Any faith that cannot stand to be ridiculed is no kind of faith at all.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nor am I. Nor am I obsessed with irreligion.
[/quote]
Remains to be seen. I haven’t read enough of your posts.
Well yes, they volunteer and it’s to be expected that Christians respond. That’s not obsession.
No need. I didn’t say he never does. I just said I’ve never seen one started by him. Therefore if it happens it doesn’t happen too often thus not obsessive(I only used “thus” because I’d already used “therefore.”)
Tirib has only posted two or three comments in the last year or thereabouts. And kneedragger is obsessed with abortion. I don’t recall him ever discussing religion…not anything else besides abortion.
They respond to unfavourable and/or (perceived) incorrect comments about their faith. That’s hardly surprising. And it’s not obsessive because they’re not the ones bringing it up. Just in the last day or so there’s been numerous diatribes against the bible. And many of them brought up out of the blue when no one was talking about religion. There’s one such right here in this thread. That’s my point. It’s a daily ritual around here and it’s the Christians who are always on the defensive. I get that you don’t like Christianity but you should try to see things objectively.
Actually i agree with the last part.
Yes I know. I made clear I wasn’t talking about you. Shall I name names? Okay. Severiano, angrychicken, bigflamer - they’re probably the most extreme and obsessive. But it’s not just them. It seems half the people here only want to bait Christians.
[quote]
As an aside, Push and I spent a week and a half together, living in the same house, with a man who could read the Tanach, the Mishnah and the Talmud in the original Aramaic, and the topic of religion came up NOT ONCE. We were too busy talking about food, drink, travel, politics and women.
You know, important stuff.[/quote]
Yep. As I said, none of my criticism is directed at you. I was just wondering if you acknowledge the atmosphere here of militant atheism.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Any faith that cannot stand to be ridiculed is no kind of faith at all.
[/quote]
Anyone who feels the need to do so obsessively and with personal attacks has obviously got a few problems. Although in angrychicken’s case he apparently had very bad experiences with a religious nut of some sort so at least he’s got a reason not related to his own ego. Again, not talking about you. There are a few secular folk here who are not like that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Any faith that cannot stand to be ridiculed is no kind of faith at all.
[/quote]
Anyone who feels the need to do so obsessively and with personal attacks has obviously got a few problems. Although in angrychicken’s case he apparently had very bad experiences with a religious nut of some sort so at least he’s got a reason not related to his own ego. Again, not talking about you. There are a few secular folk here who are not like that.[/quote]
I get the idea of defending your values ,and respect it. You also,SM,are guitly of being condescending sometimes. You also use misnomers to describe certain things in order to make them appear negative. Example,radical pacifism,militant athiest. Espesially the 2nd example is unfair,unless you’ve seen athiests taking up arms to promote their cause. Of course many of them seems angry,etc…but your labels paint them in a derogatory light,which is the reason you use them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Tirib has only posted two or three comments in the last year or thereabouts. And kneedragger is obsessed with abortion. I don’t recall him ever discussing religion…not anything else besides abortion.[/quote]
Ah. You should see some of the threads where Tirib has REALLY gotten into it. Not just against atheists, but also against other Christians who didn’t subscribe to his particular species of Christianity.
And while I’m tempted to say that antiabortion IS Kneedragger’s religion, I’ll simply direct you to the great flurry of threads he started a while ago containing nothing but militant Catholic videos.
Yes. I suppose I should have pity on the poor Christians, who are the voiceless minority on this site and in American society at large, bullied and persecuted wherever they go by those mean, nasty atheists, deists and freethinkers, just as they have been for thousands of years.
Please.
Fair enough. But again, I’d say that the militant atheists on PWI account for only about five percent of the regulars, if that. And if the Christians just can no longer bear the atmosphere of militant atheism, well, that’s why God in his infinite wisdom and mercy created the “ignore” button.
Honest question, SexMachine: given what you know of current events, particularly in the Levant, Central Asia and in Europe, what would you say poses a greater existential threat to Western Civilisation: militant atheism, or militant theism?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Ah. You should see some of the threads where Tirib has REALLY gotten into it.
[/quote]
I have. He was posting regularly until roughly a year ago, then suddenly stopped. I thought he must’ve been raptured or something but then I realised that’s not possible because I’m still here.
