Back to square one-again.

Let's focus on Santa today. He is a "god," too. He is omniscient (thanks to his intelligence network), omnipotent (when it comes to delivering toys), and omnibenevolent (if you have been nice), and since we can't prove he doesn't exist, he should get equal billing with whatever version of the divine you seem to be wanting, Amker.

LOL, by the way, regarding Newton and Einstein: The difference is, we did find out that what they were talking about had a bearing on reality, and within a relatively (pun intended) short span of time. Two thousand years and change and there is zero evidence god exists.

(December 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm)amkerman Wrote: I don't know why you call God a delusion when you can't prove God doesn't exist. It doesn't hurt my feelings but it's sad. Many things have been believed first before they were discovered. Those who discovered them may have been thought delusional at first, Newton and Einstein come to mind.

Hmm. I dismiss the existence of god out of reason, logic and critical thinking - but that's not all, out of lack of evidence. Really, It's easy to dismiss the existence of deities as a superstitious. The irony are theists dismissed deities all but one.

Don't be sad - it's lifestyle we choose. Anyway- let us enjoy our X-mas.

Gravity existed as long as the universe. So did relativity if that theory is correct. They both existed the short duration of human existence. Newton and Einstein did not invent them, simply defined them in terms acceptable to science. Science does not look for God, so God is not found. As the study of consciousness becomes more accepted within the scientific community I expect a convergence of science and religion in it's broadest sense.

Perhaps-, these are all the same assumption. The assumption of existence, which I've handled at length. I won't repeat myself. Merry Christmas BTW.

Amker, did you enjoy the movie, What the Bleep Do We Know?

Somehow, I think you would.

Oh, and a quote from one of the film's many critics, Bernie Hobbs, just for you and perhaps:

"The observer effect of quantum physics isn't about people or reality. It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's about the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles... this only applies to sub-atomic particles—a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It's there. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too."

Thanks ep I'll look into it. I am familiar w heisenbergs uncertainty principle. There is actually a TED talk with someone replicating the phenomenon with a piece of uniform matter about the size of a quarter I think. I listened to it awhile ago I may be wrong.

---

Aaron oconnel: making sense of a visible quantum object.

---

I guess Bernie Hobbs needs to rethink his criticism. Or he can just dismiss it to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Blam I fear your analysis of God is incomplete. I was an agnostic for all of a few months. In high school. You probably stopped your thinking process after: I don't see god, science doesn't believe in god, I like science bc it has answered many questions, religions can't all be right, much bloodshed and suffering has been caused in the name of religion, if religion is right then why do bad things happen to good people, religion is not right. Therefore no god. It's sophomoric. Atheism is a response to religion. It's reactionary. It has nothing to do with God. It's the equivalent of teenagers rebelling against their parents when their parents tell them something is not good for them bc they think they know better. Maturity and wisdom with experience and thought eventually make most of us grow up. Atheism is a phase of understanding on a path to realization. It is not the end result. continue questioning your beliefs and continue to strive for understanding. Never think you are right or that what you believe is complete. I have faith that you'll get there.

---

That goes for everyone here, including myself.

---

Furthermore, and I should probably start a new thread but the conversation has gone so far off topic that I'll just continue here. All religions, atheism, pantheism, agnosticism, are merely labels. They are the equivalent of being called a liberal or a democrat. They have no meaning beyond that which we personally ascribe them. People are people. They should not be judged on the labels they ascribe to themselves, are assigned by others, or are born into. Labels do not cause problems, individuals or groups of individuals do. Hating atheists or Christians or Muslims is just a form of bigotry. It's racism by another name.

---

I guess, since so many here have taken the intellectual route of labeling themselves using terms like pantheist, deist, secular humanist, etc if I were to define myself under such terminology I would be considered an "idealistic realist".

It always comes down to self-righteous claptrap with theists.

There's your god - identity - something you see in your delusions of moral superiority. Now it's fucking racism; thought processes that stop in high school, yada fucking yada.

For what? The moral right of your identity. Fuck that. Your identity doesn't exist beyond yourself.

I dunno hoc... I sense some underpinnings of solipsism in your responses. I still have trouble understanding you. I claim no moral superiority. Not claiming anyones Thought processes stopped in hs. Simply making an analogy. I'm also not accusing anyone of racism... or bigotry. Just stating my views... This is a forum right? That sort of thing is allowed. Didn't mean to offend.

But, "it's always the same self-righteous claptrap from theists" seems like bigotry to me. "It's always the same welfare handout expecting laziness from blacks"; it's always the same entitlement socialist bleeding heart garbage from liberals; it's always the same God and Guns from fundy neocons;... I see a pattern.

That's what we do, recognize pattern.

And if I seem to manifest a gospel of hate, it is mere artifact of agenda: I'm anti-religion, period. But love is the ocean; hate merely the whitecaps of turbulent existence. I don't hate anybody.

This topic has mostly fired up the agenda - not to give ground on any theist shenanigans - but me, you and Perhaps share a similar perspective. We just disagree on the conclusion.

You cats seem to require that consciousness be an energy state and part of the physical universe; for me it is an emergent property. Rather than a field, I see mathematical principle; and I'm quite content to keep it metaphysical. I don't see the need for identity that the theist does as I don't have to be something - I am content to be nothing.