Intro: Time on my hands [Archive] - Raving Atheists Forum

Sartre1

10-25-2007, 03:29 PM

Recently retired so I have some time on my hands. It was fun to discover this forum. Thirty years ago it was very lonely being an atheist. There were,of course, atheists out there, but it was difficult to find them once I had left university. I'm married, two grown daughters who are "second generation " atheists. I have made one Roman Catholic priest, three Jehovah Witnesses and two door knocking Baptists leave my home in tears. That was some years ago. I've mellowed somewhat and have replaced anger with pity when confronted with the theistic fairy tales. Greg

P.S. The screen name is Sartre1, not to be confused with the other person using the tag Sartre

nkb

10-25-2007, 03:37 PM

Again, welcome to the island of sanity. Good to have you here.

Professor Chaos

10-25-2007, 04:28 PM

Is it any wonder I've got tooooooo much

http://www.taiwanroot.org/gif/CLAPPING.jpg

time on my hands, it's ticking away with my sanity, I've got toooooo much

http://www.taiwanroot.org/gif/CLAPPING.jpg

time on my hands, it's hard to believe such a calamity, I've got toooo much

http://www.taiwanroot.org/gif/CLAPPING.jpg

time on my....

I need a fucking life. :(

Kamikaze189

10-25-2007, 04:31 PM

Long-winded? Retired? Literate? Lots of time on your hands?

You sound like blog material to me.

Also, I'm curious as to how you got all the door-to-door evangelists to cry. I'll take any tips and advice on that subject that you might have. Not too many of them come around here, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Rat Bastard

10-25-2007, 10:15 PM

Welcome, Sartre1!

Yes, do please help us deliver the mesage that makes baby jeebus and grown people cry! We have some xtian goo stuck to the bottom of our shoe, and maybe those tears will help as a release agent, and they will finally fuck off.

Eva

10-25-2007, 11:23 PM

welcome, sartre1, and please oh please, do tell how you made grown xtians cry! inquiring minds want to shamelessly imitate know...

Lurker

10-25-2007, 11:42 PM

welcome, sartre1, and please oh please, do tell how you made grown xtians cry! inquiring minds want to shamelessly imitate know...
I'm curious too. I'll get the Kleenex just in case.

Rat Bastard

10-25-2007, 11:44 PM

I'm curious too. I'll get the Kleenex just in case.

Hey! How's come Ghoulslime isn't on your ignore list, yet? You double-talking, or what?

LEToxin

10-25-2007, 11:49 PM

I'm curious too. I'll get the Kleenex just in case.

You actually cracked me up with this.

Gnosital

10-25-2007, 11:51 PM

Gnosital

10-25-2007, 11:53 PM

Hey! How's come Ghoulslime isn't on your ignore list, yet? You double-talking, or what?

Rattie, did you notice how RIGHT after you mentioned that, the post was changed?

Ignore list indeed.

What a lying cunt he is.

Gnosital

10-25-2007, 11:55 PM

Sartre1

10-26-2007, 08:33 AM

I just typed out a response in the advanced section. When I hit submit it told me I wasn't logged on, but I was. This is an experiment to see if my computer needs a cup of coffee or it's me..........

Sartre1

10-26-2007, 08:56 AM

With the exception of the priest, the others were your typical door knocking recruiters for Jesus. I will give the Reader's Digest version of events. My practice is to invite them in to my house, offer coffee or whatever and foster a friendly, open atmosphere. I encourage them to expain why they believe in god. Since all empirically based arguments for god's existence are variations of Aquinas's five proofs, I discredit them one by one. (It helps, of course, if these people are moderately intelligent). There is some resistance on their part but over time they will inevitably admit that there is no empirical evidence to support god's existence. At this point, and keep in mind that we are in a very friendly discussion, they go to their default position which is, that belief in god is a matter of faith. I enthusiastically agree but then ask how their "faith" is any different than that of the mental patient who believes that he is Napoleon. There is no evidence to support either position so there is no qualitative difference between the two. As long as they are willing to admit that their position is on no firmer ground than Napleon then we can all part in friendly agreement. With some people, this conclusion proves to be devastating.
The priest was a different story. He was a friend of a friend of mine. The format of the argument was the same but I felt bad afterwords. The Jehovah's Witnesses keep files on the people they visit. I haven't seen one of them in years. I miss them. What a country! People come right to your door to be abused.

Eva

10-26-2007, 10:18 AM

telling xtians that a crazy person believing he is napoleon is not qualitatively different than believing in a god sounds fun! and a nice way of planting the seed of doubt...
good job, sartre!

Lily

10-26-2007, 10:30 AM

Smellyoldgit

10-26-2007, 10:36 AM

Actually, it isn't. It is quite preposterous.

http://www.ruprecht.com/Napoleon.gif

Eva

10-26-2007, 10:40 AM

Moo-lily the Preposterous Cow hath spoken. It's a miracle!

Lurker

10-26-2007, 12:40 PM

telling xtians that a crazy person believing he is napoleon is not qualitatively different than believing in a god sounds fun! and a nice way of planting the seed of doubt...
good job, sartre!
I gotta agree with Lily. This is the same, tired argument against God that fails to address the point Christians, and the bible, are making. It's a strawman so why anyone would cry or get upset is beyond me. :\

Eva

10-26-2007, 01:47 PM

because it shows that believing you are napoleon and believing in a sky-daddy are both products of your imagination....and that one is a "pathology" of the mind, and that the other is a socially acepted pathology of the mind....

you can't deny the parallels, even if i am not making it very clear with my words...

Lily

10-26-2007, 01:54 PM

Let me make it easy for you. It is rather easy to prove that I am not Napoleon. What is your proof that there is no God?

Eva

10-26-2007, 01:58 PM

i believe now! cows TYPE!!!!!!

anotherTim

10-26-2007, 01:59 PM

Just change Napoleon to Zeus and there you go. Cuckoo Bananas all of you

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 02:04 PM

Let me make it easy for you. It is rather easy to prove that I am not Napoleon. What is your proof that there is no God?

Can you prove you're not the reincarnated soul of Napoleon?

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 02:18 PM

The Jehovah's Witnesses keep files on the people they visit. I haven't seen one of them in years. I miss them. What a country! People come right to your door to be abused.
Is this true?

I get visits from my local JWs about every couple of months and, while I'm unfailingly polite, I almost never entertain them beyond saying I'm not interested. Perhaps, doing what you have done is the way to keep them permanently at bay.

Oh, and welcome, Sartre1.

Lily

10-26-2007, 02:19 PM

Can you prove you're not the reincarnated soul of Napoleon?

What has that got to do with anything? My delusions or lack thereof do not equate to proof or disproof of the existence of God. Likewise, changing Napoleon to Zeus accomplishes absolutely nothing. It is pretty darned easy to prove that I am not Zeus. I want to know what your proof is that God does not exist. Only then can we compare "pathologies".

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 02:21 PM

What has that got to do with anything? My delusions or lack thereof do not equate to proof or disproof of the existence of God. Likewise, changing Napoleon to Zeus accomplishes absolutely nothing. It is pretty darned easy to prove that I am not Zeus. I want to know what your proof is that God does not exist. Only then can we compare "pathologies".

They why your post 21? Can you prove it or not?

Eva

10-26-2007, 02:22 PM

both delusions are parallel, and there's nothing you can say to deny it, serene bovinity.

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 02:25 PM

What is your proof that there is no God?
The fact that you can't prove it does exist.

Kamikaze189

10-26-2007, 02:42 PM

Lily

10-26-2007, 02:46 PM

The fact that you can't prove it does exist.
Nope. That accomplishes nothing.

both delusions are parallel, and there's nothing you can say to deny it, serene bovinity.

They are not parallel. Unless and until you prove that there is no God, belief in God is not a delusion and, therefore, the two things cannot be compared. No amount of mooing on your end can make it so. In fact, it is a delusion to think that it can. Hmmm. I wonder ... Hey, Eva! Ordered any troops into Russia recently?

Lily

10-26-2007, 02:48 PM

Sartre1's point is that faith and delusion are the same thing.

One guy believes he can step in front of a train and stop it like superman, while another believes in god. Neither have proof, so they are both either using faith or being deluded.

So which is it? Is leaping to a conclusion absent-mindedly really a virtue?

His point is a proposition. Propositions are either true or false. What is the proof that faith and delusion are the same thing? Stating it does not prove it.

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 02:50 PM

It is pretty darned easy to prove that I am not Zeus.
Not if you really believed you were. Your resistence to the evidence or lack thereof is what we would commonly refer to as the delusion.

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 02:50 PM

Lily

10-26-2007, 02:52 PM

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 02:53 PM

That is a proposition. Now argue it.

My point exactly. You don't need to prove a disbelief (as you state atheists do in proving gawd doesn't exist). If you did you'd have to disprove the existence off all non-existence things.

Lily

10-26-2007, 02:55 PM

Not if you really believed you were. Your resistence to the evidence or lack thereof is what we would commonly refer to as the delusion.

That is irrelevant--of course a deluded person is going to be impervious to reason. We are talking about comparing pathologies. Obviously, that means others are involved, so that my delusion and the delusion of a believer in God can be compared. So, again I say, to prove that I am not Napoleon is easy. Now, prove that there is no God. Then let's compare the pathologies involved when someone believes in God anyway.

