Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?

[sswhateverlove]

This is what I was referring to... I am reviewing it to check my statistics, I could be wrong, but I do know I'm getting his message correct.

I stand corrected, the statistic is actually 15%, not 25%. The part I'm referring to starts at 12:30

You are misrepresenting what is being said:

1. The percent references the number of members of the National Academy of Science that believe in a personal god. This says absolutely nothing about intelligent design, which was your claim. Flatly disingenuous.

2. NDT is not providing the statistic to demonstrate the validity of god claims. His point is to stress that a solution to the religion problem is not simply a matter of more science education for the general public.

The conference he was speaking at was specifically to discuss ID. I was not misrepresenting that he acknowledged that we should not be ignoring the fact that some of the "world's most brilliant people" still believe in a personal god. He seemed to be implying that if one is to look closer, it's because the things these scientists are finding through their research is confirming those beliefs for them. NDT was acknowledging how amazing that is that with all our advancements in science, these scientists are still finding things that are confirming their belief in a "personal god", or with regard to the conference topic "intelligent design". I too find that fascinating.

[ManMachine]

"Cognito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore, I am”. Descarte’s famous quote sums up, in a few words, everything that I know as absolute truth. I perceive and form opinion. I observe and assess. I experience and evaluate, compare and assimilate based on all my previous experiences. The opinions I form will be dependent upon what I have observed prior and what information I have been socialized to accept as truth. However, the only thing I really know is that I have this experience. I do not know for sure you also experience this (the truth is, you could be a robot), but I know it happens for me.

Biological scientists have attempted to expand upon Descarte’s truth to try to explain the mechanisms involved. Many claim that vibrating waves and particles interact with our awareness and are experienced based on the frequency of the vibration. Labels have been assigned to aspects of, what have been called, “biological systems” to assist with the communication of these concepts. According to many, there is no experience beyond what is capable of being picked up by these receptors (or assistant technologies).

According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”. The biological systems are said to produce an experience based on the vibration of particles interacting with receptors and the subsequent biological processes. The truth about what “is” cannot be deduced from this, it simply confirms Descarte’s claim that we experience and form opinion. Similar to the concept of the “Matrix”, if we choose to believe we are experiencing reality, then our reality is real regardless of what actually “is”. In this sense, anything could be possible.

I'm curious as to the atheist perspective on this...

It's very simple. However I experience my reality is actually, my reality.

MM

[The Valkyrie]

"Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?"

No

[ManMachine]

"Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?"

No

Be honest, if Jesus came back in a long black leather trench-coat and Mary had really cool slick back hair and that Trinity bodkin, it would be much more interesting.

MM

[JesusHChrist]

Roots around looking for a Matrix porno....replete with slo-mo, impossible positions...

[The Valkyrie]

"Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?"

No

Be honest, if Jesus came back in a long black leather trench-coat and Mary had really cool slick back hair and that Trinity bodkin, it would be much more interesting.

MM

Yes, I have to give you that. It would be more interesting.

[Cato]

The conference he was speaking at was specifically to discuss ID. I was not misrepresenting that he acknowledged that we should not be ignoring the fact that some of the "world's most brilliant people" still believe in a personal god. He seemed to be implying that if one is to look closer, it's because the things these scientists are finding through their research is confirming those beliefs for them. NDT was acknowledging how amazing that is that with all our advancements in science, these scientists are still finding things that are confirming their belief in a "personal god", or with regard to the conference topic "intelligent design". I too find that fascinating.

First, this is from a Beyond Belief conference and was not specifically for ID. Are you lying? Or just making shit up to advance a cause?

I'm watching the video you posted. Did you watch it? NDT's discussion of famous scientists and their religious beliefs was to specifically draw attention to the fact that their religion did not inform their science. They believed in spite of their science and for other reasons.

In the portion of the NDT's talk dedicated to the idea of ID, he calls it 'stupid design'; some endorsement. He continues to invoke the idea of a god of the gaps.

[Mister Agenda]

"Cognito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore, I am”. Descarte’s famous quote sums up, in a few words, everything that I know as absolute truth.

I think you meant 'cogito', not 'cognito'. I suppose 'cognito' would be the opposite of 'incognito'. Just a nit, please don't be embarassed, it's easy to type wrong even if your brain knows how to spell it.

I perceive and form opinion. I observe and assess. I experience and evaluate, compare and assimilate based on all my previous experiences. The opinions I form will be dependent upon what I have observed prior and what information I have been socialized to accept as truth. However, the only thing I really know is that I have this experience. I do not know for sure you also experience this (the truth is, you could be a robot), but I know it happens for me.

That sounds like a very thoughtful and reasonable statement.

