I don't believe in God. Here is why:

First, the existence of God is incredibly improbable. The world is extremely complex, and any entity complex enough to create said world must be itself incredibly more complex. Because God would have to come before everything for his existence to make sense, that means he would have had to sprung out of some sort of void. The odds of anything that complex jumping out of a void are absurdly low--much lower than, say, the odds of a simple universe SLOWLY SLOWLY SLOWLY (billions and billions of years) developing into the complex wonder it is today.

Given that God is incredibly improbable, the burden of proof is on the believer. God can never be proved (or at least, hasn't yet), and while it can never be disproved, 'innocent (god doesn't exist) until proven guilty (god exists)' seems the only logical way to look at the question.

The only reason God seems logical is because most people assume God to exist already, and put the burden of broof on the non-believer... who, of course, can never PROVE that God doesn't exist.

Think of it this way: if I told you there was an incarnation of the Disney dog Pluto inside the planet Pluto, but that he was undetectable by all modern means, would you believe that this dog existed just because there was no way to disprove him? No, because you haven't been socialized to have the existence of the dog as your base assumption.

Thoughts?

FYI, I have no problem with people who believe in God in a general sense... if it lets you feel like your life is more meaningful, or you think it helps you be 'moral,' that's fine. I do object to organized religion, but that's another thread.

No, because you haven't been socialized to have the existence of the dog as your base assumption.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Oh and by the way, you're right about God not existing.

How did you come to know the probabilities you speak of?

Are you aware that all that a position requires to be logically valid is that any conclusions arrived at follow from whatever assumptions are made?

Because God would have to come before everything for his existence to make sense

Not if God IS everything, as is often said.
For instance maybe the universe is a manifestation of the consciousness of an entity called energy...... maybe.

I don't believe in God. Here is why:

First, the existence of God is incredibly improbable. The world is extremely complex, and any entity complex enough to create said world must be itself incredibly more complex. Because God would have to come before everything for his existence to make sense, that means he would have had to sprung out of some sort of void. The odds of anything that complex jumping out of a void are absurdly low--much lower than, say, the odds of a simple universe SLOWLY SLOWLY SLOWLY (billions and billions of years) developing into the complex wonder it is today.

Given that God is incredibly improbable, the burden of proof is on the believer. God can never be proved (or at least, hasn't yet), and while it can never be disproved, 'innocent (god doesn't exist) until proven guilty (god exists)' seems the only logical way to look at the question.

The only reason God seems logical is because most people assume God to exist already, and put the burden of broof on the non-believer... who, of course, can never PROVE that God doesn't exist.

Think of it this way: if I told you there was an incarnation of the Disney dog Pluto inside the planet Pluto, but that he was undetectable by all modern means, would you believe that this dog existed just because there was no way to disprove him? No, because you haven't been socialized to have the existence of the dog as your base assumption.

Thoughts?

FYI, I have no problem with people who believe in God in a general sense... if it lets you feel like your life is more meaningful, or you think it helps you be 'moral,' that's fine. I do object to organized religion, but that's another thread.

Without bring my religion or dragging down anyone elses religion in the process. Your belief in the nonexistence of God, is based from what I have more on probability not absolute or certainity. IDK if you caught that but if you did not than let me show you:

1. Probability is open to a degree of uncertainty
2. Uncertainty leaves room for doubt.
3. Doubt leaves also a room for the chance that something could exist.
---------------------
Conclusion: You find it a low possibility for God to exist but its definitely not a certainty. From this I gather you are more along the lines of agnostic to agnostic atheist. Sorry for trying to define, I know people don't like being defined yet it is something we do to one another on a daily basis. *sigh*

Now, you said in your FYI: Trying to Give Life Meaning, Trying To Improve Morals and Your Against Organize religion.

First, everyone is out to give life meaning, even the nihilist who says there is no meaning seeks to give himself his own meaning to his own life. Whether or not you believe in (a) God(s), people want to find meaning in there life, something to wake up for in the morning.

Second, not all religions put morals on top of there list of importance. Society Modeled religions do put morals on top. Mind-Model religions do not, there second or third place in order of importance. Morals are there but where on the list are they prioritized? Hell, even satanism has code of rules.

Third, Same here, the institutionalization of religious experience is the hallmark not of religious success but of control. Organized religion thrives on Evangelizing the masses, but I find it to be the working force against religion and its experience, it says "you are wrong and I am right." Evangelizing is on it own something that tends to exalt what it preaches.

Now to bring my religion back into it, Gnostic's were not Active Proselytizers, even for those who are not religious just listen up, Im not trying to disprove or prove anything here just sharing some understanding:

There is a saying where Jesus says:

"You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."- )Matthew 5:14-16)

This on its own is cryptic, but after thinking about what it means I came to the conclusion that if I am the Light and you put me where I can be seen than I am doing something and I am leading those who can see the light (or who are interested, or wish to know more) to my own discovery I do not need to be a proselytizer to win people over, people will come to me by there own interest, if there interested they will take it up naturally, if there not than there not perhaps they will come again. The point is IMHO, I don't think JC wanted his beliefs to turn into some pop cult following that it is today (at least were evangelizing is concerned). I don't think it was supposed to be turned into the behemoth called Orthodox Christianity.

The Church is there for those who WANT to be there NOT for Those Who Were SCARED SHITLESS to be there. You come to it you seek and you will find, its not the other way around, all though that can happen but not as much as the other way around.

Not if God IS everything, as is often said.
For instance maybe the universe is a manifestation of the consciousness of an entity called energy...... maybe.

Precisely. That is what I've been saying all along, excerpt for the "maybe" part.

God would have to come before everything for his existence to make sense, that means he would have had to sprung out of some sort of void.

No, not really.

First, the existence of God is incredibly improbable.

Is the existence of an underlying energy/force (http://www.infim.ro/rrp/2005_57_4/11-659-670.pdf) responsible for all of creation really so improbable?

Do you have any alternatives?

I think this is really interesting.
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/caasqp/caasqp.html

1. Probability is open to a degree of uncertainty
2. Uncertainty leaves room for doubt.
3. Doubt leaves also a room for the chance that something could exist.
---------------------
Conclusion: You find it a low possibility for God to exist but its definitely not a certainty. From this I gather you are more along the lines of agnostic to agnostic atheist.

I don't think that the fact that there is an absurdly small chance of something happening means you can't believe with 100% certainty--until proven otherwise--that it isn't going to happen. For example, there's always a CHANCE that the rules of gravity would just suddenly change, but I see no reason why this would happen, and unless it proves itself to happen, I am a 100% believer in gravity, and will live my life as such.

Not if God IS everything, as is often said.
For instance maybe the universe is a manifestation of the consciousness of an entity called energy...... maybe.

If God IS everything, then there essentially is no God, because God is indistinguishable from 'nature.' To me, that's just a matter of naming. And if you chose to name 'nature' 'God,' why would you follow organized religion? Because if God is everything, he's in EVERYTHING, including the Koran and whatever it is that Wiccans read. 'Energy' doesn't judge, it just is, so what is there to be gained from viewing it as 'God?'

