into nature and you will never know it.

With that said, Death scares the shit out of me.

I hate death

I try to avoid it, as much as possible...

But that doesnt make sense, you say your not an atheist, but you dont
believe in any afterlife either?
Must all religious folk believe in an afterlife?

First: The only explanation you can find? I have another.... the 'ark' is a plot device in a very old story... and most people back then were sufficiently simple-minded and uneducated enough not to even question when you gave a big boat, and then said all the animals could fit in it.
Ooh! Ooh! I have another explanation... the 'ark' is a plot device in a very old story... and most people back then were sufficiently familiar with allegory as a method of communicating concepts that they automatically recognized the story elements for what they were and related them to meanings that were commonly known at the time, but have since been buried under the annals of history. (I love that phrase, "annals of history".)

But death shouldn't scare you. After all, if the last of your energy is spent before you die, then death will be neither painful nor frightening - your brain and perceptions will cease to exist, giving way to a peaceful nothingness. That is the communist's afterlife.

I'm an agnostic. Personally, don't have much of an appreciation for death. All Christianity (And most/all religions) offer in consolation is that no matter what. I'm going to die. If it's of a disease, then it's gods will. If it's because of natural causes, see the above answer. They just accept the death, blame in on the unseen, unproven and unknown. If it was up to them, I suspect medical science would never have existed. So personal? I plan to aim to extend my life by actively attempting to use medical science to cure any medical problems that arise. I suspect I'd enjoy life here on earth farmore than any heaven, or hell. So why not try to stay here?

Just as a note. Can any religious people actually explain anything without ultimately falling back upon, "It is gods will. He's all knowing/all power/etc."

Atheists belive that you should only belive with conclusive proof. However, Atheist belive that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God or any higher power. God can neither be proven or disproven, hence the nessessity of Faith to belive either way. Ergo it can be concluded that Athiests have faith that God does not exist. This however, is faith built without conclusive evidence, meaning that the Athiests have created a hypocricy within thier own dogma. The Athiests tend to have animocity towards Christians because of hypocricy within thier dogma and the blind faith that is required to belive in a God. However, Athiests have both blind faith that there is no God and are inherantly hypocritcal by thier being. Thus, Atheism creates an unreconcilable paradox. All you Athiests, ceace to exist as your doctrine has just forked itself, or convert to Agnostism and admit that you can't disprove God anymore than christians can prove God. As for my take, either there is a God and I'm right, meaning heaven, or, there is a God and I'm wrong, meaning hell, or, there is no God and I'm wrong, meaning that the question is without any relevance. Either way, it doesn't matter, if there is no God, then death is just death, to define it as anything else, or to have anxiety over it is foolishness and a waste of time and life.

Ooh! Ooh! I have another explanation... the 'ark' is a plot device in a very old story... and most people back then were sufficiently familiar with allegory as a method of communicating concepts that they automatically recognized the story elements for what they were and related them to meanings that were commonly known at the time, but have since been buried under the annals of history. (I love that phrase, "annals of history".)

I was only looking for one example... there are obviously dozens of explanations that explain Noah's ark in a different fashion (and more logical) than 'the ark is bigger inside than out'.

But, thank you, that is another perfectly good reason why the ark story might be in it's current form.

Of course, that explanation won't sit too well with certain areas of christianity, who deny that anyone back then can have had the experience with dealing with symbolism... what with the world being 'so new' and all that...

Atheists belive that you should only belive with conclusive proof. However, Atheist belive that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God or any higher power. God can neither be proven or disproven, hence the nessessity of Faith to belive either way. Ergo it can be concluded that Athiests have faith that God does not exist. This however, is faith built without conclusive evidence, meaning that the Athiests have created a hypocricy within thier own dogma. The Athiests tend to have animocity towards Christians because of hypocricy within thier dogma and the blind faith that is required to belive in a God. However, Athiests have both blind faith that there is no God and are inherantly hypocritcal by thier being. Thus, Atheism creates an unreconcilable paradox. All you Athiests, ceace to exist as your doctrine has just forked itself, or convert to Agnostism and admit that you can't disprove God anymore than christians can prove God. As for my take, either there is a God and I'm right, meaning heaven, or, there is a God and I'm wrong, meaning hell, or, there is no God and I'm wrong, meaning that the question is without any relevance. Either way, it doesn't matter, if there is no God, then death is just death, to define it as anything else, or to have anxiety over it is foolishness and a waste of time and life.

I'm afraid your logic is flawed. While it is certainly true that Atheists, in general seek concrete evidence for their beliefs, you are misunderstanding what it is that an Atheist believes.

Atheist just means 'without god'. If you do not 'believe' in god (or gods), then you are an Atheist... it isn't some prescribed dogma that you can conform to... there is no required faith, it's just that simple... if you don't believe in god, you are an Atheist.

I HAVE known some atheist who believed beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no god, and they abse their claims on logic. Occam basically suggests that if there is a possibility that nature could have created the world, or the possibility that a supernatural entity used awesome cosmic powers to shape the world, then nature wins out... since it is less complex... it doesn't multiply it's uncertainties.

I'm not sure why theists of various convictions seem to want so desperately for Atheism to be a religion... but I guess it's so they can say "huh, you believe too, you're no better than us'....

Finally... your last argument about 'Pascal's Wager' seems contradictory to me. If you are only believing in God because it is safer than the alternatives, how is that belief? That is barter... that is selling your opinion to the highest bidder.

And, your logic falls here also. You assign equal weight to both probabilities in order to make Pascal's Wager work... you effectively say that god existing is AS LIKELY as god not existing, for the sake of the premise of the argument.

The reason this falls down is that; the two aren't equally weighted. The fact that there is no EVIDENCE for god actually tips the balance towards the absence of god... while the lack of evidence for 'no god' doesn't affect the balance. Pascal's Wager falls down on the unbalanced premise.

[Willamena #1649]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
But that doesnt make sense, you say your not an atheist, but you dont
believe in any afterlife either?


Must all religious folk believe in an afterlife?

Hey,... great to be back..! :D

Must they,.. no.

The fuzzy thinking in these forums astounds me. But,... why should this place be any different than any other place in which humans reside.

I count myself in being "fuzzy thinking" quite often, by the way..!

Now,... let me catch up in this HUGE thread.....

[Willamena #1650]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
First: The only explanation you can find? I have another.... the 'ark' is a plot device in a very old story... and most people back then were sufficiently simple-minded and uneducated enough not to even question when you gave a big boat, and then said all the animals could fit in it.

Ooh! Ooh! I have another explanation... the 'ark' is a plot device in a very old story... and most people back then were sufficiently familiar with allegory as a method of communicating concepts that they automatically recognized the story elements for what they were and related them to meanings that were commonly known at the time, but have since been buried under the annals of history. (I love that phrase, "annals of history".)

There's a small country, somewhere east of Ignominia, where everyone speaks in metaphor and allegory. A very interesting place, where it takes FOREVER to converse with people, or it's nearly instantaneous, take your pick.

The locals tend to take a long time though, as they enjoy conversing quite a lot.

And may the annals of history never require the exlax of experience. :D

[Former Russian States #1651]
But death shouldn't scare you. After all, if the last of your energy is spent before you die, then death will be neither painful nor frightening - your brain and perceptions will cease to exist, giving way to a peaceful nothingness. That is the communist's afterlife.

That is the communist's desired present..! :D

Ten years ago there was an ABC-TV news special about a noble atheist who was bravely facing oblivion (he had a terminal illness) without any of the crutches of faith.

He was very calm and rational about it, explaining that he had simply accepted his ultimate dissolution as an ineviatble fact.

Thousands wrote and called in to applaud this lonely noble man.

Significantly underreported were his final four weeks of life, in which he was shaking and blubbering, abandoned by his disgusted family and former admirers. Ironically, I saw some of his humiliation on a supposedly secular-humanist PBS station.

[New Scott-land #1652]
I'm an agnostic. Personally, don't have much of an appreciation for death. All Christianity (And most/all religions) offer in consolation is that no matter what. I'm going to die. If it's of a disease, then it's gods will. If it's because of natural causes, see the above answer. They just accept the death, blame in on the unseen, unproven and unknown. If it was up to them, I suspect medical science would never have existed. So personal? I plan to aim to extend my life by actively attempting to use medical science to cure any medical problems that arise. I suspect I'd enjoy life here on earth farmore than any heaven, or hell. So why not try to stay here?

Just as a note. Can any religious people actually explain anything without ultimately falling back upon, "It is gods will. He's all knowing/all power/etc."



.."Can any religious people actually explain anything without ultimately falling back upon, "It is gods will. He's all knowing/all power/etc.""..

Things religious are not explainable as anything but perceptions.

Perceptions are "recieved" things, and as such are recieved from their conception of "a source".

Now,.. explaining non-religious things by this method is just plain silly.

The eternal is now. You are in it; it is all around you. It holds you up over the void of nothingness.
Your life and your death are already received into eternity.
Our birthright is freedom and peace, in spirit. We may act responsibly, especially to care for others, but we need not fear anything the future offers.
The desire to control our fate is a futile grasping which makes us suffer.
Rescind control over your eternal future and you will no longer suffer.

Correction: It is based on believing what can be proven.

There is a difference between atheism and positivism. Atheism just means living without a God or Gods. You interpret things and decide without Them. So you can beleive and think that there are inexplicable situations and events. Or just that human understanding is limited and therefor some things will not be understood. There just no part of Mysterious ways.