Biological scientists have attempted to expand upon Descarte’s truth to try to explain the mechanisms involved. Many claim that vibrating waves and particles interact with our awareness and are experienced based on the frequency of the vibration. Labels have been assigned to aspects of, what have been called, “biological systems” to assist with the communication of these concepts. According to many, there is no experience beyond what is capable of being picked up by these receptors (or assistant technologies).

According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”. The biological systems are said to produce an experience based on the vibration of particles interacting with receptors and the subsequent biological processes. The truth about what “is” cannot be deduced from this, it simply confirms Descarte’s claim that we experience and form opinion. Similar to the concept of the “Matrix”, if we choose to believe we are experiencing reality, then our reality is real regardless of what actually “is”. In this sense, anything could be possible.

I'm curious as to the atheist perspective on this...

Sigh. It is true that we can't prove reality is real. We could be brains in vats. Theists can't prove reality is real either. So what does it have to do with atheism? If we ARE brains in vats, it doesn't take an omnipotent deity to explain; just someone capable of putting us in this situation.

---

I ask because of the absolute nature of the atheist perspective. Most atheists I know argue they are 100% sure there is no intelligent design, no influencing entities, however, how can you be so sure?

You're asking the wrong people. Most of the atheists we know don't say that.

What is it that confirms that for you? I mean, "agnostic" seems to be the way to go when there are obviously so many variables that we can't possibly control for. Aren't you concerned about the possibility of having to "eat crow" later on?

Most of us are agnostic atheists. Don't know, don't believe. It's okay for you to use 'agnostic' as a placeholder for the precarious spot exactly between theism and atheism where you put the odds of God at exactly 50/50; but most people who don't think these things can be known don't fall on that sweet spot. They're agnostic theists who don't know but believe anyway (or at least put the odds of God at higher than 50%) or agnostic atheists who don't know and don't believe (or at least put the odds of God being real lower than 50%...usually MUCH lower).

From your posts, you sound much more like an agnostic theist than an on-the-fence agnostic.

Oh, and what does being American have to do with anything?

The implication is that our education system and press have left you less informed than one would expect of a typical Western European citizen. Or rather that, working backwards from how informed you seem to be, the conclusion is that you came up in America rather than a country better at informing its citizenry.

[Exian]

The entire end portion of NDT's talk is a warning AGAINST the god of the gaps, which he equates to ID. He's saying in other words "Look at what happens to progress when we allow religious dogma to rule our academic people!" and to remove ambiguity or any form of misinterpretation he gives the Arabic world as an example. Somehow that still failed.

He also warns against claiming Goddidit when approaching the unknown.

[Mister Agenda]

"The atheist perspective isn't any more absolute than the theist perspective. Most atheists (like me) are agnostic atheists. We simply don't believe in claims like intelligent design and gods because there is no evidence for them. We are not sure that they don't exist. Show us the evidence and we'll believe. Knowledge is not a matter of pride."

I'm curious what types of evidence would be necessary to influence your 100% certainty there is no intelligence to the design of reality? I mean, simply the fact that intelligent life exists seems to imply we are experiencing more than just random, chaotic matter flying around in space. But that's just my opinion...

I'm curious what types of armor-piercing sentences would be necessary to influence your 100% certainty that we're not 100% certain about that?

I mean, simply the fact that he said "We are not sure that they don't exist" seems to imply that he is not 100% certain.

'Random, chaotic matter flying around in space' doesn't seem to be a very adequate description of our state of affairs, but you're clearly 100% certain it's what we think.

But that's just my opinion.

---

An absolute belief that a god doesn't exist is too broad.
What does god even mean?

I know that Allah as described by the quran isn't real though.

I have been intensely researching the astrophysics, quantum physics and epigenetics and I'm finding evidence that is making me veer further away from atheism. I am looking to others that may have knowledge (or be interested in viewing my sources) and give their opinion.

My opinion is that you should go ahead and be a theist already, then you can believe what you already want to believe without jumping through all these hoops.

I am able to fully form my own opinion, only when it's challenged. So far, few people are challenging what I have to say and are simply calling me an idiot. Not helpful.

I have a feeling the number of times you're called an 'idiot' will be proportionate to the number of times you demonstrate that you are unable to process what we say to you.

Neil Degrasse Tyson has a lot of resources out there that have made me question. Astrophysics (I mean "dark matter and energy"?), Quantum Physics (Whaaa...), and Epigenetics (our genes are influenced by WHAT?)

Watching too much Cosmos? Consider that NDT is not reaching the same conclusions from the information that he is providing that you are.

I'm interested in others opinions and (if they're aware of what these sciences are saying) how they are still holding to an absolute atheist position.

When you call our position 'absolutist' after being told multiple times in multiple ways that it's not, we can only conclude that you're NOT interested in our opinions...OR, that you're an idiot.