Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I have a growing interest in maya. I'll share my unsolicited speculations in a private conversation, ... when I can peel the dogs off my leg.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism and Faith
- Thread starter Manoah
- Start date
I have a growing interest in maya. I'll share my unsolicited speculations in a private conversation, ... when I can peel the dogs off my leg.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I wrote according to your beliefs. In my belief, there is no God, no 'self', not even a creation (no birth, no death, no hell, no heaven, no judgment). All these are denied (as I believe) in 'maya'. Of course, most 'Advaitists' differ from my view. I have a radical view of non-duality.
you are not going too far. I would love to be proven wrong. As I love to learn something new, and unlearn something wrong.
Ciao
- viole
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
You don't seem to be making any effort to understand. Or perhaps you just can't. Being an atheist does not mean claiming that gods don't exist. Some do that, but that quality is not necessary to atheism, and in my experience, most atheists don't make that claim. I don't.
I have explained what agnostic atheists believe and claim about gods, as well as telling you that I am an agnostic atheist. I need no justification to take that position apart from it being the only logical conclusion possible for the rational skeptic who believe that there is neither sufficient evidence to rule gods in or out.
You also seem to be unwilling or incapable of entertaining the idea that we are and believe what we say we are and believe. You're sure that were all lying - that we are sure that no gods exist despite telling you that we are agnostic - and trying to hide the fact that we have : "Which is why you all are trying so hard to pretend that you're just "undetermined", when clearly you are not" You seem to think you know what I believe better than I do.
I am capable of holding a middle position - the position of agnosticism, which is not limited to god beliefs. You were talking about innocence and guilt elsewhere. It is very possible to have no firm opinion one way or another.
Likewise with trust. You meet a stranger. Do you consider him trustworthy or dishonest / unreliable? For me, it's neither. I presently have no reason to trust or distrust him. I'm in that third, agnostic space between. Get back to me when I have had some experience with this person. By then I may have good reason to call him trustworthy or the opposite.
That's where I am with gods as well. Although it apparently seems impossible to you, I neither believe in gods nor believe that they cannot or do not exist. I have zero means of ruling out the deist god, for example, or any other kind of deity that doesn't manifest in our world whether that is because it is unaware of us, is unconcerned with us, or simply has no means of reaching us. What are the odds that something like that exists? I can't give an answer, so I don't.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
LOL! As Alfred Korzybski once wrote: "The map is not the territory"; Einstein's TSR is not the universe.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
*sigh* For being such a clever kid, you're having a hard time keeping up.
I'm gonna try to show you "why" I drew two Loedels when you think I only needed one. If you still don't get it, I'll look around for an interpreter.
- First, here's the table of events again. Note that there are nine of them that I'm interested in.
- Next, is another Loedel for you. Most of it should be familiar to you.
- Note that I have identified the nine events with a "frame-independent" color: yellow. Do Loedels typically have frame-dependent colored lines and frame-independent boxes that identify events? No.
- Note also that three of the boxes have numbers in them: 1, 5, and 9. Those numbers correspond to events listed in the table. They happen to be events that both frames' observers describe identically. In other words, everybody in the spaceships agrees that when A1 is adjacent to B1, B1 is adjacent to A1; when A2 is adjacent to B2, B2 is adjacent to A2; and when A3 is adjacent to B3, B3 is adjacent to A3. And it so happens that everybody in the spaceships agrees on the chronological order of those three events, to wit: #1 happened first, #9 happened last, and #5 happened in the middle of all the events.
- Now, pray tell, what is the chronological order of the other six events? To show that order, please number the boxes and let me know when you're done. Thanks.
- Note that I have identified the nine events with a "frame-independent" color: yellow. Do Loedels typically have frame-dependent colored lines and frame-independent boxes that identify events? No.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
To no one in particular, the scientists have found a star which had a companion. The Black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy devoured the companion star and flung this star so hard that it is on a space journey with a speed of 3.7 million miles per hour (S5-HVs1). The star is 29,000 light-years away and would soon (100 million years) leave the Milky Way galaxy. This happened about 5 million years ago. The Milky Way galaxy Black Hole is 4.2 million times heavier than our sun.
Black hole hurls star out of Milky Way | EarthSky.org
"It’s great to be able to confirm a 30-year-old prediction that stars can be flung out of a galaxy by the supermassive black hole at its center."