Postivism means beleiving only what can be scientifically proven and most of all beleiving that everything will be explained sooner or later by science.

So death, well, it's hard to understand. What does it mean to me? What does it mean to you? It's just a part of life. Love (or no love), getting older, and then you die. It makes life more precious. You have to do it now.

I was only looking for one example... there are obviously dozens of explanations that explain Noah's ark in a different fashion (and more logical) than 'the ark is bigger inside than out'.

But, thank you, that is another perfectly good reason why the ark story might be in it's current form.

Of course, that explanation won't sit too well with certain areas of christianity, who deny that anyone back then can have had the experience with dealing with symbolism... what with the world being 'so new' and all that...
Personally, I like the TARDIS theory. ;-)

There's a small country, somewhere east of Ignominia, where everyone speaks in metaphor and allegory. A very interesting place, where it takes FOREVER to converse with people, or it's nearly instantaneous, take your pick.

The locals tend to take a long time though, as they enjoy conversing quite a lot.
Hehe. I'm a Star Trek fan and my favourite episode of The Next Generation is the one where Picard had to learn the langauge of the Tamarians, who speak, and think, only in metaphor. His experience with mythology came in handy. I believe it was called, "Darmok".

EDIT: Sorry to get off-topic.

[Willamena #1663]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I was only looking for one example... there are obviously dozens of explanations that explain Noah's ark in a different fashion (and more logical) than 'the ark is bigger inside than out'.

But, thank you, that is another perfectly good reason why the ark story might be in it's current form.

Of course, that explanation won't sit too well with certain areas of christianity, who deny that anyone back then can have had the experience with dealing with symbolism... what with the world being 'so new' and all that...

Personally, I like the TARDIS theory. ;-)

Oooo,.. yeah,... and Noah used a modified form of infinite improbability drive to propel that big wooden cracker box around the inevitable monster iceberg and alien patrol/monitoring craft.

Can we get any scientologists to chime in on this one..!?

:D

So death, well, it's hard to understand. What does it mean to me? What does it mean to you? It's just a part of life. Love (or no love), getting older, and then you die. It makes life more precious. You have to do it now.
Bravo.

"Now" is, I think, one of the most important religious concepts ever, and one that is almost entirely overlooked by people today in the Western world, who have very little faith in "now". They much prefer to measure reality by their clocks. So sad. (And so little time left!)

Originally Posted by Sinuendo
So death, well, it's hard to understand. What does it mean to me? What does it mean to you? It's just a part of life. Love (or no love), getting older, and then you die. It makes life more precious. You have to do it now.


Bravo.

"Now" is, I think, one of the most important religious concepts ever, and one that is almost entirely overlooked by people today in the Western world, who have very little faith in "now". They much prefer to measure reality by their clocks. So sad. (And so little time left!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo?

Sinuendo managed to touch on death, love, and life without saying anything profound whatsoever. What is his point, that we are unsure what happens after death? That everyone dies, its a part of life? Major revelation there.

[Willamena #1664]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
There's a small country, somewhere east of Ignominia, where everyone speaks in metaphor and allegory. A very interesting place, where it takes FOREVER to converse with people, or it's nearly instantaneous, take your pick.

The locals tend to take a long time though, as they enjoy conversing quite a lot.

Hehe. I'm a Star Trek fan and my favourite episode of The Next Generation is the one where Picard had to learn the langauge of the Tamarians, who speak, and think, only in metaphor. His experience with mythology came in handy. I believe it was called, "Darmok".

Ah yes... that was an interesting episode. Although, even with a "universal translator" it's unlikely that he could have "decoded" their metaphor so quickly. Unless the universal translator does Nth order interpretation (metaphorical) of the "words".

I never much liked the universal translator idea. It was rather necessary, but it just annoys me no end.

Did you notice that "Darmok (http://www.section31.com/epmovies/tng/synopsis/pn202.html)" (supposedly a mythical hunter-hero) is "Comrad" spelled backwards..?

[Willamena #1666]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinuendo
So death, well, it's hard to understand. What does it mean to me? What does it mean to you? It's just a part of life. Love (or no love), getting older, and then you die. It makes life more precious. You have to do it now.

Bravo.

"Now" is, I think, one of the most important religious concepts ever, and one that is almost entirely overlooked by people today in the Western world, who have very little faith in "now". They much prefer to measure reality by their clocks. So sad. (And so little time left!)

Hear hear..! :D

But,... now is only meaningful in relation to it's bounds.

An infinite now provides no spark. If there was no start, and no end, this now and that now are indistiguishable, with no need to do.

The realization of an approaching end provides the contrast to make this now more valuable than all previous nows.

And knowing you have a last now brings the realization that you had a first now. Or did you..?

And thus was god born.

Originally Posted by Sinuendo
So death, well, it's hard to understand. What does it mean to me? What does it mean to you? It's just a part of life. Love (or no love), getting older, and then you die. It makes life more precious. You have to do it now.


Bravo.

"Now" is, I think, one of the most important religious concepts ever, and one that is almost entirely overlooked by people today in the Western world, who have very little faith in "now". They much prefer to measure reality by their clocks. So sad. (And so little time left!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo?

Sinuendo managed to touch on death, love, and life without saying anything profound whatsoever. What is his point, that we are unsure what happens after death? That everyone dies, its a part of life? Major revelation there.
:) That living in the now is what makes life precious; especially good ear-candy after 'listening' to all the preaching about what a child could'a-should'a-would'a been if it hadn't been aborted, on other threads.

Quit with this now crap, there is only a cause and an effect, no inbetween. "Now" is just a idea created by our incessant need to give order to everything even when we don't understand it. How can one possible think about "Now" when the moment has passed by the time the time one reaches a decision. Evaluate the past to make well thought out decisions for the future, ignore the now, as what is life without goals?

Hear hear..! :D

But,... now is only meaningful in relation to it's bounds.

An infinite now provides no spark. If there was no start, and no end, this now and that now are indistiguishable, with no need to do.

The realization of an approaching end provides the contrast to make this now more valuable than all previous nows.
Ha! but then you're not living in the now, you're living in passing moments. :-p

Now has no bounds, no beginning and no end; it's just now.

See mankind, still breaking down his world into measurable units, just like his clock. ;)
And knowing you have a last now brings the realization that you had a first now. Or did you..?

And thus was god born.
No beginning, no end. God is infinite and eternal.

Quit with this now crap, there is only a cause and an effect, no inbetween. "Now" is just a idea created by our incessant need to give order to everything even when we don't understand it. How can one possible think about "Now" when the moment has passed by the time the time one reaches a decision. Evaluate the past to make well thought out decisions for the future, ignore the now, as what is life without goals?
The past is gone, and the future hasn't been. Now is the only reality. I don't know about yours, but my reality isn't crap. ;-)

Now is not a unit.

[Willamena #1666]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinuendo
So death, well, it's hard to understand. What does it mean to me? What does it mean to you? It's just a part of life. Love (or no love), getting older, and then you die. It makes life more precious. You have to do it now.


Bravo.

"Now" is, I think, one of the most important religious concepts ever, and one that is almost entirely overlooked by people today in the Western world, who have very little faith in "now". They much prefer to measure reality by their clocks. So sad. (And so little time left!)


Wills..!!? Do you realize you got both

#666 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6932483&postcount=666) and #1666 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7188570&postcount=1666)..!


Spooky..! :D

I'm afraid your logic is flawed. While it is certainly true that Atheists, in general seek concrete evidence for their beliefs, you are misunderstanding what it is that an Atheist believes.

Atheist just means 'without god'. If you do not 'believe' in god (or gods), then you are an Atheist... it isn't some prescribed dogma that you can conform to... there is no required faith, it's just that simple... if you don't believe in god, you are an Atheist.

I HAVE known some atheist who believed beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no god, and they abse their claims on logic. Occam basically suggests that if there is a possibility that nature could have created the world, or the possibility that a supernatural entity used awesome cosmic powers to shape the world, then nature wins out... since it is less complex... it doesn't multiply it's uncertainties.

I'm not sure why theists of various convictions seem to want so desperately for Atheism to be a religion... but I guess it's so they can say "huh, you believe too, you're no better than us'....

Finally... your last argument about 'Pascal's Wager' seems contradictory to me. If you are only believing in God because it is safer than the alternatives, how is that belief? That is barter... that is selling your opinion to the highest bidder.

And, your logic falls here also. You assign equal weight to both probabilities in order to make Pascal's Wager work... you effectively say that god existing is AS LIKELY as god not existing, for the sake of the premise of the argument.

The reason this falls down is that; the two aren't equally weighted. The fact that there is no EVIDENCE for god actually tips the balance towards the absence of god... while the lack of evidence for 'no god' doesn't affect the balance. Pascal's Wager falls down on the unbalanced premise.


To belive that there is no God is to claim that there is no way a God can exist, a statement of faith, to say that you belive there is no god or gods but do not have absolute faith in this statement is to admit an element of uncertainty, thus you are not truely an Athiest, you are simply an agnostic.

By no means should you label me as a standard theist, as my religious belifes come from studies of many different religious texts and traditions, and as such represent a unified belife system. For one, science and Religion need not be mutualy exclusive, you can be a theist and belive in every scientific law, just as a scientist can belive that God created all of reality by way of scienticly observable phenomena. Science can always answer the questions of how, Where, When, What, and Who, however they do not even attempt to, and indeed can not answer the questions of Why, that is the realm of philosophy and ethics, a bailwick that religion fits in quite well untill you attempt to merge the two diciplines *using science to attempt to determine why humanity exists in the first place, or useing theology to answer how humanity came into being*.

