Originally posted by Deadline
Look all you're going to do is troll. Don't waste my time.
for you to say that something doesn't violate the laws of physics, you need to know how it works in the first place
also, if you have a mechanism for these things, I would gladly debate it
further, learn to take a joke
Originally posted by inimalist
for you to say that something doesn't violate the laws of physics, you need to know how it works in the first place also, if you have a mechanism for these things, I would gladly debate it
This was brought up once. You explained what a mechanism was. I understood what a mechanism was and so did lil b you tried to pretend we didn't understand what a mechanism was. One of many reason why I don't want to debate anything with you.
Also you might be overcomplicating things. I'm talking about the possibility of it existing you know who Professor X is right? Is it impossible for a much weaker person than him to exist, not sure if talk about mechanism at this point is that relevant.
Originally posted by inimalistfurther, learn to take a joke
Start being funny then. *shrug*
When "infinity" is brought up, I think it helps to define what is meant, as many examples of "conditional infinities" can be brought up to prove a point (eg, an infinite set of even integers).
Generally, if I use the term, I'm talking about an unconditional infinity, infinity in the fullest sense of the term, something that is infinitely unimaginable and unimaginably infinite.
This is the type of infinity that's usually brought up in mystical literature (somethimes called by other names); and what may have to be embraced by cosmological physics (eg, the "multiverse"😉, ie, the "hardware" of reality, depending on what future research yields.
The "problem," though, in dealing with unconditional infinity is that it generates paradoxes, as all things must be included, even limits, otherwise "limits" are outside of this infinity which would then make it conditional.
I think I had brought this up once before, but it may be that a new "bigger picture" paradigm may have paradox/mystery at its core. This is consistent with the mystical literature; and may be so with quantum mechanics (eg, uncertainty principle), assuming there is no deeper layer to physical reality (eg, Einstein's "hidden variables"😉.
Deadline, it seems your infinite is synonymous with some sort of omni-existence where everything conceivable can and probably does exist. That is not the existence we find ourselves in, imo. Do you think Professor X exists somewhere? I'm not trying to patronize you with such a question, but in my mind it's nearly equivalent to asking if God exists in terms of plausibility.
If I use the word infinite, it's referring to the concept itself, or of time, not omni-infinite-ness (for lack of a better term).
srug
We also don't know we live in an infinite universe, in either a spatial or temporal sense. For all we know, everything we can conceive of is finite in nature.
Originally posted by Digi
I kinda smiled at the Steve Harvey comments. Unfortunately I think that's a pervading response to atheism though.I dug up a related video on Harvey, and he said something akin to "if we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys." At least such stereotyping assholes usually make themselves easy targets for logical refutation.
I think you might be refering to this video:
I'd call this exciting news for atheists, but it just means we now have another entrant in the competition for "least liked and/or trusted demographic in America." I feel like the Tea Party may die off or be absorbed by Republicans within the next decade or two, which means we'll likely reclaim our spot at the bottom before long.
Seems the guy wasn't looking to target Tea Party-ers though, so I find it interesting that he found this as a byproduct of his research, not because it was specifically targeted at the Party.
Also interesting, though this is my own take (not pulled from the survey) but the distrust of Muslims and the Tea Party is largely because of what has been said and done by both groups. Mind you, I'm not trying to group all Muslims with the terrorists, just observing that the terrorism from the few Muslims is the root of the distrust. Anyway, what have atheists done that is an equivalent affront? Ask someone who mistrusts all 3 to name something they've done that irks them, and I guarantee most will easily name things for Muslims and Tea Party, but simply point to a lack of belief in God for atheists. There's barely any coherence to atheism as a cultural group, so it's nearly impossible for large-scale motivated actions anyway. And if there hadn't been any bombings, I highly doubt people would mistrust Muslims as much as atheists based off of, say, texts in the Koran. So, point being, atheists are the only one of these groups disliked and not trusted because of the ideology itself, not because of their affect on the world.
Agreed. Can't trust someone who doesn't believe in something greater than himself I guess 🙁 I really can't think of a mass atheist attack either. Maybe because we don't have some ancient text to misinterpret to fulfill our own hateful intentions. Not to say that all atheists are squeaky clean either.
Originally posted by socool8520
Not to say that all atheists are squeaky clean either.
Of course not. But it's also silly to think atheism as a movement has the kind of influence that the Tea Party has. But once the Tea Party's influence wanes, so will hatred. Same with Islam. Do we still hate Germans? Japanese? It fades. Slowly, and there's small lingering vestiges, but by and large it fades. But mistrust of atheists will remain, because it's based on ideology, not actions or cultural affects. Sad, really.
Side topic, you hit on one of the frequent stereotypes of atheism. Who says we can't believe in something greater than ourselves, like others and their happiness or Ideals? I realize you say it with some sarcasm, but many actually think that way. They think atheists worship themselves.
True, but it won't be as large. More and more people are starting to look elsewhere for answers other than a book and what religion hast to offer. With this, we may see less of the general perception of Athiests being distrustful and hedonistic. i would have to say that Athiests are not as big of outcasts as they have been in the past.
Originally posted by socool8520
True, but it won't be as large. More and more people are starting to look elsewhere for answers other than a book and what religion hast to offer. With this, we may see less of the general perception of Athiests being distrustful and hedonistic. i would have to say that Athiests are not as big of outcasts as they have been in the past.
The data would disagree with you.
srug
...remember, leaving religion is still a very large step away from atheism. Most who don't formally practice religion still believe in something that would be considered religious. Organized religion may be on its way out, but belief is not.
Originally posted by Digi
The data would disagree with you.srug
...remember, leaving religion is still a very large step away from atheism. Most who don't formally practice religion still believe in something that would be considered religious. Organized religion may be on its way out, but belief is not.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you disagreeing with me about people becoming less religious. In that regards, you may be right. I just know from personal experience that there are alot more people that are not religious that I have met in the past 5-10 years than anytime before that.