Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 03:08 pm
@neologist,
I like John Lennon, Neo. I enjoy his music. One of my favorite spots in Central Park is just a few hundred yards from where he was killed...the memorial to him in Strawberry Fields, where the "Imagine" plaque is located.

But unfortunately, his words here are trite.

Essentially he is saying, "If only the world were a better place...it would be a better place."

Take a look at the conduct of the people in the small cyber world of A2K. Magnify it...and you get what we have. Although to be honest, at this moment with the present usual crowd...you'd probably come up short of what we have at large.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 03:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Essentially he is saying, "If only the world were a better place...it would be a better place."


That's not at all what JL is saying, Frank. You are, as is often the case, out to lunch.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 04:17 pm
@gungasnake,
uh...ya...no evidence to speak of I see...ok then thanks.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 04:46 pm
@fresco,
You are obviously a deep thinker. I appreciate your view point; it is interesting to say the least, albeit a bit too abstact for me.
I see nothing nebulous with the word existence. I do see your point regarding wave/particle duality. ( my belief is that SAPs travel as a wave and arrvive as a particle, both an existence in their own right.)
As for evidence being negotiable after being trancended from naive realism, I reject this. If you show me something emperically such as the 2 slit experiment with an interferometer and demonstrate an interference pattern or no pattern based on HUP I beleive it and refuse to negotiate the point until I am shown further evidence to the contrary.
I'm a black and white kind of guy. (being a former cop)


As for Heisenberg exposing his children to religion, I would chalk that up to the attitudes culture of the time. Atheism today is barely acknowledged, back then it was akin to being a witch in Salem.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2014 05:54 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

You are obviously a deep thinker. I appreciate your view point; it is interesting to say the least, albeit a bit too abstact for me.
I see nothing nebulous with the word existence. I do see your point regarding wave/particle duality. ( my belief is that SAPs travel as a wave and arrvive as a particle, both an existence in their own right.)
As for evidence being negotiable after being trancended from naive realism, I reject this. If you show me something emperically such as the 2 slit experiment with an interferometer and demonstrate an interference pattern or no pattern based on HUP I beleive it and refuse to negotiate the point until I am shown further evidence to the contrary.
I'm a black and white kind of guy. (being a former cop)


As for Heisenberg exposing his children to religion, I would chalk that up to the attitudes culture of the time. Atheism today is barely acknowledged, back then it was akin to being a witch in Salem.


Cops are like priests...once a priest...a priest forever.

I find the tenacity of your guesses to be interesting.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:01 am
@giujohn,
Okay. I acknowledge that without exposure to Rorty and/or other post Kant movements which are opposed to logical positivism and the correspondence theory of "truth",(e.g Thomas Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolutions), you are unlikely to be able to re-assess your attitude to "existence" and "reality". (Analogy: You don't possess the spectacles to view the 3D film). Kuhn for example would point out that "empirical evidence" is what we call "agreed observations described according to a particular directive paradigm". This leads to a highly simplified one-liner that "reality is a social construction".

I would merely suggest that you ask yourself (as I do) why several celebrated scientists still have "faith" in some version of a deity. Given that "life", "consciousness", "causality", "time" and "location" have no definitive status in science, I can see where and why they are seeking to "drop anchor".


giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 06:07 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Kuhn for example would point out that "empirical evidence" is what we call "agreed observations described according to a particular directive paradigm". This leads to a highly simplified one-liner that "reality is a social construction]


In the abstract maybe. I believe with my eyes only...the only ones that count in my book.

I appreciate your thoughtful replies; I have actually learned from them. (although admittedly some of it is above my head)

I believe that people come to religion in only 3 ways:
1.) They were indoctrinated with dogma during their formative years...not an easy thing to change even if they know intellectually thats its all a bunch of whooey.
2.) They have had a "religious experience"...which is merely a small electrical diturbance in the left pre-frontal cortex not unlike a mild form of epilepsy.
3.) They dont necessarily believe but are hedging their bet.

I have spoken to several scientists who tell me that it is easier to "get along" just by saying that they believe there might be something out there, etc.
After all, declaring you are an atheist is not unlike in the old days saying you were gay.
In his private papers, some of which were discovered in the last 10 years, it is evident that Einstein didnt believe and he felt those who did were childish and superstious and that god was a product and expression of human weakness. However he very well could not say so publicly.

I suspect that if it were more socially acceptable to be an atheist you would see more scientists (and others) admitting to this stance.

giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 06:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I find the tenacity of your guesses to be interesting.


I am pleased I am able to peak your interest.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 07:14 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Quote:
Kuhn for example would point out that "empirical evidence" is what we call "agreed observations described according to a particular directive paradigm". This leads to a highly simplified one-liner that "reality is a social construction]


In the abstract maybe. I believe with my eyes only...the only ones that count in my book.

I appreciate your thoughtful replies; I have actually learned from them. (although admittedly some of it is above my head)

I believe that people come to religion in only 3 ways:
1.) They were indoctrinated with dogma during their formative years...not an easy thing to change even if they know intellectually thats its all a bunch of whooey.
2.) They have had a "religious experience"...which is merely a small electrical diturbance in the left pre-frontal cortex not unlike a mild form of epilepsy.
3.) They dont necessarily believe but are hedging their bet.

I have spoken to several scientists who tell me that it is easier to "get along" just by saying that they believe there might be something out there, etc.
After all, declaring you are an atheist is not unlike in the old days saying you were gay.
In his private papers, some of which were discovered in the last 10 years, it is evident that Einstein didnt believe and he felt those who did were childish and superstious and that god was a product and expression of human weakness. However he very well could not say so publicly.

I suspect that if it were more socially acceptable to be an atheist you would see more scientists (and others) admitting to this stance.




I find it interesting, John, that you call acknowledging "atheism"...as "admitting."

I am not an atheist, but even I would not degrade the position that way.

Some people guess there are gods (or is a GOD)...and they are theists. They acknowledge they are theists.

Some people guess there are no gods...and they are atheists. They ACKNOWLEDGE their atheism.

Neither has to "admit" it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 07:15 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Quote:
I find the tenacity of your guesses to be interesting.


I am pleased I am able to peak your interest.


I am pleased you are pleased.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2014 05:58 am
@giujohn,
I don't know what the situation is in the USA, but in the UK, atheism among scientists is usually the social norm.

Religious detail is certainly transmitted through socialization (indoctrination) but this does not account for religiosity per se as a continuous global phenomenon. That is why I argue for its origins as a psychological palliative (against a "meaningless existence") but also its regulatory social function as a rationalization of tribalism and chauvinistic power structures (as per other primates). Recognizing the "whooey" is far too simplistic with respect to the vested interests and social forces operating in denying it.
MWal
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2014 10:32 am
@giujohn,
Evil is inevitable for the omniscient. The truth of evil is the undertaker. He drowns the rapist and imprisons the thieves and institutionalizes the mentally ill. That's what God knows about, and what man is not capable of hearing yet, but that's the truth of ha Satan the accuser and the adversary. He was never an angel always the undertaker, the light Lucifer, or Omni is the fallen angel. He has the spirit of the undertaker enter him because he knows the bad things and has to do something about it or drown. That's why we call the archangel Lucifer Satan, I think.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2014 11:53 am
@MWal,
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamen !
MWal
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2014 12:48 pm
@fresco,
Love only accepts the good things just like perfection, so the sinners die with hate, that's knowledge. Is he fallen yet?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 03:50 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
That is why I argue for its origins as a psychological palliative (against a "meaningless existence") but also its regulatory social function as a rationalization of tribalism and chauvinistic power structures (as per other primates).


I agree. I have always said that religion is the product and result of evolution in homosapien-sapien, specifically the pre-frontal cortex.

However, I believe the 3 explanations above account directly for the "continuous global phenomenon" in modern society more so.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 03:53 pm
@MWal,
As much as I know there is no god, I equally know there is no satan...or hell.
So, as the song goes...dont worry, be happy.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 04:09 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

As much as I know there is no god, I equally know there is no satan...or hell.
So, as the song goes...dont worry, be happy.


You KNOW there is no god???

C'mon. Get real, John. It won't hurt.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 04:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I find it interesting, John, that you call acknowledging "atheism"...as "admitting."


Some people know that they are atheists but because of social pressure fear acknowledging it. Once they do...they are admitting it.

ad·mit
/ədˈmit/
verb
verb: admit; 3rd person present: admits; past tense: admitted; past participle: admitted; gerund or present participle: admitting

1. confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance.

"the office finally admitted that several prisoners had been injured"


Frank...is it really all that necessary to parse words?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 06:52 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Quote:
I find it interesting, John, that you call acknowledging "atheism"...as "admitting."


Some people know that they are atheists but because of social pressure fear acknowledging it. Once they do...they are admitting it.

ad·mit
/ədˈmit/
verb
verb: admit; 3rd person present: admits; past tense: admitted; past participle: admitted; gerund or present participle: admitting

1. confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance.

"the office finally admitted that several prisoners had been injured"


Frank...is it really all that necessary to parse words?


A better question, John, is..."Is it really necessary to avoid the implications of using "admit" when referring to acknowledging atheism?"

It matters...and I gave you an out.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2014 07:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
LOL...I dont see any implications. I used the word as commonly defined. I'm a pretty straight forward guy and you dont have to guess at what I'm saying.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Evil of god
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 02:22:48