Finaly, you assumption that I weigh both sides equally is correct, as in my experience they are both weighed equally. While it may very well be probable that there is no god, it is not conclusive, ergo following a God is a viable moral pathway for me. My personal religious belifes are important to me and shape my social and psychological perceptions of the world at large, making me a better person. . . unless of course you care to take the personification Christians mistakingly characaturize you with and take the side that carring for our fellow man isn't good, and that loving your neighbors and striving to make the world a better place isn't a noble ambition. I am not attempting to berate you for your religious decions, if you choose to belive that there is no God, it does not mean you will be an evil person, Athiest, Agonostics and other non-theists can do great things for thier fellow man, it's simply part of human nature to nurture the society as a whole. With added weight for the benifit that my belifes has provided me *living a life that I am happy with being the formost* its simple to see that Life isn't called inot question, Death is called itno question. To say that death being an end is bad is simple ignorance to the thrust of my claims. Should I die and there be no after life, I will ceace to be, and as such, will not be affected by it, thus, this probability is not a bad one, rather it is a neutral one. If I die and there is an afterlife, I have two possibilities, Heaven or Hell, by your own definition both are improbable, ergo my chances at hell are insignificatn when compared to my chances at oblivion or heaven. In conclusion, when I die, both Heaven and Oblivion are good bets, meaning that, even with your weighted gambit, life is far more important than death. As religon provides me with the most gain *possible heaven with a life I am content with* at the lowest of costs *hell being improbable and oblivion not being an issue* it is of course the best wager for me. I do wonder this though, not just to Athiests, but to the wide majority of theists as well, why do you feel so uneasy about your belifes that you feel the need to change mine? If it is hope to save humanity, the doesn't Humanity have free will in order to decide which path they will take?

[Willamena #1672]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Hear hear..!

But,... now is only meaningful in relation to it's bounds.

An infinite now provides no spark. If there was no start, and no end, this now and that now are indistiguishable, with no need to do.

The realization of an approaching end provides the contrast to make this now more valuable than all previous nows.

Ha! but then you're not living in the now, you're living in passing moments. :-p

Now has no bounds, no beginning and no end; it's just now.

See mankind, still breaking down his world into measurable units, just like his clock.

Not into units,.. into a gap. "A" gap, singular. The gap between this now and the last now.

You can't help but be in the now. If you try to be anywhere else, you freeze and can't handle things in the now. But if you don't see the gap, you don't need to handle things in the now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And knowing you have a last now brings the realization that you had a first now. Or did you..?

And thus was god born.

No beginning, no end. God is infinite and eternal.

Bingo..! My point exactly. The realization that you will have a last now, and the conjecture (belief) that you had a first now points directly at the infinite, like a masters hand points at the dogfood bowl.

Don't be confused by the hand. It wants you to go to your bowl, not stare at it waiting for a snacky-treat..! :)

The past is gone, and the future hasn't been. Now is the only reality. I don't know about yours, but my reality isn't crap. ;-)

Now is not a unit.

The now you speak of is the immediate future.

Define "now" and tell me how you can make a decision that possible can effect your life "now".

It is a principle of science that in viewing any object we change its future and therefore cannot predict exactly what it will do, the same goes for life, so there is no way we can be isolated enough for there to be a coherent "now".

With that said I understand what you are saying, that you should live with the immediate future in mind, not the distant future, I am just being the devil's advocate.

I'm an atheist/agnostic and I wanna say atheism is the absence of a regligion.
And some atheists mite feel different than others about dieing.By the way common religions are stupid and pointless because they're false!(Just from my point of view,no hard feelings to any believers except the guy who dissed atheism because he's too scared of the truth.)The only religions I respect are budhism and Unitarian Universalism.And atheists aren't any worse than anyone else just because they don't want an illusion in front of them.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.
Well we have to have some evidence it exists and we do believe in things beyond our 5(or six, I actually believe in that).But if nothing exists that says so and so is true than why should we believe in so and so.About dieing atheists actually can believe in life after death just not in the religious way everyone is used to.

Atheism doesn't deny the existence of things beyond our senses, does it? I was under the impression that it only denied the existence of god and left the possibility open for many things we can't see.

As far as I know, atheists have no problem opening up to another realm of thought or feeling. They just have a problem with arbitrarily picking a mythology to live by. They don't see a reason why this or that god has to be the explanation of everything/anything.

Things that may exist beyond our senses are not exclusively limited to your made-up god.

And just so I'm not a total jerk for ignoring the point of this thread:

Just because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean I dicount the possibility of some type of existence after this life. I can speculate on what could be beyond death (including the possibility of oblivion, which inspires me to live this life to the fullest, whatever that means to me), but I cannot state with any confidence what lies after our current lives, and thus I cannot base my actions in this life on any expectations about an afterlife.

Although I would probably feel deep sadness about leaving this world (as well as, I hope, satisfaction), I am very interested in finding out what happens after (and if it turns out to be obliivion or the like, I won't find out, but I also won't care anymore, so either way that curiosity is taken care of).


Does what I've said above mean that I cannot be labeled an atheist? Am I missing something by assuming the definition of atheism is not believing in any god?
Good lines,Your now my friend ;)

Its 5th grade physics to know that once you die, the atoms in your body still exsist, and they have been around since the creation of the universe.

Technically speaking, reincarnation can be scientifically justified. If you are not required to reincarnate as a living thing, that is. Your molecules and atoms never cease to exsist, always being reused for different things.

I sometimes wonder along these lines. I wonder if in the possibly infinite continuous existance of the universe the particles that make up me may eventually reassemble to become me again with the exact state of mind that I had before I died. If the universe will exist infinitely then this is infinitely possible.

Just as a sidenote, atheism does not correspond to lack of religion as many people assume. Atheism only entails a lack of belief or acceptance of the concept of God. Buddhists, for example, are atheists, yet they are as spiritual as anyone. Also people tend to assume that science and empiricist views (as in beliefs based on that which is tangible and that we can observe exists) conflict with spirituality. Personally I find that everything I've learnt about science, particularly physics, really enhances my spirituality. I see the universe as infinitely elegant because of the chaos and randomness out of which it was created, not because some sentient being created it. The very concept that it came together randomly fascinates me, as does the way that everything that exists, from unimaginably small particles to absurdly huge celestial bodies, interacts. I see the universe as a fabric of interacting particles of which I am included. As an atheist I do fear death and value life above all else, which is why I'm a pacifist as well, but I still see every lifeform on the planet as inseparable from the Earth and the rest of the universe. The very reason I think is because of the way the system of particles that is my brain interacts with other systems in the universe. So next time someone infers that atheists aren't religious or spiritual refer them to the Dalai Lama or indeed myself.

Peace!

The now you speak of is the immediate future.

Define "now" and tell me how you can make a decision that possible can effect your life "now".
Now is the interface we live in, between future and past. Every decision I make is made now, and its immediate effect on my life is also now. Of course, effects resulting from those effects may happen in the future, but that hasn't happened yet, so it's not real.
It is a principle of science that in viewing any object we change its future and therefore cannot predict exactly what it will do,
Right. The future is not set in stone; it is shaped by our participation now.
the same goes for life, so there is no way we can be isolated enough for there to be a coherent "now".
I don't follow that. Now is life happening; life happens now. Can you feel it all around you? :-)
With that said I understand what you are saying, that you should live with the immediate future in mind, not the distant future, I am just being the devil's advocate.
That's cool. I don't get nearly enough satans in my life.

Wills..!!? Do you realize you got both

#666 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6932483&postcount=666) and #1666 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7188570&postcount=1666)..!


Spooky..! :D
One of my best friends is a satan. ;-)

Go home to mommy and stop acting like a little brat you annoying little punk!
You go home everyone here hates you.If the truth is too much get out and live your lie but don't trie and force it on usYou're just another person who feels the need to be better than others.This is your way of doing that. :sniper:

The point I'm getting at, is that there is no way that you can look at your life now and make a decision to change your life now, by the time you stop and analyze your "now", it is gone. Just like a scientist observing a light particle, by the time he has observed it, it has changed, it doesn't exist in its original form. By this line of logic there is no way to define "now" in any terms, thus there is no way you can make a decision that effects "now"

So you make decisions based on making your future better than the past.

Not into units,.. into a gap. "A" gap, singular. The gap between this now and the last now.

You can't help but be in the now. If you try to be anywhere else, you freeze and can't handle things in the now. But if you don't see the gap, you don't need to handle things in the now.
But the "gap" is seamless. Alright.

I'm a huge fan of time travel shows. Total imaginative fantasy. ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And knowing you have a last now brings the realization that you had a first now. Or did you..?

And thus was god born.

No beginning, no end. God is infinite and eternal.

Bingo..! My point exactly. The realization that you will have a last now, and the conjecture (belief) that you had a first now points directly at the infinite, like a masters hand points at the dogfood bowl.

Don't be confused by the hand. It wants you to go to your bowl, not stare at it waiting for a snacky-treat..! :)
hehe. The infinite/eternal is zoe, eternal-life, and bios is us, "Life-forms, life-forms, all the little life-forms", who experience life as segments with beginnings and ends. Our particular relationship to God is how we comprehend the eternal.

I think that it's a waste of time to live if there's no afterlife. Living just becomes a way of staving off the eternal death... to me, it's a very negative and depressing view. Paschal, a renowned athiest philosopher, said something along the lines of...

If there is no God, and I do believe, I lose nothing.
If there is no God, and I don't believe, I lose nothing.

If there is a God, and I do believe, I gain everything.
If there is a God, and I don't believe, I lose everything.

Pure logic. All things considered, believing is the better choice. :) So, it's not so much a question of 'is there a God?', but a question of 'which religion should I join to worship God?' In any case, one not believing in God doesn't make him exist any less.

The point I'm getting at, is that there is no way that you can look at your life now and make a decision to change your life now, by the time you stop and analyze your "now", it is gone. Just like a scientist observing a light particle, by the time he has observed it, it has changed, it doesn't exist in its original form. By this line of logic there is no way to define "now" in any terms, thus there is no way you can make a decision that effects "now"

So you make decisions based on making your future better than the past.
Any actual decision can only happen now. Now is where consciousness resides. This analysing you refer to is reflection after the fact.

Any actual decision can only happen now. Now is where consciousness resides. This analysing you refer to is reflection after the fact.

You make a decision now, and it's effects are only observed in the future, cause and effect cannot by definition occur simultaneously, the decision (cause) is in the "now", the results are in the future.

You make a decision now, and it's effects are only observed in the future, cause and effect cannot by definition occur simultaneously, the decision (cause) is in the "now", the results are in the future.
You cannot see into the future so you cannot observe effects there (unless you are an astrologer). :-) Its effects are observed in the now, when it's time ...but always in the now.

If there is no God, and I do believe, I lose nothing.


This is the part I think most atheists will disagree with. Since my reason leads me to believe that death is the end of my existence, that my life and my experiences are all that I have or will ever have, I feel that if I tie my actions and beliefs to blind faith that I lose everything.

You cannot see into the future so you cannot observe effects there (unless you are an astrologer). :-) Its effects are observed in the now, when it's time ...but always in the now.

Then by your definition, there is no future, there is just an infinite now, my definition of now is a single instant in time in which a decision and it's results cannot both exist.

Orignally posted by The Bay of St Louis

I think that it's a waste of time to live if there's no afterlife. Living just becomes a way of staving off the eternal death... to me, it's a very negative and depressing view. Paschal, a renowned athiest philosopher, said something along the lines of...

If there is no God, and I do believe, I lose nothing.
If there is no God, and I don't believe, I lose nothing.

If there is a God, and I do believe, I gain everything.
If there is a God, and I don't believe, I lose everything.

Pure logic. All things considered, believing is the better choice. So, it's not so much a question of 'is there a God?', but a question of 'which religion should I join to worship God?' In any case, one not believing in God doesn't make him exist any less.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. Athiests believe in what can be explained through logic, correct? Wouldn't the logical choice concerning religion be to believe in some religion?

For an argument to be true and valid then all of its parts must be true, the part of the deduction that I pulled out would, for most atheists, cause the deduction to be invalid.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. Athiests believe in what can be explained through logic, correct? Wouldn't the logical choice concerning religion be to believe in some religion?

im not atheist, rather agnostic. the point is that we will not become religious and compromise our views out of fear. anyways, if there IS a god, i personally believe that if i live a moral life then he will understand that. if there is a god, i dont think he gave us enough/any proof of his existence, and therefore did not give us enought reason to follow him in a christian way over any other, say, a muslim way, or to follow him at all. if he is real, he did not give us the capacity to make informed choices.

besides, any 'god' that requires worship, is not a god to me. sooner go to 'hell'.

Hehe. I'm a Star Trek fan and my favourite episode of The Next Generation is the one where Picard had to learn the langauge of the Tamarians, who speak, and think, only in metaphor. His experience with mythology came in handy. I believe it was called, "Darmok".

EDIT: Sorry to get off-topic.

As the walls fall, his hands open, etc.

Good episode, one of my very favourites... entirely because of the symbolism.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]First: The only explanation you can find?

Well you never know, God can make anything possible.

I have another.... the 'ark' is a plot device in a very old story... and most people back then were sufficiently simple-minded and uneducated enough not to even question when you gave a big boat, and then said all the animals could fit in it.

See first answer.

Second: Since the biblical version obviously plagiarises the much-earlier Babylonian version, we can assume about the Genesis account the same thing it says in the Babylonian version...

There are legends of the flood from every civilisation.


i.e. that it is talking about a visible area... the land as far as the eye can see. Thus, it doesn't have to be all the animals... just all the ones that were near to where the story was written... it may have been 3 sheep and a duck, for all we actually know.

The Bible clearly states the whole Earth was underwater.

Three sheep and a duck...that would probably have been eaten within a week.


Third: The mountain you mean is Ararat.... although the Arafat thing is going to keep me amused for days.

typo, and a humerous one at that.

I meant Ararat, look how close f and r are.

Fourth: It's a shadow. The same as the face on mars. I've seen multiple angle shots of the 'ark' site on Ararat (somehow, your 'global conspiracy' doesn't work on cameras), and it is quite obviously the shadow of a rock.

There were early reports of locals climbing into it, what happenned to those

reports, or indeed the locals?


Go check it out for yourself, Terminalia.

I will, its probably been doctered now.


Honestly, do you EVER research ANYTHING you post?

Of course.

As the walls fall, his hands open, etc.

Good episode, one of my very favourites... entirely because of the symbolism.

The only decent trek was the first installments with Kirk and Spock, all the

rest are utter crap.

[Willamena #1663]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I was only looking for one example... there are obviously dozens of explanations that explain Noah's ark in a different fashion (and more logical) than 'the ark is bigger inside than out'.

But, thank you, that is another perfectly good reason why the ark story might be in it's current form.

Of course, that explanation won't sit too well with certain areas of christianity, who deny that anyone back then can have had the experience with dealing with symbolism... what with the world being 'so new' and all that...

Personally, I like the TARDIS theory. ;-)

Oooo,.. yeah,... and Noah used a modified form of infinite improbability drive to propel that big wooden cracker box around the inevitable monster iceberg and alien patrol/monitoring craft.

Can we get any scientologists to chime in on this one..!?

:D

Okay. This is now, officially, my favourite thread ever... since, in a discussion about atheism we have touched base on Doctor Who, Star Trek AND Hitchhiker's Guide. If I can manage a Red Dwarf quote in my response, we are pretty much done here.

Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.


im a christian and i still think that is a bold comment. seeing that comment, dont get upset if anyone calls you ignorant or a hypocrite. im not an athiest, but i think that is a bunk thing to say about anyone's beliefs.

Ten years ago there was an ABC-TV news special about a noble atheist who was bravely facing oblivion (he had a terminal illness) without any of the crutches of faith.

He was very calm and rational about it, explaining that he had simply accepted his ultimate dissolution as an ineviatble fact.

Thousands wrote and called in to applaud this lonely noble man.

Significantly underreported were his final four weeks of life, in which he was shaking and blubbering, abandoned by his disgusted family and former admirers. Ironically, I saw some of his humiliation on a supposedly secular-humanist PBS station.

Thats so sad, so what if you cry before you die, he had a terminal illness,

those people who turned away from him with scorn, shouldnt even be

counted as human beings.

They wanted to see an atheist go out with a horrible disease

and a smile on his dial, just to prove to themselves there is no God, what a

pathetic and trivial joke these miserable little people are, how little empathy

do they have for another human beings suffering?

More reason to believe theres a God, if this is the nasty way atheists treat

each other.

To belive that there is no God is to claim that there is no way a God can exist, a statement of faith, to say that you belive there is no god or gods but do not have absolute faith in this statement is to admit an element of uncertainty, thus you are not truely an Athiest, you are simply an agnostic.

By no means should you label me as a standard theist, as my religious belifes come from studies of many different religious texts and traditions, and as such represent a unified belife system. For one, science and Religion need not be mutualy exclusive, you can be a theist and belive in every scientific law, just as a scientist can belive that God created all of reality by way of scienticly observable phenomena. Science can always answer the questions of how, Where, When, What, and Who, however they do not even attempt to, and indeed can not answer the questions of Why, that is the realm of philosophy and ethics, a bailwick that religion fits in quite well untill you attempt to merge the two diciplines *using science to attempt to determine why humanity exists in the first place, or useing theology to answer how humanity came into being*.

Finaly, you assumption that I weigh both sides equally is correct, as in my experience they are both weighed equally. While it may very well be probable that there is no god, it is not conclusive, ergo following a God is a viable moral pathway for me. My personal religious belifes are important to me and shape my social and psychological perceptions of the world at large, making me a better person. . . unless of course you care to take the personification Christians mistakingly characaturize you with and take the side that carring for our fellow man isn't good, and that loving your neighbors and striving to make the world a better place isn't a noble ambition. I am not attempting to berate you for your religious decions, if you choose to belive that there is no God, it does not mean you will be an evil person, Athiest, Agonostics and other non-theists can do great things for thier fellow man, it's simply part of human nature to nurture the society as a whole. With added weight for the benifit that my belifes has provided me *living a life that I am happy with being the formost* its simple to see that Life isn't called inot question, Death is called itno question. To say that death being an end is bad is simple ignorance to the thrust of my claims. Should I die and there be no after life, I will ceace to be, and as such, will not be affected by it, thus, this probability is not a bad one, rather it is a neutral one. If I die and there is an afterlife, I have two possibilities, Heaven or Hell, by your own definition both are improbable, ergo my chances at hell are insignificatn when compared to my chances at oblivion or heaven. In conclusion, when I die, both Heaven and Oblivion are good bets, meaning that, even with your weighted gambit, life is far more important than death. As religon provides me with the most gain *possible heaven with a life I am content with* at the lowest of costs *hell being improbable and oblivion not being an issue* it is of course the best wager for me. I do wonder this though, not just to Athiests, but to the wide majority of theists as well, why do you feel so uneasy about your belifes that you feel the need to change mine? If it is hope to save humanity, the doesn't Humanity have free will in order to decide which path they will take?

I will start at the end of your post first. I am not trying to change your belief. But, you set out an agenda based on logic, and most of your premises were either flawed or utterly incorrect. I merely point out the errors.

I mind not at all if you are Christian, Moslem or Rabobic Disciple, or Baha'i, so long as you don't try to use logic to prove your point correct... when the logic is faulty.

Your use of Pascal's Wager is still flawed. The lack of evidence for a god means that the weighting is still heavily in favour of 'no god', and thus no organised religion 'afterlife'. Thus, if you apply correct weighting to Pascal, the Wager doesn't suggest eternal life v's damnation, or heaven v's oblivion... it suggests oblivion v's a very slim chance of anything else... be it heaven, hell or the Burning Wastes of Kasha Ra.

Final rebuttal: You misunderstand Atheism v's Agnosticism. An Agnostic believes that there is NO WAY TO KNOW if there is a god or gods, and so remains neutral on the decision.

An Atheist doesn't believe in ANY gods... which is subtly different from the claim that a god 'couldn't' exist. I, personally don't believe in aliens... so I am an Alien-Atheist (if you will). But that doesn't mean that there is NO WAY that there could be aliens... just that I have no reason to believe.

The equivalent of an Alien-Agnostic would be the person who says that it is impossible to know for sure if aliens exist.

By the way, aside from your logic, I largely agree with you... about the fact that science and religion SHOULD be able to exist harmoniously, about the jaded view most organised religions have for helping others, and about 'good persons' being less than concretely related to 'religious persons'.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. Athiests believe in what can be explained through logic, correct? Wouldn't the logical choice concerning religion be to believe in some religion?

As I've pointed out in another post... though you have to dig to find it... Pascal's Wager is flawed, due to a weighting error... so the premise evidenced by our eminent colleague is, unfortunately, also flawed.

Regardless of which, logic has little to do with the end result... assuming that Pascal's Wager WAS correct, and that the mechanism DID imply that you lost nothing by belief, and could gain all.... still, how would LOGIC dictate belief?

Do you honestly think that most people in an organised religion today, joined that religion through 'logic' and deduction?

Alternatively, even if you COULD make yourself adhere to a faith, that isn't belief, that's barter. Your decision is made by acquiesence to the highest bid.

Well you never know, God can make anything possible.


Cop out answer, I'm afraid. If you can't prove it by logic, and if it's obviously not supposed to be interpreted literally, you fall back on "with god, all things are possible". If that were, indeed, true... why would he need to use his son as a sacrifice to save humanity from sin?


There are legends of the flood from every civilisation.


Every civilisation? You have checked?

Ever occur to you that two different people might be referring to two different floods?

Also - try reading the flood myth in Hebrew... there is a very clear implication that the flood was a limited geography.

In fact, while we are at it... it also describes in the Bible exactly where the flood took place, and gives a rough estimate of it's 'width'... which would be a curious thing to suggest for water that actually 'covered the world'.


The Bible clearly states the whole Earth was underwater.


The way you read it. But, then, you ignore all contradictions, and believe the whole thing is supposed to be taken literally.

Tell me... is a Bat a bird? And how many legs does a cricket have?


Three sheep and a duck...that would probably have been eaten within a week.


Look at the size of the boat, the number of crew, and the food supply... your argument holds true for the ark even as described in the bible.

(That is, since they could only eat the meat of clean animals... they would have run out of those animals long before the ark is supposed to have 'landed').


There were early reports of locals climbing into it, what happenned to those
reports, or indeed the locals?


There were no reports. You were either lied to deliberately, lied to accidentally, or lied to in some oblique fashion and chose to believe it.


I will, its probably been doctered now.


Yes. Of course. It's all a big conspiracy.

When do you think this 'discovery' is supposed to have taken place?

Thats so sad, so what if you cry before you die, he had a terminal illness,
those people who turned away from him with scorn, shouldnt even be
counted as human beings.
They wanted to see an atheist go out with a horrible disease
and a smile on his dial, just to prove to themselves there is no God, what a
pathetic and trivial joke these miserable little people are, how little empathy
do they have for another human beings suffering?
More reason to believe theres a God, if this is the nasty way atheists treat
each other.

Hey, Terminalia... did you hear that they have decided to remove the word "gullible" from all the dictionaries?

Honestly, someone could type in anything, and if you detected the slightest trace of persecution of christians, pow! there you are, soaking it up.

You are verging on paranoia, my friend.

Hey, Terminalia... did you hear that they have decided to remove the word "gullible" from all the dictionaries?

Honestly, someone could type in anything, and if you detected the slightest trace of persecution of christians, pow! there you are, soaking it up.

You are verging on paranoia, my friend.

lol where did I mention Christians being persecuted, I was just having a go at

these 'people' for being so cruel to that dying man, very un Christian behavior

too.

Straight out of Left field, sorry.

51 days and going. Not bad.

51 days and going. Not bad.

lol

Cop out answer, I'm afraid. If you can't prove it by logic, and if it's obviously not supposed to be interpreted literally, you fall back on "with god, all things are possible". If that were, indeed, true... why would he need to use his son as a sacrifice to save humanity from sin?

Because he cant ban sin, that would remove our freedom of choice.


Every civilisation? You have checked?

Yep, see below.

[QUOTE]Flood Legends


From Compton's Encyclopedia Online v2.0 © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc.

"In the traditions of most ancient civilizations there can be found a legend concerning a flood of such enormous proportions that it is believed to have covered the whole Earth. Such was the destructive force of this flood that few land animals and plants survived it. For readers in Western society the most famous version is the story of Noah and the Ark as recounted in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Although it may be the best known, the account of Noah's adventure is neither the only nor the oldest such legend.

"Legends of a flood can be found in the folklore of such diverse places as the Middle East, India, China, Australia, southern Asia, the islands of the Pacific, Europe, and the Americas. But the best-known flood legend--that on which the story of Noah is based--had its origins among the peoples of ancient Mesopotamia in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley.


Ever occur to you that two different people might be referring to two different floods?

I doupt it, a flood that big could not be mistaken for two different floods.


Also - try reading the flood myth in Hebrew... there is a very clear implication that the flood was a limited geography.

Yeah well they thought the world was flat too then, so how would they know

if it only covered a certain geography or not.



The way you read it. But, then, you ignore all contradictions, and believe the whole thing is supposed to be taken literally.

Well it doesnt say at the end of each story, by the way this was actually

only meant to symbolise some metaphor, sorry if we misled you does it?


Tell me... is a Bat a bird?

No its a fox of some sort.



And how many legs does a cricket have?

six usually.



Look at the size of the boat, the number of crew, and the food supply... your argument holds true for the ark even as described in the bible.

(That is, since they could only eat the meat of clean animals... they would have run out of those animals long before the ark is supposed to have 'landed').

Maybe they went vegetarian.



Yes. Of course. It's all a big conspiracy.


A B2 spotted a dark object on the side of Mt Ararat back in the late fifties, in

1960 a CIA team was sent to investigate, and returned two days later saying

it was a natural formation.

I think its the remains of a very old boat.

To belive that there is no God is to claim that there is no way a God can exist, a statement of faith, to say that you belive there is no god or gods but do not have absolute faith in this statement is to admit an element of uncertainty, thus you are not truely an Athiest, you are simply an agnostic.

To not believe in god != To believe there is not god.
The difference might be represented by splitting the word 'a-theist' and 'athe-ist', respectively.

I have no belief in god. I class myself (possibly incorrectly) as agnostic because I'm of the 'who knows?' class of non-believers (i.e. not "believers-of-none", but without a belief) but I would class as classically atheistic someone who is of the 'who cares?' class of non-believer.

Then there are those who have a definite belief of no gods, but most of the agnostics and atheists I've seen accounts from here are of the 'who knows?'/'who cares?' pursuasion and require no belief or faith to sustain their position.

I had a dream the other night and the floods were not caused by god but by humans themselves and we had to start over mongering around the ice caps or what ever it was really crazy one of those dreams you wake up beleiving in it.

Im not saying this happened of course but just thought id mention it.

I sometimes wonder along these lines. I wonder if in the possibly infinite continuous existance of the universe the particles that make up me may eventually reassemble to become me again with the exact state of mind that I had before I died. If the universe will exist infinitely then this is infinitely possible.

I've toyed with that idea too, but came to the conclusion that the way the Universe is currently predicted to go, the matter and the energy gets too spread out and of too low a density to ever have a credible chance of meeting again in the correct configuration (and decreasing at a rate that never cumulatively allows 100%, even at infinity, eEven if you allow yourself to use completely different atoms and quanta of energy).

If we're in a Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle, though, this might be possible. An infinite number of cycles give us an infinite number of chances (and maybe on the downswing as well as the up..?)

If there is no God, and I do believe, I lose nothing.
If there is no God, and I don't believe, I lose nothing.

If there is a God, and I do believe, I gain everything.
If there is a God, and I don't believe, I lose everything.

Pure logic. All things considered, believing is the better choice. :) So, it's not so much a question of 'is there a God?', but a question of 'which religion should I join to worship God?' In any case, one not believing in God doesn't make him exist any less.
But it might be looked on more favourably to not vote than to actively support the other party's candidate...