Black hole hurls star out of Milky Way | EarthSky.org
"It’s great to be able to confirm a 30-year-old prediction that stars can be flung out of a galaxy by the supermassive black hole at its center."
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
It's both deliberately confusing, and dishonest, to pretend to have taken no position when one has taken the position of "disbelief" ("unbelief"), rather than "undetermined".
"Belief" and "disbelief" (even when hidden behind "unbelief") are both asserted positions. Only "undetermined" can stand as a non-assertion.
PureX
Veteran Member
Then there is no honest reason to assert one's disbelief (unbelief) when what they purport to be is undetermined.
And the logical result, then, is that their guilt remains undetermined. If however, the defense has show with sufficient evidence that the accused IS innocent (couldn't have or almost certainly didn't do the deed), then the logical result is that they are presumed to be innocent.
No evidence does not equate to no gods, and so does not justify "disbelief (unbelief) in the existence of gods. In fact, no evidence does not justify ANY kind of belief. Which why it's both deliberately confusing and dishonest to be proclaiming one's "unbelief" and then pretending that they are "undetermined". If they were really undetermined, they would not believe, or disbelieve (unbelieve).
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
If you make an individual effort to search for the truth of God, you are like the one who will develop perceptions that are not finite and will die of thirst
Like the one lost in the desert looking for hope for water
Doubt in the presence of God it may be a need or a desire
Because a person does not like to adhere to the burdens or know a disturbing truth such as those who get sick and afraid to go to the hospital to hear unpleasant news because of laboratory results
The fact that there is a God must not be excluded and the reason that the existence of every body has a maker
In short, if we are honest investigators
We will find that every time the thought takes us to a larger founder and maker
Until we reach the finish line
This is what we call the first source of existence
I believe that the first source is the one who created everyone, and my faith in him is that he is God worthy of worship
people love to worship even if we find a sexy and wonderful girl who has sexy feminine feelings
Many are associated with it as if it were worship, as well as if influenced by a historical figure or cartoon character or a character from the movies relate to it a lot in a lifetime
As well as the worship we have when we see the forms and allegations that they are unusual we believe exist
But some like atheism are not convinced that these objects that will wear out and end and disappear from the universe are a part of divinity and this good thinking reflects the sophistication of this category in society
But at the same time we must give in to the idea that there is a maker
It does not make sense to see a building in the desert (skyscraper) made without an engineer
Thank you
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
I was atheist for around 10-12 years, and then agnostic about that long. But one day I did something pretty radical, or unusual, that is uncommon. I took a real leap of faith and did the following, though I didn't realize it, didn't know I was following a specific instruction, but did it without being aware: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." (Jer chapter 29). What happened not long after that was so...clear and impossible (I would have thought), that I no longer could speculate 'maybe God exists', but instead I had to admit 'Something clearly exists which is beyond the ordinary surface of the world, past ordinary physics' (in which I have a degree). It compelled me then to turn to read Christ's words (the "Teacher") very carefully, as I was then aware He was talking about real things, to my continuing shock. If one actually reads what Christ said (in the 4 gospel accounts), it's not at all like the popular notions you get 2nd hand (or even in a church from sermons). It's....so much more interesting and better. Perhaps I had a very good aid in that time in that I didn't expect that preachers would understand that much (in my experienced they had not, by evident proof of their sermons), so I listened to Christ, instead of those popular notions, which is a kind of real listening. His words seem clear or simple at times, but are deep like the ocean really.
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for anybody else, but I, for one, consider that to be a substantially reasonable opinion. I'd have been frustrated, annoyed, and offended far less often, had the typical relativist response been: It works and has proven effective and useful in predicting outcomes, given our current technological limitations; or something along those lines.
Pardon me if I disillusion you, but just because I'm not a fan of Einstein does not mean that Newtonian physics is my default preferred theory. In fact, I favor a Neo-Lorentzian ether approach over Einstein's, although I view Neo-Lorentzians as quasi-relativists because they don't incorporate an Absolute Space or Absolute Time in their discussions. In the Neo-Lorentzians' favor, IMO, is the fact that they are, as a rule [based on my own personal experience], a far more friendly lot and I have never encountered one who was quick to insult, demean, and belittle me in the manner that relativists habitually do. The worst characters, by far, are the pseudo-relativists (i.e. the wannabies): Quickest to insult, demean, and belittle and invariably uninformed regarding important details of just the theory of special relativity, and even more ignorant of details in the theory of general relativity. Experience has proven that those who understand the least are the quickest to offend anti-relativists and novices.
