(February 14, 2012 at 2:41 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Think about it.

Even secular scientists think of black holes as being the most disturbing objects in the universe. Fall into a black hole and not only can you never escape, but even the atoms, matter, and energy that make up your body can never escape.

Think about the measure of how baked you are? Where in the hell did you brought up back holes?

Quote:Many scientists have found this extremely disturbing.

Yet this is what pure secular atheists proclaim about death. They proclaim that dying is like a black hole. It's a one-way ticket that leads to permanent non-existence.

And then they wonder why people find this "disturbing"?

Sorry man, you are way too incoherent to grab any further attention from me.

(February 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

Abra Wrote:Even secular scientists think of black holes as being the most disturbing objects in the universe. Fall into a black hole and not only can you never escape, but even the atoms, matter, and energy that make up your body can never escape.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19649_6-m...ovies.html

I don't find it any more disturbing than the sun.

I don't either. In fact, falling off the roof of my house could end in death. So getting up on my roof to repair it is as disturbing as a black hole for me.



In fact, I fear being mangled and living through the experience far more than I fear death.

If I were to fear a black hole it would probably be the spaghettification process that would be the most disturbing. And of course being burnt to a crisp by the sun, isn't exactly attractive either.

Dying in my sleep and not even knowing that I've died is the most attractive for me.

Or having a heart-attack brought on by extreme sexual ecstasy wouldn't be bad either. But unfortunately that's not likely to be the cause of my death. But then again, they say to never say never.

Abra Wrote:I don't either. In fact, falling off the roof of my house could end in death. So getting up on my roof to repair it is as disturbing as a black hole for me.

Word of advice: never farm, commercially fish/crab, or work in construction.

I'm sure simply watching my antics would terrify you. That's okay though, here's a hug.

* Violet hugs abra.

(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It doesn't need to be a "lie" at all.

I'm not suggesting that these other spiritual ideas need to be supported as having 'evidence' for being true.

All I'm saying is that they can't be disproved. And that, my friend, is not a lie.

It is. Check out the other thread.

(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The jealous God religions can be disproved via the very contradictions that are blatantly apparent within the fables themselves. You don't even need science to prove that the Abrahamic myths are false.

The same applies to the bullshit you are peddling.

(February 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You ask, "Why would start, naked truth be certain doom?".

Well, if you're referring to what pure secular atheists believe to be true, then how could it be anything other than certain doom? That's precisely what a secular atheist is selling.

To simply cease to exist when your body dies is "Certain Doom"

Perhaps you don't realize this, but that is precisely what pure secular atheism amounts to,... CERTAIN DOOM.

Oh, you mean in eventual certain doom rather than certain doom as soon as they accept atheism?

Well, certain doom is the truth irrespective one's beliefs. I don't see how clinging to an old fantasy, changing fantasies or facing the truth is going to change that? How would your middle way be a safety-net?

(February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It's precisely because of this kind of haughty arrogance that religious people will never believe a word any atheists says.

Evidently some atheist extremists (such as yourself evidently), are making unrealistic claims that they can't possibly back up. All you're doing is spewing "lies" in precisely the same way that Christian proselytizers spew their "lies".

Obviously you both believe what you believe, but clearly neither of you can prove you baloney.

So you'll remain locked in horns in a stalemate forever with the Christians because you can't proof your faith-based claims anymore than they can prove theirs. It's a dead heat.

It has been backed up and all you could do against those arguments is babble endlessly about gaps of knowledge in science.

(February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I'm not peddling any bullshit. That's just more of your own erroneous assumptions. All I'm doing is suggesting wise and realistic solutions to the problems facing modern day humanity.

Unfortunately there exists extremists on both sides of the fence. The religious extremists claiming they have rock-solid proof of their jealous Gods. And the atheist extremists making equally absurd claims that they can rule out every possible spiritual concept of reality.

Both of those positions are equally unsupportable.

Your "solution" is based on the absence of knowledge about reality. Therefore, it cannot be realistic.

(February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It would be a safety-net because, unlike your personal and erroneous claims, it can't be disproved.

That wouldn't change the fact of certain doom and neither would it protect anyone form it.

(February 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you believe that you can disprove any and all concepts of a spiritual essence to reality, then you truly do fit the definition of an atheist in my signature line.

Any genuinely intelligent should know that we have not come anywhere near close to have ruling out such things. If you have convinced yourself that you can, then that's your own personal fantasy right there.

I certainly defend your right to believe that for yourself. But trying to push your views onto other people as though they represents the infallible word of God, is no different from preaching the Abrahamic religoins.

The only difference in your case is that you're claiming to be this God because you're the one who claims to know the supreme truth of ultimate reality.

If that's true, why don't you take a stroll over to the scientific community and set them straight on all their current scientific theories and speculations?

After all, if you claim to know the true nature of reality, then you should be able to answer any question anyone has about reality without hesitation.

If you can't do that, then clearly you are just full of hot air.

Sorry to be so blunt, but truth is truth.

All you're doing is preaching secular atheism as a personal faith-based religion on your part.

You're every bit as deluded in your fantasies as the most tenacious religious zealot.

You don't need complete knowledge of what a thing is to rule out what it cannot be. Even if a reality independent of spatio-temporal reality does exist, it cannot have a consciousness.

Knowing the true nature of reality (again with the redundancy, you just don't learn, do you?) is not required to state what it cannot be. What it cannot be is self-contradictory and your position necessarily leads to self-contradiction.

(February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: Your "solution" is based on the absence of knowledge about reality. Therefore, it cannot be realistic.

Remaining open-minded about what cannot be known is not unrealistic.

(February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: That wouldn't change the fact of certain doom and neither would it protect anyone form it.

Certain doom is not necessarily a 'fact'. It's just something that you have personally accepted to believe because you can't imagine a spiritual essence to reality.

And I never said that it would protect anyone from anything. All I suggested is that it would allow people to have hope who wish to consider these things as possibilities.

(February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: You don't need complete knowledge of what a thing is to rule out what it cannot be. Even if a reality independent of spatio-temporal reality does exist, it cannot have a consciousness.

So says you.

But who are you to make such an outrageous claim?

You can't possibly know that with absolute certainty. All you can do is accept that you personally feel that this is the most likely situation. But trying to demand that other people jump to the same conclusions that you do can only amount to extreme personal arrogance.

There's just no other explanation for such a stance.

(February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: Knowing the true nature of reality (again with the redundancy, you just don't learn, do you?) is not required to state what it cannot be. What it cannot be is self-contradictory and your position necessarily leads to self-contradiction.

I disagree. It's that simple.

I can personally imagine a scenario where the totally of what we think we know is actually nothing more than an illusion.

Yet, your conclusions that you can rule out illusion would themselves be based on that illusion, thus making them totally illusive and meaningless.

You're very foundational premise begins with your acceptance that everything you have experienced and see around you cannot possibly be an illusion.

You could be totally wrong about that altogether.

In fact, there exists scientists and cosmologists today who are seriously toying with ideas that the entire universe may be nothing more than a hologram of some sorts.

There was a "Black Hole War" between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking concerning the idea of whether or not "information" can be lost from the universe. Susskind held that this would be an extreme violation of our very understanding of physics. Hawking felt that our understanding of physics must then be violated.

After many years, Hawking finally conceded that Susskind was right, and that information is not lost when it falls into a black hole, but instead it is somehow spread across the entire event horizon.

And esoteric conclusion to be sure, but this is what physicists are considering.

From these very results other cosmologists have chimed in suggesting that our entire universe may actually be some kind of hologram that is actually being created by a 'surface boundary' of the universe, too far away for us to even detect.

Yes, I'll be the first to grant that these are truly wild and speculative theories. None the less, these types of theories exist. And like Leonard Susskind himself has said, we don't question whether or not these things make intuitive sense, we just follow the logic, and that's where the logic appears to be pointing.

So your claim that you can "rule out" anything, is a bit premature, IMHO.

You may as well be preaching Christian fundamentalism as far as I'm concerned. You're demand that you can rule something out is equally laughable.

You have absolutely no ground to stand on.

All you can say is that based on assumptions and premises that you are personally willing to accept, you can't imagine how a spiritual essence of reality can exist.

But in truth, that is not impressive to other people, nor should it be.

You could be accepting totally false assumptions and be totally unaware of that fact yourself.

Like I say, I can easily lump you in with the definition of "atheist" in my sig line. A person who simply lacks enough imagination to overcome mundane assumptions. That instantly explains away your claim to have a 'proof" of anything. You're just accepting assumptions that cannot themselves be proven.

Why should I accept your limited thinking?

(February 14, 2012 at 11:56 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(February 14, 2012 at 8:05 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Seems the only reasonable solution...since the "leaders of these factions" are so hell bent on destruction..let us see how well they fare in a one to one confrontation??

The trouble with leaders hell bent on destruction is that they're always too willing to let others to the fighting and dying for them. If the leaders themselves actually had to do the fighting, there would be no wars.

