Questions ABOUT non-believers

[Papillon]

Originally posted by amerikajin

To debate whether we have free will or not is nonsense. Humans - have - free - will.

 

Some choices are easier or more appealing to make than others. Such as the choice to flee from danger or the choice to eat rather than starve.

 

Yet, there are a select few people who choose to do neither in hopes of ending their own lives.

 

That's free will.

 

Free will is merely an illusion. Whether you decide to become a fireman, for example, or to eat that second helping of fries, is not decided by YOU. YOU are simply a machine, a very complex one, with a complex set of inputs. The output of the machine depends on the inputs and on how those inputs are processed internally. One never makes that decision to become a fireman - the "decision" is simply a computational, physical result of the biochemistry of your body and brain. The variables of the equation were input even before you were born, and as you grew up, more and more inputs are added. You can compare any "decision" you make, to a catalist in the reaction. Even though it may or may not cause an external effect, it's still part of the ongoing reaction. When we die, the reaction does not stop. The energy contained in our bodies dissipates, and the machine's capability for self-organization and input processing stops. Worms chew on us, gathering inputs for their own little reactions. And each is a cog in an even bigger machine.

 

Intelligence, and the fact that we can think about it, is simply an interesting phenomenon.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

 

 

The point was that "touring the room" implies knowing everything there is to know about the universe. No one has done that.

 

You're changing the analogy, you never mentioned anything about knowing everything about the universe. All you mentioned was knowing the existence of God.

 

You're saying that neither side of the argument --atheists nor theists-- have toured the room, that is to say, have been assured of the existence of God.

 

I'm pointing out that you're incorrect. I have toured this room, I have seen what's on the other side of the door.

 

One needn't die to experience God, and I think that's a sad misconception of many.

[moimeme]

Why think of a guy behind the door in the first place

 

Because you have the intellectual capacity to do so. Because you comprehend that there is much more potentially knowable than that which you already know. Because you are not content to deal with only the world that exists before your eyes. Because that there is something new you might learn makes every day exciting. Because if you don't think of anything other than what's in front of your face, you won't discover relativity or charm and strange, or how to fly people in the air.

[moimeme]

You're changing the analogy, you never mentioned anything about knowing everything about the universe.

 

I did, actually, Dyer. If you read my retort to the anti-theists' 'certainty' that God doesn't exist, it rests upon the statement that they assume that they know everything that is knowable about the universe, because only then could they make that statement and claim they are empirically correct - if they were, which we know they would not be.

 

They keep saying that God can't be proven but it was once said that humans could never fly - and doubtless 'proven' using the knowledge of the time. God may well be provable empirically after all - we just haven't the foggiest idea how to do it now. However that relativity couldn't be proven when Einstein conceived of it didn't mean it didn't exist. It only meant humans were too small to be able to prove it.

[Papillon]

Originally posted by moimeme

Why think of a guy behind the door in the first place

 

Because you have the intellectual capacity to do so. Because you comprehend that there is much more potentially knowable than that which you already know. Because you are not content to deal with only the world that exists before your eyes. Because that there is something new you might learn makes every day exciting. Because if you don't think of anything other than what's in front of your face, you won't discover relativity or charm and strange, or how to fly people in the air.

 

It goes without saying that we can certainly imagine the guy behind the door. I, for one, won't deny that it's possible (boy, what a smashing joke that would turn out to be ). Thing is, I can also imagine that there is an elephant, or a mouse, behind the door. It still does not change the paradox of deciding what in my imagination is correct - because how do I choose what to imagine? The only way to avoid this paradox is to sidestep it, and assume that there is nothing behind the door, until it decides to show itself.

 

My perspective is that Occam's razor applies: "Do not multiply entities with entities...".

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by moimeme

God may well be provable empirically after all - we just haven't the foggiest idea how to do it now.

Why must it be proven?

 

Love exists, people write songs about it, people have felt it, people know it--but it can't be proven empirically. People write songs about God.

 

Maybe the trouble is that people don't write good enough songs about God.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

The only way to avoid this paradox is to sidestep it, and assume that there is nothing behind the door, until it decides to show itself.

I think for many, it has shown itself.

[moimeme]

Why must it be proven?

 

It mustn't, unless you're a logical empiricist. So, when I run into one of those, I use logic to explain that humans are not sufficiently advanced in their knowledge to empirically prove or disprove the existence of God. There is no possible logical reply to that other than to agree, and therefore, hopefully, those who claim God can't be proven will realize that they have no leg to stand on until they know everything and can then engage in their experiments.

 

Which won't happen in our lifetime

[Papillon]

Dyer - the difference is that the alleged "existence" of god affects everyone, whether you believe or not. It affects our laws, it affects how our calendar is organised, it even affects love (gay people may not marry - this is a relgious relic...), etc, etc. My point should be obvious. A church controlled state, such as Muslim Shariya law, well, frankly, it terrifies me.

[Papillon]

Originally posted by moimeme

I use logic to explain that humans are not sufficiently advanced in their knowledge to empirically prove or disprove the existence of God. There is no possible logical reply to that other than to agree, and therefore, hopefully, those who claim God can't be proven will realize that they have no leg to stand on until they know everything and can then engage in their experiments.

 

I agree 100% with your thinking, but I would like to know whether you recognise that logically demonstrating the impossibility of proving or disproving the existence of god, you destroy your own standpoint, too, in the process

 

Essentially, what you are doing is enforcing nihilism on athiests, whereas you should then do it for your own beliefs too.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

Dyer - the difference is that the alleged "existence" of god affects everyone, whether you believe or not.

I agree, but I don't see this as negative. I believe that every thought you'll ever have, even thoughts that don't support the existence of God, is a function of God's existence. I don't believe you give God *permission* to work through you. I don't think that I'd be nearly as good at what I am unless there were atheists around to 'make me think'.

It affects our laws, it affects how our calendar is organised, it even affects love (gay people may not marry - this is a relgious relic...), etc, etc. My point should be obvious.

Whoa whoa whoa. There's a huge difference between a divine being and a human institution. Calendars, laws, and ignorance are all functions of human institutions.

 

A church controlled state, such as Muslim Shariya law, well, frankly, it terrifies me.

I too am terrified at the thought, even if I agreed with the church in charge.

[Papillon]

Originally posted by dyermaker

Whoa whoa whoa. There's a huge difference between a divine being and a human institution. Calendars, laws, and ignorance are all functions of human institutions.

 

The motivation for all these things were religious in nature, regardless of whether the origin for the motivation exists or not. That is the point. And besides, the bible explicitly states that homosexuality is a heinous thing, so from a purely religious standpoint it ISN'T ignorance. It's pure bigoted morality, from my POV. But because the specific law was church-inspired, it's being forced upon me whether I agree with the premise or not.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

The motivation for all these things were religious in nature, regardless of whether the origin for the motivation exists or not. That is the point.

Once again, there's a difference between the divine existence of GOD and the human institutions of religion. You cannot make the connection between God and ignorance--especially when you don't even believe in God.

And besides, the bible explicitly states that homosexuality is a heinous thing, so from a purely religious standpoint it ISN'T ignorance.

The Bible doesn't expilicitly say that at all. I have discussed in over a billion threads the neccessity of understanding:

1) The context of Levitical laws, and what they meant to the people at that time.

2) The translation of the word 'toehbah'

3) The knowledge of what 'homosexuality' is, and the innovations that have since took place in understanding human sexuality.

 

Do a search, a condemnation of homosexuality 's not at all relevant to a discussion on the existence of God [who's never published a book].

Additionally, even if the Holy Bible suggested we slit the throats of puppies, that doesn't reflect on God so much as it reflects on the people who wrote the Bible and used it to found their church.

 

It's pure bigoted morality, from my POV. But because the specific law was church-inspired, it's being forced upon me whether I agree with the premise or not.

Again, you're using ecclesiastical policies as a straw man for the errors in a belief in God.

[Papillon]

No, Dyer.

 

This is what a simple google turned up:

 

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

 

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

 

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

 

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

 

 

 

In any event, what are you saying - that god did not inspire the bible, and that it is wholly the work of man? My contradict-o-meter is tweaking in the red

[BlockHead]

Papillon

Bill Gates made the 640K statement when he made the decision to segment the DOS memory addressing scheme on 8-bit IBM machines.

Memory segmentation is an architectural feature of the 8086/8088 Intel processors. IBM selected the processor, and Bill Gates only worked with it.

Papillon

Thing is, I can also imagine that there is an elephant, or a mouse, behind the door. It still does not change the paradox of deciding what in my imagination is correct - because how do I choose what to imagine?

Why bother thinking when you have no free will?

Papillon

It affects our laws, it affects how our calendar is organised, it even affects love (gay people may not marry - this is a relgious relic...), etc, etc.

You don’t want religious institutions in our government, but you want some religious practices like marriage. Why have marriage?

