Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[Kuskovian]

According to Oxford: (or at least thier dictionary)

Faith~ A complete trust or confidence in someone or something. A strong belief in a religion. A system of religious belief. Origin from the latin fides.

Science~ A systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. An organized body of knowledge on any subject. Origin from the latin scientia.

Fides in latin stands for trust, faith, confidence, relience etc etc.

Scientia in latin stands for knowledge, skill, expertise etc etc.

You need both as a human being. They are two sides of "our" coin. One leans to the heart, the other to the mind. Regardless of what your "faith" is in you do in fact have it.


A careful study of the history of religion and science will show one that they do in deed look for and claim to have the answers to many of the questions that have plauged humanity. (The who, what, why, where, hows, of it all.)

Both are very secular in the structure, yet use far different approaches to thier systems. Believe it or now both look internally as well as externally for thier information. If I am not inspired to make a hypotheisis how can I set up an experiment? If I am not able to see the wonders of existence and measure them how can I quantify what is observed and understand it?

Or mabey Darth Vader said it best. You shouldn't put "all" your faith in this technological monstrosity, it's power pales in comparisson to the power of the Force.

Or as Robert Oxton Bolton once said: " A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind."

[Kuskovian]

Sounds like you have found a very closed minded practice in a given religion Thorne.

And I do agree that many western religious fanatics are "my way or the highway types".
Even when thier own sects writtings specifically say otherwise.

Most religions look for universally applied imperatives, simular to Imanual Kant's aplications.

Like: "love thy nieghbor as thyself" or: "and it harm not others do as thou will"

Yet to dismiss "all" spiritual faiths out of course is an arrogant mistake that even Einstien refused to make.

[companioncube#3]

Hi Thorne,

I found the Asimov essay to which you referred online. It is certain that I will be reading more of his essays in the future. Thank you for bringing it to my attention; I'm very happy to have met you in this forum.

[Thorne]

Hi Thorne,

I found the Asimov essay to which you referred online. It is certain that I will be reading more of his essays in the future. Thank you for bringing it to my attention; I'm very happy to have met you in this forum.

You're quite welcome. Always happy to lead someone to the light!

And it's nice meeting you, too.

[Thorne]

Sounds like you have found a very closed minded practice in a given religion Thorne.

Perhaps you are right. I was raised Catholic, but turned away from it at an early age because it never made much sense to me. And my studies of history have shown me that religion (NOT faith) has done almost as much harm to mankind as politics.

And I do agree that many western religious fanatics are "my way or the highway types".
Even when thier own sects writtings specifically say otherwise.

Most religions look for universally applied imperatives, simular to Imanual Kant's aplications.

Like: "love thy nieghbor as thyself" or: "and it harm not others do as thou will"

Maybe, but again, history shows us that these concepts tend to apply only to other members of that religion. Those of a different religion seem to get much less consideration.

Yet to dismiss "all" spiritual faiths out of course is an arrogant mistake that even Einstien refused to make.

Again, don't confuse "Faith" with "Religion". At least in the context I am talking about, they are two entirely different entities. I do not dismiss people of faith, of any faith, out of hand. Everyone is free to believe what they wish, or not believe what they wish. I don't have any problems with believers (or non-believers).
My problem is with those who insist upon my believing the same way as they do. Who would persecute me (if they could) for not believing as they do. And it just amazes me that, in this day and age, there are still people out there who are ignorant enough to believe that they have all the answers. And a codified religion only perpetuates that problem, to my mind.

[denuseri]

thanku very much Thorne, we have been waiting for someone to say that to point out the irony.

we just wanted someone to acknowlege that not all religions expouse a totalitarian doctrine, and that some athiests seem to be just as militant or zealous as "belivers" in a given faith which is ironic yet typical of many "rejectionist" movements from the mainstream or conformist portions of society.

we also are not confussing "faith" with "religion", an early post clarified that the word faith has many meanings depending on context.

ulitimately no one belives anything they dont want to, alltough peer pressure is a detractable factor of any human social interation especially in organized practices of faith, there will allways remain the diversity of the individual, the freedom to choose for yourself, regaurdless of how you were raised, even the extremisum of the most vehmament christians demands that "god has given us the freedom of choice"

i belive the point my owner was making about Einstien (as well as many learned and respected peers of the scientific comunity) was that even he a very respected icon of "science" expressed a belief , a faith in the existance of "god" and the subsiqunt evolution of mankind the world etc to be a prossess of "design" as opposed to chance

in the end only we can decide what we belive as individuals, alone in the floatstream of existance or inextorably connected in someway?

paranormal reaserch into the realms of telepathy and remote viewing and or other supernatural realms are models explored even by our own governments currently and in the past that may give some light on such questions, despite the secptics more recent reaserch has shown there to be "something" happening that scientists are as of yet unable to explain

thier is a reason that many many people have throughout the history of mankind found and explained this "connection" that all life, all matter seems to have with one another, from the early mystics to the wisest of buddist monks on the moutian top and its not just some little phycological compulsion of sientience

mabey george lucas has it right? who am i to say, but to deny the possibility that it exists, that there is some entity, a god or godess or some other such force, even if its like the gaian model where we are all little parts of the great consiouness, the spiral of life as some native american cultures describe is tantamont to telling all of existance, the crowd, the refferee, the other players etc, to frack off while putting oneself in the penalty box, in a hockey game using infinite quarks for pucks

[Synfall]

Speaking as a solitary practitioner here- not believing in religion does not automatically make one an atheist.
Religion is a highly personal thing, and not everyone can find a comfortable mindframe within community efforts for how they percieve deity, or lack thereof, within the world.
One should also consider the stance of agnostics.
Agnostics being people who believe that there may be a higher being/s, but not interested in following an organized form of religion, as opposed to the atheist who, by definition, refuses, or are unable, to believe in the existence of a higher being or beings.

(Although I must admit, I am something of a convert to the Church of FSM.)

[Shwenn]

(Although I must admit, I am something of a convert to the Church of FSM.)

RAmen, brother.

[DarkPoet]

(Although I must admit, I am something of a convert to the Church of FSM.)

This religion realy appeals to me, but to convert, I'd have to let go of my deepest inner belief that we are all just the dream of a lonely white mouse, which has probably long ago been eaten by Schrödinger's cat.

Thnx for the link, YMMD

[Synfall]

This religion realy appeals to me, but to convert, I'd have to let go of my deepest inner belief that we are all just the dream of a lonely white mouse, which has probably long ago been eaten by Schrödinger's cat.

That is an interesting belief. Although I have to wonder-Does the mouse exist as part of the potentially still living cat or does it exist on it's own merits without taking the cat's digestive system into consideration?
And if it doesn't exist on its own merits within the cat, how much does the cat influence the events of our world?
And why did the cat chose to eat the mouse when it had the option of eating lasagna?

I will have to pray to his Noodliness for undestanding how to deal with your system of beliefs.
RAmen

[DarkPoet]

That is an interesting belief. Although I have to wonder-Does the mouse exist as part of the potentially still living cat or does it exist on it's own merits without taking the cat's digestive system into consideration?
And if it doesn't exist on its own merits within the cat, how much does the cat influence the events of our world?
And why did the cat chose to eat the mouse when it had the option of eating lasagna?

That is the big question, which even the high priestess Minnie of the Religion Of The Mouse Forever Living - or short "ROTFL" - couldn't answer yet. Some believe that the mouse may currently be both itself and the cat and have formed their own sect, the "Schrödinger's Indecisive Cat's Knights Congregation of Undecided Novices of Terra" (abbreviated "SICKCUNT").

[Thorne]

This religion realy appeals to me, but to convert, I'd have to let go of my deepest inner belief that we are all just the dream of a lonely white mouse, which has probably long ago been eaten by Schrödinger's cat.

Ah, but there's the rub! The mouse wasn't eaten, yet it was!

[denuseri]

Looking in the box to see if the cat lives has me kinda worried the mouse will escape, oh look no worries thier is a hole in the box anyway, i wonder who put that there, the mouse perhaps? mabey god did to give us some light so we can see the cat?

[companioncube#3]

Thorne wrote:

I have just as much problem understanding those militant atheists who would force everyone to give up religion, just because they don't believe.

I am sympathetic to this position, but I think there is more to be said for the so-called "militant atheist" movement than is expressed above. Naturally it's meaningless to discuss the opinions of the so-called "militant atheists" or "new atheists," only because there is a diversity of opinions from a diversity of people all being labelled with the same name. But if we are talking about the most visible proponents of the new atheism, say, Richard Dawkins or his more obnoxious counterpart, PZ Myers (I spelled his name incorrectly in an earlier post), I'd have to say that their polemics are motivated by more than "just because they don't believe," and their objectives do not include forcing "everyone to give up religion."

I think their motivations are mostly political and, to a lesser but significant degree, philosophical. Dawkins and Myers, both being evolutionary biologists, are probably irritated most by the Intelligent Design proponents, whose attempts to force biology teachers to preach Christianity as science would be funny were it not for the fact that they have come close to succeeding. The movement of Evangelical fanaticism out of the megachurch and into the public square has threatened women's reproductive rights, denied our students the option of proper sex education, and crippled stem cell research. Now, we can have a fair discussion about these issues - it is not to say that the secular position is necessarily the right one (I believe it is) - but once religiously-motivated ideas become a matter of public policy, it's fair game for robust debate and vicious, irreverent criticism. Like, if you can't take the heat, get out of my bedroom, my doctor's office, my classroom & my lab.