Lily

10-26-2007, 02:56 PM

My point exactly. You don't need to prove a disbelief (as you state atheists do in proving gawd doesn't exist). If you did you'd have to disprove the existence off all non-existence things.

Not quite. I say that there is sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational. That puts you in the position of showing where I am wrong so that we may compare "pathologies".

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 02:59 PM

Nope. That accomplishes nothing.
Well, of course not if you're under the delusion that the thing you claim exists does even when you can't prove that it does. It won't work with you any more than it would work with the person living under the delusion that he/she is Zeus.*

*Looks like this needed its own post.

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 03:00 PM

Not quite. I say that there is sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational. That puts you in the position of showing where I am wrong so that we may compare "pathologies".

Who said anything about "pathologies" (I know who did, but that's not the point of my post). You're making the claim that atheists need to "prove" god doesn't exist. All I'm doing is pointing out your flawed logic (and that it hardly seems fair that you require atheists to "prove god doesn't exist" while all you need is "sufficient proof that belief in god is rational").

Eva

10-26-2007, 03:03 PM

moo-cow, grow up. santa claus exists. prove he does not.

Lily

10-26-2007, 03:04 PM

Who said anything about "pathologies" (I know who did, but that's not the point of my post). You're making the claim that atheists need to "prove" god doesn't exist. All I'm doing is pointing out your flawed logic (and that it hardly seems fair that you require atheists to "prove god doesn't exist" while all you need is "sufficient proof that belief in god is rational").

Stay on topic! Someone claimed that belief in God is a delusion on a par with someone believing that he is Napoleon. Until you can prove that belief in God is a delusion, you cannot argue that it is the same pathology exhibited by someone who believes himself to be Napoleon. We need some sort of proof for that claim.

Got any?

Eva failed miserably. (quelle surprise!)

Eva

10-26-2007, 03:04 PM

irre, this is the perfect thread....afterall, we do have time on our hands to debate this stupid delusions......

Eva

10-26-2007, 03:07 PM

uh-oh....the "standard of proof" dilemma, once again....

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 03:08 PM

Not quite. I say that there is sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational.

Over and over you say this.

Over and over you refuse to provide said proof.

Hmmm.....

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 03:10 PM

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 03:11 PM

Obviously, that means others are involved, so that my delusion and the delusion of a believer in God can be compared.
It's been compared, only you refuse* to see how apt it is, perhaps, stymied by the fact that believers in God are under a mass delusion. If the deluded person who believes himself or herself to be Zeus can get others to join him or her in that delusion, it's practically the same as a religion. There are, after all, folks out there who have convinced others that they are Jesus or Muhammad reincarnated.

*Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it also is quite possible that you are incapable of seeing the aptness of the comparison.

Eva

10-26-2007, 03:11 PM

prof, her proof is that the bible, interpreted correctly, says so.

ocmpoma

10-26-2007, 03:14 PM

Lily

10-26-2007, 03:14 PM

Over and over you say this.

Over and over you refuse to provide said proof.

Hmmm.....

I love these slippery, evasive tactics. You are changing the subject and I think I know why. Let's either stay on topic or, you need to admit that you cannot make a coherent case that belief in God is a delusion of the same sort as exhibited by the man who thinks that he is Napoleon.

What's your pleasure?

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 03:17 PM

I love these slippery, evasive tactics. You are changing the subject and I think I know why. Let's either stay on topic or, you need to admit that you cannot make a coherent case that belief in God is a delusion of the same sort as exhibited by the man who thinks that he is Napoleon.

What's your pleasure?

1.) Clearly you love "slippery, evasive tactics," as evidenced by your refusal to provide evidence that you are not the reincarnated soul of Napoleon.

2.) Clearly you love "slippery, evasive tactics," as evidenced by your refusal to provide "sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational."

I've changed no subject. You, on the other hand...

Lily

10-26-2007, 03:18 PM

Lily

10-26-2007, 03:21 PM

1.) Clearly you love "slippery, evasive tactics," as evidenced by your refusal to provide evidence that you are not the reincarnated soul of Napoleon.

2.) Clearly you love "slippery, evasive tactics," as evidenced by your refusal to provide "sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational."

I've changed no subject. You, on the other hand...

1. Do you actually think that I am the reincarnated soul of Napoleon? How would I prove or disprove that, I wonder? Since I don't believe it, it isn't exactly a problem for me.

2. All of us theists who have posted here have provided sufficient evidence that belief in God is perfectly rational. The proof is all around you in real life, as well. The burden is on you to prove that it is not rational.

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 03:24 PM

I love these slippery, evasive tactics.
No one here, other than you, is dealing in evasions. You are the one claiming a thing a exists and then steadfastly offers no proof for your claim. You know darn well I can't, for instance, prove that a giant, invisible cat is not sitting on my head right now. But in the absence of any proof that such a thing is resting on my head, it's perfectly logical to believe that it is, indeed, [i]not[i] on my head. Now. Since no one can see it, touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it or otherwise objectively measure this thing, how are you or anybody else in any position to claim its existence?

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 03:28 PM

1. Do you actually think that I am the reincarnated soul of Napoleon? How would I prove or disprove that, I wonder? Since I don't believe it, it isn't exactly a problem for me.

2. All of us theists who have posted here have provided sufficient evidence that belief in God is perfectly rational. The proof is all around you in real life, as well. The burden is on you to prove that it is not rational.

1.) You claimed you could prove that you weren't. I claimed nothing.
2.) All you're proving here is your love of "slippery, evasive tactics."

Lily: "I can prove something."
Anyone else: "Ok, prove it."
Lily: "..."

Lily

10-26-2007, 03:32 PM

1.) You claimed you could prove that you weren't. I claimed nothing.
2.) All you're proving here is your love of "slippery, evasive tactics."

Lily: "I can prove something."
Anyone else: "Ok, prove it."
Lily: "..."

Will you kindly stay on topic? I did not say that it would be easy to prove that I am not the reincarnated soul of Napoleon. I said it would be easy to prove that I am not Napoleon. Do you really dispute that? If you do we are really stuck.

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 03:35 PM

Will you kindly stay on topic? I said it would be easy to prove that I am not Napoleon. Do you really dispute that?
Do you dispute that you have as much proof for your claim that God exists as I have that you are Napolean?

Edit: You can't see God, hear it, touch it, taste it or smell it. You can't objectively measure it. You can't even describe what this thing is supposed to be in terms that the human mind can comprehend. How are you in any position to prove that it exists, let alone even know that it does?

Eva

10-26-2007, 03:36 PM

lily, if you believe you are napoleon, you came to that conclusion without any basis in reality or truth. same goes to your belief in magic sky daddy....

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 03:40 PM

It's like talking to a retarded child on coke.

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 04:06 PM

*Crickets*

It bears repeating: You can't see it. You can't hear it. You can't touch it. You can't taste it. You can't smell it. You cannot objectively measure it.

If you believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence,* you are living under a delusion.

*That's clearer, and more accurate.

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 04:11 PM

If you believe chanting Latin turns triscuits into 2,000 year old dead guy, you are living under a delusion.

If you believe an invisible being can read your thoughts, you are living under a delusion.

If you believe that a superJew existed 2,000 years ago that walked on water before turning it into wine and rising from the dead after three days, you are living under a delusion.

If you are a self-described "Christian" who has trolled a "Raving Atheists" forum for a couple of years and have alienated each and every member there with your arrogance, insults, and condescension; and virtually every member there either dislikes, ignores, or pities (sometimes all three) you, yet you still feel that there is value in your life to spending hours there daily, you might be living under a delusion.

Lurker

10-26-2007, 04:18 PM

I knew this would start a firestorm.

Lurker

10-26-2007, 04:22 PM

Lily, unless you can prove there are no invisible mango-spirits of redemption who watch you shower and make fun of your genitals, belief in invisible mango-spirits of redemption is not delusional (and thus equal to your belief in gawd).
Come on, Rhino, you're smarter than this. This so-called argument fails for the same reasons. It's not equal at all.

Here....read this (http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1176260461.shtml) and this (http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/10/why-teapots-and-spaghetti-monsters-miss.html).

Eva

10-26-2007, 04:23 PM

firestorm? what firestorm? we are being civilized. presenting facts to oppose her delusion.
besides, nobody has called her a (c)unt yet....:poke:

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 04:24 PM

I called her a retarded child on coke. That's got to count for something.

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 04:25 PM

I still like Lily, Professor Chaos. And I'd pity her more if she did not have the company of millions upon millions of other deluded folk. It's what makes her delusion acceptable. If a significant majority of folk similarly believed they had giant, invisible cats on their heads or that they were demigods or Napolean, Thomas Jefferson or some other deceased person from history, these would also be acceptable delusions. Hence, it's not an impairment, which, I imagine for those afflicted, is its saving grace. One can indulge it without shame.

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 04:26 PM

I still like Lily, Professor Chaos.

Believe it or not, so do I. But I think we're the only two.

EDIT TO ADD: Well, kind of. But she's been pushing it lately. Granted, I'm sure she doesn't think too highly of me anymore since I've been an incorrigible prick to her. Which, of course, she brought on herself. Admittedly, I tend to go overboard at times. With her, I definitely do. There aren't many times she enters a conversation without insulting someone, often me. I got pretty fed up a couple weeks back after months of peace.

Lily

10-26-2007, 04:27 PM

I called her a retarded child on coke. That's got to count for something.

It counts for nothing. It is just more of the same evasion of the topic at hand. All the insults in the world can't change that.

