(June 25, 2013 at 5:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

Quote:Starting to lose me. Even if I concede that the universe is not "an entity"

It is not, period.

Looks like you can take the fundamentalist out of the church but you can't always get the fundamentalist stain out of the atheist. While your argument is succinct it is not convincing.

(June 25, 2013 at 5:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The universe is not set up like a human brain, planets are not neurons and galaxies are not organs and the universe is not a human body.

"Entity" implies cognition, whereas "things" and "objects" do not. The universe simply does, it does not require a cognition to do that. The universe is a thing, not a who.

So many assumptions, so little knowledge. You certainly make your little bit stretch a right far distance, have to give you that.

So you are quite sure that what we know now is all there is to know and all we will ever know. We don't yet understand how the cold dead molecules which make up our warm, squishy neurons add up to what we experience as consciousness but Professor Abba-cadabra (get it?) has made his ruling. The cold dead molecules of the cosmos could never amount to a hill of beans let alone entity-ness. So since Brian's brain can't wrap itself around any known examples of cold dead molecules giving rise to any alternative, that's it. End of discussion.

(June 25, 2013 at 5:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Anyone suggesting such si fi woo is on par with the ancient superstitions. Pantheism is as much superstition as any other.

You are stupidly falling for a gap trap, "We don't know everything" is allowing you to project your human qualities on the universe and the two are completely different.

I actually don't think the cosmos as such has any teleological purposes nor any means to carry them out nor any means to assess its progress. It would be woo in my book too to think that. The difference is I know that I don't know that and so I'm never going to come down on anyone who does wonder about such things with the faux certainty of a revivalist preacher. To mislead someone in this way is a moral failing. You shouldn't do it.

---

(June 25, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Savannahw Wrote: I think the last point just shows how different we are as people. I'm not going to question a persons beliefs, that is personal. If they have questions, I will answer if I can. If I know someone with an outrageous belief, that doesn't hurt anyone, I'll let them keep it. I might research for myself, but you can not convince someone to change their beliefs unless they want to.

Whatever woo--shit you're doing seems to be making you a pretty good person. So carry on, fellow human wanderer. Go forth in wonder and keep calling them as you see them .. or hang it up see if Brian will go on feeding you everything you'll ever need to know.

(June 25, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Savannahw Wrote:

(June 25, 2013 at 4:55 pm)whateverist Wrote: That's some pretty weird shit alright. Did it seem spiritual? I admit I don't use that word a lot.

Oh, and "woo" is something I only use in a derogatory way.

It seemed religious. I'm sure they felt it was spiritual, but I found it ritualistic.
It probably used used mostly that way, but try to say woooooooo while wiggling your eyebrows. Can you keep a straight face?

You make a good point. If you're not laughing enough, you're not doing it right.

Quote:So you are quite sure that what we know now is all there is to know

Dont fucking twist my words to suit your own fantasy.

There are in human history dead claims that no one goes around claiming anymore and even the top scientist Stephen Hawkins says "God is not required", so if that is the case why would any form of cognition be required?

I am sure that a cognition is not required just as a hurricane doesn't need Posiden and lightening does not need Thor as an explanation. Si fi woo is just as stupid to fill in a gap.

Do not accuse me of being a know it all. I can't build a combustion engine either but I certainly can rule out pixy dust fueling my car.

Saying "science and nature" are all there is does not mean we have discovered everything about the universe. Gap filling is what you are doing, not me.

Neil Degress Tyson has a video somewhere explaining the history of gap filling some scientists in history would do and stop and say "we cant know anymore so therefor god did it" Only for further scientists to go further and take once was attributed to a god, to nature.

"ENTITY" is the same gap crap with a different name. "Entity" what exactly does that fucking mean? Seems as hollow and vacuous as every damned god claim I've ever heard.

Keeping an open mind does not presume which is what you are doing. If I am going to place my bets on any future discovery our best data so far is increasingly and speeding toward pointing to "all this" as as being non cognitive so thus whatever we do discover ALSO would not need an "entity" or a God" to explain.

