Customer Discussions > Religion forum

All atheists are ______ and all Christians are ______ and everyone else is ______


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 85 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:43:59 PM PDT
L. Brzezniak,

I am aware of what you are talking about. I noticed a book mentioned in the link and I have read that book already. Those who believe that there is an actual supposition has to worry about those matters. Those who only care if the mathematical formulas give out predictions that match up with observation and experiments will not be concerned with suppositions. You would have to imagine some things with no size or color, and is by hypothesis something you could not experience.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:00:08 PM PDT
I don't wish to waste further time with solipsism, or its variants.

So, I respectfully decline to answer your question.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:03:18 PM PDT
"Did you look at this: //forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/3564-quantum-enigma-encounters-consciousness-2.html"

Haven't had a chance to do so yet, no.

"It even has diagrams to help you understand."

Was that meant to be condescending?

"I've gone over this once before and you didn't get it."

I remember you making a few assertions you did not, at the time, support.

As I've said, I stopped following your posts a while ago.

"So if you get nothing out of this forum I recommended you will simply never get it and you will just have to take my word for it. You will have no choice."

:) Your word? I find that to be rather unlikely.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:08:31 PM PDT
Michael Altarriba,

You make it sound like anything different then your evidence free belief is solipsism or "its variants".

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:22:15 PM PDT
"You make it sound like anything different then your evidence free belief is solipsism or "its variants"."

It isn't about the evidence... it's about you, and your online persona.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:31:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 8:32:19 PM PDT
Michael Altarriba,

If it is not about the evidence then do not hide it and share it. Does not appear to be good form to make a claim, have evidence requested for your claim, you imply that you have it and do not want to share it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:43:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 8:51:35 PM PDT
ScoopingCatLitter says:
L. Brzezniak,

I am aware of what you are talking about. I noticed a book mentioned in the link and I have read that book already. Those who believe that there is an actual supposition has to worry about those matters. Those who only care if the mathematical formulas give out predictions that match up with observation and experiments will not be concerned with suppositions. You would have to imagine some things with no size or color, and is by hypothesis something you could not experience.

LB. Do you mean superposition? If yes then yes all you need to concern yourself about is what you apparatus is telling you for all practical purposes. As far as superposition is concerned we can't realistically conceive of how it might be experienced because we only ever experience it collapsed into a single actuality.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:50:21 PM PDT
Michael Altarriba says:
"Did you look at this: //forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/3564-quantum-enigma-encounters-consciousness-2.html"

Haven't had a chance to do so yet, no.

"It even has diagrams to help you understand."

Was that meant to be condescending?

"I've gone over this once before and you didn't get it."

I remember you making a few assertions you did not, at the time, support.

As I've said, I stopped following your posts a while ago.

"So if you get nothing out of this forum I recommended you will simply never get it and you will just have to take my word for it. You will have no choice."

:) Your word? I find that to be rather unlikely.

LB Tell you what. Give that forum a chance look at it read it, try it comprehend it. Once you have done that look at other sources build your knowledge, look for connections, see where they support each other. In short build your own edifice of knowledge on this matter. This will require work but you can't expect something for nothing. If you do that you will KNOW and you will need not ask me or anyone else about this. However if you do that be prepared to have your worldview overturned completely. You will find much in QM that you will find difficult to believe and you will struggle with that but if you approach it honestly and with an open mind you will be forced to make the Quantum Leap (pun intended) by the hard indisputable evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:58:52 PM PDT
:)

No.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 9:08:20 PM PDT
jpl says:
All atheists are ______ and all Christians are ______ and everyone else is ______

Alpha Wingoov Karen says:

So there!
:o)

jpl: This reminds me of Lennon's "Imagine".

Posted on Jun 27, 2012 10:53:48 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 16, 2012 11:57:07 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 9:10:27 AM PDT
Wrong, right and Ida Know

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 9:12:22 AM PDT
ErikR says:
"As whether Christians, Muslim, Sikhs having a better understanding than atheists generally speaking I would say no."

Effectively shaking your strawman to a pile of hay.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 9:19:34 AM PDT
ErikR says:
"The main premise that the whole atheist belief system rests on is the assumption that matter is material, exists independently of observations, and that it has a material source. Quantum mechanics challenges all of these assumptions since wave function collapse cannot be effected by any physical system obeying the laws of quantum mechanics physicists have been forced to deal with the probability that ultimately matter has a non material or at least metaphysical cause."

Methinks you have read too much Fritjof Capra.

Wave functions are models of statistic probabilities of states they are not the actual states themselves. Much like water flowing over a rock can be made into a mathematical model with neither the rock nor the water magically turning into hydrodynamic equations.

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 9:20:21 AM PDT
Wife of Bath says:
Loved by God, loved by God, and loved by God.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:05:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 2:10:03 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To ErikR:

<<Wave functions are models of statistic probabilities of states they are not the actual states themselves. Much like water flowing over a rock can be made into a mathematical model with neither the rock nor the water magically turning into hydrodynamic equations.>>

Right. But those wave functions do represent our attempt to describe what those particles (or states) actually ARE. We can say that "water flowing over a rock" is not a "hydrodynamic equation", but that is only because we can experience water flowing over a rock as water flowing over a rock, with elementary particles we can't say that, i.e. those particles/states and the wave functions describing them are one and the same. I think that's the whole point: at the very fundamental level our solid and observable reality turns out to be essentially abstract with nothing "material" at the core of it.

