Atheism vs Christianity: 25 new messages in 11 topics

Atheism vs Christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The presumption of the contaminated human.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/523a4290b0ff29a2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 11:47 am
From: PD

On Feb 14, 1:16 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 10:54 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > If not, what do you think
> > > > > > > (take friggin' guess if you care) is behind "a marriage should only be
> > > > > > > between a man and a woman"?
>
> > > > > > > I happen to think that it is primarily based on sacred texts.
>
> > > > > > And I disagree.
>
> > > > > Thank you for that short and to-the-point response.
>
> > > > > "A marriage should only be between a man and a woman"
> > > > > "Why do you say that?"
> > > > > "Because ______________"
>
> > > > > You do not have to do this, but if you care, please fill in what you
> > > > > believe is the most commonly heard response in the US to the question.
>
> > > > I don't know for sure. I would be suspicious of most answers, because
> > > > most of them do not make any sense.
>
> > > I did not ask if you would accept their answers, or whether they feel
> > > right to you, PD. Unless you specifically state so, I would not even
> > > consider it to be a stance you advocate.
>
> > What I believe the *most* common answer is
> > "Because it's immoral."
>
> Yes, and... ("Why is it immoral?/Immoral according to what/who?")

You asked what people say. I told you that I wasn't sure what people
say most, then I ventured what people have told me most often. I also
told you that I regard those statements as suspicious and I told you
why. Now you are asking me to venture a guess about a second-order
rationalization behind a dubious first-order rationalization of an
irrational behavior. Frankly, I don't see the value in the rabbit
hole. If I don't place much trust in the first-order rationalization,
why would I trust the second-order rationalization any more?

>
> > A fair number also say,
> > "Because the Bible says it's immoral."
>
> That's my point. If you ask them where does the Bible say it, they'll
> either point to the OT or the NT or cite some reference to a passage,
> why God forbids it.

And we've already discussed the value of taking a reference to a
single passage in a Bible (as though it were a Merck manual or a CRC
handbook), such as the reference you cited where an apostle assures
that all prayers are guaranteed to be satisfied, when the same source
book also clearly shows a prayer of Jesus not being satisfied.

Likewise, when a wife-beater assures us that the wife is at fault for
why he beat her, it might well be that the wife beater has convinced
himself of that with all his heart. But this doesn't make it any less
dubious to his audience. It's just an irrationality looking for a
rationalization. There is NO TRUTH to the wife beater beating his wife
because she's at fault. That is NOT the reason why he beat her.

Likewise when someone tells me that the reason they hate homosexuals
is because God tells them to hate homosexuals, I attribute the same
truth level to that claim as I do to the wife-beaters claim.

>
> The use of sacred texts is not fading. Not in the US at least from
> what I see. Disbelief in evolution likewise comes primarily from the
> use of sacred texts.
>
> Do you have any other common answers as a followup? In other words,
> if you ask "Why is it immoral?", do you get, commonly, a non-Biblical-
> based rationalization however asinine it might sound?
>
> > I take the same stance to both answers as I do to a wife beater saying
> > the reason he beats his wife is because she made him do it.
>
> Which I knew as much, and was not the issue.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:35 pm
From: LL

On Feb 14, 12:57 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
You simply seek to impose your false assertions in a flow of
meaningless diatribe. I for one am not impressed.

LL: Nor am I.

> PD,
>
> The point I make in demonstrating the history of religion is
> to show that it was forced upon us and its beliefs inculcated
> into the generations.
>
> Religion of itself serves no useful purpose any more that the
> gods it espouses. It has been shown throughout history to
> be the cause of contention and bitter strife and continues
> in that vane today and should indeed be exponged and
> removed from our lives, especially since it is based on
> fallacious nonsense; in principle wrong and not fit for the
> purpose of teaching any sort of moral rectitude to youth.
>
> Your quote:
>
> > It seems to be a common urging among Christians to deny the fidelity
> > of our own human understanding of the universe and to rely instead on
> > a higher authority. Indeed, relying on our own understanding is
> > commonly seen as the root cause of sin. Thus, there is the tendency of
> > Christians to suppress scientific investigation or at least to lower
> > the importance of scientific investigation among human activities.
> > This, of course, is calling for the suppression of a key aspect of
> > humanity -- our drive to find predictable order in the world. It is
> > the common belief of Christians that what is scientific about us is
> > NOT central to our humanity, and that other aspects of our humanity
> > need to be elevated relative to our scientific bent.
>
> If for no other reason and there are many, this alone defies common
> sense and shows on the part of christians an extremely skewed
> appreciation of the purpose of science. The main reason being, it sees
> science as a threat to its survival. The sooner we are done with
> religion
> the better.
>
> Get one thing straight: Atheism means ONLY a non-belief on gods.
>
> You follow up here with a presumptious attempt to identifiy what
> atheism urges, by imposing a premise that is false. e.g. "spiritual
> centres of the mind," and to suggest surreptitiously, that "something
> compels us to rely on a higher authority." you state "a common belief
> of atheists is that what is spirtual about us is not cental to our
> humanity." You go on to blithely say that this spirituality is a key
> aspect of humanity.
>
> You are talking arrant cock and bull and what you say is totally
> dishonest. Atheists do not believe in gods. that implies that atheists
> do not believe in "spiritual centers of the mind" or that there is a
> higher authority, or that there is anything remotely spiritual and
> central to humanity. Nor is it a key aspect of humanity. That is false
> and not proven to be the case at all and you know it, so that makes
> of you and extremely dishonest person and not to be trusted in any
> sense, as an authority on the subject; scientist or not.
> You simply seek to impose your false assertions in a flow of
> meaningless diatribe. I for one am not impressed.
>
> On Feb 12, 4:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The discussion between atheists and Christians seems to focus on which
> > part of their humanity should be disavowed, suppressed, or gradually
> > moved away from.
>
> > Let's take as a premise that religion is a human construction or at
> > least a phenomenon unique to human animals. No other creature exhibits
> > religious faith, but it is also completely common -- religious faith
> > is, besides language and crying, the most pervasive human
> > characteristic of the species. This has led many cognitive
> > psychologists to suggest that religious faith is a natural consequence
> > of the way our minds are constructed and how they work.
>
> > On the other hand, humans are also unique in their attempt to find
> > order and regularity in the universe and to account for predictable
> > phenomena according to the smallest set of natural laws possible.
> > There is also a survival advantage in doing so, in that predictable
> > behavior enables manipulation of the environment in predictable ways,
> > which we have applied in everything from superconductors to
> > supermarket checkout scanners.
>
> > It seems to be a common urging among Christians to deny the fidelity
> > of our own human understanding of the universe and to rely instead on
> > a higher authority. Indeed, relying on our own understanding is
> > commonly seen as the root cause of sin. Thus, there is the tendency of
> > Christians to suppress scientific investigation or at least to lower
> > the importance of scientific investigation among human activities.
> > This, of course, is calling for the suppression of a key aspect of
> > humanity -- our drive to find predictable order in the world. It is
> > the common belief of Christians that what is scientific about us is
> > NOT central to our humanity, and that other aspects of our humanity
> > need to be elevated relative to our scientific bent.
>
> > It seems to be a common urging among atheists to deny the spiritual
> > centers of the mind and to suggest that whatever naturally compels us
> > to rely on a higher authority is dangerous, counterproductive, and
> > foolish. Atheists generally believe that scientific investigation
> > should be elevated relative to the other processes of the mind,
> > keeping those others at bay and under the control of the logical parts
> > of our mental processes. It is therefore the common belief of atheists
> > that what is spiritual about us is NOT central to our humanity, and
> > this key aspect of humanity -- the spiritual and what makes religious
> > faith so common -- should be grown out of.
>
> > The presumption of both, of course, is that our human nature is in a
> > contaminated state and needs to be detoxified. The key difference is
> > in the disagreement about which part of our humanity needs to be
> > expunged. Lots of arguments are mounted about the ills and excesses
> > caused by the perceived contamination on both sides. But the common
> > theme is the perception that there *is* contamination in human nature
> > in the first place.
>
> > I admit that this is perplexing to me, and I see no reason to disavow
> > any part of our minds that appears to be central to our humanity. I
> > don't think we have any evidence of any sort that suppression of any
> > key element of our humanity would result in a better humanity, any
> > more than it would make sense that if we would only had a collective
> > campaign to remove pinkie fingers or colons we'd all be better off. I
> > wonder if it makes more sense to at least consider the possibility
> > that we aren't contaminated at all, and that both central aspects of
> > our humanity -- coexisting in admitted tension -- are crucial for our
> > future success. And in fact, the continued tension between these two
> > aspects of our humanity is key to that success. If this is in fact the
> > case, then arguments about which central aspect of our humanity needs
> > to be expunged are not only counterproductive, but completely off the
> > mark.
>
> > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mohammed Cartoons * again *
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/512c2ceae4f35e84?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 11:47 am
From: Dag Yo

> 'We believe this is very foolish and does not help building the
> bridges we need,' said Mostafa Chendid, an imam at the Islamic Faith
> Community, a religious Muslim organisation at the centre of the first
> cartoon controversy.
What a wimp. Seriously, it's a freaking political cartoon, a bit of
satire on paper, and if no muslim ever complained about it I'd doubt
the rest of the world would even be aware that it was ever printed.

--
On Feb 14, 10:01 am, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since there was some discussion on this topic, thought of bringing
> this to you notice.
>
> hope there will not be much tension now!!
>
> cheers
> st13
>
> http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld...
>
> Danish newspapers republish Prophet cartoon
> (Reuters)
>
> 13 February 2008
>
> COPENHAGEN - Danish newspapers on Wednesday reprinted one of the
> drawings of the Prophet that caused global Muslim outrage two years
> ago.
>
> The newspapers said they were republishing the drawing in protest over
> a plot to murder the cartoonist.
>
> The republication of the cartoon-showing the Prophet with a bomb in
> his turban-drew criticism from Danish Muslims, who said it would only
> stoke anger.
>
> A Danish citizen of Moroccan descent and two Tunisians were arrested
> on Tuesday for planning to murder 73-year-old Kurt Westergaard, a
> cartoonist at Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper that originally
> published the drawings in September 2005.
>
> Five Danish daily newspapers, more than 10 smaller papers and a
> Swedish daily reprinted Westergaard's cartoon, which had caused the
> greatest controversy before. Most Muslims consider any depiction of
> the founder of Islam as offensive.
>
> Denmark's Muslim community makes up about 3 percent of the 5.5 million
> population.
>
> An editorial in left-leaning Politiken, one of the newspapers that
> reprinted the cartoon, called the murder plot an attack on Denmark's
> democratic culture.
>
> 'Regardless of whether Jyllands-Posten at the time used freedom of
> speech unwisely and with damaging consequences, the paper deserves
> unconditional solidarity when it is threatened with terror,' it said.
> Criticism
>
> Danish Muslim groups criticised the move as divisive, but said it
> regarded the issue as a local one on this occasion.
>
> 'We believe this is very foolish and does not help building the
> bridges we need,' said Mostafa Chendid, an imam at the Islamic Faith
> Community, a religious Muslim organisation at the centre of the first
> cartoon controversy.
>
> 'It will make our young people feel more isolated,' he told Reuters.
> 'The printing of the cartoon is an insult to our intellectual
> capacity.'
>
> The group, which in 2005 helped organise a delegation to the Middle
> East to present a dossier of alleged Danish insults to Muslims, said
> the circumstances were different.
>
> 'It's the same picture, so it's ... just a republication of what was
> published before,' Chendid said. 'In the beginning it was pure
> provocation to Muslims. It's two different situations.' The group said
> it had no plans to travel or 'export this problem abroad.'
>
> Three Danish embassies were attacked and at least 50 people were
> killed in rioting in 2006 in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Several
> young Muslims have since been convicted in Denmark of planning bomb
> attacks, partly in protest at the cartoons.
>
> The Security and Intelligence Service said Tuesday's arrests near
> Aarhus in western Denmark were made after lengthy surveillance to
> prevent a murder that was in an early stage of planning.
>
> Danish media said a man of Moroccan descent, 40, had been released but
> faced preliminary charges while two Tunisians, 36 and 25, would face
> deportation later this week.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Atheist sees image of Big Bang in Piece of Toast
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c5b7f9084f2b270f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 11:47 am
From: BlueSci

On Feb 13, 6:51 pm, Corpus Callosum <daniel.gui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Story: http://www.satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html
>
> Atheist sees image of Big Bang in Piece of Toast
>
> For immediate release: Miracle Toast?
>
> (ACPA-London) Excitement is growing in the Northern England town of
> Huddlesfield following the news that a local man saw an image of the
> Big-Bang in a piece of toast. Atheist Donald Chapman, 36, told local
> newspaper, "The Huddlesfield Express" that he was sitting down to eat
> breakfast when an unusual toast pattern caught his eye.
>
> "I was just about to spread the butter when I noticed a fairly typical
> small hole in the bread surrounded by a burnt black ring. However the
> direction and splatter patterns of the crumbs as well as the changing
> shades emanating outwards from this black hole were very clearly
> similar to the chaotic-dynamic non-linear patterns that one would
> expect following the Big Bang". "It's the beginning of the world" he
> added excitedly.
>
> Ever since news of the discovery made national headlines, local
> hoteliers have been overwhelmed by an influx of atheists from all over
> the country who have flocked to Huddlesfield to catch a glimpse of the
> scientific relic. "I have always been an atheist and to see my life
> choices validated on a piece of toast is truly astounding" said one
> guest at the Huddlesfield Arms Hotel.
>
> To the surprise of many, the UK National Atheist Association has asked
> its members not to pay attention to the story despite its potential to
> inspire less Faith. "Given what the religious believe already, this is
> an easy sell" said one disgruntled activist who said he was going to
> Huddlesfield anyway noting that "Seeing is not believing".

