Atheism

[DarkAngel_]

I know! But, if you're a physics student, I assume you are aware that both theories make predictions that could be tested if the technology is available. There have been a few stories in the news over the last couple of years that the new Large Hadron Collider can produce high enough energies to test string theory predictions involving the decay of heavy W-boson particles and the decay of mini black holes - if they can be produced. There are other testable predictions involving gravity waves if the L.I.S.A. space array is able to detect them; so it's not a metaphysical debate; someone will be able to devise a test to either confirm these predictions or send all the theoretical physicists and mathematicians down another road to look for the theory of everything.

its one of the high points of physics! there is a proof in an Australian research lab that two particle's of a boson variant can change polarity from across the globe at the same time when timed by an atomic clock.. a first step of showing 'D-2-branes' in M-theory could exist, which bridges gaps in space from a distance by wrapping around a graviton. (graviton is theoretical but still the atom used was heavy, don't remember what kind it was.) which could mean Einsteins theory of wormholes that are instantly traversable for only short moments may be a possible truth, meaning if energy was passed through one... it could be kept open indefinitely. i mean that's sci-fi gone real! if its true of course.

Thanks for the info on Loop Quantum Gravity, but I don't need to know all of the technical nuances of the theory. I'll just read the summaries and assume that the peer review process will take care of fleshing out the accuracy of each theory's predictions and how reliable they will be for describing the real world.

if you've read any of my thoughts on the subject, I am not going to spend hours learning the math that these theories are based on. I'll just take the summarized versions and assume that peer review will take care of

well pictures can only tell so much, getting the meaning of the words from the 'geek gab' might elaborate something a bit clearer... like the gravity thing you spoke of in expanse.

One of the theories about the nature of Dark Energy - which is causing the universe to fly apart, is that this vacuum energy of empty space is providing the positive energy to make the universe fly apart. It's sort of a revival of Einstein's Cosmological Constant, except that he was trying to use it to produce a model of a static universe. I know there are other theories about dark energy, but this one seems to be more popular than other alternative explanations so far.

yes, but in all the theories we have found this may not be the first time it has happened, the universal momentum of the big bang seems like it only accelerates faster and as one of my favorite subjects, it is found that space is a zero point variant in space time when separated from the 4th dimension, which means time is variant to space and hence gives it energy. the space-energy exchange equation makes it simpler, it is kinda like this amount of energy is needed to make this much space producing this much nuclear energy and/or matter by effect. so static universe = empty space, it is a background and nothing more, but our space as we experience it is positive in appearance due to that extra weave in the fabric called time. so due to its high energy we think that outside that is lower energy (see WMAP) that is forcing itself inward and is pulling gravity apart through all the dark spots so to speak.

Edited April 29, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Pliny]

well im not saying im an expert just that it is one of my many passions. i am not a person to stop at a subject and keep at a standstill, you see a true need of new wisdom, consciousness, and knowledge is to not stop changing one's roles. i follow many sciences and LQG is one of the more interesting ones, are you trying to be, i don't know, controversial? your motives do not seem clear... is it not counter productive to just say i am small? for me i must know the whys! i must see what causes the thought! i am curious now, why is my stance being lower of such great import? i am small but it changes nothing! i am no small thing to me...

You 're an interesting and, I might add, well-studied person - I guess you are saying you are an expert. I am just arguing the point of Atheism. It is important to me that spirituality be kept, in whatever form, a live topic. The topic to me is switching to theoretical physics and that is not what I am here debating.

I agree that "a true need of new wisdom, consciousness and knowledge is to not stop changing one's roles." I have said so much in my posts and gaining understanding of other's insists you have the ability to change roles, what better understanding could one have of a role than to be it. But a role is a role.

As to whether it is counter productive to say you are small - view it as an expression of how I feel. Does that explain the why of the thought? It is not entirely counter-productive, as it would depend upon what I wished to produce.

Why is your stance being lower of such great import? The times mostly. It is your stance it is not you. You being large or small, as you say, changes nothing. It's a relative term.

since i was 12 i have been studying physics so i am not as readily swayed by simple remarks... please battle my words, is that not why we are here?

when we battle we often help one another, give prospective, or better then all, a pause to reason, that gives the mind a new realization.

Can't battle that. I agree.

i'm sorry my friend but now you are sounding nihilistic.

In what respect?

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity; opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." Einstein

Can't accuse me of that. I find little support for my opinions in the social environment. I hope I am at least capable of forming such opinion outside the prejudices of my social environment.

I live in a Judeo-Christian based society, of which I am neither, that is becoming a secular humanist society, which I am not.

so please form them, for the sake of those who do this for a reason.

all that i've wrote, i've learned or asked, nothing with absolute certainty. now i ask you what do you believe?

I have said what I believe that is pertinent to the thread. In a nutshell, Science believes effects are prime and studies the effects of effects. They got to the big bang, the biggest effect, and all else is an effect of that effect.

I believe that Einstein's theory, taken for gospel in the realm of physics, is a theory. It is a flawed theory or it would have been the theory of everything. It isn't. What's the flaw? Physicist's are not looking for a flaw, they know it has flaws and continue to investigate the flaws to prove Einstein's theory correct. It is a theory and when I talk to WIP he explains to me that it may be that all the universe is perhaps a delusion. Einstein's theory must be a part of that delusion if that is the case. So what is the truth? He insists Science study effects. Effects causing effects without a prime cause. So I believe their is a prime mover. Science moves towards more complexity and I believe truth lies in more simplicity. It would be backwards to think that things start in complexity and become more simple. they don't, time adds complexity.

I am really at cross-purposes in this debate because playing a role in life is important. If I invest fifteen of my years in life building a knowledge base of the role I wish to play and then someone tells me that everything I learned was incorrect I would be a little resistant to accepting that fact. And especially if it came from a lay person. I would probably continue playing the role I intended at least until I discovered what I learned in theory was not applicable in practice. No one likes the rug being pulled out form under them and would probbly lose any sense of equanimity.

It's too late...I gotta go to bed. Good night!

[DarkAngel_]

You 're an interesting and, I might add, well-studied person - I guess you are saying you are an expert. I am just arguing the point of Atheism. It is important to me that spirituality be kept, in whatever form, a live topic. The topic to me is switching to theoretical physics and that is not what I am here debating.