P.S. This Fritjof Capra guy seems to be an OK dude. I think I'll read some of his works. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:42:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 12:46:26 PM PDT
IL,

Yours: "This is what most casseroles are."

Mine: Why not tell us how you really feel?8-D

I'll agree that most people destroy casseroles as you describe, but I think any cook worth his/her salt would take exception to your comment as a general description of casseroles.

A good casserole, like Lobster Newburg, is constructed to maximize and balance the flavors of the ingredients. Good cooks know how to do this (and I'm not a good enough cook -- I like the glutinous, fatty, runny stuff) and they seldom cook anything "to death." (Chickens don't stay on the plate if they're still clucking, and they get nasty if you try to fork them. I've ruined more than one hairdo trying.)

Curious as to the difference between a stew and casserole, I did a bit of digging and found that lasagna is a casserole. Surely, you can't object to that?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 11:53:49 PM PDT
Yours is the best by far.....

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 12:01:42 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 16, 2012 11:57:19 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 12:56:42 AM PDT
Jack Vix's post:
I thought it was: burned forever, loved by God, burned forever.

Or does the omnipotent deity you've created not follow that model?
=========================
I don't know for sure about others, but LDS definitely do NOT follow that model.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

Yours in Christ, Brother Niv

scriptures.lds.org

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 5:20:25 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
No one can object to a good lasagna, Charles. I should have included it with the Newburg.

"A good casserole, like Lobster Newburg, is constructed to maximize and balance the flavors of the ingredients. Good cooks know how to do this (and I'm not a good enough cook -- I like the glutinous, fatty, runny stuff)"

I absolutely agree! Unfortunately, we were talking about church-lady casseroles. They don't do Lobster Newburg, as a rule.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 8:21:47 AM PDT
ErikR says:
P.S. This Fritjof Capra guy seems to be an OK dude. I think I'll read some of his works. :)

He's great, if you like a heaping dose of "Woo" with your physics. (Actually he's far better than Deepak Chopra and that crowd)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 4:51:32 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 16, 2012 11:57:30 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 6:33:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2012 6:37:10 PM PDT
ErikR says:
"The main premise that the whole atheist belief system rests on is the assumption that matter is material, exists independently of observations, and that it has a material source. Quantum mechanics challenges all of these assumptions since wave function collapse cannot be effected by any physical system obeying the laws of quantum mechanics physicists have been forced to deal with the probability that ultimately matter has a non material or at least metaphysical cause."

Methinks you have read too much Fritjof Capra.

Wave functions are models of statistic probabilities of states they are not the actual states themselves. Much like water flowing over a rock can be made into a mathematical model with neither the rock nor the water magically turning into hydrodynamic equations.

LB I have never read Fritjof Capra in my life. Nor have I read Deepak Chopra. I have however read Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner, Richard Feynman etc. I don't understand the relevance of what you wrote in the context of what I said but I suggest you look at the Von Neumann chain which proves that no physical system obeying the laws of QM can ever collapse a wavefunction. Our bodies and our brains are physical systems and they must therefore enter the superposition states of the rest of the universe. According to the Von Neumann chain without an observer the universe must remain in superposition forever but an observer always experiences the universe collapsed into a single concrete actuality so collapse therefore cannot be effected by a physical cause which would mean that matter ultimately has an immaterial source. If you have a problem with this you have a problem with the Von Neuman chain. The only way out of this is to refute it. There is an instant Nobel Prize waiting for you if you successfully do that. End of discussion, I simply have not got the time or energy to defend myself from people who label me New age a reader of Fritjof Capra and all manner of other names, because I have overturned their safe warm and cosy and ignorant worldview with the very thing they worship as a substitute religion; namely science.
Your reply to The Skeptical Mystic's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 5:37:07 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To L. Brzezniak:

<<I simply have not got the time or energy to defend myself from people who label me New age a reader of Fritjof Capra and all manner of other names>>

In all fairness, Fritjof Capra doesn't seem to be a New Age kind of writer, he seems to be a very legit physicist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1354 15 hours ago
Dear atheists, 9076 2 minutes ago
Science II 4906 4 minutes ago
Is homosexuality a 'good thing' ? 6408 15 minutes ago
If Jesus was Jewish, why don't Jews beleive in Jesus? 1850 30 minutes ago
What is the meaning of life? 309 38 minutes ago
Dear theists, 1510 1 hour ago
keep one change one started 10 October 2014 1479 2 hours ago
American DarkSoul says: Yes I can prove atheism is true. 159 2 hours ago
The War on Wonen Continues Apace 8782 3 hours ago
goblue says: I can prove theism true. 797 4 hours ago
Another 10,000 Quotes... 3885 4 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  85
Initial post:  Jun 26, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 6, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions