Do you believe we all have souls?

[painted wolf]

Q....
there are some religions that honor rocks and trees. As I said in my earlier post.
I believe that we all have souls, down to every animal, plant, rock, and river.
everything in creation is connected.
If you call that energy, sub-atomic physics or what have you then so be it.

wa:-do

 

[painted wolf]

oops put it up twice....

 

[(Q)]

there are some religions that honor rocks and trees.

Does any part of the honor to the rocks and trees include prayer?

If you call that (soul) energy, sub-atomic physics or what have you then so be it.

The various forms of energy can be detected, measured, tested, and understood. Why bother attaching esoteric labels (soul) to that which is already well defined?

 

[Runt]

Should I take that as a confirmation you're not interested in learning about energy but would rather remain ignorant and speculative?

Is there a house of cards that may come crashing down if you do learn?

You think I'm not interested in learning about energy and would rather remain ignorant? It would be pretty funny if you were right, since that would mean that I've wasted the last three years of school studying the sciences because I THOUGHT I liked them...

I've spent more time and energy than most high school students taking science classes BECAUSE I find science so interesting... and I managed to do well enough in studying them that I don't have to take Biology, Chemistry, or Physics in college because I scored so high on the AP exams... So, while I may not know as much about science as people who have been studying it for years and years and years, I would not exactly call myself "ignorant" or "not interested"...

And, that "nevermind" was the decision not to argue with you about whether or not there is a God or isn't a God. If you don't want to believe in God, then fine. I don't think it will hurt you any. But you argue in favor of atheism with the same single-minded persistence of a religious fanatic trying to convert people to their own version of truth...and frankly it is starting to annoy me. I have my beliefs, you can have yours. There are plenty of smart, educated, happy individuals out there in the world who believe in a higher power... there is no need to try to convert us to your beliefs!

The various forms of energy can be detected, measured, tested, and understood. Why bother attaching esoteric labels (soul) to that which is already well defined?

Why not? Calling this energy the "soul" or "God" does not change the nature of the energy at all; it merely changes the value an individual places upon it.

 

[(Q)]

Runt

So, while I may not know as much about science as people who have been studying it for years and years and years, I would not exactly call myself "ignorant" or "not interested"...

First of all, I used the word ‘ignorant’ because it was proper grammar and was not meant to offend, sorry if I did offend.

Secondly, energy is usually tackled in first year high school science classes and is considered prerequisite for further college level courses. It doesn’t take years to learn the basics about energy.

But you argue in favor of atheism with the same single-minded persistence of a religious fanatic trying to convert people to their own version of truth...and frankly it is starting to annoy me… there is no need to try to convert us to your beliefs!

I don’t think I’ve made any attempts to convert anyone, can you cite an instance?

And I don’t argue in favor of atheism so much as I argue in favor of critical thinking. I would gladly accept the concept of gods, but as yet no evidence of gods has come to light. Until then, that concept can be ‘shelved’ in favor of more interesting and productive activities.

As far as being annoyed, that’s your own personal problem.

Why not? Calling this energy the "soul" or "God" does not change the nature of the energy at all; it merely changes the value an individual places upon it.

You’re redefining terms. It is thought that people agree on definitions in order to properly and accurately communicate.

How would one describe a moving object – kinetic soul? An object at rest - potential divinity? Or how about temperature gradient – thermal god?

If we can’t agree on definitions, how are we supposed to understand one another?

Of course, it is an entirely different subject if you are suggesting intelligence or design is behind your definition of energy.

If that is not the case, the definition of energy should not be misconstrued as souls or gods. In doing so, you defeat the purpose of trying to explain concepts and ideas and rob yourself the necessity of being understood.

After all, who wants to be misunderstood?

 

[Runt]

First of all, I used the word ‘ignorant’ because it was proper grammar and was not meant to offend, sorry if I did offend.

If you did not mean to offend, then I am not offended. Anymore.

Secondly, energy is usually tackled in first year high school science classes and is considered prerequisite for further college level courses. It doesn’t take years to learn the basics about energy

Fine... then I have a basic understanding of energy (AP classes are technically second year high school classes that can earn you credit in college as first year college classes if you score high enough on the AP exam...so does this give me an intermediate understanding of energy?) and I STILL believe in a God.

I don’t think I’ve made any attempts to convert anyone, can you cite an instance?

You never outright say "Come on, be atheist!", but you clearly hold the spiritual beliefs of others in scorn because you believe that you have discovered higher knowledge (science), and believe if everyone else studies science as well they will realize that they were wrong all along and start seeing the world your way (which you believe to be right). This is how people trying to convert others to their religion go about things.

If you really weren't, then fine... but to me it really seemed that you wanted me to realize I was wrong, you were right, and view the world in your way...

As far as being annoyed, that’s your own personal problem.

I guess it is.

You’re redefining terms. It is thought that people agree on definitions in order to properly and accurately communicate.

IDEALLY we want to agree on definitions in order to communicate...but because there are so many different views as to the "true" nature of various things, there are also many different definitions. Who gets to decide which one should be the ONLY definition by which everyone else should view the world? Take art, for example. I seriously doubt any two people can both agree on the proper definition of "art".

How would one describe a moving object – kinetic soul? An object at rest - potential divinity? Or how about temperature gradient – thermal god?

Ever heard of synonyms? Different languages? They all define the same thing in subtally different ways. In one culture the word for the sun may simply be "star"... in another culture the world for the sun may be "bright light in the sky"...or "God of Light".

Is an object in motion a "kinetic object" or "moving object" or "traveling object" or "shifting object"? Shouldn't we chose one term and agree on it since it is easier to communicate when we agree on definitions?

How about this: That which one man calls the "soul" is the energy actually making up a body (each atom is energy, therefore each cell, each biological system, the BODY is energy). That which one man calls "God" is all the energy in reality. That which one man calls the "electron" is energy contained in its smallest form (I won't deal with fields and such now...we'll pretend the electron is the smallest form of energy). That which one calls a "human" is energy in a specific arrangement forming a particular biological organism.

If we can’t agree on definitions, how are we supposed to understand one another?

