A Must Read!

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Quantum Mechanics 101

I don't claim to understand anything about quantum mechanics. There are scientists who are studying quantum mechanics who don't know all that much about it. It's confusing, seemingly contradictory and exceedingly difficult to work with in the first place. What I do know is that anyone who claims that quantum mechanics "explains" anything about their belief system knows even less about it than I do. There's enough information about it that they can pick and choose bits and pieces of different hypotheses and claim almost anything they want, even if those hypotheses have not yet been tested or have even been discarded as unworkable.

Looks like your faith in having no faith is intact then, you quite capable of twisting your reality anyway you wish and ignoring anything contrary to your belief system.

See, this is where we have a problem. Anything I can say which contradicts what you want to believe is automatically wrong in your mind, while anything you say which attempts to explain your beliefs does not have the evidence which I think is necessary. We're running around in circles here.

If you actually had studdied any of what I presented you with above you would realize that when discussing God supernaturalism doesnt even have to be one of the factors for his/she/its existance.

We're basically talking about a being who is outside of the universe, is all-knowing and all-powerful, are we not? By definition, that is supernatural, or above natural. If god is actually a part of the natural world, then he is subject to natural laws, making him no more of a god than I am.

I would love to see one just one such experiment?

How about an experiment involving prayer? Would that qualify?
According to this study, which I understand is one of the best designed studies of its type, "Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications."

Just as atheists dont like to be told that their own religion (the religion of disbelief) is a religion.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity, or the doctrine that there is no deity.
religion is a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Since atheism does not involve attitudes, beliefs or practices of any kind, much less religious, I fail to see why you insist on calling it a religion. Something else we are going in circles on. We must agree to disagree.

It sure as hell was the way you were doing earlier. And your attacks dont just target the Muslims, Chatholics , and Jews eaither...they target every single religion thats ever existed and all of their adhereants.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm merely pointing out that any system of beliefs, religious or not, which is derived from stories and parables which defy natural law and which have no evidence for their veracity, is hardly different from a belief in fairy tales.

You simpley do not know if that is how their theologies came into being. For all you know they happened exactly the way those people say they happened so long ago.

Unless evidence can be provided to show that such things could happen, in defiance of the laws of nature as we understand them, there is no rational reason to believe they are anything but stories.

Again, I don't see anyone forcing anyone. At least not any where that I have lived (and I am fairly well travelled btw). As for whats happeneing in other parts of the world, you just might to reserve your judgements until you have actually walked among those people you wish to tar and feather and live amongst them yourself for a while, instead of clinging to media talking points.

One of the reasons I rely so heavily on references to the Judeo/Christian religions is because I have NOT lived among people of those other religions or nationalities. But if you cannot see the religious suppression and infiltration going on all around the world then perhaps you should pay more attention to the media. Public schools in Australia are required to have religious classes, which apparently can be taught by anyone, whether qualified to teach or not. I've already mentioned Texas. I haven't the stomach to do so again. The lawyer defending that woman condemned to stoning in Iran had to flee the country in the hopes of getting his wife released from prison, where she was being held to force him to cave in to the religious courts. All over the world such religious atrocities are occurring, every day. It's the religions of the world who are doing the persecuting, not the atheists. We only wish to keep religion OUT of public life, and keep it in the churches, temples, mosques or whatever.

I believe its one place one spirit for all, and that the different religions simpley interpet what they see differently.

But who is actually seeing this? What evidence do we have that anyone has actually seen anything like the afterlife?

And the fellows on the history channell sure seem to disagree with you about the proof of ghosts part.

The owners of the history channel are putting forth shows which will sell advertising. Guys running around with infrared cameras and EMF detectors and running EVP tests don't prove anything. They can't even explain why ghosts should even register on IR or EMF, or show that what they are recording is actually ghosts and not something else. Have any of them actually come right out and said, "HERE is proof of the existence of ghosts"? Not to my knowledge! They hedge and say that such and such is a good indicator of ghostly phenomenon, which is not saying anything.

But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference? You must know it in your heart.

Which is why it's called faith! Belief without evidence.

And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to?
The ones that we as a society as a whole agree to adhere and abide by I supose.

So you agree that society is the ultimate arbiter of morality, then. That's a step in the right direction, I suppose.

That is correct, they have also been measured and reported by astronuants and a number of other noetic scientists during several experiments. Its what people tend to see when they are dieing and its quite possible that its tied to our biology, which I do not find surprising in the least since so many other things conserning human spirituality are also directly tied to the natural world.