Papillon

And besides, the bible explicitly states that homosexuality is a heinous thing, so from a purely religious standpoint it ISN'T ignorance.

I believe they condemn homosexual acts.

[Papillon]

Originally posted by BlockHead

Memory segmentation is an architectural feature of the 8086/8088 Intel processors. IBM selected the processor, and Bill Gates only worked with it.

 

Incorrect. The memory segmentation you are talking about is addressing RAM in 64K segments. It has nothing to do with the 640Kb limit. The 808x processors could address 1024K of RAM. On most systems 384Kb were "reserved", therefore the "effective limit" of 640Kb. Bill decided to design DOS around this "limit", while it wasn't strictly necessary (Unix on 8086 has had a flat address space since the chip came out). Later on, memory managers like Himem.sys allowed applications to address the extra 384Kb of ram, providing the BIOS would allow it.

 

Why bother thinking when you have no free will?

 

It's an interesting paradox, isn't it?

 

You don’t want religious institutions in our government, but you want some religious practices like marriage. Why have marriage?

 

I, for one, don't give a **** about marriage. But to others who do, their rights are infringed upon because of religious doctrine not having been eradicated from common law.

 

I believe they condemn homosexual acts.

 

You would be correct in that belief.

[rogueless]

First I would like to preface this by saying I AM a christian and this is my opinion so I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Well, for one thing, I was gonna point out what was already mentioned above. Christmas and Easter were a blend of pagan and christian holidays that were melded together long ago to entice pagans into the church. Thats what I've been taught anyway. So it makes sense that christians and nonchristians both celebrate these holidays.

As far as praying to something you don't believe in...some people have a hard time understanding that everyone does not think or respond the same way they do. I guess my point is, everyone reacts differently to the same situation. Something you do not believe in, means it does not exist, so why would you expect someone to pray to nothing?

[HokeyReligions]

What guy?

 

What door?

 

Is Bob Barker posting on here?

 

 

[moimeme]

Sigh.

 

A church controlled state, such as Muslim Shariya law, well, frankly, it terrifies me.

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with God. It's like this. A Divine exists on a level far beyond human conception. It reveals itself to humans, who are unable to comprehend what they have learned. Humans continue to use their flawed knowledge to attempt to interpret the message they got from the Divine, and the best they can do is draw analogies to their present experience. So God tries to get across the fact that removing oneself from Love and behaving in unloving ways causes suffering, and humans translate that to 'you will burn in hell'.

 

You try explaining something like how a telescope works to a five-year old and then listen to him explain it to his pals and you'll see exactly what I mean. They haven't the comprehension to get the message straight, and they they relate what they understood to others, in the process screwing up the facts pretty well. We are the five-year-olds. We are not, I seem to need to keep saying, the epitome of all knowledge and understanding.

 

Therefore that humans interpret the message they got in error and then transmit it and compound the error is not God's fault, who, if you recall, allows humans to screw up because we have free will. So He doesn't smack the kid on the head and say 'no, no, I said the lenses are GROUND, you moron'

 

The motivation for all these things were religious in nature, regardless of whether the origin for the motivation exists or not. That is the point. And besides, the bible explicitly states that homosexuality is a heinous thing, so from a purely religious standpoint it ISN'T ignorance. It's pure bigoted morality, from my POV. But because the specific law was church-inspired, it's being forced upon me whether I agree with the premise or not.

 

Um. You did a Google search on the Bible and think you understand what you read? You're making my point. Go back to what Dyer said. In fact, read this, because it hilariously points out the problems in Leviticus and elsewhere in the Bible.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?postid=198822#post198822

 

You see, humans, because they aren't so interested in Love as God told us to be, use the Bible, like everything else, to brutalize each other. God would not wish this - but - free will.

 

In any event, what are you saying - that god did not inspire the bible, and that it is wholly the work of man? My contradict-o-meter is tweaking in the red

 

See above. Noplace did God say 'Write a book about me'. Humans did it and, in their pitiful understanding, did a fairly poor job. Nonetheless, despite that, many many good things have been done in the name of God as well, but of course, the anti-theists practice their own form of selective perception and don't pay any attention to that. After all, that would mean presenting a balanced viewpoint.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

No, Dyer.

 

This is what a simple google turned up:

You need to understand Biblical context before you quote the Bible. You also need to stop and think about translations.

The paticular verse you quoted is a mistranslation--the concept of 'homosexuality' is a recent one.