No, not really.

Then where would he have 'come from?' To say that God didn't have to come from anywhere assumes God was 'always there,' which assumes infinite time, in which any event, no matter how improbable, becomes a certainty. But since anything is a certainty in infinite time, why do you ASSUME that the less probably occurence--the spontaneous creation of God--happened somewhere on the infinite timeline before the more probable event--a few atoms appearing, and ever so slowly developing into our known universe? Again, the only reason you presume God is because you've been taught, all your life, that there is a God, not because of any rational reason.

Do you have any alternatives?

I think this is really interesting.
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/caasqp/caasqp.html

I think this is really interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206125119&sr=8-1

I think this is really interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206125119&sr=8-1

Ok. I've never read the book but I did watch the little video, personally I'm not interested in that sort of stuff. I wasn't raised with religious teachings or anything like that. I just find the philosophical concepts of the Universe to be incredibly interesting.
Maybe you should read this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Perennial-Philosophy-Classics/dp/006057058X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206128085&sr=8-1
Your idea of what "God" means will change.

I wasn't raised with religious teachings or anything like that. I just find the philosophical concepts of the Universe to be incredibly interesting.
Maybe you should read this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Perennial-Philosophy-Classics/dp/006057058X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206128085&sr=8-1
Your idea of what "God" means will change.

That book sounds really interesting, and I will definitely check it out. I really enjoyed 'Brave New World,' and 'Doors of Perception' is part of what inspired me to try hallucinogens, so I'm sure I'll find that book good as well.

To clarify, I'm interested in philosophical concepts of the universe as well. I just don't see the benefit of using the word 'God' to describe any part of the universe; as the absolutism an existence of 'God' implies seems extremely dangerous to me, I think it important that universal concepts be discussed without 'God' being involved. To me, calling on 'God' is to throw away with logic, argument, and rationality, in favor of a set thing to which one can cling. You can believe all you want in oneness, etc., without needing the concept of 'God' to link things together.

My personal universal view is that everything is meaningless, 'absurd' in the sense that Camus used it, and that the universe just happened to have developed this way. However, that for no reason means that life can't have meaning or that nothing matters--because if everything is meaningless, it gives myself, an ego'd being, the ultimate power to decide what is important to me. If all things are equally unimportant, they are also equally important; I enjoy the way I live my life, so it is right for me. It maintains my happiness.

When I took mushrooms (after reading 'Doors of Perception,' tee hee), I underwent so called 'ego death,' which I think is essentially what is meant by nirvana. You lose the concept of self, and become 'one' with the universe. Nothing matters, but instead of being crushingly depressing, it's incredibly liberating. It allowed me to reconcile my intellectual belief in the meaningless of life with my desperate human need to cling to absolutes that would grant my life meaning.

That was sort of off-topic, but oh well.

I don't think that the fact that there is an absurdly small chance of something happening means you can't believe with 100% certainty--until proven otherwise--that it isn't going to happen. For example, there's always a CHANCE that the rules of gravity would just suddenly change, but I see no reason why this would happen, and unless it proves itself to happen, I am a 100% believer in gravity, and will live my life as such.

Perhaps I was not not clear it what I was saying... You made a good point in regards to physical things. I just meant metaphysical things, theres room for doubt but there is room that it can happen.

Now, just hear me out even if you find it BS or stupid or you still dont believe just listen:

What if the idea of looking for God is not supposed to be an external search for physical proof? What if it is an internal quest? What if we are supposed to internalize these things? Certainly than there would be no need to drop physicality while still embracing metaphysicality, you know what I am saying?

Then where would he have 'come from?' To say that God didn't have to come from anywhere assumes God was 'always there,' which assumes infinite time, in which any event, no matter how improbable, becomes a certainty. But since anything is a certainty in infinite time, why do you ASSUME that the less probably occurence--the spontaneous creation of God--happened somewhere on the infinite timeline before the more probable event--a few atoms appearing, and ever so slowly developing into our known universe? Again, the only reason you presume God is because you've been taught, all your life, that there is a God, not because of any rational reason.

Why do you assume it is more probable that everything came from nothing, rather then our perception of 'everything' actually being a very small part of something which simply ... is?

Why do you assume that time would not be a component of God, but that God would exist within time?

Probably because everything you've ever experienced, your "whole life" exists along a time line, and its all you've experienced. You assume there must be beginnings and endings, that 'time' is this superior force to which all things are bound. You assume that God must have been 'created'.

What do you believe would have 'created' God? What would have 'created' the thing which created God, and the reality it resides in? Where would this scenario end?

To me, it seems more probable to assume that everything which could possibly be, all, would be God. What would be more supreme? What would be more perfectly equal, balanced, one?

Probably because everything you've ever experienced, your "whole life" exists along a time line, and its all you've experienced. You assume there must be beginnings and endings, that 'time' is this superior force to which all things are bound.

Not really... did you not read my thing about taking mushrooms? I very much understand how important perception is to everything, and that time is just a human construct, and doesn't have to be absolute. The issue is not that.

All of the metaphysical responses posed so far to the God question end up at the same fallacy. You can say any number of things you like about higher states, metaphysical universes where time and space are irrevelant, where everything just 'is,' etc., but it's all completely beyond proof. You're essentially just finding rationalization for something that you ALREADY BELIEVE--that God exists--for no reason but that a lot of people have told you it's true.

I understand that all of these conceptions of 'God' aren't the same as what organized religion say God is, but I still contend, as I did in an earlier response, that there is no reason to label anything in the universe 'God,' and doing so just opens up all sorts of problems. Calling anything God is just struggling to rationalize something that is absolutely improbable and unprovable, just because you already believe it to exist. If you start from the neutral position--which I think should be either 'there is no God' or 'God is equally likely or unlikely'--you'll find it much, much more difficult to justify.

... it's all completely beyond proof.

Yes it is. It cannot be known to be true.

Neither can anything you believe to have experienced as 'real'. How do you know 'the universe' is real?

No offense, but this is incredibly simplistic thinking. God is, well, God. The concept of God is that he's unfathomable, which is why I'm agnostic. To say that you have faith that there is absolutely no God is as much of a religious devotion than saying you're Catholic or Baptist.

Think a little abstractly; maybe God isn't some white guy with a beard that shoots thunderbolts down. Maybe he's just an energy, the essense of goodness. Maybe it's something subconscious we have within us all. Maybe we are God.

Is the existence of an underlying energy/force (http://www.infim.ro/rrp/2005_57_4/11-659-670.pdf) responsible for all of creation really so improbable?

Do you have any alternatives?

I think this is really interesting.
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/caasqp/caasqp.html

*brain explodes*

Could you help me understand this maybe?

Probable? :rolleyes: Either something appeared from nothing, or "god" existed forever. Neither can be explained by science, and it never will. So something would have to be going on. Does that mean I have a soul? no, wich is why I dont really care either way

Edit: but thought is energy, so if this energy can be kept together, i would call that a soul.

