|
Roll Call: TOTA Atheist Thread (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SurrJRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by fiya
if you don't believe in God, how can someone else be God? ie. armin.
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
Hehehe, bc i just like saying that :D
besides, saying that armin is god just kinda conveys that i think hes really awesome
:disbelief |
|
But Armin IS GOD!! :eyespop: :crazy: :toocool:
What Jem said it correct... look up the word hyperbole and you will understand! :)
:D |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by SurrJRS
But Armin IS GOD!! :eyespop: :crazy: :toocool:
What Jem said it correct... look up the word hyperbole and you will understand! :)
:D |
Amen... err, i mean ARMIN! :)
UNITY!!! |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
There is a very basic principle that I think many of you are missing, and it's a principle upon which much of our anthropological knowledge is based.
It's called the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE.
The anthropic principle essentially states this: "things are the way they are because if they weren't the way they are, we wouldn't be here to question their existance."
Another way of summing it up is by saying, "if things were different, humans wouldn't exist, so that's why things are the way they are."
For example, it can be used to answer the question "why do we live in a three-dimensional universe?" Of course, intelligent life couldn't function as we know it in two dimensions (try to consider circulation and digestion in a two-dimensional creature!). As well, most physicists agree that in four or greater dimensions, atoms would be so unstable that they would often randomly collapse on themselves, destroying any chances of complicated molecules forming. Thus, three dimensions is the only number of dimensions in which intelligent life can exist, and therefore, that's why we live in a three-dimensional universe (since in any other universe, we wouldn't be here to question it!)
So when somebody asks "why did all of this wonderful life evolve on Earth?", the answer can be explained by the Anthropic Principle. The answer is simply that if life had not evolved on Earth, then we wouldn't be here to question it! Life is a prerequisite for humanity, and thus our existance is dependant on it.
Anybody who knows quantum mechanics understands the seemingly random nature of the universe. If an extremely large number of monkeys started hammering random keys on typewriters, eventually one of them would type out one of Shakespeare's works. It's inevitable, given enough time (or enough monkeys!).
We, as humans, don't know how many other universes there are, or even how many planets there are with the potential to create intelligent life. It is true, however, that SOME PROBABILITY EXISTS that self-replicating molecules formed out of our primordial ooze and created the first life. It doesn't matter how small the probability is; what matters is that it is NOT ZERO (and quantum mechanics prooves that this probability exists). Given enough time (or enough planets that have the potential for intelligent life to be created), IT'S INEVITABLE THAT INTELLIGENT LIFE WILL EVOLVE, with no deity or supernatural being required.
Now that is by no means a proof that a god didn't create us, but it is a proof that left to its own devices, the universe would eventually produce intelligent life on its own - no god required.
So why are we here to question our existance? We are the Shakespearean play that was hammered out by a monkey. We are the probability fluke that was inevitable from the creation of the universe. At least that's what I believe. I'm not saying it's impossible that a god created us; I'm just justifying my beliefs and the beliefs of others. |
|
|
| LittlePoonzgirl |
This may be long
| quote: | [i][b]
You see.. science uses something called "evidence" to help explain its theories. Religion just states supernatural bull that people still beleive to this day.
Science has more validation than religion. Religion is just.. you know what.. i cant take religion anymore. I still cant fathom how people in the year 2005 can beleive and follow these absurd ancient cult books. |
FYI: Our current scientific models are quite flawed. Read the Holographic Universe...actually you may discount all the PHDs and MDs who worked on that due to their abstract theory. Science can really only disprove at best and isn't really all that good at it either. Why do you think Einstien was disturbed by such phenomenon as nonlocally interconnected particles.
Science requires almost as much faith as religion. Keep in mind that science has also proved a probability that something you see doesn't actually exist when you go to touch it. Have you studied further than Newtonian physics?
Religion is very much what people make of it. There are many different religions that all work very differently. Absurd ancient cult books...hmmm...
ancient is an issue due to how well the information was recorded and now how it is translated. Cult books? I'm sure 100s of years from now people will question how we could believe such flawed scientific theories also written in books and followed by groups of people. In adition, some 'supernatural bull' may actually be 'proved' by science in the future.
The more I study science the more I realize how much it can't explain. Too many in that community sweep things under the carpet when it doesn't fit into a current model. Or come up with random mathematics to prove whatever they want such as with string theory. Just remember, if you want prove it's a particle, it's a particle; if you want to prove its wave, then it's a wave. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankmeister
Don't take offense my man....
I don't want to call anybody out specifically, but you cannot be a athiest AND believe in Fate.....
|
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. ATHEISM IS STRICTLY A BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Nothing more, and nothing less. It is the opposite of THEISM which is the belief in the existance of one or more gods. Atheism says nothing about fate, ESP, psychic abilities, karma, or any phenomena other than there being no god. Buddhism is in fact an atheist religion! I hope this clears things up a little.
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankmeister
Atheism by definition is "That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries." So every action, every single thing that happens in life should be able to be explained by a scientific theory a reaction to stimulus.
Not saying that someone cannot believe this way, but other posts by people claiming to be 'atheists' have supported a higher plane of conciousness. Atheism does not at all support this. Atheism is a belief that we are just animals, yes, animals with some intellect, but animals nonetheless. Everything is related to instinct (neural pathways in our brains slowly formed over centuries) or reaction to stimulus.
|
Again, you're making general statements about one very specific form of atheism. I don't think Buddhism agrees with you, but it is atheist. Atheists can in fact believe in a higher plane of consciousness. They just don't believe in god.
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankmeister
Not saying that is wrong either. But if someone is going to claim to be a orange, then friggin be a orange, seeds and all....
Now I am not trying to convince anybody of anything...I believe in tolorance of anybody's beliefs...just pointing out a couple of glaring inconsistencies(sp?) that I saw...
Let the debate rage on! |
The "glaring inconsistencies" that you see are really based on the fact that atheists can have different beliefs. My beliefs certainly don't agree with the beliefs of a Zen Buddhist; we both simply share the belief that there is no god. Assuming all atheists believe in scientific, determinist philosophy is like assuming all theists believe in Jesus, the apocalypse, etc. Not all theists share the same beliefs, so you shouldn't assume that all atheists share the same beliefs.
Atheism is not a religion; it is a classification of numerous belief systems, just as theism is.
~ Elyot |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
| quote: | Originally posted by LittlePoonzgirl
This may be long
FYI: Our current scientific models are quite flawed. Read the Holographic Universe...actually you may discount all the PHDs and MDs who worked on that due to their abstract theory. Science can really only disprove at best and isn't really all that good at it either. Why do you think Einstien was disturbed by such phenomenon as nonlocally interconnected particles.
Science requires almost as much faith as religion. Keep in mind that science has also proved a probability that something you see doesn't actually exist when you go to touch it. Have you studied further than Newtonian physics?
Religion is very much what people make of it. There are many different religions that all work very differently. Absurd ancient cult books...hmmm...
ancient is an issue due to how well the information was recorded and now how it is translated. Cult books? I'm sure 100s of years from now people will question how we could believe such flawed scientific theories also written in books and followed by groups of people. In adition, some 'supernatural bull' may actually be 'proved' by science in the future.
The more I study science the more I realize how much it can't explain. Too many in that community sweep things under the carpet when it doesn't fit into a current model. Or come up with random mathematics to prove whatever they want such as with string theory. Just remember, if you want prove it's a particle, it's a particle; if you want to prove its wave, then it's a wave. |
The scientific model is established to try to find the most correct model possible, based on the idea that the model can predict future events (a model is useless if it can't do so).
For example, quantum mechanics has proved to be a very useful realm of science, because it has many applications that work, and it produces consistent results that can be replicated and agree with the predicted calculations.
String theory has never in fact predicted a single outcome. It's a possibility that some researches are looking at, but it has yet to bear fruit. It's currently a useless model, but researchers are nonetheless pursuing it because it has the capability of BECOMING useful.
You wouldn't want Einstein to have given up halfway through the discovery of the theory of relativity! It seemed bloody crazy at the time, but it has in fact predicted many outcomes. GPS, for example, relies on compensating for relativistic effects, and in fact would be impossible without the discoveries made by Einstein.
Science may one day explain Edgar Cayce. I just think one of the problems with society is our belief that "we know everything". We obviously don't. 2000 years ago, people didn't understand anything at all... hell, they thought Zeus was throwing lightning bolts at them, and they honestly, whole-heartedly believed it. Religion explained things that science couldn't. As more and more things became explainable by science, the confidence in science grew, but it doesn't mean science is DONE, by any means.
Kids grow up today in a world where they can always ask "WHY" and always get an answer. Well, we have to realize that we can't always get one. It doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist; it could simply mean that the answer hasn't been found yet. In 200 years, we may be looking at the people who thought Edgar Cayce had magical powers and laughing, just as we are at the people who used to believe that Zeus threw lightning bolts.
