Atheism as a religion

[zerostao]

And to point out, I have never denied the importance of the subjective. All I have ever done was to state that the subjective is not always equal to the objective, and that oftentimes the subjective is directly counter to the objective.

and you are open minded enuff to reserve the right to change your mind. me either.

do we agree that there is much that is enfolded that is yet to be unfolded?

so we all are still in at least partial darkness of shadows.

i am saying that subjective admits to being speculative and objective is a bit stubborn about this.

[Marblehead]

and you are open minded enuff to reserve the right to change your mind. me either.

do we agree that there is much that is enfolded that is yet to be unfolded?

so we all are still in at least partial darkness of shadows.

i am saying that subjective admits to being speculative and objective is a bit stubborn about this.

The total amount of energy within the universe can never be increased not decreased.

 

I hope we agree on that thought. It is supposed to be a given.

 

At the present time only about 4 percent of the totality of the universe is kinda' understood.

 

That indicates to me that there is still a lot to learn. Our understandings are based on what we think we know.

 

So yes, there is the potential that we will have to change our mind many times in the future.

 

I'm not afraid of the dark. But I will not subject myself to fear just because someone told me that I'm not enlightened. No, I will not accept their illusions and delusions into my life. I have no time for that.

 

Yes, subjective will vary between individuals. That is obvious. All disagreements are subjective. On the other hand, the objective cannot be other than what it is.

 

Now true, we don't always understand the objective. But it doesn't matter how much lipstick one puts on a pig, it is still a pig. Yes, a pig with lipstick but still a pig none-the-less.

 

And yes, even the objective changes over time. Once there was a tree but a lumberjack came along, cut it down, sold the lumber and someone made a dining room table with the lumber. It is now hard to see that it was once a living tree, a home for many animals and perhaps some other plants.

 

The Science Channel tells us to question everything and then they present programming about haunted houses, big foots, flying saucers and the like. We can't question everything. We need time to live. But some things need be questioned.

 

If I wonder if I can fly yet I really don't have to jump off the roof of a building, all I need do is look to see if I have grown wings yet.

 

Our mind has only the limits we ourself place upon it. It can travel anywhere. The body is more restricted.

[Brian]

No, I have never rejected quantum mechanics in total. I have said that there are many hypothesis within the quantum field that I do not accept. I can't even recall any specifics at the moment because I pay so little attention to it.

 

I don't need to know what a computer consists of. I need to know what it does. I know what it does. I don't care what it consists of. I have argued, and will continue to argue, that a particle cannot be a wave because it requires many particles for there to be a wave. A wave is a bunch of particles.

 

I never needed to know how many particles were within the wave of my radio signal when I transmitted a message. But I did have to know about the antenna that radiated the wave.

 

I have heard some of the quantum theorists suggest that I can be in more than one place at any given point in time and this is total nonsense in my mind.

 

Keep it realistic and I will be right there with you. Get too far off the wall and I will have gone someplace else.

 

Are we still talking about Atheism?

I'm afraid you are moving backwards here -- you are now rejecting late-1800s electromagnetics, too. This is the pattern, you see. You reject any aspect of scientific discovery which doesn't align with your Materialism but you claim to use science to support your Materialism and use your Materialism to support your Atheism, yet you claim your Atheism is not a belief system and that it is rooted in "reality" instead.

 

Can't have it both ways.

[Marblehead]

I'm afraid you are moving backwards here -- you are now rejecting late-1800s electromagnetics, too. This is the pattern, you see. You reject any aspect of scientific discovery which doesn't align with your Materialism but you claim to use science to support your Materialism and use your Materialism to support your Atheism, yet you claim your Atheism is not a belief system and that it is rooted in "reality" instead.

 

Can't have it both ways.

Explain yourself please. I suppose you are referring to electromagnetics? Where is my error?

[dust]

I don't try to go to imaginary places.

 

Imaginary places can be great fun. Must balance with reality though...

 

 

 

The total amount of energy within the universe can never be increased not decreased.

 

I hope we agree on that thought. It is supposed to be a given.

 

(...)

 

there is the potential that we will have to change our mind many times in the future.

 

Excuse the tired example, but it was once a given that the earth was flat. Mankind will have to change our minds, about many things, in the future.

I don't see why anyone would say it's "impossible" for the law of the conservation of energy to be found to be flawed in the future, especially considering we don't seem to know what energy actually is.

Edited October 16, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

What's today? Pick on Marblehead day? Hehehe. No problem, I can handle it.

Imaginary places can be great fun. Must balance with reality though...

Yes, as long as we keep our perspective. I have a special valley in Italy I visit now and again. But it is only with my mind. I really haven't been there since the mid 1970s.

 

Excuse the tired example, but it was once a given that the earth was flat. Mankind will have to change our minds, about many things, in the future.

I don't see why anyone would say it's "impossible" for the law of the conservation of energy to be found to be flawed in the future, especially considering we don't seem to know what energy actually is.

Well, we agree whether you like it or not. Hehehe.

 

I never thought the Earth was flat. It was proved over two thousand years ago that it is more or less round.

