| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Son of man" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 09:04:57 PM |
| Object: |
How do atheists view the world? |
Is life in this world really important? Since after death it is the atheist
view that nothing is carried on or passed into another dimension beyond the
physical, what is the goal of the atheist? Just to hope for as best a life
as possible, while believing nothing will remain of their experiences, not
even memories once they are dead?
Someone who believes in a spiritual dimension beyond the physical after
death that is similar to a dream-like world, pretty much sees life in this
world as opportunity to progress morally or spiritually so that they can
achieve a higher state of existence, one totally free from all suffering, in
a spiriual dimension after death. So for the spiritual person, like in this
world has meaning...it's like a stepping stone or bridge depending on how
they live their lives.
But what's the atheist view on life in this world? What's the goal? Would it
really matter to atheists if the whole world was blown to bits, since death
is the end-all finality that comes to everything that is born into this
world anyway?
What basically do atheists strive for in this life? To simply get as much
pleasure wherever it can be had and to hope for a long life?
What difference is there to an atheist whether he were to blow his head off
this very second, or to live out the reaminder of his natural life since the
end is the same -- nothing by which to remember past experiences, and no
expectation or hope of a continued state of existence?
--
"The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent." Brad Rogers
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/TheWordOfGod_1.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Rafeek" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
14 Aug 2004 07:52:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:54:15 -0400, Login with Secure Password
Authentication <GodsSoldier@GlorytoHim.com> wrote:
I'm certainly not out to change your beliefs, but there is value in
the truth of the Holy Scripture, I assure you, and one's life is
changed irrevocably for the better and stronger when one lives
by God's Word.
That may be true, but how can a thoughtful person get over the hurdle
of believing something that is so absurd?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
14 Aug 2004 08:04:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:54:15 -0400, Login with Secure Password
Authentication <GodsSoldier@GlorytoHim.com> wrote:
Have you noticed how the in-your-face morons like this one use such
pretentious names?
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:48:52 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Login with Secure Password
Authentication:
No-nonsense people don't cast out devils. Period.
Oh I know lots of no-nonsense people who believe in the Holy
Scriptures, which do indeed speak of devils being cast out in
Jesus' name.
Sorry, the notion that illness, greed and evil are the work of the devil is
nonsense, pure and simple.
I'm certainly not out to change your beliefs, but there is value in
the truth of the Holy Scripture, I assure you, and one's life is
changed irrevocably for the better and stronger when one lives
by God's Word.
Don't be so fucking stupid.
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mikhail" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
14 Aug 2004 06:11:38 PM |
|
|
Woden <wodencharternet> wrote:
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:RqeTc.13035$Yh.1023@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
Is life in this world really important? Since after death it is the
atheist view that nothing is carried on or passed into another
dimension beyond the physical, what is the goal of the atheist? Just
to hope for as best a life as possible, while believing nothing will
remain of their experiences, not even memories once they are dead?
Yeah, reality can be a ***** can't it.
Which they can't handle.
Someone who believes in a spiritual dimension beyond the physical
after death that is similar to a dream-like world, pretty much sees
life in this world as opportunity to progress morally or spiritually
so that they can achieve a higher state of existence, one totally
free from all suffering, in a spiriual dimension after death. So for
the spiritual person, like in this world has meaning...it's like a
stepping stone or bridge depending on how they live their lives.
Yeah, isn't it amazing what a little self delusion can do for people
without the courage or intelligence or knowledge or.... to face
reality.
Thing is, there's all sorts of oppressive, nasty, and violent things
they will do to you based on their delusions.
But what's the atheist view on life in this world? What's the goal?
Why do you think life needs a goal?
I'm sorry, but you mentioned 'think' and Suiter [you] in the same
sentence.
Would it really matter to atheists if the whole world was blown to
bits, since death is the end-all finality that comes to everything
that is born into this world anyway?
I guess most of us have a little "species ego" and would like to see
our decendents go on to bigger and better things throughout the galaxy
or universe...
Such may be bigger, but they won't be better with theist irrationalities
screwing things up.
What basically do atheists strive for in this life? To simply get as
much pleasure wherever it can be had and to hope for a long life?
Well, it does beat getting a load of ***** and a short life.
Ah, but that, according to xtians, is a *good thing* (unless it happens
to them) since its "Jesus' Will(tm)" for them.
What difference is there to an atheist whether he were to blow his
head off this very second, or to live out the reaminder of his
natural life since the end is the same -- nothing by which to
remember past experiences, and no expectation or hope of a continued
state of existence?
Why would someone without the fantasy of an "afterlife" want to waste
the one life he has?
Exactly!
Perhaps one should ask why a xian who believes he's going to end up in
heaven bothers to do anything that would prolong his life -- like
vaccines, or preventive medicine, or safety measures or wear a
seatbelt...?
RRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
Their actions demonstrate their lack of belief in the mythical promises.
(Such isn't unexpected since the 'promises' have an excellent track
record of terminal failure)
--
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
-George Bush 2004/08/20040805
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
14 Aug 2004 07:34:05 AM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:RqeTc.13035$Yh.1023@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
What difference is there to an atheist whether he were to blow his
head off this very second, or to live out the reaminder of his natural
life since the end is the same -- nothing by which to remember past
experiences, and no expectation or hope of a continued state of
existence?
Why would someone without the fantasy of an "afterlife" want to waste the
one life he has?
I can never get over this "there has to be something more" attitude,
especially from people living in rich countries with plenty of freedom.
There are more things in this world than anybody can see or experience
in one lifetime, even living life so fully you never stop for a
breather. This life is so rich, to demand more seems, I don't know,
ungrateful or something. And I'm on medication for depression!
--
Patrick Brown
"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the
surface of a gas-covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90
million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some
indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be" Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mikhail" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
14 Aug 2004 06:14:41 PM |
|
|
Patrick Brown wrote:
Woden wrote:
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:RqeTc.13035$Yh.1023@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
What difference is there to an atheist whether he were to blow his
head off this very second, or to live out the reaminder of his
natural life since the end is the same -- nothing by which to
remember past experiences, and no expectation or hope of a continued
state of existence?
Why would someone without the fantasy of an "afterlife" want to waste
the one life he has?
I can never get over this "there has to be something more" attitude,
especially from people living in rich countries with plenty of
freedom. There are more things in this world than anybody can see or
experience in one lifetime, even living life so fully you never stop
for a breather. This life is so rich, to demand more seems, I don't
know, ungrateful or something. And I'm on medication for depression!
I know. Such is gluttony which is a 'sin.' Life is vibrancy so
breathtaking.
--
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
-George Bush 2004/08/20040805
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
13 Aug 2004 09:06:03 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:RqeTc.13035$Yh.1023@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Is life in this world really important? Since after death it is the
atheist view that nothing is carried on or passed into another dimension
beyond the physical, what is the goal of the atheist? Just to hope for as
best a life as possible, while believing nothing will remain of their
experiences, not even memories once they are dead?
Someone who believes in a spiritual dimension beyond the physical after
death that is similar to a dream-like world, pretty much sees life in this
world as opportunity to progress morally or spiritually so that they can
achieve a higher state of existence, one totally free from all suffering,
in a spiriual dimension after death. So for the spiritual person, like
typo : like = life
in this world has meaning...it's like a stepping stone or bridge
depending on how they live their lives.
But what's the atheist view on life in this world? What's the goal? Would
it really matter to atheists if the whole world was blown to bits, since
death is the end-all finality that comes to everything that is born into
this world anyway?
What basically do atheists strive for in this life? To simply get as much
pleasure wherever it can be had and to hope for a long life?
What difference is there to an atheist whether he were to blow his head
off this very second, or to live out the reaminder of his natural life
since the end is the same -- nothing by which to remember past
experiences, and no expectation or hope of a continued state of existence?
--
"The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent." Brad Rogers
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/TheWordOfGod_1.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
16 Aug 2004 05:25:01 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<RqeTc.13035$Yh.1023@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
Is life in this world really important?
It is to me. Since I'm the one living my life, that's sufficient.
Since after death it is the atheist
view that nothing is carried on or passed into another dimension beyond the
physical, what is the goal of the atheist? Just to hope for as best a life
as possible, while believing nothing will remain of their experiences, not
even memories once they are dead?
My actions live on in their repurcussions. Just because I won't
survive to see the future of the human species doesn't mean that I
lack concern for it. I like humanity, on the whole. I have high
hopes for it. I want to make whatever humble contributions I can to
that cause.
Someone who believes in a spiritual dimension beyond the physical after
death that is similar to a dream-like world, pretty much sees life in this
world as opportunity to progress morally or spiritually so that they can
achieve a higher state of existence, one totally free from all suffering, in
a spiriual dimension after death.
I prefer to engage in moral improvement in this life while it can
still be of benefit to myself and those around me. Supposing some
sort of moral epilogue may be well and good for you but, for me, it's
not really necessary.
So for the spiritual person, like in this
world has meaning...it's like a stepping stone or bridge depending on how
they live their lives.
My life has meaning, thank you. It may not be *your* meaning but,
once again, it's my life and not yours.
But what's the atheist view on life in this world?
I'm rather fond of it.
What's the goal?
My personal goals are to improve my mind, to improve my character and,
to the best of my ability, improve the world around me. The word you
seem to be lacking, by the by, is legacy.
Would it
really matter to atheists if the whole world was blown to bits, since death
is the end-all finality that comes to everything that is born into this
world anyway?
It would matter very much to me. It would be a tremendous waste and
an utter tragedy. It would be all the more tragic because I couldn't
expect that everyone wouldn't be *really* dead but would, instead,
continue to exist in some magical dimension. Life is fragile and
perishable and that means that it's all the more precious.
What basically do atheists strive for in this life? To simply get as much
pleasure wherever it can be had and to hope for a long life?
In a world: no. Those are not my goals and I'd thank you not to imply
that they are.
What difference is there to an atheist whether he were to blow his head off
this very second, or to live out the reaminder of his natural life since the
end is the same -- nothing by which to remember past experiences, and no
expectation or hope of a continued state of existence?
At this point, your implications have become rather obnoxious.
Frankly, your perspective strikes me as intensely selfish. Unless
you, personally, get to exist forever, nothing matter. What an
arrogant stance.
I am not an entity unto myself. I am a part of the universe and a
member of the human race. I an enthralled by the universe and have a
high opinion of humanity, even when certain elements of the species
display some rather appalling instances of stupidity and cruelty. I
have an interest in the universe and in my species and that interest
transcends my own brief span. If you are incapable of appreciating
that then all I can say is that I feel a great deal of pity for you.
If you are so small, I can understand how the narcicism of an imagined
immortality would be a necessity to you. I, however, prefer to do
without such a crutch. I think that we are capable of being better
than that.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
16 Aug 2004 06:11:49 PM |
|
|
"Andrew Lias" <anrwlias@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffc8a152.0408161425.6e202dda@posting.google.com...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<RqeTc.13035$Yh.1023@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
Is life in this world really important?
It is to me. Since I'm the one living my life, that's sufficient.
Since after death it is the atheist
view that nothing is carried on or passed into another dimension beyond
the
physical, what is the goal of the atheist? Just to hope for as best a
life
as possible, while believing nothing will remain of their experiences,
not
even memories once they are dead?
My actions live on in their repurcussions. Just because I won't
survive to see the future of the human species doesn't mean that I
lack concern for it. I like humanity, on the whole. I have high
hopes for it. I want to make whatever humble contributions I can to
that cause.
Someone who believes in a spiritual dimension beyond the physical after
death that is similar to a dream-like world, pretty much sees life in
this
world as opportunity to progress morally or spiritually so that they can
achieve a higher state of existence, one totally free from all suffering,
in
a spiriual dimension after death.
I prefer to engage in moral improvement in this life while it can
still be of benefit to myself and those around me. Supposing some
sort of moral epilogue may be well and good for you but, for me, it's
not really necessary.
So for the spiritual person, like in this
world has meaning...it's like a stepping stone or bridge depending on how
they live their lives.
My life has meaning, thank you. It may not be *your* meaning but,
once again, it's my life and not yours.
But what's the atheist view on life in this world?
I'm rather fond of it.
What's the goal?
My personal goals are to improve my mind, to improve my character and,
to the best of my ability, improve the world around me. The word you
seem to be lacking, by the by, is legacy.
Would it
really matter to atheists if the whole world was blown to bits, since
death
is the end-all finality that comes to everything that is born into this
world anyway?
It would matter very much to me. It would be a tremendous waste and
an utter tragedy. It would be all the more tragic because I couldn't
expect that everyone wouldn't be *really* dead but would, instead,
continue to exist in some magical dimension. Life is fragile and
perishable and that means that it's all the more precious.
What basically do atheists strive for in this life? To simply get as much
pleasure wherever it can be had and to hope for a long life?
In a world: no. Those are not my goals and I'd thank you not to imply
that they are.
What difference is there to an atheist whether he were to blow his head
off
this very second, or to live out the reaminder of his natural life since
the
end is the same -- nothing by which to remember past experiences, and no
expectation or hope of a continued state of existence?
At this point, your implications have become rather obnoxious.
Frankly, your perspective strikes me as intensely selfish. Unless
you, personally, get to exist forever, nothing matter. What an
arrogant stance.
The atheist view is not just that *I* die, and that's the final ending, but
that all beings which are born into this world die and the end is final --
eternal oblivion. If experiences can't be remembered or cannot lead to other
experiences, hopefully more pleasant ones, then what is the point of
indulging in this world's experiences at all? What does it matter whether
you make things a bit 'easier' for the next generation? Their end is the
same as yours. There's nothing to be remembered. Nothing at all to be
salvaged of the life lived. What good is life on earth, no matter how brief
or how long, if the end result is the same...oblivion and nothing salvaged.
If oblivion comes within a few years, and oblivion lasts eternity, what
difference does it make at all whether oblivion comes now or in even a
million years? All life is headed toward the same end of oblivion for
eternity -- that is the atheist view. So what good are experiences anyway?
What good is the next generation? Oblivion is coming and it's forever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 11:15:19 AM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<dNdUc.10$wH4.6@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
The atheist view is not just that *I* die, and that's the final ending, but
that all beings which are born into this world die and the end is final --
eternal oblivion. If experiences can't be remembered or cannot lead to other
experiences, hopefully more pleasant ones, then what is the point of
indulging in this world's experiences at all? What does it matter whether
you make things a bit 'easier' for the next generation? Their end is the
same as yours. There's nothing to be remembered. Nothing at all to be
salvaged of the life lived. What good is life on earth, no matter how brief
or how long, if the end result is the same...oblivion and nothing salvaged.
If oblivion comes within a few years, and oblivion lasts eternity, what
difference does it make at all whether oblivion comes now or in even a
million years? All life is headed toward the same end of oblivion for
eternity -- that is the atheist view. So what good are experiences anyway?
What good is the next generation? Oblivion is coming and it's forever.
Okay, before I reply, I want to take a second to talk about your tone
which is, frankly, getting under my skin. When you start your reply
with the words "The atheist view is..." you come across as didactic
and more than a little arrogant. Bear in mind that you are talking to
atheists. We don't need to be lecture about what our "view" is or is
not. I would suggest utilizing a questioning tone such as "Isn't the
atheist viewpoint...?"
As to my response, I would first note that the ultimate obliviation of
the human race is not a certainty. Clearly the odds do see stacked
against us for the long run but our knowledge of laws of nature is
still incomplete. I have seen very speculative suggestions, for
instance, that it may be possible for a sufficiently advanced species
to create artificial universes. If that's the case, the fate of this
universe does not necessarily constrain ours.
Let's assume the worst, however. Let's suppose that the 2nd Law
actually does ultimately doom us. Very well, that would be a sad and
unfortunate thing. However, supposing that we have an end somehow
negates the present and the future that exists between now and that
ultimate eschaton is a conclusion that I don't share with you. To me,
this is rather like saying that a book with an ending isn't worth
reading because you're eventually going to reach that final page.
Life matters because it is being lived by real people: people with
feelings and concerns and dreams. The fact that those people will
eventually die doesn't negate the time that they are alive anymore
than the closing chapters of a book invalidates the beginning and
middle sections.
Let me suggest an analogy that may help you. You seem to be a
Christian (correct me if I'm wrong) so this would suggest that you
don't believe that animals have souls. Do you suppose that I could
use that fact to justify beating a dog to death and causing it maximal
pain in the process? I hope not. Even if the animal doesn't have a
soul, such an act would be cruel and monstrous because the animal
would be suffering fear and pain in the meanwhile.
Why help the next generation if they, too, will die? Because they
will live before they die. Because they will laugh, love, have cares
and concerns, and so forth. In short, they will be sentient, sapient
beings who will be impacted, to whatever degree, by how I live my life
and affect my world while I am here. To ignore that because they
aren't immortal would be every bit as callous as beating a dog to
death.
The bottom line is that you seem to think that death defines life. I
don't. I think that death puts limits on life but that the only thing
which defines life *is* life and I am truly sorry if you can't
understand that perspective. Never the less, it is what I do believe.
If that doesn't fit into your conception of what atheists ought to
believe then I must humbly suggest that your conceptions don't measure
up to the reality.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 11:43:14 AM |
|
|
"Andrew Lias" <anrwlias@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffc8a152.0408170815.39ccec5@posting.google.com...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<dNdUc.10$wH4.6@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
The atheist view is not just that *I* die, and that's the final ending,
but
that all beings which are born into this world die and the end is
final --
eternal oblivion. If experiences can't be remembered or cannot lead to
other
experiences, hopefully more pleasant ones, then what is the point of
indulging in this world's experiences at all? What does it matter whether
you make things a bit 'easier' for the next generation? Their end is the
same as yours. There's nothing to be remembered. Nothing at all to be
salvaged of the life lived. What good is life on earth, no matter how
brief
or how long, if the end result is the same...oblivion and nothing
salvaged.
If oblivion comes within a few years, and oblivion lasts eternity, what
difference does it make at all whether oblivion comes now or in even a
million years? All life is headed toward the same end of oblivion for
eternity -- that is the atheist view. So what good are experiences
anyway?
What good is the next generation? Oblivion is coming and it's forever.
Okay, before I reply, I want to take a second to talk about your tone
which is, frankly, getting under my skin. When you start your reply
with the words "The atheist view is..." you come across as didactic
and more than a little arrogant. Bear in mind that you are talking to
atheists. We don't need to be lecture about what our "view" is or is
not. I would suggest utilizing a questioning tone such as "Isn't the
atheist viewpoint...?"
As to my response, I would first note that the ultimate obliviation of
the human race is not a certainty. Clearly the odds do see stacked
against us for the long run but our knowledge of laws of nature is
still incomplete. I have seen very speculative suggestions, for
instance, that it may be possible for a sufficiently advanced species
to create artificial universes. If that's the case, the fate of this
universe does not necessarily constrain ours.
Let's assume the worst, however. Let's suppose that the 2nd Law
actually does ultimately doom us. Very well, that would be a sad and
unfortunate thing. However, supposing that we have an end somehow
negates the present and the future that exists between now and that
ultimate eschaton is a conclusion that I don't share with you. To me,
this is rather like saying that a book with an ending isn't worth
reading because you're eventually going to reach that final page.
Excellent example!!!
But you asked the wrong question. The question should be...what good is it
to read a book if after you read it you can't remember it at all? Or on the
even greater cosmic scale, what good is reading a book if you can't remember
what was written on the previous page?
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.D.S" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 04:45:52 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:YzqUc.16$ph4.11@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
"Andrew Lias" <anrwlias@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffc8a152.0408170815.39ccec5@posting.google.com...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<dNdUc.10$wH4.6@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
The atheist view is not just that *I* die, and that's the final
ending, but
that all beings which are born into this world die and the end is
final --
eternal oblivion. If experiences can't be remembered or cannot lead
to other
experiences, hopefully more pleasant ones, then what is the point of
indulging in this world's experiences at all? What does it matter
whether you make things a bit 'easier' for the next generation?
Their end is the same as yours. There's nothing to be remembered.
Nothing at all to be salvaged of the life lived. What good is life
on earth, no matter how brief
or how long, if the end result is the same...oblivion and nothing
salvaged.
If oblivion comes within a few years, and oblivion lasts eternity,
what difference does it make at all whether oblivion comes now or in
even a million years? All life is headed toward the same end of
oblivion for eternity -- that is the atheist view. So what good are
experiences anyway?
What good is the next generation? Oblivion is coming and it's
forever.
Okay, before I reply, I want to take a second to talk about your tone
which is, frankly, getting under my skin. When you start your reply
with the words "The atheist view is..." you come across as didactic
and more than a little arrogant. Bear in mind that you are talking
to atheists. We don't need to be lecture about what our "view" is or
is not. I would suggest utilizing a questioning tone such as "Isn't
the atheist viewpoint...?"
As to my response, I would first note that the ultimate obliviation
of the human race is not a certainty. Clearly the odds do see
stacked against us for the long run but our knowledge of laws of
nature is still incomplete. I have seen very speculative
suggestions, for instance, that it may be possible for a sufficiently
advanced species to create artificial universes. If that's the case,
the fate of this universe does not necessarily constrain ours.
Let's assume the worst, however. Let's suppose that the 2nd Law
actually does ultimately doom us. Very well, that would be a sad and
unfortunate thing. However, supposing that we have an end somehow
negates the present and the future that exists between now and that
ultimate eschaton is a conclusion that I don't share with you. To
me, this is rather like saying that a book with an ending isn't worth
reading because you're eventually going to reach that final page.
Excellent example!!!
But you asked the wrong question. The question should be...what good
is it to read a book if after you read it you can't remember it at
all? Or on the even greater cosmic scale, what good is reading a book
if you can't remember what was written on the previous page?
If you had read the rest of the post you would have realized that he is
not living just for himself but for his descendants and his species.
His acts and accomplishments while he is alive may benefit all those that
come after him.
This, along with his own fulfilment of personal satisfaction and lifely
pleasures is the reason to keep living and enjoy life.
And I completely agree.
--
Read the Bible, because we need more atheists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 11:59:05 AM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:YzqUc.16$ph4.11@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Andrew Lias" <anrwlias@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffc8a152.0408170815.39ccec5@posting.google.com...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<dNdUc.10$wH4.6@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
The atheist view is not just that *I* die, and that's the final ending,
but
that all beings which are born into this world die and the end is
final --
eternal oblivion. If experiences can't be remembered or cannot lead to
other
experiences, hopefully more pleasant ones, then what is the point of
indulging in this world's experiences at all? What does it matter
whether
you make things a bit 'easier' for the next generation? Their end is the
same as yours. There's nothing to be remembered. Nothing at all to be
salvaged of the life lived. What good is life on earth, no matter how
brief
or how long, if the end result is the same...oblivion and nothing
salvaged.
If oblivion comes within a few years, and oblivion lasts eternity, what
difference does it make at all whether oblivion comes now or in even a
million years? All life is headed toward the same end of oblivion for
eternity -- that is the atheist view. So what good are experiences
anyway?
What good is the next generation? Oblivion is coming and it's forever.
Okay, before I reply, I want to take a second to talk about your tone
which is, frankly, getting under my skin. When you start your reply
with the words "The atheist view is..." you come across as didactic
and more than a little arrogant. Bear in mind that you are talking to
atheists. We don't need to be lecture about what our "view" is or is
not. I would suggest utilizing a questioning tone such as "Isn't the
atheist viewpoint...?"
As to my response, I would first note that the ultimate obliviation of
the human race is not a certainty. Clearly the odds do see stacked
against us for the long run but our knowledge of laws of nature is
still incomplete. I have seen very speculative suggestions, for
instance, that it may be possible for a sufficiently advanced species
to create artificial universes. If that's the case, the fate of this
universe does not necessarily constrain ours.
Let's assume the worst, however. Let's suppose that the 2nd Law
actually does ultimately doom us. Very well, that would be a sad and
unfortunate thing. However, supposing that we have an end somehow
negates the present and the future that exists between now and that
ultimate eschaton is a conclusion that I don't share with you. To me,
this is rather like saying that a book with an ending isn't worth
reading because you're eventually going to reach that final page.
Excellent example!!!
But you asked the wrong question. The question should be...what good is it
to read a book if after you read it you can't remember it at all?
And I should have also added...if you can't read it or any other book again,
either?
Wouldn't it have been totally meaningless to have invested the time in
reading the book at all, now that you can't remember a single word of it,
and now that you can't even re-read it or any other book again for that
matter?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 07:02:46 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<POqUc.20$ph4.10@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
Let's assume the worst, however. Let's suppose that the 2nd Law
actually does ultimately doom us. Very well, that would be a sad and
unfortunate thing. However, supposing that we have an end somehow
negates the present and the future that exists between now and that
ultimate eschaton is a conclusion that I don't share with you. To me,
this is rather like saying that a book with an ending isn't worth
reading because you're eventually going to reach that final page.
Excellent example!!!
But you asked the wrong question. The question should be...what good is it
to read a book if after you read it you can't remember it at all?
And I should have also added...if you can't read it or any other book again,
either?
Wouldn't it have been totally meaningless to have invested the time in
reading the book at all, now that you can't remember a single word of it,
and now that you can't even re-read it or any other book again for that
matter?
There is such a thing as taking an analogy to an absurd extreme. The
point I am making, and which did not respond to, is that life has
value while it's being live. Life is delimited by death but it is not
defined by death. That seems to be the critical distinction that you
are missing.
I gave you the example of torturing a dog. If we presume that the dog
is soulless, are we excused from the moral repugnance of the act? I
would suggest not for the simple reason that the animal, never the
less, suffers pain and misery while it is still alive. That it won't
continue to suffer in death doesn't erase the evil of the suffering it
has to pass through on the way to death.
In like measure, death does not negate the good aspects of life
because they are still experience while we are alive. I understand
that you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around this notion
but it is true never the less. Life is lived by the living and while
we are living it, it has worth.
It's not playing in theaters anymore, unless you can find it in a
dollar theater, but there's a great movie called Eternal Sunshine of
the Spotless Mind. Rent it on DVD when it comes out. In the movie,
the protagonist has decided to have all of his memories of his
girlfriend erased from his mind. He changes his mind. Unfortunately,
he doesn't change it until the process has already started and it's
too late to prevent it.
[SPOILERS]
There's a beautiful and poignant scene at the end where he's about to
lose the very last vestiges of his memories of her. It is clear that
even though he's about to lose all of that, the very fact that he's
about to and that he realizes that he's about to allows him to
appreciate everything that he had. Although he is sad to lose those
irreplacable memories, he doesn't regret the fact that he had them in
the first place.
In my mind, that's a perfect metaphor for death. It might give you
comfort to suppose that fifty trillion trillion years from now you'll
still be contemplating your first kiss but whether or not you will be
has no impact on that value of that kiss. Even if you had lost that
memory the very next minute after you gained it, the kiss would have
still be a special and beautiful thing.
You are wrong to suppose that my belief in the finality of death means
that I must, therefore, conclude that my life is meaningless and
pointless. It means something to me, as does the future beyond my
life for however long that will last. After I am gone, people will
continue to be born, grow, live, age and, yes, die but it is my firm
an shakable conviction that each of those lives will have value and it
is my hope that they will be lived well and happily even if the
universe has failed to provide us with an ever after.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 09:31:10 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Son of man:
Wouldn't it have been totally meaningless to have invested the time in
reading the book at all, now that you can't remember a single word of
it, and now that you can't even re-read it or any other book again for
that matter?
Of course! You've hit the nail on the head! Religion is totally
meaningless!
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eyelessgame" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 06:24:07 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<YzqUc.16$ph4.11@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
"Andrew Lias" <anrwlias@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffc8a152.0408170815.39ccec5@posting.google.com...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<dNdUc.10$wH4.6@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
The atheist view is not just that *I* die, and that's the final ending,
but
that all beings which are born into this world die and the end is
final --
eternal oblivion. If experiences can't be remembered or cannot lead to
other
experiences, hopefully more pleasant ones, then what is the point of
indulging in this world's experiences at all? What does it matter whether
you make things a bit 'easier' for the next generation? Their end is the
same as yours. There's nothing to be remembered. Nothing at all to be
salvaged of the life lived. What good is life on earth, no matter how
brief
or how long, if the end result is the same...oblivion and nothing
salvaged.
If oblivion comes within a few years, and oblivion lasts eternity, what
difference does it make at all whether oblivion comes now or in even a
million years? All life is headed toward the same end of oblivion for
eternity -- that is the atheist view. So what good are experiences
anyway?
What good is the next generation? Oblivion is coming and it's forever.
Okay, before I reply, I want to take a second to talk about your tone
which is, frankly, getting under my skin. When you start your reply
with the words "The atheist view is..." you come across as didactic
and more than a little arrogant. Bear in mind that you are talking to
atheists. We don't need to be lecture about what our "view" is or is
not. I would suggest utilizing a questioning tone such as "Isn't the
atheist viewpoint...?"
As to my response, I would first note that the ultimate obliviation of
the human race is not a certainty. Clearly the odds do see stacked
against us for the long run but our knowledge of laws of nature is
still incomplete. I have seen very speculative suggestions, for
instance, that it may be possible for a sufficiently advanced species
to create artificial universes. If that's the case, the fate of this
universe does not necessarily constrain ours.
Let's assume the worst, however. Let's suppose that the 2nd Law
actually does ultimately doom us. Very well, that would be a sad and
unfortunate thing. However, supposing that we have an end somehow
negates the present and the future that exists between now and that
ultimate eschaton is a conclusion that I don't share with you. To me,
this is rather like saying that a book with an ending isn't worth
reading because you're eventually going to reach that final page.
Excellent example!!!
But you asked the wrong question. The question should be...what good is it
to read a book if after you read it you can't remember it at all? Or on the
even greater cosmic scale, what good is reading a book if you can't remember
what was written on the previous page?
I would argue that reading a book isn't really a good analogy.
Writing, you see, is preserved in a book and later read. The
*presumption* of writing is that there's someone to read it later, and
there's a good case to be made that a book that's never read by anyone
really is fairly pointless.
Not so with life -- because books aren't self-aware. I am.
Life isn't like reading a book. It's not even like writing a book.
Life is living a life. The point of my life is *me*. My life isn't
being written down for some other entity to go over with satisfaction
(or red pencil) at some later time in some uber-reality; my life is
right here, and right now, in this reality. The point of it is not
the later reading, the point of it is the present experience.
Yes, of course much of what you do is done with a plan for some future
(yours or another's). Some of that works out and some doesn't. But
in all cases, *the experience matters to the one experiencing it*. I
don't "write my life" so that others can read it -- nor even so that I
can sit back in some eternity and re-read (and re-read, and re-read,
and ...) it. I'm living it now, from inside.
And, by the way, having a pretty good time about it.
eyelessgame
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 12:06:41 PM |
|
|
In article <YzqUc.16$ph4.11@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
But you asked the wrong question. The question should be...what good is it
to read a book if after you read it you can't remember it at all? Or on the
even greater cosmic scale, what good is reading a book if you can't remember
what was written on the previous page?
If it is your nature to read the book, and it is not your nature to be a
rememberer of books once read, then reading the book is the only "good"
that exists for you.
The problem with your analogy is that you assume that it is our nature
and purpose to "remember" after the "book of life" is closed--but memory
is a physical process, something that is meaningful only in this world
and in this life. It is nonsense to speak of "continuing to remember"
after the physical processes of memory have ceased. That's like wanting
to talk about where the flame goes after you blow the candle out.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 12:39:41 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-96B090.13064117082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <YzqUc.16$ph4.11@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
But you asked the wrong question. The question should be...what good is
it
to read a book if after you read it you can't remember it at all? Or on
the
even greater cosmic scale, what good is reading a book if you can't
remember
what was written on the previous page?
If it is your nature to read the book, and it is not your nature to be a
rememberer of books once read, then reading the book is the only "good"
that exists for you.
The problem with your analogy is that you assume that it is our nature
and purpose to "remember" after the "book of life" is closed--but memory
is a physical process,
Wrong. You don't have sufficient knowledge to refute that in a spiritual
form of existence memories aren't possible. And you'll also find that to be
the majority view of those people who do believe in a contiunued existence.
Do you really think that memories are stored physically? What's the phsyical
manisfestion of a memory? How does what you are reading now affect your
physical brain? Do you think it's possible to induce the memory of reading
this sentence without reading it, by physcially manipulating the brain?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 01:29:39 PM |
|
|
In article <UorUc.33$ph4.30@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The problem with your analogy is that you assume that it is our nature
and purpose to "remember" after the "book of life" is closed--but memory
is a physical process,
Wrong. You don't have sufficient knowledge to refute that in a spiritual
form of existence memories aren't possible.
Do tell. All I know about "memory" is that the word, as it has any
meaning to us, is a word that refers to a process and function of the
brain, and that this process is a physical one that can be affected by
other physical factors, such as drugs, disease, and injury. It's also
tied to our physical senses--you cannot "remember" something that
happens outside the range of your physical senses. Everything we know
about memory marks it as a fallible, physical, biochemical process that
takes place within the neurons of our brain, so long as those neurons
are alive and healthy.
And you'll also find that to be
the majority view of those people who do believe in a contiunued existence.
So? It wouldn't be the first time the majority was wrong.
Do you really think that memories are stored physically? What's the phsyical
manisfestion of a memory? How does what you are reading now affect your
physical brain? Do you think it's possible to induce the memory of reading
this sentence without reading it, by physcially manipulating the brain?
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the human equivalent of mad-cow disease, is
caused by a protein that causes brain neurons to break down, and in the
process to make more of the protein. The official name for mad-cow
disease is bovine spongiform encephalopathy, so named because of the
sponge-like holes it leaves in the brain tissue. Would you care to
guess why, exactly, CJD causes the victim's memory to fail?
Why does the "date-rape" drug, Rohypnol, prevent the person from
remembering what happened while under the influence of the drug?
Memory is a physical function of the brain. It may be complex, it may
defy direct physical manipulation by mortal men, but it's clearly a
process that exists within the physical domain within which disease,
drugs, and physical damage have influence.
Men may speculate or fantasize about this process continuing even when
the physical basis for the process ceases, but there is no verifiable
reason to conclude that anyone has continued thinking, feeling, or
remembering after physical life has actually ceased. Even "near death"
memories are tied to the amount of oxygen (a physical component) that
reaches the brain in near-death situations.
Trying to immortalize and deify memory will only impede your ability to
appreciate and experience the value of this life, in which memory is
actually functional (barring disease, injury, or pharmaceutical
interference). Learn to value what you have, instead of trying to
subordinate it to wishful thinking and unsubstantiated speculations
about some mythical "next life." Don't throw away the gift you already
have for the sake of one that exists only in the words, superstitions,
and subjective feelings and fantasies of men.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 01:41:04 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-630B45.14293917082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <UorUc.33$ph4.30@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The problem with your analogy is that you assume that it is our nature
and purpose to "remember" after the "book of life" is closed--but
memory
is a physical process,
Wrong. You don't have sufficient knowledge to refute that in a spiritual
form of existence memories aren't possible.
Do tell. All I know about "memory" is that the word, as it has any
meaning to us, is a word that refers to a process and function of the
brain, and that this process is a physical one that can be affected by
other physical factors, such as drugs, disease, and injury. It's also
tied to our physical senses--you cannot "remember" something that
happens outside the range of your physical senses. Everything we know
about memory marks it as a fallible, physical, biochemical process that
takes place within the neurons of our brain, so long as those neurons
are alive and healthy.
And you'll also find that to be
the majority view of those people who do believe in a contiunued
existence.
So? It wouldn't be the first time the majority was wrong.
Do you really think that memories are stored physically? What's the
phsyical
manisfestion of a memory? How does what you are reading now affect your
physical brain? Do you think it's possible to induce the memory of
reading
this sentence without reading it, by physcially manipulating the brain?
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the human equivalent of mad-cow disease, is
caused by a protein that causes brain neurons to break down, and in the
process to make more of the protein. The official name for mad-cow
disease is bovine spongiform encephalopathy, so named because of the
sponge-like holes it leaves in the brain tissue. Would you care to
guess why, exactly, CJD causes the victim's memory to fail?
Because it isn't just memory, but rather the thought process it affects.
But I've asked you an interesting question. Try not to dodge answering it by
asking another question, it simply requres a yes or a no --
Do you believe it's possible to physically manipulate the brain so that the
memory of reading this sentence could be created without having actually
read it?
Yes or no?
This question certainly is important because first of all -- the
possibilities for any given memory are INFINITE...the physical brain is
FINITE.
For example....how many possible sentences are there to be able to be
formed? An infinite number. How many possible portraits are there to be
painted? And infinite number. So exactly what is the physical nature of the
manifestation of a memory in the FINITE brain, when the possibilities of
what can be stored there are infinite? Do you really suppose the physical
brain is affected everytime we create a new memory? I'm not talking emotions
here, I'm talking about something as simple as my inventing a new word and
you memorizing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 01:48:12 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qisUc.67$ph4.9@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-630B45.14293917082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <UorUc.33$ph4.30@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The problem with your analogy is that you assume that it is our nature
and purpose to "remember" after the "book of life" is closed--but
memory
is a physical process,
Wrong. You don't have sufficient knowledge to refute that in a spiritual
form of existence memories aren't possible.
Do tell. All I know about "memory" is that the word, as it has any
meaning to us, is a word that refers to a process and function of the
brain, and that this process is a physical one that can be affected by
other physical factors, such as drugs, disease, and injury. It's also
tied to our physical senses--you cannot "remember" something that
happens outside the range of your physical senses. Everything we know
about memory marks it as a fallible, physical, biochemical process that
takes place within the neurons of our brain, so long as those neurons
are alive and healthy.
And you'll also find that to be
the majority view of those people who do believe in a contiunued
existence.
So? It wouldn't be the first time the majority was wrong.
Do you really think that memories are stored physically? What's the
phsyical
manisfestion of a memory? How does what you are reading now affect your
physical brain? Do you think it's possible to induce the memory of
reading
this sentence without reading it, by physcially manipulating the brain?
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the human equivalent of mad-cow disease, is
caused by a protein that causes brain neurons to break down, and in the
process to make more of the protein. The official name for mad-cow
disease is bovine spongiform encephalopathy, so named because of the
sponge-like holes it leaves in the brain tissue. Would you care to
guess why, exactly, CJD causes the victim's memory to fail?
Because it isn't just memory, but rather the thought process it affects.
But I've asked you an interesting question. Try not to dodge answering it
by asking another question, it simply requres a yes or a no --
Do you believe it's possible to physically manipulate the brain so that
the memory of reading this sentence could be created without having
actually read it?
Yes or no?
This question certainly is important because first of all -- the
possibilities for any given memory are INFINITE...the physical brain is
FINITE.
The argument is this :
You say all memories are stored in the physical brain, and the physical
brain is FINITE.
I say any particular memory has an infinite number of possibilites, so how
can that which is FINITE in nature store any given memory which is INFINITE
in it's possibilities.
For instance, a new smell that was never experienced before? What is
manipulated in the brain so that with effort a person could re-create that
smell in his mind and dreams, or recognize the smell again?
For example....how many possible sentences are there to be able to be
formed? An infinite number. How many possible portraits are there to be
painted? And infinite number. So exactly what is the physical nature of
the manifestation of a memory in the FINITE brain, when the possibilities
of what can be stored there are infinite? Do you really suppose the
physical brain is affected everytime we create a new memory? I'm not
talking emotions here, I'm talking about something as simple as my
inventing a new word and you memorizing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 06:32:59 PM |
|
|
In article <7psUc.70$ph4.10@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The argument is this :
You say all memories are stored in the physical brain, and the physical
brain is FINITE.
I say any particular memory has an infinite number of possibilites, so how
can that which is FINITE in nature store any given memory which is INFINITE
in it's possibilities.
For instance, a new smell that was never experienced before? What is
manipulated in the brain so that with effort a person could re-create that
smell in his mind and dreams, or recognize the smell again?
I don't need to know the exact mechanism to tell that it is a physical
function that operates in the physical realm, where it is influenced and
possibly interfered with by physical factors such as drugs, disease, and
injury. It's also affected by other physical factors, such as fatigue,
sensory deprivation and sensory hyperstimulation.
Let me ask you a question: why do people forget? If memory is not a
physical process subject to the limitations and weaknesses of the
physical brain, why does it ever fail? You say that memory endures even
after death, yet it often fails to endure even during life. Why?
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 07:14:55 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-3DFF27.19325917082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <7psUc.70$ph4.10@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The argument is this :
You say all memories are stored in the physical brain, and the physical
brain is FINITE.
I say any particular memory has an infinite number of possibilites, so
how
can that which is FINITE in nature store any given memory which is
INFINITE
in it's possibilities.
For instance, a new smell that was never experienced before? What is
manipulated in the brain so that with effort a person could re-create
that
smell in his mind and dreams, or recognize the smell again?
I don't need to know the exact mechanism to tell that it is a physical
function that operates in the physical realm, where it is influenced and
possibly interfered with by physical factors such as drugs, disease, and
injury. It's also affected by other physical factors, such as fatigue,
sensory deprivation and sensory hyperstimulation.
Let me ask you a question: why do people forget? If memory is not a
physical process subject to the limitations and weaknesses of the
physical brain, why does it ever fail? You say that memory endures even
after death, yet it often fails to endure even during life. Why?
That's easy, not enough effort was put into memorizing it.
I see these two as two different things entirely -- the physical brain..and
the mind. The mind is of a spiritual nature also. Like for instance the
realm of imaginations, of dreams.
Ok, buddy. Listen, you make some interesting points. But I've got the tie
breaker :)
What if I can PROVE to you that I can, for simplicity and saving time's
sake, give you knowledge of a random event in the future?
I'll make it very simple...let's take the Florida Cash 3 for
instance...every day it draws three digits 0 to 9, resulting in possible
winning draws from 000 to 999.
What would it prove to you, if I knew the outcome of let's say just the
first winning digit on a future date that is at least 20 days away? Because
I require some time to "divine" the winning numbers. I'll explain you
exactly how it's done. It's actually very simple. But I need the 20 days in
advance.
Now wouldn't that prove that knowledge isn't stored in the physical brain
since the event had not even taken place yet?
I'm not bullshitting around. What if I can with 100% success predict the the
first winning digit, every 21 days or so?
Or I'll let you choose whatever "random" event you'd like to see me
foretell. But there are two requirements :
1. My actions and your actions, wherever we are, must have absolutely no
control nor effect upon the event's outcome.
2. The set of possible outcomes must be finite, and the smaller the set, the
shorter the time needed for me to successfully predict it.
3. I will give you the outcome at least a day in advance of the actual event
having occurred IN PRIVATE. Which you must not make public knowledge on
usenet until after the event is known. This is to ensure that the
foreknowledge of the outcome WON'T BE AFFECT THE OUTCOME ITSELF BY SOMEONE
WHO *CAN* TAKE STEPS TO MANIPULATE THE OUTCOME.
4. I must have access to the outcome after the event has transpired.
5. I should be able to somehow profit personally by the correct prediction
of the event.
Since I personally profit from winning the Florida cash 3 that's what I
usually do.
Now please respond to me and tell me if you consider that the 100% success
rate of producing just the first winning digit of the random drawings of the
Florida cash3 *over time*, will be sufficient enough to convince you that
all knowledge isn't stored in the physical brain?
Like I said, if you think there's something funny going on with me and the
Florida lotto board, I leave it up to you to decide what finite-possibility
random event you'd like to put me to the test of.
But you must agree to keep it to yourself and not post my predictions on
usenet or any other public forum until AFTER the event itself has
transpired.
Let me know if you want to proceed. As of right now, I have the first digit
of the Florida cash 3 for Monday 23rd August narrowed down to only two
possible digits out of the full possible set of ten. Want to know those two
possible outcomes right this second? Just give me a private email address I
can reach you at and we can start the experiment. But you *must agree* to
keep this information to yourself.
Let me know and we can proceed. Also, I take it your fellow atheists can
trust you to report the truth AFTER the finite-possibility random event has
transpired?
One more thing, try to limit the possible set of outcomes of the random
event, as the larger the set, the more time I will need.
But consider this....what if I provided you accurately only the first
winning digit of something similar to the cash 3 drawing which has a
probability of 1out of 10 *each time*, and say I do it for 10 times in row.
The odds are 1 in (10 to the power of 10) that I would have gotten all
correct. Can we agree that it should be sufficient enough of proof that not
all knowedge in physically stored in the brain since the knowledge of the
future which I will tell you before hand could not possibly have yet been
stored because the event hasn't yet happened? Remember, I'm giving you the
flexibility of choosing any finite-set-of-possibilities random event you
desire as long as you meet those conditions above for time-constraint's
sake.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: minor correction |
17 Aug 2004 07:18:27 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wbxUc.14637$3I1.11002@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-3DFF27.19325917082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <7psUc.70$ph4.10@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The argument is this :
You say all memories are stored in the physical brain, and the physical
brain is FINITE.
I say any particular memory has an infinite number of possibilites, so
how
can that which is FINITE in nature store any given memory which is
INFINITE
in it's possibilities.
For instance, a new smell that was never experienced before? What is
manipulated in the brain so that with effort a person could re-create
that
smell in his mind and dreams, or recognize the smell again?
I don't need to know the exact mechanism to tell that it is a physical
function that operates in the physical realm, where it is influenced and
possibly interfered with by physical factors such as drugs, disease, and
injury. It's also affected by other physical factors, such as fatigue,
sensory deprivation and sensory hyperstimulation.
Let me ask you a question: why do people forget? If memory is not a
physical process subject to the limitations and weaknesses of the
physical brain, why does it ever fail? You say that memory endures even
after death, yet it often fails to endure even during life. Why?
That's easy, not enough effort was put into memorizing it.
I see these two as two different things entirely -- the physical
brain..and the mind. The mind is of a spiritual nature also. Like for
instance the realm of imaginations, of dreams.
Ok, buddy. Listen, you make some interesting points. But I've got the tie
breaker :)
What if I can PROVE to you that I can, for simplicity and saving time's
sake, give you knowledge of a random event in the future?
I'll make it very simple...let's take the Florida Cash 3 for
instance...every day it draws three digits 0 to 9, resulting in possible
winning draws from 000 to 999.
What would it prove to you, if I knew the outcome of let's say just the
first winning digit on a future date that is at least 20 days away?
Because I require some time to "divine" the winning numbers. I'll explain
you exactly how it's done. It's actually very simple. But I need the 20
days in advance.
Now wouldn't that prove that knowledge isn't stored in the physical brain
since the event had not even taken place yet?
I'm not bullshitting around. What if I can with 100% success predict the
the first winning digit, every 21 days or so?
Or I'll let you choose whatever "random" event you'd like to see me
foretell. But there are two
make that five :)
requirements :
1. My actions and your actions, wherever we are, must have absolutely no
control nor effect upon the event's outcome.
2. The set of possible outcomes must be finite, and the smaller the set,
the shorter the time needed for me to successfully predict it.
3. I will give you the outcome at least a day in advance of the actual
event having occurred IN PRIVATE. Which you must not make public knowledge
on usenet until after the event is known. This is to ensure that the
foreknowledge of the outcome WON'T BE AFFECT THE OUTCOME ITSELF BY SOMEONE
WHO *CAN* TAKE STEPS TO MANIPULATE THE OUTCOME.
4. I must have access to the outcome after the event has transpired.
5. I should be able to somehow profit personally by the correct prediction
of the event.
Since I personally profit from winning the Florida cash 3 that's what I
usually do.
Now please respond to me and tell me if you consider that the 100% success
rate of producing just the first winning digit of the random drawings of
the Florida cash3 *over time*, will be sufficient enough to convince you
that all knowledge isn't stored in the physical brain?
Like I said, if you think there's something funny going on with me and the
Florida lotto board, I leave it up to you to decide what
finite-possibility random event you'd like to put me to the test of.
But you must agree to keep it to yourself and not post my predictions on
usenet or any other public forum until AFTER the event itself has
transpired.
Let me know if you want to proceed. As of right now, I have the first
digit of the Florida cash 3 for Monday 23rd August narrowed down to only
two possible digits out of the full possible set of ten. Want to know
those two possible outcomes right this second? Just give me a private
email address I can reach you at and we can start the experiment. But you
*must agree* to keep this information to yourself.
Let me know and we can proceed. Also, I take it your fellow atheists can
trust you to report the truth AFTER the finite-possibility random event
has transpired?
One more thing, try to limit the possible set of outcomes of the random
event, as the larger the set, the more time I will need.
But consider this....what if I provided you accurately only the first
winning digit of something similar to the cash 3 drawing which has a
probability of 1out of 10 *each time*, and say I do it for 10 times in
row. The odds are 1 in (10 to the power of 10) that I would have gotten
all correct. Can we agree that it should be sufficient enough of proof
that not all knowedge in physically stored in the brain since the
knowledge of the future which I will tell you before hand could not
possibly have yet been stored because the event hasn't yet happened?
Remember, I'm giving you the flexibility of choosing any
finite-set-of-possibilities random event you desire as long as you meet
those conditions above for time-constraint's sake.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 07:37:33 PM |
|
|
In article <wbxUc.14637$3I1.11002@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Let me ask you a question: why do people forget? If memory is not a
physical process subject to the limitations and weaknesses of the
physical brain, why does it ever fail? You say that memory endures even
after death, yet it often fails to endure even during life. Why?
That's easy, not enough effort was put into memorizing it.
Effort? As in physical exertion? Burning up calories? Why would a
non-physical process require effort? How is this effort expended? What
is the energy source for it, and why would we not want to expend enough
effort to remember everything perfectly?
I see these two as two different things entirely -- the physical brain..and
the mind. The mind is of a spiritual nature also. Like for instance the
realm of imaginations, of dreams.
Both of which are also physical phenomena, and are subject to physical
interference by physical factors such as disease, drugs, injury, etc.
Ok, buddy. Listen, you make some interesting points. But I've got the tie
breaker :)
What if I can PROVE to you that I can, for simplicity and saving time's
sake, give you knowledge of a random event in the future?
A *random* event? Not much impressed. Tell me the question, and the
answer to the question, as I asked before. That would mean more.
I'll make it very simple...let's take the Florida Cash 3 for
instance...every day it draws three digits 0 to 9, resulting in possible
winning draws from 000 to 999.
What would it prove to you, if I knew the outcome of let's say just the
first winning digit on a future date that is at least 20 days away?
Absolutely nothing.
Because
I require some time to "divine" the winning numbers. I'll explain you
exactly how it's done. It's actually very simple. But I need the 20 days in
advance.
Now wouldn't that prove that knowledge isn't stored in the physical brain
since the event had not even taken place yet?
No, because first of all you haven't demonstrated that you actually
*know* anything about the future. You may perhaps be aware of some
trick of probability that is not intuitively obvious, but that's not the
same thing. Show me that you know both my question and the answer to my
question, and be *correct* about both, and I, at least, will know
whether or not you really do know something outside the physical
limitations of your brain and physical senses.
Now please respond to me and tell me if you consider that the 100% success
rate of producing just the first winning digit of the random drawings of the
Florida cash3 *over time*, will be sufficient enough to convince you that
all knowledge isn't stored in the physical brain?
No, because all you are doing is playing games with probability. Tell
me where Osama is hiding; that might impress me, at least if you can
make it possible for the US military to capture him and bring him to
justice.
Like I said, if you think there's something funny going on with me and the
Florida lotto board, I leave it up to you to decide what finite-possibility
random event you'd like to put me to the test of.
Why does it have to be a finite probability event?
But you must agree to keep it to yourself and not post my predictions on
usenet or any other public forum until AFTER the event itself has
transpired.
Ah, I think I can see the gist of the scam now. If you guess wrong, you
can just say that you predicted the correct answer, and I, out of spite
or disbelief or whatever, simply refuse to admit it.
Let me know if you want to proceed. As of right now, I have the first digit
of the Florida cash 3 for Monday 23rd August narrowed down to only two
possible digits out of the full possible set of ten. Want to know those two
possible outcomes right this second? Just give me a private email address I
can reach you at and we can start the experiment. But you *must agree* to
keep this information to yourself.
Go ahead and post it here. What possible difference could it make
whether a few newsgroups know what your prediction is? Do you know the
future or not? If you know it, it's not going to change just because
you make your prediction public. If it's subject to change based on
your actions, then you don't really *know* it, now do you? You only
know what it *could* be, same as anyone else.
Let me know and we can proceed. Also, I take it your fellow atheists can
trust you to report the truth AFTER the finite-possibility random event has
transpired?
I'm not an atheist, as I mentioned before, so I don't have any fellow
atheists. But why make it depend on my word? Just post your own
predictions, and we can all see.
One more thing, try to limit the possible set of outcomes of the random
event, as the larger the set, the more time I will need.
But consider this....what if I provided you accurately only the first
winning digit of something similar to the cash 3 drawing which has a
probability of 1out of 10 *each time*, and say I do it for 10 times in row.
The odds are 1 in (10 to the power of 10) that I would have gotten all
correct. Can we agree that it should be sufficient enough of proof that not
all knowedge in physically stored in the brain since the knowledge of the
future which I will tell you before hand could not possibly have yet been
stored because the event hasn't yet happened? Remember, I'm giving you the
flexibility of choosing any finite-set-of-possibilities random event you
desire as long as you meet those conditions above for time-constraint's
sake.
Go ahead and post the next 10 winning numbers for whatever lottery you
wish. If you really know them, publishing them won't change things, and
nobody will have to just take my word for it either.
This could get interesting... :)
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: How do atheists view the world? |
17 Aug 2004 07:52:30 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-347A16.20373317082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <wbxUc.14637$3I1.11002@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Let me ask you a question | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