They do, however, put an end to any possibility of a discussion.

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 04:29 PM

I knew this would start a firestorm.
Welcome to ravingatheists.com

If we also believed in the supernatural, we'd be praying to invisible gods with you, or fighting over whose god was more real.

Eva

10-26-2007, 04:32 PM

moo hoo hoo.

poor lily.

Lily

10-26-2007, 04:33 PM

I knew this would start a firestorm.

Well, that's why I wanted to stay out of your thread yesterday. Unfortunately, the forum pervert came along and finished it off anyway, so my effort was in vain. :(

Eva

10-26-2007, 04:36 PM

if you wanted to stay out, what made you write in it? your invisible sky daddy?

Irreligious

10-26-2007, 04:43 PM

...so my effort was in vain.
Here, in this particular venue, they almost always are, Lily. It's the nature of the beast. We are unrepentant skeptics when it comes to claims that are devoid of evidence to support them.

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 04:45 PM

What effort?

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 04:55 PM

Come on, Rhino, you're smarter than this. This so-called argument fails for the same reasons. It's not equal at all.

Here....read this (http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1176260461.shtml) and this (http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/10/why-teapots-and-spaghetti-monsters-miss.html).

Sorry Lurker, swing and a miss. The very narrow point I was making is that it's pointless to require someone to prove a negative, as Lily was (initially) doing with her "prove god doesn't exist". My Mango-Spirits are just a counter-example of something she doesn't believe in, and asking for the absurd requirement of justifying her non-belief. The burden of proof rests on the person making a claim, not on the one denying/not accepting it.

Lily

10-26-2007, 05:00 PM

The burden of proof rests on the person making a claim, not on the one denying/not accepting it.

Absolutely correct. So, let's go back to the original claim--way back before this thread got hijacked with the usual insults, evasions and mooing-- you know, that claim that belief in God is a delusion and is the same delusion exhibited by someone who believes he is Napoleon.

I grant that disproving God is going to be hard. If you can suggest a better way to prove that the two delusions are one and the same kind of thing, please have at it.

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 05:01 PM

Absolutely correct. So, to go back to the original claim--

It is rather easy to prove that I am not Napoleon.

Still waiting.

Eva

10-26-2007, 05:06 PM

not the same....parallel....the paths to both kinds of delusions is parallel....

Lily

10-26-2007, 05:07 PM

In what way(s)?

Lurker

10-26-2007, 05:11 PM

Eva

10-26-2007, 05:30 PM

In what way(s)?

i posted it in another post that you ignored, on this same thread....

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 05:46 PM

Rhino,
Lily makes the same point I was trying to make...specifically, that the beliefs are not equal. You are saying, with a positive claim, that the beliefs ARE equal so have at it my friend, make your case. I think you'll find strawmen all over the place.

Again, my point has nothing to do with the claim belief in God is a delusion and is the same delusion exhibited by someone who believes he is Napoleon. I'm remaining silent on that point. All I've done is point out that you can't rest the burden of proof on someone who doesn't hold a belief, something that Lily eventually agreed with (and then turned around and asked for again, sigh).

As for "beliefs are not equal", again, that's your burden of proof, you're the one making the positive claim. I'd hesitate going this route though, every time you make a belief "special", all you're doing is conceding a point your belief can't stand up to. Indeed, your belief does become "special", but in the "short-bus wearing a helmet" kind of way.

Lurker

10-26-2007, 05:48 PM

As for "beliefs are not equal", again, that's your burden of proof, you're the one making the positive claim.
I take the negative position. I lack belief that the beliefs are equal. :P

Seriously though, the links I provided support the positive claim.

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 05:51 PM

I take the negative position. I lack belief that the beliefs are equal. :P

:lol: Nice one.

Sorry, but you start from the position that "all things being equal" (that's how logic works), and to claim special positions for beliefs is moving beyond the base (and hence being a positive belief). If you didn't start with "all things being equal" you might as well throw all of logic out the window.

Lurker

10-26-2007, 05:59 PM

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 06:01 PM

Rhino vs. Lurker moderated thread, is belief delusional, starting off by defining, delusional?

You guys game? We'll keep the kids out. :)

Gnosital

10-26-2007, 06:02 PM

I gotta agree with Lily. This is the same, tired argument against God that fails to address the point Christians, and the bible, are making. It's a strawman so why anyone would cry or get upset is beyond me. :\

WHAT!??!!?!!?!!??

YOU did NOT just say you agree with the lillymoo!!!!

UNfucking believable. I mean, who would have ever thought???

Oh wait, I forgot. Lurky actually never has an original thought, so he's pretty much limited to agreeing with people who post things he thinks he understands.

Gnosital

10-26-2007, 06:03 PM

Not if you really believed you were. Your resistence to the evidence or lack thereof is what we would commonly refer to as the delusion.

Nice form, Irr. ;)

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 06:05 PM

Rhino,
I was going to add another outcome to my previous comment. Either you'll find strawmen all over the place or you'll demonstrate how delusional YOU are in the process. Delusional in a non-religious way, but delusional nonetheless because your epistemology forces you into this position - or so I think.

I'd love to discuss the epistemology behind discerning a delusional belief from a rational one. Perhaps on another thread....

If you want to start a new thread to discuss this, I'm game (besides, this an "introduction" thread, we should move all discussion elsewhere anyway). I haven't addressed the points of your links yet, but I'll do so if you start a new thread (here's a teaser: Rhoda is an idiot).

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 06:07 PM

Rhino vs. Lurker moderated thread, is belief delusional, starting off by defining, delusional?

You guys game? We'll keep the kids out. :)

I'm for a moderated thread, but not on delusion, but on whether belief in God is "special" in some way (which is what Lurkers links are about).

nkb

10-26-2007, 06:11 PM

Lurker

10-26-2007, 06:18 PM

I'm for a moderated thread, but not on delusion, but on whether belief in God is "special" in some way (which is what Lurkers links are about).
Delusional is slang for irrational. Special or not doesn't matter to me because what do these words really mean at the end of the day?

Gnosital

10-26-2007, 06:19 PM

They do, however, put an end to any possibility of a discussion.

How fortunate for you, since you were pretty much out of excuses.

Again.

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found it without it." G.K. Chesterton

That has to be one of the stupidest quotes ever.

Lurker

10-26-2007, 06:20 PM

Oh, and after 7 pages, welcome Sartre1 :lol:

Gnosital

10-26-2007, 06:25 PM

Oh, and after 7 pages, welcome Sartre1 :lol:

What a prick.

Oh wait... ;)

Forgot the requisite obsequious smilie.

Rhinoqulous

10-26-2007, 06:26 PM

Delusional is slang for irrational. Special or not doesn't matter to me because what do these words really mean at the end of the day?

The point of your links is that belief in God is "different" in some way than other beliefs. This is what I mean by special. So you would be taking the position that they are special, and comparisons to such things as teapots orbiting the sun or the mango-spirits fail to address the point. I'd be taking the opposite position (the beliefs are not special, or at least not different enough to warrant immunity from these types of critiques).

Lily

10-26-2007, 06:40 PM

I stopped counting how many tangential arguments have started from Sartre1's post.

Multiple people, including Lily, have twisted the original argument, in my understanding of it.

The question is simply, what do both of these views have in common (someone believing there is a God and someone believing they are Napoleon)? Neither has any positive evidence to back it up, yet both people fully believe it.

I despair. I do really despair. Here is eva in #15 of this very thread:

telling xtians that a crazy person believing he is napoleon is not qualitatively different than believing in a god sounds fun! and a nice way of planting the seed of doubt...
good job, sartre! Then, in #28 both delusions are parallel, and there's nothing you can say to deny it, serene bovinity.

Then there is Kamikaze in #30 Sartre1's point is that faith and delusion are the same thing.

One guy believes he can step in front of a train and stop it like superman, while another believes in god. Neither have proof, so they are both either using faith or being deluded.

To equate belief in God with a deluded person's belief that he is Napoleon requires the one making that claim to prove that they are the same thing. No one has come close to it in all 7 pages. All I have gotten are the usual insults, evasions, attempts to change the subject and the non-sequiturs that I always get. Yet I am the troll!

You can't just claim they are the same thing, as Eva has done in the touching, but erroneous belief that she has "proved" her point. What is your evidence that they are the same thing? Claiming that there is no positive evidence doesn't do it. Even if that were true (and it isn't), that doesn't make them the same phenomenon. That is the contention that needs to be proved.

Eva

10-26-2007, 06:42 PM

non sequitUr
no - and no e

Professor Chaos

10-26-2007, 07:19 PM

Lurker or Rhino: Why don't one of you just go ahead and set up the thread, so I don't screw up the topic. I'll make sure it's moderated.

Gnosital

10-26-2007, 07:26 PM

Delusional is slang for irrational. Special or not doesn't matter to me because what do these words really mean at the end of the day?

Actually, no, it isn't dumbass. If you took a psychology course you might actually understand those constructs. Of course, I could edumacate you on the topic, as I have expertise in this area (not that I haven't schooled your dumbass for free several times already). But since I'm being "ignored" by you, I suppose it would be "wasted effort" as your cow-pal moos. Plus I usually get paid really well for my expertise. And since you're so mean, I've decided that you can't have it.

Hmm.. ignoring knowledge.... Are you, perchance, a xian?

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 12:25 AM

Actually, it isn't. It is quite preposterous.Standard Bovina response. You claim to be tired of correcting us, why not show it and keep your silent place?