Maybe, maybe not ... I suspect that whether "faith can be a path to truth" or not calls for some kind of clarification of the domain of the truth that is sought.
Last edited:
No. That is NOT a table of events. There *are* nine events:
1. When A1 is adjacent to B1
2. When A2 is adjacent to B1
3. When A3 is adjacent to B1
4. When A1 is adjacent to B2
5. When A2 is adjacent to B2
6. When A3 is adjacent to B2
7. When A1 is adjacent to B3
8. When A2 is adjacent to B3
9. When A3 is adjacent to B3
Furthermore, *everyone* agrees that Event 1 happens before Event 4 which happens before Event 7. Similarly for 2,5,8 and 3,6,9. Also, *everyone* agrees that 1 happens before 2 which is before 3. Similarly for 4,5,6 and 7,8,9.
But what *you* write for event 2 is a combination of *two* different events: my event 2 and my event 4. Remember that an event has both a time and a location. those two events have different locations.
The lines are the space and time axes for the two spaceships. For example, the lines labeled as A1, A2, and A3 are three different fixed locations in spaceship A's frame. In the Loedel frame, however, the markers are NOT at rest, so you get these angled lines.
The same is true for the lines labeled B1, B2, B3, only they are for spaceship B.
The other blue lines are the lines that spaceship A sees as being simultaneous. So, being on one of these lines means spaceship A will see those events as happening at the same time. Similarly for the unlabeled red lines and spaceship B.
The events are simply events: locations in spacetime.
OK so far.
In what frame do you want the chronological order? In the frame of spaceship A? spaceship B? or in the Loedel frame?
The answers are different depending on which frame you mean. And, like I said, you have to be clear about what the events are. You seem to confuse the event when A1 and B2 are adjacent with the event where A2 and B1 are adjacent. They are at the same time *for spaceship A*, but are at different times for spaceship B and for the Loedel frame.
According to how I gave the events above, this is trivial. For example, the box you labeled as 1 is the event when the A1 and B1 lines intersect, so it is event 1.
Now, going by my designation of events above, the second row, left box is event 2, the right box is event 4, the left box on the third level is event 3, the right box is event 7, the left on the fourth level is event 6 and the right is event 8. Just look at which labeled lines are crossing and identify the number of that event.
The Loedel diagram is NOT a diagram from the frame of A or B. It is in the frame in which both A and B are moving at the same speed in opposite directions. That is the *definition* of the Loedel frame.
And, like I said above, we can read off the order of the events in each frame from this. For example, for spaceship A (blue lines), the event I have labeled 4 happens after 1. The events (notice the plural) 2 and 7 also happen on the same blue line (although it is not given) and so are simultaneous for spaceship A. Then event 5 happens, then 6 and 8 are simultaneous for A. Then 9.
For spaceship B, we use the unlabeled red lines. the sequence is 1, 2 and 3 simultaneous, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9.
For the Loedel frame, use horizontal lines for equal times, and find 1, 2 and 4, 3 and 5 and 7, 6 and 8, and finally 9.
Last edited:
The question is still valid. And TSR is a very accurate approximation in any case.
Being undetermined means you don't believe. Which is what unbelief means.
No dispute here. Your confusion is that you think "unbelief" means "believe the opposite." It doesn't.
Again, unbelief means not believing. We are literally telling you verbatim what we mean. We're telling you we're not believers. We even clarified that we're willing to distinguish between "disbelief" and "unbelief" to clarify that we mean "not believe" vs. "believe the opposite." I've now explained this multiple times to you, very clearly. You have resorted to accusing me of lying repeatedly about my own position, even as I go out of my way to clarify it. It would be insulting if it wasn't a transparent, desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Instead of going through all this melodrama over semantics, just give us some good evidence for a god.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
And I say 'tisn't. Ergo, you and I have an irreconcilable difference which ends discussion on the matter.
PureX
Veteran Member
No, it means you are undetermined. That you neither believe nor disbelieve.
Well, the simple fact that it can accurately predict the results of future observations is all that is required for science. You have even agreed that it does. And that *means* it is a very accurate approximation.
But that is what it *means* to be 'true' in a scientific context. The ability to correctly predict outcomes *is* the definition of 'true' for a scientific theory.