Religious Typology Quiz

NovoJank said:
I am neither angry nor excited. Just clarifying for you that these are my thoughts on my own position. As such it is hard to imagine how you could "disagree" with my own thoughts on my own position.

I have nothing to prove.

The same reason you are. To discuss concepts. Is that a problem on here? Isn't that what forums are for?
Click to expand...
Disagreed.

Good. It's nothing to get excited about.

Agreed. No need to be excited or snippy. It's a discussion forum.
 
Doc Dutch said:
What causes you to disagree with him so much on atheism that you don't care about his thoughts on the issue?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not sure what you are angling for. I said I don't care what he says about atheism but I actually liked "The God Delusion". This seems to be a problem for you. I will attempt to explain:

I am glad people like Dawkins and Sam Harris started publishing books on atheism. We need a few voices of atheism in the sea of religious talk we get bombarded by all the time here in America. That doesn't mean I think every single word out of their mouths is unquestionable perfected truth.

What I don't care about is people assuming MY atheism has to, in some way, comport with every point of Dawkins' atheism. I like his writings on atheism but my atheism is fine even without his input.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Disagreed.

Good. It's nothing to get excited about.

Agreed. No need to be excited or snippy. It's a discussion forum.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I"m really confused. Why do you "disagree" with my claims about my own internal state? Just because I have disagreed with some of your points does not make my position one of "excitement" or "anger".

May I ask how one conducts a conversation with you if you simply assume any disagreement between us is a function of my being "angry"?

And more importantly: what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?
 
NovoJank said:
It seems you might be confused about my position. I honestly thought I had been clear. I am NOT certain of anything. But let me ask you honestly:

If I said there's no reason that an invisible undetectable unicorn COULDN'T BE LIVING in your bathroom would you then be required to believe that such a thing exists or would you do what most people do and say "Nah, there's no reason to believe it's there so I'm just going to default to a lack of belief in the invisible undetectable unicorn"?

I know what you would do as you know. That's my position. Sure it could be there, but there's literally no reason to believe so and it violates parsimony.



That's because so many non-physicists leverage Quantum Mechanics for all their new age bullshit (sorry for the aggressive language). QM is weird. I'm not going to disagree. But it really isn't an open invitation to shove every half-baked idea someone comes up with after a few THC gummies into.



Usually within some limitations. The whole Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is difficult to parse, and it does indicate that there's something we haven't quite got clear about it (maybe it's something we can never get clarity about), but it is mostly just arabesques of imagination when people try to leverage QM for the macro world.



But the math HAS to work or it is just imagination. That's my point. Imagination is great, it's what we do as people. But it does not carry with it any necessary existence or reality.
Click to expand...

The invisible unicorn rhetorical device is widely used to mock and belittle anyone who accepts there are limitations to reason and our access to universal, neccessy, and true knowledge.

We are basically just souped-up chimpanzees. I am not certain if our brains are evolved and designed to access true, omniscient, and certain knowledge of all reality.

That's my two cents.
 
Cypress said:
The invisible unicorn rhetorical device is widely used to mock and belittle anyone who accepts there are limitations to reason and our access to universal, neccessy, and true knowledge.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you have read someone mocking with it. I am using it to make a point. NOT to mock.

So why won't you address the point?
 
Some scientists are philosophically-minded and are not intellectually satisfied in just knowing that the equations work.

Cypress said:
Einstein, Bohr and the war over quantum theory

What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics

All hell broke loose in physics some 90 years ago. Quantum theory emerged — partly in heated clashes between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. It posed a challenge to the very nature of science, and arguably continues to do so, by severely straining the relationship between theory and the nature of reality.

At the 1927 Solvay Conference in Brussels, 29 brilliant scientists gathered to discuss the fledgling quantum theory. Here, the disagreements between Bohr, Einstein and others, including Erwin Schrödinger and Louis de Broglie, came to a head.

Whereas Bohr proposed that entities (such as electrons) had only probabilities if they weren’t observed, Einstein argued that they had independent reality, prompting his famous claim that “God does not play dice with the universe”.

Suddenly, scientific realism — the idea that confirmed scientific theories roughly reflect reality — was at stake.

For Albert Einstein, reality exists regardless of the existence of the knowing subject, and from the perspective of Niels Bohr, we do not have access to the ultimate reality of the matter, unless conditioning it to the existence of an observer endowed with rationality.

Continued
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41...roposed that entities,God does not play dice”.
Click to expand...
 
NovoJank said:
Hmmm, I"m really confused. Why do you "disagree" with my claims about my own internal state? Just because I have disagreed with some of your points does not make my position one of "excitement" or "anger".

May I ask how one conducts a conversation with you if you simply assume any disagreement between us is a function of my being "angry"?

And more importantly: what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?
Click to expand...