 

You make the statement that the Bible condemns homosexuality. You're wrong. You're mistaken. I'm sorry, that's not correct.

I could make the argument I've made before, but you're better off using the search feature.

 

Regardless, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is the existence of God. Drawing the connection between a flawed institution and a divine entity is your logical straw man, and it's dissapointing.

 

In any event, what are you saying - that god did not inspire the bible, and that it is wholly the work of man? My contradict-o-meter is tweaking in the red

I believe that tranlations of the Bible were done for personal reasons, and some translations, including the one you posted above, lack credibility in terms of it's fidelity to the original text.

 

Please put your 'contradict-o-meter' away, you should be able to represent your side of the argument without making cute ad hominems.

[BlockHead]

Papillon

The memory of an 8086/8088 is architecturally segmented therefore the memory scheme for the original DOS had to be segmented. DUH!

http://www.osdata.com/system/physical/memmap.htm <- DOS Memory Map

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1169584,00.asp <- Bill Gates Interview

The 640kB limit was a characteristic of the 8086. The 80286 protected mode couldn’t run 8086 applications, and that made the transition difficult. Why make DOS use the extra memory (16MB) if, in the process, it could no longer run the applications without recompiling? The 80386 was too little too late because Windows already took root.

Papillon

…their rights are infringed…

I didn’t see marriage in the Bill of Rights.

Papillon

One never makes that decision to become a fireman - the "decision" is simply a computational, physical result of the biochemistry of your body and brain.

Do you believe in random numbers?

How does mutation and evolution fit into your perception of reality?

Do you believe in the existence of entropy?

[amerikajin]

Do you not see the contradiction in this? On the one hand, people get all bent out of shape because they may not have 'free will'. However, when they exercise that free will and cause havoc, God gets blamed for letting it happen

 

My point was that God was neither merciful nor cruel, it just is. I don't see the contradiction that you see.

 

You can't have it both ways! If you demand to be left alone to do as you please, then you take the consequences and don't blame God when you screw up. Either you want God to be playing us like chess pieces or you don't - you can't change your mind and say 'God, lay off and let me do what I want - but control everybody else so they behave' LOL!!!!!

 

I don't recall demanding God to leave me alone; I'm merely saying that it's been my observation that God basically does anyway - whether we demand it or not.

 

I reiterate, if God were the merciful interventionist, God wouldn't have allowed mankind to inflict so much cruelty upon each other.

 

God is neither merciful nor cruel; it just is.

[moimeme]

It wouldn't be a 'merciful' God that would prevent those things. It would be an intrusive God.

[amerikajin]

Free will is merely an illusion. Whether you decide to become a fireman, for example, or to eat that second helping of fries, is not decided by YOU. YOU are simply a machine, a very complex one, with a complex set of inputs. The output of the machine depends on the inputs and on how those inputs are processed internally. One never makes that decision to become a fireman - the "decision" is simply a computational, physical result of the biochemistry of your body and brain.

 

Well, I suppose it all depends on the definition of "free will". We run the risk of getting into an argument over semantics.

 

There are several definitions. For example, according to the American Heritage dictionary, it can be defined as:

 

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

 

2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

 

If you take the first definition, then it's hard to debate the fact that people usually have the power to make choices. As you mentioned, each person has different faculties, so the power to make good decisions may vary from person to person.

 

If you take the second definition, then the subject gets more complicated. You could argue that external circumstances or fate or "divine will" do influence "free will" to some extent, thereby casting doubt on the very existence of free will.

 

I can't prove this, but in my opinion, people generally refer to "free will" as simply the ability to make a decision based on those inputs that you have. It's often defined as the decision itself, irrespective of those outside factors that influence said decision.

 

For example, you see two cars. You're interested in both. One car is cheaper but not as sporty; the other car is sporty but won't fit in your budget. You could conceivably buy either one. Nothing is stopping you from making a bad decision. You can freely decide between a car that you like which may put you into financial trouble and a car that you don't like as much that will allow you to pay the rent every month. You could still make the wrong choice. Moreover, you could still make the wrong choice even having enough information in advance to know that you are making the wrong choice. It's free will. You have the ability to choose whichever of the two you want.

[Papillon]

Moimeme, Dyermaker.

 

I was brought up in a protestant christian faith. I was taught that the bible is the word of god, and that god inspired people to write the bible.

