Why is it the fault of others that what you don't provide isn't seen? Are you implying others are in control of you?
-
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!
Atheists believe in miracles more than believers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
cladking
Well-Known Member
I've decided to take "science fan fiction" as a compliment.
Certainly almost every single thing I know has been stolen from everything to which I've ever been exposed. Oh sure, I've come up with enough new ideas on my own of which I'm proud but like all people for 40,000 years I've built on what has come before. Our whole race stands on the shoulders of giants and whether you peer out with binoculars or stare at your own belly button you are still standing on giants' shoulders just by acquiring language which is the hardest thing people do in their lives.
My theory is a direct result of what I've been taught and all of my experience as seen through the prism of experiment. Without an early religious education or decades of reading the finest science fiction from the '40's through '60's I would be a different person. Without a little formal education in physics and math I would lack the tools to do simple calculations and develop a much simplified way of seeing physical reality. Without studying computer programming back in the 1960's I couldn't recognize a language that worked like computer code.
But still most everything of what I am including the words I use and the way I express myself came from giants in every field and even Egyptology. I steal insights from almost everyone as well as tidbits of evidence and citing of experiment. Someday I'll even make use of @Dan From Smithville 's idea that species don't change: Fascinating concept, I wonder how I missed it. We are each a product of our place and time as am I.
I didn't feel I was wasting my time reading science fiction then because there wasn't much culture left in those days and the little that survived largely showed up there. And I don't feel now that I was wasting my time. I got exposed to chaos theory which is a critical part of my hypotheses. I certainly stole many ideas from the greats of science fiction. "Science fan fiction" is hardly inappropriate to describe my research.
Certainly almost every single thing I know has been stolen from everything to which I've ever been exposed. Oh sure, I've come up with enough new ideas on my own of which I'm proud but like all people for 40,000 years I've built on what has come before. Our whole race stands on the shoulders of giants and whether you peer out with binoculars or stare at your own belly button you are still standing on giants' shoulders just by acquiring language which is the hardest thing people do in their lives.
My theory is a direct result of what I've been taught and all of my experience as seen through the prism of experiment. Without an early religious education or decades of reading the finest science fiction from the '40's through '60's I would be a different person. Without a little formal education in physics and math I would lack the tools to do simple calculations and develop a much simplified way of seeing physical reality. Without studying computer programming back in the 1960's I couldn't recognize a language that worked like computer code.
But still most everything of what I am including the words I use and the way I express myself came from giants in every field and even Egyptology. I steal insights from almost everyone as well as tidbits of evidence and citing of experiment. Someday I'll even make use of @Dan From Smithville 's idea that species don't change: Fascinating concept, I wonder how I missed it. We are each a product of our place and time as am I.
I didn't feel I was wasting my time reading science fiction then because there wasn't much culture left in those days and the little that survived largely showed up there. And I don't feel now that I was wasting my time. I got exposed to chaos theory which is a critical part of my hypotheses. I certainly stole many ideas from the greats of science fiction. "Science fan fiction" is hardly inappropriate to describe my research.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Do you agree I accept as axiomatic that cause precedes effect, everyone makes sense, and life is consciousness and that all of my work is based on these being true?
There's no point going forward if you don't.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The first is reasonable, the other two are problematic. Not everybody makes sense all the time. It's highly unlikely that all life is conscious.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I Corinthians 14 is one of the most important documents that exists and is little changed from the original apparently.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I didn't ask you to accept it.
I asked you to acknowledge that I take my premises as being axiomatic. I asked you to recognize that I believe them.
Until such time as you accept that I don't share any of your or Darwin's premises (like linear progress) it will remain impossible for you to understand me or to raise legitimate objections. You won't even be able to see the experiments that support this paradigm.
I am aware of your premises. Many of them came with language acquisition and this was the CHIEF stumbling block to my seeing this perspective. There is no such thing as linear progress and never was. Nothing improves over a long period, it merely changes and to us it seems to improve. Even orbits decay causing satellites to crash into the earth.
Nobody makes sense in terms of YOUR premises. They makes sense in terms of THEIR OWN premises. But you don't need to agree with this. Merely accept that I believe it.
PureX
Veteran Member
It's true that atheists believe in miracles even more than theists in the sense that atheists think existence just popped into being from absolutely nothing, and for absolutely no reason at all. That it has no mystery source, which is far crazier and more irrational than theists claiming that there is a metaphysical, supernatural source (that they call God).
Pogo
Well-Known Member
First, this was about axioms not premises.
Agreed, cause precedes effect at macroscopic scales within this universe.
Everyone makes sense, definitely not agreed as axiom, might grant as a premise but would need a lot of specification of the word sense.
As for life is consciousness, what does that even mean?
This is why we are asking, there seem to be some bases of communication that are not mutually understood.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I define "axiom" as a formal scientific usage of "premises". Many people don't know science so calling their premises "axioms" would be inappropriate. These terms both refer to underlying assumptions. "Assumption" are a kind of belief. Hence I say people make sense in terms of their premises because it applies even to every single individual who doesn't know what an "axiom" is.
It might be easier for you to just think of premises and beliefs as synonyms. Certainly every dictionary will suggest the same thing: Axioms are formal premises. My theory depends from different axioms than yours. Our premises are different.
Terminology and definitions depend from what is known to some degree. While my definitions have been streamlined they appear in the dictionary and I will define words if I ever use it differently. "Basis of science" is the first definition of "metaphysics" yet I've defined this word literally thousands of times anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm hardly inscrutable. I simply don't share your beliefs and I don't share your beliefs because I have different axioms. That life is consciousness though is theory and not axiomatic.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Well, okay, but then your conclusions are probably wrong, as any arguments based on dodgy premises will be unsound.
If accept dubious statements as axioms, then why should anybody take you seriously?
Darwin was doing empirical science. What on earth do you think his premises would be?
Are you? Do tell.
Right, so just a kind of religion to you, so I can just say I don't accept your blind faith. Got it.
Breaking news!
I have nothing to add to this thread.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
With the greatest respect: utter drivel. I'm an atheist, and I don't believe this.
ETA: And pretty much any statement about what "atheists believe" (unless it's simply that they don't believe in any gods) is going to be wrong.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not this magical poofing you ascribe to them. As for the why of this existence, that is unknown, current understanding of the universe itself has limits. There are many hypotheses none of which qualify as proofing out of nothing to the extent those terms are even meaningful.
The problem with using god as a placeholder you end up doing here is that word has so many meanings as to make it worse than useless in a "rational" thought process.
Overall, I second @ratiocinator: utter drivel.
PureX
Veteran Member
Well logically, for an atheist, either existence just popped onto being from nothing and for no reason, or it has always been (it us eternal) even though nothing IN existence is eternal. So either way, you're married to a completely irrational premise. So which is it!
Well, that's just a silly subterfuge. We all know that atheists believe there are no gods unless someone can prove otherwise. **mod edit**
Last edited by a moderator:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, as an atheist I don't hold any of these positions.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
If language and concepts can be agreed upon then communication may happen.
In this case the logic may be sound but the failure of the premise leaves the outcome at best undefined.
That is all.
PureX
Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
What ever that is supposed to mean, I have no postive thoughts about what the universe really is. I have only beliefs that seems to work.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
"Definitions from Oxford Languages ·
the·ism
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
"there are many different forms of theism""
Thus logically a-theism or not theism is not belief.
That is what the prefix means and that is what the word means.
What you personally think of atheists is personal business but don't expect others to accept your idiosyncratic definition.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, but if you go for this one "especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." as in effect theism, then a non-theist can believe in a different kind of god(s).