Atheists/Skeptics: Don't want to believe?

[Smoke]

Anyway, for the other atheists/skeptics: would you like there to be "magical" things or does the hypothetical existence of these things not appeal to you?

I'd prefer for there to be magical and supernatural things. I'd love to believe in gods and angels and demons and saints and djinn and leprechauns and elves, and I'd love to have magical powers and believe in life after death. I think I even hope, on some level, to discover that such things are true. I just don't have any reason to believe they really are.

 

[DarkSun]

I'd prefer for there to be magical and supernatural things. I'd love to believe in gods and angels and demons and saints and djinn and leprechauns and elves, and I'd love to have magical powers and believe in life after death. I think I even hope, on some level, to discover that such things are true. I just don't have any reason to believe they really are.

Personally, I wouldn't want to believe in anything except what makes sense to me personally. On that level, I think we kind of agree.

 

[Smoke]

Personally, I wouldn't want to believe in anything except what makes sense to me personally. On that level, I think we kind of agree.

I would like to believe in what is true and accurate. I don't mean I'd like to believe in such things regardless of whether they were true; I mean I think I'd like for them to be true. I mean, I wouldn't like for the Christian god or Muslim god to be true; I think they're monsters. But the Aesir and some of the Indian and Chinese deities would be pretty cool.

 

[DarkSun]

I would like to believe in what is true and accurate. I don't mean I'd like to believe in such things regardless of whether they were true; I mean I think I'd like for them to be true. I mean, I wouldn't like for the Christian god or Muslim god to be true; I think they're monsters. But the Aesir and some of the Indian and Chinese deities would be pretty cool.

You know what else would be cool?

The creation story from the Legend of Zelda.

Oh. And chickens that kill you.

 

[imaginaryme]

Law of Truly Large Numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just don't like statistics. They're evil. I can love mathematics without loving a certain (rotting, worm-infested) branch.

 

[DarkSun]

I just don't like statistics. They're evil. I can love mathematics without loving a certain (rotting, worm-infested) branch.

Did you know that there is a statistically significant link between the amount of Republicans in government, and climate change?

 

[DarkSun]

Not to mention the statistically significant link between the global pirate population and climate change.

Okay. Well. The scale is a bit off, but I'm sure the R^2 value would be pretty close to one for a linear line-of-best-fit anyway.

 

[Willamena]

Anyway, for the other atheists/skeptics: would you like there to be "magical" things or does the hypothetical existence of these things not appeal to you?

Well, technically I consider "my" "power" of imagination to be "a magical thing."

 

[MSizer]

Well, technically I consider "my" "power" of imagination to be "a magical thing."

Isn't magic something that defies normal universal norms? (NOT that I'm devaluing your creativity of course or suggesting you are "but normal"!! - that sounded a bit snobbish - I just mean that we all have creativity)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, technically I consider "my" "power" of imagination to be "a magical thing."

I think most of us consider your power of imagination to be magical.

 

[logician]

Anyway, for the other atheists/skeptics: would you like there to be "magical" things or does the hypothetical existence of these things not appeal to you?

If by "magical" you mean "unexplained", there are many unexplained things in our world, however, that does not mean no explanation exists, or one may not be forthcoming.

 

[Zorro1227]

I would love to believe in a god of some sort. However, that goes back to my security blanket thing. I long to feel secure in what will happen to me after I die. I cannot bring myself to believe in god, but in a way I really wish I could.

 

[Willamena]

Isn't magic something that defies normal universal norms?

No.

 

[dorsk188]

"I don't believe God plays with dice." ~ Albert Einstein.

And he was wrong. I often think that if Einstein was born 50 years later, he would have said: "I believe you can find God in the roll of the dice."

 

[DarkSun]

And he was wrong. I often think that if Einstein was born 50 years later, he would have said: "I believe you can find God in the roll of the dice."

Quantum Mechanics uses probability functions which don't properly describe the mechanisms behind the events taking place. We only use statistics there because it works - not because it inherently describes the nature of the world.

Besides, you can ascribe a normal distrubution curve to anything to find a link, but correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because we know that something does work given a probability density function - we don't necessarily know how. Which means our understanding could be limited, even if what we're doing works.

I actually agree with Einstein in that there are probably deterministic hidden variables which actively describe the phenomena we're seeing at a particular level. We just don't know what they are. That seems more realistic to me than saying: "Gee, I dunno how this works, so let's just make it work with a probability function."