I agree that "a true need of new wisdom, consciousness and knowledge is to not stop changing one's roles." I have said so much in my posts and gaining understanding of other's insists you have the ability to change roles, what better understanding could one have of a role than to be it. But a role is a role.

As to whether it is counter productive to say you are small - view it as an expression of how I feel. Does that explain the why of the thought? It is not entirely counter-productive, as it would depend upon what I wished to produce.

Why is your stance being lower of such great import? The times mostly. It is your stance it is not you. You being large or small, as you say, changes nothing. It's a relative term.

Can't battle that. I agree.

In what respect?

Can't accuse me of that. I find little support for my opinions in the social environment. I hope I am at least capable of forming such opinion outside the prejudices of my social environment.

I live in a Judeo-Christian based society, of which I am neither, that is becoming a secular humanist society, which I am not.

I'm interesting? thank you, but what i know is learned, not stressed... i have the freedom to alter, disregard, or indulge, in any area i choose to. unfortunately I'm too innately curious to just do any of those things without 'tagging' them and trying to know the original. i tend toward original and new things and take great hesitation to taking credit from modifying the old. my point? i agree about the direction of this thread, it was based in atheism and should stay as such... but this change in direction is due to the reasons atheism has such profoundly strong foundations.

when it comes to my accusation i was and am confused... your role was professed only after calling it non-expressive in a social environment. i said so because instead of just saying it you invoked hesitation without declaration of your opinion in the strictest sense, so not so much to be accused as being asked. as for Einstein? i love disproving, not criticizing or working for my own goal 'theory'... though i have theories too, it is a team effort and takes time, money, energy, and the initiative to understand when your wrong. spirituality is self obtained not collectively received by a covenant to deities or otherworldly places.

and i do get your point, not many agree with me, but i ask for the purpose of your standing, nothing more... what is behind it all. i've heard your argument but not your state of belief.

i ask with great intrigue.

Edited April 30, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Oleg Bach]

They just spotted the most distant part of the universe - billions of light years away - It's a miracle - those (atheists) that can not graspe this grandeur are just plain dumb....if intelligent life can concieve eternity then that is bright..those that suffer the darkness and assume that they have the no God answer are just a little slow...slow by about a trillion billion light years...LOOK out there and tell me this is some MINDLESS accident..that makes no sense...Good or God ness...I'm sticking with the winning team - The immortals - the plants can perish - so can the human animals...those that believe can see eternity -----and are the real immortals/// mortals hate us.

[Pliny]

I'm interesting? thank you, but what i know is learned, not stressed... i have the freedom to alter, disregard, or indulge, in any area i choose to. unfortunately I'm too innately curious to just do any of those things without 'tagging' them and trying to know the original. i tend toward original and new things and take great hesitation to taking credit from modifying the old. my point?

That's how it should be looked at. I agree. why peg yourself as an atheist?

i agree about the direction of this thread, it was based in atheism and should stay as such... but this change in direction is due to the reasons atheism has such profoundly strong foundations.

To me, Atheism doesn't have strong foundations. It is just a rejection based on an absence of information and a progression of understanding effects - that eliminated Santa Claus.

spirituality is self obtained not collectively received by a covenant to deities or otherworldly places.

Agreed. It is not I or anyone else that will ever prove someone else's spirituality. I am only giving pointers that originate with my life's experience.

and i do get your point, not many agree with me, but i ask for the purpose of your standing, nothing more... what is behind it all. i've heard your argument but not your state of belief.

i ask with great intrigue.

I have had a few OOB experiences. This is the basis of my position. Luckily it was at a time when science had not formulated their evaluations of those experiences and I explained it as my true self. I wandered around all over the place in psychology, physics, spirituality, read the Tibetan book of the dead and some Eastern philosophies which I find more practical to the attainment of spiritual certainty than western religions. So that is where I sit. I still look in on physics once in awhile to see where it is at. The behavioral sciences, steeped in secular humanism, are way off track, and if I want a good chuckle or to be incensed I might look in and see what they are doing.

I have read, Mark McCutcheon's "Theory of Everything" recently, of which I am sure you are aware. I need to look at it more closely but I'm sure it has been entirely discredited in the physics circles already. It is much simpler than the theory of relativity and I prefer simple as you know.

[Pliny]

Gravitational effects are not elusive; if it was, you might be hurtling off into space right now. Gravity waves have not been detected, as the graviton particle also remains elusive, but gravity has a real effect on our world. Now, whatever you are describing as "God," where is the evidence for this force acting in the natural world?

The effects are not elusive - no. But all that is known of it is it's effects. And that's the point.

If you insist on conceptualizing the universe as a three dimensional object, you are going to be assume that there has to be something out there giving up room to allow the universe to expand. But the universe is 4 dimensional, not 3, and the expansion is of space-time itself. It's not as if galaxies and gas clouds are flying apart -- the space between them is expanding. From our vantage point, it would be more accurate to describe the universe as stretching, rather than expanding. The universe has no center, and it has no edge, and we are trapped inside the dimensions of this universe, so we have no capacity, even in the distant future, to escape from this universe.

By "we", I assume you mean human beings? You know, once I understood time it explained a lot.

The picture of the universe since the discovery of Dark Energy, is that our universe is "open" or has a negative curvature of space-time. An open universe is un-bounded and infinite. It will expand forever -- unless theorists who believe there is a limit to how low the density of the universe can drop, are correct. If they're right, at some point in the distant future, our accelerating, cooling universe will disintegrate, and that vacuum energy of our big, empty universe will provide the seed to create a new universe or several new universes, depending on which theoretician is on the right track.

Before anything supernatural becomes the subject of serious scientific investigation, it is up to the proponents of: intercessory prayer, souls, ghosts, psychic powers etc. to present some evidence that the forces they believe in are leaving real evidence behind in our world. A theory of natural/supernatural interaction would be helpful, but so far, all that is offered up is misleading pop physics like quantum mysticism and claims they exist in other dimensions. I don't see anyone who is approaching the supernatural either from a religious angle, or arguing for psychic phenomena, showing any interest in developing any real theories.

As Dark angel said spirituality is not a team effort.

So, a memory of something hot or cold is non-physical? Not that brain function is completely understood, but there are correlates between psychological memory tests and fMRI studies that indicate regions of the brain involved in various types of memory encoding and retrieval, so even recalling a memory leaves behind a physical trail of evidence. http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/pn/cabeza

Once again, you look at the effects only. Recalling a memory is the effect - it should, I suppose, leave behind a physical trail of evidence. But the decision to recall the memory, which left the trace, is prime. Whether or not there was a physical trail when the decision was made is now just looking for another effect that could cause a decision to be made. Then there would be an effect to determine a decision was necessary to be made. Then there is the effect that determined that a determination of a decision was necessary, ad infinitum. It has to end somewhere and it ends at where an individual makes his choice form the external and internal, objective and subjective information it has and is experiencing.

[DarkAngel_]

They just spotted the most distant part of the universe - billions of light years away - It's a miracle - those (atheists) that can not graspe this grandeur are just plain dumb....if intelligent life can concieve eternity then that is bright..those that suffer the darkness and assume that they have the no God answer are just a little slow...slow by about a trillion billion light years...LOOK out there and tell me this is some MINDLESS accident..that makes no sense...Good or God ness...I'm sticking with the winning team - The immortals - the plants can perish - so can the human animals...those that believe can see eternity -----and are the real immortals/// mortals hate us.

Oleg Bach, your opinions have been very interesting in the past, and there is a great amount of dedication to your conflictions in other posts... of which i respect.

calling atheism mindless... (me, as it where.) no, not really respectable in this context. you see it must be understood to be respected just as i understand the inability to comprehend eternity... what measure? well it is finite in nature to us, so to you this definition may seem slow when infact it is well evolved much like the 'disciples of Christ church.' that is transforming into an open minded people of gathering and commune. the universe was no accident but... atheism is the denial of a god not creation, it is a disagreement of definition, origin, and 'otherworlds' promised to those who are dead. as a strong atheist i protest doomsaying, hate mongering, (as i'm sorry to dare say, you may be doing.) and the collective 'borg-like' voice of piety, parables, and submission. "the plants can perish - so can the human animals??" what??! this is a doom saying and hate to man and plant... your 'devil' is much in your voice and betrays your christian belief! what would Jesus say?! you do not follow your bible well friend, i was christian and i do not say for you to become atheist, just to overlook the defunctory of ire you haste so boldly to. please stay christian for i need the difference! but be christian. i admire your passion, it is a fire i often do not see unless lit! but please you are overspoken... speak truly, for your wild tongue gives us, you, this race... nothing. i do not hate you nor your god, not believing is no hate but a denial of existence... so do not damn me, i am not yours to damn.

please be generous and forgiving... and in turn i will be as well. make a point not an insult.

Edited May 1, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[DarkAngel_]

As a possibility to this conversation i would like to add that between all I've heard, i never really expressed the fact that science is spiritual as well. in music and other media an increase in a 'new' new age has arisen with a scientific core. its meaning is based on the creations of this universe as known, as well space ambient and more meditative styles leaning toward science and fitness of body and mind that eastern philosophies have found well centered and somewhat trying... a test of concentration and deliberation are also on the rise. lastly more poetic forms of cosmological books have been captivating readers for quite a couple years... no argument... hands down... science is beautiful and when one has the mind to realize how these things work as they happen in real time, you feel a soulfulness that is spiritual.

the difference hear is it is not religious due to the variant belief of science enthusiasts... the question here is, does science have underpinnings that begin with atheism? in all I've read from Nietzsche to the later existentialist atheists and scientists... no.

i think it is philosophical in nature.

postulate! > Mwahahahaha!!!

Edited May 1, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[WIP]

its one of the high points of physics! there is a proof in an Australian research lab that two particle's of a boson variant can change polarity from across the globe at the same time when timed by an atomic clock.. a first step of showing 'D-2-branes' in M-theory could exist, which bridges gaps in space from a distance by wrapping around a graviton. (graviton is theoretical but still the atom used was heavy, don't remember what kind it was.) which could mean Einsteins theory of wormholes that are instantly traversable for only short moments may be a possible truth, meaning if energy was passed through one... it could be kept open indefinitely. i mean that's sci-fi gone real! if its true of course.

I noticed while I was searching around earlier, that there are new possible tests being thought up that could give the experimental physicists something to work with and test these G.U.T. theories. I'm sure that eventually, M-Theory and LQG will be tested.....I hope one of them is on the right track because there doesn't seem to be a lot of other proposals to incorporate gravity with Quantum Mechanics.

One thing that surprises me is that the religiously minded people who want to talk about atheists or scientists working by faith (just like they do) are missing one clear a priori assumption that is faith-based: the concept that the Universe is understandable, and that we will eventually be available to grasp all of the physical laws that govern our universe. This is certainly a faith-based position, since it might turn out that we will never understand how gravity functions and create a theory of everything. Then again, if we are not able to understand the universe, the philosophy of science does not allow the option to just give up. The search for the T.O.E. will go on, even if it's an endless search.

well pictures can only tell so much, getting the meaning of the words from the 'geek gab' might elaborate something a bit clearer... like the gravity thing you spoke of in expanse.

But, my question is: how much information does the average, curious reader need, to grasp the basic concepts and understand why this work is important in the first place? I have two books by String Theory advocate - Brian Greene, and one thing that is unusual about "The Elegant Universe" and the "Fabric Of The Cosmos" is that he provides a skip-ahead option for the reader who doesn't want to get too bogged down in technical details. Greene, Michiou Kaku, Neil de Grasse Tyson, and some other physicists, have said that the reason they are writing general audience physics books and doing as many interviews as they can schedule in, is because the physics community has ignored the public for too long, and now basic physics research is in jeopardy, since it is dependent on voters who don't understand why billions of dollars should be spent on pure scientific research, let alone super collider projects like the L.H.C..

The alarm bells went off back when President Clinton killed the U.S. supercollider project that was being built in Texas, mainly to spite the previous president - George H.W. Bush, and there was very little objection raised from Republicans, Democrats, and even the politicians in Texas! The S.S.C. would have made Texas the hub of activity in high energy physics and attracted the scientists, many of whom have left the U.S. entirely. Instead Texas has become the hub of the creationist movement, that has a governor who keeps banning evolution from his state's schools and openly discusses turning Texas back into a Republic!

yes, but in all the theories we have found this may not be the first time it has happened, the universal momentum of the big bang seems like it only accelerates faster and as one of my favorite subjects, it is found that space is a zero point variant in space time when separated from the 4th dimension, which means time is variant to space and hence gives it energy. the space-energy exchange equation makes it simpler, it is kinda like this amount of energy is needed to make this much space producing this much nuclear energy and/or matter by effect. so static universe = empty space, it is a background and nothing more, but our space as we experience it is positive in appearance due to that extra weave in the fabric called time. so due to its high energy we think that outside that is lower energy (see WMAP) that is forcing itself inward and is pulling gravity apart through all the dark spots so to speak.

I've come across that point previously that we only have a general working understanding of time, so explaining it as the 4th dimension of General Relativity is only a limited explanation. I'll have to get back into this stuff when I get through my neuroscience and philosophy of mind books.

I should have mentioned that the concept of Dark Energy that I was referring to, was taken from some articles I read a year ago by Neil Turok regarding his model of "Cyclic Universes." The understanding of dark energy depends on the type of theory they are working with; but even among multi-universe string theorists, there are many radically different models for how new universes are formed and how gravity is incorporated. I recall reading another article by a mathematician from Russia or the Ukraine a couple of years ago ( I wish I could remember his name) who contends that there really isn't actually a positive force of Dark Energy, and that the acceleration of our universe is being caused because gravitons are close-looped strings (unlike all the others that form particles) and since they are not attached to the dimensional walls of our universe, they are able to escape into the 3D brane of another universe. Instead of a positive force driving our universe apart, he is theorizing that gravity is leaking from our universe. I wonder if this idea is going anywhere, and anyone else has taken it up and is trying to develop it further.

[WIP]

The effects are not elusive - no. But all that is known of it is it's effects. And that's the point.

No, "God" effects are not known, since there has been no physical effects that can be connected to God or any other supernatural force. Claiming that God exists in the remaining mysteries of mind/brain function, the origins of life, and the origins of the Universe, only tells us that there are questions that remain open and don't have adequate explanations. Saying "Goddidit" doesn't answer the question any better than its previous applications: explaining the motions of the planets, earthquakes, volcanoes, lightning, and wind, were all believed to emanate from God, Gods, or spirit forces. Natural explanations were found for these phenomena once we learned more about the world we live in -- why should we assume anything different for the remaining mysteries?

[Pliny]

No, "God" effects are not known, since there has been no physical effects that can be connected to God or any other supernatural force. Claiming that God exists in the remaining mysteries of mind/brain function, the origins of life, and the origins of the Universe, only tells us that there are questions that remain open and don't have adequate explanations. Saying "Goddidit" doesn't answer the question any better than its previous applications: explaining the motions of the planets, earthquakes, volcanoes, lightning, and wind, were all believed to emanate from God, Gods, or spirit forces. Natural explanations were found for these phenomena once we learned more about the world we live in -- why should we assume anything different for the remaining mysteries?

So continuing to study effects until you get to the first effect is what you are content to look for even though it is still an effect?

So what is your definition of the God that does not exist? I will probably agree with you that it doesn't exist. I am not an atheist though because the definiton does not define my concept of it.

Responsibility has a little to do with it. Saying "Goddidit" isn't much better than saying my "chemical imbalance" did it. Both are non-extant. However, I do not deny there may be detectable imperfections in the brain that cause odd behavior but odd behavior without an imperfection is not explained.

Hypnosis, although unreliable, may offer a clue about odd behavior. By odd behavior I mean not conducive to the benefit of the organism, general populace or environment. Odd behavior is for the most part objective, and

may not be odd when all things are considered. That a person can have an hypnotic command implanted that he will execute while fully conscious yet be unaware of the command offers some explanation to odd behavior. The question to ask is how is this command not available to the subject and could there be other commands of which he is not aware. Are there secret electro-chemical processes that induce odd behavior? Probably, you will say that we haven't got the brain all mapped out yet and there may be processes that have not been detected.

So how does an unconscious command vary from a conscious command. Could there be the same electro-chemical process when the person is aware of a command and not aware of a command? Is there perhaps two sources of decision making processes? If Freud made any contribution to his field it is that there is a conscious and a sub-conscious mind.

By the way, I am with Oleg and the immortals.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

....atheism is the denial of a god not creation, it is a disagreement of definition, origin, and 'otherworlds' promised to those who are dead.

All that! A disagreement with definition, origin and otherworlds promised to those who are dead. I just thought it was a disagreement of definition. How can an immortal being have an origin? I understand why you are an atheist then, the concept you have is god has an origin. How silly. In order for there to be an origin there has to be time and an origin is a start.

as a strong atheist i protest doomsaying, hate mongering, (as i'm sorry to dare say, you may be doing.)

Believing in immortality is not doomsaying. Believing in death as a finality is doomsaying. They are both beliefs and you have made your choice to be the doomsayer.

and the collective 'borg-like' voice of piety, parables, and submission.

Could be construed as hate mongering?

"the plants can perish - so can the human animals??" what??! this is a doom saying and hate to man and plant...

This is a fact of the observable cycle of nature, not hate. How could you not observe the same? It is what is not observed that you claim perishes and Oleg claims persistence.

your 'devil' is much in your voice and betrays your christian belief! what would Jesus say?! you do not follow your bible well friend, i was christian and i do not say for you to become atheist, just to overlook the defunctory of ire you haste so boldly to. please stay christian for i need the difference! but be christian. i admire your passion, it is a fire i often do not see unless lit! but please you are overspoken... speak truly, for your wild tongue gives us, you, this race... nothing. i do not hate you nor your god, not believing is no hate but a denial of existence... so do not damn me, i am not yours to damn.

please be generous and forgiving... and in turn i will be as well. make a point not an insult.

I find Oleg to be rather blunt in his opinions at times. I keep telling myself I am not wasting my time. Like you, I need the difference, so please stay atheist.

[DarkAngel_]

All that! A disagreement with definition, origin and otherworlds promised to those who are dead. I just thought it was a disagreement of definition. How can an immortal being have an origin? I understand why you are an atheist then, the concept you have is god has an origin. How silly. In order for there to be an origin there has to be time and an origin is a start.

lol I'm not THAT naive, my mark of an atheist is not a wish for origin of a god, but the question of the origin of religions, that well.... are made by man, so; false. (bible is a collection of stories and letters made by 'men.') hence any belief, even scientific! is void without weigh-able results, logic dictates that science is the clear one, and that, through atheism, a better understanding be made clear as to what the universe is controlled by... i am a strong atheist no mistake...

all the laws and constants are 'effects' you are correct, but observing them is not enough, knowing whats behind them is key! but i do not have lack of proof of a god... i just don't believe in a god... it seems more appealing to me. it is a poorly used word, and a god is not mine to make existent anyway, so there is no point to debating if my belief is on a weaker side, i know it is not. a universe that is enigmatic and has a complex that is very hard to discover is a better and more poetic view... as well as the basis of destiny being false as well to only the point of things being in the 'happening' of now, and that the universe is not set in stone. i like to think i have control of my fate to a degree. and that that complexity is yes, simple, but still so intricate and well formed that it is of undefinability.

Believing in immortality is not doomsaying. Believing in death as a finality is doomsaying. They are both beliefs and you have made your choice to be the doomsayer.

i didn't say that, maybe i should have spoken in this context:

"Good or God ness...I'm sticking with the winning team - The immortals - the plants can perish - so can the human animals...those that believe can see eternity -----and are the real immortals/// mortals hate us."

this sounds to me like a man with his arm hugging god hiding from the intensity of the world, doomsaying and spitting on the 'low man' when god is the king of the meek. what of noble blood? and those who say, "we have grown too meek!" or better then that, is those who say, "we can be better! we can overcome man!!"

as a doomsayer; 'one who makes dire predictions about the future.' he said he would let us perish, a sign of hate for plant and animal...contempt. these are things that make finality, even if true, doomsaying... for death is not the end even logically. instead he speaks blackly at things that are bright, reaches into that great contempt and say, "there is no good, there is no evil, only contempt!" if he would have said thus it would be clear... but nothing is immortal. any delusion that follows the word 'us' is a declaration of godlihood... this is purely fantasy, the soul has no proof but it must be seen that change of this 'soul' is far more appealing then a constant soul and hate for being human, as it professes.

Could be construed as hate mongering?

not in general, but sometimes if bent toward an agenda, this was not my point though. i meant i believed in the natural life affirming power, that is by definition chaotic, passionate, and free. parables and such teach me nothing for these things, these things should not be learned for me... i am free to choose, A short narrative illustrating a lesson is too small a thing to show the depth of a lesson learned. reverence and devotion to God is not to ones self, and suffers the act of world-weariness... my only true despised thing. as a man of code, submission means giving into someone else's power when my power is what is needed to reach hieght... not money, not territory, not anything but knowledge.

This is a fact of the observable cycle of nature, not hate. How could you not observe the same? It is what is not observed that you claim perishes and Oleg claims persistence.

the context of meaning as said was passionate enough to be construed as hate. and i never said anything close to that, i am a man of many things but denial is a void term, gods are perishable, humans use them as said. i am well aware of natural cycles, i am a hermit! though not because of man but because i am curious, and because it is much more interesting going up and down from city to town. thing is it allows me to think. i like the thought of persistence of life... not immortal things i know not of.

I find Oleg to be rather blunt in his opinions at times. I keep telling myself I am not wasting my time. Like you, I need the difference, so please stay atheist.

lol, i will , but i am curious as to Oleg's response, yours was expected i suppose only on the basis that i have no answer... but i did not expect your opinion to be one sided, did you not hear the insultries? i was appealing to his sense of christian integrity as well as acceptance. first i was a tyrant and cause of genocide, then i am just shallow, hollow, and mindless in all i have found... i know the fact but i am here beside myself debating to the wind for his lack of an answer! no worries, i do not damn him for his belief, but i do ask why he has a lack of repose in his manic passion... why omit me to dispose words obviously not to his liking? why bother telling him not to say things so crude as to deliberately belittle my humanity? i'll tell you why... nothing is revolutionary unless true, the delusional sense that atheism causes genocide is one of the reason for ethnic cleansing in the first place, as defined; "The systematic killing of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity."

now this is usually because this said group feels threatened by an ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other different group... i am a man of codes, they can be broken, they can be reformed, but no one should die for any of these reasons... i've yet to hear about that, just his 'god' and how evil i am.

to make it clear, my concept of evil is not like others, but i have done no wrong by me, but my justice asks why am i the destroyer to Oleg? the law tables he values may be broken in me, but they where mine to break. i ask he come clean to said opinion, and shed light on it, that is all.

Edited May 2, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Oleg Bach]

I guess I am not that vain after all...I saw my NAME and really did not bother to read the post.. Lets get this straight - religion is man made and the eccence of politics..the us against them - this concept works to control the population..for those that think _ THINK..That the universe that up to now has a distant point - billions of light years away - and after that..trillions of light years away - how can anyone say that this expanse has no intelligence or consciousness? This is GOD - you are in side of IT...and - what might be remarkable is that WE are the only life form anywhere..that is a possiblity - that would make US the only thing that thinks! That would make us the mirror image of the maker - we are gods...and we are immortal as the universe..YET some do not want eternal life or are not genetically predisposed to concieving it..so there are the immortals and the mortals...the mortals wage war on immortals,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,because they know we are forever - and their time is once around...people that are totally mortal in high positions seek to destroy this heaven as they slip into oblivion. "There are violent men that try to take heaven by force"

[WIP]

So continuing to study effects until you get to the first effect is what you are content to look for even though it is still an effect?

So what is your definition of the God that does not exist? I will probably agree with you that it doesn't exist. I am not an atheist though because the definiton does not define my concept of it.

Responsibility has a little to do with it. Saying "Goddidit" isn't much better than saying my "chemical imbalance" did it. Both are non-extant. However, I do not deny there may be detectable imperfections in the brain that cause odd behavior but odd behavior without an imperfection is not explained.

Hypnosis, although unreliable, may offer a clue about odd behavior. By odd behavior I mean not conducive to the benefit of the organism, general populace or environment. Odd behavior is for the most part objective, and

may not be odd when all things are considered. That a person can have an hypnotic command implanted that he will execute while fully conscious yet be unaware of the command offers some explanation to odd behavior. The question to ask is how is this command not available to the subject and could there be other commands of which he is not aware. Are there secret electro-chemical processes that induce odd behavior? Probably, you will say that we haven't got the brain all mapped out yet and there may be processes that have not been detected.

So how does an unconscious command vary from a conscious command. Could there be the same electro-chemical process when the person is aware of a command and not aware of a command? Is there perhaps two sources of decision making processes? If Freud made any contribution to his field it is that there is a conscious and a sub-conscious mind.

By the way, I am with Oleg and the immortals.

I do not have the obligation of defining God. That is the obligation of those who are proposing a God as a first cause or creator. My non-belief in God is no different than my non-belief in unicorns -- as soon as someone provides evidence for them, I'll take a look at it and decide whether it is a useful theory. Until then, I can't accept that gaps in knowledge about origins of life and the Universe are enough reason to attribute them to forces that cannot be examined or studied further.

The difference is that Godditit is a dead end, that shuts off further investigation since the supernatural is declared to offer no method to physically examine them. On the other hand, the correlations between mental activities and brainwave patterns show a causal link between mind and brain that can be studied further. When studies of volition and intentions demonstrate over and over again that we are not consciously aware of making decisions until after a brief period of patterned responses in various regions of the cerebral cortex have decided a course of action -- then we are stuck with the conclusion that our conscious sense of self is also an effect, and not the contra-causal origin of our thoughts.

[Oleg Bach]

Spirit is not contained in the cerebral cortex - I believe the Egyptians had it right - that the brain was simply a snot machine and not very useful. I love it when my friend said he was with the immortals - Immortals own this planet..and whether genetically though offspring - or through sheer power of mind and spirit we will be on this planet forever - This was meant to be a heaven not a hell. SO to put it shortly - us immortals are stuck here forever - for eternity and we will not have mere mortals wreck our only home...

[DarkAngel_]

I guess I am not that vain after all...I saw my NAME and really did not bother to read the post.. Lets get this straight - religion is man made and the eccence of politics..the us against them - this concept works to control the population..for those that think _ THINK..That the universe that up to now has a distant point - billions of light years away - and after that..trillions of light years away - how can anyone say that this expanse has no intelligence or consciousness? This is GOD - you are in side of IT...and - what might be remarkable is that WE are the only life form anywhere..that is a possiblity - that would make US the only thing that thinks! That would make us the mirror image of the maker - we are gods...and we are immortal as the universe..YET some do not want eternal life or are not genetically predisposed to concieving it..so there are the immortals and the mortals...the mortals wage war on immortals,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,because they know we are forever - and their time is once around...people that are totally mortal in high positions seek to destroy this heaven as they slip into oblivion. "There are violent men that try to take heaven by force"

then my problem is with your primitive definitions, immortal- 'Not susceptible to death or aging, never dying or growing older.'

lots of 'or this' in that definition. as a scientist, immortality is not possible due to expanse. everything is changing constantly so nothing stays the same even on a quantum level... this is proven fact! it may have a imprint in time that 'extra-dimensionally' shows itself to have been, but that is not in the presence of now.

life on other planets is more probable then not, so also as a god by definition your meaning is construed as thus; 'A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers.' the universe is not immortal, it is beyond the definition of a god and thus not a god. it is powerful but then again it is full of 'stuff' and energy. you are not beyond this definition, you are not a god, you are not immortal, but you also are not obliterated at death... (though if you are immortal please turn yourself into any local research lab so we can find the anomalies and find a cure for freaking cancer, cause it would help i'm sure lol) there is a 'finding truth' and i have been trying to do so for year's... no one book can teach you everything, it is far more hard to understand it, scientists take there time, use there lives doing it and discrediting them is an insult to there lives work, which has no ease.

let me make myself clear, religions of the world claim heaven or hell after death, i do not choose nothing i am rather admitting i do not know... what of Shakespeare? have we not gone further then that, and found this is something we no not of?? death is unknown, it is that undiscovered country from which not traveler has returned and even in claim... is just the words of men that claim to know, with great provocation and delusional mannerism, all of which are people with 'messiah' complexes and a wish to put there power in everything! they seek no spiritual enlightenment at all... this i could prove. but instead of conveying my disagreement i will ask you some curiosity questions... if i may for i am very curious as to your answers, please do not take it as me being condescending for i am not, just please... if you know these things for sure telling me would be an enlightenment.

A)why does the universe bother existing?

B)what mechanism is controlling these universal constants and laws?

C)what is the soul? what can have a soul? why are they needed and where do they come from?

D)what are these 'immortals' in truth.

E)what is god?

F)what after death?

please give relavent proofs to each and i'll even agree with what can be proven.

and lastly: why and how exactly do atheists cause genocide, one geuss is gods wraith... but what is your thought...

[DarkAngel_]

Oleg... i am worried that you may have built this thought up on a delusion, would you at least look at the possibility of that?

[Pliny]

.... submission means giving into someone else's power when my power is what is needed to reach hieght... not money, not territory, not anything but knowledge.

Your power - the power of an electro-chemical reaction? Someone else's power - I guess their power would be knowledge, too.

Perhaps then knowledge is God! And is ever elusive. Since it's quest proves only that it further eludes you.

There is even a heirarchy in this religion of knowledge - you have attained the level of high priest.

Knowledge is only information my friend. It is valuable in living but it is only derived out of observation and experience.

Certainty is derived out of creation. The artist is a creator and often an eccentric creature but of one thing he is certain - he has created something. He is the author of something. He may even lack knowledge or be considered mad, genius is often mistaken for madness and sadly today a chemical lobotomy often the cure for that genius.

Knowledge is always based on someone else's creation, is it not? Or have you ever created knowledge?

As a whole package in the cycle of birth, life and death. We could put the artist at birth, and knowledge at death for knowledge, once found, implies no need to continue the search. Life would be the search for knowledge. If life were entirely about the search for knowledge the attainment of it would be the end of the search, the end of the cycle. And if death is your only certainty then you have that knowledge. You can finally rest - you know something or....did someone else with even more conviction of this knowledge convince you of that?

THe cycle of the scientist is Birth - no knowledge, life - the search for knowledge, death - knowledge. But death is the only certainty he can afford.

[DarkAngel_]

Your power - the power of an electro-chemical reaction? Someone else's power - I guess their power would be knowledge, too.

in a form it can be, but not all power is knowledge that is a narrow view. knowledge anyway it's stored is still life affirming. and human electro-chemical reactions are indeed powerful. if you ask about those who then have power over the meek, then i would respond no one but those with other forms of power and 'authority.' for power is self-applied, used willingly for ones own will, hence willpower.

Perhaps then knowledge is God! And is ever elusive. Since it's quest proves only that it further eludes you.

knowledge is not defined as a life form, but i know it is renewable and ever changing... the truth of one thing is very changeable just by the act of observing it.

There is even a heirarchy in this religion of knowledge - you have attained the level of high priest.

knowledge is what is known, it is bare and naked, just so obvious its massiveness can be hard to comprehend at times, as well as its finite size. (matters on scale and intricacy)

i am no priest for i say what is known to be, not what in effect has no answers that have a result or proof. or even better a clear definition.

Knowledge is only information my friend. It is valuable in living but it is only derived out of observation and experience.

but is our only way of obtaining our answers, this is no narrow view... knowledge can be gained and lost. and living is all we know. knowing it is all that can be done once the act and motive is made and made clear... we are things of knowledge and all that is seen, felt, sensed, thought, imagined, learned, and forgotten is knowledge.

Certainty is derived out of creation. The artist is a creator and often an eccentric creature but of one thing he is certain - he has created something. He is the author of something. He may even lack knowledge or be considered mad, genius is often mistaken for madness and sadly today a chemical lobotomy often the cure for that genius.

i am an artist... i am mad!...but i am a quester. i have to take pill's, i go to councilors appointments, i have a psychiatrist, but that does not give madness! my life did, my hardship, my sublimity, my solitude, my overcrowding! but one thing is great in madness and that is the skill obtained in it, and the passion it is afflicted by, it is a love and potency that brews stronger then any char whiskey to date! but remember this; no god will have my passion.

Knowledge is always based on someone else's creation, is it not? Or have you ever created knowledge?

i have before, i do every moment i can! but knowledge none the less is enlightening, interesting, and more then just human. i am a harvester of new creations, of my own, so i love what is harvested and made by seekers and questioners. it is a book that is better read and better asked then believed all the way... but some things are proven... they must be seen and watched, what was the Latin saying? 'castidoes est castidoes' or 'watch the watchers.'

As a whole package in the cycle of birth, life and death. We could put the artist at birth, and knowledge at death for knowledge, once found, implies no need to continue the search. Life would be the search for knowledge. If life were entirely about the search for knowledge the attainment of it would be the end of the search, the end of the cycle. And if death is your only certainty then you have that knowledge. You can finally rest - you know something or....did someone else with even more conviction of this knowledge convince you of that?

i disagree, knowledge once found means a depth must be explored in the answer. the birth is a great thing and the renewal of knowledge gifts a continued search. death is certain, constants are certain, laws are certain, matter as an observable is certain, energy and matter having substance is certain as well as the cycle there-in. the way you said it is nihilistic in view, the road does not go strait, there is no sudden end to all things in knowledge, but it is interesting to ask.

no one or thing convinced me, not knowing is an admission... but asking is a wise choice for the ones that must know... tell me, if i found out and told everyone would they believe me? most likely not, but it would start the quest in finding it through my findings! no ones power is over ruling me, i am my ruler and i am proud of this! my forcefulness to dance in rain, my gratefulness for hate hence pride, the fire people claim is godly! i have found differently and is MY power... that means it is power over me and my will.

THe cycle of the scientist is Birth - no knowledge, life - the search for knowledge, death - knowledge. But death is the only certainty he can afford.

I'm richer then you estimate then, I've pondered much. and that would mean i am reborn 3 times a day at the least...

Edited May 3, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Oleg Bach]

Bob Dylan said something similar.."Those that are not being busy being born are being busy dying. It takes a bit of effort to figure out who you are and where you are..Memory whether coded in our DNA or mind..can go back a great distance - we spend most of our lives slowly remembering our origin and our eternal past...If you think a computer chip is remarkable..imagine what a few molecules of DNA hold - Imagine a sun flower seed...every last vein and hair that becomes the adult plant is ALL contained within this tiny seed..our technology is base and primative compared to who WE ARE! We are miracles..we all wait for a miracle. We wait for ourselves to arrive - we search for God and heaven and the kingdom is inside of us all along...along with a spark called intelligence - the spirit of God.

[DarkAngel_]

Bob Dylan said something similar.."Those that are not being busy being born are being busy dying. It takes a bit of effort to figure out who you are and where you are..Memory whether coded in our DNA or mind..can go back a great distance - we spend most of our lives slowly remembering our origin and our eternal past...If you think a computer chip is remarkable..imagine what a few molecules of DNA hold - Imagine a sun flower seed...every last vein and hair that becomes the adult plant is ALL contained within this tiny seed..our technology is base and primative compared to who WE ARE! We are miracles..we all wait for a miracle. We wait for ourselves to arrive - we search for God and heaven and the kingdom is inside of us all along...along with a spark called intelligence - the spirit of God.

but look at how grand it is then to say, that no scripture holds the complex beauty of our blooming downward helix. what tears at webs of insanity, the fabric of life itself, and what causes our flesh to burn for it! for one another... and the dark.

there is a void in what we think we know... we do not know it but we are trying to, but without a mirror for us, it is hard to look at what because we are stuck in absolute. god is absolute so i say break those laws of the meek! throw down what is chained between fate and what is earthly real! no hell below us, no heaven we must flight to, no place to earn, only a life to live the way we see fit and to make our own moral code that is beyond good and evil!

you are right, we are miraculous, but so is everything else... if i am like the seed then i can rejoice in that, and praise the earth and that universal thing, that passion that makes star stuff so whole. if i am an animal then i can love what i am, and learn to dance and sing beyond my own footsteps, hence i become something more then i am. this earth is no material plain to your 'ethereal,' no 'otherworlds' are behind your walls and doors and windows. it is no picture nominee of the year, there is no judge to place a golden halo at my neck... i do not need a god.

i take something from Nietzsche when i say this, "I am William the godless."

i do not care if anyone is right, i will always have no god to worship, no people to become, and drone to follow into the church of unholy things... i do not fear declaring a god.

even when the world is at an end or i am at my death bed!

i will be godless and free.

Edited May 3, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[DarkAngel_]

Spirit is not contained in the cerebral cortex - I believe the Egyptians had it right - that the brain was simply a snot machine and not very useful. I love it when my friend said he was with the immortals - Immortals own this planet..and whether genetically though offspring - or through sheer power of mind and spirit we will be on this planet forever - This was meant to be a heaven not a hell. SO to put it shortly - us immortals are stuck here forever - for eternity and we will not have mere mortals wreck our only home...

how vain... what do you know of spirits? immortals? this planet is not yours to own, and it will keep it as so... your ideal turns people into grasshoppers, thinking you are immortal when your brain is what tells you this... we have not known this so neither do you, you have no superiority to me nor i you.

also do i litter? no. i wreck nothing! i create! and it is no litter... and why declare yourself a god when you cannot prove it? show it? why say you are immortal just to spite the world of men? what other reason is there, i hear it in the words you say and it is decaying! your world is yours, this one is not to be owned and those on it can claim as they wish but when the world transforms from lush to a rock of fire... we will learn we are a part of it, not an immobilous god-thing that keeps items of celestial significance captive!

this is delusional and thereby false... say what you will. i have not yet heard you question yourself.

[Pliny]

knowledge is what is known, it is bare and naked, just so obvious its massiveness can be hard to comprehend at times, as well as its finite size. (matters on scale and intricacy)

i am no priest for i say what is known to be, not what in effect has no answers that have a result or proof. or even better a clear definition.

You say what is known to be? Are you certain? WIP claims it all may be a delusion.

but is our only way of obtaining our answers, this is no narrow view... knowledge can be gained and lost. and living is all we know. knowing it is all that can be done once the act and motive is made and made clear... we are things of knowledge and all that is seen, felt, sensed, thought, imagined, learned, and forgotten is knowledge.

Then you agree, knowledge is indeed just information.

i am an artist... i am mad!...but i am a quester. i have to take pill's, i go to councilors appointments, i have a psychiatrist, but that does not give madness! my life did, my hardship, my sublimity, my solitude, my overcrowding! but one thing is great in madness and that is the skill obtained in it, and the passion it is afflicted by, it is a love and potency that brews stronger then any char whiskey to date! but remember this; no god will have my passion.

The psychiatrist will lead you. He will tell you what's what. Never fear. He has knowledge. He has certainty. Who are you to him?

I'm richer then you estimate then, I've pondered much. and that would mean i am reborn 3 times a day at the least...

Is that how many naps you have or is that after your meds?

[Pliny]

Can I take a stab at these? I won't offer you any proofs because you only think in terms of the material and the subjective. There are no other subjective reference points only yours.

Here goes: everything will be in keeping with my drive toward simplicity.

A)why does the universe bother existing?

So that there is something to do and a place to do it.

B)what mechanism is controlling these universal constants and laws?

You.

C)what is the soul? what can have a soul? why are they needed and where do they come from?

This is actually three questions and I don't know why you didn't itemize each one, unless you think it is a category?

What is the soul?

Nothing. Think of it like a parallel universe of entirely different matter and energy and time than you are used to studying. It is so foreign to the physical universe that we know nothing of it. So it is nothing.

What can have a soul?

You mean, what can a soul be. Nothing has a soul. The soul can be whatever it considers it can be. Lao-tze once awoke from a sleep in which he was dreaming he was a butterfly. Upon awakening he did not know if he was the butterfly or his human form. He could consider himself both and did. Can you consider yourself an elctro-chemical process - already accomplished. Unfortunately, you don't wake up from that dream - Sorry.

Why are they needed and where do they come from.

They are not needed. They just are. They have no origin, they are, they always have been and they always will be. Origin suggests time which is of this universe.

D)what are these 'immortals' in truth.

They are truth.

E)what is god?

Dog spelled backwards. I'll leave this one up to you.

F)what after death?

Death is of this universe. You define immortality in terms of forever which suggests you are not able to abandon the concept of time. You are, you always have been, and you always will be. There is only now. You cannot prove a future or a past. You can only say there is one. Most will agree with you but it exists only subjectively in all our minds from all our perspectives. Try and prove it to one who claims there is no future or there is no past - the denyer. You would be hard pressed to present that evidence since all you could present was now. Bring me a rock from the past or the future. I don't believe you will find a person who will deny a past or a future but if you understand the point you will then understand the task the Atheist asks of the immortal. How can a rock have been in the past when there is only now. Can you please take me back in time to the rock. You say you can't then there is no past. Because we all subjectively agree to the concept of time the point seems moot. But I think it illustrates that matter cannot be proven to exist or to have existed at any other time than now or any other way than subjectively.

please give relavent proofs to each and i'll even agree with what can be proven.

I can travel in time. I will prove it to you. You must close your eyes and count to ten upon which time you must open your eyes. You will find yourself approximately ten seconds in the future.

and lastly: why and how exactly do atheists cause genocide, one geuss is gods wraith... but what is your thought...

Simply put - Life loses it's value. Under your concept it is only a process of electro-chemical activities. Nothing more. What are you harming if the necessity arises that some should need to die? It would be the concept that atheistic leaders would hold. You may not agree they would ever consider that, and only Religion would create that type of scenario, but necessity may make it an all too easy solution to divest society of those who oppose authority such as when the science of psychiatry was enlisted by Stalin the Atheist. Or the atheistic Scientist Rubin who sold Hitler on Eugenics and genetic purity - suggesting divesting society of all useless eaters and demented races such as the Jews. This is sciences contribution. It is the 20th century religion. The Priests of old religions only had their ancient writings and the King to grant them authority. It seems Science has become what it detested - the diviners of truth. Are they?

By the way, I mentioned Mark McCutcheon and his theory of everything in his book the "The Final Theory" but you never acknowledged it. I am sure you have heard of it? Any comment on it?

Edited May 4, 2009 by Pliny