 

But I will still state that there are some things that are not possible at this point in time. It is not possible for me to fly using only my own power and equipment.

 

True, the theory of conservation of energy may one day be found to be flawed. It may be proved the the universe is but a grain of sand. But I doubt it.

 

And in my signature box I state: "I reserve the right to change my mind." I also state that: "I reserve the right to be wrong."

 

And I have done and can still do both whenever I have been given sufficient reason to be or do so.

[dust]

What's today? Pick on Marblehead day?

 

Yes, I think that's what we decided to call it. Who told you?

 

 

Well, we agree whether you like it or not. Hehehe.

 

What? noooooooooooooooooooooo

 

 

And in my signature box I state: "I reserve the right to change my mind." I also state that: "I reserve the right to be wrong."

 

And I have done and can still do both whenever I have been given sufficient reason to be or do so.

 

Yes. It's not always easy for me, but I would like to think that I can change my mind as easily as I can sniff if something I believe is shown to be wrong (based on evidence/logic/fact/whatever)

Edited October 16, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Yes, I think that's what we decided to call it. Who told you?

It was a spiritual encounter.

 

What? noooooooooooooooooooooo

Hehehe.

 

Yes. It's not always easy for me, but I would like to think that I can change my mind as easily as I can sniff if something I believe is shown to be wrong (based on evidence/logic/fact/whatever)

My changes take a little longer because, afterall, I am marbleheaded. And we all know that marbles are hard.

[Brian]

Explain yourself please. I suppose you are referring to electromagnetics? Where is my error?

You said, "I have argued, and will continue to argue, that a particle cannot be a wave because it requires many particles for there to be a wave. A wave is a bunch of particles."

 

Your intent, I believe, was to reject the principle of the duality of light -- that it behaves as either a wave or a particle. The problem with saying this, though, is that it negates a whole bunch of other thoroughly tested physical principles, too. The earliest of them being collected by Maxwell to explain both electricity and magnetism. This collection of equations only work if electrical and magnetic potentials are fields. By rejecting the idea of the waveform of light, you are rejecting Maxwell's equations.

 

By extension, you are also rejecting the individual laws which are collectively referred to as "Maxwell's laws": Gauss's law for electricity (which basically says the electric flux through any closed surface is directly proportional to the net charge within it), Gauss's law for magnetism (which wouldn't apply to magnetic monopoles, if they are shown to exist, and which basically say the magnetic flux through any closed surface is zero), the Maxwell-Faraday law (Maxwell's generalization of Faraday's induction law, basically saying that a changing magnetic field creates an electric field), and Ampere's law (which Maxwell extended to include both the displacement current and polarization current, and which basically says that moving a changing electric field creates a magnetic field).

 

Maxwell then used these four well-tested laws, upon which our practical everyday understanding of both electricity and magnetism are founded, to develop the electromagnetic wave equation. This extraordinarily insightful piece of work describes the propagation of electromagnetic waves through a vacuum or through a medium. Published in 1864, he not only showed electromagnetism to be a waveform but he also demonstrated that the speed of light in a vacuum had to be a constant regardless of frame of reference, laying the foundation for Einstein's special theory of relativity several decades later.

 

Additionally, there's a logical problem in that you are saying a single photon has to be a particle but a bunch of them might act like a wave. This means the concept of frequency goes out the window until there are enough photons and then, suddenly, "color" appears. This suggests that particles of light somehow "know" when they are in the company of lots of other like photons and they then alter their behavior to "wavelike" and somehow "know" what frequency they are supposed to adopt. It simply doesn't make sense -- AND it doesn't fit with a century of rigorous experimentation.

 

Make sense?

[Marblehead]

I'm still an Atheist. Brian almost convinced me that Max was God but gave up trying. And beside, Max died and that wouldn't the right thing for a god to do.

[Brian]

I'm still an Atheist. Brian almost convinced me that Max was God but gave up trying. And beside, Max died and that wouldn't the right thing for a god to do.

 

I'm good with that!^^^

 

I honestly have absolutely NO problem with the atheistic belief system -- until/unless it is presented as "scientific" and based on "fact."

[Marblehead]

 

Make sense?

No. Hardly nothing computed. Garbage in - garbage out.

 

So is a particle a wave or is it a particle. And is a wave a particle or is it a wave?

 

And please don't tell me that they can be either or both at the same time.

 

The principle of the duality of light. Now that's a new one for me. If I have white light it means the other half of the duality is black light?

 

Seems I have rejected a lot of stuff that have absolutely nothing to do with my being an Atheist. Oh well.

 

And where does a photon go when it is not a component of a wave? Any place it wants to, Right? Sounds like chaos to me.

 

In my post above I was referring to Max Planck, not Maxwell, whoever he is/was.

[Marblehead]

I honestly have absolutely NO problem with the atheistic belief system -- until/unless it is presented as "scientific" and based on "fact."

Did I ever do that?

 

The closest I ever got to that was to state that there are no scientific facts supporting the belief in anything I would consider "supernatural".

[Brian]

No. Hardly nothing computed. Garbage in - garbage out.

 

So is a particle a wave or is it a particle. And is a wave a particle or is it a wave?

 

And please don't tell me that they can be either or both at the same time.

 

The principle of the duality of light. Now that's a new one for me. If I have white light it means the other half of the duality is black light?

 

Seems I have rejected a lot of stuff that have absolutely nothing to do with my being an Atheist. Oh well.

 

And where does a photon go when it is not a component of a wave? Any place it wants to, Right? Sounds like chaos to me.

 

In my post above I was referring to Max Planck, not Maxwell, whoever he is/was.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

 

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

 

Perhaps it is time to turn off The Science Channel?

 

[Marblehead]

Wave–particle duality means that all particles show both wave and particle properties. This is a central concept of quantum mechanics. Classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" do not fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.

 

I do work at quantum level. Classical concepts work very well for me.

 

Yes, I know, the Science Channel is operated by aliens. I suppose I could watch the Weather Channel. Of course, they are mostly wrong but hey, they are not gods, right?

 

Now I will go look at the second link.

[Marblehead]

Well, I suppose James was important. Too bad he couldn't cure cancer.

[Marblehead]

If Theism is a belief system then Atheism must be a disbelief system, right?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

In my post above I was referring to Max Planck, not Maxwell, whoever he is/was.

 

As long as you're going to mention Max Planck and argue about quotes from a pop music star, you may as well argue about quotes from Max Planck. Here are some:

 

 

• As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
  • Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

 

 

• I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
  • As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

 

 

• A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
  • Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache. Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag (Leipzig 1948), p. 22, as translated in Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 33–34 (as cited in T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

 

All from Wikiquote

 

It was Planck's constant that launched Quantum Mechanics.

[Marblehead]

 

It was Planck's constant that launched Quantum Mechanics.

Yes, I understand that he is considered the father of quantum mechanics.

 

Thing about Max, I have never heard anything negative about him. That, to me, is important.

 

However, the first quote makes assumptions that are unverifiable.

[Owledge]

The total amount of energy within the universe can never be increased not decreased.

 

I hope we agree on that thought. It is supposed to be a given.

Not by scientific procedure, only by definition. It is a logical establishment like math. It is very close to a belief, and many people are especially unaware of that because they think they are smart just because they put faith in science. Which makes it even more of a belief system.

It's even more problematic: As soon as you understand the definition of "the universe" as less than everything there is (which is happening, especially when you hear people talk about the "multiverse" or "other dimensions"), it becomes everything but a universal truth. Just another scientific idea that eventually will have to be reviewed. Or the definition of "the universe" changed again in order to make things match again. That's usually what happens with encrusted dogmas in the scientific establishment. You build workarounds and move even farther away from greater insight. And those results then are what rings the alarm bell in people with a strong common sense.

 

Just look at what happens with negentropics and zero point technology. The people who are considered the experts in the theory claim it's a perpetuum mobile, thus not possible. They give something a label that describes something that is believed to be impossible, because their idea of the universe is limited and they don't consider in their mind the possibility that there is more. Extremely narrow-minded, but that's the result of putting faith in dogmas. I once witnessed this level of narrow-mindedness from a prof. dr. dr. h.c. mult. (theoretical physics et al.). So much for titles. The ideas of some of the cherished physical principles and so-called "laws of nature" still exist not just because of their verified truth, but because a) they are useful in the way things are done (based on those ideas) and b ) the hype and celebration has a self-perpetuating effect.

 

Try to look at Christianity without looking at the Church.

Try to look at science without looking at the academic establishment.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Owledge

[Rara]

region? Did you mean 'reason'?

Indeed I did, thanks. I was typing on the phone and got carried away by the testosterone transmitted in page one.

[Rara]

The only absolute fact is that there are no absolute facts.

Prove it

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

I'm too tired to get twisted up in this right now. Maybe next month.

[Rara]

 

Of course. Fact is fact and belief is belief. Every native English speaker knows what these words mean, right?

 

The question is, how can you be sure a "fact" is a fact?

 

My belief is that not everything people hold to be "fact" is in fact fact, and not everything people hold to be no more than belief is necessarily not fact.

Ok, as an example. We are breathing...that's a fact, right?

[C T]

Indeed I did, thanks. I was typing on the phone and got carried away by the testosterone transmitted in page one.

I was wondering why you got (figuratively) horny midway thru, but was afraid to ask, to save possible embarrassment. But the fog's cleared a bit now, though i still don't get the association btwn topic and this testosterone activity you mentioned.

[Owledge]

I'm still an Atheist. Brian almost convinced me that Max was God but gave up trying. And beside, Max died and that wouldn't the right thing for a god to do.

It gets easier to believe someone is God if that person has more of the divine radiate through them. Because, since we are all God, yet very used to using our analytical mind, we have trouble with the idea that several people can be one thing.

That's a big problem and should-be mental conflict in monotheism, with the personification of the divine. The claim that God is almighty, yet is being regarded as a single person. How could someone with the attributes of God still be just a person?

Even I was/am habitually operating quite a lot on this analytical view, and that gave me a very hard time when I experienced myself being God.