Nightmare_from_hell Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm with Emp on this one... I'm not sure how you can claim that you do not post propaganda but yet your very first posts in this thread are just begging to incite a riot much less a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Yeah mudder, stop trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare_from_hell Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 You argue that the religious are the ones who always force their viewpoints on others, but is this not exactly what you are doing right now for aetheism? In both arguements you can find hypocrisy. Whether it's how catholicism demands not to judge people yet claims homosexuality is condemned (isn't this judging a person, or is it okay just because "we say so"?), or if it's aetheism and that all things have a wordly explanation so there can be no god (yet we can't explain why the paralyzed guy began to walk one day or hell, even why a BUMBLEBEE can fly, since -science- says it should be impossible!). Why is it so bad that people believe that their life might serve a higher purpose or that they believe they are just another organism inhabiting a planet? People, not much unlike you Mudder, (just read your first posts absolutely begging foir someone to say something so that you could push your views on them, nullifying your own arguement btw), that will always keep religious issues at the top of any debated issue because you just have to show superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Dude, mudder, wtf. I dunno what the deal is, but you like to take what should be a debate to a new level with me, and I have no clue why. But lets go ahead and "debate" The fact that this video exists is proof of opinionated propaganda distributed by atheist/agnostics who want to spread their views. Your saying religions go too far? I think alot do too. Your saying atheist do not spread opinions? They do, the fact you have to try to convince people you are right is BLATANTLY an opinion. There is no proof of, nor proof against ANY higher power. You, and those with similar views, ARE spreading opinions. There is no fact AT ALL to what has been submitted in this video. Im not claiming to be a religious zealot, and read my whole damn post some times, you would see I also took an example from religious factions as well. Im sick and ****ing tired of nearly everything I say on this forum being contradicted by you. I say one thing, you feel the NEED to passionately disagree. Fine, whatever. But do NOT post a blatant opinion that is routing for Atheism, and expect the whole world to thank you for it. I disagree with any sort of fanatical views period. And Im never gonna stop feeling th at way. You wanna put stock in Atheism? Ok. You wanna say your not a zealot? Ok. You wanna make people believe you? Do not put such a pro atheist video on a public forum and name it a call to arms. Emp I think I've made it very very clear that there is nothing personal I have with you(In my PM). You just seem to always take a stance against my own. That is fine. Stop taking it as a personal insult that I feel your responses(About my posts, lately) deserve a reply. If you can't handle having someone disagree with you and talk about it, stop posting. I said Atheists wouldn't push their views on anyone if it weren't for the fact that the religious right have pushed too far. The fact that there is even a debate against gay marriage or with teaching Creationism in schools over Evolution is insane. It is a PURELY religious argument that I want far far away from my politics. If people want to be religious in their homes, fine with me. I just don't want it being shoved down my throat. Is that being a fanatic? You say this is propaganda? Propaganda: information' date=' ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.[/quote'] In every sense of the meaning, yes. However there is not a single piece of "rumor" or false information in it. The atheist argument is entirely based on logic and fact. If we were talking about the existence of the Roman gods I highly doubt you would react this way. There is no "proof" for or against the idea of a christian god. Because it is impossible to disprove the idea of it. Why? Because that was the way it was created. I can easily say though that the lack of evidence for a gods existence definitely counts against it. It would be incredibly easy for this all powerful being to make itself known. Didn't it do that all over the bible? I posted this thread not to create an argument but to OPEN a discussion. Sometimes I am under the impression that we can all disagree maturely and perhaps walk away with more knowledge about our own thoughts. That is what I thought was going on until now. If I wanted to create an argument and cause problems I would just talk to one of the religious crazies that shout "You're all going to hell!" on the UF campus. PS: Emp, I read your entire post every time. PSS: Pali, I know. It is much easier to talk in extremes when measuring both sides. The grey area gets much more difficult and for obvious reasons. PSS: Nightmare. I didn't say atheists aren't pushing their views. I'm saying we are but it is only as a reaction to the current political and social climate in the US. I'm sorry, I just don't like the ideas of religion mixing with my politics. Separation of Church and State anyone? If we could all remember that I would have no problems and can happily keep to myself. Nightmare: No good scientist will ever say it should be impossible for a bumblebee to fly. I don't know where you heard it, but it is just plain wrong. What hypocrisy do you find in the agnostic/atheist argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 You argue that the religious are the ones who always force their viewpoints on others' date=' but is this not exactly what you are doing right now for aetheism?