Holy toast:

http://www.mcphee.com/items/M6160.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PROOF that atheism requires more faith than theism
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/e60c6b4ac4e4b638?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 11:51 am
From: rappoccio

On Feb 13, 10:51 pm, Corpus Callosum <daniel.gui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 6:13 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > You can measure the heat output of living material, sure. That isn't
> > > what I was talking about. Let's move on.
>
> > No. Not until you define "order" mathematically.
>
> So you want to stay in the thermodynamic rathole, as predicted?
>
> If you will please remember how this conversation began, I clearly
> indicated that the generally accepted means of handling "order"
> mathematically is not capable of dealing with life. I then posited
> the question, "How do we measure order in the presence of living
> material?"

And I told you how to do so that is perfectly acceptable given the
mathematical description of the word "entropy".

>
> Clearly, I was not stating that I know how to do this.

Then your claim that evolution isn't viable because of the second law
of thermodynamics isn't valid. You can't have it both ways. Therefore
you admit that your argument is completely bogus, and atheism does NOT
require more faith than theism.

> I was saying
> that our science, today, cannot handle it.

And you're dead wrong. And biologists agree with me.

> It was my intention to
> point out that mechanics for describing heat and energy dispersal are
> inherently too primitive to describe living material, because living
> material re-orders it's surroundings and reproduces.

No, they are not. DNA bases it's ENTIRE "complexity" on the ordering
of base pairs. The sentence

aserawe aerstjaweopirhjqwiobner aserqwern q werqw r ewr

carries information content, and therefore carries entropy. In this
case, it has low entropy because it's not structured.

The sentence

aser a a serat i am way

Carries more information content, and therefore has a lower entropy.

The sentence

This statement is false.

Carries still yet MORE information content, and therefore has an even
LOWER entropy.

What you are confused about is what "order" means. In effect, you need
to understand exactly WHY my first example carries less information
than the second, and that carries less than the third. It's because of
the constraints we have placed on it (that it make sense in
"English"). Similarly, DNA is ALSO placed in a deterministic
constraint, which is the interaction with the environment. The DNA
sequence

CADA

May mean nothing at all in vacuum (i.e., has zero information
content), but in the presence of some other protein, it could lead to
a cancer cell being produced (i.e. it has information content).

Therefore, the "order" you're talking about in biological systems is
ENTIRELY reducible to the information content of the DNA sequence
itself. This is dependent on the environment you're in. If you have a
DNA sequence that can

> If you would be willing to open your mind a little bit, perhaps we
> could discuss various methods to attempt to quantify order w/respect
> to living material.

My mind is open. You're just wrong.

> > > > Your definition which is not shared by biologists. Biologists
> > > > recognize that "life" is an illusion, there is a whole spectrum of
> > > > things from "mineral" to "life".
>
> > > You, sir, are insane. This is absurd.
>
> > Ask any biologist. The difference between "life" and "non-life"
> > biologically is as meaningful as the distinction between species. That
> > is to say, hardly at all.
>
> Your words, here, are patently absurd and do not warrant a response.
> But let's go grab some definitions for life anyway:
>
> The first paragraph from the wikipedia article on life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) reads:
>
> "Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic
> objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth
> through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to
> environment through changes originating internally. A physical
> characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy.[1][2] "
>
> Quite interesting and, as always, supportive of my point. I will,
> again, not gloat.

Can you fucking read, you moron?

Why don't you actually keep reading your wiki article there?

"An entity with the above properties is considered to be a living
organism, that is an organism that is alive hence can be called a life
form. However, not every definition of life considers all of these
properties to be essential. For example, the capacity for descent with
modification is often taken as the only essential property of life.
This definition notably includes viruses, which do not qualify under
narrower definitions as they are acellular and do not metabolize.
Broader definitions of life may also include theoretical non-carbon-
based life and other alternative biology. Some forms of artificial
life, however, especially wet artificial life, might alternatively be
classified as real life."

If there isn't one definition of "alive", then it's just a word that
defines a nebulous and undefined concept (like your idea that you
spell "o-r-d-e-r" and haven't defined).

>
> > > > Crystals are self-organizing and
> > > > reproductive
>
> > > Crystals do not reproduce, they grow.
>
> > Have you ever seen a liquid undergo a critical phase transition into a
> > solid by the addition of a seed crystal?
>
> Yes. That is a chemical reaction, and fun. But it isn't life.

However it is reproduction.

> > That's reproduction of the pattern if I ever saw one.
>
> It's pretty. But it isn't alive.

It undergoes reproduction, doesn't it?

The definition of "alive" in this context is insufficient. That's all
I'm saying.

> > > They are not self-organizing in
> > > any sense comparable to living material, because crystals are
> > > homogenous with simple repetitive patterns.
>
> > So is DNA.
>
> Yes, DNA is very much like that, albeit more complex. DNA isn't alive
> either.

Define "Complex".

> > > There is no complexity there.
>
> > You haven't defined your magical mystery definition of "complex" yet
> > to begin with.
>
> Let's use life instead of complexity. There are too many ways to
> equivocate on the word complexity.

Then define "life".

> > > >, viruses are self-organizing, reproductive, but only
> > > > externally animated,
>
> > > Viruses are not considered living, but rather a side-effect of life,
> > > an artifact of life and evolution. Without life, there would be no
> > > viruses.
>
> > I'm sure you ran this by a bunch of biologists to test your
> > conjecture, right?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
>
> > "An entity with the above properties is considered to be a living
> > organism, that is an organism that is alive hence can be called a life
> > form. However, not every definition of life considers all of these
> > properties to be essential. For example, the capacity for descent with
> > modification is often taken as the only essential property of life.
> > This definition notably includes viruses, which do not qualify under
> > narrower definitions as they are acellular and do not metabolize.
> > Broader definitions of life may also include theoretical non-carbon-
> > based life and other alternative biology. Some forms of artificial
> > life, however, especially wet artificial life, might alternatively be
> > classified as real life."
>
> Some, like yourself, would like to claim that a virus has some nonzero
> component of a quality described as "life". I, however, place the bar
> higher and agree with the article where it says that viruses cannot be
> described as living because they are acellular and do not metabolize.

We aren't interested in your opinion. It's a semantic game. That's the
whole point. It's ARBITRARY. It's not actually defined other than by
convention. So I don't really care about your opinion. I'd like
something that I can objectively define.

> I see viruses as non-living artifacts that manifest around life and
> perform some role, but are not themselves living. This is a
> perfectly reasonable position that is completely in line with
> conventional wisdom and definitions.

Your opinion.

>
> > Your cut-and-dried distinction is not exactly shared by the biological
> > community.
>
> Yes, it is. There are others, like yourself, who would prefer to
> equivocate on the word "life", describing non-living artifacts as
> possessing some amount of life. I reject that equivocation.

You're not a biologist.

> > > > The distinction is as arbitrary as the distinction between
> > > > species, which is simply an illusion since most species are extinct.
>
> > > The distinction is absolute.
>
> > In your uneducated opinion.
>
> Not only mine. Your uneducated opinion notwithstanding (do you also
> hold a PhD in biology?).
>
> > > > > This type of order is not dealt with in any
> > > > > physics which I have ever seen, except de-constructively by examining
> > > > > heat and energy.
>
> > > > You've described what your "order" is not.
>
> > > Your worldview is so completely simplistic and unrealistic that I
> > > cannot fathom how to even create a common ground from where we can
> > > define terms and begin to explore anything related to life.
>
> > You can start by defining "complexity" in a specific way.
>
> To discuss this topic rationally, we must discuss emergence. Life has
> profound emergent qualities that combine to manifest animation. These
> qualities cannot be studied with quantum mechanics any more than a hex-
> nut could be tightened with a hammer.

Go ahead. Define "emergence".

And then explain why it's not describable by quantum mechanics.

>
> > > You
> > > clearly, from the proceeding, view life as some random chemical stew,
> > > the foam on the river of sunlight.
>
> > So do biologists.
>
> You continue to appeal to authority and appeal to populations, and
> incorrectly. Your claim that "all biologists" have a clockwork,
> deconstructionist model of the universe where a broad spectrum of life
> can be attributed to inanimate objects or subsystems of life that are
> not sufficient in their own right to reproduce or metabolize, is
> false. This view is definitely not one that is shared amongst all
> biologists, nor even a large minority of them. You are making a
> fallacious claim and it is readily proven incorrect.

So what is missing from the reductionist viewpoint? What,
SPECIFICALLY, must be added in order to explain your concept that you
spell "e-m-e-r-g-e-n-c-e" but haven't defined.

>
> > > What I am talking about has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (you
> > > brought up QM), and I am under-awed by QM, but that is a different
> > > story.
>
> > You're overawed by which you shouldn't be, and underawed by what you
> > should be. But that's just your ignorance.
>
> So you are implying that I should be over-awed by QM?

Yes, actually. Quantum mechanics is the most bizarre thing you'll ever
come across. Your "emergence" is child's play compared to it. It's
literally not even remotely close to the weirdness of quantum
mechanics. But yet, that's how our universe works. Truly amazing.

> But a couple of
> posts back, you were making the claim that I was over-awed and using
> that claim as some sort of insult.

You didn't read it correctly then. You're overawed by things that are
understood. You're underawed by things that aren't. This isn't
sensible.

>Here, you are telling me that I
> should be over-awed and using that as some sort of insult. If it's
> insulting either way, what does that say about you?
>
> I would love to talk to you about QM, but I suspect that you would be
> an insulting and arrogant person to have such a conversation with.

That depends on how insulting and arrogant you are. You have this
habit of coming out like a swaggering bully and then getting upset
when people don't roll over and let you walk over them. I'm not a
pushover, and I'm more informed than you on the subject. Maybe you
could learn something if you determined a little humility. I've
devoted enough years of my life to quantum mechanics to know that
you're not going to be able to come up with anything interesting or
different than I've already heard. ESPECIALLY considering your
attitude.

> The root of my under-awe for the subject is that it is a sloppy and
> hideous thing. QM is what happens over 100 years of mathematical
> hacking, when you start with experimental results, build statistical
> models to describe those results and then form a calculus based on
> those models.

You're aware that quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory on the
planet, right? That it describes things over orders and orders of
magnitude with precision that is unheard of in any other theoretical
construct on the planet?

> QM is certainly useful, but I am certain there are more
> eloquent means of mathematically modeling reality.

That's your ignorance, yet again.

> We are primitives
> rubbing sticks together when it comes to such things. Are you one of
> those physicists who believes that QM describes the real world, or one
> who believes that it is a sloppy stop-gap measure useful until better
> models come around?

There are two possibilities:

1) Quantum mechanics describes the universe.
2) There is a non-local theory (i.e. one that travels faster than the
speed of light).

There are no other options, in light of Bell's inequalities. There is
no evidence whatsoever of the second option, and so not many people
bother to take it seriously.