I think it's human arrogance that results in things getting "swept under the carpet". We don't like to admit that we don't know things, so we come up with pseudo-explanations that make us feel comforted. It's no better than coming up with the explanation that lightning bolts are thrown by a god in the sky. It just takes too much courage to admit we don't know. It's so much easier to assume that we're going to go to heaven when we die, than to admit that we have absolutely no idea what an afterlife (if any) may bring. It takes a lot of guts to accept that we'll never know, and most people aren't comfortable with doing so. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by LittlePoonzgirl
This may be long
FYI: Our current scientific models are quite flawed. Read the Holographic Universe...actually you may discount all the PHDs and MDs who worked on that due to their abstract theory. Science can really only disprove at best and isn't really all that good at it either. Why do you think Einstien was disturbed by such phenomenon as nonlocally interconnected particles.
Science requires almost as much faith as religion. Keep in mind that science has also proved a probability that something you see doesn't actually exist when you go to touch it. Have you studied further than Newtonian physics?
Religion is very much what people make of it. There are many different religions that all work very differently. Absurd ancient cult books...hmmm...
ancient is an issue due to how well the information was recorded and now how it is translated. Cult books? I'm sure 100s of years from now people will question how we could believe such flawed scientific theories also written in books and followed by groups of people. In adition, some 'supernatural bull' may actually be 'proved' by science in the future.
The more I study science the more I realize how much it can't explain. Too many in that community sweep things under the carpet when it doesn't fit into a current model. Or come up with random mathematics to prove whatever they want such as with string theory. Just remember, if you want prove it's a particle, it's a particle; if you want to prove its wave, then it's a wave. |
hi.
i must say, michelle's beliefs (should any of yall ever hear them) are highly facinating... i have alot of respect for this girl. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
There is a very basic principle that I think many of you are missing, and it's a principle upon which much of our anthropological knowledge is based.
It's called the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE.
The anthropic principle essentially states this: "things are the way they are because if they weren't the way they are, we wouldn't be here to question their existance."
Another way of summing it up is by saying, "if things were different, humans wouldn't exist, so that's why things are the way they are."
For example, it can be used to answer the question "why do we live in a three-dimensional universe?" Of course, intelligent life couldn't function as we know it in two dimensions (try to consider circulation and digestion in a two-dimensional creature!). As well, most physicists agree that in four or greater dimensions, atoms would be so unstable that they would often randomly collapse on themselves, destroying any chances of complicated molecules forming. Thus, three dimensions is the only number of dimensions in which intelligent life can exist, and therefore, that's why we live in a three-dimensional universe (since in any other universe, we wouldn't be here to question it!)
So when somebody asks "why did all of this wonderful life evolve on Earth?", the answer can be explained by the Anthropic Principle. The answer is simply that if life had not evolved on Earth, then we wouldn't be here to question it! Life is a prerequisite for humanity, and thus our existance is dependant on it.
Anybody who knows quantum mechanics understands the seemingly random nature of the universe. If an extremely large number of monkeys started hammering random keys on typewriters, eventually one of them would type out one of Shakespeare's works. It's inevitable, given enough time (or enough monkeys!).
We, as humans, don't know how many other universes there are, or even how many planets there are with the potential to create intelligent life. It is true, however, that SOME PROBABILITY EXISTS that self-replicating molecules formed out of our primordial ooze and created the first life. It doesn't matter how small the probability is; what matters is that it is NOT ZERO (and quantum mechanics prooves that this probability exists). Given enough time (or enough planets that have the potential for intelligent life to be created), IT'S INEVITABLE THAT INTELLIGENT LIFE WILL EVOLVE, with no deity or supernatural being required.
Now that is by no means a proof that a god didn't create us, but it is a proof that left to its own devices, the universe would eventually produce intelligent life on its own - no god required.
So why are we here to question our existance? We are the Shakespearean play that was hammered out by a monkey. We are the probability fluke that was inevitable from the creation of the universe. At least that's what I believe. I'm not saying it's impossible that a god created us; I'm just justifying my beliefs and the beliefs of others. |
wow. thats an awesome level of explanation... i really wish i could sum things up and explain them that well. i never can... and it really hurts ur standpoint when ur trying to defend a view u know YOU blieve in, but since u cant put it into words, its hard to empart onto others why u believe as such...
i agree w/ entirely. first id ever really heard of the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE... i guess ive read about its jist, just didnt know that was whut it was referred to as. thats the way i see things. it seems to say that we exist bc we exist (right?)