[/quote'] Not quite... he is not advocating in favor of legislating atheism, whereas a lot of laws are supported purely by religious views. In both arguements you can find hypocrisy. Whether it's how catholicism demands not to judge people yet claims homosexuality is condemned (isn't this judging a person, or is it okay just because "we say so"?), or if it's aetheism and that all things have a wordly explanation so there can be no god (yet we can't explain why the paralyzed guy began to walk one day or hell, even why a BUMBLEBEE can fly, since -science- says it should be impossible!). Atheism is merely the lack of belief in deities - scientific materialism correlates with it, but is not inherent to it. Now, while your examples are incorrect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Flight) or vague (which paralyzed guy are you talking about?), our lack of answers for something now simply means we lack answers now. It does not license us to make them up. Why is it so bad that people believe that their life might serve a higher purpose or that they believe they are just another organism inhabiting a planet? If what people believed was as harmless a subject as you make it out to be, then there would be no problems. But there are people who legislate based upon their faith. There are people who set international policy based upon their faith. There are people who want to influence science education based upon their faith. There are people who want to prevent others from having the same rights based upon their faith. There are people who kill based on their faith. Faith is not harmless. That is why it must be challenged. People, not much unlike you Mudder, (just read your first posts absolutely begging foir someone to say something so that you could push your views on them, nullifying your own arguement btw), that will always keep religious issues at the top of any debated issue because you just have to show superiority. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. They should be examined and scrutinized constantly. If they cannot be defended, they should be discarded. Why does religion gain an exemption from such discussion? Why does religion require protection from critical inquiry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I would like to add. I titled it "A call to arms" In quotes. It was not literally meant as I think we should all join the battle. Which is why I put it in quotes. I really wanted more to hear reactions from the video and go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 What are the hairs specifically on the dog's tail called? Dog hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarKo.mk Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 While in principle I fully agree (I consider myself an agnostic atheist), in practice 50-50 agnosticism on the question is giving it special consideration it doesn't deserve (except perhaps on the grounds that it is a belief many people are emotionally invested in). All those other claims I listed, such as Bigfoot and alien abductions, we must technically be agnostic about as well... but that does not mean we are unjustified in considering them to be false. Lack of evidence may not technically be evidence of lack, but it is as close as one comes. Until evidence for gods existing starts to be more substantial than evidence for Bigfoot, I will consider them to be on the same page - mythical creations. P.S. Thanks Ali. P.P.S. Mudder, you're painting strokes with a very wide brush. Frankly, from a purely scientific standpoint, the odds of there being a supremely intelligent being that we cannot detect nor comprehend (given the age of the universe, the billions of galaxies involved, and exponential growth of intelligence) is large. In fact, the only thing holding the entire universe back from being saturated with intelligence is the speed of light (which may or may not be the final word). Even the most humble of estimates show .5 intelligent species per galaxy at a minimum. Give an intelligent species 500,000 years, take a depreciation rate of 90% due to horrible species-killing accidents, and you still come up with millions of supremely intelligent species out there. Therefore, "God" or "Supremely intelligent omniscient race/being/mass" or w/e you want to call it, is surely a possibility, thus, the appropriateness of a humble agnostic stance on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I don't know where you heard this but it is just bad science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarKo.mk Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 How? One of your athiest prophets came up with that intelligent life estimate, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Intelligent life != Omniscient creator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 no, that is your opinion..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Lol. Would you consider us intelligent life? The scientific community does. Are we omniscient creators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarKo.mk Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm not speaking in favor of a "creator" in the protestant Christian religious tradition per se. However, I find it an absolute possibility that we're influenced and\or the product of an intelligent being\substance beyond our comprehension and our various religious traditions (which point to the same thing be it Nirvana, God, etc. anyway) are a crude interpretation of the mysteries therein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarKo.mk Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Mudder. Come on. We are "intelligent" yes. However, in 100,000 years, what will we be? Will we transcend humanity? Will we be unconfined to corporeal bodies? Will we become an intelligent essence? Barring a species-destroying incident, I think almost certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Frankly' date=' from a purely scientific standpoint, the odds of there being a supremely intelligent being that we cannot detect nor comprehend (given the age of the universe, the billions of galaxies involved, and exponential growth of intelligence) is large.[/quote'] Exponential growth of intelligence? What, exactly, are you referring to? Humans? Our intelligence probably isn't going to increase much beyond its current level unless some selective pressure starts to exert itself (and frankly, I see the pressure exerting itself in the OTHER direction much more... the unintelligent reproduce a lot more). And our intelligence certainly has not grown exponentially... our body of knowledge has grown extremely fast (through science, I might add, not faith), but intelligence and access to information are two different things (and no, there's no evidence to suggest that we're much smarter than we were ten thousand years ago). Also, most religions would claim that their deity exists outside of and separate from the universe. That the universe is huge and old doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what could have caused it, assuming anything did. What points to that cause, if it exists, as being intelligent? In fact, the only thing holding the entire universe back from being saturated with intelligence is the speed of light (which may or may not be the final word). Intelligence is an emergent property of brains, which are evolved machines. It does not travel from place to place, so do I do not see how the speed of light being a limiting factor for acceleration of masses has anything to do with it (unless you mean just that humans and other possible intelligent species haven't expanded over the universe yet). Even the most humble of estimates show .5 intelligent species per galaxy at a minimum. Give an intelligent species 500,000 years, take a depreciation rate of 90% due to horrible species-killing accidents, and you still come up with millions of supremely intelligent species out there. I would love to see where you are getting these numbers from. Frankly, if it's not from peer-reviewed science journals, I'm calling BS. Therefore, "God" or "Supremely intelligent omniscient race/being/mass" or w/e you want to call it, is surely a possibility, thus, the appropriateness of a humble agnostic stance on the issue. Intelligence has only ever been observed to exist within evolved biological beings, and a very small subset of those beings at that. And you think that the concept of an intelligence existing entirely separate of any source is logical in any way? How is it not simpler to assume that the universe itself simply has always existed in some form or another? Even if other intelligent beings exist in the universe, it is almost certain that they will also be evolved beings. They will not be gods (though it is worth noting that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear godlike). If the universe is the creation of some outside intelligence, then chances are THAT intelligence would've been an evolved being of some other kind in a greater universe that ours exists within. But again... how is making these assumptions parsimonious in any way? They do nothing but push the line of questioning back from "What created the universe?" to "What created the creator?" We get nowhere by inserting a deity as an answer unless there is evidence to support it. Intelligence, even if it turns out to be fairly common in the universe, evolves just fine on its own without an intelligent creator. Why assume one when we don't need to? It adds nothing to our understanding of how things actually are. You are comparing making an unnecessary assumption with not making it and saying that the two positions are of sufficiently equal probability to merit equal consideration. You are wrong. Unnecessary assumptions should not be made, period. If evidence arises to make the assumption necessary, so be it, but what you've posted are things well understood to be purely natural and mindless processes (well, until the minds evolve). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Mudder. Come on. We are "intelligent" yes. However, in 100,000 years, what will we be? Will we transcend humanity? Will we be confined to corporeal bodies? Will we become an intelligent essence? Barring a species-destroying incident, I think almost certainly. Our intelligence is a by-product of purely physical processes. Without the brain, the mind does not exist. You're talking about us evolving into purely souls - biologically, there is no such thing. You've watched WAY too much sci-fi, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Lol. Thank you Pali, beat me to it and probably worded better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarKo.mk Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Our intelligence is a by-product of purely physical processes. Without the brain, the mind does not exist. You're talking about us evolving into purely souls - biologically, there is no such thing. You've watched WAY too much sci-fi, my friend. Hardly. There is nothing to stop us from using matter of any kind to perform calculations, be it the mundane 0\1 calculations of current day processors, or of the quantum kind we're currently building, or other types that we have yet to imagine. The brain is a computer, a specialized one. It can be enhanced, changed, replaced. We can go from building fires to building bridges to building spaceships to building worlds. Why not? What is to stop us from being a sentient, floating mass of nanocarbon? We're only limited by the amount of matter in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarKo.mk Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Look what you did, you made me log to finish this conversation. LOL. I hate getting tells and "being out of my mind" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hardly. There is nothing to stop us from using matter of any kind to perform calculations, be it the mundane 0\1 calculations of current day processors, or of the quantum kind we're currently building, or other types that we have yet to imagine. The brain is a computer, a specialized one. It can be enhanced, changed, replaced. We can go from building fires to building bridges to building spaceships to building worlds. Why not? What is to stop us from being a sentient, floating mass of nanocarbon? We're only limited by the amount of matter in the universe. If you're talking about the possibility of us inventing non-biological brains that we can download our consciousnesses into (or something more along the lines of AI)... eh. Hypothetically possible, insanely complex, and certainly well beyond our current capacity (both in terms of knowledge and technology required for such)... and not at all having anything to do with gods or supreme intelligences, so I don't see why you brought this up at all. These things would still be creations of evolved intelligences. While in a sense it would be a spread of intelligence across the universe, basic human colonization would do basically the same thing. I don't see how the slight possibility that sometime in the distant future we'll develop this kind of technology and understanding points to the eventual (or previous) growth of some sort of supreme intelligence... frankly, I do not see true omniscience as feasible at all given that all information transferred is outdated by the time it is received (information transfer being limited by light speed, as you alluded to, though not in a way I was understanding). Seriously, dude, I have no idea how what you're talking about is at all related to the concept of gods. You went from talking about us being influenced by some supremely intelligent being/substance (not very descriptive, by the way) to talking about us inventing machine brains. How are they related? P.S. Atheist prophet is a term with absolutely no meaning. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc. may be popular writers of books arguing against religion/theism... but they are by no means prophets, nor do they necessarily represent the views of any particular atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I think Pali's reply could use some repeating. "You've been watching too much Sci-Fi." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hey Mudder.. you got something on your nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hey Mudder.. you got something on your nose. Mudder just is envious that I'm a better atheist spokesperson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.