BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:52 PM

Well, let's not go through all that again, it was tedious enough the first time. Regarding belief, I took the conclusions of your 'argument' to be your belief. You refused to clarify the argument itself.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 05:12 AM

There is plenty of evidence that unto stardust we do indeed return. We see stars exploding into supernovae, taking everything with them in that great big recycling that the universe indulges in. We know that corpses in the cold ground begin to return to their simpler elements and that all it would take to project those elements back into the great beyond would be our sun swallowing them up and throwing them out as it enters its last hurrah. We've seen it happening to other stars and everything we know about what goes on inside stars suggests that it'll happen to ours. Evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 05:53 AM

"This universe was made for us--all conscious things."

Hard to see how this squares with your alleged atheism.

As for your claim that consciousness survives the death of the physical body, you have no evidence for that. It's an interesting speculation all right, but the burden is on you to produce evidence, not for others like me, who think you're totally wrong, to disprove it. Note that I don't ask you to prove it - I ask you for evidence. And I'd rather not rely on your thought experiments.

"I think the eternal dirt nap is the pinnacle of conceit. 'I've lived my life and now it's all over and I get my eternal rest'"

Whatever this means it doesn't apply to me. All I said was that once I croak I'm more than happy for that to be that (OK, I can't be happy as such once I have croaked, but let's just say that the prospect makes me happy). I won't be resting because I won't *be*. Whether anything will be eternal, well, I'd better go and read my Einstein I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:50 AM

Stardust.

That's it.

Not only does it appear to be the best hypothesis from which to base future study, but has a far greater glory and power association than any crummy old heaven concept!

I too have an issue with "eternal" as a word, although only insofar as I could have an issue with "infinite." At least infinity can be a way of describing certain mathematical states. If the big bang is taken as a believable concept, (and my own PhD research led me to be overpowered by the logic) then eternity flies in the face of reason every bit as much as the bit about a bloke getting all the animals in a boat and then screwing his own daughters.

I like the idea we are all stardust. Heavy element formation through supernovae is the key evidence and although I am sure the concept will be refined and may not be as simple as we think, at least it will be refined and maybe even thrown out? Who knows?

At least scientific reason is willing to be tested and set aside as necessary. You don't need faith, just reason and intelligence.

You know, the eastern religions that include reincarnation appear to be closest to the mark. From stardust to here; what were our base elements doing for the last few billion years? (Not having their strings pulled by a sentient concept, that's for sure....)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:09 AM

I can't quarrel with the idea that the elements contained in this body of mine will be recycled and may well end up in some other living thing, a sentient being even, but to be honest that happens now anyway. That's the best I can offer for reincarnation, I'm afraid. Anything else is way too wacky for me. Anyway, I don't want to be a slug.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM

"I can't quarrel with the idea that the elements contained in this body of mine will be recycled"

One should not rule out the possibly that some bodies (including bodies of thought) may be just "too grizzly" or toxic to be easily recycled?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:47 AM

Ah well, that is where such faiths take leave of reason. Unless somebody wishes to enlighten me, I assume the religious interpretations of reincarnation require you to be whole in yourself and in the body of a sentient being.

The stardust principle would have you starting as hydrogen turning to helium, through carbon to iron and beyond. Your position would vary as the molecules that become you have varied... Perhaps via a galaxy or two, eventually in The Oort Cloud for a few million years followed by crashing at various times into the earth, a bit of you in a dinosaur's tooth whilst another part of you was beneath the earth's crust. Reality turns out to be more wacky than religion after all!

Oh and the you bit? Not my field so don't know the facts but I recall reading that the essential "you" changes quite a few times over your lifespan. The electrical pulses in your neural networks reigniting continuously to form memory, even though the cells holding the memory change all the time.

So.. What part of you goes to Heaven?   Oh, I remember.. the bit that worked hard for a pittance in this world in return for a better life next time. Exploited by the rulers, aided and abetted by their propaganda agents, the religious leaders. Sadly, not the part of you that was born because that has been a guitar string, gas in a canister, a dog's left gonad, a coffee cup and part of page 3 of a novel in a second hand book shop for the last 20 years.

I could start a religion with that you know.. I might call it Reality.   It would have a twist though, it would change hypothesis to match knowledge rather than the other way around, which would be a difficult transition for many people who push religious teachings on others. No matter, at least it could have a decent moral code, and for many, that is all they ask of a religion...

Methinks the true test of an atheist is to realise this.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:05 AM

OK so maybe I'm too lazy to read all 677 posts here but could anyone tell me what the true test of an atheist is? (in a nutshell)
Is it a mandatory test?
What is a passing score?
Where does one take such a test?
and WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:27 AM

I already suggested that it's calling out YOUR name when they climax, but it didn't take...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:39 AM

Is it a voluntary-mandatory type of test.

You are tested to see if you can pee higher than other posters. The gate is lowered a bit for the pissingly-challenged. Mudslinging is allowed. But, you are not permitted to throw your underwear at other posters....unless they give you prior consent.

If you are up to taking the test, we will send uranalysis to you by Peony Express.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM

BTW, you are allowed to spray your golden self in the direction of others being affirmatively tested....but, you not allowed to dribble any drivel towards your own position.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 12:24 PM

>>could anyone tell me what the true test of an atheist is?<<

This is from the initial post.

>>So why the morbid fascination with a discussion about faith or a survey about religion? If you truly do NOT believe why not just go your way and leave those who do to wallow in their collective imagination? Could it be that you really do have some part of your being that is not convinced that there are things beyond you knowledge that do or may have a real existence? That would put you in the agnostic boat and not in the atheist category. Or is it that you have a deep-seated hostility against God and or religion? Do you feel superior to those who believe and want to rub their noses in it? Why the seeming fascination?<<

I think that Slag's analysis has been supported by the actions of some on this thread, especially Mr Shaw. Though others have been true Atheists by slag's definition, just here to civilly discuss the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:11 PM

And, there may be others like me...the "threadingly challenged" group (aka, just stupid)...who mixed up the thread topics....intending to post to unrelated threads, like "ground beef"...and posted things, that seemed kinda related, but out there, and wacky:)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:19 PM

And, please...Do Not attach special meaning to the "threadingly challenged" posts, and go out and start a new movement or religion to follow. There are already plenty of movements, and religions to choose from, with associated Gods and/or worldly prophets to follow, with web sites book deals, and books to sell, and TV appearences to slot in. There is enough of that out there to satisfy our worldly needs.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:19 PM

What actions?

The premise in that first post is just nonsense. People with enquiring minds think about and discuss all manner of things that might not directly affect their day-to-day lives, but we're interested because we see other people being affected. Most of my immediate family is affected, for example. I'm interested in what affects them because I'm not a self-centred moron living in a bubble. I think about and talk about the effect of Hitler on Europe in the middle 20th century but that doesn't make me a secret Nazi. As for you, you're just one of those bitter, resentful non-ex-Christians. The buggers get everywhere you know.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:27 PM

"People with enquiring minds"

Quire = archaic variant of choir.

Question: Are we all singing "in the same choir"?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM

///An atheist says to a believer that they have an interesting idea there, but I want to see evidence as I don't tend to rely on faith, thanks. I can't dismiss your idea for certain////

That's not an atheist; that's an agnostic.

And an agnostic, having declared that he can't say for certain, can then go ahead and believe (just for himself) that there is a god. OR he can go ahead and believe (just for himself) that is is NO god. In either case, he can't prove it, and admits it--and goes further, that he believes that NO ONE can prove either proposition, even though he chooses to believe one or the other.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 03:10 PM

ED... you got post 666! I'm just sayin...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 04:10 PM

Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, fear of the number 666

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM

Christianity... fear of the devil.

You be one scarey dude, dude. But not to atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:01 PM

Seems like a clear case of misfeasance to me.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:34 PM

[///An atheist says to a believer that they have an interesting idea there, but I want to see evidence as I don't tend to rely on faith, thanks. I can't dismiss your idea for certain////

That's not an atheist; that's an agnostic.

And an agnostic, having declared that he can't say for certain, can then go ahead and believe (just for himself) that there is a god. OR he can go ahead and believe (just for himself) that is is NO god. In either case, he can't prove it, and admits it--and goes further, that he believes that NO ONE can prove either proposition, even though he chooses to believe one or the other.]

Absolutely wrong, Dave. There is not a self-respecting atheist on the planet who can say for certain that God does not exist. Dawkins freely and cheerfully admits that he can't be certain that God does not exist. But there is no fence-sitting here. The reason I can't say for certain that God doesn't exist is the same reason as the one that makes it impossible for me to say that an orbiting celestial teapot doesn't exist. A proposition has been put that is utterly implausible but which can never be utterly disproven (the proposers make very sure of that). What I can say is that no evidence has ever been put for the proposition and, as a result, I consider that the possibility of its being true is vanishingly small, and, as such, it has no effect on the way I live my life. Agnostics are not like that. They admit that they are in a position of wavering. I think they need to get off the fence, but that's just me being intolerant. I hope I've explained that that is most decidedly not the position I'm in.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM

Likely the nmost reliable information on the Atheist movement versus individual perspectives, can be found through this organized atheist site.