Oh jeeeezus. Doc Douchebag LOVES to tell everyone what they are thinking. Wait a bit and he'll "diagnose" you with some severe psychosis. It's his schtick. Don't let him drag you into the shit. It's all because he's too fuckin' uneducated to actually engage with your points. He's a moron who thinks he's ever so sharp.

Gah.
 
NovoJank said:
No, it's SUPER strange. I recommend you read up on the Cophenhagen Interpretation. That's the one that puts a primary role of the "observer" into collapsing the waveforms into a "reality" experience by the observer.

In the quantum world we can "entangle" two particles such that they maintain the same quantum state no matter how far apart they are separated. The implications of faster-than-light communication are frightfully close on that one. But it also allows for "teleportation".

Solid objects are SIMULTANEOUSLY waves.

I believe Feynman said it best: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."


That's why it is so easily leveraged by people who want to plow all their "imagination" into something and give it the imprimatur of "science".
Click to expand...

I've read up. Don't waste your time with ego battles. Debate or be ignored.
 
NovoJank said:
Hmmm, not sure what you are angling for. I said I don't care what he says about atheism but I actually liked "The God Delusion". This seems to be a problem for you. I will attempt to explain:

I am glad people like Dawkins and Sam Harris started publishing books on atheism. We need a few voices of atheism in the sea of religious talk we get bombarded by all the time here in America. That doesn't mean I think every single word out of their mouths is unquestionable perfected truth.

What I don't care about is people assuming MY atheism has to, in some way, comport with every point of Dawkins' atheism. I like his writings on atheism but my atheism is fine even without his input.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's a non sequitur to say you don't care what Dawkins has to say then say you like what he had to say. It's a puzzler.

People should be free to write and read whatever they like. You and I can agree on that point.

What are some people assuming about your atheism that is erroneous?
 
NovoJank said:
Hmmm, I"m really confused. Why do you "disagree" with my claims about my own internal state? Just because I have disagreed with some of your points does not make my position one of "excitement" or "anger".

May I ask how one conducts a conversation with you if you simply assume any disagreement between us is a function of my being "angry"?

And more importantly: what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?
Click to expand...
I'm not. I'm disagreeing about the demeanor of your posts. Correct. That goes for everyone, doesn't it?

Stop being emotional about religious and spiritual beliefs, including atheism, is a good start. People get too excited about a subject that cannot be proved or disproved. It's like arguing about philosophy. There is no right or wrong answer, since it's all opinion.

The thread is about beliefs, including atheism. Why do you think it's off topic to discuss atheism on this thread?

Example of your beliefs:
NovoJank said:
I don't even think it's a matter of organized religions. I think people naturally gravitate to the "God of the Gaps". The reason God was even invented in the first place was an attempt by early man to understand everything around him.

People will always invest those areas of their own ignorance with the imprimatur of God because it's an easy "placeholder", especially for questions that don't necessarily impact every day survival. (And by that I mean understanding how one's predators behave rather than assuming God will guide the predator to kill you when it is time for you to die. We don't usually just let it be "God's will"....we will investigate and learn what the predator is going to do.)
Click to expand...
 
Doc Dutch said:
Exactly. It's a non sequitur to say you don't care what Dawkins has to say then say you like what he had to say. It's a puzzler.
Click to expand...

Oh, let me clarify it for you. I generally like most of what he says about atheism. But I am in no way beholden to anything that he says about it.

I can LIKE your car but not need to drive it everywhere I go.

What are some people assuming about your atheism that is erroneous?
Click to expand...

You suggested that I must agree with how Dawkins characterized belief with his "spectrum". I foundationally disagree for the reasons outlined. That doesn't mean I think Dawkins is therefore without any value. It just means that my atheism is not predicated on ANYTHING Dawkins says.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Stop being emotional about religious and spiritual beliefs, including atheism, is a good start.
Click to expand...

Well, given that I'm not emotional about this topic would seem to make this a moot point. But you insist on trying to characterize my point as somehow "emotional".

You may not be aware of this but this is a form of aggression. It demeans my point as being predicated on "emotionality" when it is anything but. I have clearly laid out my points quite pleasantly and have not experienced any anger or emotionalism about it.

I will gladly admit that people telling me what I think is annoying and will, in time, lead to a feeling of anger.

But it isn't there yet.

The thread is about beliefs, including atheism. Why do you think it's off topic to discuss atheism on this thread?
Click to expand...

My emotional state or lack thereof is not related to the topic at hand.


Is it perhaps that you are getting overly emotional and angry?
 
AssHatZombie said:
some people are looking for something to justify morality, because morality is the human advantage.

:truestory:
Click to expand...

Oh, I DEFINITELY agree that "morality" is a way to maintain the survival advantages groups provide to social animals like humans. We are on the same page.

(I just meant that everyone likes to consider their own motives superior to anyone else's :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top