NationStates Jolt Archive

or is there a possibility of reconciliation...

A rather interesting article on Atheism...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/

I am o the opinion that if you want to believe in myth you have that right.

However it must not impact on me or anyone else...in anyway.

What do you mean? A battle of religious versus atheists?

What do you mean? A battle of religious versus atheists?

yes.

I am not entirely convinced with the science arguement though. A morality based purely on science could (and in some ways has) turn into our worse nightmare...as has been shown through religion...there is room for barbarity in our humanity.

yes.

I am not entirely convinced with the science arguement though. A morality based purely on science could (and in some ways has) turn into our worse nightmare...as has been shown through religion...there is room for barbarity in our humanity.

I never, ever rule-out the existance of god. There are so many things that science has not explored or proven, we may think otherwise but we know very little. We aren't even sure what causes gravity.

yes.

I am not entirely convinced with the science arguement though. A morality based purely on science could (and in some ways has) turn into our worse nightmare...as has been shown through religion...there is room for barbarity in our humanity.
A good person is good whether or not they buy into religion. Same for bad people. It's just part of one's nature.

As for atheism vs. religion there's the issue of numbers - atheists are a small minority.

I never, ever rule-out the existance of god. There are so many things that science has not explored or proven, we may think otherwise but we know very little. We aren't even sure what causes gravity.

Lack of knowledge is not reason to believe in God, in my opinion. Just because the acient Greeks didn't know what made lightning wasn't reason to believe that it was Zeus throwing it.

That said, I do believe in God. Just not because science has yet to explore everything.

*reads the article, notes the standard responce on NS General* I think I'll go dig a foxhole and hide until the fighting stops.

*reads the article, notes the standard responce on NS General* I think I'll go dig a foxhole and hide until the fighting stops.

unless I am blind (entirely possibel) but I see no fighting...

People do bad things for any reason. To say that elimination of religion is the way to solve these problems is flawed thinking.

People do bad things for any reason. To say that elimination of religion is the way to solve these problems is flawed thinking.

agreed, think back to the communists who commited horrible massacres. Pol-Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung all were atheists

unless I am blind (entirely possibel) but I see no fighting...
On NS General, about religion?!

I'm waiting for Grave-n-Idle and The Nazz to find this thread. Then all we need is one of the fundies to come in...

"Are the battle lines being drawn?"

Well, I, for one, sure hope so. It would mean more tension still, and an even better chance of people killing one another over the most inconsequential of things. Yay for conflict.

Bah, more big media trying to peddle their “culture war” bullshit.

On NS General, about religion?!

I'm waiting for Grave-n-Idle and The Nazz to find this thread. Then all we need is one of the fundies to come in...

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D

That was awesome :D




*claps*

people like the Nazzz truely have no life if it consists of living on NS to find religious threads and bash all religion.

people like the Nazzz truely have no life if it consists of living on NS to find religious threads and bash all religion.

remember kids(nazz) only you can prevent forum fires

I'm a christian. I'm not a typical christian because I have no faith in religion. But I DO believe that there is a God and I DO believe that Jesus Christ was sent to us to give us a message and hope. I also have a bachelor's degree in physics. I don't really consider myself a scientist, but I DO understand science and I share their curiosity.

Science and Faith do NOT necessarily have to oppose eachother. The fact that they often do in our minds is part of the polarity of society; especially American society. We are convinced that there are only two sides: Left or right. Christian or Miscellaneous. Moral or Sinful. Gay or Straight. Republican or Democrat. That's fine too. Pick your sides. It doesn't change a thing if you do, or if you believe in the Happy Medium like I do.

Because the bottom line is this: Everybody takes certain things on faith. Everybody. Some people may be more open about changing their minds when presented with proof, but this is just a shift of faith, not an elimination of it. One way or another, we all believe in the invisible man in the sky who tells us right from wrong. Everyone. Whether we call Him God, Society or String Theory is really irrelevant. When people stop complaining about the invisible men other people have faith in and start realizing that the only true Moral Civil Pious behavior we can ever really show is to have as much respect for the lives, lifestyles and faiths of other people as you want others to show yours, then the world will be a much better place.

*ducks the assassin's bullet*
You missed me, Bitch! :p

I'm a christian. I'm not a typical christian because I have no faith in religion. But I DO believe that there is a God and I DO believe that Jesus Christ was sent to us to give us a message and hope. I also have a bachelor's degree in physics. I don't really consider myself a scientist, but I DO understand science and I share their curiosity.

Science and Faith do NOT necessarily have to oppose eachother. The fact that they often do in our minds is part of the polarity of society; especially American society. We are convinced that there are only two sides: Left or right. Christian or Miscellaneous. Moral or Sinful. Gay or Straight. Republican or Democrat. That's fine too. Pick your sides. It doesn't change a thing if you do, or if you believe in the Happy Medium like I do.

Because the bottom line is this: Everybody takes certain things on faith. Everybody. Some people may be more open about changing their minds when presented with proof, but this is just a shift of faith, not an elimination of it. One way or another, we all believe in the invisible man in the sky who tells us right from wrong. Everyone. Whether we call Him God, Society or String Theory is really irrelevant. When people stop complaining about the invisible men other people have faith in and start realizing that the only true Moral Civil Pious behavior we can ever really show is to have as much respect for the lives, lifestyles and faiths of other people as you want others to show yours, then the world will be a much better place.