Dawkins et al. are not interested in forcing religion out of the hearts and minds of the people. They are, however, intent on undoing the damage done by very bad men propelled into political prominence up by the god-fearing, unworldly and undereducated hoi polloi. The only way to do this is to convince people not to vote for something just because their priests tell them to. Now, I'm not sure they go about it in the right way; their PR skills are lacking - they're rude, insulting, dismissive, smug and sneering. But in the end, they're on the side of reason and liberty.

I hope this reads as a lukewarm defence of Dawkins and the rest. As I intimated earlier, they are not my favourite people, but it's only natural that in the age of The Dover Trials and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a few scientists who don't mind being shrill would rise out of academic obscurity to confront the Religious Right's well-funded propaganda machine. In this case, I don't think a stuttering milquetoast will do the job.

PS:

Hello to fellow Pastafarians! May His Noodliness bless you with the Might and Glory of his Massive Noodly Appendage!

[denuseri]

taking up against the fundamentalist crossection here in america is basically like taking on a brick wall, expesially since the judean christian right wing and liberal versions here (yes religion exists on both sides of the political arena in the states despite the medias attempt to personify it as a purely republican issue) have re-rallied behind thier religion secular views (i am talking about the anglo saxon american christians here that have become allmost militant seeming in the usa) of course that re-rallying is also a media driven thing for the most part, as it feeds on such controvesies, day to day life here in the states i raely see hear or talk about religion with people on the street, except on sundays when my mom bugs me to go to church with her despite her knowledge that i no longer share her faith (but hey she is old and it makes her happy when i do take her so i am in the church most sundays)

which i dont know if its just Lutherans or not, but at that church the people thier would be appalled to hear that so many people think so poorely of them, they are hardly militant there, (Lutherans as still blushing over pokeing thier finger in the catholics eye back in the 1500's very reserved folks and even that was done with a letter on a church door as opposed to in yur face) and most of them would say that god would be appalled at how so many in history have twisted the message that the lutherans believe he has given them

see the Lutherans are basically a shy lot and yu shouldnt see them pounding bibles on street corners its way to much like having sex with the lights on for them,

basically love thy neighbor as thyself is thier approach and quietly too, yu dont want to draw attention

[denuseri]

LOL we have taken thread drift to a whole new level,

[Thorne]

LOL we have taken thread drift to a whole new level,

Maybe we have and maybe we haven't. Go ask the damned cat! Or the mouse. Or are they one and the same.

I have a headache.

[Shwenn]

Maybe we have and maybe we haven't. Go ask the damned cat! Or the mouse. Or are they one and the same.

I have a headache.

They are both one and the same AND different. Until we learn that they are one and the same. Or that they are different.

It's all true until you look in the box.

[Thorne]

They are both one and the same AND different. Until we learn that they are one and the same. Or that they are different.

It's all true until you look in the box.

But isn't the box just a metaphor for the cat? Or the rat? Or Thing 1 and Thing 2?

Somebody should have shot Schrödinger! Or maybe they did?

[Shwenn]

Somebody should have shot Schrödinger! Or maybe they did?

You don't have to convince me. I've actually had to solve the particle in the box. My only problem is that death by bullet would've been too quick.

I once met one of Bose's descendants at a party and we talked about that problem like two war veterans.

[denuseri]

just trying to get close enough to the event horizion should be hard enough it would seem like forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever etc etc etc etc never fully reaching it but allways trying

perhaps that is how it is with existance, we dont realize we are here until we have been here a while (full on self awareness doesnt fully kick in till we are allmost walking, mabey later) is it possible we leave the same way?

mabey that perception is one reason the tibetian's use thier book of the dead to talk the soul of the loved one thru his journey into the afterlife, so one goes out peacefully to assume whatever place they have in the cosmos, even if its just "endless void"

[Thorne]

just trying to get close enough to the event horizion should be hard enough it would seem like forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever etc etc etc etc never fully reaching it but allways trying

perhaps that is how it is with existance, we dont realize we are here until we have been here a while (full on self awareness doesnt fully kick in till we are allmost walking, mabey later) is it possible we leave the same way?

mabey that perception is one reason the tibetian's use thier book of the dead to talk the soul of the loved one thru his journey into the afterlife, so one goes out peacefully to assume whatever place they have in the cosmos, even if its just "endless void"

Sorry, I can't buy into this kind of idea. You're born, you live, and you die. It's that simple, that brutal, and that's life.

[Synfall]

Sorry, I can't buy into this kind of idea. You're born, you live, and you die. It's that simple, that brutal, and that's life.

I don't think it is that simple. With the death of the body, the energy that compelled the body still exists. Maybe there is no longer a conscious awareness of the energy, as there was when there was a form, but as energy can neither be created or destroyed your energy would still technically exist in the universe even after death.
It is arguable that the continued existence of your energy is an afterlife in and of itself even if it would be to your consciousness as an "endless void".
jmho

[Thorne]

I don't think it is that simple. With the death of the body, the energy that compelled the body still exists. Maybe there is no longer a conscious awareness of the energy, as there was when there was a form, but as energy can neither be created or destroyed your energy would still technically exist in the universe even after death.
It is arguable that the continued existence of your energy is an afterlife in and of itself even if it would be to your consciousness as an "endless void".
jmho

That makes the assumption that consciousness is a function of energy and not simply a biochemical anomaly. And even if it is a function of energy, there is no way to show that it remains coherent after death, and not just random electromagnetic fluctuations.

As for your energy remaining in the universe after your death, the same can be said of your atoms, whether from the decay products of your body or even the waste products throughout your life. That doesn't mean that you go on, just that your atoms do. And they are, in general, recycled into other beings on into the future. So perhaps you can interpret that as a form of immortality, if you wish. The way I see it, we all have at least some atoms inside our bodies which at some point have passed through the gastro-intestinal tracts of innumerable other creatures throughout time.

In other words, we're all full of shit!

[Shwenn]

I don't think it is that simple. With the death of the body, the energy that compelled the body still exists. Maybe there is no longer a conscious awareness of the energy, as there was when there was a form, but as energy can neither be created or destroyed your energy would still technically exist in the universe even after death.
It is arguable that the continued existence of your energy is an afterlife in and of itself even if it would be to your consciousness as an "endless void".
jmho

Okay, I find this a bit cloying.

The energy you are talking about was as subject to the first law of thermodynamics before you existed as it will be after. So, the 'afterlife' you describe here will be identical to your 'beforelife' and we can conclude that you have always existed.

But, when people speak of immortality in this way, they only do it from the point of birth on. There is this assumption of non-existence before birth which is inconsistent with the argument of continued existence after death.

See what I mean.

There was a sort of absense of me before I was born. Whatever you want to call that, that is the state I will be in after I die.

[Ultraprene]

Before expounding theories about "energy" please go to the library and read a freshman physics book. Yes, when you die the chemical energy of your body is conserved in a First Law sense, just as is the energy in a lump of coal, but who cares, except to the worms or scavengers that eat your corpse.

[leo9]

Before expounding theories about "energy" please go to the library and read a freshman physics book. Yes, when you die the chemical energy of your body is conserved in a First Law sense, just as is the energy in a lump of coal, but who cares, except to the worms or scavengers that eat your corpse.

This is not the first time I've seen the Law of Conservation of Energy misinterpeted to justify the immortality of the soul. The confusion is between energy and information (structure). The difference between a living body and a lump of meat is not the energy but the structure, the ordering on the molecular level, and specifically the information contained in the structure of the brain. Energy is conserved, but information can be destroyed effortlessly, as anyone who has lost a vital file knows all too well.

It's like the old puzzler "where does the flame go when the candle goes out?" A flame is an ordered structure of energy, maintained by a constant flow of energy through it: when the flow stops, the structure collapses and there is no flame. Ipsum est for living beings.

[DarkPoet]

just trying to get close enough to the event horizion should be hard enough it would seem like forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever etc etc etc etc never fully reaching it but allways trying

Just like the runner who competes against the turtle, running ten times as fast, but the turtle has ten feet advantage and the runner's never going to overtake it. Why? In the time it takes the runner to make the ten feet, the turtle's already run another foot, and until the runner has made this foot, it's again a tenth of a foot ahead. The runner runs this thenth foot, but the turtle has already made another hundredth of a foot... - so we see, the runner can only come infinitely close to the turtle, but never overtake it

(Please don't take this as a confession that Schrödinger's Cat may never even have caught the mouse!)

[Synfall]

Just like the runner who competes against the turtle, running ten times as fast, but the turtle has ten feet advantage and the runner's never going to overtake it. Why? In the time it takes the runner to make the ten feet, the turtle's already run another foot, and until the runner has made this foot, it's again a tenth of a foot ahead. The runner runs this thenth foot, but the turtle has already made another hundredth of a foot... - so we see, the runner can only come infinitely close to the turtle, but never overtake it

Unless the turtle gets hit by a car while it's crossing the road.

[Thorne]

Unless the turtle gets hit by a car while it's crossing the road.

And just why was the turtle crossing the road?

Something to do with Schrödinger's Chicken, no doubt.