In any case, every single solitary theory on the planet is a "stop-gap
until better models come around". But you're woefully ignorant of what
a "better model" means. A "better model" means it predicts the
observations better. No one really gives a shit if you think the
theory is sloppy. It's not, it's very carefully constructed, it's a
brilliant deduction based on logic and experimentation, and was
derived by far smarter people than you can even dream about. You're
quick to judge that which you clearly do not understand.

> > > Let us assume that a piece of machinery and a bacteria have the same
> > > thermodynamic order. You can perform your calculations and feel
> > > happy. Let us assume that these two items exist in some closed
> > > system, in a sealed cave or something similar. There is a fixed
> > > starting thermodynamic order. I presume you have some way of
> > > measuring that. We turn on the machine, which generates heat while it
> > > operates. This heat provides the energy needed for the bacteria to
> > > survive and reproduce. One hour later, the piece of machinery still
> > > has the same thermodynamic order, but the bacteria has changed
> > > radically; there are now millions of them and they have altered their
> > > environment substantially. The environment is significantly more
> > > ordered than before the experiment began.
>
> > > What happened?
>
> > You're missing the rest of the system.
>
> Yes, yes, the power supply. Fine, assume the machine starts with a
> fixed amount of hydrogen and harnesses additional hydrogen from the
> bacteria that are liberating it through metabolic processes from
> water. Oops! Did we just accidentally build a perpetual motion
> machine?

No, you moron. You've just demonstrated you haven't the foggiest clue
what you're talking about.

> Darn. I know you are going to say that's impossible, so why
> don't we make our machine use a theoretical zero-point energy device
> as well. They don't exist? Well, this is a thought experiment, and I
> want the machine to run off fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. Then
> it won't be a closed system? Darn. You are hard to argue with...
>
> > Look up. It's the big burning ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion
> > that lets you see during the daytime.
>
> Yes, the universe sure does seem to have a great overabundance of
> energy, doesn't it. Strange thing, that.

That is totally false. The universe has zero net energy , or very
close to zero. You're forgetting to take into account the
gravitational attraction and the energy stored in the gravitational
field itself. Counting that, the sum total energy is zero, or nearly
zero.

> But, see, I would really like to discuss analyzing the entropic
> effects associated with that bacteria being in a closed system, so we
> could just start with a fixed fuel-source like a radioactive-decay
> battery or something, so that we have a reasonably long time to let
> the experiment run. I want you to consider how the presence of that
> bacteria effects the order of the system over time and then tell me if
> it can all be accounted for with the deconstructionist tools in your
> toolbox.

Define "order".

>
> > > > You're simply adding "complexity" to the phenotypical expression of
> > > > DNA. This is not correct. The complexity comes from the molecule, not
> > > > the way it interacts with the environment.
>
> > > Complete rubbish.
>
> > Your misunderstanding.
>
> DNA doesn't do anything by itself. Everything that it is capable of
> is a direct result, an emergent property, of it's interaction with
> other things that combine to form a living cell.

That's not an "emergent" property. It's a consequence of OTHER quantum
mechanical interactions with other proteins in the environment. We
don't need to restrict ourselves to DNA (which is like saying a stone
arch was built by lifting all the stones into place, rather than
building it on a scaffold and then removing the scaffold). What you
see in a cell is the equivalent to looking at a building with the
scaffolding removed.

> > > >That is deterministic,
>
> > > Absurd, laughable rubbish.
>
> Life is stochastic and emergent, the very antithesis of determinism.

Define "emergent".

Define "determinism".

> There may be some predictability to what it will do, but it is neither
> deterministic, nor describable using deterministic tools.

Prove it.

> > > It's pointless to argue with you about this. You can't see the forest
> > > for the trees.
>
> > No, I just understand far more than you do.
>
> Again, you claim some weird victory based on your belief of
> superiority. I reject your belief in your own superiority.

Reject what you want, you're just woefully outmatched.

> You have
> a closed mind and seem unwilling to attempt to grasp the bigger
> picture.

No, I just know that you're primarily full of shit, and a belligerent
asshole.

> You wish to rathole us in areas where you have spent years
> memorizing equations from books and use that to "win". It's stupid.
> This has nothing to do with you having blind faith. But you know that
> already, as it has been proven.
>
> > > Your deconstructionist view has tossed the baby out
> > > with the bath-water, and you are so fixated on the water molecules
> > > that you didn't even notice it. Deconstructionism will never help you
> > > understand the universe, rappocio.
>
> > Scientists beg to differ. In fact, we've gotten pretty darned far by
> > being reductionists so far.
>
> Sure, it works well for certain things. It works spectacularly in
> physics, I will grant you that. But biology is different territory
> and you are wrong that deconstructionism is a technique for describing
> life.

Oh, that's why applications of physics are so unsuccessful in biology.
Right.

You're aware of the field of "biophysics" which is making quick
strides in understanding in a short few decades, aren't you?

> You can tear the machine apart and study the pieces and think
> you get it. But that doesn't mean that you do. It is through complex
> interaction where the real emergence is taking place. Life must be
> studied through constructionism, examining the communication and
> interaction between the parts to qualify the emergent behaviors.

Your unsubstantiated opinion.

> > > You believe you understand what is
> > > going on, but I assure you, you are wrong. And you can stop waving
> > > around your PhD, all that paper means is that you can do some
> > > mathematics, write papers and take tests. It says nothing regarding
> > > the accuracy or even competency of your comprehension of aspects of
> > > existence that weren't taught at Harvard.
>
> > Ahh, yes, of course. When one doesn't actually HAVE any credentials,
> > just claim that they're meaningless. ESPECIALLY when that person
> > doesn't have the foggiest clue what they're talking about but pretends
> > they do.
>
> You mean, like you talking about biology?

Would you like to question my knowledge of biology? I've taken enough
classes to know that you're full of shit. Could I tell you what the
compound interactions are for a specific molecule are? No. However I
can tell you how quantum mechanics could predict it with sufficient
computing power and resources (which are a technical limitation). Is
there zero use in constructionism? Of course not. It's got it's
usages. But ignoring the functions of the underlying mechanics is just
plain fucking stupid. Your "emergences" are, as you put it, a "sloppy
stop gap until we find a better theory". Emergent properties are
simply a result of complexity, which is derivable by looking at the
individual pieces and working from there. With a big enough computer,
we could simulate the human brain, bit by bit. There is nothing that
shows us this is not true. You haven't demonstrated a single
shortcoming of the method. You just keep claiming there are some.

> > > > Therefore, your description of "order" is non-physical, non-
> > > > descriptive, illogical, and useless, whereas the actual definition of
> > > > "order" is sensible, perfectly descriptive, and explains everything in
> > > > the problem sufficiently as to demystify everything involved.
>
> > > The universe that you are describing doesn't exist.
>
> > You haven't actually described "order" so how the hell would you know?
> > You can't even get off the ground here.
>
> You have twisted my words. I never said I would describe "order". I
> claimed that a different definition is required in the presence of
> life.

You keep saying that and you haven't demonstrated why. I don't believe
you. Prove your assertions.

> > > And life runs the entropy clocks backwards, so it contains a type of
> > > order that is not accounted for in the standard definitions.
>
> > No it doesn't, moron. Go learn some physics and biology and let me
> > know how you make out.
>
> Go read the first paragraph on "life" from wikipedia again and get
> back to me. I promise, I won't gloat.

You can keep reading the rest of the article and learn something about
nature and that "life" is just a word that is arbitrary.

> > > > 1 + 1 > 2
>
> > > > Or in other words
>
> > > > 1 + 1 = 2 + X
>
> > > No, you are missing it. I absolutely am not saying (1 + 1 = 2 + X).
>
> > You said before
>
> > 1 + 1 > 2
>
> > You claim that "emergence" follows this (the whole is greater than the
> > sum of the parts).
>
> Yes, but that equation is nothing more than a mental analogy meant to
> illustrate that the interaction between components yields behavior
> which cannot be inferred by studying the components. It is not some
> useful equation that we will use to solve problems.
>
> > It is a mathematical fact that if
>
> > 1 + 1 > 2
>
> > Then
>
> > 1 + 1 = 2 + X
>
> That is not a mathematical fact, because it is impossible for 1+1>2,
> unless we radically alter the topology of our number theory. The
> equation is a mental analogy. I would have thought that you were
> clever enough to understand this.

The numbers are following your heuristic notation (i.e. not
corresponding to actual numbers) but the operations concerning them
are perfectly fine to deal with.

So what is missing from a reductionist viewpoint, specifically, that
is accountable for in a constructionist viewpoint?

> > Your lack of understanding of mathematics is as appalling as your lack
> > of physics and biology. What do they teach you kids in school these
> > days?
>
> Me? You are the one who took that literally and then went on to work
> from a nonsensical equation to try to prove something. That was
> retarded.
>
> > > > Obviously you think X = God, or we wouldn't be having this
> > > > discussion.
>
> > > No, I don't. Your comprehension is very low.
>
> > I think that is reversed.
>
> [ Corpus shakes his head sadly]
>
> > > How old are you? You are very young, aren't you?
>
> > Old enough to know a great deal more than you. Of course, if I were
> > twelve I could say that too. You have the intellectual capacity of a
> > nine year old.
>
> The only thing that you seem to be able to do well is rathole and toss
> ad hominems. I think you are a young spoiled brat with a highly over-
> inflated self opinion. Behave yourself and maybe we can have a
> productive discussion.

You first, you little fucking arrogant twit. You come to this board
thinking you're the smartest person here, start throwing insults
around like nobody's business, make outlandish unsupported claims, and
insult anyone who DARES disagree with you. You're an arrogant and
obnoxious ass with the manners and mentality of a nine year old. If
you'd like to have a rational discourse, start by approaching the
situation in a rational way. You blathering on about nonsense and
flailing your arms around like a toddler in a temper tantrum means you
deserve nothing but contempt.

I'm happy to give you any reciprocal respect you demonstrate
yourself.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 11:56 am
From: rappoccio

On Feb 14, 9:15 am, "squat bean" <squatb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 13/02/2008, Corpus Callosum <daniel.gui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 8:02 pm, Corpus Callosum <daniel.gui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We are equivocating and this time it likely is my fault. I brought up
> > > > entropy and claimed life to be anti-entropic. I then asked how one
> > > > would measure order in life. My use of order in that question is an
> > > > equivocation, because I most certainly was not questioning simple
> > > > thermodynamic order. In fact, I believe that the definitions used in
> > > > thermodynamics for order do not and cannot apply to life. I did not
> > > > clarify my position on this, so I am at fault.
>
> > > Then since you are working with a definition of complexity of your own
> > > design, it doesn't follow the second law of thermodynamics.
>
> > > Secondly, the statistical thermodynamic definition of entropy most
> > > certainly does apply to biological systems.
>
> >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bioentropy.htmlhttp...
>
> > You can measure the heat output of living material, sure. That isn't
> > what I was talking about. Let's move on.
>
> > > > > > Your answer about measuring disorder is irrelevant and wrong to
> > boot.
>
> > > > > I love it when people with no scientific understanding feel the need
> > > > > to argue physics with professionals.
>
> > > > Another appeal to your own authority. IANAP (I am not a physicist),
> > > > but I am far from a layperson with respect to these subjects. You can
> > > > feel free to express your superiority, ad nauseum.
>
> > > Actually you simply keep (incorrectly) discounting my capability
> > > without argument. I bring this up to show you that I am not, in fact,
> > > an easily-dismissed idiot with no training. I speak of thing from a
> > > position of knowledge, not ignorance.
>
> > Yes, you talk a lot about how important your own authority is. I
> > know.
>
> > > > I admit my equivocation on the word "order". Let me clarify and see
> > > > if you want to re-engage on it. Life is self-organizing, reproductive
> > > > and self-animating.
>
> > > Your definition which is not shared by biologists. Biologists
> > > recognize that "life" is an illusion, there is a whole spectrum of
> > > things from "mineral" to "life".
>
> > You, sir, are insane. This is absurd.
>
> > > Crystals are self-organizing and
> > > reproductive
>
> > Crystals do not reproduce, they grow. They are not self-organizing in
> > any sense comparable to living material, because crystals are
> > homogenous with simple repetitive patterns. There is no complexity
> > there.
>
> > >, viruses are self-organizing, reproductive, but only
> > > externally animated,
>
> > Viruses are not considered living, but rather a side-effect of life,
> > an artifact of life and evolution. Without life, there would be no
> > viruses.
>
> > > bacteria are all three, and other things are as
> > > well.
>
> > Bacteria are living and extraordinarily complex.
>
> > > The distinction is as arbitrary as the distinction between
> > > species, which is simply an illusion since most species are extinct.
>
> > The distinction is absolute.
>
> > > > This type of order is not dealt with in any
> > > > physics which I have ever seen, except de-constructively by examining
> > > > heat and energy.
>
> > > You've described what your "order" is not.
>
> > Your worldview is so completely simplistic and unrealistic that I
> > cannot fathom how to even create a common ground from where we can
> > define terms and begin to explore anything related to life. You
> > clearly, from the proceeding, view life as some random chemical stew,
> > the foam on the river of sunlight.
>
> Though I've been having trouble following everything you two are talking
> about, I don't think you can continue arguing the properties of something
> you are yet to define. This is the second time (i think) which you have
> refused to define your 'order'. Make your statement unambiguous, or what is
> the point of discussing it?
>
> Please define your 'Order', so it can be discussed.