 

Now, the bible is either wrong or it isn't. Which one is it? (I now know that the bible is horses***, but I find it interesting that you, as christians, do no think the bible is the word of god...(not really, I'm not being sarcastic, I would appreciate it if you would explain) )

 

I don't care how YOU interpret the bible, dyer - it's pretty obvious that if "there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman", IT DOESN'T TAKE SCOOBY DOO TO FIGURE OUT what the f*** they were talking about! I care even less about "modern innovations". It's there, in black on white, and I'm pretty sure the original texts give the same message.

 

The whole point I'm trying to make, is that the restriction on gay marriage has its roots in religion, regardless of "modern innovation", and "levitical context" and whatnot. The specifics of the law are not what I'm debating here. If a law is to be passed, then surely the fundamental premise of the law has to remain coherent under scrutiny? Unfortunately, these aren't modern laws. In the past, there were few to scrutinize, it's only "modern innovations" in science that has painted life and the universe in a different light than what has been portrayed for centuries, and people started thinking more critically about what they have been led to believe. When are your "modern innovations" going to set the record straight concerning common law?

 

 

Blockhead,

 

I'll say it straight: You don't know s*** about micros.

 

The MICROPROSSESOR could address 1024K in a FLAT scheme. The 640KB limit was a SYSTEM/MOTHERBOARD architectural limit. The SYSTEM designers could reserve as much memory as they wanted for perephirals and so on. A nominal figure of 384Kb was the result, but later Bios's could allow you to address as much of the 384KB as was available. They could have decided to reserve 128Kb. It's TOTALLY arbitrary and has nothing to do with the CPU. DOS was designed with the artifical 640KB limit in mind, it became a relic of DOS even after the 286 was released. if you I load DOS 6.22 on your modern Pentium 4 or Athlon, the OPERATING SYSTEM will still be segmenting the heap, regardless of the architecture of the processor.

 

Your memory map shows how the OPERATING SYSTEM is deviding the memory, NOT THE PROCESSOR.

 

Memory maps (not to be confused with memory mapped I/O) are diagrams or charts that show how an operating system divides up main memory

 

"NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH MEMORY MAPPED I/O". The OPERATING SYSTEM is dividing the memory. The bill gates interview mentions the linear addressing of the motorola 68000, this is contrast to the SEGMENTED 64K addressing of the 8088 (segment + offset = memory address, on the 68000 you don't have to work with the offset), once again it has bugger all to do with the 640K limit. The 640K limit was totally arbitrary. Today's x86 microprocessors are still segmented, except you can set the size of a segment up to 4GB in 32-bit mode.....This gives the lie to your utter nonsense statement of the 286 not being able to run 086 code in protected mode - the legacy instruction set was identical, except for newer 16bit instructions. Protected mode only created restrictions in that a program could not execute from a 64Kb data segment, and could not write to a 64Kb code segment. That's all. Yes, it required a different way to write code, but nothing could stop legacy 8-bit code from executing in protected mode - if it behaved itself and did not try to do the above transgressions, then all would be fine.

 

Now, I've been writing assembler code for nigh on 16 years. I'm only getting warmed up - I love this stuff. Care to continue the argument?

 

I didn’t see marriage in the Bill of Rights.

 

If it's not a right, then NO one has the right to marry, and if the state should grant some the "priviledge" (assuming it's a priviledge and not a right), then it should grant that priviledge to all, regardless of race, creed or sexual preference.

 

Do you believe in random numbers?

How does mutation and evolution fit into your perception of reality?

Do you believe in the existence of entropy?

 

A random number is simply a number that cannot be predicted for lack of knowledge of the variables. A die that is thrown behaves to a fixed set of physical laws, and the interaction between it and its environment can be predicted with 100% certainty, if 100% of the variables were known. If you know the current position and attitude, rotational velocity, mass, center of mass, frictional factors, elasticity, etc, etc, you can calculate the result of the die.

 

Mutation (and one of its effects, evolution), is exactly the same as a die. The only difference is in complexity. And so is life, the bouncing of a ball, and the chemical interactions of protons and electrons in your brain which create your "consciousness". Taking drugs f***s with your brain chemistry, and thus f***s with your consciousness.

 

Entropy? Constructs of matter are sometimes capable of manageing themselves (such as living beings, and even some complex molecules like DNA for example). If the structure of the construct is changed radically enough, it loses its "auto-management" ability, and just degrades to amorphous blobs of molecules and atoms. I also believe in the entropy of energy, in that all energy will one day not have a potential difference - the energy will still be there, but that there will be no "flow" to tap into....everything will be a soft glow, if you will. But that's merely an idea.