|
Kyrie eleison posted:
Now, explain why this bit is true without using circular logic. This is the only part that actually matters. But just to be picky: Also how do you deal with the really obvious fact that Christianity began as an end-times religion and Jesus was very clearly stating that the end was nigh? You just deny it through a string of really improbable explanations that all the stuff about how quickly things were going to end and how everyone should give up everything, including leaving their families, that was actually meant in a long-term allegorical way even though there isn't anything that Jesus says that would ever give that impression?
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
Why, when I asked you two questions, one of which I said was really the important one, did you instead go with the one I said was 'nitpicky'? Again: Explain how "if you do an honest comparison of their tenets, Christianity is the correct and superior religion" without using circular logic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
Yeah, I thought as much, just circular logic. Also the theory about religiosity predicting poo poo is poo poo, but you know that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
itsnice2bnice posted:
That'd come across as eye-rollingly passive-aggressive anywhere, especially with the self-congratulatory "God bless" on the end. The work Mother Theresa did discouraging contraceptive use basically destroys her legacy of charity, without even examining the charity work itself. That was incredibly lovely of her.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Alright this is a serious question for atheists here, could someone explain why quite a few atheists seem to be drawn to the Jesus Mythers? The people who maintain Jesus was made up by the Gospel writers rather than one of many first century speakers in Judea murdered by the Romans for being a possible threat to their domination? Seems pretty straightforward to me: many atheists are not just cool calm collected dudes who ran the logic and saw there's no actual basis for religious faith, but people who are hostile to religion for one reason or another and enjoy theories that diminish religion or cast doubt on things important to the religion. It's an emotional position. or, y'know, they've looked at the evidence and are convinced. But I'm betting not, because the evidence doesn't convince one way or another and the Okham's Razor interpretation is that there was a guy named Jesus but his attributes are pretty unknown.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I do have to say that you guys do give me hope, I have had encounters including (one outside the internet) with Atheists who really seem fixated on Jesus was a myth, actually those encounters probably have made me a little bit of a dick when it comes to Atheists. I am an absolute atheist--as in I think even the idea of the supernatural, including god, doesn't make any sense at all--but I both don't care about the historicity of Jesus and think that religiosity is a natural human impulse and attacking people for being 'dumb' for having it is itself deeply dumb. To me, the creative, logical-leaping portion of our brain which also functions to create interesting scientific hypothesis is the same as the impulse that leads to believing in religious things. The only thing I care about is whether someone thinks their religion should be made into law.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well I do beleive that the command that Christians give to those without should be the law of the land, ie I shouldn't be arrested for giving a homeless person a sandwich. Why not just source that in basic human decency and not being a dick, instead of saying that it's a godly command? Or, if you like, in utilitarianism or something else? Why bring god into it? My Imaginary GF posted:What about those who mostly agree and ascribe the authority of proper law as from god, and that law should be treaty as a community obligation to uphold and protect? It's a really really dangerous position to hold and it proves nearly impossible to separate out the random crap like anti-abortion sentiment from the good stuff like 'humans are worthwhile, don't kill 'em.'
