The Satanic quality of the Internet

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Simplicity...that no one really can wrap a mind around to complexity that blows the mind too.
All we really know is the basic laws and theorise about the rest to make sense of it all

I think that since still leaves a lot of space for religion and will long time to come.

We have something better already. Maths. It is our means to make - by limited and finite means - precise statements about the infinite. I hate that I suck at maths. In a way it is the most noble language man has ever spoken.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And yet, because I continually doubt my own judgement, I still don't consider myself an atheist.

Since I like to split hairs with you, in a way you and me even cannot be atheists, nor can anyone else. Because it is a known statement in logics that the non-existence of something cannot be proven. That makes the question of whether to believe or not that God exists, a question of probabilities, because an atheist necessarily in last consequence cannot ever be an atheist but only is an agnostic who shows higher or not so high confidence that God indeed does not exist. What we call an atheist denying the existence of God then is, is an agnostic who is to 99.99999999......% certain that God does not exist. The rest of a chance tends to move towards the mathematical infinite minimum.

To precise my statement then: I consider it to be infinitely unlikely that God does exist.

Of course I also see no explanatory value in assuming that a god exists.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We have something better already. Maths. It is our means to make - by limited and finite means - precise statements about the infinite. I hate that suck at maths. In a way it is the most noble language man has ever spoken.

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know(i don't know much on the issue) and in other cases breaks down.


That's way scientists may be still looking for particles faster than light for example?



............

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know and in other cases breaks down.

That may be because it still is not in final perfect shape (can it ever be?) but gets developed, too. That it is abstract, just lies in the nature of the matter. When you deal with infinity, don'T be surpsied that thing sbecome so cojmplex that you perceive them as being slightly complex.

There is talking in the concept of dissipative systems about self-emerging structures, a term that matches into the holon-conceot I mentiuoned as well as it is used in several other scientific branches and theories, including systemtic and chaos theories. I think that maybe all in universe, and in uman thinking, imaginationk, and model-building, includes a component of self-emerging structure, too, turning any system - physical or theoretical - into a system with the potential to always form up something new, answering some questions, while opening other, new questions, and hinting at possible ways to approach these.

Maybe maths is no exception.

Somebody once said that life is art, and living means the art of interacting with the universe via imagination, which is an art because both are infinte in time and space. Sometimes, for a split of a second, something lights up in my mind, and then it is gone again, but I had the feeling afterwards that for that split of a moment, barely visible to my awareness, I understood in full what that somebody meant by these words, and understood all. Like a snip of the finger that wakes me up - and the moment I realised it has snipped, it already is gone again.

Should that make me cry or smile now?

Are you kidding? You're telling me a zombie carpenter of immaculate birth is more plausible than the CIA or the Mafis shot JFK?

No, I am saying he pushes several conspiracies as true and espouses absolute faith in those theories no matter how ludicrous they are.
I am saying his belief in those puts him exactly on par with those he is railing against.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes, certain people may have a problem with that line. That'S why I set it up.

I don't have a problem with it. I just said it was obvious.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think since it is your claim they are biased it is your job and duty to give evidence for your claims.

The evidence in this case is not there. I have searched in vain for it. The balanced viewpoint is absent. Only one side of the argument is presented. I understand why, but it doesn't change it's nature. Of course the other side makes similar one sided claims without presenting a balanced view. This is why I refrain from doing it.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh, is it? And there was me, always failing to see any such "well-documented" atheistic system of belief. Okay, I take the bait: show me the evidence that you've got, what is atheistic doctrine, what is the atheistic belief system?

Okay. Enough already. You seem like a well educated and intelligent person. You may have an advantage there. I'm not well educated and my intelligence has been questioned more than once.

Let's try this. Google search, atheism. I get 26,700,000 hits.

There it is. Books, magazine articles, forums, web sites, many web sites. What are they discussing? What are they proclaiming? Are they not actively trying to change peoples mind about the present world view? Maybe I'm missing something. Of course the is no codified set of rules or conditions. That would mean it's a religion, and we can't have that. What you believe in is your doctrine. You are an Atheist. You have to have a doctrine. Why deny it? I would think you would be proud of it.

So yea I'm tired of it to. Your refusal to answer my question on free speech disturbs me far more than anything else you have said.

So I'm done. Happy trails, good luck.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

The evidence in this case is not there. I have searched in vain for it. The balanced viewpoint is absent. Only one side of the argument is presented. I understand why, but it doesn't change it's nature. Of course the other side makes similar one sided claims without presenting a balanced view. This is why I refrain from doing it.