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. ATHEISM IS STRICTLY A BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Nothing more, and nothing less. It is the opposite of THEISM which is the belief in the existance of one or more gods. Atheism says nothing about fate, ESP, psychic abilities, karma, or any phenomena other than there being no god. Buddhism is in fact an atheist religion! I hope this clears things up a little.
Again, you're making general statements about one very specific form of atheism. I don't think Buddhism agrees with you, but it is atheist. Atheists can in fact believe in a higher plane of consciousness. They just don't believe in god.
The "glaring inconsistencies" that you see are really based on the fact that atheists can have different beliefs. My beliefs certainly don't agree with the beliefs of a Zen Buddhist; we both simply share the belief that there is no god. Assuming all atheists believe in scientific, determinist philosophy is like assuming all theists believe in Jesus, the apocalypse, etc. Not all theists share the same beliefs, so you shouldn't assume that all atheists share the same beliefs.
Atheism is not a religion; it is a classification of numerous belief systems, just as theism is.
~ Elyot |
Dude, wow. thank you for trying to really have this point understood. I find your points highly interesting and intelligent... i would love to hold a conversation w/ u one day about such things!
Cheers mate! ~Jem~ |
|
|
| SurrJRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
Dude, wow. thank you for trying to really have this point understood. I find your points highly interesting and intelligent... i would love to hold a conversation w/ u one day about such things!
Cheers mate! ~Jem~ |
+1 and I'll bring the beer!
Props to DJ_Elyot for the very eloquent points he has been making throughout this thread. |
|
|
| Sexyboy79 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LittlePoonzgirl
This may be long
FYI: Our current scientific models are quite flawed. Read the Holographic Universe...actually you may discount all the PHDs and MDs who worked on that due to their abstract theory. Science can really only disprove at best and isn't really all that good at it either. Why do you think Einstien was disturbed by such phenomenon as nonlocally interconnected particles.
Science requires almost as much faith as religion. Keep in mind that science has also proved a probability that something you see doesn't actually exist when you go to touch it. Have you studied further than Newtonian physics?
Religion is very much what people make of it. There are many different religions that all work very differently. Absurd ancient cult books...hmmm...
ancient is an issue due to how well the information was recorded and now how it is translated. Cult books? I'm sure 100s of years from now people will question how we could believe such flawed scientific theories also written in books and followed by groups of people. In adition, some 'supernatural bull' may actually be 'proved' by science in the future.
The more I study science the more I realize how much it can't explain. Too many in that community sweep things under the carpet when it doesn't fit into a current model. Or come up with random mathematics to prove whatever they want such as with string theory. Just remember, if you want prove it's a particle, it's a particle; if you want to prove its wave, then it's a wave. |
You sound like a smart girl but comparing science to somthing that doent exist is stupid.
Unis are awsome and they hold power that boggles the mind. Nobody can ever see a uni or no were it comes from but its real. They are in every universe and are the the creator of time and matter. Science can not be proven just as much as unis!!!:rolleyes:
Well i hope you understand unis are a made up word just like god is.
By the way agnostics are atheist with out balls..
If there are any women atheist out there p.m i will merry you lol..Never meet a women atheist before. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sexyboy79
By the way agnostics are atheist with out balls.. |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
that made me chuckle LOL
| quote: |
If there are any women atheist out there p.m i will merry you lol..Never meet a women atheist before. |
A new very close friend of mine, Tessa, is a very adamant, strongly opinioned atheist. I was quite surprised and very happy to hear so. Shes an atheist and a very passionate one, which, yes, i agree is rare from my experience (shes no -footing atheist, thats for sure!)
And shes Aussie... even more mad respect! Love that accent ppl! :D :D
~Jem~
P.S. Too bad shes going back down under in less than a month! :( Shes so wicked. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by SurrJRS
+1 and I'll bring the beer!
Props to DJ_Elyot for the very eloquent points he has been making throughout this thread. |
Attaboy! Nice!
Maybe have some good eats, some cool freshing beers and just talk atheist shop... that would be so awesome and so good to do!
(of course it goes unsaid that some nice ubertrance would be hopefully playing in the background too... to stimulate our ears while we stimulate our brains with where we all stand and how we define ourselves individually as atheists)
~Jem~ |
|
|
|
|
