Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

Atheism and faith

6,799 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Illyrius
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Yes. 

Have you empirically witnessed such a phenomena?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
31 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Have you empirically witnessed such a phenomena?

Static force, magnetic forces, cashmir effect, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, lamb effect, spontaneous emission of photons, stuff like that, which is what the LHC can help with. 

ETA, sorry you said have I seen that, I take it you mean personally, no, why? 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

you can't be mean to ideas.  

I would argue that some ideas are inherently mean.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I would argue that some ideas are inherently mean.

Some ideas are highly destructive. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Some ideas are highly destructive. 

Indeed, and some ideas deserve destruction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I see there’s been a lot of response to things I’ve said and I apologize for not debating properly.  I’m on a tight schedule right now.  My bad.  If I can respond to everyone soon, that would be great.  If not, my apologies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
11 hours ago, Guyver said:

In any event, have you praised Dawkins for that work?  If so, then wouldn't you be able to consider yourself a person who is extremely cognitively biased?  I mean, you can't praise Dawkins for doing something you disparage Alexander for.......right?

He has faith in Dawkins' words, like one has faith in the Gospels. It's a feeling that can't really be described.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yes. 

I would bet to differ, it just appears that way, Heisnburgs uncertainty principle states a system can never be at zero energy.

I also understand that particles can appear with their anti-particle and be annihilated nearly as soon as they appear. In my opinion we just don't understand the full process of the appearance,

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
47 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

He has faith in Dawkins' words, like one has faith in the Gospels. It's a feeling that can't really be described.

What an utterly silly thing to say. Biology does not require faith. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I would bet to differ, it just appears that way, Heisnburgs uncertainty principle states a system can never be at zero energy.

Would that not depend on the definition of 'nothing'? 

14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I also understand that particles can appear with their anti-particle and be annihilated nearly as soon as they appear. In my opinion we just don't understand the full process of the appearance,

Of course not, it's still theoretical at this stage, have you read Lawrence Krauss book on the subject? I had to read it twice, but I feel it makes the concepts within grasp. An imbalance in matter and anti matter is proposed as the catalyst for the big bang. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 hours ago, Guyver said:

That's one viewpoint.......another viewpoint is that he has had an experience that he completely believes in and he's willing to go on record about it.  I admit, this idea is completely different from yours. 

Do you criticize people like Richard Dawkins for attempting to make money selling paperbacks?  Just curious....because the title "The God Delusion" seems as much or more the kind of tactic that you just accused Alexander of using.

In any event, have you praised Dawkins for that work?  If so, then wouldn't you be able to consider yourself a person who is extremely cognitively biased?  I mean, you can't praise Dawkins for doing something you disparage Alexander for.......right?

I personally do not like Richard Dawkins at all, but his actual scientific work speaks for itself. He is a good scientist and a poor writer, his books are tedious I think. But his idea regarding religion being a delusion is controversial but he feels it's supported by the evidence of evolution and his Ahteism.

Some might not like his conclusions but they are based on evidence at hand. As the saying goes "When one person suffers from delusion it's called insanity, and when a number of people suffer from delusion it's called religion"

Alexander's work however has very little evidence supporting it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Would that not depend on the definition of 'nothing'? 

Of course not, it's still theoretical at this stage, have you read Lawrence Krauss book on the subject? I had to read it twice, but I feel it makes the concepts within grasp. An imbalance in matter and anti matter is proposed as the catalyst for the big bang. 

My point being the concept of nothing doesn't exists. If you hold true the idea of uncertainty in our universe.

I tend not to read popular science books as I have access to the papers they are based on from work. Baryon asymmetry is a good concept and research carried out last year seemed to show it's correct. Larry McLerrans work is good too.

https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/01/new-source-asymmetry-between-matter-and-antimatter

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037026939191794V

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
8 hours ago, Illyrius said:

But then, how to explain their vehement condemnation of faith in all things that can't be empirically proven?