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 12:27 AM

I gotta agree with Lily. This is the same, tired argument against God that fails to address the point Christians, and the bible, are making. It's a strawman so why anyone would cry or get upset is beyond me. :\Since Christianity is derived from the Bible and the Bible is without evidence, there is no point for Christians to make against empirical evidence and its total lack.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 12:31 AM

Let me make it easy for you. It is rather easy to prove that I am not Napoleon. What is your proof that there is no God?Oh, Bovina, you step in your own patty. The point is that faith contrary to reality is equivalent in both cases. No evidence the nutcase is Napoleon and none that the other nutcase has a real God.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 12:33 AM

Is this true?

I get visits from my local JWs about every couple of months and, while I'm unfailingly polite, I almost never entertain them beyond saying I'm not interested. Perhaps, doing what you have done is the way to keep them permanently at bay.

Oh, and welcome, Sartre1.There is a rumor that they use a kind of Hobo mark near your front door to warn their successors that you are strongly unreceptive.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 12:40 AM

Unless and until you prove that there is no God, belief in God is not a delusion ...Dead wrong, Bovina. Faith in God is just as much a delusion as faith in Bertrand Russel's china teapot in orbit about the Sun. One can be, and should be agnostic about proving either case. That is the valid basis for NOT believing in either one until and unless some evidence comes along.

As it happens, I am logically certain that there IS, in fact, a china teapot in orbit around the Sun and I invite you to believe it with me.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 12:45 AM

His point is a proposition. Propositions are either true or false. What is the proof that faith and delusion are the same thing? Stating it does not prove it.Must we lay it out for you. Bovina?
Delusion is believing in something that is not real. For a thing to be real there must be some observable evidence, otherwise it is no better than a conjecture and usually worse. Therefore, belief in God or Zeus or that one harbors the spirit of Nappy are all delusions. Belief that cow patties stink is not a delusion because it can be independently observed, it is real.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 12:55 AM

That is irrelevant--of course a deluded person is going to be impervious to reason. We are talking about comparing pathologies. Obviously, that means others are involved, so that my delusion and the delusion of a believer in God can be compared. So, again I say, to prove that I am not Napoleon is easy. Now, prove that there is no God. Then let's compare the pathologies involved when someone believes in God anyway.You missed again, Bovina. You must prove that the other nutcase is not Nappy as he sincerely believes he is.

We prove by lack of evidence that there is no reason to believe in God. Therefore believing in God, contrary to the evidence we do have, is belief in the unreal, hence a delusion (this is true now even if it turns out later that God does exist).

If you wish, I can arrange to email you a fossil picture.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 12:59 AM

Not quite. I say that there is sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational. That puts you in the position of showing where I am wrong so that we may compare "pathologies".Yet again, still wrong, Bovina. It is you who say (unfounded claim) that "there is sufficient proof that belief in God is perfectly rational". It is therefore you who must prove your proposition. Without such proof, our citation of lack of evidence for God's reality stands.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 01:10 AM

Stay on topic! Someone claimed that belief in God is a delusion on a par with someone believing that he is Napoleon. Until you can prove that belief in God is a delusion, you cannot argue that it is the same pathology exhibited by someone who believes himself to be Napoleon. We need some sort of proof for that claim.

Got any?

Eva failed miserably. (quelle surprise!)Pathology is not at issue. Nor is the reality of the respective targets of belief. All that needs to be equated is the fact that both are mistaken. They do not both have to be pathological to show the delusional nature of belief in them.

Perfectly reasonable and sane people often believe that they have psychic ability. It is not crazy or a pathology, it is simply wrong, a mistaken interpretation of perceived events. Showing them that they do not, in fact, have psychic ability just invokes an excuse generating mechanism. "The test was performed on a Tuesday with skeptics present" or "Sometimes it doesn't work, but I really have had thousands of psychic experiences (Note common previous claim to be able to do it all the time)". These people are deluded as are believers in unreal gods.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 01:19 AM

I love these slippery, evasive tactics. You are changing the subject and I think I know why. Let's either stay on topic or, you need to admit that you cannot make a coherent case that belief in God is a delusion of the same sort as exhibited by the man who thinks that he is Napoleon.

What's your pleasure?
What more can a lonely Bovina need? No evidence, no evidence, no evidence for any god or supernatural power or event. Belief in unreal things is delusion even if the things are shown to be real later. In the case of God there is no reason to expect that it will be shown to be real ever.

So, show us why it is rational to believe in God [if you wish, replace the term God with any of the infinity of things for which there is no evidence]. And, no, I cannot prove that the number of things that do not exist is infinite.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 01:30 AM

All of us theists who have posted here have provided sufficient evidence that belief in God is perfectly rational. The proof is all around you in real life, as well. The burden is on you to prove that it is not rational.
Dead wrong, as usual, Bovina. You falsely claim that real life is proof of the existence of God. None of you theists have shown that real life is any more proof of your God than it is of Wotan or The Great Eternal Egg.

Real life only proves real life and does not identify its creator. I have asked your alleged creator many times and the answer is always "no, I did not create that".

N.B. it is the same answer I get when I ask about the Bible.

Pick up a rock and show me where God wrote His name on it and I will show you where Newton wrote his name on it first.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 01:41 AM

Will you kindly stay on topic? I did not say that it would be easy to prove that I am not the reincarnated soul of Napoleon. I said it would be easy to prove that I am not Napoleon. Do you really dispute that? If you do we are really stuck.Yet another claim of proof without substance, Bovina. If Napoleon reincarnated in someone, it would be just as easy for that person to prove they weren't Napoleon as for you to prove that you aren't Napoleon. In other words, your proof, if you had one, and you have shown no evidence for your claim to that effect, would be meaningless. The real reincarnated Napoleon could say exactly the same things you could say.

So, staying on topic, believers in God and believers that they are Napoleon are both delusional. By all available actual evidence (not including the tingle you get in your spine when gazing at a distant landscape), neither God nor the embodiment of Napoleon are real.

I note, in passing, that you are still chronically confusing evidence with proof. You should seriously consider not doing that any more.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 01:45 AM

I knew this would start a firestorm.To paraphrase Sagan, "outrageous claims demand outrage in response".

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 01:49 AM

Well, that's why I wanted to stay out of your thread yesterday. Unfortunately, the forum pervert came along and finished it off anyway, so my effort was in vain. :(It should not surprise you that the effort was in vain. Virtually all of your efforts here have vanity at their base.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 02:01 AM

Absolutely correct. So, let's go back to the original claim--way back before this thread got hijacked with the usual insults, evasions and mooing-- you know, that claim that belief in God is a delusion and is the same delusion exhibited by someone who believes he is Napoleon.

I grant that disproving God is going to be hard. If you can suggest a better way to prove that the two delusions are one and the same kind of thing, please have at it.Ah, there's your problem (among many), delusions concerning different unreal things are not necessarily the same delusion, they are just both delusions. God and embodied Napoleon are special cases of the unreal things upon which two delusions are based.

So it remains that belief in God is a delusion and people who do it are delusional.

That, in itself is not a bad thing. The problem comes when the delusion affects their reasoning and decision making ability. That is, when the delusion escapes their head and leaks into their behavior toward others. For example, when they are certain that only they and their sword can protect their religion from insults by cartoonists.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 02:07 AM

Rhino,
Lily makes the same point I was trying to make...specifically, that the beliefs are not equal. You are saying, with a positive claim, that the beliefs ARE equal so have at it my friend, make your case. I think you'll find strawmen all over the place.The beliefs are not equal (though it is difficult to imagine how one could measure the difference). They are both delusions for reasons of lack of reality posted elsewhere. They are equally unjustified by equal lack of evidence, but I suspect the probability of some guy being the reincarnation of Napoleon to be much greater than the probability that an immensely powerful eternal being created everything 13+ Billion years ago. The former requires fewer incalculable assumptions.

Sternwallow

10-27-2007, 02:18 AM

Delusional is slang for irrational. Special or not doesn't matter to me because what do these words really mean at the end of the day?There is a critical difference between delusional and rational. Delusional is not slang. A delusion is a belief in something that is not real. Irrationality is drawing a conclusion without use of reason. It is irrational to think that Friday the thirteenth is unlucky (it might be unlucky, but there is no reason to think so and many reasons to show that it isn't). It is delusional to believe that a coin came from the tooth fairy (for reference, the tooth fairy is not real).

Irreligious

10-27-2007, 02:32 AM

ocmpoma

10-27-2007, 03:42 AM

"Someone claimed that belief in God is a delusion on a par with someone believing that he is Napoleon."

This was not the claim; the claim was that belief in a god is the same as belief that one is Napoleon Bonaparte. It is the basis of the beliefs that are equivalent, according to the claim.Huh? Actually it was the claim. But, ok. I'll play. So what is the basis of the beliefs?You'll 'play'? How nice of you.

Here's Sartre1's line:I enthusiastically agree but then ask how their "faith" is any different than that of the mental patient who believes that he is Napoleon.I would hope that, for someone who seems to go on about 'proper' understanding of the written word, especially as it concerns a certain text, you'd be able to figure out the fairly obvious difference between what Sartre1 said and the distortion in saying the difference is someone believing it's Napoleon and someone believing there's a god.

