Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Your position is incoherent drivel and I am a quantum physicist.


If you are a Quantum Physicist then why do you keep talking about probability instead of addressing the measurement problem? And why did you claim that Einstein was not bothered by the Metaphysical problem of existence. If you were a Quantum Physicist then you would not have accused me of quote mining and went on and on about probability.

You would no that Pauli said the same thing to Einstein about Metaphysics that you are saying to me. That he shouldn't worry about QM having Metaphysical Implications and you would also know that Pauli has been proven wrong.

But you do not address any of this. You claim that Einstein only had a problem with QM probability but Pauli himself chastised Einstein for concerning himself with QM Metaphysical Implications.

Yes I capitalized some words here. So what you still have not addressed one thing I said. And you seem pretty ignorant about the Bohr and Einstein Debate for a Quantum Physicist.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Quote:
All you've said is a vague and incoherent mess of "but, like, maybe there's something out there, maaan".

Again prove it

You don't seem to understand words.

I don't have to prove what you said.

You are the one that doesn't seem to understand words. I wasn't asking you to prove that there is not "Something out there". I am claiming that I never made a vague incoherent argument for "something out there".

Since you are claiming that all my arguments are vague and incoherent and you further assert that all my arguments are for some vague "something out there" existing in some incoherent way ...

I asked you to prove that my arguments are all vague and incoherent or that I was claiming that there was "something out there" called God that I could prove.

I never made a claim that I could prove God exist.
I never made vague incoherent arguments for what God is.
You say I have done both.

So I asked you to prove it.

But you have so little understanding of words and so little ability to reason that you decided I was asking you to prove that some vague incoherent description of God isn't real.

Again because you are so dense I never asked you to prove this vague incoherent concept of God isn't true because I never made any vague incoherent arguments for God let alone claimed I could prove them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:32 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 03:14 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 01:26 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  My point here is that for years I have argued with Atheist on Quantum Effects in the Brain and they always answered woo because I said it opened the door to a Physical Soul.

There is absolutely no reason yet to think that human intelligence requires quantum effects to occur in the brain. That's not to say that they don't occur, we don't know. But from what we can tell based on the number of neurons, the complexity of a single neuron, secondary messengers, neuro-modulation, the connectivity between neurons, synaptic plasticity, dendritic trees and some have even suggested synaptic spines and glial cells, there is no apparent lack of computational power in the brain.

Wow Mathilda thank you!!!

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:35 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 10:19 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:Your position is incoherent drivel and I am a quantum physicist.


If you are a Quantum Physicist then why do you keep talking about probability instead of addressing the measurement problem? And why did you claim that Einstein was not bothered by the Metaphysical problem of existence. If you were a Quantum Physicist then you would not have accused me of quote mining and went on and on about probability.

You would no that Pauli said the same thing to Einstein about Metaphysics that you are saying to me. That he shouldn't worry about QM having Metaphysical Implications and you would also know that Pauli has been proven wrong.

But you do not address any of this. You claim that Einstein only had a problem with QM probability but Pauli himself chastised Einstein for concerning himself with QM Metaphysical Implications.

Yes I capitalized some words here. So what you still have not addressed one thing I said. And you seem pretty ignorant about the Bohr and Einstein Debate for a Quantum Physicist.

I don't need to pay attention to your incoherent, rambling answers, because you don't even understand the questions.

The "measurement problem" is one of probabilistic versus deterministic character.

The vague and pointless Metaphysical Implications you blather on about - unsubstantiated and undefined - don't concern me. There's nothing to address in that morass.

You don't understand quantum theory. Deal with it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:39 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:thespiritualanarchist Wrote:
And I just backed this up with what Pauli said. Pauli also claimed that QM had nothing to say in relation to Metaphysics. And he was proven wrong by Physicist!

That isn't what he said. Literally. Not what he said. The exact quote is just up the page. And that isn't what it says.

Pauli said

Quote:“One should no more rack one's brain about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists all the same, than about the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle. But it seems to me that Einstein's questions are ultimately always of this kind.”

And he was wrong.

The point is he was pointing out that Einstein was worried about QM implications about existence. Which is what you kept claiming I was quote mining to prove.

I used what Einstein said about QM to prove that Einstein was concerned with the Metaphysical Implications of QM.

I then quoted Pauli saying that Einstein was too concerned about Metaphysical Implications.

I then pointed out that Pauli was wrong to think that these implications were not important.

Quote:Bell's theorem published in 1964 by John Bell, and particularly its extension published a few years later by Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker, establish that Einstein and Pauli were both wrong. The question if something one can not observe does exist, is not a meaningless philosophical musing, but a question that can be answered experimentally
Einstein Got It Wrong, Can You Do Better?
By Johannes Koelman | December 14th 2011 05:21 PM
.