Isn't this contradictory?

Find me an atheist who says this. You're creating your own definitions. Again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
8 hours ago, Illyrius said:

The fact that origin of universe and existance is a mystery.

Only if you refuse to learn.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
7 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Lets start with a simple question, to clarify is it a complete mystery or not.

Can something come out of nothing?

Depends on your definition of "nothing", which I assume to be very different from the physicists actually studying the field.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

He has faith in Dawkins' words, like one has faith in the Gospels. It's a feeling that can't really be described.

Is all you guys do is sit there and make strawman arguments? Is that actually all you have?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

My point being the concept of nothing doesn't exists. If you hold true the idea of uncertainty in our universe.

Oh, OK, just to make sure we are on the same page, I'm figuring your saying 'nothing' doesn't l actually exist to make 'something', 'something' makes 'something'? 

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

I tend not to read popular science books as I have access to the papers they are based on from work. Baryon asymmetry is a good concept and research carried out last year seemed to show it's correct. Larry McLerrans work is good too.

https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/01/new-source-asymmetry-between-matter-and-antimatter

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037026939191794V

:) Well aren't you the dark horse Mr humble, you're all over it, fascinating, am I reading this right in that if the models are correct  they are inevitable? 

Thank you for the links, you're a classy and intelligent poster. I do appreciate your input. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Oh, OK, just to make sure we are on the same page, I'm figuring your saying 'nothing' doesn't l actually exist to make 'something', 'something' makes 'something'? 

:) Well aren't you the dark horse Mr humble, you're all over it, fascinating, am I reading this right in that if the models are correct  they are inevitable? 

Thank you for the links, you're a classy and intelligent poster. I do appreciate your input. 

Yes, something does have to make something. Somethings can't appear out of nothing because there is no absolute zero. If there was an absolute zero I think the universe wouldn't exist. But I'm probably wrong, it might exist and we are still here despite this. The issue is as we can't get absolute zero, therefore we can not create a true vacuum which means we can't really do experiments to prove something appears out of nothing.

I'm currently working on virtual particles, in an attempt to help silicon photonics it's quite interesting. It's work based on the Casmir effect with photons.

Yeah I agree with the current models as current experiments prove the asymmetry, which explains nicely how our universe probably started after the big bang and why we see the matter we see in it.

I'm currently reading Stephan Hawkings Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, that kind of a popular science book, it contains the works of Copernicus, Newton, Galileo and Einstein. Next on my list is God Created the Integers which is purely mathematical which will probably bore the crap out of me.

I try to keep up to date on things but most things just go over or under my head.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@psyche101

Quote

Going to an authors website for confirmation?  

Reading his side of the story before commenting. I'd already read yours.

Quote

If he is going express his opinion as fact then he will be challenged on that claim.

That his opinion will be challenged is self-evident. As to how he expresses his opinion:

Dr Alexander writes good American English, which is influenced by typical house styles in American publications. I appreciate that an Australian correspondent on a Scottish website might be unfamiliar with those norms. In American prose for publication, a writer will likely be discouraged from salting "I remember" into what can only be a memory, "I believe" into what can only be an opinion, and "I interpret" into what can only be an interpretation.

Personally, when writing here in virtual Scotland, I try to mind my hedges. If I were writing under an American editor, those hedges would be blue-pencilled, assuming I didn't save the editor the trouble and just say what I have to say, which is how Americans generally like their prose.

Quote

Where do these limitations see the light of day and to whom?

You didn't dispute my remark that his is typical VIBE material. How many discussions of VIBEs have we had here at UM? Dude took a bad hit to the brain, now remembers visits to la-la-land, and figures that if he'd died, then he'd still be there. What limitation of that story, over all the many times it's been told by him and others, has yet to see the light of day?

Quote

What are you referring to?

The common antitheist fantasy (faith, indeed) that religion, supernatural ideas, gods etc. originated exclusively from abortive efforts to explain natural phenomena, despite the absence of any known supernatural explanation of a natural phenomenon, apart from Godidit (which is a fact claim anyway, not an explanation). This is in contrast to voluminous evidence of supernatural explanations of (what are interpreted as) supernatural phenomena at all times and places from which we have records.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Yes, something does have to make something. Somethings can't appear out of nothing because there is no absolute zero. If there was an absolute zero I think the universe wouldn't exist. But I'm probably wrong, it might exist and we are still here despite this. The issue is as we can't get absolute zero, therefore we can not create a true vacuum which means we can't really do experiments to prove something appears out of nothing.

'Absolute zero' is also something when opposed to 'Absolute non Zero' ...
 

Quote

 

~

https://www.thoughtco.com › Humanities › Religion & Spirituality › Buddhism
May 10, 2017 - When these are translated into English as “emptiness,” it is the emptiness as articulated within Buddhist philosophy and practice. Please note: I am not a scholar of the Chinese, Sanskrit or Tibetan languages, so very much welcome the input of anyone fluent in these languages, to become more clear on this ...
~
tao-in-you.com/a-pot-is-useful-for-its-emptiness/
They are, nevertheless, NOT what a teapot is built for. A teapot is useful not for what you can see. It is useful for what you cannot see — its emptiness. Just imagine if the teapot is built without the empty space! Where does the tea go? If there is nowhere in the teapot for the tea to go, what is the use of a teapot? However ...
~
tao-in-you.com/value-in-emptiness/

Importance of Non-being. How can emptiness be of any value? Emptiness can be the very purpose of an existence. When we value something, our attention is often on what we can see or touch. For example, when you see a pot, your attention is likely to be on its shape, its colours, workmanship and the material it's made of ...

~

The Meaning of Emptiness | Libertarian Taoist

www.libertariantaoist.com/?p=3654
Nov 29, 2017 - LIU CHING says, “If it's empty, it's deep. If it's deep, it's clear. The Tao comes from nothing. Hence, the Tao is the child of nothing.” LI YUEH says, “Ti is the Lord of Creation. All of creation comes after Ti, except the Tao, which comes before it. But the nature of the Tao is to yield. Hence, Lao-tzu does not insist ...
~

Room empty picture 1. The void as nothingness opposed to the fullness (you);. 2. The emptiness as an inner realization, that is the state one should accomplish in ... At the mind level, the integration of wu equals an openness that relates itself to the Tao. ... profitable adaptation, and what has not that for (actual) usefulness.

~

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

Yes, something does have to make something. Somethings can't appear out of nothing because there is no absolute zero. If there was an absolute zero I think the universe wouldn't exist. But I'm probably wrong, it might exist and we are still here despite this. The issue is as we can't get absolute zero, therefore we can not create a true vacuum which means we can't really do experiments to prove something appears out of nothing.

I'm currently working on virtual particles, in an attempt to help silicon photonics it's quite interesting. It's work based on the Casmir effect with photons.

Yeah I agree with the current models as current experiments prove the asymmetry, which explains nicely how our universe probably started after the big bang and why we see the matter we see in it.

Might I ask your opinion on this article please? 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

I'm currently reading Stephan Hawkings Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, that kind of a popular science book, it contains the works of Copernicus, Newton, Galileo and Einstein. Next on my list is God Created the Integers which is purely mathematical which will probably bore the crap out of me.

:)

I haven't read either of those, but will have to look out for them. I quite like Sean Carroll and Brian Greene, I find pretty much everything they offer interesting. 

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

I try to keep up to date on things but most things just go over or under my head.

I can associate with that sentiment. I think I read A Brief History of Time 3 times before it really started to sink in. It's why I like the books, I work in the electrical field, the layman approach appeals to me although I'm still rather envious of your job. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Might I ask your opinion on this article please? 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html

:)

I haven't read either of those, but will have to look out for them. I quite like Sean Carroll and Brian Greene, I find pretty much everything they offer interesting. 

I can associate with that sentiment. I think I read A Brief History of Time 3 times before it really started to sink in. It's why I like the books, I work in the electrical field, the layman approach appeals to me although I'm still rather envious of your job. :)

I will need to look at the link later.

I recommend anything by John Gribbon, if you like history and science his book A History of Science is amazing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

@psyche101

Reading his side of the story before commenting. I'd already read yours.

I honestly thought everyone already knew his side of the story, he features extensively in the media and is discussed here often, even threads on his claims. 

34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

That his opinion will be challenged is self-evident. As to how he expresses his opinion:

Dr Alexander writes good American English, which is influenced by typical house styles in American publications. I appreciate that an Australian correspondent on a Scottish website might be unfamiliar with those norms. In American prose for publication, a writer will likely be discouraged from salting "I remember" into what can only be a memory, "I believe" into what can only be an opinion, and "I interpret" into what can only be an interpretation.

Personally, when writing here in virtual Scotland, I try to mind my hedges. If I were writing under an American editor, those hedges would be blue-pencilled, assuming I didn't save the editor the trouble and just say what I have to say, which is how Americans generally like their prose.

I'm more referring to the public displays such as a fairly well known debate called 'Death is not final' where he pairs up with Raymond Moody to debate Sean Carroll and Steve Novella to claim his experience is real evidence of the afterlife. I honestly feel that's taking the next step from personal into an influential position that undermines science and as such fair game to any criticism. 

34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

You didn't dispute my remark that his is typical VIBE material. How many discussions of VIBEs have we had here at UM? Dude took a bad hit to the brain, now remembers visits to la-la-land, and figures that if he'd died, then he'd still be there. What limitation of that story, over all the many times it's been told by him and others, has yet to see the light of day?

Sounds more than reasonable, I'm not familiar with the acronym, my bad for the misunderstanding. 

34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The common antitheist fantasy (faith, indeed) that religion, supernatural ideas, gods etc. originated exclusively from abortive efforts to explain natural phenomena, despite the absence of any known supernatural explanation of a natural phenomenon, apart from Godidit (which is a fact claim anyway, not an explanation). This is in contrast to voluminous evidence of supernatural explanations of (what are interpreted as) supernatural phenomena at all times and places from which we have records.

I don't think that's a fair evaluation. 'Exclusively' wouldn't be my evaluation. I'm not sure I've heard atheists make that distinction. 

@eight bits

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I will need to look at the link later.

I recommend anything by John Gribbon, if you like history and science his book A History of Science is amazing.

Thank you for the recommendation :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

The common antitheist fantasy (faith, indeed) that religion, supernatural ideas, gods etc. originated exclusively from abortive efforts to explain natural phenomena, despite the absence of any known supernatural explanation of a natural phenomenon, apart from Godidit (which is a fact claim anyway, not an explanation). This is in contrast to voluminous evidence of supernatural explanations of (what are interpreted as) supernatural phenomena at all times and places from which we have records.

I agree with psyche on the first sentence, I don't think claims of 'exclusive' origination from efforts to explain nature are that 'common'.  Agreed, it is somewhat common for people to say/type, 'gods were created to explain natural phenomena' but just as we don't salt all of our statements with 'I believe' it's not always required to add 'only' to that statement.  "Smoking causes lung cancer" doesn't mean that it always does or exclusively does.

As far as 'despite the absence of any known supernatural explanation', when a lot of these religious/supernatural ideas originated the believers didn't have that many known natural explanations for natural phenomena either.  I missed the 'contrast' also.  When we discuss gods as explanations for natural phenomena we are using I'm pretty sure our contemporary understanding of what is natural, not what the ancients thought, so I'm not sure of the relevance of the distinction between natural phenomena and interpreted supernatural phenomena, at least from their perspective.  In a different way the voluminous evidence for supernatural explanations is not in contrast, it supports the idea that gods originated (partly) to explain natural phenomena, this is just another example in an already filled set.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.