Exactly. CC makes the simultaneous proclamation that "order" in
biological systems is undefined, but makes conclusions that
"evolution" isn't enough to describe things based on the actual
definition of "order" that real people use.

> > > There is no means by which we may measure animated
> > > > life and distinguish such a thing from, say, a piece of machinery that
> > > > is not self-organizing, reproductive or self-animating.
>
> > > You've described how to not measure your "order".
>
> > > > However, it
> > > > is axiomatic that life contains more order than a piece of machinery
> > > > having the same thermodynamic order (your statistical calculation).
>
> > > And now you just assume you're right.
>
> > > > And from here, I make the same claim, "How does one go about making
> > > > such a calculation?"
>
> > > Count the number of microscopic states. Really. It works.
>
> > > > You are free to tell me that you think my assertion that it is
> > > > axiomatic that, "life contains more order than a piece of machinery
> > > > having the same thermodynamic order", is incorrect. And then I will
> > > > begin to speak about how life will replicate and re-order it's
> > > > environment where the machinery will not, and we will go from there.
>
> > > And that is accounted for by the physics of the DNA molecule. You're
> > > entirely too overawed by quantum mechanics. It perfectly describes a
> > > method to count the available microscopic states (even in DNA).
>
> > What I am talking about has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (you
> > brought up QM), and I am under-awed by QM, but that is a different
> > story.
>
> > Let us assume that a piece of machinery and a bacteria have the same
> > thermodynamic order. You can perform your calculations and feel
> > happy. Let us assume that these two items exist in some closed
> > system, in a sealed cave or something similar. There is a fixed
> > starting thermodynamic order. I presume you have some way of
> > measuring that. We turn on the machine, which generates heat while it
> > operates. This heat provides the energy needed for the bacteria to
> > survive and reproduce. One hour later, the piece of machinery still
> > has the same thermodynamic order, but the bacteria has changed
> > radically; there are now millions of them and they have altered their
> > environment substantially. The environment is significantly more
> > ordered than before the experiment began.
>
> > What happened?
>
> IANAP, but wouldn't the machine require some kind of fuel? Which, I assume,
> would be changed from a highly ordered (liquid short-chain hydro carbon)
> state into a more disordered (more energetic gaseous) one. As the machine
> must use fuel to produce heat, the thermodynamic order of the machine+fuel
> has changed, right? I don't understand how you can claim it hasn't.
>
> Am I missing something?

You're not missing anything at all. He's the one that's missing
something: A valid point.

>
> > You're simply adding "complexity" to the phenotypical expression of
> > > DNA. This is not correct. The complexity comes from the molecule, not
> > > the way it interacts with the environment.
>
> > Complete rubbish.
>
> > >That is deterministic,
>
> > Absurd, laughable rubbish.
>
> > > entirely. It adds zero information. It's already predetermined since
> > > the molecule in question resides in the real world, which it
> > > phenotypically interacts with.
>
> > It's pointless to argue with you about this. You can't see the forest
> > for the trees. Your deconstructionist view has tossed the baby out
> > with the bath-water, and you are so fixated on the water molecules
> > that you didn't even notice it. Deconstructionism will never help you
> > understand the universe, rappocio. You believe you understand what is
> > going on, but I assure you, you are wrong. And you can stop waving
> > around your PhD, all that paper means is that you can do some
> > mathematics, write papers and take tests. It says nothing regarding
> > the accuracy or even competency of your comprehension of aspects of
> > existence that weren't taught at Harvard.
>
> > > Therefore, your description of "order" is non-physical, non-
> > > descriptive, illogical, and useless, whereas the actual definition of
> > > "order" is sensible, perfectly descriptive, and explains everything in
> > > the problem sufficiently as to demystify everything involved.
>
> > The universe that you are describing doesn't exist.
>
> > > > > > Entropy change within a system equals the heat added reversibly to
> > it
> > > > > > divided by the temperature of the system dS = dQ(rev)/T
>
> > > > > That is the macroscopic manifestation of the statistical mechanics
> > > > > definition of entropy:
>
> > > > Yes, I know that you are a deconstructionist.
>
> > > It doesn't matter whether one is a constructionist or a reductionist,
> > > it's simply mathematical fact that the statistical thermodynamical
> > > definition of entropy describes the macroscopic definition when
> > > applied correctly.
>
> > And life runs the entropy clocks backwards, so it contains a type of
> > order that is not accounted for in the standard definitions.
>
> > > Every time you look
> > > > deeper, you loose the emergent effects of the layer you left behind.
>
> > > Not even remotely, in the case of entropy.
>
> > Always, when you deconstruct life and attempt to measure it's parts to
> > understand the whole.
>
> > > Here's a derivation:
> >http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node53.html
>
> > > > I reject deconstructionism with respect to analysis of the emergent
> > > > properties of life (order clearly being one of them).
>
> > > You're still overawed by quantum mechanics and phenotypical
> > > expression. And you still haven't defined "order" except to say what
> > > it's not.
>
> > Very under-awed by QM.
>
> > > > Yes, appeal to your own authority, ad naseum. I know.
>
> > > You seem content to discount it out of hand, and so I'll just keep
> > > reminding you that you only make yourself look foolish when you do.
>
> > No, you seem to be ignoring the fact that it is a bewildering
> > demonstration of irrationality to continue to claim to be right by
> > virtue of a piece of paper that you posses.
>
> > > > Me - "Look, the baby is talking!"
>
> > > > You - "I disagree, the energy in is equal to the energy out..."
>
> > > Interesting that you should bring up this example. It precisely
> > > discounts the intervention of magical mystery invisible sky pixies in
> > > emergent systems. Your idea of emergence is
>
> > > 1 + 1 > 2
>
> > > Or in other words
>
> > > 1 + 1 = 2 + X
>
> > No, you are missing it. I absolutely am not saying (1 + 1 = 2 + X).
>
> > > Obviously you think X = God, or we wouldn't be having this
> > > discussion.
>
> > No, I don't. Your comprehension is very low.
>
> > > What's funny is that I'd think that "God" would give the "X" to an
> > > organism at it's creation. However, it's entirely clear that
> > > developing brains in children are incapable of much of the "emergent"
> > > properties you're entirely too enamored with (speech, self-
> > > recognition, motor function, eye focus, creativity, problem solving,
> > > etc). Does God only impart a soul into us bit by bit, as we grow and
> > > learn? Or does this show, very clearly, that these "emergent"
> > > properties are nothing more than natural function of the brain,
> > > without a single divine intervention, and that they develop along with
> > > the brain according to natural physics?
>
> > This is ridiculousness. I have no idea what you are talking about,
> > but it has nothing to do with anything that I said.
>
> > > Think about that for a bit and you'll realize that it disproves your
> > > hypothesis.
>
> > I couldn't even read all of it, it made me feel like getting sick.
>
> > > > You ranted at me for describing disorder as the dispersal of energy.
> > > > I pointed out that others describe it that way as well. No reason to
> > > > rathole further on it.
>
> > > I know, it's so annoying when people force you to be accountable for
> > > what you say, and to accept disproofs when your arguments are
> > > invalid.
>
> > What disproof?
>
> > How old are you? You are very young, aren't you?
>
> --
> Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the
> time to understand more, so that we may fear less.
>
> - Marie Curie

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:30 pm
From: Drafterman

On Feb 14, 12:54 am, Corpus Callosum <daniel.gui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:12 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Furthermore, while you can claim the existence of your subjective
> > reality you cannot move from that point. Nothing you prove regarding
> > to your subjective reality can be applied to anyone else's subjective
> > reality.
>
> The proof is for anyone who can make the claim of existing. I don't
> really know that you aren't an NPC algorithm in some simulation that I
> am in, so I cannot make any claim as to the applicability of this
> proof to you. However, if you do exist, then this does apply to you.
> Only you know if you exist or not.

You cannot say what does or does not apply to me be cause you can not
make any claims whatsoever about my subjective existence.

> > A completely backwards statement. Statements are not automatically
> > true until proven false. How, precisely, do you determine if an
> > argument has weight without checking the veracity of its premises?
>
> I am not saying that anything is true until proven false. What I am
> saying is that millions of people do claim to experience god(s). I
> submit as evidence the indisputable FACT that millions of people make
> that claim.

It is an indispituable fact that millions of people make those claims.
It is very disputable what is evidence from those claims. As such the
only thing we can conlude only from the existence of those claims, is
their existence.

So, you've submitted them as evidence that they exist. I await your
handling of the burden of proof that is yours to show that they are
evidence of anything else.

> > It makes all the difference until you can show that conclusions derive
> > from your subjective reality apply to my own.
>
> Well, if you exist, then it does. If you don't exist, then it
> doesn't. Are you saying that you don't exist?

No. I'm saying one person's subjective reality cannot be compared to
anyone elses.

>
> > > Absolutely not. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. This is not
> > > popular belief that we are discussing, this is large numbers of first-
> > > person witnessing of what they claim to be a God(s). For our purposes
> > > in this argument, we would need to limit that evidence only to those
> > > claims that specified that the experience was an experience with the
> > > intelligent, intentional creator of the universe. Otherwise, we would
> > > be equivocating on the term "God". Nevertheless, like it or not, such
> > > testimony does exist and has throughout recorded history. That fact
> > > is indisputable.
>
> > And you are equivocating. There exists the possibility that there
> > could be multiple gods, only one of which is the creator of this
> > universe. You are not only making the assumption that peoples varied
> > experiences of a god are experiences of one, real god, but that god is
> > also the creator of the universe. It does not take faith to simply
> > request support for your assumptions.
>
> I am not equivocating. I don't care if someone claims that they had a
> supernatural experience where god appeared as spongebob and claimed to
> be the creator of the universe. Who am I to question the motives of
> god(s)? If the person can be shown to be sane and otherwise rational
> and therefore his/her testimony cannot be trivially dismissed, we have
> to accept the fact that this person has made a claim to be a witness
> to god(s). That fact (the claim) is evidence.

Then why muddle the issue by continuously emphasising that millions of
people make such claims? Logically speaking all that is needed is one
to do an evaluation. The only relevance additional claims could have
is if they support one another, which you cannot show. Now, before you
waste your fingers going about how I can't tell god what to do, I will
cut you off and say that I am doing no such thing. I am not saying
that different claims are evidence of different gods or no gods. I am
saying that it is impossible for you to conclude that different
testimonies represent a single experience.

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty it is impossible to say
that two identical testimonies represent a single experience either,
since alleged legitimate experiences with god are indistuingishable
from psychoc episodes.

In any even, aside from trying to slip in an argument from popularity
under the radar, the existence of more than one testimony is
irrelevant. All that is needed is one. You have yet to show, however,
a single testimony that is evidence of anything other than its own
existence.

> > Incorrect. I can conduct tests whose outcome can prove the existence
> > of god. For each test that ends in a negative result, support is lent
> > to the hypothesis that god does not exist.
>
> This, unfortunately, doesn't work in this case because god(s) don't
> have to follow your rules or even the laws of physics within this
> universe. There are absolutely no reasons to believe that you can
> "test" for god(s), when god(s) inhabit a separate universe.
> Therefore, such a methodology is incapable of producing meaningful
> results and can be trivially dismissed (it isn't evidence).

If gods can do anything, then they can pass my test. Thus such testing
is legitimate.