If God IS everything, then there essentially is no God, because God is indistinguishable from 'nature.' To me, that's just a matter of naming. And if you chose to name 'nature' 'God,' why would you follow organized religion? Because if God is everything, he's in EVERYTHING, including the Koran and whatever it is that Wiccans read. 'Energy' doesn't judge, it just is, so what is there to be gained from viewing it as 'God?'


You don't really have to view it as God. You can just call it life/universe/everything, whatever..... but calling it god adds the context of it having consciousness which is useful when having discussions.


And I don't follow organised religion, I just take whatever I find useful from them.

Yes it is. It cannot be known to be true.

Neither can anything you believe to have experienced as 'real'. How do you know 'the universe' is real?

But there's a certain point at which there's nothing to be gained from dealing in abstractions like this... some things, as you say, cannot be known. The question of 'what is real?' is ultimately unanswerable. I get that.

All I'm saying is that there's no reason to extrapolate all these theories from the fact that we can't know experience. There's a certain level of absurdity in the universe, and there's a point at which we just have to make an ego assertion--'this is the world I live in, so it is real to me'--in order to deal with it. All I'm proposing is that this assertion has to be in no way related to God.

As I said, I have no problem with belief in God, I just don't think it's the best way to look at things, because of the various problems that organized religion--which depends on accepting a belief in some sort of God or gods--has brought into the world. It seems to me like a relic from the days when science was incapable of understanding our presence, which I think it now is, making God and spirituality essentially unnecessary. Maybe you don't agree with that reading of science, in which case I can understand why you look to God.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Thanks to all for discussing with me, I've found it interesting, and found everyone's responses interesting and surprisingly non-fundamentalist.

All I'm proposing is that this assertion has to be in no way related to God.

Certainly. But if someone chooses to go that far, why not?

As I said, I have no problem with belief in God, I just don't think it's the best way to look at things, because of the various problems that organized religion--which depends on accepting a belief in some sort of God or gods--has brought into the world.

I do not believe there is a 'best' way of looking at things.

Yes, there are various problems associated with the worlds variety of organized religions. There are also various problems with the worlds variety of economic and political systems.

However, as with religious systems, I do not believe that the base of the system is the root of its problems.

Things which some people would consider to be problems stemming from politics, like fascism for instance, are not a result of the base of the system ... our belief in requiring a government. The root of the problem is in the way someone had decided the government must be fascist, in the way they decided to rule.

Things which some people would consider to be economic problems, like pure capitalist or pure communist economies for instance, are not results of the base of those systems ... our belief in maintaining an economy. The root of these 'problems' are the ways people decided their economies must be, in the way they decided to run the economy.

Things which some people would consider to be problems stemming from religion, like the total manipulation of societies beliefs, are not the result of the base of those religious systems ... a belief in God. They stem from the way people decided beliefs must be, that these beliefs are the truth, and in the way they decided to spread these beliefs as truth.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with believing in God. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with not believing in God. Its when we decided that our biased, ill informed little opinions on these matter are true, that they must be and that any opposition to them must be destroyed, that problems begin to develop.

It seems to me like a relic from the days when science was incapable of understanding our presence, which I think it now is, making God and spirituality essentially unnecessary. Maybe you don't agree with that reading of science, in which case I can understand why you look to God.

Some people believe governments are relics from the days when society was too primitive to work right without being governed. That we should now be able to coexist in peace, and that government is unnecessary.

I don't think believing in God was ever necessary, it was just an option for those who chose it.

I believe that science is just another path to God.



So. What is your understanding of our presence?

do do do ta tada.... im confused about the original statment, well not all of it just part. are you saying that because god supposedly made everything and GOD had to come from somewhere and couldnt just pop out because hes too complicated, that he doesnt exist? ok. so do you believe god is something made of atoms? like actually a physical being? or place or whatever, energy maybe? what if god popped out as the first little bundle of atoms and energy and evolved from there, you know over billions and billions of years and thought hey, it might be cool if there was another one of me i could talk to or keep myself entertained and made people...or monkeys. like in futurama, where bender is god to these people. what we lived on/in god, like the universe is god. i dont know, just thinking of shit. and obbe, if im reading this right i like this..."i do not believe the base of the system is the root of its problems"
nice dude

just adding to it,
religion seems more of a really good idea and with the best of the people in mind, instead of actual fact. like if you tell people good things will happen to them if they are good people (by the standards of a good person) than theres a better chance society would run smoother, you know, get more accomplished, but when people start using religion to get their way or push their ideas, than it gets a little out of hand, for instance crusades, jihads, and profiling people on their religion.

back to god not existing because theres no proof of where he came from, blah! why dont you do something productive! :)
this topic is wayy to deep and complicated, theres so much we dont know and we cant just go around making assumptions like god doesnt exist because god is wayyyy to complicated to just pop from nothing. let me ask you, have you ever been to nowhere? is there a nowhere, anything could happen in nowhere. the thing is we dont know if theres a nowhere and we dont know what could happen in nowhere, GOD could have just "poof!" showed up in nowhere for no reason, we dont know so just go explore or something, figure it out.

and just because my vocabulary isnt as good as yours doesnt mean im not as smart, i just like to think of things in stupid. :)

To clarify, I'm interested in philosophical concepts of the universe as well. I just don't see the benefit of using the word 'God' to describe any part of the universe; as the absolutism an existence of 'God' implies seems extremely dangerous to me, I think it important that universal concepts be discussed without 'God' being involved. To me, calling on 'God' is to throw away with logic, argument, and rationality, in favor of a set thing to which one can cling. You can believe all you want in oneness, etc., without needing the concept of 'God' to link things together.
Well then, don’t call it ‘God’ if you don’t want to, but some do like to call it ‘God’, and if that word works for them, then they should just call it ‘God’.
As I’m sure you know, seeing as you’ve read the Doors of Perception and have experienced the magic of mushrooms, these little symbols we have created do not truly express that which they stand for. Every person has a unique interpretation of what the teller of the experience actually experienced. And the description which the teller has created is not what he truly experienced. So when I say ‘God’, my impression is completely different from your conception, understandably, because we have two completely different viewpoints, two completely different experiences, two completely different interpretations.

Now if we look back to the basic idea of ‘God’, it comes down to the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
*sigh* …words…
Does this come anywhere near the inconceivable, incredibly absurd, absolute ALL of which we perceive but an infinitesimal fragment of?

…Not even close.

Here is another one, One of which I have Created in this Moment, also far away from the truth.



All that is, All that was, All that ever will be.
When there is nothing this Energy still IS.
When the supreme/unparalleled/utmost Power within the nature of ALL/NOTHING causes/motivates/brings about the manifestation of creation/development/generation, Nothing Is really created, but rather, this latent/unrealized/dormant Energy alters it’s form to that of two extremes. YinYang.
Within All there is both Yin and Yang.
Within All there is a balance between the ultimate/extremes.{twopoles}
Within ALL, regardless of which condition ALL is experiencing {Silence//YinYang} there is still only ONE ENERGY.