How about agnosticism? (i.e. a person who believes in a superior being, "god" if you will, but they dont have a particular religion) this is what i would regard myself as

That's not strictly correct there...

ag·nos·tic
n.
1. 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Rationally I am not afraid of Dying. I do however Feel that same Survival instinct that also makes Religious People afraid of dying as when the time came I would be.

I am not afraid of dying, only of fundamentalists screwing up the life bit. Other than the basic rules of society as epitomised by the 10 commandments
I prefer to walk on shifting sands and am quite ready to die on them as well :)

I prefer to walk on shifting sands and am quite ready to die on them as well :)

So go live in the desert.

Because he cant ban sin, that would remove our freedom of choice.But where was our choice? In that particular biblical episode, the only choices made were for us to kill his son. Logic would dictate that only by choosing not to kill his son would that indicate that we were willing to be 'saved'. I understand that by dying, his son was supposed to take away the original sin (but strangely did not remove the pain of childbirth, etc) but if that was the way it was ordained then why the choice? There's a whole minefield of logic (or lack, thereof) in that which leads me to think that the whole thing is part history, part alagory, part misunderstood and part hypothesis.

(Flood: Every civilisation? Have you checked?)
Yep, see below.(Encyclopedid Entry)
But isn't it true that all civilisations arose from the same source. Maybe not a 'civilisation' at that point, I forget the relative migration times of humans with the founding of Babylon (which obviously don't apply if the scientific age of the world is denied, anyway, but assume it isn't for just this one argument), but it seems likely that there'd been a tribal-based oral history since Humans became so that might have borne the seeds... And don't forget cross-ferilisation through trading links. One instance of flood could have been (over the many, many years) integrated and accepted as native into any other culture's heritage tales...


I doupt it, a flood that big could not be mistaken for two different floods.
And two (or more) different floods could not have been mistaken for a flood 'that big'???


Yeah well they thought the world was flat too then, so how would they know if it only covered a certain geography or not.Various peoples knew the Earth was not flat at various points in the history. Even if you have proof that the particular people writing these things had that belief (maybe the passage in the bible where the whole world could be seen? But theists generally deal with that as a metaphore/translation error/talking-down-to-children situation when confronted with athiest's arguments decrying its utter-truthfulness-and-therefore-wrongness, so probably disqualifies itself from the argument), it doesn't help that the tale they are telling comes from their history where the shape of the world may have been known...

Well it doesnt say at the end of each story, by the way this was only meant to symbolise some metaphore, sorry if we misled you does it?No, but they get put on the "Fiction" shelves at the library/bookstore...

(Food on the ark)
Maybe they went vegetarian.Even the carnivores? And how much vegetable mass is required to provide the same amount of nutrition (assuming you have the right mix to replicate the full vitimin and mineral content).
While it is apparently a fact that a field of grain is more nutricious than a cow that has fed upon the like area of field, that field of grain is massively larger in volume than a cow (even with room to live) and it's only when trying to decide what to do with a field that you should be considering this argument. If you have space and need to fill it with an efficient bulk of foodstuff it's better to fill it with ex-cow, and even then it would take more space than the feeding animals take up. Maybe someone has figures?

A B2 spotted a dark object on the side of Mt Ararat back in the late fifties, in 1960 a CIA team was sent to investigate, and returned two days later saying it was a natural formation.

I think its the remains of a very old boat.They've apparently been there, you haven't. Are you just being contrary because they are CIA, or do you have evidence of their duplicity or of them being misdirected in some way? Enquiring minds would like to know. (Just step into this anonymous-looking van for a moment, will you sir..? :))

I just find the whole idea of being a 'good' person in order to get into a heaven ridiculous and selfish. Isn't the atheist who is a good person better than the christian that is also a good person?? Because he's not doing good things to get into heaven or impress a god, but because he wants to do good things for the sake of other people. Someone once told me (I'm a strong atheist) that "I'm not a christian, but i have a christian nature". Maybe, if there was no belief in any kind of after life, we'd all be better people not to get to paridise, but to actually selflessly make things better for our fellow man?? This leads to one conclusion: A belief in an afterlife = selfish people. There are hundreds of other contradictions that are fundemental to many religions, yet people still believe. There's faith and BLIND faith.

This thread is pretty heated.
Here comes my thought on the matter.

I do speculate on what could happen after I die. But I do not know for sure. I have my hopes but even they vary on my mood... I do not want to die for a while, have to many good thing going my way for a change.
am not religious. Had the upbringing, but I never felt comfy with this institution telling me how to live. I can figure that out myself, thank you. I am not opposed to any religion, only to those who misuse it for themselfs.

Anyway, happy life to you all.
:fluffle:

How about agnosticism? (i.e. a person who believes in a superior being, "god" if you will, but they dont have a particular religion) this is what i would regard myself as
that is NOT what agnosticism is.

*Sigh* This is why im agnostic 'dont believe in a god but cannot prove one dosent exist'.

Being an aithiest means you get bashed by religions for not believeing in the same thing they do, frankly i think its perfetic. If your religious and spend all your time bashing aithiests or heevens as you put it why not quit your spiritual penis messuring contest and start acting mature. Im sure you have better things to do than hack on people for being different.

People might think athiests are scared of dying.. i'm not... do you remember being born? no, exactly its just the same. Life just stops

*Sigh* This is why im agnostic 'dont believe in a god but cannot prove one dosent exist'.

Being an aithiest means you get bashed by religions for not believeing in the same thing they do, frankly i think its perfetic. If your religious and spend all your time bashing aithiests or heevens as you put it why not quit your spiritual penis messuring contest and start acting mature. Im sure you have better things to do than hack on people for being different.

lol quit your bashing and we'll quite ours.

People might think athiests are scared of dying.. i'm not... do you remember being born? no, exactly its just the same. Life just stops

Being dead before, you know that now right?

People might think athiests are scared of dying.. i'm not... do you remember being born? no, exactly its just the same. Life just stops
to be fair:

when you are born you are simply not conscious in the way you are conscious as an adult. you are not aware of your situation, nor are you aware of the significance of what it means to be alive.

also, the MEANS of one's death can often be far more frightening than the means by which one is born. i am not afraid of being dead, but i am certainly afraid of many possible ways that i could die; drowning, for example, scares the crap out of me.

[Grave_n_idle #1699]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Willamena #1663]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I was only looking for one example... there are obviously dozens of explanations that explain Noah's ark in a different fashion (and more logical) than 'the ark is bigger inside than out'.

But, thank you, that is another perfectly good reason why the ark story might be in it's current form.

Of course, that explanation won't sit too well with certain areas of christianity, who deny that anyone back then can have had the experience with dealing with symbolism... what with the world being 'so new' and all that...

Personally, I like the TARDIS theory. ;-)

Oooo,.. yeah,... and Noah used a modified form of infinite improbability drive to propel that big wooden cracker box around the inevitable monster iceberg and alien patrol/monitoring craft.

Can we get any scientologists to chime in on this one..!?

Okay. This is now, officially, my favourite thread ever... since, in a discussion about atheism we have touched base on Doctor Who, Star Trek AND Hitchhiker's Guide. If I can manage a Red Dwarf quote in my response, we are pretty much done here.

Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

"Red Dwarf" as "Noahs' Ark".... sounds about right.

And,.. does Cat (http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/deck06/images/image_bank/1-13l.jpg) conclusively prove evolution is directed toward huminoid life-forms..!?

"Listen sucker, I've got one of the highest IQs in this reality. I have an almost infinitely fast processor speed coupled with an extensive database of science, literature, philosophy and physics... and even I can't figure out how a computer like me is gonna eat two rounds of crusty white toast.".. Queeg (http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/index.cfm?frameset=deck03/toaster/toaster_fs.html&page=toaster.html)

And do Blake's 7 tell us that ALL societies eventually get militant..!?

[Terminalia #1708]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spencer and Wellington
51 days and going. Not bad.

lol

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "Interminalia"..?

:D

[E B Guvegrra #1710]
To not believe in god != To believe there is not god.
The difference might be represented by splitting the word 'a-theist' and 'athe-ist', respectively.

I have no belief in god. I class myself (possibly incorrectly) as agnostic because I'm of the 'who knows?' class of non-believers (i.e. not "believers-of-none", but without a belief) but I would class as classically atheistic someone who is of the 'who cares?' class of non-believer.

Then there are those who have a definite belief of no gods, but most of the agnostics and atheists I've seen accounts from here are of the 'who knows?'/'who cares?' pursuasion and require no belief or faith to sustain their position.

Now this answer I LIKE..! :D

Pure genius..! Bravo..!

Yes,.. a beautifully simple word-splitting illustration that gets the point across with a PUNCH..!

Absolutely wonderful..!

I just can't stop gushing praise..!!

Help,... make me stop before I make a complete fool of myself..!

Help...!

(( Ain't love grand.. ))

Because he cant ban sin, that would remove our freedom of choice.


That's ridiculous, Terminalia... he can't 'ban sin', but he can kill everyone in the world with one big flood? You don't think getting drowned and dashed against rocks might be against the free-will of SOME people?


I doubt it, a flood that big could not be mistaken for two different floods.


There never was a flood that big, Terminalia. Please, just once, try to do some research.

Here, I'll go slowly... don't answer this question till you've researched. How is it that the flood that covered the world (say the Hebrews) - DIDN'T get a mention in Babylonian or Chinese histories of the time? (Two peoples who already had written histories when it is alleged to have happened).