As for the basis of the beliefs, well, I never said I support Sartre1's claim, so I don't really see why you're requesting that I explain the basis to you. I must admit, though, I'm wondering why you've read that into my post... you're not making rash assumptions, like "ocmpoma is an atheist, therefore he must support this claim", are you? I mean, you are a scholar, right?

Lurker

10-27-2007, 03:42 AM

Lurker

10-27-2007, 03:56 AM

They are equally unjustified by equal lack of evidence, but I suspect the probability of some guy being the reincarnation of Napoleon to be much greater than the probability that an immensely powerful eternal being created everything 13+ Billion years ago. The former requires fewer incalculable assumptions.
Another probability argument. All the power of statistics without the ability to tell me what is actually true.

ghoulslime

10-27-2007, 01:50 PM

There is a critical difference between delusional and rational. Delusional is not slang. A delusion is a belief in something that is not real. Irrationality is drawing a conclusion without use of reason. It is irrational to think that Friday the thirteenth is unlucky (it might be unlucky, but there is no reason to think so and many reasons to show that it isn't). It is delusional to believe that a coin came from the tooth fairy (for reference, the tooth fairy is not real)

I agree with what you are saying so I humbly stand corrected. The bold portion is where our disagreement lies....and just to be clear, I'm not arguing for lucky numbers....just using the example given.

Lurker stand humbly corrected? Humility for Lurker is just another Halloween mask he uses to disguise pompous arrogance, which is in turn a mask for his underlying lack of cognitive capability.

There is no reason to think that the irrational is rational unless you are irrational. Lurker is both irrational and delusional. What’s Lurky to do? I suppose he will have to rely on arrogance to plug the holes in his leaky damn once more to keep that pesky truth from flooding in.

ghoulslime

10-27-2007, 01:52 PM

Another probability argument. All the power of statistics without the ability to tell me what is actually true.

How presumptuous of Sternwallow to believe he could prove truth without the Lurker seal of approval on it!

Kamikaze189

10-27-2007, 03:05 PM

I'm not sure if anybody's opened a dictionary on this thread yet, so I'll just throw this out here.

Faith - 2. belief that is not based on proof

Delusion - 1. (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
2. a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"

From http://www.dictionary.com.

Irreligious

10-27-2007, 04:06 PM

If one claims to know what is inherently unknowable, one is either lying or deluded.

Monotheists claim to believe in the existence of an entity whose supernatural properties are beyond human apprehension, yet they somehow apprehend it, allegedly. That is illogical on its face.

Christians presume that this entity is there based on the texts of ancient scribes who alleged to have seen (or allegedly heard from others who alleged to have seen) the thing in human form die and reanimate three days later. If Scientologists appropriated a similar tale for their own ends, Christians would clearly see the delusion.

Gnosital

10-28-2007, 12:36 AM

ghoulslime

10-28-2007, 04:54 AM

Heavens to Mergatroid! I think we better move over and make room for Sterny and Irreligious in Lurky's sig line...

It's gonna be a tight squeeze, and the font is getting smaller and smaller. But I know Lurky can do it. He's really used to handling tiny things. Yep. Every time he pees.

These two bold atheists are walking on thin ice! :o Anybody who uses the words "delusion" and "irrational" in the same sentence is risking the wrath of the almighty Lurk! What the hell! Tight squeezes are more fun anyway. If you didn't notice, I'm right next to you in Lurker's ignore list bed! You naughty Lurker ignories wanna play pow wow in Ghoulslime's teepee? I'll let one of you be the chief. Me shine em tomahak! You smoke em peace pipe! :hand:

By the way, Lurker doesn't handle his front bum when he pees. Jesus doesn't want him to touch it. He sits down to pee.

Sternwallow

10-28-2007, 03:41 PM

Sterny, I really do admire the clarity and organization of your thinking, but you do realize that you're destined either to be ignored or insulted by the targets of your attempt at rapprochement, don't you?No matter as long as I read my own stuff and can't persuade me to change my mind. I have taken preaching to the choir to the next logical level and, as an efficiency move, cut out all opposition.:):D:thumbsup:

Sternwallow

10-28-2007, 04:00 PM

Another probability argument. All the power of statistics without the ability to tell me what is actually true.Such a great deal of life and decision making must be done without access to the totality of relevant data, that statistics are the only method available "most of the time". You still confuse truth with reality. We do not experience truth, we experience reality which experience can accumulate in an ever closer approximation to truth. It is possible to compute truth by logic and mathematics such as "nothing impossible can exist".

The theist claim I have encountered in a discussion of faith, that I exhibit faith when I sit down that my chair will not break and land me on the floor, is not an act of faith, it is a cost-benefit analysis based on my need to sit and the very very low probability that any of my chairs will collapse (based on historical records). My chair may well collapse in the next few minutes. If I sit in it long enough, say 150 years or so, it probably will crash. So, for now, my best choice is to sit and no faith is required. Indeed, if there were any faith component at all, it would be that this chair I'm sitting confidently on, being an ordinary physical object, part of the natural world of reality, will break sometime in the future.

Gnosital

10-29-2007, 01:18 AM

He sits down to pee.

and what's wrong with that?

Sartre1

10-29-2007, 01:13 PM

There's not much I could add to what has already been stated, however I would like to address some issues raised by Lily. It's nice to encounter a contrary opinion. As I initially stated, this was the "Reader's Digest" version of how the discussion unfolded. Lily refers to evidence of god's non existence. I dealt with this with my visitors on a case by case basis. You will recall that I mentioned this issue by stating that I first had to dispense with the five proofs for the existence of god as first outlined by Thomas Aquinas. This is, of course, the hardest part, but having studied them and their refutations for many years, I am reasonably adept at recognising them, no matter how they are stated or disguised. It is only after someone admits that there is no empirical basis for believing in god that the delusional Napoleon equals god argument comes into play. Lily is quite right that if a person denies my position that there is no evidence for the existence of god, then there would be no reason to cry. You have to keep in mind that these discussions were as much theatre as debates. In fact I would go out of my way to be non confrontational, usually by asking a series of soft ball rhetorical question to make my points. Anyways, I enjoyed all the responses. A very clever crowd. Including Lily
Sartre1

Lurker

10-29-2007, 01:27 PM

Such a great deal of life and decision making must be done without access to the totality of relevant data, that statistics are the only method available "most of the time". You still confuse truth with reality. We do not experience truth, we experience reality which experience can accumulate in an ever closer approximation to truth. It is possible to compute truth by logic and mathematics such as "nothing impossible can exist".
Can't say that I disagree with any of this, except the part about my confusion of truth and reality. Statements of truth are induced from reality. When you say statistics predict one outcome over another, I agree with that. My point was that's all it does. There is nothing you can infer beyond the statistics themselves. Does a statistical statement ensure that I'm experiencing the favored outcome at present moment? No. Am I wrong to conclude that I'm experiencing the less favored outcome at present moment? No. Am I wrong to conclude that my experience isn't captured by the statistical data previously observed? No.

Sternwallow

10-29-2007, 05:30 PM

Can't say that I disagree with any of this, except the part about my confusion of truth and reality. Statements of truth are induced from reality. When you say statistics predict one outcome over another, I agree with that. My point was that's all it does. There is nothing you can infer beyond the statistics themselves. Does a statistical statement ensure that I'm experiencing the favored outcome at present moment? No. Am I wrong to conclude that I'm experiencing the less favored outcome at present moment? No. Am I wrong to conclude that my experience isn't captured by the statistical data previously observed? No.We seem pretty close on these items, but I should clarify the truth/reality comment I made. There is and, for certain practical reasons, must be an external reality. All that we can know of that reality is what we can interpret from our perceptions of sensory input. Thus, just as in science, we do not have nor claim to have ultimate truth in the real realm, though we can and do in the formal mathematical realm.

We cannot prove the existence of a curb stone even when we stub a toe on one. The best we can do for any aspect of reality is to accumulate evidence and thereby advance ever closer to that elusive truth.

I say that, based on the available compelling statistical evidence, it is most prudent to believe that there is a china teapot in orbit around the Sun. I have seen this evidence myself and I can assure you that it is as compelling as the evidence for the existence of curbstones.

Lurker

10-29-2007, 06:41 PM

I say that, based on the available compelling statistical evidence, it is most prudent to believe that there is a china teapot in orbit around the Sun. I have seen this evidence myself and I can assure you that it is as compelling as the evidence for the existence of curbstones.
I'm OK with you believing in china teapots if you truly believe the evidence points in that direction. Statistics formulated via induction can't make that decision for you. Your belief has nothing to do with my belief in God unless the two contradict each other. They don't. If they did, as some religions appear to do, then you have to consider the possibility that some contradictions are apparent while others are real.

Lurker

10-29-2007, 06:58 PM

Stern,
In addition to teapots, can I also assume that you also believe in trees, pain, justice and humans. Hopefully not for statistical reasons though.

Sternwallow

10-29-2007, 08:21 PM

Stern,
In addition to teapots, can I also assume that you also believe in trees, pain, justice and humans. Hopefully not for statistical reasons though.
My best interpretation of my experience, as incomplete as it is, is that trees, pain (my personal pain, I do not know for sure about any one else's), a conception of justice many of whose tenets reportedly come from God but which God himself is reported to have violated with abandon, objects called humans that exhibit wildly differing behaviors, and a china teapot in orbit around the Sun are probably real, in stark contrast to the unevidenced God.

I am not at all sure that justice exists other than a computational cost/benefit balancing formula. In that case, it exists in the same sense as any mathematical object and has just as much proof.