This is just one interpretation of that which cannot be coherently described.
I like it. But I did create it. And I like what I create.

... alters it’s form to that of two extremes. YinYang.
Within All there is both Yin and Yang.
Within All there is a balance between the ultimate/extremes.{twopoles} ...

X = {(+) + (-)} :)

Is the existence of an underlying energy/force (http://www.infim.ro/rrp/2005_57_4/11-659-670.pdf) responsible for all of creation really so improbable?

If it's conscious, yes.

If it's conscious, yes.
Why are you conscious?

Because I am the result of evolution via natural selection.

So, you are saying you are aware of your own existence because you evolved?
But this energy which All evolved from is not?
Why?

So, you are saying you are aware of your own existence because you evolved?
But this energy which All evolved from is not?
Why?

No, what I am saying is evolution provides a probable explanation for why conscious life exists. It's highly unlikely that the energy that created the universe is conscious unless there is a probable explanation for how it got that way.

Natural selection provides a mechanism for something complex like humans to come from something non complex like a pool of chemicals. If you are going to presuppose something even more complex like a conscious energy that can create a universe, you need a mechanism for how that extremely complex conscious entity came about.

To summarize, it's more likely that complex things came about from less complex things via natural mechanisms than that some super complex thing has always existed. It's entirely a complexity issue.

No, what I am saying is evolution provides a probable explanation for why conscious life exists. It's highly unlikely that the energy that created the universe is conscious unless there is a probable explanation for how it got that way.

So it's more likely that consciousness came from noconsciousness?
Maybe instead its consciousness that everything comes from?

Natural selection provides a mechanism for something complex like humans to come from something non complex like a pool of chemicals.

And that pool of chemicals comes from the underlying conscious universal energy.
How could those chemicals be made from nothing?

If you are going to presuppose something even more complex like a conscious energy that can create a universe, you need a mechanism for how that extremely complex conscious entity came about.

The energy always was.
Was it created?
That cant be known.


To summarize, it's more likely that complex things came about from less complex things via natural mechanisms than that some super complex thing has always existed. It's entirely a complexity issue.
I think its more likely that less complex things came from a super complex thing and continue to evolve in complexity until they reach the level of complexity of which they came from.

I think its more likely that less complex things came from a super complex thing and continue to evolve in complexity until they reach the level of complexity of which they came from.

Why in Satan's good name, would less complex things come from things more complex, when every bit of E V I D E N C E we have suggests otherwise?

Your "logic" fails.

I guess what I am asking is, how are you able to feed and dress yourself and still unable to grasp that your beliefs will not be, and cannot be justified by logic, rationality, or science?

Why in Satan's good name, would less complex things come from things more complex, when every bit of E V I D E N C E we have suggests otherwise?


My other post attempting to define "God" was probably a bit to deep for you so I'll say it again. You still probably won't understand but I'll try again anyways.

More can't come from All.
Meaning, something more complex cannot come from All that is.
That is illogical because that would require the creation of a thing that has more energy in it than it had.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html).
There is ONE ENERGY within ALL.
So if we say that this ONE ENERGY is super complex how in your mind can this energy become more complex than it already is?
Wouldn't it make more sense if a force within the nature of ALL brings about the motivation of this ONE ENERGY into the manifestation of altered conditions?
Nothing is really more complex than anything else, there are just different conditions in which the ONE ENERGY can manifest.


Your "logic" fails.

You fail to understand my "logic".


I guess what I am asking is, how are you able to feed and dress yourself and still unable to grasp that your beliefs will not be, and cannot be justified by logic, rationality, or science?

again, you fail to understand my "logic".
You believe your beloved science justifies your "logic", but in reality, it doesn't.

Man, not believing in God (at least any organized religion) is easy..

Think about this, every religion makes equally baseless things into 'truth.'

Why are some of these true and others false?

How did two different religions gain followers? I hear Christians say all the time "how ridiculous, who could believe in multiple gods!!"

But you have to think about what Christians believe.. that they can communicate telepathically with a man who died and was ressurrected, parted the waters, etc..

But he never actually told us shit! We have to base our faith on ancient, highly edited texts which are now translated into a completely different language!

How can the truth survive all of this, and why don't we know definitively God is there?

And if he is real, and wants us to know about him, and worship him, etc.. why is he so secretive?

I am not saying I am an athiest, as I feel there could be a deity, but religion is just another business for some, and an art form for others, and a large, inclusive group for all. God would not create us all, simply to make everyone confused as to where they came from, and PUNISH those who didn't figure out he existed.

The idea that God would punish his people for not finding out about him is absolutely ridiculous.. if God even operates in the "right/wrong" sense he would care about how man acts.. not the things he could find out..

And in my opinion, if God exists he definitely does not care about us individually..
He is not legalistic, and he probably does not even care about morality..

But that's besides the point, because I'm pretty sure a God does not exist.

It has been going on since pretty much the dawn of man, why wasn't Christianity/worship of "god' around back then? Because they had other, false beliefs.

There may be a God, but he is surely not the cruel God of Christianity or any other deity who does not make himself known AT ALL!! It is a ridiculous notion that God would hide himself completely and make MAN find out who he was with no help from him whatsoever.. no help except a great number of different religions who may claim to be about unity but secretly believe the members of other religions will go to jail..

If you look at religion that way, based on history you will see it is just another avenue for the greediness, selfishness and cowardice of man.. If I'm not a Christian, I'll go to hell. Oh, remember the Spanish Inquisition? How do we know any better now? Haha.. Let's go to church.. and don't get me started on tithes.. Ohh, God needs money in this place for his spiritual works! It's a business, people.

It is all fake... We are simply animals with the brain capacity to ponder things, and build great wonders. A wondrous thing? Definitely..

But spiritual? Another great thing fabricated by man, just like the economy and shit. It doesn't really exist, it matters today because old white men say so..

Peace.

I'm pretty high and I just went to church for the first time since last easter, so I'm kinda mad/pondering it all. so it might not be perfectly coherent but it makes sense to me.


EDIT: Sorry I need to clarify.. I am not denying the existence of a God in my post.. only the validity of religion... if there is a God our relationship comes from living life, not standing in a church in a strip mall clapping to a powerpoint and a keyboard.. nor in a million dollar catholic church, marble floors and extravagant statues while African children die..

So it's more likely that consciousness came from noconsciousness?
Maybe instead its consciousness that everything comes from?

Correct, it's more likely that consciousness arose from unconscious processes that we can observe. Just like how life can arise form non-life.

And that pool of chemicals comes from the underlying conscious universal energy.
How could those chemicals be made from nothing?The pool of chemicals arose from even less complicated forms.


The energy always was.
Was it created?
That cant be known.It's much more likely that a less complex energy always existed than that a super complex conscious energy always existed simply because complexity is improbable.


I think its more likely that less complex things came from a super complex thing and continue to evolve in complexity until they reach the level of complexity of which they came from.It's common sense that something complex would require something more complex to make it, however, there are proven mechanisms that can explain how complex things arise from non complex things via natural processes. Since, we have those mechanisms and since we know complex things arising without those mechanisms is improbable, it's easy to conclude that the existence of something complex enough to consciously create the universe is highly unlikely...because with your logic this complex energy must have an even more complex energy that created it.

I do not believe there would be any difference between the most complex state possible, and the least complex (if anything can actually be described in these ways).

String theory suggests that super strings vibrating in the most complex dimensions of reality would create the subatomic particles which make up the lowest dimensions ... or the world you see around you, in other words.

My other post attempting to define "God" was probably a bit to deep for you so I'll say it again. You still probably won't understand but I'll try again anyways.

well gee, let me see if I can keep up with this D E E P thought here.

More can't come from All.
Meaning, something more complex cannot come from All that is.
That is illogical because that would require the creation of a thing that has more energy in it than it had.

Let us assume there is this ONE ENERGY within all.......nothing suggests this one energy has to be complex. NOTHING. MORE or LESS ENERGY has nothing to do with complex organisms.

In order to make THIS claim you would have to objectively prove that complex things require more energy to function. Which you cannot.

Why must this energy be super complex? B/C we cannot find it or classify it, it must be complex? It could be painfully simple.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html).
There is ONE ENERGY within ALL.

WOW, you talk of my precious science unable to justify my logic, yet here you are attempting to use it to make your point.

So if we say that this ONE ENERGY is super complex how in your mind can this energy become more complex than it already is?

And here is your epic failure in your argument. Yes, if we S A Y that the energy is super complex, your argument seems to make sense, and even logical.

Here is the important thing, you fuck, and I will ask you to TRY to keep up here:

SAYING THINGS DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!!!

NOW, for the fun bit, EVEN IF you are on to something and eventually figure out how to use logic to "show you're work" you cannot say that this energy is God.

In order to classify this as the normal definition for God, you would have to prove this energy to at least be conscious or self aware. Luckily, you haven't (and probably won't) reach this stage of your failed failure of a failing argument.

again, you fail to understand my "logic.

As I have shown you have failed to use logic, and should apologize to it.

Even an atom is infinite.

I do not believe there would be any difference between the most complex state possible, and the least complex.

yeah the probability is low. so what

we cant even imagine how god was created, what he is in general, and what he does, so maybe the probably is low.

there is no way that the universe just fuckin existed out of nowhere


chaos.

there is no way that the universe just fuckin existed out of nowhere.

Maybe it did and maybe it didn't.

Can the universe not exist out of nowhere b/c that is impossible?

How and why is God more possible?

ok so im outwitted here bigtime, but is it just me or are you guys mixing "god" with the begining energy? i mean sure god is supposed to be the first, and in science it is most likely that energy was first, and no matter how complicated that energy is it creates us, less complicated. which would make sense because you cant really make something more complicated than the original ( in miniscale, computers are smart, well as smart as we can make them, but still lack things that we havent programmed them) but back to my point. God is something we worship, for giving us life, so are we just worshipping ourselves? because we all came from the same complicated energy ball?

and does god have to have concious? i mean cant "god" just be the enviroment we live in and the bodies we are born with? is it possible that we all are little pieces of god, and that our concious is just little bits of his? instead of looking for him, wouldnt he be like u know, us? and if this is true, which u know could not be, than god didnt really create us, we as a whole create him, and we just worship the idea of him.
as for what came first, the whole god or the pieces of him, how the hell should i know.


is it possible that we all are little pieces of god, and that our concious is just little bits of his? instead of looking for him, wouldnt he be like u know, us?

just thought of something, that would explain how he would know exactly all of our sins and etc, because he can comunicate and know everythign we do, also could explain his absolute power.

Why does there HAVE to be a God?

Why can't it just be that we do not understand how and why everything started?

Why are we unable to admit that it is something we do not understand.


If you take the concept of God, and make it your own, and say "God is just energy" or "We are all parts of God's consciouness" then ALL you are doing is taking someone else's idea (unless you learned about God all on your own and nobody passed this meme onto you) adding a bit here and there, and trying to pass it off as original, when in fact, it is almost plaigerism.

I cannot wait until the Abrhamic God goes the way of the Egyptian, Viking, Roman, and Greek gods. I think children will learn of Jesus and think of him the same way people do Hercules. I think if Christians want religion in school, it should be taught alongside other mythology.

Why can't it just be that we do not understand how and why everything started?

Why are we unable to admit that it is something we do not understand.

You're right, we don't know. But some chose to believe in more.

Whats wrong with that?

You're right, we don't know. But some chose to believe in more.

Whats wrong with that?

The fact that some of those who believe they know the answer to an unanswerable fucking question, also feel they know what is best for me and the rest of the non-believers.

The fact that some of those who believe they know the answer to an unanswerable fucking question, also feel they know what is best for me and the rest of the non-believers.

Fuck 'em.

Do what you can to get others to understand that they cannot know that answer and should be indifferent to the beliefs of others, if you feel a need to change the world too.

But theism isn't a problem, and propagating the belief that it is only contributes to the real problem.

It makes you just like them.

Whats wrong with that?

The behavioral consequences.

The behavioral consequences.

Yes, people can become big assholes.

They also can not.

Yes, people can become big assholes.

They also can not.

They also can blow themselves up in the mall, murdering dozens of children.

They also can blow themselves up in the mall, murdering dozens of children.

Theres plenty of subjectively unpleasant things a person could do.

Doing those things does not depend on whether or not the person is a theist or an atheist, it depends on whether or not they believe they should do those things.

Why does there HAVE to be a God?

Why can't it just be that we do not understand how and why everything started?

Why are we unable to admit that it is something we do not understand.


If you take the concept of God, and make it your own, and say "God is just energy" or "We are all parts of God's consciouness" then ALL you are doing is taking someone else's idea (unless you learned about God all on your own and nobody passed this meme onto you) adding a bit here and there, and trying to pass it off as original, when in fact, it is almost plaigerism.

I cannot wait until the Abrhamic God goes the way of the Egyptian, Viking, Roman, and Greek gods. I think children will learn of Jesus and think of him the same way people do Hercules. I think if Christians want religion in school, it should be taught alongside other mythology.



well i dont think i really tried to pass it off as original, considering i used information that you said, and just asked about it. not to make a new idea, but to clear it up for me, so dont say i plagerized it, you dumb ass, i was only asking questions about it and saying what i thought.

More can't come from All.
Meaning, something more complex cannot come from All that is.
That is illogical because that would require the creation of a thing that has more energy in it than it had.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html).
There is ONE ENERGY within ALL.
So if we say that this ONE ENERGY is super complex how in your mind can this energy become more complex than it already is?
Wouldn't it make more sense if a force within the nature of ALL brings about the motivation of this ONE ENERGY into the manifestation of altered conditions?
Nothing is really more complex than anything else, there are just different conditions in which the ONE ENERGY can manifest.