Yes - the Babylonians have a similar myth... but in their story it didn't cover the whole world, or kill everybody.


Yeah well they thought the world was flat too then, so how would they know
if it only covered a certain geography or not.


One last point on the flood, and then I'll leave it. You see no contradiction in two different cultures recording 'the flood'. Yet another culture says your creation myth is rubbish, and has a flood as part of theirs... how many times has 'god' scourged the world with floods? Either their creation myth is true or yours is, right? So, if THEY record the creation myth, and you use that as evidence for YOUR flood, you are saying THEIR creation myth is true.


Well it doesnt say at the end of each story, by the way this was actually
only meant to symbolise some metaphor, sorry if we misled you does it?


You're supposed to be able to read between the lines.


No its a fox of some sort.


The bible says it's a bird. So, are you going against the word of the bible?


six usually.


The bible says four. Who's right... you or the bible?


Maybe they went vegetarian.


And vegetarians need more mass of food to feed them than carnivores would... where would they keep all the extra food?


A B2 spotted a dark object on the side of Mt Ararat back in the late fifties, in
1960 a CIA team was sent to investigate, and returned two days later saying
it was a natural formation.
I think its the remains of a very old boat.

You THINK it's the remains of a very old boat. That doesn't make it so. I have seen old pictures, and new pictures. The image is still pretty much the same now as then, and it is a shadow - across some striation in the rocks.

How about agnosticism? (i.e. a person who believes in a superior being, "god" if you will, but they dont have a particular religion) this is what i would regard myself as

That would make you a non-denominational Theist... not an Agnostic.

all religion is, is just some way for scared little people to try to explain the problems in their life. It is also just a problem starter look at all the wars that have started just because of religion.

As to dieing its the end. Eternal darkness. Nothing forever

[E B Guvegrra #1710]
To not believe in god != To believe there is not god.
The difference might be represented by splitting the word 'a-theist' and 'athe-ist', respectively.

I have no belief in god. I class myself (possibly incorrectly) as agnostic because I'm of the 'who knows?' class of non-believers (i.e. not "believers-of-none", but without a belief) but I would class as classically atheistic someone who is of the 'who cares?' class of non-believer.

Then there are those who have a definite belief of no gods, but most of the agnostics and atheists I've seen accounts from here are of the 'who knows?'/'who cares?' pursuasion and require no belief or faith to sustain their position.

Now this answer I LIKE..! :D

Pure genius..! Bravo..!

Yes,.. a beautifully simple word-splitting illustration that gets the point across with a PUNCH..!

Absolutely wonderful..!

I just can't stop gushing praise..!!

Help,... make me stop before I make a complete fool of myself..!

Help...!

(( Ain't love grand.. ))

That's true. Religious people thinks of atheists as people who hate god or who deny its existence even if the world ends tomorrow. That's not true. I believe in the possibility of god existence, but then again, I believe in the possibility of a banana-man that pooped and created the world like I belive in the possibility that our life is just part of a deleted smurf episode.
The world of possibilities is huge, if you believe in a super-powerful mega-creator, its not that ridiculous to believe in smurfs... all it takes is someone saying, since you are born, that smurfs exists.

Got bored reading all the responses, but about the 4th person described Athieism as needing proof, sorry but that isnt athieism that is being agnostic.

[Grave_n_idle #1699]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Willamena #1663]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I was only looking for one example... there are obviously dozens of explanations that explain Noah's ark in a different fashion (and more logical) than 'the ark is bigger inside than out'.

But, thank you, that is another perfectly good reason why the ark story might be in it's current form.

Of course, that explanation won't sit too well with certain areas of christianity, who deny that anyone back then can have had the experience with dealing with symbolism... what with the world being 'so new' and all that...

Personally, I like the TARDIS theory. ;-)

Oooo,.. yeah,... and Noah used a modified form of infinite improbability drive to propel that big wooden cracker box around the inevitable monster iceberg and alien patrol/monitoring craft.

Can we get any scientologists to chime in on this one..!?

Okay. This is now, officially, my favourite thread ever... since, in a discussion about atheism we have touched base on Doctor Who, Star Trek AND Hitchhiker's Guide. If I can manage a Red Dwarf quote in my response, we are pretty much done here.

Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

"Red Dwarf" as "Noahs' Ark".... sounds about right.

And,.. does Cat (http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/deck06/images/image_bank/1-13l.jpg) conclusively prove evolution is directed toward huminoid life-forms..!?

"Listen sucker, I've got one of the highest IQs in this reality. I have an almost infinitely fast processor speed coupled with an extensive database of science, literature, philosophy and physics... and even I can't figure out how a computer like me is gonna eat two rounds of crusty white toast.".. Queeg (http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/index.cfm?frameset=deck03/toaster/toaster_fs.html&page=toaster.html)

And do Blake's 7 tell us that ALL societies eventually get militant..!?

This thread just gets better and better! I deliberately left Blakes 7 off my list, because I assumed nobody else has ever seen it!

[Grave_n_idle #1699]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Willamena #1663]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I was only looking for one example... there are obviously dozens of explanations that explain Noah's ark in a different fashion (and more logical) than 'the ark is bigger inside than out'.

But, thank you, that is another perfectly good reason why the ark story might be in it's current form.

Of course, that explanation won't sit too well with certain areas of christianity, who deny that anyone back then can have had the experience with dealing with symbolism... what with the world being 'so new' and all that...

Personally, I like the TARDIS theory. ;-)

Oooo,.. yeah,... and Noah used a modified form of infinite improbability drive to propel that big wooden cracker box around the inevitable monster iceberg and alien patrol/monitoring craft.

Can we get any scientologists to chime in on this one..!?

Okay. This is now, officially, my favourite thread ever... since, in a discussion about atheism we have touched base on Doctor Who, Star Trek AND Hitchhiker's Guide. If I can manage a Red Dwarf quote in my response, we are pretty much done here.

Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

"Red Dwarf" as "Noahs' Ark".... sounds about right.

And,.. does Cat (http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/deck06/images/image_bank/1-13l.jpg) conclusively prove evolution is directed toward huminoid life-forms..!?

"Listen sucker, I've got one of the highest IQs in this reality. I have an almost infinitely fast processor speed coupled with an extensive database of science, literature, philosophy and physics... and even I can't figure out how a computer like me is gonna eat two rounds of crusty white toast.".. Queeg (http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/index.cfm?frameset=deck03/toaster/toaster_fs.html&page=toaster.html)

And do Blake's 7 tell us that ALL societies eventually get militant..!?

Oh, by the way.... Cool Points awarded for referring to the classic British Red Dwarf, rather than the horrible butchered NBC (I think) remake... that, I believe tanked after just one episode...

Apparently, there are plans for a Red Dwarf movie....

I'm not going to read all the posts either, but I read several pages from the beginning and several from the end. I would like to know why this seems to be more of an argument or a religion/athiest bashing war than a healthy debate, or the topic it started as. I myself am Catholic, but I have friends from all different religions and friends who are Atheists. We never argue like this. We respect each others' opinions. My father even is Protestant, while the rest of my family is Catholic. Why can't everyone be respectful of the differences, instead of argueing? It obviously isn't necessary. Or is this just the classic "A little girl who knows nothing about the world" case? I don't see why we need the argueing about it, or the obvious hate going on. And I've seen it a lot, being in highschool. I don't need to see in a place where I go to enjoy myself.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

I'm not going to read all the posts either, but I read several pages from the beginning and several from the end. I would like to know why this seems to be more of an argument or a religion/athiest bashing war than a healthy debate, or the topic it started as. I myself am Catholic, but I have friends from all different religions and friends who are Atheists. We never argue like this. We respect each others' opinions. My father even is Protestant, while the rest of my family is Catholic. Why can't everyone be respectful of the differences, instead of argueing? It obviously isn't necessary. Or is this just the classic "A little girl who knows nothing about the world" case? I don't see why we need the argueing about it, or the obvious hate going on. And I've seen it a lot, being in highschool. I don't need to see in a place where I go to enjoy myself.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

I, personally am from a Roman Catholic and Anglican family, lived in a city divided roughly equally between Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists and Atheists, and now live in a tiny backwater filled with absolute hardline christians, and am married to a Southern Baptist.

Belive me, I have learned to live with difference, and to respect the opinions of others.

The reason I, and many others, debate on this forum is just to debate... some, however come to espouse worldview, or preach to the 'unenlightened'.
I accept their rights to their opinions, although I wish they wouldn't yell it in each other's faces, but it is part of the 'texture' of debate...

But, if the content of the thread disturbs you, just don't read it!

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

And now a few definitions:
----------
Religion:
Noun:
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
2. Institution to express belief in a divine power

Divine:
Adjective:
1. Emanating from God
2. Being or having the nature of a god
3. Devoted to or in the service or worship of a deity
4. Appropriate to or befitting a god
Noun:
1. Terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God
2. A clergyman or other person in religious orders
--------

Now call me a dictionary-eater, but that seems to suggest to me that a religion requires a God.

Atheism has no God.

Atheism is, therefore not a religion.


The idea behind atheism is a system of belief within proof. At least you got that part right. Atheists tend not to believe anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or prove exists. They then set out to find the things that cannot be defined by such sense and to either prove their existance or non-existance.

As you continue on to say, Atheism relies on "belief within proof". Since you require proof, God cannot exist.

Explain to me how gravity exists, with proof. Sure, you believe in it, stuff falls downwards... Prove to me that it's gravity. Show me the elusive "graviton". You can't. It's hypothetical. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton)

Using the same logic as God doesn't exist, because there's no concrete proof, Gravity also doesn't exist. Only we believe it does. Can you prove to me, then, that God doesn't exist, if you can't prove that gravity does? Since your system of belief is based on proof, you can't.

For atheism to be a system of belief, you can't have glaring holes like that in it. Based on the Atheistic principles, Gravity doesn't exist. Newton is positively turning in his grave.

Rob

Originally Posted by Terminalia
Because he cant ban sin, that would remove our freedom of choice.
That's ridiculous, Terminalia...
It's not ridiculous, it's exactly correct. If there was no sin, we would all be puppets in following God's laws. He wants us to choose to follow them, not be forced to. It's the very argument I've been using in the abortion threads to support pro-choice: people must be allowed to make mistakes, because if you limit their choices, when any choice they make is only between options you have supplied, then it's not their choice they are making, it's yours.

We, humans, grow spiritually by making mistakes, learning from them and atoning for them. The Christian God (and perhaps Judaic and Islam) wants us to choose to be with him, which simply means following in a righteous path, something I (personally) see a lot of atheists doing, even without the benefit of religion. (I suspect it is an awareness of their godhood on a subconscious level, but that's just my opinion.)

Free will is not about Him, it's about us. He did it for us, gave us free will --it is not a thing he implanted in us, not a part of creation; it's a right, a freedom to choose. Being informed of the righteous path, we can choose to follow the righteous path or choose to turn away from it. Some hear the message, some don't even though they've attempted to listen. Some hear it and turn away; those are the sinners. "Hell" is not a punishment for turning away, it is a consequence of turning away (I define "Hell" as a frame of mind that is not in accord with our individual godhood).

he can't 'ban sin', but he can kill everyone in the world with one big flood? You don't think getting drowned and dashed against rocks might be against the free-will of SOME people?
Free will is what we choose to do. They chose to turn away from God, and the consequence was a flood. That they don't want the flood isn't really a part of the whole free will convention. :-) I don't want abortions, but because I respect free will and the right to choose, I condone them.

There never was a flood that big, Terminalia. Please, just once, try to do some research.
Leave it to a Canadian familiar with run-off to point out that, after the last ice age circa 8,000 BC, all that melting had to go somewhere. :)

As you continue on to say, Atheism relies on "belief within proof". Since you require proof, God cannot exist.

Explain to me how gravity exists, with proof. Sure, you believe in it, stuff falls downwards... Prove to me that it's gravity. Show me the elusive "graviton". You can't. It's hypothetical. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton)

Using the same logic as God doesn't exist, because there's no concrete proof, Gravity also doesn't exist. Only we believe it does. Can you prove to me, then, that God doesn't exist, if you can't prove that gravity does? Since your system of belief is based on proof, you can't.

For atheism to be a system of belief, you can't have glaring holes like that in it. Based on the Atheistic principles, Gravity doesn't exist. Newton is positively turning in his grave.

Rob
Actually, I thought Einstein's model for gravity didn't include a graviton; it's based on space being curved (but I'm open to correction on this!).
I don't require proof for my belief in God to remain; absolute logical proof is impossible, since all proofs derive from assumptions/givens/axioms/postulates, and it is impossible to force someone to accept your own set of assumptions.

'Strong' atheism is an act of faith (as compared to 'weak' atheism, i.e. just not thinking about God much) just as theism is. The belief that our senses are giving us accurate information about our surroundings is an act of faith, and so is the belief that scientific principles are constant throughout time and space. Everyone produces acts of faith every day; the question is WHICH acts of faith, and more importantly, faith IN WHOM?

It's not ridiculous, it's exactly correct. If there was no sin, we would all be puppets in following God's laws. He wants us to choose to follow them, not be forced to. It's the very argument I've been using in the abortion threads to support pro-choice: people must be allowed to make mistakes, because if you limit their choices, when any choice they make is only between options you have supplied, then it's not their choice they are making, it's yours.

We, humans, grow spiritually by making mistakes, learning from them and atoning for them. The Christian God (and perhaps Judaic and Islam) wants us to choose to be with him, which simply means following in a righteous path, something I (personally) see a lot of atheists doing, even without the benefit of religion. (I suspect it is an awareness of their godhood on a subconscious level, but that's just my opinion.)

Free will is not about Him, it's about us. He did it for us, gave us free will --it is not a thing he implanted in us, not a part of creation; it's a right, a freedom to choose. Being informed of the righteous path, we can choose to follow the righteous path or choose to turn away from it. Some hear the message, some don't even though they've attempted to listen. Some hear it and turn away; those are the sinners. "Hell" is not a punishment for turning away, it is a consequence of turning away (I define "Hell" as a frame of mind that is not in accord with our individual godhood).


Free will is what we choose to do. They chose to turn away from God, and the consequence was a flood. That they don't want the flood isn't really a part of the whole free will convention. :-) I don't want abortions, but because I respect free will and the right to choose, I condone them.

Well, you took the first part way out of context... my point is that it is ridiculous to say that god 'had to send jesus to be crucified' because he cannot interfere in freedom of choice, when there are certainly instances of direct interference with that very concept. To just pick up on the first part is missing the whole point.

The thing about the flood is just one example I had in mind... the fact that freedom of choice seems to be optional in the mind of the christian diety... we have freedom of choice, when he sees fit... which doesn't fit my description of a benevolent (or even consistent) diety.

Besides which, the people of the world were ALWAYS going to be destroyed... regardless of what they freely chose to do, as the bible clearly states that Noah was the only family line still pure of the taint of the Grigori, and thus, the only one to be saved. All others may have 'sinned' in the eyes of god, but their main sin was being not of the pure line.... so they are punished for their genetics, and free will is ignored.

How about god 'hardening the heart' of pharaoh?

Finally, if god is all powerful, it IS ridiculous to assume that he can't 'save' all humans without violating free-will. The sacrifice on the cross, is the sacrifice on Moriah, is the sacrifice on the stone in the field. The metaphor runs through the book with more and more symbolism attached every time... it's a holdover from the more blood-thirsty days of the religion... and certainly NOT necessary for an omnipotent god to allow salvation.

Leave it to a Canadian familiar with run-off to point out that, after the last ice age circa 8,000 BC, all that melting had to go somewhere. :)
Which, of course, would imply that the flood is STILL going on.

As you continue on to say, Atheism relies on "belief within proof". Since you require proof, God cannot exist.

Explain to me how gravity exists, with proof. Sure, you believe in it, stuff falls downwards... Prove to me that it's gravity. Show me the elusive "graviton". You can't. It's hypothetical. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton)

Using the same logic as God doesn't exist, because there's no concrete proof, Gravity also doesn't exist. Only we believe it does. Can you prove to me, then, that God doesn't exist, if you can't prove that gravity does? Since your system of belief is based on proof, you can't.
That's totally unscientific. A scientist would never claim something "truely" does not exist based on no evidence whatsoever; science works on evidence. Does this mean scientist can't be atheists? ;-)

Leave it to a Canadian familiar with run-off to point out that, after the last ice age circa 8,000 BC, all that melting had to go somewhere. :)

And it did. It raised the levels of the oceans. The 'thaw' of the glaciers took place over an uneven spread of a few thousand years, varying in places. There may have been SOME flood waters (but they would have been exception, rather than rule), and there would certainly have been areas where the water-level noticably creeps-up over a period of time - but there was no "Ice......Ice....whoosh!.... Water" stage, so the 'whole world flooding' thing is unlikely.

I know there WERE areas where glacial melt caused flooding - but the whole glacial front didn't melt in one big splash.

Look at England. The last really big glacier front recedes from England 30,000 years ago, and creeps back across 27,000 years ago, staying until about 16,000 years ago. There were then occasional freezes until about 12,000 years ago, when settlement took place that remains today. We can date these periods of glacial movement by the evidence of humans BETWEEN them, and, obviously, the evidence of continued settlement since the recession of the glacial front.

The thing is... one mass of glacial melt, or several small rushes, would have scoured this evidence away, and there would CERTAINLY be evidence of a world-covering flood only 6,000 years ago. (Not to mention, a world covering flood would have removed ALL of the earlier evidence, too).

GETTING BACK to the subject, I am now a Christian, but I was once an atheist (can't explain how I got converted: it just "happened" in a church one day). Well, about death I felt Oblivion. Which is actually impossible for any human to imagine; you cannot, however hard you can try, as you cannot have any kind of experience to go on.

GETTING BACK to the subject, I am now a Christian, but I was once an atheist (can't explain how I got converted: it just "happened" in a church one day). Well, about death I felt Oblivion. Which is actually impossible for any human to imagine; you cannot, however hard you can try, as you cannot have any kind of experience to go on.

Just as a matter of interest, why were you in the church?

Not that there is anything wrong with an Atheist being in a church, of course... I personally LOVE the atmosphere and architecture of some churches (Lincoln Cathedral springs instantly to mind).

Why do you assume that morality is exclusive to christians?

Are you saying that becuase Im an athiest, that Im automatically immoral, or a bad person, or that I choose to do bad things and dont want to feel guilty?

Thats the most arrogant thing I think Ive ever heard.

You're right of course - but what about the atheists who denounce all Christians as homophobic psychotic witch burners? That's also arrogant, and saying that because we belong to the same religion as, oh, Jerry Falwell, we are automatically evil (not accusing you personally)?

Another thing. Religion offers a reason for doing good. This could help society. I honestly believe that Henry VIII or Jerry Falwell would be just as bad if they were atheists.