*ducks the assassin's bullet*
You missed me, Bitch! :p



*reloads his musket* damnit if only i had more money to afford a real sniper rifle.......lol

One way or another, we all believe in the invisible man in the sky who tells us right from wrong. Everyone.

I don't.

I don't.

did u read the rest of the post?

did u read the rest of the post?

Yeah.

Because the bottom line is this: Everybody takes certain things on faith. Everybody.

Some of us take self-evident things (x=x, etc.) "on faith."

Others of us take the existence of invisible omnipotent beings on faith.

There's a difference.

It's rather condescending and logically fallacious to say that atheism is smarter because in all honesty the atheists have no more proof of their position than the religious people. It's also rather closeminded to assume that it is a proven fact that there is only one God and that God is omnipotent, omniscent and omnibenevolent; there are as many people who believe there are multiple Gods as there are people who believe in one God, and even amongst those who are monotheist not everyone agrees on the nature of that God as the conflict between Christianity and Islam shows us.

Honestly, it seems like the atheists and their opponents are putting up strawmen to argue their points home...and both sides manage to come across as repulisively elitist, hostile and condescending towards anyone who questions them. It definitely pushes me away from their versions of monotheism and atheism, that's for sure.

*reloads his musket* damnit if only i had more money to afford a real sniper rifle.......lol

Good thing I remembered that it's always the people who preach the Happy Medium that always end up getting shot. :p

Some of us take self-evident things (x=x, etc.) "on faith."

Others of us take the existence of invisible omnipotent beings on faith.

There's a difference.

Oh really?

Let me ask you this: Is time linear?

Oh really?

Let me ask you this: Is time linear?

Depends where you are :p

Oh really?

Let me ask you this: Is time linear?

Let me ask you this: In everyday life, do we experience time to be anything but linear?

Depends where you are :p

And where you're going. And what you're doing. Yet we measure it linearly. Time is fun stuff. It's the Play-Doh of the mind. :)

I'm a christian.
I'm Sorry.

...snip...I also have a bachelor's degree in physics.

You know it's not nice to steal.


Science and Faith do NOT necessarily have to oppose each other. The fact that they often do in our minds is part of the polarity of society; especially American society. We are convinced that there are only two sides: Left or right. Christian or Miscellaneous. Moral or Sinful. Gay or Straight. Republican or Democrat. That's fine too. Pick your sides. It doesn't change a thing if you do, or if you believe in the Happy Medium like I do.

Because the bottom line is this: Everybody takes certain things on faith. Everybody. Some people may be more open about changing their minds when presented with proof, but this is just a shift of faith, not an elimination of it. One way or another, we all believe in the invisible man in the sky who tells us right from wrong. Everyone. Whether we call Him God, Society or String Theory is really irrelevant. When people stop complaining about the invisible men other people have faith in and start realizing that the only true Moral Civil Pious behavior we can ever really show is to have as much respect for the lives, lifestyles and faiths of other people as you want others to show yours, then the world will be a much better place.


This is not LG! LG does not talk serious!

*loads a gun takes aim and fires*


*ducks the assassin's bullet*
You missed me, Bitch! :p

Damn it! *Reloads*

Let me ask you this: In everyday life, do we experience time to be anything but linear?

Does time fly when you're having fun?

Let me ask you this: In everyday life, do we experience time to be anything but linear?

Excluding paranormal encounters, not really. However, we do experience time moving at different speeds depending on what we're doing; the perception of time is somewhat nonlinear in the sense that we percieve it as moving at different speeds at different times.

This is not LG! LG does not talk serious!

My purpose in life is to defy all labels. I can't do that if I don't keep people guessing. :p

Excluding paranormal encounters, not really.

Explain, please.

Does time fly when you're having fun?

It's not my fault that time doesn't like me.

Explain, please.

Well, you know the times when people have had experiences that can only be explained as a "timeslip" or even experiencing the distant future. Even simple things as "deja-vu" could be seen as examples of experiencing a future event before it happens.

Other things such as the sudden passage of a large amount of time or an event that seems to last hours or even days but actually lasted a few minutes also happen.

Of course, they're paranormal so they have to be taken skeptically.

Well, you know the times when people have had experiences that can only be explained as a "timeslip" or even experiencing the distant future. Even simple things as "deja-vu" could be seen as examples of experiencing a future event before it happens.

I see - so your "not really" was more of an agreement than a disagreement?

Other things such as the sudden passage of a large amount of time or an event that seems to last hours or even days but actually lasted a few minutes also happen.

Right, but we still experience time linearly. I didn't say that we perceive time to always move at the same rate.

It's not my fault that time doesn't like me.

We measure observed subjective time linearly. But whether time is linear or not has neither been proven nor disproven. We measure observed subjective time as a constant but Einstein himself proved that time is only constant when observed subjectively. Regardless of our opinion on time, we are taking something on faith. We have to in order to function in society. We can't say to our boss, "I wasn't late because I'm meauring time by a different subjective observation." :p

Here's a simpler question: Is Pluto a planet? Whether your answer is Yes or No, whose opinion are you taking on faith: Yesterday's scientists or today's?