I think I might’ve softened him a bit on Catholics. Or at least if not me, something appears to have. I may be mistaken but I get the impression that he’s not a “hater” notwithstanding his fundamentalist Calvinism. By which I mean, I don’t think it’s personal. But anyway, he hasn’t posted here in a while. However, I acknowledge your point but I don’t want to talk about specific posters. I’ve never had any trouble with tirib and frankly I’m a little surprised at the level of antagonism between him and others.
It’s kind of amusing to me to head people speak of “militant” Catholicism. The Vatican was defanged centuries ago.
I’m not suggesting you should have sympathy. Not at all. And I’m not complaining about how Christians are treated or anything like that at all. I’m merely saying that at this forum there are a number of extreme atheists who are obsessive. One could only be described as a genuine crank. Into almost every conversation he finds a way to inject critique of Mosaic law or something. Obsessive. That’s what I was wondering if you’d noticed and agree. It seems you don’t. In fact, it seems like you are addressing this post in the same sort of jousting, repartee and back and forth. However, that was not my intention. I don’t usually go in for the theist versus nihilist debates as I’ve seen them and been through them so many times I can virtually predict each response before it’s posted.
Pretty please?
I could probably name 25-30 T-Nation posters or thereabouts that I remember. Many of them are religious, some seem like they might be. Of the remaining atheists most are extreme and proselytising. And that is my point. Most the regular posters here who are atheists are also extreme; to the extent that I can name on one hand the ones who aren’t.
Again, I’m not asking you to feel sorry for them nor even complaining about their treatment. Merely making an observation about some of the atheists around these here parts.
Yes?
That is my name. Although I feel a bit silly now for choosing such a moniker. A lot of people misinterpret it as some kind of brag or if they don’t know my posting history they think I’m some kind of pervert or something. Oh well. Anyway, where were we? Ah, the honest question. Well I’m often asked to give an honest answer but I think this might be the first time I’ve had someone ask an honest question and to make a point xk describing it as such. So, what’s your question?
Yes…
[quote]
what would you say poses a greater existential threat to Western Civilisation: militant atheism, or militant theism?[/quote]
I’d say the bible appears to be right about false prophets and their followers.
Edited to fix quotes
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What is the fundamental nature of reality and existence?
I’m particularly interested in a physicist’s take on this. Quantum mechanics is beyond my ken, but from what I can gather, the Copenhagen Intepretation of the primacy of the observer in the breakdown of the wave function is confirmed. That is to say, any system in relation to us is pure potentiality; an abstraction until we observe the system and consequently become “entangled” with the system and alter it by the process of observation.
This has several implications. The Copenhagen Interpretation along with other quantum phenomena, seem to have revived “dualism” even leaning towards actual “mentalism” given the primacy of the observer in existentialism. Paradocially, elements of “monism” are suggested by the “oneness” of all in the singularity and the fundamental “oneness” of the universe.
One of the most startling implications was expressed in Einstein’s question to Bohr: Do you really think the moon isn’t there when you’re not looking at it?" And this is the logical extension of observable phenomena, Schrodinger’s Cat is indeed pure potentiality until observed. Reality being essentially, a cascade of wave function collapses contingent upon observation. This adds to the first cause question the first or universal observer problem. If there is a universal observer - ie God, - then the problem of infinite regress; observers all the way down; is solved. The universal observer is the primordial observer. But of course, many inconsistencies and paradoxes then arise from an omniscient observer and His effect or lackthereof in altering and entangling Himself in all systems by virtue of knowing about them. Can God know the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time; time, not in the everyday or forward and linear sense we perceive it.
Any thoughts?
Edit: My last question is apocryphal as my understanding is, it’s not meangful to ask the location and momentum at a “given time” for a number of reasons you’re probably aware.
One of the times quantum phenomena reveal is the fact that there is no “ultimate reality” - all systems being relative and contingent. And spontaneous wave function collapse upon observation - giving new meaning to I think therefore I am - reality as we perceive it is a cascade of pure potential coming into existence upon observation. What special properties does the observer have to bring things into existence; to collapse the wave function? What inconsistencies arise in a system without a “first observer” or “ultimate observer” from whom all creation derives?[/quote]
Of course, science deals with material reality. Materiel reality is determined by sensory input and consensus amongst people to determine what it is and if it is accurate. Disagreement then breeds doubt about this reality.
Does observation affect material reality then? The answer is, it depends. The weight of determining what material reality is depends on the observer(s). If you have 10 physicists of equal qualifications, in a room and 5 support the Broglieâ??Bohm theory and 5 do not, and the mathematics are equal, who is right?
