That's Not Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 09:28 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:06 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  . All I am saying is it quantum mechanics or the theory thereof explains all existence miraculousness God and everything else. Thank you.

Not having a go at you here, but you do not come across as a well educated person who understands the first thing about quantum mechanics.

What's even funnier is that he's trying to argue with someone (cjlr) who knows a lot about quantum mechanics. I can't wait to see how popsthebuilder teaches cjlr how quantum mechanics really works.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 10:07 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  All existence is made up of a similar material. All of this material is not physical and is a vibration these vibrations are able to fluctuate in strength and harmony making literally anything possible. Thank you

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Is that straight off a Deepak Chopra nonsense generator? Stringing random words together does not coherence make.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:30 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 10:20 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What's even funnier is that he's trying to argue with someone (cjlr) who knows a lot about quantum mechanics. I can't wait to see how popsthebuilder teaches cjlr how quantum mechanics really works.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load


"Everything is inextricably connected to quantum silence"

"The Higgs boson imparts reality to dimensionless boundaries"

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 09:06 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  All I am saying is it quantum mechanics or the theory thereof explains all existence miraculousness God and everything else. Thank you.

(14-08-2015 08:37 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  All scientific theories of the physical realm fall apart whenever you back into quantum mechanics.

... this would include the theory of quantum mechanics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:35 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 11:02 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  I am certainly aware of the role of subjectivity. I feel that Atheists need to be fully aware of their biases and the many human tendencies to judge without objective merit. My argument is that Subjectivity and bias are not effective and reliable tools for determining objective truth, but rather stand as obstacles and often emotional cesspits, preventing clear rational thinking.

I think the very idea of clear rational thinking, is spooky stuff.

We're more inclined to believe we're thinking clearly than we actually are. We're more inclined to have our tendencies masquerade as our intellect. Evolution has clearly favored self-deception far more so than insuring our capacities for clear rational thought.

A thought is just a chemical reaction, likely interacting with a variety of other chemical reactions, that you're not remotely even aware of, conscious and unconscious factors. I'd wager that even the appeal of the idea of "clear rational thought", the appeal of being "objective thinking", the desire to downplay or even exclude your "subjective self", that involve a great deal of indirect factors far more closer to home than you are consciously even aware of. I have no doubt that my upbringing, my family life, my experiences as child, the love and dysfunctions of my parents, forms how I see and analyze the world, and why it might be different than others. I can't put that aside and analyze the world, that's a part of my wiring. What I might perceive as "clear thinking", is likely not be analogous to what you perceive as "clear thinking". Even if I imagined I have put all my emotions aside, it likely wouldn't be the same.

Quote:Even now, following in step with your thoughts on this, I could turn it around on you and claim that you are only making this argument in this way because you have suppressed subconscious emotions that render an acceptance of Atheism impossible for you emotionally. I could start listing possible subjective, illegitimate, reasons that could influence/cause your lack of neutrality.

That could very much be true, I sometimes even think about that. Often times when I hear atheists descriptions of reality and life, it comes off as entirely distorted to me, as people seeing people that look like trees. The way they examine the world, taking it in, and expressing how they see it, comes off maladaptive and warped. But then I think this might not be the case. That there perceptions seems entirely fluid to them, as my perceptions seem to me. That I'm just in a predicament of thinking of what it's like to be a bat. And the bat is wondering what it's like to be me. Without realizing that that's not possible for fundamental reasons. It's perhaps my inability to put myself in your head, that's being interpreted as a "distortion" in yours.

Perhaps our minds are fundamentally different, because of variety of factors outside of our control, a problem likely not to be resolved by acquiring the same level of education, or by reading the same books. That what you see as "clear" is fogged to me, and what I see as "clear" is fogged to you.

For once, I find this to be a well-thought-out (if not completely thought out, for reasons I will explain) post, and a valid set of points.

However, it is a recognition of the human self-deception nature that caused us to formulate the Scientific Method, specifically to try to eliminate such biases. Where we cannot eliminate those biases, we leave it in the realm of the subjective. That's fine, and that's why we don't have much of an issue with the beliefs of those of us with Christian spouses, or for instance, KingsChosen and his well-spoken blogger brother.

Where we run into a problem is where theists start making assertions of biases in the realm of things we do know by objective means, as commonly found in the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution arguments, for instance.

It's why I have no problem holding to agnosticism as a philosophy to underlie my atheism opinion. I see nothing that suggests to me that a Creator is real or necessary; others feel differently. I cannot say for sure that it is impossible that they are correct, so I withhold judgment. This principle is often known as "non-overlapping magisteria", and I have no particular issue with it (though several do, here on TTA), and it is also why it's possible to be an evolutionary biologist and a Christian at the same time. However, the instant religious philosophy intrudes into the realm of science, it becomes willful intellectual dishonesty, and it will be attacked by all rational people-- including the aforementioned Christian evolutionary biologists (or those who understand what science actually says but are not professionals).

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-08-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 10:20 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:28 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Not having a go at you here, but you do not come across as a well educated person who understands the first thing about quantum mechanics.