Somehow we do anyway... My friend Kati speaks of "art" when she speaks of cars... and even though I don't agree with her definition of art, I still know what she speaks of when she refers to "art". I, personally, think she should call it a "car"... that is the term I use and it is much more accurate!

Of course, it is an entirely different subject if you are suggesting intelligence or design is behind your definition of energy.

If that is not the case, the definition of energy should not be misconstrued as souls or gods. In doing so, you defeat the purpose of trying to explain concepts and ideas and rob yourself the necessity of being understood.

Energy behaves strangely. When we observe matter at the sub-atomic level we often find that it begins to behave in unexplainable ways can challenge our beliefs on the behavior of matter. For example, scientists will generally tell you that matter is not "conscious" or "aware" in any way... yet here is an interesting instance in which matter appears to be aware in some unexplicable way... when an electron and a positron (the electron's antimatter equivalent) collide they destory one another and create two photons that (following the normal laws of physics) fly off in opposite directions upon impact. Neither of them have spin or velocity (who knows why?) until one (it only has to be one of the two) is observed by the people doing the experiement. At that point they suddenly start both acquire identical velosity and spin, but opposite of one another. It doesn't matter how far apart they are...they ALWAYS do. But what is the connection between the two? Why does one photon gain spin and velocity when being observed, and why does the other photon seem to be "aware" of what the other is doing so that it instantaneously starts behaving identically to the other photon? And what does this imply about the nature of energy as a whole? If matter is vastly more interconnected and "aware" on the subatomic level than we thought possible, then IMAGINE (or rather, use logic to form a conclusion) the implications for ALL energy everywhere in the universe!

This could possibly give you SOMETHING that has some sort of "awareness" (not the equivalent of human or biological awareness, but awareness like what two seperated photons seem to have of one another but spread out across infinity). We could call it God. We could call it energy. But there are possibilities that whatever it is, its nature is far more incomprehensible and complex than modern science ever dreamed.

After all, who wants to be misunderstood?

Not me... but sometimes it is SOOO hard!

 

[Master Vigil]

Of course quarks didn't appear from nowhere. I didn't mean that at all, what I meant was that they weren't known to exist. Or even proved to exist.

What you use as a label could be construed as a useless label to someone else. Who knows which label is correct? Your label can be just as speculative as gods existence.

And what is wrong with using your imagination? If you never use yours, I fear your life to be very boring. But then again, I am an artist, so to me, it would be very boring. (opinion of course)

And I find it very selfish and greedy to say that humans can figure out everything about the universe themselves. Like we are the greatest things in the universe. And sometimes things are supposed to be complex, and the simplicity of it is that its too complex to know.

I agree with runt, you do seem to be on a mission to convert. This of course can be a noble mission, but it also can be an annoying mission. In the end, I hope you find what you are looking for, but while you are looking, I have already started understanding. May the spirits be with you. (Even if you don't believe them to be)

 

[painted wolf]

Q-
Yes, I offer prayers and tobacco when I must use something in a way that will alter/harm it. Ie. cutting down a tree to build a house or using a rock for cerimony or flint knapping.
Its only right to ask permission and honor the spirit who will help me. And yes, if it says no, I don't do it.

>>Why bother attaching esoteric labels (soul) to that which is already well defined?<<

Why define something that already had a label to begin with?
The esoteric label came first... the definition came later as a way to explore the label... IMHO.

wa:-do

 

[Alaric]

Time to rant at Runt!

That which one man calls "God" is all the energy in reality.
That which one calls a "human" is energy in a specific arrangement forming a particular biological organism.

When people ask you whether you believe in God, I really hope you don't reply 'yes'!

See, the funny thing is that in an effort to understand and compromise with everyone, you are telling others what they mean! That 'one man' would probably NOT agree with you about God, because God must be a power that is completely involved in humanity, loves them etc, and your version does not. Calling God all energy is as different from most people's interpretations of God as declaring your hamster God. Being 'human' is being energy in a specific arrangement forming a particular biological organism, but that is not what we're talking about when we use the word, because it applies to all organisms equally.

When people speak of God, they are speaking of perfection, or love, or purpose, or justice, or sacrifice, or a million other things, and associating it with a conscious power with whom they can identify. When people pray to God for the soul of a lost loved-one, or invoke God in the condemnation of certain acts, or blow themselves up in His name, or try to live according to His will, or cry out to Him in times of distress, they are refering to the will of some deity that they believe has power over their situation, and wants them to act in a certain way. God is many things, but simply an unthinking lump of energy with no purpose or will or love or connection with humanity is a contradiction of every version of God ever invented.

Same with the soul - of course we're all made of energy, and the matter of which we are formed is transferred to something else upon death, but the soul refers to your immortal personality that lives on in some form after death, either being reborn, living as a ghost, or going to some kind of heaven or hell. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in souls.

This could possibly give you SOMETHING that has some sort of "awareness" (not the equivalent of human or biological awareness, but awareness like what two seperated photons seem to have of one another but spread out across infinity). We could call it God. We could call it energy. But there are possibilities that whatever it is, its nature is far more incomprehensible and complex than modern science ever dreamed.

No we could not call it God. Let's admit that nature is indeed far more complex than we can dream of, and call it Nature, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Stew - and they are atheist terms. God represents the antithesis of this 'naturalist' view. And before you suggest it, God is not the Unknown, either!

Oh, and I'm not trying to offend or convert either - just teaching you English!

 

[Runt]

See, the funny thing is that in an effort to understand and compromise with everyone, you are telling others what they mean!

No, I'm telling others what I mean. I was showing that for me, these terms are synonyms, not telling other people how they SHOULD define these terms. You understand? Q and I were arguing about whether or not there are many different ways of looking at the same things... I was arguing that one definition doesn't work because eveyone has their own views... Q was arguing that we should just accept one (scientific) definition to better communicate...

When people speak of God, they are speaking of perfection, or love, or purpose, or justice, or sacrifice, or a million other things, and associating it with a conscious power with whom they can identify.

I speak of perfection when I speak of a conscious power called "God" by some... all these other terms are the attempts of humans to justify their actions by connecting them to God. Does this God have a purpose, does this God "control" us... probably, but it is not a matter of God "wanting" something so much as DOING it!

but simply an unthinking lump of energy with no purpose or will or love or connection with humanity is a contradiction of every version of God ever invented.

Perhaps it DOES go against everyone else's views on God... but does that necessarily make it wrong? I don't think so...

As for a connection with humanity... something that is part of everything and yet transcends everything WOULD have a connection. I just doubt that connection is what many traditional religions think it to be...

And you look at the word "unthinking" and imagine something with no awareness. I imagine something with COMPLETE awareness, something that knows everything, and therefore does not have to THINK but merely ACT.

As for love...I believe many people make the mistake of thinking that something that is NOT biological can have the chemical "emotions" that humans have. Is it aware of us? Yes, I believe so. Does it "love" us... I don't think so.

Same with the soul - of course we're all made of energy, and the matter of which we are formed is transferred to something else upon death, but the soul refers to your immortal personality that lives on in some form after death, either being reborn, living as a ghost, or going to some kind of heaven or hell. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in souls.

Why do I have to go by the traditional definitions? Buddhists don't believe that the "soul" is reborn with the immortal personality attached, yet they certainly believe that that energy (if you can't call it a soul, then what do you call it?) is reborn and has a distinct connection with the organism(s) it was a part of in other lives...

By your arguement, we have to either accept the ORIGINAL interpretation of an idea/word... or disregard our ideas completely.

Does the "soul" die after death? No, I don't think so. I think it may find itself in another body, I think energy may leave an imprint or stamp of the person's personality (which, if everything else is energy, must be energy as well) behind, and in my opinion this is a "ghost". (And having had an encounter with a ghost in a hotel room, I am not about to say they are not real).

God is not the Unknown

I never said it was. I said God is incomprehensible.

Oh, and I'm not trying to offend or convert either - just teaching you English!

No, you're not teaching me English... you're trying to convince me that to use traditional terms I must adhere to traditional beliefs.

Let's admit that nature is indeed far more complex than we can dream of, and call it Nature, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Stew - and they are atheist terms.

Hmm... so you say atheists admit that there is something "greater" than humanity... something vast, incomprehensible, yaddy yaddy yadda... but don't want to call this thing "God". It seems to me that that is a little stupid. Why don't you just claim that there IS no "higher power", thereby adhering to the traditional definition of "atheist" (someone who does not believe in God) rather than trying to redefine this higher power as Nature, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Stew?

 

[(Q)]

Runt

so does this give me an intermediate understanding of energy?

Chronologically, it would appear so, but if I were to judge your knowledge of energy based on your previous examples, I would have to say no.

You never outright say "Come on, be atheist!", but you clearly hold the spiritual beliefs of others in scorn

That’s an interesting perspective considering I’ve not yet formed an argument in which atheism was the key objective, nor had I thought I was preaching conversion.

My posts have been little more than simple examples of critical thinking, perhaps with a smidgeon of common knowledge thrown in for measure.

But if it DID appear that I was advocating the use of critical thinking skills, common knowledge and reason, then yes, your analysis of me would be accurate. And quite frankly, there is nothing at all wrong with that, wouldn’t you agree?

they will realize that they were wrong all along and start seeing the world your way

I would be flattered if others began thinking as I did, but wouldn’t that make the whole world rather boring?

If offering alternatives convinces or threatens the foundations of ones worldview, I could live with that. But we are all adults here and can make our own decisions. And no one is pointing a gun.

This is how people trying to convert others to their religion go about things.

I fail to see how the simple act of thinking can be considered religion. And it would be beyond the decorum of etiquette for me to introduce anyone to the act of thinking – that would most certainly appear an insult or flame.

It is my least noted assumption that everyone here has his or her brains turned “on.”

but to me it really seemed that you wanted me to realize I was wrong, you were right, and view the world in your way...

But of course! That’s why we’re all here! We all want one another to walk_a_mile in our shoes, so to speak, to see things from THIS perspective rather than THAT perspective.

because there are so many different views as to the "true" nature of various things, there are also many different definitions. Who gets to decide which one should be the ONLY definition by which everyone else should view the world?

People much smarter than you or me decided those things, and they were decided upon in unequivocal agreement. What is more important though is that it is in every ones best interest to use those definitions in accurately communicating their ideas.

I would hardly believe this would even be a topic of debate. A writer must enter the written medium with this concept firmly in mind if they ever want to be understood.

If you firmly believe we can continue to redefine terms as we go along to suit our purposes, then we lack any grounds for understanding one another and will need to first identify the culture and language in which we’ll be conversing.

My friend Kati speaks of "art" when she speaks of cars

So, what does she say when she genuinely wants to refer to art?

scientists will generally tell you that matter is not "conscious" or "aware" in any way...

Correct, consciousness and awareness have never been observed in ordinary matter aside from the brain.

Neither of them (photons) have spin or velocity

That is not correct. Firstly, photons have a particle spin of 1 and secondly, photons have velocity. In fact, they have a constant velocity of about 300,000 kilometers per second in the vacuum of space.

until one (it only has to be one of the two) is observed by the people doing the experiement. At that point they suddenly start both acquire identical velosity and spin, but opposite of one another. It doesn't matter how far apart they are...they ALWAYS do.

Nope. The very act of observing or measuring a photon destroys it. Any photon that is observed or measured simply stops and disappears transferring its energy (momentum) to whatever it comes in contact.

Why does one photon gain spin and velocity when being observed,

Photons NEVER gain spin or velocity. Photons always move at the speed of light (300,000kps) the instant they propagate to the instant they come in contact with an object or medium.

And what does this imply about the nature of energy as a whole? If matter is vastly more interconnected and "aware" on the subatomic level than we thought possible, then IMAGINE (or rather, use logic to form a conclusion) the implications for ALL energy everywhere in the universe!

I’m sorry, but you’re drawing conclusions from phenomena that simply are not observed in nature. And I have never heard of any experiments with electromagnetic radiation in which the results suggested a consciousness or awareness. If you can produce such an experiment or paper, I would be happy to take a look at it.

This could possibly give you SOMETHING that has some sort of "awareness" (not the equivalent of human or biological awareness, but awareness like what two seperated photons seem to have of one another but spread out across infinity). We could call it God. We could call it energy. But there are possibilities that whatever it is, its nature is far more incomprehensible and complex than modern science ever dreamed.