If neither side gives an inch, we do not have an answer the reality is undetermined. If all 10 agree that Bohmian mechanics is true, then we have a certainty of material reality of particle-wave duality. Particle-wave duality is then a reality based on observation, calculation and consensus. If all 10 disagree with Bohmian theory, then particle-wave duality is dispelled and that is a reality based on observation, calculation and consensus. If even one physicist breaks with the majority then doubt about reality is introduced, but it’s still either one way or another. So then the reality is uncertain save for that fact that in QM you have wave and particle, but uncertainty about their relationship. So then you have observation and calculation, but lack consensus. So what can we know? We know that material reality is uncertain. We cannot take the observation out of the observer.
I think this is the most important thing about understanding reality, that we rely more heavily on consensus than even observation.
If you are in a room with 9 others, and you see a table in the room and the other 9 do not, who is right? Even if you are certain about the table’s presence and the others do not and cannot observe it you have doubt as to whether that table actually exists, even though you can see it plainly.
You start to question your own faculties more so than question the others in the room. We believe the nature of material reality mostly on the basis of consensus more so than even our own sensory input.
So what is reality? Is it not what is the case? But we cannot be certain about what that is. What we can be certain of is that something exists. The Cartesian principle. What reality is then, is that which is the case, independent of observation or consensus.
It does not mean that material reality isn’t true, it’s that we cannot know it. We might be right about what we observe and what we agree upon.
The nature of reality is that which exists. We may be indeterminate on what exists, be we can be certain something does. That’s reality.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
This is what happens when new age hocus-pocus meets rightwingoverse bible huggery.
Sorry to burst your pious bubble, but observing phenomena doesn’t change them fundamentally like you think it does. You have to interact.
It is a myth similar to “we only use 10% of our brains”. [/quote]
Depends on what you both mean by observation. In quantum particles, observation IS interaction. Meaning, if you want to see what an electron is doing, you have to bounce a photon off it (or other such methods). The problem is that a photon will change the behavior of the electron And not in just ways of adding energy or changing direction. It fundamentally alters wave patterns (which is what everything is comprised of in quantum). In the dual slit experiment, as long as you don’t observe electrons, one electron will partially go through each slit. But any method of observing the electron at either slit essentially causes the universe to resolve the probability wave to only one slit. It goes through both, but only if you don’t look at it.
Observation makes the universe figure out where something really is, and without any interaction the universe kind of estimates where stuff is and what it’s doing. Things quite literally don’t exist as exact conditions until you look.
But there is even more to it than that, even when you look and force resolution of a particular condition, the universe never fully resolves a system. The full conditions of a particle (position, direction, “speed”) don’t really exist simultaneously. If you find the exact position of an electron, you are limited on how well you can know its’ momentum and vise versa.
All matter, at all times, is at least partially undefined and any method of observation changes what and how those things are defined or left undefined.
[/quote]
Good post…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That’s a different but related problem that Einstein was concerned with. Einstein believed that there was an ultimate reality that theoretically would be “there” before you measure it if you could measure it without altering it. But the Copenhagen Interpretation says there is no ultimate reality; everything being relative. Also, it’s not just the particle inteference from observing that changes a system; actually knowing information about a system changes it. Indeed, a system only exists as abstract potential until it is known - the act of knowing itself collapses the wave function. This is what I mean by the primacy of the observer.
Edit:
"Physical quantities come in pairs which are called conjugate quantities. Examples of such conjugate pairs are position and momentum of a particle and components of spin measured around different axes. When one quantity was measured, and became determined, the conjugated quantity became indeterminate. Heisenberg explained this as a disturbance caused by measurement…
The EPR paper, written in 1935, was intended to illustrate that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, referred to as A and B, and pointed out that measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance…
[/quote]
Perhaps the key is finding the formula that tells us both the position and momentum. Then maybe we can qualify the impact of observation.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Any faith that cannot stand to be ridiculed is no kind of faith at all.
[/quote]
It’s an insecure faith at the least. That doesn’t mean however, ridicule without fair analysis is right. And many atheists also cannot stand being challenged on their beliefs either. That knife cuts both ways.
[quote]Edgy wrote:
okay -
since the mods had moved this thread to PWI, i shall remove my self and git the hell back to GAL where I belong -
sorry, PWI’ers - [/quote]
Oh you! You’re welcome to join the battle, which inevitably it will be. After all, this stuff is deeeeeeeeep.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d say the bible appears to be right about false prophets and their followers.
[/quote]
Yes, false prophets seem to abound in these benighted times.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.”
Matthew 24:4,5,11
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d say the bible appears to be right about false prophets and their followers.
[/quote]
Yes, false prophets seem to abound in these benighted times.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.”
Matthew 24:4,5,11 [/quote]
Yep. In His name…
The prophet 'Isa(Jesus) will have an important role in the end times, establishing Islam and making war until he destroys all religions save Islam. He shall kill the Evil One (Dajjal), an apocalyptic anti-Christ figure.
In one tradition of Muhammad we read that no further prophets will come to earth until 'Isa returns as 'a man of medium height, or reddish complexion, wearing two light garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head although it will not be wet. He will fight for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill pigs, and abolish the poll-tax. Allah will destroy all religions except Islam. He (‘Isa) will destroy the Evil One and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die’. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 37:4310) The Sahih Muslim has a variant of this tradition: ‘The son of Mary … will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will … abolish the poll-tax, and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept charitable gifts.’ (Sahih Muslim 287)
What do these sayings mean? The cross is a symbol of Christianity. Breaking crosses means abolishing Christianity. Pigs are associated with Christians. Killing them is another way of speaking of the destruction of Christianity. Under Islamic law the poll-tax buys the protection of the lives and property of conquered ‘people of the Book’. (At-Taubah 9:29) The abolition of the poll-tax means jihad is restarted against Christians (and Jews) living under Islam, who should convert to Islam, or else be killed or enslaved. The abundance of wealth refers to booty flowing to the Muslims from this conquest. This is what the Muslim 'Isa will do when he returns in the last days.
To sum up: Jesus was really a Muslim as were his disciples. And he will return to destroy Christianity and exterminate or enslave Christians and Jews who refuse to convert to Islam. And again, this is not some fringe sect of a Islam that teaches this. It’s mainstream Islamic orthodoxy.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That’s a different but related problem that Einstein was concerned with. Einstein believed that there was an ultimate reality that theoretically would be “there” before you measure it if you could measure it without altering it. But the Copenhagen Interpretation says there is no ultimate reality; everything being relative. Also, it’s not just the particle inteference from observing that changes a system; actually knowing information about a system changes it. Indeed, a system only exists as abstract potential until it is known - the act of knowing itself collapses the wave function. This is what I mean by the primacy of the observer.
Edit:
"Physical quantities come in pairs which are called conjugate quantities. Examples of such conjugate pairs are position and momentum of a particle and components of spin measured around different axes. When one quantity was measured, and became determined, the conjugated quantity became indeterminate. Heisenberg explained this as a disturbance caused by measurement…
The EPR paper, written in 1935, was intended to illustrate that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, referred to as A and B, and pointed out that measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance…
[/quote]
Perhaps the key is finding the formula that tells us both the position and momentum. Then maybe we can qualify the impact of observation.[/quote]
There can’t be a formula for calculating them both at the same time because a particle literally doesn’t have a fixed position and momentum. That’s the problem.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What is the fundamental nature of reality and existence?
I’m particularly interested in a physicist’s take on this. Quantum mechanics is beyond my ken, but from what I can gather, the Copenhagen Intepretation of the primacy of the observer in the breakdown of the wave function is confirmed. That is to say, any system in relation to us is pure potentiality; an abstraction until we observe the system and consequently become “entangled” with the system and alter it by the process of observation.
This has several implications. The Copenhagen Interpretation along with other quantum phenomena, seem to have revived “dualism” even leaning towards actual “mentalism” given the primacy of the observer in existentialism. Paradocially, elements of “monism” are suggested by the “oneness” of all in the singularity and the fundamental “oneness” of the universe.
One of the most startling implications was expressed in Einstein’s question to Bohr: Do you really think the moon isn’t there when you’re not looking at it?" And this is the logical extension of observable phenomena, Schrodinger’s Cat is indeed pure potentiality until observed. Reality being essentially, a cascade of wave function collapses contingent upon observation. This adds to the first cause question the first or universal observer problem. If there is a universal observer - ie God, - then the problem of infinite regress; observers all the way down; is solved. The universal observer is the primordial observer. But of course, many inconsistencies and paradoxes then arise from an omniscient observer and His effect or lackthereof in altering and entangling Himself in all systems by virtue of knowing about them. Can God know the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time; time, not in the everyday or forward and linear sense we perceive it.
Any thoughts?
Edit: My last question is apocryphal as my understanding is, it’s not meangful to ask the location and momentum at a “given time” for a number of reasons you’re probably aware.