What is that "energy"? How do you know it exists? If you're basing yourself on that article, again I have to remind you that's a hypothesis, one that mainstream Science doesn't yet accept and that doesn't come close to supporting the other things you're using it for. How are you defining "complex"? How do you know "all" is as complex as it's going to get?

Why call this energy "god"? There is absolutely no need to do so that I can see, except for some sort of need or proposencity for magical thinking.

What is that "energy"? How do you know it exists? If you're basing yourself on that article, again I have to remind you that's a hypothesis, one that mainstream Science doesn't yet accept and that doesn't come close to supporting the other things you're using it for. How are you defining "complex"? How do you know "all" is as complex as it's going to get?

Why call this energy "god"? There is absolutely no need to do so that I can see, except for some sort of need or proposencity for magical thinking.

I'm guessing he watched The Secret.

Why can't it just be that we do not understand how and why everything started?

Why are we unable to admit that it is something we do not understand.


"We can never completely know what's going on so why even try?"

I'm guessing he watched The Secret.
lol, n00b

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/~andrew/funny/noob.jpg

Theres plenty of subjectively unpleasant things a person could do.

And there is plenty a majority group of people force onto others b/c they believe they know that which cannot be known.

I cannot buy alcohol on Sunday in my state, b/c of xtains.

There are still dry counties in Kentucky, concentrated on the region know as the bible belt.

When you do buy cigarettes and alcohol, you pay what is commonly called a sin tax.

I cannot have a poker game in my house for money without breaking the law, but any church that wants can have a bingo game.

Were it up to people like you, your kid would come home from school crying his eyes out b/c they taught him that his daddy (you) was gonna burn in hell unless you ask a zombie man to forgive you and let his ghost into your heart.



I am not talking about things an INDIVIDUAL can do that is unpleasant, I am talking about an organized group of people who believe they know what is best for everyone, based upon a half baked unprovable insane notion and in spite of an epic historic failure for this group to lead, and rule.

And there is plenty a majority group of people force onto others b/c they believe they know that which cannot be known.

Yeah, organized religions tend to be greedy, manipulative asshole-conglomerates, don't they?

I cannot buy alcohol on Sunday in my state, b/c of xtains.

There are still dry counties in Kentucky, concentrated on the region know as the bible belt.

When you do buy cigarettes and alcohol, you pay what is commonly called a sin tax.

I cannot have a poker game in my house for money without breaking the law, but any church that wants can have a bingo game.

Don't like it? Then do something about it. Change the laws. Do what you can to get others to understand that they cannot know that answer and should be indifferent to the beliefs of others, if you feel a need to.

But theism isn't a problem, and propagating the belief that it is only contributes to the real problem.

Were it up to people like you ...

Then everyone would understand they cannot know that answer and would be indifferent to beliefs different from their own.

But its not up to me, or you, or anyone but the individuals themselves.

I am not talking about things an INDIVIDUAL can do that is unpleasant, I am talking about an organized group of people who believe they know what is best for everyone, based upon a half baked unprovable insane notion and in spite of an epic historic failure for this group to lead, and rule.

And I already addressed why it is the fault of the choices made by those organized groups themselves, not simply because they believe in God, in this post:

I do not believe there is a 'best' way of looking at things.

Yes, there are various problems associated with the worlds variety of organized religions. There are also various problems with the worlds variety of economic and political systems.

However, as with religious systems, I do not believe that the base of the system is the root of its problems.

Things which some people would consider to be problems stemming from politics, like fascism for instance, are not a result of the base of the system ... our belief in requiring a government. The root of the problem is in the way someone had decided the government must be fascist, in the way they decided to rule.

Things which some people would consider to be economic problems, like pure capitalist or pure communist economies for instance, are not results of the base of those systems ... our belief in maintaining an economy. The root of these 'problems' are the ways people decided their economies must be, in the way they decided to run the economy.

Things which some people would consider to be problems stemming from religion, like the total manipulation of societies beliefs, are not the result of the base of those religious systems ... a belief in God. They stem from the way people decided beliefs must be, that these beliefs are the truth, and in the way they decided to spread these beliefs as truth.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with believing in God. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with not believing in God. Its when we decided that our biased, ill informed little opinions on these matter are true, that they must be and that any opposition to them must be destroyed, that problems begin to develop.

You talk about groups who believe in the unprovable notion that God exists, but you forget to include that the notion that God does not exist is also improvable.

It is also possible for an organized group of people with that second notion to believe they know what is best for everyone, and impose their beliefs onto others.

The problem is not whether they are a theist or an atheist organization. The problems stem from the choices the group makes.

The problem with the majority of theistic organizations in power RIGHT NOW is that they believe their God DOES tell them to engage in the assholery that they do. To them it is not really a personal choice. It is a command from a being that is all powerful, all knowing, NEVER wrong, and sometimes wrathful. This is why I say the root of the problem is theism and it's propensity to fail to change regardless of the information or logic provided.

The difference between the theistic organizations that hold power and sway right now, is that they are not really allowed to change their belief structure. This is one of the fundamental differences between science, atheists and most theists.

I am of course speaking of the theists that matter, not you and your ideas. Your "theistic" ideas by their very nature affect nothing. In the future when I mention theism I am not referring to you. I could say the majority of theism, everytime, but I am sure I will forget. For future reference make a note of this.

You talk about groups who believe in the unprovable notion that God exists, but you forget to include that the notion that God does not exist is also improvable.

Define a belief in God well enough....and it can be disproven. Choose to sit back with an abstract belief system and nothing really defined and it cannot be disproven, but then again, what is the point of such an abstract belief?

I digress, the important thing for you to bear in mind in this thread is that proving a God does not exist is irrelevant, in this discussion, as I am not suggesting that children be taught their is no God in school, that certain things can or cannot be bought on certain days, or any other such nonsense BASED on my "inprovable" belief.

The problem with the majority of theistic organizations in power RIGHT NOW is that they believe their God DOES tell them to engage in the assholery that they do. To them it is not really a personal choice. It is a command from a being that is all powerful, all knowing, NEVER wrong, and sometimes wrathful.

Yes, the problem is that they believe they know the truth, and part of the truth is to be assholes. I agree.

That problem, being assholes, is a part of their religion. It does not stem from simply being theists.

This is why I say the root of the problem is theism and it's propensity to fail to change regardless of the information or logic provided.

How is theism the problem?

... they are not really allowed to change their belief structure.

Sure they can, they just believe they can't. Show them otherwise, if you believe that should be done.

I am of course speaking of the theists that matter, not you and your ideas.

Thats good, because I never brought my beliefs up and have been talking about those big groups all along: the problem is not that they believe in God, its in what they do with that belief.

blah blah, your beliefs, blah blah.

Alright then.

I am not suggesting that children be taught their is no God in school, that certain things can or cannot be bought on certain days, or any other such nonsense BASED on my "inprovable" belief.