:)

P.S: Time told em to tell you that it's your breath. Want a Tic-Tac?

Well, you know the times when people have had experiences that can only be explained as a "timeslip" or even experiencing the distant future. Even simple things as "deja-vu" could be seen as examples of experiencing a future event before it happens.

I see - so your "not really" was more of an agreement than a disagreement?

Other things such as the sudden passage of a large amount of time or an event that seems to last hours or even days but actually lasted a few minutes also happen.

Right, but we still experience time linearly. I didn't say that we perceive time to always move at the same rate.

I see - so your "not really" was more of an agreement than a disagreement?

Yeah.

Right, but we still experience time linearly. I didn't say that we perceive time to always move at the same rate.

We do experience it linearly. However, it's also possible that time moves on a circle of such scope that it's impossible to really notice the circular movement because it's so far in the future that none of us will be alive to experience it.

For example, the start of this circle coincided with the Big Bang and will end with the end of this universe until another is formed, ad infinitum. It's linear from our perspective but the greater shape is circular.

We measure observed subjective time linearly.

We experience it linearly.

But whether time is linear or not has neither been proven nor disproven.

Time, as far as it affects our existence, is basically linear. That is evident from our experience.

We measure observed subjective time as a constant but Einstein himself proved that time is only constant when observed subjectively. Regardless of our opinion on time, we are taking something on faith. We have to in order to function in society. We can't say to our boss, "I wasn't late because I'm meauring time by a different subjective observation." :p

We have to accept certain measures as the correct ones, yes. But they also coincide with our experience; they do not come out of nowhere.

Here's a simpler question: Is Pluto a planet? Whether your answer is Yes or No, whose opinion are you taking on faith: Yesterday's scientists or todays?

Neither. Whether or not Plato is a planet is not a question of fact, but of convention.

Of course, they're paranormal so they have to be taken skeptically.

Do they? Time is measured entirely subectively. It only exists linearly as an observation. So doesn't one's perception of time automatically make it the correct one?

We do experience it linearly. However, it's also possible that time moves on a circle of such scope that it's impossible to really notice the circular movement because it's so far in the future that none of us will be alive to experience it.

For example, the start of this circle coincided with the Big Bang and will end with the end of this universe until another is formed, ad infinitum. It's linear from our perspective but the greater shape is circular.

Sure. But that would not be a conflict within our perception of reality; it would be a conflict with an extension of our perception of reality, that is, because time manifests itself in a mostly linear manner, it manifests itself in an entirely linear manner.

For instance, a person far away from the sea might conclude that the Earth is flat because it appears so to her. This is, of course, wrong - but it is not wrong to observe that the Earth, from the perspective of an individual human being, for the most part functions as a flat surface. Nor is either opinion based on faith in the same way that belief in a deity is.

We experience it linearly.
Time, as far as it affects our existence, is basically linear. That is evident from our experience.
We have to accept certain measures as the correct ones, yes. But they also coincide with our experience; they do not come out of nowhere.
Neither. Whether or not Plato is a planet is not a question of fact, but of convention.

No. We MEASURE time linearly. We only experience time linearly when measuring it linearly. Much like we only experience sound when it hits our eardrums. If there's no clock, and you're not counting, time isn't linear.
Our measurements of time come from observed phenomena, so of course those measurements will be linear as the observed phenomena we use to define measurements of time are taken from linear sources. For instance; take the swing of the pendulum. We measure the complete swing. We don't base our measurements on parts of the swing because we know that the swing slows and speeds up again. If we measured two inches of a sixteen inch pendulum swing, the length of time defined by those two inches would depend on which two inches we measure. But we don't. We observe linear events and apply those observations to our experiences in order to quantify them linearly.

As for pluto and scientific convention, you just proved my point; We can't function without faith. :)

No. We MEASURE time linearly. We only experience time linearly when measuring it linearly. Much like we only experience sound when it hits our eardrums. If there's no clock, and you're not counting, time isn't linear.

Yes, it is. We don't experience events in the past before events in the future, etc.

Our measurements of time come from observed phenomena, so of course those measurements will be linear as the observed phenomena we use to define measurements of time are taken from linear sources. For instance; take the swing of the pendulum. We measure the complete swing. We don't base our measurements on parts of the swing because we know that the swing slows and speeds up again. If we measured two inches of a sixteen inch pendulum swing, the length of time defined by those two inches would depend on which two inches we measure. But we don't. We observe linear events and apply those observations to our experiences in order to quantify them linearly.

It's true that we experience time at different rates, and that we hold by absolute measures to permit coordination. So? That has nothing to do with faith.

As for pluto and scientific convention, you just proved my point; We can't function without faith. :)

What does convention have to do with faith?

Yes, it is. We don't experience events in the past before events in the future, etc.
It's true that we experience time at different rates, and that we hold by absolute measures to permit coordination. So? That has nothing to do with faith.
What does convention have to do with faith?

Perhaps we do experience the past or the future out of order, perhaps not. That's certainly debatable. What isn't debatable is that time is only linear based on our subjective observations and not vice-versa.