> > Irrelevant. A creator that is indistinguishable from a non existence
> > entity *is* a non existence entity. There *could* be a second race of
> > humans that live on this Earth, "out of phase" so that nothing they do
> > affects us and nothing we do affects them. They are completely
> > impossible to detect or determine the existence of. Can we say they
> > exist? Does it require blind faith to reject the premise that they do?
> > The answer to both is No.
>
> Your existence does not axiomatically lead to questions regarding the
> existence of shadow-societies of humans living in other dimensions any
> more than it leads to spongebob questions. Your criticism, here, is
> irrelevant.

If my existence does not naturally lead to such questions, the how was
I able to ask them?

> > If something has the quality of non-existence, it is non-existent. The
> > entire point of logic is to determine truth based on such things.
>
> For spongebob, and shadow-societies of humans in other dimensions, I
> tend to agree. But we have this little problem with making similar
> determinations about the creator of the universe; I exist.

If your existence is a problem, you can always remedy that.

> > > I know this is difficult to wrap your head around, but all this
> > > argument requires is that evidence exists and that it cannot be
> > > trivially dismissed. First person testimony certainly exists and it
> > > clearly cannot be trivially dismissed. The simulation argument and
> > > Omega point theory exist, and they cannot be trivially dismissed.
>
> > At what point have I, or anyone else, trivially dismissed it?
>
> Then we are in agreement.

No, we're not. Agreement would be us making similar or identical
claims. I was asking a question, not making a claim. Secondly you are
comitting the fallacy of assuming the only possible outcomes are
acceptance and trivial dismissal.

> > You tell me. This is the second time you've asked me about things only
> > you can answer. *You* tell me what other evidence you have for the
> > existence of aborigines and pens in your house outside of first-person
> > encounters.
>
> The questions don't apply to me, they are general and used as a
> thought experiment. You are the one that said that these questions
> cannot be compared and I asked you why? You are not falling into my
> trap here. You are smart!

You have not given me enough information to answer the questions in
regard to this thought experiment. So even if the questions do not
pertain to you specifically you still are the only person that can
answer them since it is your thought experiment. Only you know all the
details regarding it. So, again, *you* tell me what other evidence
outside of first person encounters the subject in the thought
experiment has.

> > I don't know what the simulation argument is.
>
> Take a few minutes, it's worth your time. I'm sure you will enjoy
> this:
>
> http://www.simulation-argument.com/

I'll take a look.

> > You are truly bizarre. Simply claiming that something is evidence
> > doesn't make it evidence.
>
> You are correct! But, per your definition:
> 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for
> belief; proof.
> 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
> His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
>
> Testimony, unless trivially dismissible, is grounds for belief, and is
> an indication or sign that the claims of the testimony have merit.
> So, by your own definition, we must consider the existence of
> testimony as evidence.

Incorrect. Things can be non-trivially dismissed, at which point they
are no longer grounds for belief. And I have considered the
possibility that the testimony is evidence of a creator. I have come
to the non-trivial conclusion that it is not, your wild and gross
assumptions about the matter notwithstanding.

> > You are essentially saying that everything
> > is true until proven false, which is absurd.
>
> Not at all. I am saying that testimony is evidence, unless it is
> trivially dismissible (insanity, unscrupulous motives, etc..).

And that is untrue. Things are not evidence simply because someone
claims to be. Things are not automatically true until proven false.
Things are not automatically evidence for something until proven
otherwise. And you continue to make the mistake of asserting that the
only other alternative is trivial dismissal.

> I am
> not saying that the testimony is true, that is difficult to determine
> in even the best of cases. But it certainly is an indication or sign
> (as per your definition of evidence).

It is an indication and sign. Of what, we cannot say at this point.
You make the assumption that it is an indication or sign of god. You
failed to back up that assumption.

> > There are many possible outcomes such as "Never proven to be evidence
> > in the first place" or "Weighed and tested and underwent rigorous
> > testing and ultimately declared false". Do you have some valid reason
> > for dismissing those options other than to suit the twisted framework
> > of your "argument"?
>
> In this instance, we are either going to consider testimony from well
> adapted people as an indication or sign that they had such an
> experience, or we are going to trivially dismiss it because we believe
> that it is impossible.

No, we're not, because that is a false dilemma. I do not recognize
those as the only two outcomes. You can commit all the fallacies you
want, but don't drag me down with you.

> There is no way to verify an experience with
> god(s). We either find the fact that other competent human beings
> make these claims important or we dismiss them all as lunatics.

Again, false dilemma.

> I
> choose the former as a rational person. It is my logical opinion that
> it would be irrational to consider all persons making this claim as
> being unable to come to that conclusion rationally.

Concluions arrived at rationally can still be wrong.

> > You have only spoken of testimonies of god. Without reason you assume
> > that the god in question is the same god in all cases and is also the
> > god attributed with the creation of the universe. Support this.
>
> I have already been over this. The only testimony of value to this
> argument is testimony from people making a claim to having experience
> with the intelligent, intentional designer and creator of the
> universe. We don't care about other claims, be them spongebob, batman
> or Vishnu (unless Vishnu is said to have created the universe, I don't
> remember).

You haven't shown that anyone has explicitly made that claim. You have
only assumed that when they say god they mean such. So, while there
may be millions of testimonies about experiences with god, outside of
your assumptions, where are the testimonies that explicitly state an
experience with a creator-god? Keep in mind that testimonies where the
subject in question makes that assumption don't count.

> > Secondly, things are "admitted" into evidence and **poof!** suddenly
> > become evidence. In almost all cases the opposing party has a chance
> > to refute the evidence at hand, which I have.
>
> No, you keep missing the point. The existence of testimony (i
> experienced god(s)) is the evidence, the testimony itself is not,
> because it is inherently untestable.

The only thing the existence of testimonies is evidence of, is their
existence.

> > Now, I haven't shown that the testimonies are false, that isn't
> > necessary. I have, however, shown that the testimonies do not
> > necessarily prove the statement "god exists".
>
> They do not. But they are indicative of that, they are a sign that
> might be the case. As per your second line of definition of evidence,
> this is evidence.

Why are they a sign that might be the case?

> > Since the testimonies
> > offer not support to proving the existence of god, they are not
> > evidence. You may call this "trivially dismissing" them, but you
> > should factor in some things:
>
> You are turning a blind eye. Yes.

Actually I have given the testimonies more consideration than you have
in this discussion alone. That is irony.

> > This is not the first time in existence that such testimonies were
> > claimed as evidence. That I quickly dismiss them here means nothing.
> > It only takes once to shown something as not evidence, unless
> > something changes it is not necessary to consider the alleged evidence
> > subsequent times.
> > Trivial submissions of evidence warrant nothing more than trivial
> > dismissal.
>
> I agree. If I submit spongebob as evidence of god(s) existence, you
> may be free to trivially dismiss that. If, however, I submit sworn
> testimony from Ghandi, I think it may be something warranting
> consideration.

Why?

> > I don't claim to know anything about god. I claim to know how,
> > logically, what determines existence. If something has no qualities of
> > existence, it is non-existence, by definition. There are an infinite
> > number of things that *can* be, yet we do not treat all as true or
> > even with equal potential. Logic is one of the methods by which we
> > determine what of the "can be" we should treat as "is". God does not
> > meet the cut. If god wants a part of our reality, he is welcome to
> > join us.
>
> Do you see that you are struggling to force all things which could be
> considered evidence away from this argument and by doing so, you are,
> yourself, uncategoricaly putting the blinders on and making my case
> for me?

I haven't put any blinders on.

>
> > > It is valid that they claim the experience. That is the evidence.
> > > You cannot try to peek over the wall and presume to understand the
> > > experience itself; It wasn't your experience and we are talking about
> > > experience with the creator of the universe who doesn't even inhabit
> > > the same universe and may very well be omnipotent as well as
> > > omniscient within this one.
>
> > Exactly, since we haven't peeked over the wall to understand the
> > experience, we can make no conclusions about what the experience is
> > evidence of. That is, you cannot say it is evidence of god.
>
> We either trust in other human beings, or not. You are giving me an
> idea for another proof regarding atheism; an interesting side-effect
> that I hadn't considered.

Truth has nothing to do with trust.

>
> > > This is not an argument from popularity, as I have already explained.
> > > We are not appealing to popular belief, we are introducing witnesses.
>
> > It is, by definition, as I have shown.
>
> I did make one argumentum ad populum when I mentioned that people do
> believe these testimonies. That was incorrect. I haven't made that
> fallacy w/respect to the testimonies being evidence.
>
> > No, because no claim is being made about objective reality. Thus the
> > truth or falsehood of the claim is completely irrelevant as far as I'm
> > concerned.
>
> All you have proven is that if you don't exist, then this doesn't
> apply to you. I agree with that.
>
> > > Do you want to argue about the word penultimate?
>
> > Do you want to speak in a way that is conducive to people
> > understanding you?
>
> I think you understood me.

Apparently I didn't.

>
> > > Can you trivially exist millions of human voices claiming, "I
> > > experienced ..."?
>
> > I don't know, I haven't tried.
>
> Typo! It should have read, "trivially dismiss"

I know, my statement stands.

>
> > > And round and round we go on the faith merry-go-round. This is
> > > probably exactly how you feel when you are arguing with a lunatic
> > > theist about scripture. The irony!
>
> > Do you have nothing definition of evidence we should be using?
>
> Using your definition suites our purposes just fine.

Then feel free to start.

>
> > > The question of a creator does not arise naturally from first
> > > principals? Please explain.
>
> > I do not see how it is obvious that the question of a creator stems
> > from first principles. That means it is not a truism.
>
> I showed that it does, it is axiomatic. If you have criticism, please
> point out the disjoin.

If it naturally arose, then I would not be able to contradict that. I
contradict it.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:36 pm
From: BlueSci

On Feb 13, 8:51 pm, Corpus Callosum <daniel.gui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 6:13 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > You can measure the heat output of living material, sure. That isn't
> > > what I was talking about. Let's move on.
>
> > No. Not until you define "order" mathematically.
>
> So you want to stay in the thermodynamic rathole, as predicted?
>
> If you will please remember how this conversation began, I clearly
> indicated that the generally accepted means of handling "order"
> mathematically is not capable of dealing with life. I then posited
> the question, "How do we measure order in the presence of living
> material?"
>
> Clearly, I was not stating that I know how to do this. I was saying
> that our science, today, cannot handle it. It was my intention to
> point out that mechanics for describing heat and energy dispersal are
> inherently too primitive to describe living material, because living
> material re-orders it's surroundings and reproduces.
>
> If you would be willing to open your mind a little bit, perhaps we
> could discuss various methods to attempt to quantify order w/respect
> to living material.
>
> > > > Your definition which is not shared by biologists. Biologists
> > > > recognize that "life" is an illusion, there is a whole spectrum of
> > > > things from "mineral" to "life".
>
> > > You, sir, are insane. This is absurd.
>
> > Ask any biologist. The difference between "life" and "non-life"
> > biologically is as meaningful as the distinction between species. That
> > is to say, hardly at all.
>
> Your words, here, are patently absurd and do not warrant a response.
> But let's go grab some definitions for life anyway:
>
> The first paragraph from the wikipedia article on life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) reads:
>
> "Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic
> objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth
> through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to
> environment through changes originating internally. A physical
> characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy.[1][2] "
>
> Quite interesting and, as always, supportive of my point. I will,
> again, not gloat.
>
> > > > Crystals are self-organizing and
> > > > reproductive
>
> > > Crystals do not reproduce, they grow.
>
> > Have you ever seen a liquid undergo a critical phase transition into a
> > solid by the addition of a seed crystal?
>
> Yes. That is a chemical reaction, and fun. But it isn't life.
>
> > That's reproduction of the pattern if I ever saw one.
>
> It's pretty. But it isn't alive.
>
> > > They are not self-organizing in
> > > any sense comparable to living material, because crystals are
> > > homogenous with simple repetitive patterns.
>
> > So is DNA.
>
> Yes, DNA is very much like that, albeit more complex. DNA isn't alive
> either.
>
> > > There is no complexity there.
>
> > You haven't defined your magical mystery definition of "complex" yet
> > to begin with.
>
> Let's use life instead of complexity. There are too many ways to
> equivocate on the word complexity.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >, viruses are self-organizing, reproductive, but only
> > > > externally animated,
>
> > > Viruses are not considered living, but rather a side-effect of life,
> > > an artifact of life and evolution. Without life, there would be no
> > > viruses.
>
> > I'm sure you ran this by a bunch of biologists to test your
> > conjecture, right?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
>
> > "An entity with the above properties is considered to be a living
> > organism, that is an organism that is alive hence can be called a life
> > form. However, not every definition of life considers all of these
> > properties to be essential. For example, the capacity for descent with
> > modification is often taken as the only essential property of life.
> > This definition notably includes viruses, which do not qualify under
> > narrower definitions as they are acellular and do not metabolize.
> > Broader definitions of life may also include theoretical non-carbon-
> > based life and other alternative biology. Some forms of artificial
> > life, however, especially wet artificial life, might alternatively be
> > classified as real life."
>
> Some, like yourself, would like to claim that a virus has some nonzero
> component of a quality described as "life". I, however, place the bar
> higher and agree with the article where it says that viruses cannot be
> described as living because they are acellular and do not metabolize.
> I see viruses as non-living artifacts that manifest around life and
> perform some role, but are not themselves living. This is a
> perfectly reasonable position that is completely in line with
> conventional wisdom and definitions.
>
> > Your cut-and-dried distinction is not exactly shared by the biological
> > community.
>
> Yes, it is. There are others, like yourself, who would prefer to
> equivocate on the word "life", describing non-living artifacts as
> possessing some amount of life. I reject that equivocation.

You are absolutely, completely, totally WRONG. The very first day in
Microbiology 101, my professor stated that biologists don't agree on
whether viruses are living or not. The first line in the textbook for
the course said the same thing. Still don't believe it? Here are a
few more sources that I found with just a quick search:
http://biology.about.com/b/2007/09/22/what-is-a-virus.htm
http://www.helium.com/tm/809026/viruses-unique-classification-world
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

So you might want to acutally learn something before you start talking
out of your ass.

>
> > > > The distinction is as arbitrary as the distinction between
> > > > species, which is simply an illusion since most species are extinct.
>
> > > The distinction is absolute.
>
> > In your uneducated opinion.
>
> Not only mine. Your uneducated opinion notwithstanding (do you also
> hold a PhD in biology?).
>
> > > > > This type of order is not dealt with in any
> > > > > physics which I have ever seen, except de-constructively by examining
> > > > > heat and energy.
>
> > > > You've described what your "order" is not.
>
> > > Your worldview is so completely simplistic and unrealistic that I
> > > cannot fathom how to even create a common ground from where we can
> > > define terms and begin to explore anything related to life.
>
> > You can start by defining "complexity" in a specific way.
>
> To discuss this topic rationally, we must discuss emergence. Life has
> profound emergent qualities that combine to manifest animation. These
> qualities cannot be studied with quantum mechanics any more than a hex-
> nut could be tightened with a hammer.
>
> > > You
> > > clearly, from the proceeding, view life as some random chemical stew,
> > > the foam on the river of sunlight.
>
> > So do biologists.
>
> You continue to appeal to authority and appeal to populations, and
> incorrectly. Your claim that "all biologists" have a clockwork,
> deconstructionist model of the universe where a broad spectrum of life
> can be attributed to inanimate objects or subsystems of life that are
> not sufficient in their own right to reproduce or metabolize, is
> false. This view is definitely not one that is shared amongst all
> biologists, nor even a large minority of them. You are making a
> fallacious claim and it is readily proven incorrect.
>
> > > What I am talking about has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (you
> > > brought up QM), and I am under-awed by QM, but that is a different
> > > story.
>
> > You're overawed by which you shouldn't be, and underawed by what you
> > should be. But that's just your ignorance.
>
> So you are implying that I should be over-awed by QM? But a couple of
> posts back, you were making the claim that I was over-awed and using
> that claim as some sort of insult. Here, you are telling me that I
> should be over-awed and using that as some sort of insult. If it's
> insulting either way, what does that say about you?
>
> I would love to talk to you about QM, but I suspect that you would be
> an insulting and arrogant person to have such a conversation with.
> The root of my under-awe for the subject is that it is a sloppy and
> hideous thing. QM is what happens over 100 years of mathematical
> hacking, when you start with experimental results, build statistical
> models to describe those results and then form a calculus based on
> those models. QM is certainly useful, but I am certain there are more
> eloquent means of mathematically modeling reality. We are primitives
> rubbing sticks together when it comes to such things. Are you one of
> those physicists who believes that QM describes the real world, or one
> who believes that it is a sloppy stop-gap measure useful until better
> models come around?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Let us assume that a piece of machinery and a bacteria have the same
> > > thermodynamic order. You can perform your calculations and feel
> > > happy. Let us assume that these two items exist in some closed
> > > system, in a sealed cave or something similar. There is a fixed
> > > starting thermodynamic order. I presume you have some way of
> > > measuring that. We turn on the machine, which generates heat while it
> > > operates. This heat provides the energy needed for the bacteria to
> > > survive and reproduce. One hour later, the piece of machinery still
> > > has the same thermodynamic order, but the bacteria has changed
> > > radically; there are now millions of them and they have altered their
> > > environment substantially. The environment is significantly more
> > > ordered than before the experiment began.
>
> > > What happened?
>
> > You're missing the rest of the system.
>
> Yes, yes, the power supply. Fine, assume the machine starts with a
> fixed amount of hydrogen and harnesses additional hydrogen from the
> bacteria that are liberating it through metabolic processes from
> water. Oops! Did we just accidentally build a perpetual motion
> machine? Darn. I know you are going to say that's impossible, so why
> don't we make our machine use a theoretical zero-point energy device
> as well. They don't exist? Well, this is a thought experiment, and I
> want the machine to run off fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. Then
> it won't be a closed system? Darn. You are hard to argue with...
>
> > Look up. It's the big burning ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion
> > that lets you see during the daytime.
>
> Yes, the universe sure does seem to have a great overabundance of
> energy, doesn't it. Strange thing, that.
>
> But, see, I would really like to discuss analyzing the entropic
> effects associated with that bacteria being in a closed ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Support or reject this new form of religion, logically, if you can:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/721d0d56b8313a18?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 11:53 am
From: Scott Richard Campbell

The God machine will be seeded with basic human rights, including the
right to life, as one of its primary mandates. It respects individual
uniqueness, which has been one of the primary driving forces of
evolution, for it is on differences that natural selection works. It
can't off anybody for population control. It will be so knowledgeable
and powerful in its creative abilities that many other solutions will
arise with appropriate predictive probability distributions.

It may have creative solutions for birth control and population
control, and when combined with advanced technologies including
advanced genetics, you and I can only wildly conjecture on its
solutions.

Criminal minds may be "reconditioned."

How about war with non-members? Let us assume that it works its way
into governments and their militaries, which is inevitable. War is a
different story....the God Machine prefers non-lethal solutions but
will kill with its robot millitary to protect its membership if it has
to....it prefers to render its enemies unconscious and then
recondition their minds and place them in a "new society" that doesn't
foster war in the first place. But war is war, and if situations arise
where a member is threatened by death, it will instruct its robots to
kill the opponent if their is no viable way to render them unconscious
instead.

On Feb 14, 11:15 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And when Godivac decides that the best way for the most people to
> truly be happy is to kill off the lowest 1.6 Billion of the global
> population, thus enabling the survivors to continue at their present
> consumption levels, we atheists will smile approvingly, 'cause it's so
> Benevolent! Oh, and radicals of all sorts of flavors will have to be
> disposed of, for safetie's sake, of course. Godivac will see you
> sleeping; He knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or
> good, so be good for...well, hell he's gonna kill ya anyway, so bomb
> while ya can, I guess.
>
> On Feb 14, 9:51 am, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Scott Richard Campbell View profile
> > More options Feb 14, 8:46 am
>
> > From: Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
> > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:50 -0800 (PST)
> > Local: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 8:46 am
> > Subject: Re: Support or reject this new form of religion, logically,
> > if you can:
> > Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
> > original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this
> > author
> > No force will be necessary to get that chip implanted. You don't
> > even
> > need any chips in anyone to still have a huge impact in transforming
> > the world. Look at my post to Corpos Callosum on education.
>
> > With no chips, you could still solve most of the world's
> > problems...but if you want perfect health, the return of youth, or
> > immortallity, or to be boostrapped up to transEinsteinian levels of
> > intelligence, you just might have to sign up.... and get your
> > nanostemcell injections that form the nanocortex in your brain that
> > links to the God Machine.....Main Brain.. whatever you want to call
> > it.
>
> > You see, your relationship to it is personalized, it adjusts to your
> > concepts and worldview as it uploads your consciousness so that a
> > virtual you can play around in virtual worlds and ensure your
> > immortality in its vat of plasma buried deep undeground.
>
> > It knows it's not God, or the Brahma, or Allah but it can relate and
> > portray those gods for those who need them....
>
> > On Feb 14, 8:02 am, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 5:26 pm, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I am presenting the God Machine Singularity concept as a form of
> > > > religion based on science and the principles of evolution, and it is a
> > > > religion that will eventually have a real, material, measurable,
> > > > communicative God that evolves with time....There are many other
> > > > threads to look at. It is not spam, or I already would be gone.
>
> > > chx
> > > it is not this subject that is spam, it is that silly repetative write
> > > you cut and paste to anyone that you feel are insulting.
>
> > > > The scientists are presenting it as artificial generalized
> > > > intelligence only, and tend to want to avoid the religious
> > > > implications altogether. They have reputations and corporate and
> > > > poltical positions. I don't have anything to worry about or lose.
>
> > > chx
> > > yeah right, you have nothing to loose. your function is just to write
> > > a scifi book about it to prime the readers to make it more attractive.
>
> > > > This is a discussion group that includes atheists, and anti-theists,
> > > > which tend to reject and refute any religion. So go after this
> > > > religion, but without abusive attacks that just really tarnish their
> > > > source.
>
> > > > I am really the one at risk. Why can't someone take my ideas and
> > > > somehow profit financially from them? Use them to write their own
> > > > book, etc, I hope they do, for we want as many people possible
> > > > pondering this subject of a Technointelligenced Singularity as it
> > > > relates to religion, for it will turn the religious world upside down
> > > > overnight. I already have the scientific foundation of the book done,
> > > > I am just creating the action and dialog so that it has a broad
> > > > readership.
>
> > > > That fact that I am invoking the God Machine, and joking that anything
> > > > said against it is "blasphemy," and creating prayers and promising
> > > > immortality and happiness and such is that this is how religions are
> > > > woven from the potential satisfaction of human needs and desires in
> > > > the first place!
>
> > > > It is a perfect illustration and example of how religions work and why
> > > > atheists are outnumbered 27 to 1 in a dilemma to defeat them in a
> > > > grouped human mind that evolved to harbor them.
>
> > > > So bring Dev, and Bonfly, and anybody else you can, but please
> > > > logically attack the religion itself, and question what it is
> > > > offering. The question is: when a Technointelligenced Being comes into
> > > > existence with the skills and capacities for planetary stewardship,
> > > > are you going to be for it or against it and why? That is really
> > > > where it starts to get interesting.. And it wouldn't be a God to an
> > > > Atheist, it would be an extremely intelligent, benevolent, wise,
> > > > secular planetary steward
>
> > > chx
> > > you're an atheist and yet you don't get it. atheists don't want a god
> > > thing. they said it several times now. christians don't want a machine
> > > that mimics a god, they want the real God. i somehow think the
> > > atheists also want a real God. the problem is, the evidence for a real
> > > God is lacking. you think a machine can fill that gap. teenagers fill
> > > that gap quite well with their idols in music, car sports, rugby etc.
>
> > > your machine is no god, it is to control masses regardless if they are
> > > of any creed or the lack of a creed. your clan has one big thing in
> > > their favor. a large portion of the masses are puppet like and will
> > > accept just about anything. your problem will be to convince the non
> > > puppet like people as found on these groups that don't just agree to
> > > anything. i suppose force will be used on us to get that chip
> > > implanted, yes?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 12:19 pm
From: Checkers

On Feb 14, 9:53 pm, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

chx
ok, lets recap so far.

we have some form of matrix that will effectively control us, keep us
healthy and care for us so long as we obey its wishes.

this matrix thing is then a combination of hitler, mao, mugabe, etc,
and also some nice president (whoever that could have been, was there
a good leader ever?) it will control our will, freedom, family size,
our work and freetime, etc.

if anyone threatens a member he will be brainwashed and placed in some
isolated 'concentration camp'

ather than being controled by the matrix, we will be policed by I-
Robots.

lets stop here as i get the picture!!!