Great.

But you are propagating theism as the root cause of the problems attributed to religion. Doing this just contributes to the real problem.

lol, n00b

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/~andrew/funny/noob.jpg

Unfortunately, it looks like he did, and took it seriously. His definitions and explanations were close to word-for-word what was on that. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I doubt it.

*brain explodes*

Could you help me understand this maybe?

I’ll try.


We will start by examining the work of the brilliant astrophysicist Dr. Nikolai A. Kozyrev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Aleksandrovich_Kozyrev). Our good friend David Wilcock (http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1) has made a great effort to increase our awareness of this man, his work, and the implications in his book The Divine Cosmos (http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=6&id=20&Itemid=36).

Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the first chapter:

Dramatic scientific evidence that all of physical matter is formed by an “aether” of invisible, conscious energy has existed since at least the 1950s. Renowned Russian astrophysicist Dr. Nikolai A. Kozyrev (1908-1983, pronounced Ko-zir-ev,) proved beyond any doubt that such an energy source had to exist, and as a result he became one of the most controversial figures in the history of the Russian scientific community. The awesome implications of his work, and of all those who followed him, were almost entirely concealed by the former Soviet Union, but with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the advent of the Internet we are finally gaining access to “Russia’s Best-Kept Secret.” Two generations of remarkable research by thousands of Ph.D. level specialists have emerged from Kozyrev’s seed findings, which completely change our understanding of the Universe. With our prominent mention of him in this book, we hope to permanently establish his historical importance and impact to our colleagues and readers.



A SUBSTANTIAL INTERPRETATION OF N.A.KOZYREV’S (http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/levich2.pdf)
CONCEPTION OF TIME (http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/levich2.pdf)
A.P. Levich (http://www.chronos.msu.ru/lab-kaf/Levich/elev-rukovod.html)


N.A.Kozyrev, an outstanding astronomer and natural scientist, enriched the dynamic
picture of the World by introducing a new entity, possessing “active properties” and
coinciding with neither matter, nor field, nor space-time in its usual understanding.

////////-----------…………………………………………-----------------------------//////////

In the present review it is suggested to look at N.A.Kozyrev’s ideas basically from
the standpoint of their substantial interpretation.
N.A.Kozyrev imagined time as “a mighty flow embracing all the material processes
in the universe, and all the processes taking place in these systems are sources feeding that flow” (Kozyrev 1963, p.96). The author writes about the intensity or density of the time flow, the energy it carries, its emission and absorption, the rectilinearity of its propagation, its reflection from obstacles and absorption by matter... By N.A.Kozyrev, “time flows into a system through a cause to an effect” (Kozyrev 1971, p.118). “There is an impression that time is pulled inside by a cause and gets denser at the location of an effect” (Kozyrev 1971, p.129). “... In every process of Nature time can be formed or spent” (Kozyrev 1971, p.129). Therefore it appears to be reasonable to identify N.A.Kozyrev’s flow with some substantial flow whose source is, by Kozyrev, any irreversible, out-of-equilibrium process (he apparently meant the processes accompanied by system energy and thermodynamic entropy changes). The arguments which had convinced N.A.Kozyrev that the conception of time flow was necessary, can be estimated to be speculative; however, most of his views resulted from many years of experiments. The experimental material is discussed in detail in the subsequent sections of the review.

///////////////……………..----------------……………./////////////////////////


Kozyrev’s flow manifests itself in many mechanical phenomena. Irreversible processes rotate the beam or disk of a torsion balance when they, in the experimenters’ viewpoint, emit or absorb Kozyrev’s flow. (For instance, in Kozyrev’s experiments those processes included body deformations, encounter of an air jet with an obstacle, sandglass operation, light absorption, friction, burning, some observer’s actions, body heating and cooling, phase transitions in substances, their dissolving and mixing, plant fading and nonlight radiation from astronomical objects.) It turns out that the flow can be absorbed, shielded or sometimes reflected by bodies. Inelastic processes in rigid bodies change their weight, while elastic bodies change their elasticity characteristics. Whipping tops change their weight when involved in an additional process, such as vibration, heating or cooling
or electric current transition. Many features of the Earth’s figure and climate, as well as those of other planets, are explained by their being gigantic gyroscopes subject to the influence of dissipative processes.

The flow, accompanying dissipative processes, causes also responses of nonmechanical
detectors such as resistors’ resistance values, mercury level in thermometers, quartz crystal vibration frequencies, thermocouple electric potentials, water viscosity, electronic work function in photoelectric cells, chemical reaction rates, bacteria and plant
growth parameters. The effect magnitudes depend on the energy characteristic of the initiating processes, on geographic latitude of the experiment site (for mechanical experiments), on season, on additional active non-equilibrium processes occurring in the neighbourhood of the detectors, and on some other irregular and sometimes unclear conditions of the experiment. In I.A.Yeganova’s opinion (Yeganova 1984, p.10), numerous phenomena observed apart from N.A.Kozyrev exhibit the influence of background nonequilibrium processes on detectors, similar to those observed by Kozyrev: “...the so-called kinetobaric effect (Peschka 1979), J.Pichardi’s experimental results (25-year observations of the bismuth chloride precipitation rate) and those due to S.V.Tromp (observations of erythrocyte precipitation rate) (Meksi 1982), flicker noise (Zhvirblis 1983; Gertsenshtein 1983), the observation of torsion balance oscillation period increase during the 1970 total solar eclipse (Saxel and Allen 1970) and the similar results of metrologists V.S.Kazachok, O.V.Khavroshkin and V.V.Tsyplakov (1977) who repeated these experiments during the 1976 solar eclipse, the results of A.Shapovalov’s (1973) three-year observations of photomultiplier dark current”, see also a discussion of some of these effects in N.A.Kozyrev’s works (1971, 1982).


We would like to add that Kozyrev’s flows may turn out to be the universal cosmophysical cause leading to correlations between macroscopic fluctuations which show itself by equally shaped histograms describing quite different processes, from biochemical reactions to radioactive decays, in simultaneous experiments separated sometimes by thousands of kilometers (Shnol (http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/sh/Shnoll) et al. 1985). Moreover, the experiments carried out by Kozyrev and his colleagues were to a large extent dedicated to direct detection (and application for astronomical measurements) of non-electromagnetic flows from planets, stars, galaxies, stellar clusters and nebulae.

…////////////……..--------------------////////////////////////…………………/-/.-///..

Russian physics sure is a mind trip.

We mustn’t forget mention of DePalma (http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_7_4.html).


The original results of our experiments were circulated as a report [1] in 1974. Two years later the experiment was published in an appendix to a book of Christian exegesis [2]. In 1977, one of my former students performed a high precision verification of the dropping of a rotating object: "The Gyro Drop Experiment."[3] Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments, I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically, the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; presents a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non-rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general. We should remember the pioneers in this field: Wolfe, Cox, Dean, Laithwaite, Rendle, Searle, KŸmmel, DePalma and Delvers, to name but a few.


http://www.divinecosmos.com/images/stories/dpballdrop.gif

http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity01/NatureOfPrimordialField.html
http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity02/ExperimentOfExistence.html

Russian physics sure is a mind trip.