As for pain, we can measure the strength of sensory signals generated by extreme stimulation of groups of nerves while a person (who might be lying, mistaken or deranged) reports being in pain. So, yes, there could be such a thing as pain in others than myself.

Differing amounts of evidence in different flavors are available in support of each of these "working hypotheses". The proper evidence for trees, humans and the orbiting teapot are approximately equally certain, that is they are very highly probable statistically as I have personally stubbed my toes on examples of their type.

So, what do you believe based on proper evidence? Does God have mass and volume like the trees and humans you mentioned? Is God an analogy to mathematical constructs without volition or the ability to intentionally affect the natural world? Or does God only inhabit the mind like pain and, in the same way would vanish if the mind were damaged or destroyed? Or is God something else entirely which has no effect on the natural world and is thus undetectable and effectively non-existent?

Lurker

10-29-2007, 08:51 PM

in stark contrast to the unevidenced God.
I think the proper way to say this is 'in stark contrast to the lack of credible evidence for God.' Rarely does a person spend time discussing that which there is zero evidence for. Speaking of which, care to discuss at length the benefits of using square circles in conjunction with a smifelt machine? I thought not.

Does God have mass and volume like the trees and humans you mentioned? No.
EDIT: The significance of the physical pattern that correlates to trees and humans exists only in your mind so these same questions should be asked of trees and humans.

Is God an analogy to mathematical constructs without volition or the ability to intentionally affect the natural world?No.

Or does God only inhabit the mind like pain and, in the same way would vanish if the mind were damaged or destroyed?No.

Or is God something else entirelyYes.

which has no effect on the natural worldNo.

and is thus undetectableNo.

and effectively non-existent?No.

Sternwallow

10-29-2007, 09:35 PM

I think the proper way to say this is 'in stark contrast to the lack of credible evidence for God.' Rarely does a person spend time discussing that which there is zero evidence for. Speaking of which, care to discuss at length the benefits of using square circles in conjunction with a smifelt machine? I thought not.

No.
EDIT: The significance of the physical pattern that correlates to trees and humans exists only in your mind so these same questions should be asked of trees and humans.

No.

No.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.Intriguing, a dialog by bulleted questionnaire.

The same questions were implied by the apparent physical reality of trees humans and orbiting teapots.

I am concerned with and participate in conversations about things for which there is no evidence, credible or otherwise, when other people insist on posing them as being real and somehow illuminating public policy.

I will gladly discuss square circles in conjunction with a smifelt machine with you if you or other theists claim that they form the reason not to pursue stem cell research or to enable death with dignity.

Rat Bastard

10-29-2007, 10:53 PM

Intriguing, a dialog by bulleted questionnaire.

The same questions were implied by the apparent physical reality of trees humans and orbiting teapots.

I am concerned with and participate in conversations about things for which there is no evidence, credible or otherwise, when other people insist on posing them as being real and somehow illuminating public policy.

I will gladly discuss square circles in conjunction with a smifelt machine with you if you or other theists claim that they form the reason not to pursue stem cell research or to enable death with dignity.

YOU HAVE A SMIFELT MACHINE?!?!? KEWL! But I really wish those squarcles were easier to make...and a conjunctifier would be a welcome addition to my mathematical toolbox!

ocmpoma

10-29-2007, 11:31 PM

"...you also believe in trees, pain, justice and humans."

This, to me, is a fallacy -- one does not believe in trees, pain, or humans, one is either aware of their existence or not. Such an awareness may very well be contingent on how one's perceptions of the universe function: we (as a species) did not suddenly start "believing" in atoms once their existence was demonstrated. Instead, I would say that a concept was refined and solidified, allowing us to become aware of the existence of atoms.

Lurker's line about "believing in trees" is an attempt to conflate a process of interacting with an objective, external reality with a process that is subjective, personal, and (most importantly) entirely internal.

Sternwallow

10-29-2007, 11:55 PM

YOU HAVE A SMIFELT MACHINE?!?!? KEWL! But I really wish those squarcles were easier to make...and a conjunctifier would be a welcome addition to my mathematical toolbox!
There's your problem!
Squarcles are much easier to make if you have and know how to use a conjunctifier. :D:thumbsup: (shared thumb)

Irreligious

10-30-2007, 01:11 AM

How is it possible for something to lack mass and volume? Wouldn't that make it literally of no substance or nothing and, therefore, not "real" outside of the human imagination?

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 09:00 AM

How is it possible for something to lack mass and volume? Wouldn't that make it literally of no substance or nothing and, therefore, not "real" outside of the human imagination?Particles can have no mass. The original singularity had no volume. Perhaps I should have included a distinct location along with volume, but the electron doesn't have a location, only a probability distribution.

These characteristics of "real" things are why I usually insist that things must have some effect on other real things or they are not real themselves.

That God has never had a verifiable effect on the physical world is sufficient to say that, even if He does exist in some extra-universal, possibly supernatural, realm, He does not exist in this one.

You mention human imagination. That is an excellent point because patterns certainly exist all around us, but they do not have mass or volume. Human and animal mental processes operate under self-changing patterns so patterns do affect the structure of the brain which is a physical object. The key characteristic of a pattern is that it must be a relationship among physical objects. That is, when the neurons are destroyed, their pattern vanishes. Corpses have no imagination; they are psychological slaves to the processes of decay.

This limitation on patterns, mud cracks, for example, leaves the god in human imagination totally dependent on matter and unable to have any intellect, intention or power of its own.

You can certainly imagine God cursing an innocent fig tree, but no fig trees will actually be harmed in the process. If you cut down a fig tree because you think God cursed it, you are the agent of the act, not God since the curse, itself, is imaginary.

Rocketman the Sequel

10-30-2007, 10:54 AM

Lurker

10-30-2007, 12:18 PM

This, to me, is a fallacy -- one does not believe in trees, pain, or humans, one is either aware of their existence or not.
My use of the word 'believe' was not the best choice. Have knowledge of trees, pain and humans is probably a better way to say it. Thanks.

Lurker's line about "believing in trees" is an attempt to conflate a process of interacting with an objective, external reality with a process that is subjective, personal, and (most importantly) entirely internal.I'm not conflating anything because I'm not saying they are the same thing. I am asking the general epistemic question, how did you come to know what you know? I'm asking why Stern (all of us, really) finds significance in certain physical patterns while others have no significance.

The object you perceive may exist in external reality, but the significance and meaning of it is subjective and personal so there is some similarity there. The differences between this and religious belief are significant enough, but that's not what I'm digging at.

Choobus

10-30-2007, 12:54 PM

How is it possible for something to lack mass and volume? Wouldn't that make it literally of no substance or nothing and, therefore, not "real" outside of the human imagination?

photons.

Choobus

10-30-2007, 12:58 PM

The original singularity had no volume. Perhaps I should have included a distinct location along with volume, but the electron doesn't have a location, only a probability distribution.

We can't say anything about the initial singularity below the Planck length, after which it did indeed have some volume (i.e., at least Lp^3.)

An electron is only truly sans location when it is in a superposition of states (assuming the many worlds and hidden variable theories are incorrect). The location of an electron can be specified with arbitrary accuracy at the expense of its momentum (within relativistic limits)

Rhinoqulous

10-30-2007, 01:11 PM

"...you also believe in trees, pain, justice and humans."

This, to me, is a fallacy -- one does not believe in trees... one is either aware of their existence or not.

I'm going to have to side with Lurker on this. Birds, insects and Southerners have "awareness" of trees (insofar as they posses phenomenal experience of them), but they don't have "beliefs" about or of trees. Simply being aware of a (sometimes) leafy protrusion in the landscape is different than having the belief that the leafy protrusion is a tree (and all beliefs that "tree" entails).

Such an awareness may very well be contingent on how one's perceptions of the universe function: we (as a species) did not suddenly start "believing" in atoms once their existence was demonstrated. Instead, I would say that a concept was refined and solidified, allowing us to become aware of the existence of atoms.

Uhm, what? Your "awareness" of atoms is nothing more than the "beliefs" you hold about atoms.

Lurker's line about "believing in trees" is an attempt to conflate a process of interacting with an objective, external reality with a process that is subjective, personal, and (most importantly) entirely internal.

I don't know about Lurker's motives, but you seem to be rejecting human consciousness.

Lurker

10-30-2007, 01:17 PM

That God has never had a verifiable effect on the physical world is sufficient to say that, even if He does exist in some extra-universal, possibly supernatural, realm, He does not exist in this one.
Verifiable in what sense? Do logic or propositions have a verifiable effect on the physical world?

Lurker

10-30-2007, 01:21 PM

I'm going to have to side with Lurker on this.
This belongs on the quote page. Thanks, Rhino.

Irreligious

10-30-2007, 01:31 PM

Verifiable in what sense? Do logic or propositions have a verifiable effect on the physical world?
You're not suggesting they don't, are you? After all, we can all draw a logical conclusion about what will likely happen if we push a piano from the roof of a 10-story building. But we are not in a similar position to draw conclusions about the alleged behavior of an entity that is supposed to be beyond human apprehension. That is, we can say this entity stopped a tsunami from swallowing southern Asia last week, because it didn't happen. But do we really know that this unseen and undetectable entity actually prevented it?

Lurker

10-30-2007, 01:43 PM

You're not suggesting they don't, are you?
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking about Stern's use of the word verify.