That's my point and my dream.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Remaining open-minded about what cannot be known is not unrealistic.

Being open-minded does not mean one should lend credence to any and every idea that one comes across. It simply requires one to consider and idea based on its merits, and if its found to be irrational, to reject it.

Your ideas are rooted in absence of knowledge of the unknown and denial of knowledge of the known. Lending it any credence is not a sign of open-mindedness.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Certain doom is not necessarily a 'fact'. It's just something that you have personally accepted to believe because you can't imagine a spiritual essence to reality.

Oh, I can imagine it alright. I simply realize that my imagination has no bearing on reality. Something you seem to be incapable of learning.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And I never said that it would protect anyone from anything. All I suggested is that it would allow people to have hope who wish to consider these things as possibilities.

So how is it any 'safer' than their original god fantasy? It is in the same category as it.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So says you.

But who are you to make such an outrageous claim?

You can't possibly know that with absolute certainty. All you can do is accept that you personally feel that this is the most likely situation. But trying to demand that other people jump to the same conclusions that you do can only amount to extreme personal arrogance.

There's just no other explanation for such a stance.

I know it with as much certainty as I know that there is no god, Christian or otherwise. And with as much certainty as I know who I am and where I am right now.

As for explanations, I've given them. You just seem unable to understand them.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I disagree. It's that simple.

I can personally imagine a scenario where the totally of what we think we know is actually nothing more than an illusion.

Yet, your conclusions that you can rule out illusion would themselves be based on that illusion, thus making them totally illusive and meaningless.

You're very foundational premise begins with your acceptance that everything you have experienced and see around you cannot possibly be an illusion.

You could be totally wrong about that altogether.

No. My argument is that even if this is an illusion, the axioms of existence would still be applicable to the reality (that is separate from the illusion).

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, there exists scientists and cosmologists today who are seriously toying with ideas that the entire universe may be nothing more than a hologram of some sorts.

There was a "Black Hole War" between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking concerning the idea of whether or not "information" can be lost from the universe. Susskind held that this would be an extreme violation of our very understanding of physics. Hawking felt that our understanding of physics must then be violated.

After many years, Hawking finally conceded that Susskind was right, and that information is not lost when it falls into a black hole, but instead it is somehow spread across the entire event horizon.

And esoteric conclusion to be sure, but this is what physicists are considering.

From these very results other cosmologists have chimed in suggesting that our entire universe may actually be some kind of hologram that is actually being created by a 'surface boundary' of the universe, too far away for us to even detect.

Yes, I'll be the first to grant that these are truly wild and speculative theories. None the less, these types of theories exist. And like Leonard Susskind himself has said, we don't question whether or not these things make intuitive sense, we just follow the logic, and that's where the logic appears to be pointing.

So your claim that you can "rule out" anything, is a bit premature, IMHO.

And here you go off at a tangent again, blabbering about possible scientific theories and how little knowledge we have about the possible existence of this "other" reality. None of which lend an iota of support to your pet hypothesis.

Understand this. I'm quite open to the idea of existence of a "reality" independent of spacetime. What I have ruled out is the possibility of existence of a consciousness in that reality - inherent or otherwise. I've ruled out the former based on axiom of existence and the latter based on the known nature of consciousness.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You may as well be preaching Christian fundamentalism as far as I'm concerned. You're demand that you can rule something out is equally laughable.

Obviously, you would think so. For someone incapable of being rational, telling difference between rationality and absence of it is impossible.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You have absolutely no ground to stand on.

Much more that your Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All you can say is that based on assumptions and premises that you are personally willing to accept, you can't imagine how a spiritual essence of reality can exist.

I can imagine it and by the same standard, rule it out.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But in truth, that is not impressive to other people, nor should it be.

You could be accepting totally false assumptions and be totally unaware of that fact yourself.

Except, these axioms cannot be false, because without them, there wouldn't be anything such as a "false statement".

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Like I say, I can easily lump you in with the definition of "atheist" in my sig line. A person who simply lacks enough imagination to overcome mundane assumptions. That instantly explains away your claim to have a 'proof" of anything. You're just accepting assumptions that cannot themselves be proven.

You do understand the difference between an axiom and an assumption, right? No, I don't think you do.

An assumption is a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument. An axiom is a statement which is true for every possible argument.

(February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Why should I accept your limited thinking?

I would've said "because you seem incapable of thinking for yourself", but your unthinking acceptance is not something I want or care about.