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, 'murder' has a very long and pedantic jurisprudence debate around how you define it. God commanded that you shall not murder; he said little about refraining from killing others. That's great, buddy. Your schtick is still dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Did I say any of that? No I said that I support such a law though because it is as expected of Christians. Yes I am aware of the utilitarian argument that this would be utilization of resources, I am aware of care ethics. Am I demanding that Anyone who works on Sunday or Saturday be killed? Maybe you guys could get alot more people like myself on your side if you didn't put words in our mouths. You kind of jumped the gun there, chief. Nobody put any words in your mouth at all. If Christianity didn't say anything about being generous to the poor, would you think a law criminalizing feeding the homeless was fine? or would you still think it was dickish?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah suggesting that I believe that without Jesus someone cannot be moral is putting words in my mouth. CommieGR didn't do that. I didn't do that. SedanChair, who is a nutjob, may have. What I did do was ask you a question, politely. I'm genuinely interested in the answer. If Christianity didn't say anything about being generous to the poor, would you think a law criminalizing feeding the homeless was fine? or would you still think it was dickish?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I probably wouldn't be a Christian than. Of course than there would be no Christianity than. Okay, you're still dodging around the question. What you said is that you support the law because it is required of Christians. What it appears now is that you are Christian because of the morality that (you feel) Christianity espouses; that if Christianity didn't encourage charity to the poor, you wouldn't be a Christian. What I'm suggesting is that you support the law not because your religion compels you, but because you, as a human being, think that it is good to be nice and sympathetic to other human beings. To give perhaps a more apt example, biblical Christianity is silent on whether science education for children is a good thing, and in many ways condones gender inequalities. I think that education for children is good, and that we ought to pass laws supporting the education of children, including equal access for women. Do you think that education for children is good, and do you support laws establishing that we educate children?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I do it for both reasons, Okay. So, even if there wasn't a religoius command to do it, you would still do it, correct? quote:and I support education because it can lead people to a better understanding of God and the creation of God, either through writing, or through science, also it allows a better understanding of our fellow humans, ensuring less conflict and therefore less warfare amongst God's creation. In general, education often leads people to conclude that there isn't a god, which throws a bit of a wrinkle into this. You stated that your support for charity came from a religious instruction to be charitable--though you've now agreed that you also support this just out of your own decency as a human being. your response about edit:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Actually materialism is bunk because of the double slit experiment. The entire universe only exists because it is observed by conscious entities, and is otherwise merely a waveform of potentiality. See also Schrodinger's Cat. I effing love science. Schrodinger's cat was an example by Schrodinger of the absurd lengths not to take his concept. He wasn't actually claiming the cat is in a superposition. It is used exactly backwards by 99% of people, and tends to attract the mystical woo-wooers. quote:One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts. Bohr felt the same way. If you stop and think about it for a second or two, it makes sense that you're not really claiming some maybe-dead-maybe-alive cat. Schrodinger was presenting this as a paradox that showed the incompleteness of the thinking about quantum mechanics. To help you think about it a bit more and not embarrass yourself by claiming that it has mystic significance: the cat is also an observer of the system. Or, if you want to only concentrate on human minds, imagine one human who is standing some feet back from the box and can't see inside when it is opened. Does it 'collapse' for him or not when the box is opened and the person closer to it observes the alive or dead cat? It's a cool thought experiment that was meant to show problems in QM and it's kind of hilarious that so many people use it exactly backwards.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
Nah, you just don't really understand the Copenhagen interpretation. You just don't get it, and Bohr and Schrodinger would either laugh at you or find you depressing, I'm not sure which. The most strongly supported scientific evidence is that the cat in the box would, if dead, be demonstrably have been so for a period of time before you opened the lid of the box. Even just the temperature of the body alone would tell you that. Unless you literally think that, when hiking in the woods, the woods are coalescing in front of you, resolving from their various superpositions, unless you're that much of a crazy solipsist, you don't actually believe what you think you do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You claim that I don't understand the Copenhagen interpretation, but I think Wikipedia supports my understanding of it. It doesn't, and Wikipedia is also not a go-to resource. But no, the Copenhagen interpretation is about quantum events. I don't know any simpler way to put this. If the cat actually 'collapsed' only on observation, that would involve time travel. It doesn't. The cat dies or not when the atom decays. Is there some reason you think the cat isn't an 'observer', even if you limited observation to minds--and observation is not, actually, limited to minds. quote:
Nope. You don't know poo poo about this. quote:I'm aware that the cat would appear to have been dead for a period of time, but its history would not have been until observed. It would have existed in a state of alive and dead simultaneously, in a waveform of potentialities, until it was observed, at which point its history would collapse into one of the potentialities. This is time travel, and not possible. You're just jabbering nonsense. "Apparent history" is meaningless. There is only what actually happened. You can't be alive and dead simultaneously. Particles are not the same thing as cats. quote:This is just like the particle in the double slit experiment which suddenly appears to have always been heading towards only one of the slits. Observation decides the apparent past as well as the present, without actually changing the true past, in which it existed as a potentiality. You don't understand the double slit experiment either. No surprise. You don't even need a detector to show that the light is both particles and waves, you can just see it on the screen. There is no such 'suddenly' moment as you describe. quote:I wanted to address something you mentioned earlier but I forgot to reply to, which is the consciousness of the cat. I think this is a good point which I also thought of myself. This all depends on whether or not the cat is "conscious." I cannot say for certain if it is, but the thought experiment takes as assumption that the cat does not qualify and that human reason is required to observe. If the cat is capable of observation, then this would be a fault in the experiment. But we have no evidence for this either way and I can't think of any way to determine if cats or other non-human creatures can collapse wave-form potentialities. No, the thought experiment has nothing to do with human consciousness, at all. You're just really stepping on your own dick now. Do you think that where the particle landed on the detection screen in the double-slit experiment is uncollapsed until a human looks at the screen? The detection screen is the 'observer'. So would be any device used to truly detect the path--you can't detect that without absorption. quote:In order for this view to become solipsist, you'd have to believe that you yourself have the unique ability to collapse wave-form potentialities. But assuming there are actually other conscious observers, which is certainly the Christian view, then one would not be a solipsist. Otherwise I think you'd be believing that you are uniquely God, essentially. Oh, actually, that metaphysics kind of fucks you to the hilt, because if god observes the sparrows fall, then he collapses all waveforms all the time and the double-slit experiment wouldn't even be possible. If your bullshit, moronic idea that it's actually consciousnesses alone that can collapse stuff, then God's omniscience would continually collapse everything. Anyway, you didn't get my point. If you, alone, are walking through the woods in somewhere nobody has walked for a hundred years, do you actually think the woods are appearing before you as you 'detect' them--or at least the leaves on the floor of the forest, if you're going to say that satellites would have observed the trees? As Effectronica's source indicates, the point of this is that observation affects. The more you observe, the less interference you get--the more the observation had an effect. To you, this seems like magic. To any reasonable scientific person, it means what the experiment has always meant--that observation has an effect, not that history suddenly changes. You do get that if you fire the photon at the double slit, you just get a single point on the detector screen afterwards, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:I might be out of my depth here, but Ive always thought applying quantum physics to the macro world (as people like Kyrie tend to do so they can justify their beliefs) is just a misuse of the theory and has no scientific basis. Quantum physics isn't the theory of everything, it's only a theory of the extremely small. Yep. That's why Schrodinger's cat was intentionally an absurd example, not meant to be taken literally.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:Not very true. It's not practical, but QFTs work for everything except strong gravity right now. Well, he asked about applying it to the macro world. Quantum applied to macro is, as you say, not practical (and that's putting it lightly).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
No, i also said why it was not correct. quote:Nothing you're saying is consistent with Wiki's page, anyway, which clearly says that Schrodinger's Cat is a logical consequence of the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is a paradox, something that cannot exist. That's why Shroedinger came up with the idea. The Copenhagen interpretation may be applicable on the quantum level, but cannot be on the macro level. It was an argumentum ad absurdem. quote:You are perfectly free to resist that and to believe whatever you want to believe but I don't think you are very open to my perspective and I don't really think your perspective is really that convincing to sufficiently open-minded bystanders, so I'll leave it at that. Those who are insistent on materialism are going to deny the implications of quantum physics, and those who are interested in the consensus on quantum physics are going to realize that it suggests a non-materialist universe, and does not match your personal "Wiki is corrupted" interpretation. First of all, the copenhagen interpretation is not the only interpretation of quantum physics. It makes no sense that quantum physics, which is only about the material universe, suggests a non-materialist universe. quote:I'm rather annoyed by your dismissal of what I said about the Bohr-Einstein debates which I think was perfectly factual and all you did was give it a cursory and insulting response. It's clear this is upsetting you a bit and you can't seem to respond in any really logical way so again I'm just going to leave it as is and not bother with the rest of your post. We can talk about something else now because I feel the materialists have failed to refute the consensus view on quantum physics and have resorted to insults and complaining about Wikipedia. You can't respond to the rest of my post. You lack the ability to do so, because you're a fraud. I doubt you're even a sincere Catholic, since they tend not to be woo-woo mystics but respect science. quote:I also think you misrepresent Bohr's opinion. It seemed it was mainly Einstein who wanted to insist on classical determinism, but he was never able to prove it, and Bohr would disagree with them. Einstein believed that "God does not throw dice." They had famous debates on the subject which Bohr won. Bohr's opinion was not that God throws dice, and it was not that conscious minds collapse superpositions, which is your belief. You don't understand any of this, since you think a human consciousness collapses superpositions. That is not an idea held by any scientist, it is mystic crap. quote:Well I will answer this one bit about God observing everything. There is no need for God to waveform collapse the entire universe and clearly this is not the case or else waveforms would not exist. We know scientifically that humans cause waveform collapse but it is not a necessity that the observation of God causes waveform collapse. Rather it requires a conscious human observer (apparently) in order to collapse waveform potentialities. Again, this would imply that if you go walking in a forest where no other human has walked, the forest literally coalesces ahead of you (since, at the root of it, it's made up of a huge number of quantum events). This is the sort of absurdity that Schroedinger was mocking in his example. Since everyone can clearly see that all the quantum physicists talk about an 'observer', not a human observer, and even talk of devices as 'observers', your position is incoherent. It also becomes obvious you're just making poo poo up as you go along, because previously you said: quote:The entire universe only exists because it is observed by conscious entities, and is otherise merely a waveform of potentiality. And now you say: quote:Rather it requires a conscious human observer Why, according to quantum physics, would god's observation not collapse waveforms? Do you honestly believe that, say, the bottom of the ocean, which is not observed by humans, is a set of superpositions? That the inside of any object is? That what is behind your monitor right now is a set of superpositions, since you can't observe it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Consider the following. A double slit experiment is set up, and an unconscious laboratory measurement device is set up by one of the slits to capture the light particle's location. Wow this was a more pathetic response than I was expecting, and even in that you managed to show you don't understand the double-slit experiment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
I'm glad you realized that you have no actual grip on quantum mechanics and have abandoned that line of thought, because it was really only making you look ridiculous. However, simple proselytizing is kinda boring. Also, a cost/benefit analysis depends on what's real.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
"No actual" and 'tenuous" are synonymous. And yes, clearly his only interest in quantum physics is the parts of it that appear mystical to a totally naive interpretation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Miltank posted:He shouldn't have been banned and I hope he comes back. Why do you hate Christians?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:
Canon isn't just a theological term, and hasn't been since about 1600.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Canonicity in fan discourse is almost entirely in the theological sense. There isn't a difference. A writer's canon are the works that people take as 'authoritative', as in, works that they had finished and considered worthy for publication. Works that were completed by others, works that they wrote but didn't intend to publish, can be considered part of the canon or not by different people. That's why you hear about the Shakespeare canon, the Mark Twain canon. You also hear, in a larger sense, the 'canon' of Western Literature, meaning which books are accepted as part of that tradition, so even conceptually it exists as an idea separate from the religious. I am curious who this priest was, though. Any info? Cavaradossi posted:It's pretty simple. Love God, love your neighbour, receive the Sacraments, have faith, do good works, go to God in Heaven. There's not really any hidden message, it's pretty clearly laid out in Scripture and Tradition. Can't tell if you're joking, since the faith vs. works thing is a hugely debated religious issue and not seen as 'clear'.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 01:41
|
|