After all, we can all draw a logical conclusion about what will likely happen if we push a piano from the roof of a 10-story building. You use logic to verify logic's effect on the physical world? Hmm.... Or maybe you are advocating logical positivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism). If so, I don't think this is a very good idea.

Irreligious

10-30-2007, 03:06 PM

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking about Stern's use of the word verify.

You use logic to verify logic's effect on the physical world? Hmm.... Or maybe you are advocating logical positivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism). If so, I don't think this is a very good idea.
I'm not a scientist, nor am I grounded in the rigors of classical philosophy, so what else would I use? Maybe it's not really me but God who pushes the piano to the ground from my 10-story perch. Who knows? If it suits him, perhaps he can choose to suspend the 2-ton piano in midair after I (or he through me) have pushed it off the roof. But there is no possible way for me to know if the god you posit is capable of either action. Maybe it's 10 gods or 10 billion tiny unseen gods working in concert.

Lurker

10-30-2007, 03:32 PM

I'm not a scientist, nor am I grounded in the rigors of classical philosophy, so what else would I use?
As Cal would say, a good atheist would use his brain. :P

You have knowledge of these concepts/entities that are important and significant to you, but you're not sure how you know them or why they are important and significant? Maybe you should spend some time trying to figure out how and why.

Irreligious

10-30-2007, 03:44 PM

Are you suggesting that I figure out how your god concept logically works itself into the physical world? Because I will admit to you now that I cannot, any more than you could do the same for those who claim knowledge of the lost city of Atlantis.

I figured out long ago that gravity won't suspend 2-ton objects in midair unaided by human manipulation. What I never could quite figure out is how humans can profess to know what is inherently unknowable. But I'll keep asking.

Lurker

10-30-2007, 03:56 PM

Are you suggesting that I figure out how your god concept logically works itself into the physical world? Because I will admit to you now that I cannot, any more than you could do the same for those who claim knowledge of the lost city of Atlantis.
I'm not asking you to figure out anything about God, at least not here and now. EDIT: I'm asking you to figure out how your own non-religious concepts work themselves into the physical world.

I figured out long ago that gravity won't suspend 2-ton objects in midair unaided by human manipulation. Of course.

What I never could quite figure out is how humans could profess to know what is inherently unknowable. But I'll keep asking.Is it inherently unknowable or is it unknown to you for some specific reason? There's a big difference. You've made a pretty big assumption.

Irreligious

10-30-2007, 04:12 PM

Is it inherently unknowable or is it unknown to you for some specific reason? There's a big difference. You've made a pretty big assumption.
As a concept, it seems to me that this thing is designed to be unknown to us as a physical entity, unless you start talking about the realm of apparitions which, again, also is only conceptual, as far as I can discern. In the physical world I inhabit, I'm just not aware of how you can "see" something that has no material substance. Maybe you can but you just can't convey to me how you can. Maybe it works the same way for the animist or the alleged psychic. After all, I'm not in your body or your mind. All I can do is tell you honestly that I cannot apprehend this thing that you claim to know is real.

I'm not asking you to figure out anything about God, at least not here and now. EDIT: I'm asking you to figure out how your own non-religious concepts work themselves into the physical world.
Within the limits of my knowledge, I have. Drop a piano from a 10-story building and it will fall and smash into many pieces. I don't need a science degree to know that. It's empirical information that is uncontested by anyone over the age of 5. Unseen gods are just that for me: Unseen, just like tiny teapots orbiting the sun. If you Christians really know something the rest of us don't, you seem mighty powerless to effectively demonstrate it. Maybe it's not your fault. Maybe it's God's.

Lurker

10-30-2007, 04:18 PM

As a concept, it seems to me that this thing is designed to be unknown to us as a physical entity, unless you start talking about the realm of apparitions which, again, also is only conceptual, as far as I can discern. In the physical world I inhabit, I'm just not aware of how you can "see" something that has no material substance. Maybe you can but you just can't convey to me how you can. Maybe it works the same way for the animist or the alleged psychic. After all, I'm not in your body or your mind. All I can do is tell you honestly that I cannot apprehend this thing that you claim to know is real.
You underestimate your abilities. You certainly can "see" something that has no material substance. You "see" trees and humans don't you? You "see" meaning in the scribblings on a piece of paper, right? You "see" the injustice of stealing. You complain that I can't convey to you how I can do this, but you're doing it yourself. How? Why?

Rhino: I can sense you out there (I'm psychic). Feel free to step in and clean up any messes I make. I'm here to learn from my mistakes.

Irreligious

10-30-2007, 04:36 PM

You underestimate your abilities. You certainly can "see" something that has no material substance. You "see" trees and humans don't you? You "see" meaning in the scribblings on a piece of paper, right? You "see" the injustice of stealing. You complain that I can't convey to you how I can do this, but you're doing it yourself. How? Why?

Rhino: I can sense you out there (I'm psychic). Feel free to step in and clean up any messes I make. I'm here to learn from my mistakes.
But I can not "see" a god. I can't hear it, I can't touch it, I can't smell or taste it and know that it is God. I don't even know what a god is supposed to be unless I ask someone. And I have, but the answers vary. Wildly. For me, it's like trying to understand what blue tastes like. I don't have these problems with physical things like trees. I can see and feel a tree, hear the rustle of its leaves, taste the sap from its trunk. I know what a tree is or some reasonable approximation of what every English-speaking person who speaks of a tree means when they mention the word tree. I've experienced the feeling of injustice when something was stolen from me and I've "seen" the various responses in others when they have confronted this conceptual entity.

I've seen many react to what they call God. But I've felt euphoria myself and was able to attribute it to something else. I've been fortunate to sometimes escape the bad consequences of seemingly unwise choices. Others might attribute this to God, but I am left to attribute these occurences to the vagaries of the universe, because I would have no way of knowing how God could have orchestrated it or why.

Rhinoqulous

10-30-2007, 04:44 PM

I'm not really sure what you're arguing for (I haven't really been paying attention to this thread), Lurker, so I can't really point out any mistakes you're making. What's your premise?

Lurker

10-30-2007, 04:58 PM

I don't have a premise at this point. Just trying to ask questions and understand how people know what they claim to know. You don't have to get involved.

Irreligious

10-30-2007, 05:09 PM

I don't have a premise at this point. Just trying to ask questions and understand how people know what they claim to know. You don't have to get involved.
The interesting thing to me here, Lurker, is that I am not claiming to know with absolute certainty that the god you posit does not exist. I don't even know with absolute certainty that people with asses on their shoulders exist only in the realm of metaphor, but I have never seen the real thing and cannot grasp in a logical fashion how such humans could exist as real entities. Therefore, they're not real to me.

In the absence of any evidence for the god you posit or even a logical way to comprehend this alleged entity, I am left to conclude that it cannot and does not exist. It's really that simple. If you know something that could persuade me of the error of my thinking, then spill it. That's all I've ever asked of any theist, especially if they demand that I acknowledge what they claim to know is real.

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 07:13 PM

I'm not conflating anything because I'm not saying they are the same thing. I am asking the general epistemic question, how did you come to know what you know? I'm asking why Stern (all of us, really) finds significance in certain physical patterns while others have no significance.
You are claiming that a physical object is real and that a pattern in the imagination is also real. We can all perceive the object to the extent our senses permit, as real, but we cannot perceive the imaginary thing because it is locked inside someone's skull inaccessible to others.

The pattern has reality as long as it is attached to some material substance. Then it is the relationship of components of that substance, not the pattern, that can have further effects on real things. To be more specific, neurons connected in a certain way and bathed in certain chemicals can instantiate an idea of hunger. Then, by ordinary neuro-chemical reactions, the pattern "seek food" is instantiated.

The neurons are not rearranged to match the developing new pattern, their arrangement, when complete, is the new pattern.

In answer to your direct question, I do not grant special significance to one pattern over another with respect to reality. I know that all patterns are relations between physical substances, many of which are highly random and many of which are consequences of the logical progression of chemical processes. Mudcracks are patterns roughly random in nature. Imaginary friends are just patterns in a collection of neurons whether there is an external reality corresponding to them or not. A mental image of a china teapot in orbit around the Sun is an equally insubstantial pattern even though there is plenty of hard physical evidence for the orbiting teapot. This is why I draw a distinction between the idea of God and the idea of the teapot and why I claim that one is real and the other is not.

The object you perceive may exist in external reality, but the significance and meaning of it is subjective and personal so there is some similarity there. The differences between this and religious belief are significant enough, but that's not what I'm digging at.Imagination is a tremendously valuable survival skill. It enables us to foresee possibilities and to prepare responses to them even before we have actually experienced them. A side effect of imagination, its use in non-survival situations, can lead to truly silly speculations and faiths because imagination is not bound by either logic or truth.

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 07:20 PM

photons.Magnificent Choobus, tell me I am dumb if you must, but, doesn't the photon have mass (as predicted by AE) and doesn't it have a particular waveform (length, amplitude and duration)?

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 07:32 PM

We can't say anything about the initial singularity below the Planck length, after which it did indeed have some volume (i.e., at least Lp^3.)
Is it proper to call it a singularity then? Granted, a positive volume less than Lp^3 would eliminate some pesky infinities.

An electron is only truly sans location when it is in a superposition of states (assuming the many worlds and hidden variable theories are incorrect). The location of an electron can be specified with arbitrary accuracy at the expense of its momentum (within relativistic limits)
Thanks. I'm clearly a bit out of date. As "recently" as 4 decades ago an electron could be anywhere in the universe with a probability with respect to the nucleus it was nominally orbiting. It could not be in all places simultaneously (a superposition) because that would cancel the preferential position in its orbit and the waveform could collapse leaving it anywhere at all. It would be a sort of inverse Heisenberg principle.