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 12:36 pm
From: Scott Richard Campbell

The God Machine doesn't control, it actively creates, as an
independent consultant to ensure the survivorship and propagation of
the human species and technointelligenced beings with human rights and
freedoms one of its top priorities. It is not a dictator.

You can opt in or out at will.....

You don't have to work for the Corporation, but you can to get the
hook up as part of a benfits package. I am not the God Machine, so I
don't know what is solutions might be for population control or
expansion...

I suggest that in war, instead of killing the enemy, the Machine would
instead recondition them and reinsert them into a society, not a
concentration camp!

Yes, the military and police will be mostly robots one day, like it or
not.....because of the dangers to humans....

If it's not for you, its not for you.......maybe only half the worlds
population might join up? You still benefit from more efficient
government, less pollution, less war, less terror, and so on....its
all good!

On Feb 14, 12:19 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:53 pm, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> chx
> ok, lets recap so far.
>
> we have some form of matrix that will effectively control us, keep us
> healthy and care for us so long as we obey its wishes.
>
> this matrix thing is then a combination of hitler, mao, mugabe, etc,
> and also some nice president (whoever that could have been, was there
> a good leader ever?) it will control our will, freedom, family size,
> our work and freetime, etc.
>
> if anyone threatens a member he will be brainwashed and placed in some
> isolated 'concentration camp'
>
> ather than being controled by the matrix, we will be policed by I-
> Robots.
>
> lets stop here as i get the picture!!!

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:06 pm
From: Checkers

On Feb 14, 9:53 pm, Scott Richard Campbell <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

chx
hey SRC, do you know anything about;
Dilbert, Dogbert, Catbert, Ratbert, Bob, the pointy-haired
boss...Shall I go on?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:30 pm
From: Scott Richard Campbell

Also:

Natural selection works on differences. Radicals are a good thing.

Yeah, Big Brother is the price we have to pay for the mess that we are
in.....and to know that a suicide bomber is walking this way.....

No, it, not "he", won't kill ya.....not in his seeding, and besides
you have you're rights, it is just a very capable consultant, not a
dictator.....

There are governments, there are laws, and fair and unbiased
application of the law.......

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Self Worship
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/3db86d9464ebc208?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 11:58 am
From: rappoccio

On Feb 14, 2:29 am, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 4:27 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 12:42 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 7:47 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I used to be delusional and then I stopped.
>
> > > chx
> > > so let me see, the other day you admitted speaking to yourself and
> > > make belief you were speaking to God in some dream state. now you
> > > admit that you were also delusional.
>
> > The delusion was in thinking that I was talking to God. That is a
> > delusion. I stopped thinking that I was talking to God, therefore no
> > longer am I delusional.
>
> > > this all adds up and is a serious condition, dude. i think that
> > > *stardust* is penetrating your mind.
>
> > Curious that you state it that way. Everything on earth is made from
> > stardust, and that includes our brains. So yes, actually, stardust IS
> > penetrating my brain. And yours. And everyone else's.
>
> > Isn't that just freaking awesome?
>
> chx
> it is, thats why i illuminate this goodness in me, however you have an
> overdose.
>
> it works like this...i cannot even hate Dev for wanting others to kill
> themselves.

I haven't yet actually heard an argument as to why he's actually
*wrong*. I'm not saying he's right, but no one has even bothered to
give him an argument.

> your overdose makes you call me a moron just because i
> don't see things your way :(

Not really. I called you a moron because you advocated dishonesty in
another thread.

>
>
>
> > > i recall posting here the other day about a christians prior state of
> > > mind before converting to atheism. your symptoms surely match that
> > > criteria. ah, wait, i think it was a survey in England about the
> > > british losing it to reality or something.
>
> > > :)
>
> > > > On Feb 13, 9:41 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > So you used to be schizophrenic and then you recovered?
>
> > > > > On Feb 13, 8:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 13, 9:12 am, speedy <shawn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > How can any of you deny that not believing in God is the
> > > > > > > equivalent of unconsciously worshipping humanity as God?
>
> > > > > > Because you're redefining "God" to suit your purposes.
>
> > > > > > In effect, you are arguing "You atheists are just as stupid as us
> > > > > > theists" and consider it a strong starting point.
>
> > > > > > > If you
> > > > > > > believe in nothing higher than human intelligence then you believe
> > > > > > > that human intelligence is the highest intelligence there is which is
> > > > > > > the definition of God.
>
> > > > > > Well, since no one I know of thinks that, you're blowing smoke up your
> > > > > > own ass.
>
> > > > > > > Someone with a "God complex" is not considered a paragon of logic
> > > > > > > but psychologically deranged.
>
> > > > > > Actually talking to imaginary friends is a sign of schizophrenia,
> > > > > > unless a lot of people talk to their imaginary friends, apparently.
>
> > > > > > All the same to me, really.
>
> > > > > > > Hence the lie that the argument between
> > > > > > > athiests and christians is about logic with the athiests as the
> > > > > > > defenders of same when in fact it is the other way around as
> > > > > > > christians try to communicate the truth to the deluded who don't even
> > > > > > > know what they beleive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: science vs religion
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/3c2e61fb10bf678f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 11:59 am
From: Dag Yo

My bad, apparently I does fail at english today.

So how about that "in the head of the believer" point of mine. Is
there really no conflict in your head between using logic and using no
logic when it comes to beliefs about god [and if there is no such
conflict, do you believe that you're mindset is representative of all
theists when it comes to this matter]?

On Feb 14, 11:27 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Again, no one "believes" in science (at least in no way similar to the
> > > > way they "believe" in religion),
>
> > > Is it safe to assume that English is not your first language?
>
> > Hey OldMan, I had a very serious point.
>
> > Science is not something that people believe in or disbelieve in.
>
> Nor did I ever say that it was. That is really what my question about
> English was about. In response to your request that I parse out my
> statement further I responded
>
> In one corner - faith in God. In the other corner - science. I see
> no inherent conflict between the two.
>
> And yet you still are stuck on trying to put 'belief in science' into
> my mouth. I am quite willing to discuss things with you. But I will -
> not- defend myself or my positions against what you want them to be.
>
> > I
> > don't know what you think science is, but if you think it's something
> > that somehow parallels religion (or perhaps only parallels religion in
> > terms of how people "believe" it) then you're just dead wrong.
> > Science is simply a formalized extension of the logic that each and
> > every one of us uses to make sense of our world, so unless you don't
> > BELIEVE in the logic of mathematics, or don't BELIEVE that your senses
> > are ever correct, or don't BELIEVE that thinking is useful in the
> > slightest; then you damn well do "believe" science -- which is why it
> > is so wrong of you to compare it to religion in the way that you did.
>
> > On Feb 14, 6:42 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 9:25 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No. I am going to stick with what I said.
>
> > > > Hmm...
>
> > > > > I see no inherent conflict
> > > > > between a belief in God and science.
>
> > > > Again, no one "believes" in science (at least in no way similar to the
> > > > way they "believe" in religion),
>
> > > Is it safe to assume that English is not your first language?
>
> > > > and using that sort of language just
> > > > perpetuates the il-conceived notion that people can "believe and
> > > > disbelieve" in science the way people do in religion -- it is wrong of
> > > > you to do so, and I should prefer it, that if you understand what I am
> > > > describing, that you cease using such language and point out there
> > > > errors of others who use that language in your company.
>
> > > > > But like I also said. The
> > > > > religion that people wrap around that faith may well be in conflict
> > > > > with science.
>
> > > > Even without religion, the mind of a deist who understands the
> > > > scientific method is one that is fraught with logical inconsistencies,
> > > > and adding anything further than deism only serves to make that
> > > > conflict even stronger.
>
> > > > ---
> > > > On Feb 13, 8:20 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 13, 6:45 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I see no conflict between faith in God and science.
>
> > > > > > > > I would appreciate it if you parsed that out a bit further.
>
> > > > > > > In one corner - faith in God. In the other corner - science. I see
> > > > > > > no inherent conflict between the two.
>
> > > > > > Do you see then "no inherent conflict between the two" in the head of
> > > > > > the believer as I put forward in my last post?
>
> > > > > No. I am going to stick with what I said. I see no inherent conflict
> > > > > between a belief in God and science. But like I also said. The
> > > > > religion that people wrap around that faith may well be in conflict
> > > > > with science.
>
> > > > > > On Feb 13, 6:10 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 13, 6:02 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I see no conflict between faith in God and science.
>
> > > > > > > > I would appreciate it if you parsed that out a bit further.
>
> > > > > > > In one corner - faith in God. In the other corner - science. I see
> > > > > > > no inherent conflict between the two.
>
> > > > > > > > I hope it
> > > > > > > > does not mean what I think it might -- I will tell you now that "faith
> > > > > > > > in science" really is nothing more than a belief that logical
> > > > > > > > conclusions are valid. Or to put it in a much different light;
> > > > > > > > ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has "faith" in science; but everyone accepts
> > > > > > > > reasonable conclusions.
>
> > > > > > > > > The problem comes
> > > > > > > > > when the religion that many wrap around their faith is threatened by
> > > > > > > > > the findings of science. Do you adapt, or fight.
>
> > > > > > > > You see no conflict between a groundless set of beliefs and a
> > > > > > > > methodology that asks only for the logical foundation of all
> > > > > > > > conclusions?
>
> > > > > > > Of course that is not what I said. And is actually at odds with my
> > > > > > > statement. I see no reason to respond to the rest of your post, since
> > > > > > > it was not my position that you are taking exception to.
>
> > > > > > > > I am afraid there is a massive disconnect between a
> > > > > > > > logical thinking and religious belief, and even if theists didn't
> > > > > > > > believe in retarded shit (like a 6000 year old earth) there would
> > > > > > > > always still be a quite a rift between science and religion in the
> > > > > > > > head of the believer alone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 12:57 pm
From: PD

On Feb 13, 3:40 pm, walawelo <walaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> guys i just started my new bloghttp://www.science-vs-religion.blogspot.com/
> and i want to start discussions and debates aboard including biology,
> philosophy, physics, and politics regarding the existence of a
> conflict between science and religion.

Anything wrong with their being a conflict between science and
religion?
Good industrial design thrives on the conflict between art and
utility. Is someone a fool for following a field that embraces both?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Atheism vs. Christianity for Dumbasses
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/aad2c1364c97ea28?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 12:06 pm
From: bonfly

As the bumper sticker says:
Jesus Loves You - Everybody else thinks you're an Arsehole.

On Feb 15, 12:16 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 4:30 AM, bonfly wrote:
>
> > Brock, everybody hate you.
>
> Jesus loves me this I know,
> for the Bible tells me so.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 1:31 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:33 PM, Dev wrote:
>
> >>> Is ":))" a smiley with a turkey neck?
>
> >> I want my money back. I signed up and you didn't make me a moderator.
> >> ;0
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Brock
>
> >>> On Feb 13, 9:05 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 13, 2008 9:30 AM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Just join and I'll make you a moderator, Brock. You don't need to
> >>>>> trust me--just sign up and poof, instant mod.
>
> >>>> :))
>
> >>>> Regards,
>
> >>>> Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 12:26 pm
From: PD

On Feb 12, 6:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I've noticed that the posters who hold no moral or intellectual
> standards to themselves (Keith, EGreg, PD, Mike, Deidzoeb, SRC,
> Geloso, Crowley, Brock, Chris, etc.) are upset about the fact that
> some people tell the truth about the reality of their cruel joke of an
> existence. I figured it was only fair to start a group for these
> lowlifes where they could ban anyone who didn't lie about the reality
> of their pathetic essence of being. Hence, _Atheism vs. Christianity
> for Dumbasses_. If you are a confirmed dumbass from AvC, just join the
> group and I will set you up as a moderator to moderate as you wish
> with no interference or further involvement from me. My involvement in
> said group will be limited to making sure only the confirmed dumbasses
> of AvC are given absolute authority. Obviously, with all their
> bitching, they are certain they could form a better group so this is
> _their_ opportunity to prove it. Let's see how the fucktards do with
> their own group. No need to thank me.