Well here, at least, is something we can agree on, though I'm still up in the air about Noetics. I'm not sure just what that's all about.

Again, I do not understand why you insist on being derogatory too all faiths.

And again, I don't see how I'm being derogatory.

And I am sorry honey child...nothing has been proven about the "theory" of evolution as of yet. Its a theory not a law.

Which shows your misunderstanding of the word 'Theory'. A scientific theory is one which has passed the test of demonstration and prediction. In science, a theory is as close as you can get to fact. Evolution HAS been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The mechanisms of evolution are still being argued, but the results can not be logically or factually disputed.

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

Exactly what I said. the rejection of belief, not a belief itself.

You will like the rest of us, have to ask the surpreme diety that for yourself someday.

LOL! That's not going to happen! If I'm right, he isn't there, so no one to ask. If you're right, there's no way I'll be getting close to him. After all, I don't think he's the greatest.

Looking at it and seeing that nothing else but God could have made it is more than enough evidence for me.

Nothing else that you can think of but God, perhaps. Still an appeal to emotion, though, not evidence.

Not my fault.

I'm not blaming you. I blame the institutions of religion. ALL of them.

Fortunately there are not enough of you to actually pull it off yet, it will be a very sad day if that happens.

Even if there were enough, we are rational enough to understand that everyone is entitle to their own beliefs. They are not entitled to force them on others. Keep religion in the churches and out of the government. And keep the government out of the churches.

Then why do you try so hard to do just that I wonder?

Is that what you think I'm doing, trying to destroy your faith? Is your faith that weak that I could have the slightest chance of doing such a thing?

I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.
No one is forcing you too.

Not yet. Plenty are trying, though.

[leo9]

I don't claim to understand anything about quantum mechanics. There are scientists who are studying quantum mechanics who don't know all that much about it. It's confusing, seemingly contradictory and exceedingly difficult to work with in the first place. What I do know is that anyone who claims that quantum mechanics "explains" anything about their belief system knows even less about it than I do. There's enough information about it that they can pick and choose bits and pieces of different hypotheses and claim almost anything they want, even if those hypotheses have not yet been tested or have even been discarded as unworkable.

I'm with you here. Quantum physics is the buzz-word now, as "vibrations" were to the Theosophists, because it sounds scientific without actually committing you to any testable facts. The most one can honestly say is that, for example, the theory of quantum entanglement might provide a physical mechanism for action at a distance without a known carrier. That's a long way from proving it happens.

We're basically talking about a being who is outside of the universe, is all-knowing and all-powerful, are we not? By definition, that is supernatural, or above natural. If god is actually a part of the natural world, then he is subject to natural laws, making him no more of a god than I am.

There's a grey area here. People have built what amounts to a religion out of Lovelock's Gaia theory, that the Earth is an organism, and speak of Her as worshippers do of their god. But I agree that gods as I and most people think of them are by definition outside physical laws; if "supernatural" sounds too like "superstitious" then let's say "spiritual".

How about an experiment involving prayer? Would that qualify?
According to this study, which I understand is one of the best designed studies of its type, "Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications."

I can see a flaw in the design right there: if I were told I was being prayed for, I'd take it as meaning that my condition must be really bad, with consequent ill effects on my clinical outcome. They should have randomised which were told they were being prayed for, and which actually were. The better designed studies have been double-blind, and some have found positive results. Let's just say that more research is needed.

Since atheism does not involve attitudes, beliefs or practices of any kind, much less religious, I fail to see why you insist on calling it a religion.

I agree that's stretching the term. Let's just call it a belief system.

One of the reasons I rely so heavily on references to the Judeo/Christian religions is because I have NOT lived among people of those other religions or nationalities. But if you cannot see the religious suppression and infiltration going on all around the world then perhaps you should pay more attention to the media. Public schools in Australia are required to have religious classes, which apparently can be taught by anyone, whether qualified to teach or not. I've already mentioned Texas. I haven't the stomach to do so again. The lawyer defending that woman condemned to stoning in Iran had to flee the country in the hopes of getting his wife released from prison, where she was being held to force him to cave in to the religious courts. All over the world such religious atrocities are occurring, every day. It's the religions of the world who are doing the persecuting, not the atheists. We only wish to keep religion OUT of public life, and keep it in the churches, temples, mosques or whatever.

And I agree. But if that's all, why the vehement attacks, the reiteration that anyone who believes in an afterlife or a divinity must be motivated either by cowardice or venality?

But who is actually seeing this? What evidence do we have that anyone has actually seen anything like the afterlife?