Not to belabor the patience of the other members watching this thread, but, if you measure the distance that an electron orbits a nucleus, doesn't that also yield an equally precise inference of its mass and velocity?

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 07:35 PM

Maybe it's 10 gods or 10 billion tiny unseen gods working in concert.That's grand! ;);)

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 07:37 PM

I figured out long ago that gravity won't suspend 2-ton objects in midair unaided by human manipulation. What I never could quite figure out is how humans can profess to know what is inherently unknowable. But I'll keep asking.
If you do then Lily will probably accuse you of redundant query making. :)

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 07:49 PM

Is it inherently unknowable or is it unknown to you for some specific reason? There's a big difference. You've made a pretty big assumption.A big assumption and a big question in its own right.

How can anyone know that there is a God and that He made an entire, mostly hostile, universe just for us and that He has a plan for each of us? How can we opt out of His plan unless we can determine reliably just what that plan is?

If God is not real then it is trivial that we can know nothing about Him. If God is real and is intent on being hidden from us in the sense of displaying His reality in any way (possibly to protect free will in some ill-defined way), then again we can know nothing about Him but what some other ancient people guessed He might be like because, being omnipotent, He is really good at hiding. If God is real and intends us to know His reality and His intentions that information would be available to all and would not depend on fanciful faith. It certainly would not appear in a crackpot book that no two people can agree on.

JU Mike

10-30-2007, 07:50 PM

I have made one Roman Catholic priest, three Jehovah Witnesses and two door knocking Baptists leave my home in tears.

Are you serious? Cause if you are that means I should really try and learn something from you. Welcome to forum, I hope you enjoy your stay as much as I did.

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 07:52 PM

As a concept, it seems to me that this thing is designed to be unknown to us as a physical entity, unless you start talking about the realm of apparitions which, again, also is only conceptual, as far as I can discern. In the physical world I inhabit, I'm just not aware of how you can "see" something that has no material substance. Maybe you can but you just can't convey to me how you can. Maybe it works the same way for the animist or the alleged psychic. After all, I'm not in your body or your mind. All I can do is tell you honestly that I cannot apprehend this thing that you claim to know is real.

Within the limits of my knowledge, I have. Drop a piano from a 10-story building and it will fall and smash into many pieces. I don't need a science degree to know that. It's empirical information that is uncontested by anyone over the age of 5. Unseen gods are just that for me: Unseen, just like tiny teapots orbiting the sun. If you Christians really know something the rest of us don't, you seem mighty powerless to effectively demonstrate it. Maybe it's not your fault. Maybe it's God's.Nice :D

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 08:05 PM

Sternwallow

10-30-2007, 08:17 PM

The interesting thing to me here, Lurker, is that I am not claiming to know with absolute certainty that the god you posit does not exist. I don't even know with absolute certainty that people with asses on their shoulders exist only in the realm of metaphor, but I have never seen the real thing and cannot grasp in a logical fashion how such humans could exist as real entities. Therefore, they're not real to me.

In the absence of any evidence for the god you posit or even a logical way to comprehend this alleged entity, I am left to conclude that it cannot and does not exist. It's really that simple. If you know something that could persuade me of the error of my thinking, then spill it. That's all I've ever asked of any theist, especially if they demand that I acknowledge what they claim to know is real.
If a powerful God really did exist and created the early universe and sent it on its way to develop as it would and He didn't touch it again (the deist position) then we could never know whether He exists today or not since He might have vanished during the first ever second. This argument, like the prisoner's dilemma, ratchets up in time to the present. It is hard enough to be sure that God exists now, but it is even harder one second from now to be sure He didn't wink out in the intervening time. "Yeah, God was here but He is gone now. It doesn't matter though since none of us can tell the difference. He might as well stay away."

Rat Bastard

10-30-2007, 08:57 PM

"See", if you insist on debasing the meaning of words, we cannot communicate at all.

Under your apparent definition of "see", I can see God easily and I can also see that he is pure imagination with no reality at all. I can see a lack of substance to your notions of seeing. The scribblings on a piece of paper are only seen because the paper and marks are physically real. Without them, we could not see the arrangement of symbols and therefore could not, in any way, deduce the meaning of them. I do not see the injustice of stealing unless I am deliberately misusing the language. I can, however, understand that stealing is unjust assuming that I have patterns for theft and justice available to me and logical mechanisms to manipulate them.

He thinks he's being deeply philosophical by posing questions this way. You've already pierced his veil of ineptitude. How many veils will he have shed before his "true" self emerges? No need to go that far. The "truth" of his position is revealed in the first post- sophomoric, feeble, and ultimately, transparent to "the atheist".

Seriously, seeing theists posting around here is like watching prime-time TV. Inherently vacuous, with a pretention towards a depth that is non-existent, but has a flash of fire from gratuitous explosions. Ultimately, valueless.

ocmpoma

10-30-2007, 10:52 PM

I'm not conflating anything because I'm not saying they are the same thing. I am asking the general epistemic question, how did you come to know what you know? I'm asking why Stern (all of us, really) finds significance in certain physical patterns while others have no significance.Well, I think the question of how we know what we know is, well.... a little circular, a little vague, and perhaps a little overly optimistic. But I'm certainly not a specialist in any field relating to it. It does seem to me that you are saying two things which are to me different are in fact the same:
"...you also believe in have knowledge of trees, pain, justice and humans."
Also, I'm of the opinion that a pattern exists only in our heads -- if some collection of atoms has no significance to us, it's not a pattern. Saying that 'some patterns have no significance' is to me meaningless.
The object you perceive may exist in external reality, but the significance and meaning of it is subjective and personal so there is some similarity there. The differences between this and religious belief are significant enough, but that's not what I'm digging at.Certainly the meaning of the object is personal; but as I said, the process is not entirely internal -- there is some actual external object about which I am aware.
I'm going to have to side with Lurker on this. Birds, insects and Southerners have "awareness" of trees (insofar as they posses phenomenal experience of them), but they don't have "beliefs" about or of trees. Simply being aware of a (sometimes) leafy protrusion in the landscape is different than having the belief that the leafy protrusion is a tree (and all beliefs that "tree" entails).Certainly, which is what I meant when I said that we are aware of things and that the awareness itself depends on our makeup. We don't "believe in" trees; we may assign certain meanings to certain conglomerations of matter and energy. I would hardly say, however, that I 'believe a sometimes leafy protrusion is a tree' -- what I would say is that I assign the conceptual meaning of 'tree' to certain sometimes leafy protrusions. Going with Lurker on this means that people "believe" in trees the same way they "believe" in justice (and, I still suspect, the same way they "believe" in god(s)).
Uhm, what? Your "awareness" of atoms is nothing more than the "beliefs" you hold about atoms... I don't know about Lurker's motives, but you seem to be rejecting human consciousness.Sure, I'm semantically picky, but my awareness of atoms is not my belief in, or about, atoms. First of all, there is a distinct difference, in my opinion, between the following:
"I believe in atoms."
"I am aware of atoms."
"I have beliefs about atoms."

But that's not really the issue I had with Lurker's post. I'm of the opinion that atoms exist whether or not I, or anyone else, believes in (or about) them. So do trees, people, and pain (although this one is perhaps debatable). But justice does not exist without someone believing in it -- it's existence is entirely internal and contingent on someone feeling that it exists.

Choobus

10-30-2007, 11:20 PM

Magnificent Choobus, tell me I am dumb if you must, but, doesn't the photon have mass (as predicted by AE) and doesn't it have a particular waveform (length, amplitude and duration)?

it certainly does not have mass, but it does have energy and momentum. However, it moves at the speed of light (obviously) so that the proper time (that is time measured from the perspective of the photon) is zero. A single photon doesn't have a waveform, it has a wavefunction, and if you want to argue about what that means for volume then count me out until we have a decent quantum gravity theory.

Choobus

10-30-2007, 11:32 PM

Is it proper to call it a singularity then? Granted, a positive volume less than Lp^3 would eliminate some pesky infinities.

I'm just saying, we don't know what goes on in these kinds of states

Not to belabor the patience of the other members watching this thread, but, if you measure the distance that an electron orbits a nucleus, doesn't that also yield an equally precise inference of its mass and velocity?

you have to stop thinking about Bohr atoms. That analogy has its limits. Classically you would be correct, but quantum mechanically the question itself makes little sense.

Sternwallow

10-31-2007, 09:05 AM

it certainly does not have mass, but it does have energy and momentum. However, it moves at the speed of light (obviously) so that the proper time (that is time measured from the perspective of the photon) is zero. A single photon doesn't have a waveform, it has a wavefunction, and if you want to argue about what that means for volume then count me out until we have a decent quantum gravity theory.
Please, I am still missing something basic here. Doesn't energy and momentum imply mass? I understood that the time from the perspective of the moving thing remained normal and that it was the perspective of the observer that time seemed to slow down for the moving thing. If time were zero for the traveler, wouldn't it feel like zero time to move from one place to another and would that not be equivalent to being in all places simultaneously?
When researchers slow a single photon down to roughly human walking speed, how large is the physical volume that contains it (and thereby an experimental maximum volume for the photon itself)? Do slow photons age?