Now unless you can define "entity" as more than "something" I'd suggest you scrap such vacuous hollow language, and look to the best data we have to date. All you are doing is pulling shit out of your ass because the idea of an "entity" feels right to you.

The universe is a what, not a who. THAT we do know so we can rule out a "who" as a cause.

(June 25, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Savannahw Wrote: Do you believe in aliens? Yes no? Is it a cool concept? Do you find it believable? Now ask your self the same questions about souls. I find it believable, because I understand why other people believe in them.

The value I place in religious claims has come from man. But if you asking if I believe that religious claims have a higher power behind them? They could. I don't really find that important. I don't believe they do. I find more significance in the value people place on them.

Point 4. I could stop at that. Usually I do. Sometimes I don't. If the word spiritual fits, better I'll use it. There is a labyrinth at a church in my city. It is a spiritual place to me. A deep connection doesn't cut it. If I say my husband and I have a spiritual connection, then deep connection doesn't go far enough. If spiritual fits the situation better, I'm not afraid of someone disagreeing with me or answering the questions it raises.

I think the last point just shows how different we are as people. I'm not going to question a persons beliefs, that is personal. If they have questions, I will answer if I can. If I know someone with an outrageous belief, that doesn't hurt anyone, I'll let them keep it. I might research for myself, but you can not convince someone to change their beliefs unless they want to.

I think we're coming to some good common ground here, and I'm starting to understand better where you come from on your label. I just wanted to address a few other things before we move on to bigger and better things.

Concerning your example of belief in aliens, I do find the concept fascinating. I'm a huge Trekkie, so of course the prospect of intelligent life beyond our own gives me a huge boner (excuse my crude comparison...hehe). However, just because I like the idea and can understand why others may believe it, doesn't justify me if I ever decide to believe in the same. If I were to make the claim, the burden of proof would be on me to say why that is. I would be unable to provide any evidence that would point to anything resembling pointy-eared Vulcans. That is why, though I can understand why people might believe in E.T.s, I find the concept, based on our current evidence, pretty absurd. (If aliens landed on earth tomorrow, I would not take back those words of mine. Yes, the proof would be undeniable, and I would not even be surprised. But hopefully it makes sense as to why I kept my former assertion until they landed.)

As for religious claims coming from man, I suppose I should just clarify that that's as far as I think it goes for me. I think if their claim is unsubstantiated, that is, if it's undoubtedly false, then there is no reason to even believe that there could be a higher power beyond just the man with the claim. Simply put, I will put no credence to a claim just because someone said it. I believe that you and I definitely are just going to have to differ on that point.

So, back to point 4, I just have to take to mean that you understand the word "spirituality" in the realm of your senses, and not really in the traditional sense, especially if you're using it as a superlative of "deeper connection". Am I right?

You're right, we disagree on that last point. While you may not realize the damage someone with a false belief has on the world, others do see it. Internet trolls do damage all the time by purposefully trying to get people to believe something is false. Misinformation has started wars, gotten people killed, and ended long-lasting relationships. You bet your bottom dollar I'm going to do everything in my power to promote truth, and I'm not going to let people get away with spreading lies, even if they themselves don't realize that they're lies.

---

(June 25, 2013 at 6:15 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Welcome to the forum, BadWriterSparty. It's your first day here and you're off to an amazing start.

Thanks! I really appreciate it. I like that this forum promotes an atmosphere of discussion and learning.

So I take it by my alien example, you understand what I mean, by I find something believable.

I put no personal credence in a claim because someone says so. But I do see the value for that person. I also might enjoy them. Personally, I don't find it a bad thing that man has put a spiritual value on something.

Yes spiritual is definitely a feeling.

I see no harm in letting someone believe what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone. All of your examples include harm.
EX1: My grandmother being extremely against gay rights. I say something.
Ex2: My dad believing in karma. I let that go.

(June 25, 2013 at 9:20 pm)Savannahw Wrote: I see no harm in letting someone believe what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone. All of your examples include harm.
EX1: My grandmother being extremely against gay rights. I say something.
Ex2: My dad believing in karma. I let that go.

All of my examples include lies. I submit that all lies are bad.

While I'm glad that you'll say something about what your grandma said, I'm surprised you wouldn't say anything to your father about Karma. I'm seeing more and more that this might be an argument from ignorance, which is very telling in that you may know what your peers say about Karma, but what it really is keeps entire groups of people in subjugation their entire lives. I'm not surprised you didn't know, but I urge you to research what Karma is, what it originated from, and how believing in it is perpetuating a horrible system of belief that keeps certain people outcast from society.

Also, whether you see the harm or not, a lie is still a lie, and ignorance is not bliss if the Christian boy is picking on the gay kid at school because he doesn't know any better.

Inaction might be the course in life that you've chosen, that is, your decision not to get involved. I'm very proud to say that I can't idly stand by to let the sheeple get herded off the cliffs of their intellectual doom.

(June 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

Quote:So you are quite sure that what we know now is all there is to know

Dont fucking twist my words to suit your own fantasy.

What do you think would have been more fair? How about "Brian claims we know all that is necessary now to rule out all other modes of being except entities as we experience them here on earth and inanimate objects and energy such as science has detected so far." Have I fairly represented your position now?

(June 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: There are in human history dead claims that no one goes around claiming anymore and even the top scientist Stephen Hawkins says "God is not required", so if that is the case why would any form of cognition be required?

But is everything not required necessarily ruled out? That seems to me to be your conclusion.

(June 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Do not accuse me of being a know it all. I can't build a combustion engine either but I certainly can rule out pixy dust fueling my car.

Saying "science and nature" are all there is does not mean we have discovered everything about the universe.

Well do you accept my revised formulation of your position, that we've discovered everything necessary to rule out the possibility of matter and energy ever coming together to create something like consciousness in any other way or at any other level than that which we observe at the neuronal level in creatures on this planet? Now I personally do not harbor any suspicion that consciousness does arise at any other greater order of structure than that of the neuron, but that is at best a hunch. I truly do not know. If you think it is a "known fact", perhaps you could provide some support?

(June 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Gap filling is what you are doing, not me.

If so, I wish you would be more specific. How am I to improve without better feedback?

(June 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Neil Degress Tyson has a video somewhere explaining the history of gap filling some scientists in history would do and stop and say "we cant know anymore so therefor god did it" Only for further scientists to go further and take once was attributed to a god, to nature.

"ENTITY" is the same gap crap with a different name. "Entity" what exactly does that fucking mean? Seems as hollow and vacuous as every damned god claim I've ever heard.

Well, it was your choice, not mine.

(June 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Keeping an open mind does not presume which is what you are doing. If I am going to place my bets on any future discovery our best data so far is increasingly and speeding toward pointing to "all this" as as being non cognitive so thus whatever we do discover ALSO would not need an "entity" or a God" to explain.

Surely you do not think I am arguing for any of that. I don't claim any gods are needed to explain anything. And no one will be more surprised than me if a few should turn up.

(June 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Now unless you can define "entity" as more than "something" I'd suggest you scrap such vacuous hollow language, and look to the best data we have to date. All you are doing is pulling shit out of your ass because the idea of an "entity" feels right to you.

The universe is a what, not a who. THAT we do know so we can rule out a "who" as a cause.

Again, "entity" was your choice. I was listening to and trying to make sense of what you were saying. But frankly, fuck you.

Late to the party, but Howdy!

(June 25, 2013 at 10:05 pm)festive1 Wrote: Late to the party, but Howdy!

Better late than never. I'm just glad the welcome is as warm as it is...in fact, it's gotten pretty heated in certain spots on this thread.

(June 25, 2013 at 10:07 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(June 25, 2013 at 10:05 pm)festive1 Wrote: Late to the party, but Howdy!

Better late than never. I'm just glad the welcome is as warm as it is...in fact, it's gotten pretty heated in certain spots on this thread.

Well that's because you host one hell of a welcome thread. Hope you and the missus enjoy the cookies and well, I'll just be going now. See you around the forums.

(Brian if you want to hear more of what I think of your manners, we'll have to take it outside.)