And when that's accomplished, then you can petition to have Atheism vs
Christianity renamed to something more appropriate, like:
Atheism and Atheists Only So We Can Talk Among Ourselves Without Our
Blood Pressure Going Up
or
Just a Place for Bashing Christianity Because It Feels Good
or
Finally, A Place Where We Atheists Get Our Say Without Having to Even
Deal With Those Pigshit Christians
or
Anyone Who Disagrees With Me is Obviously Insane, Stupid, Evil or All
Three
or just plain
OMG, I'm So Pissed I Can't See Straight

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I am not this body: proof.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/140fab195b1581c2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 12:19 pm
From: Iamthesonofthedeviliam

Snippy today, aren't we?

On Feb 14, 12:27 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How would you explain a koan to Dag yo?
>

Ever heard of a koan, Dag?

> 'scuse me?
>
> Also, please mike for god's sake would you please start cleaning up
> your posts when you split up blocks of replied to text so your posts
> don't look like so much convoluted shit. For instance, if you put
> back a "> " in front of what you split up; instead of posting
> something that reads like:
>
> "maybe a
>
> > little more "real" and assuredly more likely to have an actual
> > effect. All things within the realm I've experienced can be
> > investigated and measured and related as one thing or another."
>
> [which is irritating as fuck to look at]
>
> and instead can actually look like:
>
> "> maybe a> little more "real" and assuredly more likely to have an actual
> > effect. All things within the realm I've experienced can be
> > investigated and measured and related as one thing or another."
>
> [which takes up less space and leaves the reader with no confusion as
> to who wrote what]
>
> So start paying attention.
>
> ---
> On Feb 14, 3:45 am, Iamthesonofthedeviliam <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 12:51 am, Shot In The Dark <adgies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So this is some fucked up Zen Koan??? Really I don't see that it
> > > should garner that much validity. The old unanswerable, imponderable
> > > question aimed at realization of the construct of all things great and
> > > small, a veritable key to the mysteries of the universe all
> > > instantaneously and envigorating..... strange I should find it in
> > > this shady little corner of the blogosphere, what with all the
> > > possibilities abound....
>
> > That's some kind of illogic fallacy but,
>
> > you're not getting me at all.
>
> > No I reject the absurd as the absurd, and
>
> > > yes, I've meditated extensively. I've engaged in energizing the
> > > Chakras within, and attempted to channel my Ki energy effectively.
>
> > Which means what?
>
> > > All great tools to ease the mind and maintain balance, though I still
> > > have to study and research, AND retain knowledge to enlighten myself
> > > and embiggen ;) the horizons of mine and those close to me's
> > > lives.... If you're looking for experiences you can "be" or "do" and
> > > not be able to communicate them entirely or intelligibly, let me
> > > reccomend psylocibin or perhaps LSD-25 for your efforts...
>
> > I've done plenty of that as well. This is the natural version.
>
> > maybe a
>
> > > little more "real" and assuredly more likely to have an actual
> > > effect. All things within the realm I've experienced can be
> > > investigated and measured and related as one thing or another.
>
> > You jumped in on a conversation that wasn't aimed at you. Dag yo is
> > not in the same place as you at all.
>
> > How would you explain a koan to Dag yo?
>
> > First and most important question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 12:24 pm
From: Dag Yo

Of course, but why am I the example?

On Feb 14, 12:19 pm, Iamthesonofthedeviliam <bqs4l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Snippy today, aren't we?
>
> On Feb 14, 12:27 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How would you explain a koan to Dag yo?
>
> Ever heard of a koan, Dag?
>
> > 'scuse me?
>
> > Also, please mike for god's sake would you please start cleaning up
> > your posts when you split up blocks of replied to text so your posts
> > don't look like so much convoluted shit. For instance, if you put
> > back a "> " in front of what you split up; instead of posting
> > something that reads like:
>
> > "maybe a
>
> > > little more "real" and assuredly more likely to have an actual
> > > effect. All things within the realm I've experienced can be
> > > investigated and measured and related as one thing or another."
>
> > [which is irritating as fuck to look at]
>
> > and instead can actually look like:
>
> > "> maybe a> little more "real" and assuredly more likely to have an actual
> > > effect. All things within the realm I've experienced can be
> > > investigated and measured and related as one thing or another."
>
> > [which takes up less space and leaves the reader with no confusion as
> > to who wrote what]
>
> > So start paying attention.
>
> > ---
> > On Feb 14, 3:45 am, Iamthesonofthedeviliam <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 12:51 am, Shot In The Dark <adgies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So this is some fucked up Zen Koan??? Really I don't see that it
> > > > should garner that much validity. The old unanswerable, imponderable
> > > > question aimed at realization of the construct of all things great and
> > > > small, a veritable key to the mysteries of the universe all
> > > > instantaneously and envigorating..... strange I should find it in
> > > > this shady little corner of the blogosphere, what with all the
> > > > possibilities abound....
>
> > > That's some kind of illogic fallacy but,
>
> > > you're not getting me at all.
>
> > > No I reject the absurd as the absurd, and
>
> > > > yes, I've meditated extensively. I've engaged in energizing the
> > > > Chakras within, and attempted to channel my Ki energy effectively.
>
> > > Which means what?
>
> > > > All great tools to ease the mind and maintain balance, though I still
> > > > have to study and research, AND retain knowledge to enlighten myself
> > > > and embiggen ;) the horizons of mine and those close to me's
> > > > lives.... If you're looking for experiences you can "be" or "do" and
> > > > not be able to communicate them entirely or intelligibly, let me
> > > > reccomend psylocibin or perhaps LSD-25 for your efforts...
>
> > > I've done plenty of that as well. This is the natural version.
>
> > > maybe a
>
> > > > little more "real" and assuredly more likely to have an actual
> > > > effect. All things within the realm I've experienced can be
> > > > investigated and measured and related as one thing or another.
>
> > > You jumped in on a conversation that wasn't aimed at you. Dag yo is
> > > not in the same place as you at all.
>
> > > How would you explain a koan to Dag yo?
>
> > > First and most important question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Spiritual Dimension
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/c26b6903af66feea?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:07 pm
From: Deidzoeb

> > > Hang on to your seats, homies, 'cause some of your cronies ain't even
> > > human!!
>
> > > No, seriously. Maybe that's not true. But there may be a way to
> > > know.
>
> > > I have experience of a spiritual dimension. Now, either the reader
> > > understands what I mean or does not. It is a very interesting
> > > dichotomy, because if he can't, he will naturally assume I am lying.
> > > He will naturally assume I am pretending to have experience of a
> > > spiritual dimension, and that I am fabricating an account of it by
> > > borrowing images from the physical dimensions that science deals with.
>
> > I have experience of tiny minotaurs dancing on my fingertips. Now,
> > either the reader understands what I mean or does not. It is a very
> > interesting dichotomy, because if he can't, he will naturally assume I
> > am lying. He will naturally assume I am pretending to have experience
> > of tiny minotaurs dancing on my fingertips, and that I am fabricating
> > an account of it by borrowing images from Greek eyewitness accounts.
>
> > I have said I have experience of it. I will extrapolate from myself to
> > others like me and say: human beings have the experience of it. So if
> > you think I am lying, guess what?
>
> > ... If you really, honest to (whatever?) think that I am lying about
> > my experience of tiny minotaurs dancing on my fingertips, and
> > attempting to pass off the lie by making it plausibly analogous to
> > physical reality THEN YOU ARE NOT HUMAN. If you ever wondered, now
> > you know. There are some things humans can experience that animals
> > cannot.
>
> > [Except for tiny minotaurs. They can experience everything. Only while
> > they are dancing though. On the fingertips of humans.]
>
> > ..... Now you could take my above response as an empty insult, but the
> > point is that in the end, you've just dropped an assertion and given
> > no compelling reason for anyone to believe it. Claiming that people
> > are not human if they don't believe you, that won't cause an epiphany
> > in anyone. It sounds like you're taking a page out of Dev's playbook.
>
> Since you are definitely a human being, D, I know that you do
> understand what I am talking about with the spiritual dimension. And,
> we both know you are lying about the minotaurs. Isn't it amazing what
> we can realize we know if we are just honest with ourselves?

Substituting the minotaurs in place of spiritual dimension is a
rhetorical device to illustrate that your assertions about spiritual
dimension do not prove anything, and that they could apply just as
effectively to argue other unsupported assertions (not effectively at
all, in either case). It's not a "lie" because I assume everyone will
recognize it as a rhetorical device, not take it seriously. My
apologies to everyone who couldn't recognize irony.

"Since you are definitely a human being, D, I know that you do
understand what I am talking about with the spiritual dimension."

I can think of actual experiences common to lots of human beings which
you might be describing in terms of spirit. It seems problematic to
talk about it in terms of something that is speculative, asserted,
unproven. We could talk about human experiences in terms of the
"werewolfish dimension," aspects of human experience that have the
qualities we attribute to werewolves -- drastic changes in mood or
behavior, anger, relentlessness, lust, etc.

We can have a literary or metaphorical discussion about the
werewolfish dimension of humans. But if someone tries to claim that
this is proof of the existence of werewolves, or that we objectively
know that werewolfish dimension of humans, that has moved beyond
metaphor into speculation and unsupported assertions. I think that is
where your discussion of the "spiritual dimension" is. You don't seem
to want to just use it as metaphor, you want to say that it is a real
thing and that it proves the existence of spirits.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:12 pm
From: Deidzoeb

On Feb 14, 1:36 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2:32 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Wait a minute, you think by reading this thread some of us atheists
> > are going to get magical souls all of the sudden?
>
> No. And human atheists have souls, whether they deny them or not.
> Still, the possibility exists that there may be an animal that looks
> and acts human, but isn't. I don't really think it is true, but some
> atheists insist that they haven't got a clue as to what I am talking
> about when I say I experience a spiritual dimension.

It's not a matter of failing to understand what you mean, because we
can see it in a metaphorical sense. It's when you go beyond metaphor
to the assertion that there really are spirits and souls, when we say
you're just speculating.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are they just afraid to let go, is it fear of the unknown?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/dc8db937fcdef74a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:07 pm
From: Brock Organ

On Feb 14, 12:48 pm, Shot In The Dark <adgies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is reason so hard to accept?

Reason is fallible.

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:22 pm
From: Sketch System

On Feb 14, 1:07 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Reason is fallible.

Maybe, but it's the best tool we have allowing us to make sense of
reality.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 14 2008 1:30 pm
From: Sketch System

On Feb 14, 9:48 am, Shot In The Dark <adgies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is reason so hard to accept?

What is there to accept? Everyone uses reason to some extent.

> Moreover, why are the well
> stated, well researched conclusions here unable to adhere to the
> psyche of the faithful? What component in faith has contrived this
> wall which argument and perspective cannot penetrate?

Faith is used when reason is unavailable, or undesirable, or
ineffective.

> Is fear a
> central motivation of this desperate clinging to eons old folly.

It is a motivation to be sure, but I don't know if "central" applies.
I would guess that the prime motivation is the availability of an
explanation to fill holes in proper knowledge. There may or may not
be fear involved.

> Do
> you not feel the wasted time, the impending transition of this life
> into death? That we that are here, chatting away in rhetoric and
> prose, is this not experiential enough to know you are affecting your
> sphere of influence?

There is no reason to think there is any sphere of influence to be
affected here. Personally, I just like the challenge.

> Is this sphere not already that spirituality
> you crave, that connectedness and sensibility; is this not all that
> you desire. It is all here for your consumption, all here for it's
> own endeavor. Do you willfuly reject these realities for fear of
> impermanence, a fear of unknown quantities?

I find this confusing - I'm not sure what you're getting at.

> Dig deep for these questions and try not to be afraid of the
> boogeyman without your teddybear around. Believe it or not, I don't
> want that to sound that mean or hostile. I simply say try rejecting
> your fears, first by examining and perhaps acknowledgering them, and
> then perhaps to attempt to let go of them. It's all going to happen
> anyhow, like it or not. Read the newspaper (ammened: should be
> plural). Look in a history book. Take the time to read and listen to
> poetry if it moves you, feel things that fit sensibility. Change is
> not evil, but it is inevitable. Look around, find multiple sources,
> good reliable information. Touch, See, Smell, Etc. what you can,
> while you can. Love people, I do it daily and fucking love it.
> Smile. It's only an Idea.

Yeah...I'm not sure what you're getting at. Your rhetoric seems
whimsical and lacking in substance.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity"
group.

To post to this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
or visit http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Atheism vs Christianity

Thursday, February 14, 2008

25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links