It sure is. We're going to have to work to put this in the appropriate forum next time, as we're seriously skirting subject matter that could best be represented elsewhere.

It sure is. We're going to have to work to put this in the appropriate forum next time, as we're seriously skirting subject matter that could best be represented elsewhere.

You seem too busy to join in on the discussions lately. :(

You seem too busy to join in on the discussions lately. :(

For that, I apologize. My time is always limited during this particular season (tax time, end of fiscal year for the company I work at) and my contributions here are a bit fragmented. That might fly in other forums, but the long-windedness I usually succumb to when posting here is what I prefer when getting into these types of discussions.

:D

... the long-windedness I usually succumb to when posting here is what I prefer when getting into these types of discussions.

me too :(

This is why I say the root of the problem is theism and it's propensity to fail to change regardless of the information or logic provided.
[/B]


I don't think that's the root of the problem, if so it would be present in all instances of people who refuse to change despite reason and information, it is not, and so it is not the ROOT of the problem.

I agree it may contribute in some cases, but in those cases where it is a problem in the first place. You seem to suggest that there is a cut-off point between theism and atheism, which seems absurd to me. Atheists are just as prone to this behaviour as theists, even if the reasoning behind it is differant.

Theres plenty of subjectively unpleasant things a person could do.

Doing those things does not depend on whether or not the person is a theist or an atheist, it depends on whether or not they believe they should do those things.

Unfortunately, theism (as a belief) doesn't exist in isolation. However, if theism could be eradicated you'd get rid of a whole lot of other terrible beliefs that go with it...and you'd sure have a lot less suicide bombers. So, yes, theism as it exists in modern society has negative behavioral consequences.

Unfortunately, theism (as a belief) doesn't exist in isolation.

Are you saying you believe that people cannot believe in God without submitting to religions? Or, that it cannot exist without the need to kill everyone who disagrees with you?

Some would disagree with you.

However, if theism could be eradicated you'd get rid of a whole lot of other terrible beliefs that go with it...and you'd sure have a lot less suicide bombers.

'Eradicate' their beliefs? This seems to be the very same problem stemming from those religious extremists and causing those suicide bombers. Desire for control over another's beliefs.

So, yes, theism as it exists in modern society has negative behavioral consequences.

And apparently, as can be seen by your very own suggestion to eradicate theism, the same type of negative behavior can happen in atheists.

Again, the root of the problem is not the base of the system ... either atheism or theism, the problems stem from the choices made by the people themselves.

Are you saying you believe that people cannot believe in God without submitting to religions? Or, that it cannot exist without the need to kill everyone who disagrees with you?

Some would disagree with you.

I said no such thing.

'Eradicate' their beliefs? This seems to be the very same problem stemming from those religious extremists and causing those suicide bombers. Desire for control over another's beliefs.No, it isn't. I want to get rid of irrational beliefs, they want to impose them on others (and impose a lot more). So these are actually polar opposites.

And apparently, as can be seen by your very own suggestion to eradicate theism, the same type of negative behavior can happen in atheists.

Again, the root of the problem is not the base of the system ... either atheism or theism, the problems stem from the choices made by the people themselves.People make choices based on their beliefs. Some beliefs lead to negative choices, I want those beliefs gone.

No, it isn't. I want to get rid of irrational beliefs, they want to impose them on others (and impose a lot more). So these are actually polar opposites.

The whole reason they are imposing their beliefs on others, is because they believe the beliefs of those others to be irrational and their own opinion to be correct.

You believe the same thing about them and their beliefs. You believe the same thing about your own opinion.

You believe theism to be irrational, and atheism to be correct. You wish to eradicate their 'irrational' beliefs, and impose your own point-of-view on them.



I believe that if people just stopped being assholes, were indifferent to the beliefs of others and accepted that their beliefs or opinions are not truths, then this problem wouldn't exist whatsoever.

People make choices based on their beliefs. Some beliefs lead to negative choices, I want those beliefs gone.

Yes, and those beliefs would be the beliefs that "my way is the only way, and everyone else is irrational and wrong, and need to be eradicated". The desire to control others beliefs. That is the problem.

The whole reason they are imposing their beliefs on others, is because they believe the beliefs of those others to be irrational and their own opinion to be correct.

No, they are imposing their beliefs on others because they think that's what god wants them to do.

You believe the same thing about them and their beliefs. You believe the same thing about your own opinion.No, I don't. I believe the belief in god is irrational and, as a net whole, bad for society, that is all.

You believe theism to be irrational, and atheism to be correct. You wish to eradicate their 'irrational' beliefs, and impose your own point-of-view on them.No, I don't. You're just making shit up now. I wish to stop the indoctrination of vulnerable children, expose them to all different view points, and challenge irrational beliefs in our culture.

I believe that if people just stopped being assholes, were indifferent to the beliefs of others and accepted that their beliefs or opinions are not truths, then this problem wouldn't exist whatsoever.You wouldn't have many theists then.

Yes, and those beliefs would be the beliefs that "my way is the only way, and everyone else is irrational and wrong, and need to be eradicated". The desire to control others beliefs. That is the problem.LOL. So you think the only bad belief is the belief that bad beliefs should be gone...and you think this belief should be gone. Holy shit! ROFLMAO.

No, they are imposing their beliefs on others because they think that's what god wants them to do.

Right, and why? Because those beliefs are 'correct' and others are 'wrong'.

Or so they believe.

No, I don't. I believe the belief in god is irrational and, as a net whole, bad for society, that is all.

And that theism should be eradicated, as you said earlier.

Because you believe it to be irrational. Or wrong.

Just as religious extremists believe other beliefs are wrong, and should be eradicated.

Thats the same problem.

No, I don't. You're just making shit up now.

Great then.

You wouldn't have many theists then.

Maybe. So what? Why does that matter?

Although, I doubt it. There are people on this very forum who believe in God but disagree with organized religion.

LOL. So you think the only bad belief is the belief that bad beliefs should be gone...and you think this belief should be gone. Holy shit! ROFLMAO.

"Bad belief"? I think that would be subjective.

But I think its clear that the root cause of these situations we have decided to call problems is believing that your beliefs are truth, that the beliefs of others are false and that those other beliefs need to be eradicated. Things we can never know.

No, it isn't. I want to get rid of irrational beliefs, they want to impose them on others (and impose a lot more). So these are actually polar opposites.

People make choices based on their beliefs. Some beliefs lead to negative choices, I want those beliefs gone.

If you do that you will become the very thing you hated...

But not all spiritual beliefs bring about negative consequence, not all secular beliefs bring positive results. You like others will need to make due with what is around you, not to be an arrogant shithead, but who are you to tell me what to believe? What title do you have, watch your stubborn pride -- Arrogance stems from it...