There is an entire school of painters who insist that they can see all the colours of the spectrum in, for example, a blue sky: and they paint it to prove it. But it's only their perception, and the fact that their paintings look real to many other people isn't evidence, because that's only subjective too. So shall we call them all liars, as well?

If I'm right, he isn't there, so no one to ask. If you're right, there's no way I'll be getting close to him. After all, I don't think he's the greatest.

But maybe he doesn't mind?

Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he found himself in the presence of God, and replied "Lord, you did not give us enough evidence."

But I recall another story of a Zen master whose new student complained that he had not taught him anything. They were walking among lilacs, and the Master said "Can you smell it? There, you see, I haven't kept anything from you!"

To those who feel it, the world - and the glorious simplicity of science - are all the evidence we need for divinity. To those who are tone-deaf in that range, there is no music, and nobody can prove there is.

Still an appeal to emotion, though, not evidence.

You say that like it's a bad thing

[Thorne]

There's a grey area here. People have built what amounts to a religion out of Lovelock's Gaia theory, that the Earth is an organism, and speak of Her as worshippers do of their god. But I agree that gods as I and most people think of them are by definition outside physical laws; if "supernatural" sounds too like "superstitious" then let's say "spiritual".

I don't particularly have a problem with the word "superstitious". I personally don't see the difference between believing that knocking on wood will deflect evil or believing that praying will deflect evil. What we call superstition now was once a part of someone's religion. What we call religion now will someday likely be part of someone else's superstition.

I can see a flaw in the design right there: if I were told I was being prayed for, I'd take it as meaning that my condition must be really bad, with consequent ill effects on my clinical outcome. They should have randomised which were told they were being prayed for, and which actually were. The better designed studies have been double-blind, and some have found positive results. Let's just say that more research is needed.

I think I see your point. There should have been a fourth group. Those told they would be prayed for (and who were NOT.) I didn't catch that, sorry.

But I believe part of their explanation for the results in the third group was the same as your conclusion. The patients became stressed because they thought they were worse off than they really were. And they (and I) also agreed that more study is needed.

I agree that's stretching the term. Let's just call it a belief system.

How can you call an attitude that denies beliefs a belief system! Or is it just that believers can't seem to overcome the idea that everybody has to believe in something?

But if that's all, why the vehement attacks, the reiteration that anyone who believes in an afterlife or a divinity must be motivated either by cowardice or venality?

Maybe I'm seeing this from the wrong perspective, since both you and denuseri have claimed these "vehement attacks". I'm not attacking anyone for their beliefs. I'm attacking those who put forth their beliefs as truth, and especially those who attempt to force others to accept those beliefs.

There is an entire school of painters who insist that they can see all the colours of the spectrum in, for example, a blue sky: and they paint it to prove it. But it's only their perception, and the fact that their paintings look real to many other people isn't evidence, because that's only subjective too. So shall we call them all liars, as well?But maybe he doesn't mind?

I've seen people who see and talk with invisible fairies and who hear voices coming from the sky. Are we to accept their pronouncements as valid perceptions? Or are they just crazy. My signature line explains my position on this.

To those who feel it, the world - and the glorious simplicity of science - are all the evidence we need for divinity. To those who are tone-deaf in that range, there is no music, and nobody can prove there is.

Yet even someone who is deaf can feel the vibrations of the music, or see the effects of the sounds in an oscilloscope. Where are the vibrations of your divinity? Which instruments can we use to see the results of his (or her) efforts?

You say that like it's a bad thing

Unless you happen to be studying emotions, allowing emotions to affect your experiments IS a bad thing.

Just as a little test, take a look through that Pharyngula blog. I'm sure you won't agree with what he has to say, more often than not, but see how often he provides links to the religious blogs he's castigating. See how often commenters deny his claims and try to refute them. While he will ban people from commenting when they get too over the top, he has a list which explains the reasons for their banning.

Now go to some of those religious sites. They seldom provide links to sites which argue against their claims, and they even more seldom allow commenters to attack their claims. They almost universally tend to edit the comments out before they can appear on the site. I understand that some of this is to eliminate vulgarity, which is sadly all to prominent among some of the more adamant atheist commenters. But I myself have attempted to make comments which are not vulgar and which are, I believe, rational and reasoned, but which refute the religious claims being made. I have seldom seen any of these comments get past moderation.

For my part, I'm more inclined to trust someone who allows you to see the "enemy's" blogs and listen to the "enemy" comments, than I am someone who is afraid to even print the opposition's name!

Which would you trust more?