You are obviously not a Quantum Physicist or you would know all this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:42 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2014 10:47 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 10:30 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  You are the one that doesn't seem to understand words. I wasn't asking you to prove that there is not "Something out there". I am claiming that I never made a vague incoherent argument for "something out there".

Since you are claiming that all my arguments are vague and incoherent and you further assert that all my arguments are for some vague "something out there" existing in some incoherent way ...

I asked you to prove that my arguments are all vague and incoherent or that I was claiming that there was "something out there" called God that I could prove.

I never asked you to prove anything. That's a straw man.

I asked you to specify what you're talking about. You can't. You haven't even tried. Repeat "God" and "Metaphysical Implications" all you like; that doesn't make a coherent statement.

(24-07-2014 11:42 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  I never made a claim that I could prove God exist.
I never made vague incoherent arguments for what God is.
You say I have done both.

So I asked you to prove it.

You're really not trying, are you?

I did not claim you could prove anything. I said, quite accurately, that your vague nonsense was not coherent.

This:
(24-07-2014 11:42 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  That is only because I do not see God as a "person" and I am not a Theist. So I do not try to define God like a Theist so Atheist can argue that I am talking about a supernatural "person".

Obviously if there is a such thing as God then the description can not be like describing an object.

So even I could not describe God I could not do this better than Einstein. This does not prove that I am quote mining.

If I make an attempt to define God then I only have two choices.

1.I can describe God as The Source of All that IS. And I can describe that Source as Awareness itself. And then you will say I am too vague.

or

2. I could describe God as a Quantum Aspect of Reality in which case I would need a degree in Quantum Physics in order to even begin.

... is completely incoherent drivel. Deal with it. It is a vacuous, pointless, undefined deepity cesspit.

"God as a Quantum Aspect of Reality" is one of the best non sequiturs I've ever seen. Good for you.

(25-07-2014 10:30 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  But you have so little understanding of words and so little ability to reason that you decided I was asking you to prove that some vague incoherent description of God isn't real.

Again because you are so dense I never asked you to prove this vague incoherent concept of God isn't true because I never made any vague incoherent arguments for God let alone claimed I could prove them.

Go play Deepak Chopra somewhere else.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:43 AM
Re: RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 10:03 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:You combine way too much into generalized certainties. It's a trend on here makes people not taken seriously.

For one, you speak as if metaphysics is all philosophy as a whole when saying philosophy should be taken back from theists. It comes off as thinking that's all that matters.

Just because I say that Metaphysics should not be blown off it doesn't mean I am saying that it is all that matters.

Quote:And you make the annoying statement about atheists having unified ideas, which you don't agree with of course, but there's no rational to where this take on atheists comes from. Many ideas even on religious or metaphysical topics have vast disagreements by atheists as threads and polls here will show.

I said over and over that I was referring to certain of the New Atheist like Sam Harris and Dan Dennett. I do not know why I have to keep answering the same question over and over.

Quote:m curious oabout your claim of atheists disregarding pantheism off hand, because threads/polls here over the years show many atheists that go through here don't deny a deistic or pantheist gods existence the same that do for a human interacting God like of most religions. It just happens most easily accept going one step beyond them because there's no reason to accept their validity. We can discuss the concepts but the expounding doesn't go very far.

Well so far on this board there has not been much discussion from Atheist who have said one thing to indicate that they support the possibility of Pantheism or Deism. I am well aware that there is a movement of Spiritual Atheist that are open to Non theist ideas about God. I don't think this is an Atheist issue but it does seem to be an issue on this particular thread on this particular message board.

So far people in this thread have been rude and obnoxious to me. But I see people like this on the Theist boards I visit too. People who instead of addressing what I actually say make arguments about the supernatural or claim I'm taking things out of context when I am not.

Quote:As for you're disagreement with Sam Harris or at least his neurological basis for free will, I thought it sounds like you are saying you disagree with it because it simply doesn't fit your bias of wanting it to be a metaphysical debate.

No I am saying that Sam Harris has a confirmation type bias against free will because it simply does not fit his political views or social agenda. Does Sam Harris give good evidence for the likelihood of determinism in the brain? Yes the evidence is there that supports determinism. Does this prove determinism of will to the same extent that evolution by natural selection has been proven true by evidence? No.

Quote:I get your overall point, but I don't get the reason or "point" behind your point. To me it's arbitrary and these issues aren't as polarized as you protest.

I do not really think anything is polarized across the board with Atheist or Theist.

But I do think that popular culture exist. And I do think that the New Atheist are bought and paid for by the Union of Concerned Scientists just like the Intelligent Design people are funded by the Discovery Institute.

To be honest you are one of the first people on here (At least in this thread as of lately) that has at least tried to address what I actually said. There seems to be a weird thing of human nature that shuts down reason or rational thought in debates on message boards.