Let me give you an example: You are comparing two clocks. Both clocks are perfectly accurate and keeping the same time. Clock One and Clock two both measure one second of time to be exactly the same length(or close enough to please scientists). However, in the next measured second by clock one, clock two measures 1.2 seconds. Oddly enough, another observer measures clock two at 1 second and clock one at .9 seconds.
Odder still, on the clock one's third second, clock two measures 1.6 seconds. The second observer measures clock two at one second and clock one at .7 seconds. With each passing second by each observer, the other observer's clock(though perfectly accurate) is increasingly inaccurate. The only natural conclusion is that time is progressing linearly and non-linearly at the same time to each of their subjective viewpoints.

So, how can time do that? Trust me; It can.

Well, you know the times when people have had experiences that can only be explained as a "timeslip" or even experiencing the distant future. Even simple things as "deja-vu" could be seen as examples of experiencing a future event before it happens.

Other things such as the sudden passage of a large amount of time or an event that seems to last hours or even days but actually lasted a few minutes also happen.

Of course, they're paranormal so they have to be taken skeptically.

Deja vu is pretty well understood, and it has nothing at all to do with experiencing anything before it happens.

"Paranormal encounters" need to be greeted with the same skepticism as movie special effects and fantasy novels.

You know what I like. I like it when people are decent, and don't go out of their way to be rude. I really wish people would stop going out of their way to blame all of the world's evils on other folks. If I want to make the world a better place, I'll start with myself. And even at that, I know I fail at this doctrine, I lose my temper, I get angry at others, I don't follow a doctrine of decency, but I would greatly desire to do so.

Deja vu is pretty well understood, and it has nothing at all to do with experiencing anything before it happens.

"Paranormal encounters" need to be greeted with the same skepticism as movie special effects and fantasy novels.


I don't think Deja Vu is well understood. I experience a sort of volumetric Deja Vu on occasion - I have a strong memory(?) of the space I am in, where things and other individuals are within that space, and the course of events that take place in that space over a given period of time - usually a fairly brief period, but sometimes as much as a minute or so. The identity of the individuals involved is not usually a memory that I retain.

This hasn't really seemed to tally with the Deja Vu experience of most of the people I've had the opportunity to discuss this with in the past. They'll nearly all of them recall people and dialogue first and foremost.

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D
SEE?! ;) :D

Are the battlelines being drawn...

I hope I wasn't the only one who thought this was about the Buffalo Springfield song "For What It's Worth".

There's battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

*reads the article, notes the standard responce on NS General* I think I'll go dig a foxhole and hide until the fighting stops.unless I am blind (entirely possibel) but I see no fighting...On NS General, about religion?!

I'm waiting for Grave-n-Idle and The Nazz to find this thread. Then all we need is one of the fundies to come in...

Ah but this one's turned out a beauty.


This is not LG! LG does not talk serious!

Yes, he does. LG is actually one of the most reasonable posters here. It's just that it usually gets lost in the noise.

LG is actually one of the most reasonable posters here. It's just that it usually gets lost in the noise.

:eek: Lies! :eek:

:D

Getting back (sorta) to the OP:
Interesting article, but what really struck me was how much the drawing of Stephen Jay Gould makes him look like Saddam!
Saddam:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/060911_Issue/060831_Athiesm2_Hsmall.standard.jpg
Stephen Jay Gould:
http://globalfire.tv/nj/graphs/saddam.jpg

Ah but this one's turned out a beauty.
Yes, and I am very surprised.

Hmm... reading back, the reason this thread hasn't gone the way of the others is due to the infulance of a man who is normally noted for disrupting threads... our own beloved LG.

What a strange world we live in. ;)

Yes, and I am very surprised.

Hmm... reading back, the reason this thread hasn't gone the way of the others is due to the infulance of a man who is normally noted for disrupting threads... our own beloved LG.

What a strange world we live in. ;)

I'm full of surprises. :)

I'm full of surprises. :)
*Roars with laughter* You, sir, have proved yourself a master of understatements with THAT remark!

Perhaps we do experience the past or the future out of order, perhaps not. That's certainly debatable. What isn't debatable is that time is only linear based on our subjective observations and not vice-versa.

So, how can time do that? Trust me; It can.

Reminds me of a bit I read in a book by Brian Greene about the nature of time and the Universe.
IIRC, it was on the assumption that if we viewed the Universe as a loaf of bread, and time as slices of that bread.
The problem arises due to the immense size of the universe. The 'slices' are not 'flat' but skewered, because time takes so long to travel from one place to another.
Greene uses an example of Chewbacca (no idea why, but that's Brian Greene for you) sitting at his home on his home planet at the exact same time as you are sitting reading this text.
(This is where it gets odd)
Because of the immense distance involved (hundreds of thousands of lightyears here), if Chewbacca then got up and walked towards you (in relation to where the two planets are), he would be walking back in time in relation to you. His image would take less time to reach Earth, but not you might assume a few minutes earlier. Earlier, as in a couple of hundred years.
If he started walking away from you, his image would likewise take a couple of hundred years later to reach you.
Here's the important bit: This is just in relation to where both of you are at that exact point.
Much like if you drew a right-angle triangle with, say, a 30 degree angle. from 1cm away, the distance between the corners on the oppsite side aren't too far away (~0.6cm). Make the triangle 100m wide, and the two corners are now 60m apart. Make it 1 million lightyears wide...
Thus, for Chewie the time would be a few minutes either way. For you, several hundred years.

Linear?

Oh really?

Let me ask you this: Is time linear?

Time is a helix, it twists circularly and yet continues forward.

On NS General, about religion?!

I'm waiting for Grave-n-Idle and The Nazz to find this thread. Then all we need is one of the fundies to come in...

This is the kinda thread that really brings out the twat in people here, that's one thing that is for sure.

yes.

I am not entirely convinced with the science arguement though. A morality based purely on science could (and in some ways has) turn into our worse nightmare...as has been shown through religion...there is room for barbarity in our humanity.


In the words of Steven Weinberg:

With or without religion, you would always have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

You *can not* rationally 'justify' a moral system with science, because science is supposed to be objective. A true scientist notices things in his or her environment, theorises about how it works, and then conducts tests to prove (or disprove, and subsequently revise) their theory. Science doesn't look for moral validation, it simply sets out to say, in effect, "X and Y together cause Z."

Science can offer an understanding of why action A leads to result B, or how stimulus C influences system D, and from that understanding ethicists can try to derive meaning... but to say that scientists are trying to create a moral order is to misunderstand the fundamental goal of *real* science.

And-- pre-emptively-- if you're thinking of folks like Dr. Mengele in the concentration camps, "scientifically" vivisecting Russian soldiers or lobotomising Jews, that wasn't true to the 'spirit' of science-- that was the tools of science being abused by someone with a pre-decided social/political agenda.

You know what I like. I like it when people are decent, and don't go out of their way to be rude. I really wish people would stop going out of their way to blame all of the world's evils on other folks. If I want to make the world a better place, I'll start with myself. And even at that, I know I fail at this doctrine, I lose my temper, I get angry at others, I don't follow a doctrine of decency, but I would greatly desire to do so.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world" -Ghandi

Interesting article. I'll have to look for the books mentioned in it. :)

Do they? Time is measured entirely subectively. It only exists linearly as an observation. So doesn't one's perception of time automatically make it the correct one?

Yes.

Thus enforcing what Ive always said:

Reality is perception.

In the words of Steven Weinberg:

With or without religion, you would always have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

You *can not* rationally 'justify' a moral system with science, because science is supposed to be objective. A true scientist notices things in his or her environment, theorises about how it works, and then conducts tests to prove (or disprove, and subsequently revise) their theory. Science doesn't look for moral validation, it simply sets out to say, in effect, "X and Y together cause Z."

Science can offer an understanding of why action A leads to result B, or how stimulus C influences system D, and from that understanding ethicists can try to derive meaning... but to say that scientists are trying to create a moral order is to misunderstand the fundamental goal of *real* science.

And-- pre-emptively-- if you're thinking of folks like Dr. Mengele in the concentration camps, "scientifically" vivisecting Russian soldiers or lobotomising Jews, that wasn't true to the 'spirit' of science-- that was the tools of science being abused by someone with a pre-decided social/political agenda.

Ummm...I am not sure I agree with that mainly because your reasons as given in the last paragraph are badly defined. In that they used science to justify their actions. Yes the science of medicene was corrupted but not under the guise of 'social engineering' which is also a science.

Yes.

Thus enforcing what Ive always said:

Reality is perception.

I agree. :)

Yes.

Thus enforcing what Ive always said:

Reality is perception.

I agree. :)

Surely it must be Perception is Reality?

(bloody good thread so far!)

I am o the opinion that if you want to believe in myth you have that right.

However it must not impact on me or anyone else...in anyway.

What do you mean by impact?

Surely it must be Perception is Reality?

(bloody good thread so far!)

They equate, so you could say it either way. But Reality is Perception sounds more profound. *nod*

Lack of knowledge is not reason to believe in God, in my opinion. Just because the acient Greeks didn't know what made lightning wasn't reason to believe that it was Zeus throwing it.

That said, I do believe in God. Just not because science has yet to explore everything.

Everyone uses that Idea to not rule out the existance of Aliens though. Even though there is no proof.

They equate, so you could say it either way. But Reality is Perception sounds more profound. *nod*

Indeed.

Very "Velveteen Rabbit".

Yes.

Thus enforcing what Ive always said:

Reality is perception.

People use this reality is perception idea because they don't understand the esesence of time and space properly (no one does). Reality is not perception, it is just extremely extremely complex.

What do you mean by impact?

I think I might well have used the wrong word....Forcing??

That 'Gods' laws are of higher value than secular laws...

There are some areas that are reconilable...murder is bad...help people when you can..

People use this reality is perception idea because they don't understand the esesence of time and space properly (no one does). Reality is not perception, it is just extremely extremely complex.
This may indeed be true, but given that we operate upon our perceptions, they are close enough as to not make a difference.

I think I might well have used the wrong word....Forcing??

That 'Gods' laws are of higher value than secular laws...

There are some areas that are reconilable...murder is bad...help people when you can..

Ok. Forcing would be a better word, because if religion exists it would be impossible for it to not have any sort of impact at all on you.

They equate, so you could say it either way. But Reality is Perception sounds more profound. *nod*

I don't think they are the same....what you are saying is that one perception cannot shape a reality.

Profundity also does not equate truth ;)

I don't think they are the same....what you are saying is that one perception cannot shape a reality.

Profundity also does not equate truth ;)

Does reality consist of what we perceive, or do our perceptions consist of what is real?

Ok. Forcing would be a better word, because if religion exists it would be impossible for it to not have any sort of impact at all on you.

yeah...thanks!

Does reality consist of what we perceive, or do our perceptions consist of what is real?

Reality exists weather we perceive it or not.

Reality exists weather we perceive it or not.

Prove it. :)

Prove it. :)

If it didn't, then 6 billion people wouldn't all be perceiving the same reality, we would percieve nothing.

If it didn't, then 6 billion people wouldn't all be perceiving the same reality, we would percieve nothing.

What 6 billion people? I don't see em.

What 6 billion people? I don't see em.

Everyone in the world. ;) Or are we just perceiving them as well?

Reality exists weather we perceive it or not.

How would you ever know, if you cant tell?

If the world were ruled by the "Big Giant Gay Buffalo", and you never found out, then to you, he simply isnt real is he?

Your perceptions tell you that no such homosexual bovine monarch is there.
Thus...your reality greatly depends on how you percieve it.

How would you ever know, if you cant tell?

If the world were ruled by the "Big Giant Gay Buffalo", and you never found out, then to you, he simply isnt real is he?

Your perceptions tell you that no such homosexual bovine monarch is there.
Thus...your reality greatly depends on how you percieve it.

No, no, no. The "Big Giant Gay Buffalo" will still exist, we just don't percieve him. Reality is not made of our perceptions, our perceptions is what we see from reality.

Everyone in the world. ;) Or are we just perceiving them as well?

The only thing I'm perceiving is my bedroom, computer, son trying to eat the cat and in a few moments, I suspect I will perceive a turkey sandwich.

These six billion people you mention; Have you ever seen em?

No, no, no. The "Big Giant Gay Buffalo" will still exist, we just don't percieve him. Reality is not made of our perceptions, our perceptions is what we see from reality.

But how would you know he existed?

and if you did not, then he has no impact on your particular paradigm does he?

If he doesnt effect you, or your perception, then he isnt "real", to you, is he?

The only thing I'm perceiving is my bedroom, computer, son trying to eat the cat and in a few moments, I suspect I will perceive a turkey sandwich.

These six billion people you mention; Have you ever seen em?
Actually I always thought a good test (assuming that other people are real) is looking at people who are mentally insane and whom believe and see things that are not there. Since such things are not, but they perseve them, reality must exist outside of perseption.

And would you be willing to share that perseved sandwhich?

The only thing I'm perceiving is my bedroom, computer, son trying to eat the cat and in a few moments, I suspect I will perceive a turkey sandwich.

These six billion people you mention; Have you ever seen em?

What are you getting at? :)

Just because we don't perceive everyone in the world, doesn't stop them from existing. And it doesn't stop them from perceiving the same reality as us.

But how would you know he existed?

and if you did not, then he has no impact on your particular paradigm does he?

If he doesnt effect you, or your perception, then he isnt "real", to you, is he?

Not to me. However he is still real.

Does reality consist of what we perceive, or do our perceptions consist of what is real?

Ask a schzophrenic....

Not to me. However he is still real.

Whats the difference.

Not real to you, is all that really matters to you, isnt it?

Since you can never share anothers perception, or view through thier eyes and mind, then its your own head you must deal with.

Whats the difference.

Not real to you, is all that really matters to you, isnt it?

Since you can never share anothers perception, or view through thier eyes and mind, then its your own head you must deal with.

Yeah, but that still doesn't stop him from being real.

What are you getting at? :)

Just because we don't perceive everyone in the world, doesn't stop them from existing. And it doesn't stop them from perceiving the same reality as us.

Then is reality the sum total of all perceptions, or are there things in reality beyond anyone's perception?

Then is reality the sum total of all perceptions, or are there things in reality beyond anyone's perception?

We can't perceive our own conciousness (sp?), but it must exist other wise we can't be concious. Ha!

Ask a schzophrenic....

Or a clergyman. :eek:

We can't percieve are own conciousness (sp?), but it must exist other wise we can't be concious. Ha!

If we're aware of it, then we're perceiving it, aren't we?

Yeah, but that still doesn't stop him from being real.

Sure it does.

If the aforementioned Buffalo cant touch me, or speak to me, or any other way effect my perceptions of reality, then to me, he does not exist.

At the very least, he wouldnt exist in the same plane of reality as me, and thats just as good.

If we're aware of it, then we're perceiving it, aren't we?

We are aware of ourself. But we cannot see, hear, sence, smell or anything our conciousness, yet it must exist.

Ok how about this:

Do you believe that aliens exist?

Sure it does.

If the aforementioned Buffalo cant touch me, or speak to me, or any other way effect my perceptions of reality, then to me, he does not exist.

Yes to you. To us, or anyone in the world we are not aware of him. But he exists.

We are aware of ourself. But we cannot see, hear, sence, smell or anything our conciousness, yet it must exist.

Ok how about this:

Do you believe that aliens exist?

Is perception only limited to our senses?

Yes, I do believe in sentient extraterrestrial life.

Do you? WHat about God? What about six billion people you can't see?

Does reality consist of what we perceive, or do our perceptions consist of what is real?

Ask a schzophrenic....

Or a clergyman. :eek:

Unless the clergyman is a schizophrenic that is a non statement ?

In that the clergyman is defining his own reality....albeit from experiences gained elsewhere...

Is perception only limited to our senses?


How else can we perceive something?


Yes, I do believe in sentient extraterrestrial life.


But you cannot percept them in anyway, does this mean that they don't exist after all?

Yes to you. To us, or anyone in the world we are not aware of him. But he exists.

how would you know?

how would you know?

I wouldn't, but in this hypothetical universe you have created he still exists.

I wouldn't, but in this hypothetical universe you have created he still exists.

Would he?

Again, its all about how you percieve things.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Take Christians for example.

They believe, becuase they say that they have percieved of God in some form or another.

If they had never done so....they would probably be athiests.

How else can we perceive something?



But you cannot percept them in anyway, does this mean that they don't exist after all?

On the contrary, even though I don't see, hear, touch, taste or smell aliens, I still perceive them. Sometimes in the dark of night, by the light of the moon, when I close my eyes I see them trying to have sex with my furniture.

Fortunately, before things get too heated, that's when I fly away and start searching for my wayward underwear. Some ninjas stole em, and I must get them back. Unfortunately, usually sometime during the apocalyptic ninja pie fight, I have to pee and when I open my eyes, they're gone and the moonlight is all I see.

But someday, I will get my underwear back and scotchgard that damn loveseat! :mad:

Would he?


I don't know, you created this universe, does he exist? If he does then what does it matter if life perceives him or not.

I don't know, you created this universe, does he exist? If he does then what does it matter if life perceives him or not.

I think the answer is:

It doesnt matter, if you cant percieve him in any way.

Thus:

Reality is perception.

*bows*

I think the answer is:

It doesnt matter, if you cant percieve him in any way.

Thus:

Perception is reality.

*bows*

Eh?

You didn't answer my question. Does he exist in the world you made?

The Buddha was sitting with some of his disciples and he asked them: 'How long is a human life?'

The first disciple said, 'About 60 years.'

Another answered, 'Since life is suffering, and time moves slower when you suffer, it is much longer than that.'

The Buddha shook his head.

Many of the other disciples said nothing.

One smiled and laughed, 'Life is but a single instant!'

The Buddha smiled.

I have some questions for the atheists: Why do debates about religion never differentiate between the social aspects of religion and the individual aspects of belief? Why is it assumed that a belief in God is based on faith, and necessitates a belief in an organised religion? Do you like peaches? Yes, that is a serious question about God.

Does reality consist of what we perceive, or do our perceptions consist of what is real?
More to the point, how much do our perceptions of things depend on our cognitive abilities and how much on our linguistic resources?


Eg. Is it possible for us to encounter an alien that is so alien to our experiences and perceptions that we cannot even begin to describe it, and thus without the ability to describe, fail to see it?

However it must not impact on me or anyone else...in anyway.

What happens if I pray, and it works, and I get some sort of advantage in life that you don't get? Isn't that an "impact"?

Even if you don't believe it yourself?

The Buddha was sitting with some of his disciples and he asked them: 'How long is a human life?'

The first disciple said, 'About 60 years.'

Another answered, 'Since life is suffering, and time moves slower when you suffer, it is much longer than that.'

The Buddha shook his head.

Many of the other disciples said nothing.

One smiled and laughed, 'Life is but a single instant!'

The Buddha smiled.

Do you like peaches? Yes, that is a serious question about God.

The apprentice Clodpool, in a rebellious mood, approached Wen and spake thusly:

'Master, what is the difference between a humanistic, monastic system of belief in which wisdom is sought by means of an apparently nonsensical system of questions and answers, and a lot of mystical gibberish made up on the spur of the moment?'

Wen considered this for some time, and at last said: 'A fish!'.

And Clodpool went away, satisfied.

*apologies to T. Pratchett.

What happens if I pray, and it works, and I get some sort of advantage in life that you don't get? Isn't that an "impact"?

Even if you don't believe it yourself?

Earlier in the thread Hydesland and I came to the conclusion that impact is the wrong word....I think force is more apt...

if you want to pray and you believe you gain something out of it...go for it....just don't force me to pray....

Earlier in the thread Hydesland and I came to the conclusion that impact is the wrong word....I think force is more apt...

if you want to pray and you believe you gain something out of it...go for it....just don't force me to pray....

Oh, I would never force anyone to pray. Nor would I force anyone to convert, like the Palestinians did to those reporters at gunpoint.

Oh, I would never force anyone to pray. Nor would I force anyone to convert, like the Palestinians did to those reporters at gunpoint.

What about those who (and this is not limited to Christians) wish to force their wishes with regards to ID, abortion, premarital sex, etc on the rest of us?

You see...this is not about individual religions or faiths. Its about all mythologies.

What are the chances of reconciliation?

What about those who (and this is not limited to Christians) wish to force their wishes with regards to ID, abortion, premarital sex, etc on the rest of us?

You see...this is not about individual religions or faiths. Its about all mythologies.

What are the chances of reconciliation?

As long as atheists don't press their wishes on me, that's fine.

I'm for teaching evolution, but if someone doesn't want their kid to learn that, it should be their choice.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but if someone doesn't want to have one, that's their business.

Where I live, a parent can opt-out their kids from any sexual education at school - and I believe that should be their right.

The "force" works both ways. And even atheism is a belief system. No one should be forced to accept the beliefs of others.

I read the book mentioned in the article, it wasn't bad. I don't know if battle lines are drawn but if they are would my fellow atheists be willing to take up arms against religion in the name of everything we hold dear?

The apprentice Clodpool, in a rebellious mood, approached Wen and spake thusly:

'Master, what is the difference between a humanistic, monastic system of belief in which wisdom is sought by means of an apparently nonsensical system of questions and answers, and a lot of mystical gibberish made up on the spur of the moment?'

Wen considered this for some time, and at last said: 'A fish!'.

And Clodpool went away, satisfied.

*apologies to T. Pratchett.

I would say that Pratchett's ideas on Buddhism as humourous, but more related to fiction than reality. But he is a humour/fantasy author, so....

Anyways, the point of the Buddha story is that it relates to the idea that time only exists at this instant. Our linear understanding comes from our inability to understand it any other way. The reason this information is presented in a koan (life is eternal. life lasts only an instant) is because it is too slippery for the conscious mind to hold. Sure, we can imagine it as an idea, but you can't live it. Until you suspend your conscious mind, your perception of time as a linear construct will continue to override the reality of time as a point, as a single instant.

It is an apparently meaning less question with an apparently nonsensical answer. It is also a life-changing truth that is impossible to understand without directly experiencing it.

As for the peach, it is a way of approaching this moment. The taste, the smell, the soft fur on your fingers, the juice on your lips, can be an overwhelming experience. If you surrender to it, perhaps you can find this moment of understanding too.

I will say no more. I do not want you to feel that I am trying to convert anyone.

I hope I wasn't the only one who thought this was about the Buffalo Springfield song "For What It's Worth".

There's battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.


Shite! It looks like I was. Ya'll need to listen to some good music for a change....

nobodys right, if everybodys wrong

nobodys right, if everybodys wrong

Bum Fragging Hades! Somebody finally got it!

Drop in on my thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498523) about the song and current US politics, ifin ya wouldn't mind...

More to the point, how much do our perceptions of things depend on our cognitive abilities and how much on our linguistic resources?


Eg. Is it possible for us to encounter an alien that is so alien to our experiences and perceptions that we cannot even begin to describe it, and thus without the ability to describe, fail to see it?

Or if it's mounting your microwave, you might not WANT to see it. :p

I read the book mentioned in the article, it wasn't bad. I don't know if battle lines are drawn but if they are would my fellow atheists be willing to take up arms against religion in the name of everything we hold dear?

Although I may be a wanker I'd rather find a peacefull resolution....however I really cannot see one.

Unless we consider our current situation as a status quo that can be held...the only problem is that our mass communications allow faster mobilisation of entrenched beliefs. And these beliefs are of the pro religion side.

<snip>
Because the bottom line is this: Everybody takes certain things on faith. Everybody. Some people may be more open about changing their minds when presented with proof, but this is just a shift of faith, not an elimination of it. One way or another, we all believe in the invisible man in the sky who tells us right from wrong. Everyone. Whether we call Him God, Society or String Theory is really irrelevant.
How does String Theory teach right from wrong? String Theory may claim to teach "correct" from "incorrect," but "right" from "wrong" in the moral sense? Not so much, methinks.

Also, I'm not sure that I agree that god, society, and science can be made equivalent to each other this way.

I'm a big fan of science. I base my ideas of "correct" and "incorrect" on it, but not my morals/ethics. Science isn't about morals or ethics. Science has ethics, but it gets them from somewhere else (society), not from itself.

I get my moral/ethical teaching from the examples set by society and my family. Some of these are positive examples and my morals/ethics mimic them, others are negative examples and my morals/ethics are in opposition to them. I hardly think that I am worshipping society if I set up my own moral code in opposition to some of what society says is right or acceptable.

Finally, I believe in lots of sky fairies, as well as fairies of other places (I'm a polytheist), but none of the gods I'm interested in teaches a moral code, except to the extent you outline below. Most of my gods are in charge of practical considerations (like the weather); only a few are exemplars of what I consider to be good behavior. I choose to venerate those because they mirror my own concepts of right and wrong, not because they bring me a new concept of right and wrong. In other words, I don't need a god to teach me that. If someone comes to me with a god that teaches a code I don't agree with, I will ignore that god before I will assume I must be wrong.

When people stop complaining about the invisible men other people have faith in and start realizing that the only true Moral Civil Pious behavior we can ever really show is to have as much respect for the lives, lifestyles and faiths of other people as you want others to show yours, then the world will be a much better place.

I agree with this bit 100%. :)

Ok. Forcing would be a better word, because if religion exists it would be impossible for it to not have any sort of impact at all on you.

How do you figure that?

Or if it's mounting your microwave, you might not WANT to see it. :p
So THAT'S why my microwave was playing up the other night!