Perhaps you’re referring to quantum entanglement? If so, there is again no reason to suggest consciousness or awareness. It’s just physics.

 

[Runt]

People much smarter than you or me decided those things, and they were decided upon in unequivocal agreement. What is more important though is that it is in every ones best interest to use those definitions in accurately communicating their ideas.

People much smarter than you or me can't decide on these things either. Moving back to the art example. Every intellectual defines art differently. For some it must be aesthetic, it must be pleasing to the eye. For others it must evoke emotion. For some it can be ANYTHING, as long as it is NOT useful. For some (like my friend Kati) ANYTHING that is a "work of man" (cars, paintings, dances, music, science, religion) are art. And the people much smarter than you or me are just as divided on issues like this.

People much smarter than you believe in a God. People much smarter than me believe there is no God. People much smarter than us believe that science can be used to describe the "true" nature of God. People much smarter than us believe that science can be used to prove there IS no God... so which smarter person's word do we go by?

I would hardly believe this would even be a topic of debate. A writer must enter the written medium with this concept firmly in mind if they ever want to be understood.

LOL! Writers assign new values and connotations (or simply redefine) terms all the time! What do you think metaphor is? Here's one for you... "Words are weapons" Words cannot be weapons because they are not physical in nature... yet there is truth to this statement...

So, what does she say when she genuinely wants to refer to art?

LOL, for Kati, a car really is genuine "art". When she refers to "art", she includes cars in this definition. For me, "art" must be more emotional and aesthetic in nature (or, if not aesthetic, must at least must contain elements of the sublime). Therefore a car does not fit into my definition of "art".

Correct, consciousness and awareness have never been observed in ordinary matter aside from the brain.

Even when pairs (or trios even, apparently... didn't know THAT was possible until I started reading a little more) of photons are separated, if one of them is changed in some way, the other photon automatically undergoes the same modification.

Obviously this is "just physics"... but it implies that the Universe (using the atheist term ) is far more connected than we might be able to guess.

And you're right... awareness might be the wrong term. Those photons seem to "know" what the other is doing... but as you said, this is entanglement, not awareness... they are connected and that is how they "know" what the other is doing and imitate it.

That is not correct. Firstly, photons have a particle spin of 1 and secondly, photons have velocity. In fact, they have a constant velocity of about 300,000 kilometers per second in the vacuum of space.

Sigh. I always love it when they teach us incorrect stuff in school... I can't tell my teacher that she's wrong... but everyone tells me I'm wrong if I repeat what my teachers taught me. *cries*

I was repeating a story my physics teacher told me (okay, told the class, not just me) last week. I may have gotten it wrong... or perhaps she was simply WRONG. However, I'm trying to remember a term... spin-(prevented...forbidden) or something like that... oh, never mind.

Nope. The very act of observing or measuring a photon destroys it. Any photon that is observed or measured simply stops and disappears transferring its energy (momentum) to whatever it comes in contact.

Fine, it still stands that the very act of observing or measuring a photon "changes" it (disrupts its wave function... though my teacher said--or I thought she said but may have been wrong--that this disruption causes it to gain spin/velosity, whereas you say it just destroys the photon.)

Is the other photon destroyed at this point, despite not having been observed directly and not being "physically connected" (entangled, yes, but not in the same location as the other photon) to the photon that was observed? If so, it gives further evidence to my point that entangled photons imitate one another.

I’m sorry, but you’re drawing conclusions from phenomena that simply are not observed in nature. And I have never heard of any experiments with electromagnetic radiation in which the results suggested a consciousness or awareness. If you can produce such an experiment or paper, I would be happy to take a look at it.

Fine... but the evidence you have provided me (photons getting destroyed when observed) and concepts of physics that I KNOW are true (entanglement, for example... entanged photons--I keep wanting to write protons, but you already think me stupid so better not do that!--"copy" one another's behavior despite being in different locations) mean that the point still stands. So I ask you AGAIN: If matter is vastly more interconnected on the subatomic level than we thought possible, then how interconnective and interactive is energy as a whole?

Perhaps you’re referring to quantum entanglement? If so, there is again no reason to suggest consciousness or awareness. It’s just physics.

Yeah, forgot that term until you mentioned it... You think it is "just physics". I think physics is beginning to uncover a reality far more complex than we ever guessed. *shrug* But if you can believe what you want, and I will believe what I want.

 

[Alaric]

Runt,
Imagine someone said this:
"Lots of people don't believe in Santa Claus, but I do. I just don't believe that he's towed around by reindeer. Or that he uses a sled. Nah, he just runs. And he doesn't give presents to kids at Christmas - he hides chocolate and painted eggs for kids in their gardens at Easter. And he's a rabbit. Yep, I love Santa."

Do you think he should be allowed to say this? No, of course he shouldn't. He has obviously confused the Easter Bunny with Santa.

Another example. Say you hear a thump on your roof. Some might say it's a cat, some might say it's a burglar, some might say it's an alien. That's fine. It's also okay that some call lights from swamp gas 'will-o-the-wisps' or 'fairies'. The key characteristic is the sound of the thump and the light over the swamp, respectively. The key characteristics for God are his will, his purpose, love etc. This is what makes God God.

By your arguement, we have to either accept the ORIGINAL interpretation of an idea/word... or disregard our ideas completely.

Why don't you just call your ideas something else? You at least owe it to your congregation should you ever become a Unitarian minister, or you'll be deceiving them totally.

No, you're not teaching me English... you're trying to convince me that to use traditional terms I must adhere to traditional beliefs.

You must adhere to the definitions of the traditional beliefs.

Hmm... so you say atheists admit that there is something "greater" than humanity... something vast, incomprehensible, yaddy yaddy yadda... but don't want to call this thing "God". It seems to me that that is a little stupid. Why don't you just claim that there IS no "higher power", thereby adhering to the traditional definition of "atheist" (someone who does not believe in God) rather than trying to redefine this higher power as Nature, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Stew?

The laws of nature are not 'higher powers' or 'greater' than humanity. They are just the rules of the game. God is something completely different.

 

[(Q)]

For some (like my friend Kati) ANYTHING that is a "work of man" (cars, paintings, dances, music, science, religion) are art. And the people much smarter than you or me are just as divided on issues like this.

I find it hard to believe you’re still going on about this. Or perhaps you’re only doing so that I might get frustrated and leave?

It’s really quite simple, definitions have been agreed upon and are there for the purpose of finding common ground for discussion. No one is divided on this issue except you.

Your friend Kati redefines terms and you are the only one who understands them, yet you know perfectly well the definition of a car is a car. If anyone aside from yourself were to have a discussion with Kati, they would think her a complete imbecile and wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what she was talking about.

And if you still have issues with definitions, please lobby your local government or whoever to have the definitions changed to your liking and drop the subject.

People much smarter than you believe in a God. People much smarter than me believe there is no God. People much smarter than us believe that science can be used to describe the "true" nature of God. People much smarter than us believe that science can be used to prove there IS no God... so which smarter person's word do we go by?

You’re talking apples and oranges. I wouldn’t go by any ones word in regards to their personal beliefs regardless of how smart they are.

I also find it highly unlikely someone smarter than me believes in gods. They obviously have lost the ability to think critically. But that’s another discussion.

Writers assign new values and connotations (or simply redefine) terms all the time! What do you think metaphor is?

A metaphor is a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity. What does this have to do with redefining terms? And what does this have to do with understanding one another?

Are you suggesting that we use metaphors to communicate our ideas? What would be the point in that?

Obviously this is "just physics"... but it implies that the Universe (using the atheist term ) is far more connected than we might be able to guess.

The only thing it implies is that you prefer to guess. Universe is not an atheist term.

Those photons seem to "know" what the other is doing... but as you said, this is entanglement, not awareness... they are connected and that is how they "know" what the other is doing and imitate it.

Sorry, but quantum entanglement does not suggest that at all. Read up on it and understand it before attempting to comment.

Fine, it still stands that the very act of observing or measuring a photon "changes" it

Did you read what I said? It does not “change” the photon; it destroys it, big difference.

disrupts its wave function

COLLAPSES the wave function.

So I ask you AGAIN: If matter is vastly more interconnected on the subatomic level than we thought possible, then how interconnective and interactive is energy as a whole?

Quite simply, it is not. And there is nothing in your posts to suggest otherwise, especially when your conclusions are drawn from false information.

Please try to gain an understanding of the subject matter before you attempt comment. In my humble opinion, you appear to be in awe of that which you don’t understand. If you took the time to research the material, you would no longer be in awe and the mysticism you’ve created for yourself will disappear.

I think physics is beginning to uncover a reality far more complex than we ever guessed. *shrug* But if you can believe what you want, and I will believe what I want.

Physics is simply uncovering reality. And the more it uncovers, the more we understand that the laws of physics dominate the universe with no ulterior agendas like the ones you suggest.

True, you may continue believing whatever you wish, but your beliefs are not grounded with a firm understanding of the subject matter.

If you prefer an analogy: one who might suspect a car having mystical energies because they don’t understand the mechanics of a compression engine.

 

[Holy_is_his_name]

yes

 

[Runt]

Alaric and Q--

I find it hard to believe you’re still going on about this. Or perhaps you’re only doing so that I might get frustrated and leave?

Perhaps I keep going on about this because your arguments on this particular topic have thus far failed to convince me of anything. What, are you determined to have the last word or something? If you find this portion of the debate irrelevant, simply stop responding!

Your friend Kati redefines terms and you are the only one who understands them, yet you know perfectly well the definition of a car is a car. If anyone aside from yourself were to have a discussion with Kati, they would think her a complete imbecile and wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what she was talking about.

Either you are deliberately misunderstanding me, or you are not as intelligent as I thought. Kati has a different definition of ART, not a different definition of “car” than me! MANY people have different definitions of art. I’m sure you and I probably have different definitions.

My point? People have different definitions of “God”. For a Christian God is male, and there is only one of Him. For a pagan, God can be male OR female, and there are MANY Gods. These are two different definitions of “God”. Yet one is NOT more valid than the other!

The only thing it implies is that you prefer to guess. Universe is not an atheist term.

Really? Hmm… Alaric said it was: “Let's admit that nature is indeed far more complex than we can dream of, and call it Nature, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Stew - and they are atheist terms.”

Oh no! You’re disagreeing about the definition of Universe! Is it an atheist term or isn’t it? You CAN’T have a difference of opinion on this!!! Quick, ask those “smarter people” what THEY think, rather than thinking for youself!

I wouldn’t go by any ones word in regards to their personal beliefs regardless of how smart they are.

Then why should I? “Smarter” people can have their own views of God… I can have mine.

I also find it highly unlikely someone smarter than me believes in gods. They obviously have lost the ability to think critically. But that’s another discussion.

LOL. Extreme arrogance. You obviously think you’re smarter than the vast majority of the population, and many famous intellectuals, including Thomas Jefferson (deist/Unitarian), Einstein, Galileo, George Washington Carver, Alfred Whitney Griswold, Stephen Hawking, Maria Mitchell, Johannes Kepler…you think these people have/had lost the ability to think critically? That is strange, since most of them are scientists, and ALL are intellectuals…

Do you have to believe in God simply because they did? No… but, “I find hit highly unlikely that someone smarter than me believes in Gods” is probably the stupidest statement you’ve made yet.

Are you suggesting that we use metaphors to communicate our ideas? What would be the point in that?

Never mind. I was wrong. Perhaps you should study rhetorical technique a little more before you comment on this subject…

Of course we use metaphors to communicate our ideas! Sometimes it is far more effective to use a metaphor or simile to communicate an idea than it is to simply “say it straight”. For example, the simile, “Her mind was sealed like a iron trap that had rusted shut” is a far more effective way to suggest that someone is “close-minded” than simply to say “she is very close-minded”.

Imagine someone said this:
"Lots of people don't believe in Santa Claus, but I do. I just don't believe that he's towed around by reindeer. Or that he uses a sled. Nah, he just runs. And he doesn't give presents to kids at Christmas - he hides chocolate and painted eggs for kids in their gardens at Easter. And he's a rabbit. Yep, I love Santa."

Do you think he should be allowed to say this? No, of course he shouldn't. He has obviously confused the Easter Bunny with Santa.

Lots of people don’t believe in Santa Claus, BUT I DO! I just don’t believe that he’s towed around by reindeer. Or that he uses a sled. Nah, he was just a Christian saint named Nicolas who was born during the third century in Turkey and decided to obey Jesus's command to "sell what you own and give the money to the poor." And he doesn’t give presents to kids at Christmas. He’s dead. However, when he was alive he used his whole inheritance to assist the needy, the sick, and the suffering and was later canonized by the Roman Catholic Church as a saint.

Do you think I should be allowed to say this? No, of course I shouldn’t! I have obviously confused the historical Saint Nicolas with Santa!

The key characteristics for God are his will, his purpose, love etc. This is what makes God God.

You must adhere to the definitions of the traditional beliefs.

Don’t be ridiculous. Words take on new connotations all the time. Including the connotations of the word “God”. The ideas associated with the word “God” have changed steadily over time, and continue to change. The English word “God” used to refer exclusively to the Judeo-Christian God and had ideas such as “One” and “male” associated with it. This God did not communicate directly with humans but spoke to them through the Holy Ghost. Then Anne Hutchinson came along and suggested that this God really DID communicate directly with humans. In time the meaning of the word was expanded further to include non-Christian views of God, such as a God that is “One of many” and sometimes even “female”.

These views are not God, simply because they do not adhere to the definitions of the traditional beliefs?

Then I guess any religion with a vision of God other than the Judeo-Christian view (Hindu, Wiccan, Druid, Buddhist, just to name a few) need to find another word because their views of God do NOT adhere to the definitions of the traditional beliefs.

Why don't you just call your ideas something else? You at least owe it to your congregation should you ever become a Unitarian minister, or you'll be deceiving them totally.

Well, what do you suggest I call them? You say my views are not views of God. Q says my views are not views of the natural world. They must be one or the other, and since there are many people in the world (and several even on this site) who seem to view God the same way or in a similar way, I think I will call my ideas “God”.

Should I ever become a Unitarian minister, I will owe my congregation my willingness to truthfully share my own beliefs with them, my willingness to allow them to have their own beliefs EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH THEM, and my willingness to support them on the quest for truth that is part of the mission of the Unitarian Church. (“A free and responsible search for truth and meaning”.)

As for whether or not my beliefs match Unitarian beliefs on God… well, to quote a minister-to-be who spoke in church yesterday, we Unitarians believe in “One God…at least…if any.” The Unitarian Church encompasses many different spiritual beliefs—including Christian, Pagan, Buddhist, Taoist, Agnostic, and yes, even Atheist—and everyone is allowed to worship as they please “without requiring adherence to any particular interpretation of religion or to any particular religious belief or creed” (that last statement is actually a part of the stated “Purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association”). I seriously doubt these rights are restricted to just the congregation! In fact, I know it is not, for a Unitarian Buddhist minister married my parents!

(MAIZE, IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING THIS DEBATE, WILL YOU CONFIRM IF I AM CORRECT OR CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG? YOU’VE BEEN IN THE UUC LONGER THAN I HAVE…)

Did you read what I said? It does not “change” the photon; it destroys it, big difference.

Yes, I read what you said, and didn’t agree.

You don’t think the COLLAPSE of a photon’s wave function “changes” it? Gee… I thought that would be a “change” that led to its “destruction”… But maybe I am wrong…

Quite simply, it is not. And there is nothing in your posts to suggest otherwise, especially when your conclusions are drawn from false information.

If energy were NOT interconnected or interactive, we would not have physics… chemistry… biology… biochemistry… or any other field of science!

And you say my conclusions are drawn from false information… perhaps you could show me, in scientific terms, how energy is not interconnected or interactive. And “It’s just physics” is the STUPIDEST reply you can possibly give me, so don’t try it.

True, you may continue believing whatever you wish, but your beliefs are not grounded with a firm understanding of the subject matter.

Please try to gain an understanding of the subject matter before you attempt comment.

Gee… I guess 2 years of biology at the college level, 1 year of physics at the college level, and 1 year of chemistry at the college level are not enough to gain an understanding of the subject matter? Wow… and I thought you said one only needs a “basic understanding” of energy to understand that there is no God… but I guess you were wrong. Einstein had WAAY more than a “basic understanding”, and WAAY more of an understanding than you, I’m sure, but even THAT didn’t erase the concept of God from his mind, but rather reinforced his beliefs.

But you scorn those of us who don’t use “critical thinking” or have as great a grasp of the workings of the universe as you, in your infinite knowledge, do…

In my humble opinion, you appear to be in awe of that which you don’t understand. If you took the time to research the material, you would no longer be in awe and the mysticism you’ve created for yourself will disappear.

“Humble” opinion! Yeah right. All people who believe in something beyond what science can detect are just stupid…so why do you bother talking to “stupid people”?

 

[Alaric]

(Q: The only thing it implies is that you prefer to guess. Universe is not an atheist term.)

Really? Hmm… Alaric said it was: “Let's admit that nature is indeed far more complex than we can dream of, and call it Nature, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Stew - and they are atheist terms.”

Oh no! You’re disagreeing about the definition of Universe! Is it an atheist term or isn’t it? You CAN’T have a difference of opinion on this!!! Quick, ask those “smarter people” what THEY think, rather than thinking for youself!

This is not about the definition of the universe, it's about the application of the word. I am saying that atheists simply believe what you believe without calling the unknown, or the 'connectivity', 'God' or a 'higher consciousness', and I assume Q is saying that theists are allowed to use the word 'universe' as well - because theists tend to believe in a transcendent God, i.e. outside the universe.

I have obviously confused the historical Saint Nicolas with Santa!

So glad you agree!

But alas, you're being sarcastic. When a child believes that Santa Claus will come and deliver toys on Christmas, what are they thinking of? They are thinking of a jolly fat man in a red suit, NOT the reanimated corpse of a long-dead saint who gives his parents money and loaves of bread. St. Nick is the origin of the Santa myth, not Santa himself. St. Nick existed. Santa doesn't. I also believe that Jesus existed, but not that he was the Son of God - ergo, I don't con people by saying that I 'believe in Jesus'.

Then I guess any religion with a vision of God other than the Judeo-Christian view (Hindu, Wiccan, Druid, Buddhist, just to name a few) need to find another word because their views of God do NOT adhere to the definitions of the traditional beliefs.

You don't accept, then, that they all share some key features? Lets say you had to explain to a little kid what 'God' was. You couldn't just give her your own *cough* definition */cough*, you would have to give a definition that applied to everyone's use of the word. What would you say?

To use the car example, we call Toyotas, Mercs, Chevies and Ladas cars (well maybe not Ladas), yet they are all different. Does that mean we can call a skateboard or a space shuttle a 'car'? They have wheels as well...

Well, what do you suggest I call them? You say my views are not views of God. Q says my views are not views of the natural world. They must be one or the other, and since there are many people in the world (and several even on this site) who seem to view God the same way or in a similar way, I think I will call my ideas “God”.

Remember the Simpsons episode where Homer takes Bart and Lisa to a Hullabalooza (sp?) festival, and Homer buys a Rastafarian hat, and Lisa says something like "Da-ad, you can't wear that, you're making a bold statement about your connections to the Reggae culture." As it is with you and I, and I'm not Homer. You can't just wear the God hat and declare that you believe in Him, just not quite in the way most do. Believing in God requires an attitude transformation, a submission to a higher power.

As for whether or not my beliefs match Unitarian beliefs on God… well, to quote a minister-to-be who spoke in church yesterday, we Unitarians believe in “One God…at least…if any.”

And as such, there isn't a bird nor beast who can't join. Do you have to pay, or is it just for the tax exemption status that they do it?
:lol:
I'm just ribbing you, but I think it's funny that you need to go to a church to do this.

 

[(Q)]

Runt

Perhaps I keep going on about this because your arguments on this particular topic have thus far failed to convince me of anything.

So, essentially you are saying that we can make up definitions as we go along in the hopes that we’ll understand one another? This of course will ultimately lead to confusion and we will never have grounds for communicating.

MANY people have different definitions of art. I’m sure you and I probably have different definitions.

Apparently.

These are two different definitions of “God”. Yet one is NOT more valid than the other!

First of all, each and every person has his or her own definition of god. The likeliness of two people having the same definitions of god is like trying to find two people with matching fingerprints. And ones definition of god will be no more valid than another’s. This would stand to reason considering we have nothing to compare - no one has ever seen gods.

So, because we can’t agree on a definition for gods does not mean we can’t agree on a definition for cars. And that definition is not art; it is a car. One may see art in a car but if they were to call a car an “art,” they would not be understood by anyone. This is common sense.

LOL. Extreme arrogance. You obviously think you’re smarter than the vast majority of the population… I find hit highly unlikely that someone smarter than me believes in Gods” is probably the stupidest statement you’ve made yet.

That statement was sarcasm. Perhaps I should have added a wink or some other graemlin to signify such – sorry that you took it seriously. My bad.

Of course we use metaphors to communicate our ideas! Sometimes it is far more effective to use a metaphor or simile to communicate an idea than it is to simply “say it straight”.

Perhaps, but because there is no definition for gods, or at least one in which everyone can agree upon, each statement made about gods will be metaphoric in nature. This is blindingly different than the definitions of a car or art or energy, which can be defined and agreed.

So, if you call god “interconnected energy,” and I call god “table and chairs not made of wood, ” which one of us is correct? Both of us are using metaphors, yet we will not understand one another. I can define energy and not see any relation whatsoever to gods. You can define table and chairs and also not see any relation to gods.

You don’t think the COLLAPSE of a photon’s wave function “changes” it?

A change in the wave function would suggest modification as opposed to destruction. Again, by not using correct terms, confusion results.

If energy were NOT interconnected or interactive, we would not have physics… chemistry… biology… biochemistry… or any other field of science!

The energy running my computer has nothing to do with the energy of a falling meteor or the energy that does not allow my body to sink through the Earth. You were trying to suggest these energies were interconnected and interactive, which is entirely incorrect.

And you say my conclusions are drawn from false information… perhaps you could show me, in scientific terms, how energy is not interconnected or interactive.

Quite simple really, there must be some form of information passed from one energy state to another in order for it to interact. Therefore, some form of contact must take place, usually at the quantum level. As well, the various forms of energy must be compatible in order to transfer information. The kinetic energy in the momentum of an object has nothing to do with the thermal energy of a burning object. The potential energy in a compressed spring has nothing to do with the nuclear energy of the sun.

I guess 2 years of biology at the college level, 1 year of physics at the college level, and 1 year of chemistry at the college level are not enough to gain an understanding of the subject matter?

Well, your understanding of the subject matter doesn’t seem to agree with your claimed education. What other conclusion can I draw from that?

Wow… and I thought you said one only needs a “basic understanding” of energy to understand that there is no God… but I guess you were wrong.

I didn’t say that – you’re putting words in my mouth.

Einstein had WAAY more than a “basic understanding”, and WAAY more of an understanding than you, I’m sure, but even THAT didn’t erase the concept of God from his mind, but rather reinforced his beliefs.

I don’t know where you got that from – Einstein did not believe in gods or religion. I posted various quotes from him on another thread here that conveyed quite the opposite of your claim.

But you scorn those of us who don’t use “critical thinking” or have as great a grasp of the workings of the universe as you

Why would anyone NOT want to use critical thinking? They would be awash in a sea of ignorance and misunderstanding. How do you like that metaphor?

All people who believe in something beyond what science can detect are just stupid…so why do you bother talking to “stupid people”?

Are you claiming to be stupid?

If people wish to believe that which has no basis in reality, they are free to do so, I could care less. But if they refuse to use critical thinking to justify their beliefs, then they are unable to distinguish their beliefs from reality, and they begin to believe their beliefs are the reality.

And that is something I can’t just sit back and not question.

 

[Runt]

Alaric and Q--

We've gotten horribly off topic. We have gotten to a point in the debate where we are all just repeating ourselves and arguing over little details, rather than discussing the nature of the soul. If I try to comment on your new posts, I will simply be repeating myself... your comments will do the same.

Thus, I'm going to yank this back on topic as best as I can... I'll state my beliefs, you can tell me why my description cannot be used to define "God" or the "soul", and otherwise argue with me as you please. We're probably going to start ANOTHER whole off-topic conversation, but at least for a while others can participate...

You are, of course, encouraged to argue with me... you and anyone else who may decide to read this and wants to disagree with, agree with, or qualify my statements.

My view of God:

It is all-knowing, infinite (lives forever and is everywhere), transcendent, utterly alien, incomprehensible, male AND female (and hermaphroditic, asexual, and any other gender or possible gender), and archetypal (meaning all views of God with personality, distinct characteristics, etc, are merely manifestations of It). It is everything within human perception but also outside of human perception (bigger than we can "see" or "imagine")--like I said, transcendent. Meaning all views of God probably touch on Its nature, (including the view of Nature as a divine force), but are not the TOTALITY of It. It created the laws of science and uses them but is Itself more than the reality that science has (or can) discover. There is no such thing as a "wrong religion"...or rather, ALL religions are probably "wrong" because all religions form around our GUESSES about the nature of this entity, and none can claim to truly be able to define It accurately. The worship of It is for US, not for IT. No matter how we try to define It, no matter how we worship It, It will still remain Itself, and it will do whatever It wants.

My view of the soul:

A. The soul is an entity that is eternal, distinct and separate from the body and the personality, can contain "memory" of past personalities and bodies (as either a "ghost", which does NOT go onto another life, or a "past life remembrance" which results when the soul is in another body), but each new being is individual, separate from its past life, and... well, new.

B. Karma accumulates with the soul. If it is reborn (in any form) this karma comes too. If it is not reborn, the karma and the soul rejoin God.

My view of the natural world and science:

A. The natural laws are the laws God gave us to live by in this reality. (Who knows if the natural laws extend into the reality BEYOND human comprehension? I am not willing to say that they do OR that they don't...I just don't know). There is actually a term for this concept--the Greek word "nomos"--which later was used in the Torah to mean "God's Law" rather than "natural laws".

B. The natural world is part of God, but not Its totality. The natural world is merely a MANIFESTATION of this entity, one of Its creations, and a vehicle through which it interacts with Its creations within this creation (and remember that at the same time Its creations are a part of It....we are a part of It, nature is a part of It, all scientific phenomenon is a part of It) and cannot be used alone to describe the full nature of this entity (just as we can't look at an arm and call that arm a "human". It is a PART of a human, but is not representative of the full nature of a human). Scientific laws, created by this entity, can be used to watch and measure how It interacts with our world, but cannot be used to describe the reality of God that is BEYOND human perception (afterlife, astral planes, etc).

Words words words

One more thing. If you REALLY don't think my view of God can be called God, then you might find this interesting. I found a new, more accurate term. Many neopagans (including neoDruids and Wiccans) believe in many "Gods" that are all archetypes of one "Source"... which is described much as I described my views on "God".

Some quotes on this idea:

"To put it simply, the Celts were both polytheistic and monotheistic. The one Source was split into easily understandable parts, the various Celtic gods and goddesses. Members of Celtic society used these aspects as ways to communicate with and receive guidance from the Source in a way all could understand." http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3591/god.html

"Many pagans, though polytheistic, see all things as being
part of one Great Mystery. The apparent contradiction of being both
polytheistic and monotheistic can be resolved by seeing the God/desses
as masks worn by the Great Mystery." http://www.faqs.org/faqs/paganism-faq/

"Much of the Neopagan world has accepted the maxim "All gods are one god, and all goddesses one goddess". This theological maxim was first expressed by early 20th century magician Dion Fortune. She based it on the teachings of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the patterns of the Hermetic Qabala. The assumption at that time was that the esoteric teachings of that system could be used to 'explain' all other religious and magical traditions. They taught a system that was, at its heart, monotheistic even as they gave more honor to the Many Gods than previous generations of Christian magicians." http://www.adf.org/articles/identity/core-theology.html

"We are all little sparks off of a great large Flame, and that Flame is the source of all that ever was or that ever will be." ---Galeain ip Alteim MacDunelmor

 

[Alaric]

Man you must be hell to buy birthday presents for, Runt. 'What do you want, Natasha?' 'I want something big. And small. And round, and square, and fluffy and hard and gooey and purple and yellow and invisible!'

It's quite extraordinary - virtually every single characteristic of God that you list contradicts the other characteristics. Where to start - if God is male and female, then It is not asexual, and vice versa; and because we know male and female, then It can't be utterly alien, or incomprehensible. Or infinite, for that matter. If God is archetypal, then It can't be utterly alien OR incomprehensible, because if It was, all the views of It would be completely wrong. If God is infinite, It can't be transcendent, because transcendence is 'outside and independent of the material universe', and you said It was everywhere. And that archetypal thing by itself is just ridiculous - the different views of God flatly contradict each other. They can't all be right. (And by saying that God will do whatever It wants, you flatly contradict all the Abrahamic religions, in which God is defined as perfectly good.) It can't 'use' (ie manipulate) the laws of science or they wouldn't be laws, and if they weren't laws, then we could never learn to understand anything at all about God. And if It's utterly alien and incomprehensible, then what the hell are we talking about? You can't have a view on something utterly alien and incomprehensible, can you? Etcetera, etcetera. And don't say that God can be all those things because It's so powerful - the words we use to describe God have specific meanings - if we describe something with two or more words that contradict each other, the thing we are trying to describe is meaningless.

In your rush to be the Great Compromiser you have robbed God of everything that makes Him special. There is no point to believing in your God - no way to describe Him, no reason to worship Him; no views about Him are to be trusted, no lessons to learn, no virtues to admire, no stories to tell. There is no purpose to creation, no divine morality; we can't even begin to get to know Him, through science, self-understanding, or enlightenment. He has no special characteristics that we can appeal to or use as a guide - and we can't even give a single reason why He should exist. Your God is just a mish-mash of fancy words that make no sense together and mean absolutely nothing to humanity.