One of the times quantum phenomena reveal is the fact that there is no “ultimate reality” - all systems being relative and contingent. And spontaneous wave function collapse upon observation - giving new meaning to I think therefore I am - reality as we perceive it is a cascade of pure potential coming into existence upon observation. What special properties does the observer have to bring things into existence; to collapse the wave function? What inconsistencies arise in a system without a “first observer” or “ultimate observer” from whom all creation derives?[/quote]
Of course, science deals with material reality. Materiel reality is determined by sensory input and consensus amongst people to determine what it is and if it is accurate. Disagreement then breeds doubt about this reality.
Does observation affect material reality then? The answer is, it depends. The weight of determining what material reality is depends on the observer(s). If you have 10 physicists of equal qualifications, in a room and 5 support the Broglie�¢??Bohm theory and 5 do not, and the mathematics are equal, who is right?
If neither side gives an inch, we do not have an answer the reality is undetermined. If all 10 agree that Bohmian mechanics is true, then we have a certainty of material reality of particle-wave duality. Particle-wave duality is then a reality based on observation, calculation and consensus. If all 10 disagree with Bohmian theory, then particle-wave duality is dispelled and that is a reality based on observation, calculation and consensus. If even one physicist breaks with the majority then doubt about reality is introduced, but it’s still either one way or another. So then the reality is uncertain save for that fact that in QM you have wave and particle, but uncertainty about their relationship. So then you have observation and calculation, but lack consensus. So what can we know? We know that material reality is uncertain. We cannot take the observation out of the observer.
I think this is the most important thing about understanding reality, that we rely more heavily on consensus than even observation.
If you are in a room with 9 others, and you see a table in the room and the other 9 do not, who is right? Even if you are certain about the table’s presence and the others do not and cannot observe it you have doubt as to whether that table actually exists, even though you can see it plainly.
You start to question your own faculties more so than question the others in the room. We believe the nature of material reality mostly on the basis of consensus more so than even our own sensory input.
So what is reality? Is it not what is the case? But we cannot be certain about what that is. What we can be certain of is that something exists. The Cartesian principle. What reality is then, is that which is the case, independent of observation or consensus.
It does not mean that material reality isn’t true, it’s that we cannot know it. We might be right about what we observe and what we agree upon.
The nature of reality is that which exists. We may be indeterminate on what exists, be we can be certain something does. That’s reality.[/quote]
I was hoping to get some feedback from a physicist on this but my understanding is the latest experiments indicate pilot wave theory is useful for calculating certain things but it’s not an accurate theory. But unfortunately it’s beyond my ken. I’m just going on a few things I’ve read but I am not in a position to say if what I’ve been reading is accurate nor if I’ve understood it completely. I’m also under the impression that the most recent experiments have given more credence to the Copenhagen Interpretation which is profoundly weird to say the least.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I have. He was posting regularly until roughly a year ago, then suddenly stopped. I thought he must’ve been raptured or something but then I realised that’s not possible because I’m still here.[/quote]
Just curious: is belief in the Rapture, Tribulation and Millennium pretty prevalent amongst Protestant Christians in Australia?
Then you may be amused to know that Kneedragger’s Vortex videos came from a website called churchmilitant.tv.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Just curious: is belief in the Rapture, Tribulation and Millennium pretty prevalent amongst Protestant Christians in Australia?
[/quote]
It depends on the denomination. Plymouth Brethren do. Some evangelicals do. Not too sure about other denominations but I imagine they have the same beliefs here as elsewhere.
I’m familiar with that site. However, their use of the word “militant” is misplaced. They’re not a “militant” organisation. I don’t really know of any “militant” Christian organisations.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Just curious: is belief in the Rapture, Tribulation and Millennium pretty prevalent amongst Protestant Christians in Australia?
[/quote]
It depends on the denomination. Plymouth Brethren do. Some evangelicals do. Not too sure about other denominations but I imagine they have the same beliefs here as elsewhere.
I’m familiar with that site. However, their use of the word “militant” is misplaced. They’re not a “militant” organisation. I don’t really know of any “militant” Christian organisations.
[/quote]
How about the Salvation Army? Lol 
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
There can’t be a formula for calculating them both at the same time because a particle literally doesn’t have a fixed position and momentum. That’s the problem.[/quote]
Yes of course that’s the problem now. I know it hasn’t been done, not so sure it cannot. It cannot be done with the tools we have currently, but we may only have a hammer where we may need a wrench.