Your religious guy's "logic" surprise me time and again.

To make this clear. You cannot counter the studies' and experiment'S results, which had been run by scientific standards, btw. You even admit you did not find countering arguments or hints or any material falsifying their results. But you still claim they are biased, and what is even worse: you still claim you know it better - but you just weasel around to get away with wanting to be seen as a valid challenger to them without having anything to offer.

This will most likely reward me an infraction and maybe even brig time, I know and I accept it: but I just cannot help myself, I simply must call you an idiot. What'S more, a blindly believing, dogmatic idiot who wants to tell me he is neither blindly believing, nor dogmatic, he has no material, argument, hints, findings to counter studies and arguments, but makes claims that he nevertheless knows it better.

u_crank, the truth is simple: you are a dogmatic believer not wanting to be called that, and you have nothing.

Okay, Neal, Neon, bring it on, if you want, I don't resist nor protest.

Originally Posted by u crank

Your refusal to answer my question on free speech disturbs

That is the cream on top!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Since I like to split hairs with you, in a way you and me even cannot be atheists, nor can anyone else.

I understand your reasoning and even agree, at least where I am concerned, but there are atheists by that definition, in the respect that there are indeed people who absolutely insist there is no God and tell you you're a fool if you believe in one. They are the ones I call hardcore atheists and no, I could never be like that.

On the other hand I have to agree that as far as I can see there is no verifiable evidence at all. Yet I don't even call myself an agnostic. Just because I see no evidence doesn't mean I'm convinced I'm right. I'm still waiting for somebody to show me something. Anything. But maybe someday somebody will.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I understand your reasoning and even agree, at least where I am concerned, but there are atheists by that definition, in the respect that there are indeed people who absolutely insist there is no God and tell you you're a fool if you believe in one. They are the ones I call hardcore atheists and no, I could never be like that.

I admit that thoi8ugh I do not actively ring bells and try to convince people in advance that there is no God, I give people certainly a fight for their money when they get the show started. BTW, I was pulling your leg in the posting earlier. a probability of 99.999999...to eternity percent means nothign else as that 100% is what is really meant. The reference to logics and that nonexistence of something cannot be proven, is just a formal issue, so to speak.

On the other hand I have to agree that as far as I can see there is no verifiable evidence at all. Yet I don't even call myself an agnostic. Just because I see no evidence doesn't mean I'm convinced I'm right. I'm still waiting for somebody to show me something. Anything. But maybe someday somebody will.

You remind me of a person using a Star Trek transporter and then gets locked in transport. Not being materialised, this person hangs between "here" and "there" in the transport buffer, can'T do anything, does not live a life.

Trust your reasonability, Steve, some portion of ordinary common sense. You have not heared, smelled, tasted, seen, felt any hint indicating there is the great eye of the sky. You are how old? 55? Somewhere in that range I think. Time to put a quarter in the machine and dance. I think Pat'S uncomplicated advise is a good recipe there. If you are not bothered by religion, have FUN! Stop bothering for ifs, and maybes, and just-in-cases. Stop the fear. Come to your senses. And just in case there is a god existing somewhere, either he is that sicki psychopath that the scriptures dexfibe hgim as, than feel produ that you have spit in his face, since he would kick ypou down to hell anyway. And if he is the allknowing, wise, friendly Uncle, he already understands you and will smile while you dance.

So why the worries?

Me, I believe in the flying spaghetti monster. When I have died, I have a date with God. Then i will eat him up. Ramen!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You remind me of a person using a Star Trek transporter and then gets locked in transport. Not being materialised, this person hangs between "here" and "there" in the transport buffer, can'T do anything, does not live a life.

Hmm. You seem to know me too well. I think I need to put out a contract on you.

On the other hand, while that describes my real life quite well, it misses the point of my philosophy. I don't obsess over this doubt or waste time thinking about it, I just look at it and accept it.

Trust your reasonability, Steve, some portion of ordinary common sense. You have not heared, smelled, tasted, seen, felt any hint indicating there is the great eye of the sky. You are how old? 55? Somewhere in that range I think.

Sixty-two, actually.

Time to put a quarter in the machine and dance. I think Pat'S uncomplicated advise is a good recipe there. If you are not bothered by religion, have FUN! Stop bothering for ifs, and maybes, and just-in-cases. Stop the fear. Come to your senses.

Unfortunately I'm limited by other things than religion, and certain kinds of enjoyment seem to elude me. But that's me talking about me again, and I have a therapist for that, and a couple of close friends.

So why the worries?

No worries, at least where God is concerned. I just state what I see.

I was a devout believer for awhile, but I've come full circle to what I used to be, only with a lot more awareness. One of of my favorite lines of all time comes from the old Blood, Sweat & Tears song 'And When I Die': "I can swear there ain't no heaven, but I'll pray there ain't no hell."

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I admit that thoi8ugh I do not actively ring bells and try to convince people in advance that there is no God, I give people certainly a fight for their money when they get the show started. BTW, I was pulling your leg in the posting earlier. a probability of 99.999999...to eternity percent means nothign else as that 100% is what is really meant. The reference to logics and that nonexistence of something cannot be proven, is just a formal issue, so to speak.

Now, i would like to see the math behind this.

Come to your senses. And just in case there is a god existing somewhere, either he is that sicki psychopath that the scriptures dexfibe hgim as, than feel produ that you have spit in his face, since he would kick ypou down to hell anyway. And if he is the allknowing, wise, friendly Uncle, he already understands you and will smile while you dance.

That's the attitude.
But he might be neither of those...which still means that you can dance i guess.



..............

I admit that thoi8ugh I do not actively ring bells and try to convince people in advance that there is no God, I give people certainly a fight for their money when they get the show started.

such utter bull

This will most likely reward me an infraction and maybe even brig time

Actually it just illustrates you for what you are and highlights your inability to realise you are exactly the same as that you wish to condemn but cannot see it, though in fact you are probably worse than those you wish to condemn due to the zealous nature in which you hold and express your beliefs and fantasies.

That is the cream on top!

It is, but you can't see it.
That simple question he put highlights the self contradicting nature of your zealotry

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by MH

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know(i don't know much on the issue) and in other cases breaks down.


That's way scientists may be still looking for particles faster than light for example?



............

The whole theory behind that is that you cannot accelerate yourself to such a speed, and so far it has proven true. That doesnt mean, for all intents and purposes, that you cannot travel "faster" than light. Instead of accelerating yourself through space, why not move space out of the way. You are not accelerating, therefore E=MC^2 does not apply and you can reach a destination as quickly as you build your machine to do so, which could be faster than light could reach the same destination from the same distance.

As for the argument, i think its hard to express a desire for freedoms and yet attack religion, regardless of its history. In fact, i believe that it is truly impossible to do so. i believe that religion is a completely ridiculous system and i loathe everything it leads to. Human beings invented religion, and by countless examples, it has proven to be just as flawed as human nature itself. It has lead to a control system, constantly being changed based on the ideas of the few to spread into the masses. Individuals have proven themselves to be, more times than not, to be more reasonable than people.

And because the idea can spread through the people so quickly, because of human nature, it often gets absorbed without individual critical thinking and reason. In this fashion, religion has been used more often than not as a tool for to control the masses for individual gain. Discrimination, crusades, hate, violence,denouncement of scientific advances and the rights of others, all have been the result of religion being used as a tool for the accomplishment of the few.

That is my take on religion, andThose are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of people. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do. i may hate religion, and i may hate many people who bible thump and try to save, for example, homosexuals from "eternal damnation", but i cant deny them the right to believe whatever they want and to express that feeling verbally. All i can do is to stop him from infringing on other's rights and hope, imo, that he comes to his senses.

[MH]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

The whole theory behind that is that you cannot accelerate yourself to such a speed, and so far it has proven true. That doesnt mean, for all intents and purposes, that you cannot travel "faster" than light. Instead of accelerating yourself through space, why not move space out of the way. You are not accelerating, therefore E=MC^2 does not apply and you can reach a destination as quickly as you build your machine to do so, which could be faster than light could reach the same destination from the same distance.
.

Was talking about particles ,neutrinos...but again the properties of neutrinos are in question so it might be bad example.

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Those are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of the few. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly dont believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do.

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.


..............

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The mistake you make here is that atheists are as widely varied as believers.

I am in complete agreement with that statement, Steve. As I stated, I was an atheist. Long time. At no point did I ever try to analyze my belief that there was no God. Not once. I am positive that there are many believers in the same state. In fact I know lots of them. and I recognize that there is a wide range of belief and disbelief.

Another forum member has called me a dogmatic believer. This is far from the truth. I have many questions and no answers. Yes I do believe that there is a Creator Being. Can I prove it. No. Can it be disproved. No one has to my satisfaction. Am I trying to convince others that he exists. Not a chance. Why? Because I don't think it can be done. I wouldn't know where to begin.

Anyway I hope you having a good day.