I think if I debated someone like Richard Dawkins he would definitely put me in my place with certain scientific facts since he is a scientist. But I doubt he would keep using the word "supernatural" once I explained to him that I didn't support that idea. And I know he wouldn't have accused me of quote mining when it was obvious I wasn't using quotes out of the context they were intended.

I may do things that appear to generalize too much and I may even have the habit of generalizing once in awhile to get a point across. But as you can see I am at least answering you in relation to what you have actually said. This is more than I can say for some people on here.

The people on this board that have these not outright dismissals are generally what one, at least I do, consider "new atheists" and not the spiritual atheist type... That would probably be Luminon. But I think there's a difference of the skeptical atheists curious approach and someone who actually considers those ideas worthwhile.

As I said when you come off making generalized and somewhat outthere points, people here don't respect you. You are treated rudely because you come off superior in your first and subsequent posts. It's frequent here and in many boards. Sometimes it's not the posters intentions, sometimes it is intentionally, usually with religious trolls and high octane crazed conspiracy followers it is. Yeah it's kinda message board nature as you say.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:46 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 10:39 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:thespiritualanarchist Wrote:
And I just backed this up with what Pauli said. Pauli also claimed that QM had nothing to say in relation to Metaphysics. And he was proven wrong by Physicist!

That isn't what he said. Literally. Not what he said. The exact quote is just up the page. And that isn't what it says.

Pauli said

Quote:“One should no more rack one's brain about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists all the same, than about the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle. But it seems to me that Einstein's questions are ultimately always of this kind.”

And he was wrong.

You can't invent his meaning for him. That's dishonest.

Furthermore you can't vapidly assert that it's "wrong". That's incoherent.

(25-07-2014 10:30 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  The point is he was pointing out that Einstein was worried about QM implications about existence. Which is what you kept claiming I was quote mining to prove.

I used what Einstein said about QM to prove that Einstein was concerned with the Metaphysical Implications of QM.

I then quoted Pauli saying that Einstein was too concerned about Metaphysical Implications.

I then pointed out that Pauli was wrong to think that these implications were not important.

Oh, look, more vacuous assertion.

(25-07-2014 10:30 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:Bell's theorem published in 1964 by John Bell, and particularly its extension published a few years later by Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker, establish that Einstein and Pauli were both wrong. The question if something one can not observe does exist, is not a meaningless philosophical musing, but a question that can be answered experimentally
Einstein Got It Wrong, Can You Do Better?
By Johannes Koelman | December 14th 2011 05:21 PM
.

You are obviously not a Quantum Physicist or you would know all this.

The fact that the best you can do is facile copypasta you don't even understand does not reflect well on your understanding of modern physical theories. Your long, rambling incoherence is not compelling. Your fatuous ignorance is not compelling.

Do you even know what Bell's inequality is? What it suggests? How it has been tested?
(copypasta answers will not be graded)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Just because you capitalise words doesn't make them Important.

Not that your incoherent, rambling claims make any sense. "Metaphysics means the nature of reality and quantum mechanics is a theory on the nature of reality, therefore GAAAAAAAAAAWD". Nope. Thanks for playing!

Nope. I never made that argument.

Here is how you misrepresent my argument.

1. Metaphysics is the study of questions on the nature of Reality
2. QM is a theory on the nature of Reality
3. Therefore I can prove that God exist

I never made this argument.

My Argument was much simpler.

1. Metaphysics is the study of questions on the nature of Reality
2. QM is a theory on the nature of Reality
3. QM has Metaphysical Implications

You have not been able to prove my real argument is wrong let alone your absurd assertion that I was quoting Einstein out of context to prove my view.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 10:47 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:Just because you capitalise words doesn't make them Important.

Not that your incoherent, rambling claims make any sense. "Metaphysics means the nature of reality and quantum mechanics is a theory on the nature of reality, therefore GAAAAAAAAAAWD". Nope. Thanks for playing!

Nope. I never made that argument.

Here is how you misrepresent my argument.

1. Metaphysics is the study of questions on the nature of Reality
2. QM is a theory on the nature of Reality
3. Therefore I can prove that God exist

I never made this argument.

I never said you did. Your straw man is a straw man, and you therefore fail at failing.

Congratulations, I guess.

(25-07-2014 10:47 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  My Argument was much simpler.

1. Metaphysics is the study of questions on the nature of Reality
2. QM is a theory on the nature of Reality
3. QM has Metaphysical Implications

You have not been able to prove my real argument is wrong let alone your absurd assertion that I was quoting Einstein out of context to prove my view.

"There are implications" is a content-free statement. You can't coherently define what they are, and thus there is absolutely nothing meaningful to address. We've been over this.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: