|
Post by mistercornbread on Feb 10, 2018 11:55:39 GMT -5
In the venn diagram of a belief in atheism and a belief in the scientific method, there is a very nearly 100% overlap, as you are very unlikely to meet at atheist who does not also believe in the claims of science. Even most theists believe in large swaths of science (except, conveniently, for measurements and findings that contradict their narrative). That said, atheists attempt to use logic, reason and rationale to dismiss godly notions, despite the fact that quantum mechanics—the most accurate and successful theory in all of human history—cannot be understood by appealing to logic, reason and rationale. Atheists don't question the self-evident absurdity of the quanta, but they do question the self-evident absurdity of a creator.
What I am basically suggesting here is that logic and reason cannot be used effectively here; they rely on very limited (i.e. human level) presuppositions that can work well in the mechanistic aspects of reality, but not much else. If you truly want to discuss whether or not God exists, then you have to abandon scientific axioms and religious ontology in favor of more "outside of the box" thinking.
|
|
BattleKorbi
Korbstomp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rFi11elXiI
Posts: 243
|
Post by BattleKorbi on Feb 10, 2018 12:34:50 GMT -5
Oh boy, religious topic, this is boutta blow! (talking out of my experience here)
I reckon you never met an old communist. These old farts are against the Church and are basically fedora tippers, but when it comes to science, it sounds like a fancy occupation not meant for young hardworking men and women in the party! Basically, is that venn diagram covering people who don't have internet connection, or is it just a reddit scan? :DDDD Either way, old commies, staple of culture in my actually quite religious country.
That being said, I am not one of the types who discuss existance of God. Yall can roll your eyes on me as much as you want to, and you might be rolling, even more, when I say I just believe he exists. What form Our Lord takes, what is his goal, what are his other names, what does he consider good or bad, no matter how much I preach about it, nobody will listen. Its the internet. When it comes to discussing stuff like this, everyone has their own opinion, and whoever actually changes another person's opinion, is either some sort of a super-charismatic vampire or... I dunno, no one really changes their thoughts and opinions unless they want to, so no point discussing God here.
About quantum mechanics: well, yeah, indeed, an abstract concept, that doesn't mean we cannot try to grasp and imagine what is it dealing about, and how does it look like, and what we could do if we ever tap further into that field of thought. Could we be dimension-surfers at the end of the day? Could we store things inside "quantum closets"? Could the proper usage of its potential solve most, if not all of our problems?
Tsugi ni omae wa:"You don't really know what quantum mechanics are, don't ya?", to iu?!
|
|
|
Post by mistercornbread on Feb 10, 2018 16:09:39 GMT -5
I don't find the concept of believing god to be silly. My interest is in investigating the idea beyond the surface arguments of conventional atheism ("We can leave out God as a presupposition because we understand a lot about the cosmos without invoking it") and conventional theism ("God exists because of feelings and experiences I have, what other religious people say, what religious history says, and what religious literature claims."). My point is that neither of these arguments, despite being used constantly, are particularly good in debate, thus my desire for "outside of the box" thinking. This is where DMT, the nature of consciousness, simulation theory, extra terrestrial life and higher dimensional topological substrates come into the picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 17:48:04 GMT -5
I say this as someone who uses hallucinogens on occasion: Relying on the thoughts you have while tripping to be some sort of accurate guide as to our origins is likely to lead one or many false conclusions.
An atheist is not one who denies the existence of a god or gods, it is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. The difference is subtle but important. By it's very definition, atheism is not ruling out the possibility of a god but simply stating that you don't believe in one. I have not seen evidence for a god, therefore I do not believe in one. If someone were to present some kind of compelling evidence, I'd be open to change my view.
I'm not sure I buy this line of reasoning. A current lack of understanding does not equate to "logic does not apply", more accurately it equates to "we currently do not understand the logic". Again, the distinction is subtle but very important. I also don't buy the claim the the quanta is "self evidently absurd". I wouldn't describe the god theory as "self evidently absurd" either, in fact. To make such a dismissive claim is antithetical to the very core of science.
It must be asked: Who are you to make such a definitive claim? From what position of intellectual authority are you positing the claim that "a current lack of understanding" on a topic equates to there being no logic or reason applied to the functions of said topic? This claim is not broadly accepted in the world of quantum mechanics/scientists so I'm not sure what you're basing it on. Again, drug-induced hallucinations generally result in the perception of things that simply do not exist.
Now of course, that's not all there is to them by a long shot - I have dropped acid on quite a few occasions and spent ~8 hours walking through the woods and pondering society and life itself, learning/realizing many new and interesting things throughout the duration of the trip, but it's important to sort the absurdity from the reality at the end of the trip rather than just "taking it all in". For every stunning realization I had, there were 2-3 absurd notions and ideas that I could quickly see are essentially nonsense to be discarded in my sober state. While interesting and evocative, hallucinogens cannot be relied on for an accurate answer as to our origins, not as far as I can tell anyway.
As with anything, all I need to change my tune is some compelling evidence.
|
|
|
Post by mistercornbread on Feb 10, 2018 19:03:42 GMT -5
It's important to note that when I talk of DMT as being a source of possible insights into the god debate, I am not at all speaking of the language mutations that occur during trips, I am talking primarily about the topological animations that display during closed-eye experiences (or open-eye experiences in environments with very low lighting). This is something that is frequently ignored in psychedelic discussion, especially since very few people have vaporized DMT which is a very, very different experience from LSD. Much of the visual information of a high-dose DMT experience is very similar to anecdotes of mystical experiences, near-death experiences, alien abduction, as well as the religious/mythological artwork of Islam, Egypt, and South/Central America. Frequently, DMT reports involve contact with aliens or god-like beings, a feeling of dying/being reborn, astral projection, etc., all of which I have first-hand experience with. From my many experiences with the substance—which is a neurotransmitter found in plants as well as a chemical your brain produces—this is as close to the traditional theological definition of God as humans can achieve. Because of this, I can only conclude that the DMT realm is related to what we call god, and was likely part of the early conscious experiences of humans that led to the development of the god meme.
In regards to logic and reason...let us explore what those words mean. A dictionary definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity," while reason is "cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event." This seems to suggest that neither word is about reaching into the ether and pulling out an objective set of axioms from which we can describe reality; rather, it is about using our pre-language insights as a basis for fundamental axioms, despite the fact that primal intuition is about survival, not about objective understanding. A proposition can make sense in terms of survival, but not in terms of accuracy. So what I am saying is that quantum mechanics does not conform to how humans have evolved to understand reality, and even physicists working within the field have said in interviews that they don't understand quantum mechanics, and that it makes no sense. It would appear that no one really "gets it," that logic and reason in their current forms cannot assist us.
Quantum mechanics, of course, is the most fundamental aspect of reality we know of. And if it doesn't even make sense to the people who use it everyday...then we have to open our minds to even the most seemingly "nonsensical" ideas, including the existence of an ultimate agent. The problem is that it is such a grandiose concept that it doesn't open itself up to any known scientific investigation. For that reason, I say, let us then not approach it scientifically or religiously, and instead dive into the mystical, the conscious, the ethereal, and see what we can uncover.
|
|
xeepeep
Banned
Forever
Posts: 2,338
|
Post by xeepeep on Feb 10, 2018 19:14:40 GMT -5
Honestly, I think rationalism ("no god coz I don't have proof of its existence REEEEEEE") as a whole is a big big delusion and everyone who identifies with that philosophy is a nerd who needs to get a life/gf/friends. Umm, I really need to learn how to express myself without being a memel0rd all the time.
Y'see, the world is far more than we can see. It's so far beyond our perception. There's a lot about it that we just plain don't know. Heck, we haven't even finished exploring out planet yet. 90% of the sea bottom is unexplored, so is abooooout 2-3% of land. (Pulling the numbers out of my ass here, don't nitpick.) My point is, if we have not fully figured out what's going on in our little cozy corner of space yet, how can we POSSIBLY have even the SLIGHTEST idea of the creation of the universe and such metaphysical questions that trouble many great minds??? Like jesus christ people are you really that stupid jesus!!! We don't have the full picture, and, as a result, we have no right to draw definite conclusions out of our flawed and very incomplete images of the world around us.
What am I building up to: There's not a goddamn chance that we'll have the means to answer such metaphysical questions even in a thousand years. So stop wasting your brainpower on silly speculations and focus on something that can produce an actual result instead.
Also, about religion. It has existed as a concept for saaaaay 50K years or so??? maybe more??? I dunno. I know even the cavemen had customs about burying their dead with flowers or something silly like that. So yeah, we've been believing in the existence of supernatural beings for a long time now, even before our dawn as a real civilization. And now suddenly some smartasses pop up and say that there can not be a god and that the whole idea of having a big bearded dude up in the clouds is rubbish????? Jesus christ that's crazy!! There's DEFINITELY a reason why have we been believng in such deities for so long. I really don't wanna think that we were wrong all the time. The idea of religion being some sort of explanation of death meant to comfort the masses makes sense... but if it were so, I think it would've been discarded long ago. There has to be more than just that.
I myself do believe there's a god. Believe me or not, but he sent me a sign once. He did!! Or maybe it was just a random situation that I overthought I dunno hahaha ayy lmao (But that's another story.)
|
|
TOS
You're trying to say you like DOS better than me, right?
Glenzinho's Chicabro
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by TOS on Feb 11, 2018 7:51:14 GMT -5
Whenever it comes to the question of God vs. Science for me...
I value both. To me, God is responsible for Science. This can include things like "the big bang" and evolution. Most of my friends are atheists who actually have nothing but bad things to say about religious people (sans yours truly because I don't act like "a typical christian" with regard to how I treat people, threats of eternal damnation, fire and brimstone and all that jazz). We like to engage in these kinds of discussions. The answer I give has always seemed to make sense to people.
My belief in God and an afterlife takes a somewhat scientific approach.
How do we know something exists? It has to be able to be observed and studied.
I have never known death or non-existence. I haven't observed it, and by being alive I cannot observe it. Being alive, going all the way back to when I was just a sperm cell, is all that my being has ever known. For that reason, even contemplating a state of non-existence makes zero sense to me. All I have ever felt was existence.
But the bright side to this is that if I am wrong and death does just mean I cease to exist in all facets...it won't be a bad thing. I won't exist, I won't ever feel the sensation of nothingness, because I won't be alive to experience it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 21:36:41 GMT -5
Nice to see you goatlord!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 23:09:42 GMT -5
Just want to make it clear that the only instance where I take any issue with religiosity is when its used as a reason to impose unjust legislation. A religious person with a "live and let live" view who understands that laws need to be decided democratically is totally okay in my book.
For me, it really just boils down to this: When I see some evidence, I might be compelled. Until then I see it as a baseless claim. Things like "the majority of humans have been religious throughout history, surely there must be a reason" isn't really evidence far as I'm concerned - the majority of humans once believed earth was flat, believed in geocentrism etc etc throughout history so going with the pack clearly doesn't automatically make you right, it just means you're parroting someone else without basis. To me that just isn't enough. I've also heard various "we need a creator because X" arguments all of which failed to actually provide a good reason that we actually require a creator for things to be as they are.
I agree with all of this, but it still doesn't compel me to be like "Santa's older brother in the sky with the big white beard dun did it" (to answer in a equally meme-ish fashion).
|
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 5,937
|
Post by 40oz on Feb 12, 2018 8:09:59 GMT -5
despite the fact that quantum mechanics—the most accurate and successful theory in all of human history— cannot be understood by appealing to logic, reason and rationale. Is this true? I don't know shit about quantum mechanics. I've heard it described as being extremely complicated and confusing and difficult to explain, but I've never heard that it can't be understood with logic.
|
|
|
Post by mistercornbread on Feb 16, 2018 9:23:50 GMT -5
I think a better way to word it is, our sense of logic is generally based on a Newtonian scale, i.e. the visible world around us. We have not evolved to understand the quanta, so it cannot be understood by appealing to "everyday" logic. And if you watch interviews with physicists, they have a hard time explaining quantum mechanics and will tell you plainly that no one really gets it.
|
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 5,937
|
Post by 40oz on Feb 16, 2018 9:39:25 GMT -5
I watched a movie recently on Netflix called The Cloverfield Paradox. The plot involved some sort of prototype of a manmade device orbiting around space, testing some sort of experiment that would be able to supply the Earth with an infinite power source. In their final test, the device managed to fire itself and everyone on board into an alternate dimension, one where a women's deceased children were still living, a stranger on the ship who happened to know everyone on board their whole lives, and a room that was mysteriously filled with water.
As crazy and nonsensical as that is, I imagine this type of scenario is only the tip of the iceberg for how mercilessly insane the prospect of alternate realities can be, but had to be dialed back 10,000% in order to fit the narrative structure of a comprehensible plot for a watchable movie.
It wasn't very good but I appreciate what they were trying to get at.
|
|