What's even funnier is that he's trying to argue with someone (cjlr) who knows a lot about quantum mechanics. I can't wait to see how popsthebuilder teaches cjlr how quantum mechanics really works.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

As the great Deepak Chropa taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time, for no reason!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 10:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:20 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What's even funnier is that he's trying to argue with someone (cjlr) who knows a lot about quantum mechanics. I can't wait to see how popsthebuilder teaches cjlr how quantum mechanics really works.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

As the great Deepak Chropa taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time, for no reason!

I once read a book by Gary Habermas, trying to establish the historicity of the resurrection. One of his arguments was that the physical resurrection of a person who had been dead for three days was entirely possible, because "quantum mechanics". He cited Einstein on this.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 05:45 PM by Chas.)
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 10:07 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:28 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Not having a go at you here, but you do not come across as a well educated person who understands the first thing about quantum mechanics.
All existence is made up of a similar material.
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:All of this material is not physical
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:All existence is made up of a similar material.
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:and is a vibration
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:All existence is made up of a similar material.
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:these vibrations are able to fluctuate in strength
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:All existence is made up of a similar material.
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:and harmony
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:making literally anything possible.
[Image: 1390269212824.png]
Quote:All existence is made up of a similar material.
[Image: 1390269212824.png]

You're welcome.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
14-08-2015, 01:49 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 10:35 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think the very idea of clear rational thinking, is spooky stuff.

We're more inclined to believe we're thinking clearly than we actually are. We're more inclined to have our tendencies masquerade as our intellect. Evolution has clearly favored self-deception far more so than insuring our capacities for clear rational thought.

A thought is just a chemical reaction, likely interacting with a variety of other chemical reactions, that you're not remotely even aware of, conscious and unconscious factors. I'd wager that even the appeal of the idea of "clear rational thought", the appeal of being "objective thinking", the desire to downplay or even exclude your "subjective self", that involve a great deal of indirect factors far more closer to home than you are consciously even aware of. I have no doubt that my upbringing, my family life, my experiences as child, the love and dysfunctions of my parents, forms how I see and analyze the world, and why it might be different than others. I can't put that aside and analyze the world, that's a part of my wiring. What I might perceive as "clear thinking", is likely not be analogous to what you perceive as "clear thinking". Even if I imagined I have put all my emotions aside, it likely wouldn't be the same.


That could very much be true, I sometimes even think about that. Often times when I hear atheists descriptions of reality and life, it comes off as entirely distorted to me, as people seeing people that look like trees. The way they examine the world, taking it in, and expressing how they see it, comes off maladaptive and warped. But then I think this might not be the case. That there perceptions seems entirely fluid to them, as my perceptions seem to me. That I'm just in a predicament of thinking of what it's like to be a bat. And the bat is wondering what it's like to be me. Without realizing that that's not possible for fundamental reasons. It's perhaps my inability to put myself in your head, that's being interpreted as a "distortion" in yours.

Perhaps our minds are fundamentally different, because of variety of factors outside of our control, a problem likely not to be resolved by acquiring the same level of education, or by reading the same books. That what you see as "clear" is fogged to me, and what I see as "clear" is fogged to you.

For once, I find this to be a well-thought-out (if not completely thought out, for reasons I will explain) post, and a valid set of points.

However, it is a recognition of the human self-deception nature that caused us to formulate the Scientific Method, specifically to try to eliminate such biases. Where we cannot eliminate those biases, we leave it in the realm of the subjective. That's fine, and that's why we don't have much of an issue with the beliefs of those of us with Christian spouses, or for instance, KingsChosen and his well-spoken blogger brother.

Where we run into a problem is where theists start making assertions of biases in the realm of things we do know by objective means, as commonly found in the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution arguments, for instance.

It's why I have no problem holding to agnosticism as a philosophy to underlie my atheism opinion. I see nothing that suggests to me that a Creator is real or necessary; others feel differently. I cannot say for sure that it is impossible that they are correct, so I withhold judgment. This principle is often known as "non-overlapping magisteria", and I have no particular issue with it (though several do, here on TTA), and it is also why it's possible to be an evolutionary biologist and a Christian at the same time. However, the instant religious philosophy intrudes into the realm of science, it becomes willful intellectual dishonesty, and it will be attacked by all rational people-- including the aforementioned Christian evolutionary biologists (or those who understand what science actually says but are not professionals).

I'm not sure if I'm being too literal, or applying just a dose of reality to any given god concept, but if anyone suggests that god has a finite primate form, that's not possible.

If an alleged god can create a universe, the amount of energy pouring through that finite form would vaporize it. Don't tell me that god can point his finger and have a star form from his mighty hand, all I see is a physical construct that would vaporize from channeling that much energy.

The primitives that formed the Abrahamic god concepts simply did not understand energy or physics. They had no idea how to make an alleged being with that much power make any sense at all.

Though it's really great a being that could channel the energies of a trillion galaxies through his finger would care about whether you picked up sticks on a certain day of a Sumerian derived calendar. Dodgy

The infinitely great reduced to the infinitesimally petty, that's exactly what we'd expect from a bunch of primitives making stuff up.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
14-08-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 10:07 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:28 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Not having a go at you here, but you do not come across as a well educated person who understands the first thing about quantum mechanics.
All existence is made up of a similar material. All of this material is not physical and is a vibration these vibrations are able to fluctuate in strength and harmony making literally anything possible. Thank you

Thank you for confirming that you do not understand quantum mechanics.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: