perceiving reality

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:07 pm

I still keep my statement

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:17 pm

do what you want.

since your opinion does not effect my reality in any way, I have no reason to make you stop.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:27 pm

why do you try then?
you are just making enemies

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:40 pm

> you are just making enemies

lol.
i repeat:
> your opinion does not effect my reality in any way

why should it anyways, if you say something blockhead like this:
> the ones believing in god are, in my opinion, ignorants of facts. Its simple as that!

if your showing yourself ignorant, you should not be surprised, if others don't care about your opinion.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:50 pm

You _do_ care, otherwise you wouldn't be here

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:25 pm

Well it's probably your ignorance he dislikes, ignorance does affect others, it's what makes people murderers and criminals. And no it doesn't matter if it is the ignorance that denies science or the ignorance that denies god. Wether or not god exists isn't the point though, since neither ideas can be proven. I wouldn't even go as far as saying there is more evidence for one opinion than for the other. I mean nothing science believes in MUST contradict with the existance of god. The realy important question though is, wether there is coincidence or not, in a Newtonian world, there isn't which would mean that there is neither a free will nor the coincidence stated in things like evolution theory, in this case the existance of god would be absurd since nobody (including god) could change anything and the world esentially would be a deterministic code with no ifs or whatever. But as long as science believes in coincidence, which it does according to quantum mechanics, there will always be more than enough space for god, however there wouldn't be any way to prove him/her (non)existance since you could never exclude his/her interference with your experiment (which is essential for every scientific experiment).

//Sorry if my language might not be perfect, it's hard to talk about philosophy in a foreign language

merihevonen · Post by **merihevonen** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:42 pm

I don't care if thefool doesn't believe in God; I believe in what I believe and so you others too! Even if it's PureBasic that you pray for!

Just as long as we can get along everything is fine

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:05 pm

merihevonen wrote: Just as long as we can get along everything is fine

Some obviously can't (*cough* Nik). Thats why religion is the most used reason for war.

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:40 pm

Well maybe it didn't come out clearly but I do ave absolutely no problem with whatever you believe as long as it doesn't involve discriminating agains somebody or some other form of ignorance. It's not what someone believes but how he believes it. If you call people ignorant of facts for believing in god, you only show your own ignorance. If people want to believe in Aliens/UFOs/Ghosts/Witches whatever it's their absolute right to do so, calling them ignorant for their believes only is senseless. I don't know how to explain it properly but it's the extremist form of calling everyone who doesn't believe in the same things as you do ignorant, that I dislike (well I'm calling you ignorant thats right but thats only because of the WAY you think about different believes which doesn't have anything to do with what you believe in, I would dislike somebody who blieves in God and Wonders and calls an Atheist ignorant of the "facts" he believes in in the same way as I dislike your ignorance)

Please do not think I dislike you as a person though, I admit many of the things you mentioned are definitely true, this and the text above is meant as constructive criticism, with the purpose to help you open your mind and be objective, and not as an offense.

PS: I'm no supporter of any church and though I am baptized the only religion I can speak for is my own believe which definitely isn't the best one, though it's not the worst either I think.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:10 pm

Nik wrote: Please do not think I dislike you as a person though, I admit many of the things you mentioned are definitely true, this and the text above is meant as constructive criticism, with the purpose to help you open your mind and be objective, and not as an offense.

Well i do accept that. (And you just saved yourself from me going on a rampage!)

About the aliens, i think the universe is too large for us being alone. Werther or not we've met is another question. Personally i don't have an answer, but i do know that following current rules it would be "impossible" to exceed lightspeed (there are some things which might change this. I heard something about communication between the particles of light. Its qvants [yes not the correct spelling, but i think you know what i mean], and i find it quite interesting!)

There are other possible (theoretical ideas only!) ways too

So i cannot for sure deny aliens has visited us. But if they exist? Yes i do believe that.

What i really think is stuff like believing that the carbon-14 method is useless and fake because human was created like what? 2000 yrs ago? some religions DO belive that. And its laughable how they think the world was created!

Of course i can't proove god exists. But i do think, no matter what you say, that religious extrimists are ignorants.

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:42 pm

Especially your last sentence is absolutely true^^
However personally I believe that god if he exist may have played a big role in the evolution, I don't say it didn't happen like science says though, but I think that the mutations of the genes aren't pure coincidence in that there is some intelligence behind that, I do think though that it was a process mof steady development over millions of years. It's just to unbelieveable to me that thinks like complex enzyms, cell organells or the DNA happened through pure coincidence. But by some mechanism of let's call it "path finding", not that I'm taking Biology as my main course and so I'am taking the facts realy seriously, however whenever I happen to examine some of the great ideas and concepts the evolution came up with, take for example the female body^^ or the light emiting crebs we examined in class today, they are just to "thought thrugh" for me to believe they are pure coincidence especially when I consider how the evolution takes huge steps forward rather than thousand times the wrong route.
Take for example the development of muscles...

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:02 pm

Mother nature is the path!
Sure its complex things. But it has had millions of year to develop.

I only have one answer which i believe in. Mother nature is amazing

I guess chaos is my choice hehe

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:56 pm

that's nice.
after all "mother nature" and "chaos" are common "Gods" in a lot of Polytheisms...

but I don't want to mess up the obvious conclusion, that we all believe in something.

@all
I like to guide your point of view on one topic mentioned before:

Nik wrote:The realy important question though is, wether there is coincidence or not, in a Newtonian world, there isn't which would mean that there is neither a free will nor the coincidence stated in things like evolution theory, in this case the existance of god would be absurd since nobody (including god) could change anything and the world esentially would be a deterministic code with no ifs or whatever.

in my eyes, the controverse between "free will" and "determinism" is a duality like the wave-materia-duality is.

it seems to me like the deeper realizations are always dualities.
we can determine two borders that are obvious opposides,
wich we know to describe the truth, but not being the truth.
that what should be the truth is somewhere in between.

it's like truth being a coin.
if you are drawing pictures, you can draw both faces of a coin, and they are obviously different.
but the coin isn't the pictures, it's the metal in between,
some 3D-Object described by two opposite 2D-Drawings.

or take a pyramid, wich is a 3D object.
if you make a projection of a pyramid, you will get two differend 2D projections:
a triangle and a square.
noone would doubt, that a triangle and a square are two shapes
that cannot be combined into one object if you stick to 2D.
you have to reach out to 3D to combine the two shapes into one sense-making object.

(additionaly: you can't give the triangle to someone and keep the sqare for yourself.
if you want to give it to someone, you'll have to pass him the complete pyramide.)

in my eyes, this is a good model to picture the cosmos.
we can only see some reduced views, and they contradict each other.
the true shape is dimensional beyond what we can percept.

and, for religion once more:
after over 30 years of philosophy, i would like to call myself a polytheist,
and i love mother nature and chaos.

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:12 am

I fear there is only one and true consistent and permanent force in the universe, a force we all recognize and acknowledge.

Tax.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:21 am

ermn... and what about the paranoia Slartibartfas mentioned?