 

[dorsk188]

I actually agree with Einstein in that there are probably deterministic hidden variables which actively describe the phenomena we're seeing at a particular level. We just don't know what they are. That seems more realistic to me than saying: "Gee, I dunno how this works, so let's just make it work with a probability function."

It seems more realistic to you because you desire the Universe to be ultimately deterministic. You seem to be saying: "Gee, I don't really like how this appears to work, so I'll just make something up without any real reason."

Personally, I think the observations we make are indicative of some sort of multiverse in which all outcomes are true, and that it is something (our consciousness?) that weeds out all but one outcome. But that's wild speculation on my part, and I'll accept the data as we have it.

 

[DarkSun]

It seems more realistic to you because you desire the Universe to be ultimately deterministic. You seem to be saying: "Gee, I don't really like how this appears to work, so I'll just make something up without any real reason."

Personally, I think the observations we make are indicative of some sort of multiverse in which all outcomes are true, and that it is something (our consciousness?) that weeds out all but one outcome. But that's wild speculation on my part, and I'll accept the data as we have it.

I'd draw the line between wild speculation and reality where you implied that it's possible for me to jump into the air and start flying. If the position of a particle can be measured with a probability function, then essentially everything is possible - even giving birth to a healthy, 2,000,000,000km tall baby, or walking through a solid brick wall without damaging the wall or yourself. To claim such things are even remotely possible is more than a bit of a quantum leap.

Oh... and as for our consciousness affecting reality. That sounds a lot like New Age-ism to me. If you jumped onto the road in front of an imaginary bus, and got imaginary run over, before being sent to an imaginary hospital - it's going to imaginary hurt a lot and you're going to imaginary die. No amount of perception-changing is going to fix that.

 

[dorsk188]

I'd draw the line between wild speculation and reality where you implied that it's possible for me to jump into the air and start flying. If the position of a particle can be measured with a probability function, then essentially everything is possible - even giving birth to a healthy, 2,000,000,000km tall baby, or walking through a solid brick wall without damaging the wall or yourself. To claim such things are even remotely possible is more than a bit of a quantum leap.

To be honest, I would have thought it less likely that matter could escape the event horizon of a black hole, but there we are...

Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it has ever happened, or ever will. This just appears to be the Universe we live in.

Oh... and as for our consciousness affecting reality.

I'm actually saying the opposite. Observation does not affect reality, observers are affected by reality (it just doesn't always appear that way all the time).

Imagine the Schrodinger's Cat scenerio. Schrodinger and Einstein mocked the idea that opening the box, observing the cat, forced the cat to be either alive or dead. I'm speculating that the cat doesn't become either alive or dead, but that the observer becomes part of the superpositional state. He both sees a dead cat and a live one, but something prevents the observer from viewing mutually exclusive realities. In essence, the Universe (or the perception of it) splits. One version of the observer sees a dead cat, the other a live cat. The mechanics of it, and what it implies for the concept of a consciousness, I don't claim to understand. And I am very ardently not claiming that a person has any ability to alter which version of reality they experience.

But, like I said, this is speculation. I accept the world as it appears to be according to the data until the data changes.

 

[DarkSun]

It seems more realistic to you because you desire the Universe to be ultimately deterministic. You seem to be saying: "Gee, I don't really like how this appears to work, so I'll just make something up without any real reason."

Perhaps you're right about that.

Imagine the Schrodinger's Cat scenerio. Schrodinger and Einstein mocked the idea that opening the box, observing the cat, forced the cat to be either alive or dead. I'm speculating that the cat doesn't become either alive or dead, but that the observer becomes part of the superpositional state. He both sees a dead cat and a live one, but something prevents the observer from viewing mutually exclusive realities. In essence, the Universe (or the perception of it) splits. One version of the observer sees a dead cat, the other a live cat. The mechanics of it, and what it implies for the concept of a consciousness, I don't claim to understand. And I am very ardently not claiming that a person has any ability to alter which version of reality they experience.

But, like I said, this is speculation. I accept the world as it appears to be according to the data until the data changes.

... If a man speaks in the middle of a forest, but no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?

 

[dorsk188]

... If a man speaks in the middle of a forest, but no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?

That depends on whether or not the woman is in the kitchen, I guess.