Atheist Alliance International

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:02 PM

Right - Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and all - undisprovable, but not worth positing as a reasonable explanation for anything.

I like the fact that the FSM has taken off, and some atheists are calling themselves Pastafarians...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

////"This universe was made for us--all conscious things."

Hard to see how this squares with your alleged atheism////

Because there is no god. WE make this universe and we make it every instant. Creation wasn't something that happened billions of years ago or 6000 years ago or whatever, it is happening right now. And then it's annihilated in the same instant and replaced in the next instant by a new one that is almost identical to the one that existed the instant before and then it too is annihilated in the same instant it was created. What is doing the creating? Your consciousness. Your consciousness is the creator of the universe. It doesn't seem like it but it is. The Gnostics were quite creative about it: they called the Creator the demiurgos or builder. He creates the material universe but is blind and ignorant. He thinks he is all there is but ignorance is his chief characteristic. Many who fancy themselves Gnostics think like theists and assume the demiurgos was some actual being that created the universe billions of year ago. The demiurgos is you, your consciousness specifically, and it creates the universe out of ignorance and thinks it is top dog. And it creates this universe over and over and over again--every instant (an interval too short to be measured) and doesn't even realize it.

Ever ask yourself why atoms don't decay? They should but they don't. I'm not referring to radioactive decay of a substance by alpha particles I'm talking about why atoms don't decay.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

Show me your evidence. Alternatively, whatever it is you're on, can I have some please?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:54 PM

Physicists were perplexed in Bohr's day about why atoms didn't decay. Why doesn't an electron orbiting a nucleus spiral into the nucleus? Bohr postulated that electrons have fixed orbital patterns of fixed radii. In other words, the angular momentum of the electrons was quantized. It was either an entire this or an entire that but nothing else.

This idea intrigued a very brilliant prince of the French royal family named Louis de Broglie (pronounced "de Broy"). In the 1920s, he was plucking a guitar and watching the strings vibrate. As a note died away, he realized that the note remains constant. Plucking an open A remained an A until the string ceased to vibrate. It didn't start to decrease in pitch as the string slowed down. Now why was that? Prince Louis realized that the string was confined--or stationary--and unable to propagate through space and so its frequency or vibratory rate was fixed.

Hence a discrete frequency spectrum can be determined for the stationary vibrations of the guitar string. The lowest frequency would determine the pitch. The higher frequencies would represent the harmonics. Every sound has a fundamental vibration and overtones (or harmonics). These harmonics are amplified differently and therefore determine the timbre (or aural characteristics) of the sound. Suppose, thought de Broglie, that electrons orbiting around the atom do the same thing. Each has its lowest energy state, which is stationary, and its higher orbits for its excited states, which are also stationary. These, in turn, determine the atom's identity. The lowest orbital, n=1, is the standing wave. At n=2, the wave must have twice the circumference of n=1 and n=3 must have three the circumference and so on. These are discrete states and cannot change so an electron can't start to spiral into the nucleus because that would involve occupying orbitals on non-discrete states and these do not and cannot exist.

The philosophical implications are stunning: the identity of an atom is simply the function of patterns of its confined waves. Nothing in the environment affects this pattern. Because of that, this standing pattern has no past, no memory. The wave pattern is dependent on its existence solely by the conditions of its confinement and does not interact with its environment. The pattern is simply regenerating itself over and over and over again each instant. In other words, there isn't a wave pattern persisting from A to B but the wave pattern at A ceases to exist and is instantly replaced by a new but identical pattern at B that, ironically, has no connection to the pattern that existed at A. At a future Point C, the wave pattern at B will instantly cease and be replaced by a new, identical wave pattern. There is a discontinuity in the pattern that separates it from the environment and from its past. It is simply being regenerated or rebuilt every instant. No matter where in the universe that atom is, its wave pattern will be the same—the environment will have no effect on it.

In other words--matter is waves. Prior to de Broglie, physicists thought only light exhibited the wave-particle duality. De Broglie proved all matter does. After all, once we stop thinking of an electron as a particle zipping around a nucleus, we realize it is actually a wave with a specific circumference and that circumference absolutely MUST contain the whole wave exactly or two whole waves exactly or three. You can't have 0.5 of a wave or 3/7 of a wave. You have either the exactly the entire wave or you have none. The orbitals can only have certain sizes or wavelengths depending up the angular momentum of the electron.

So at any orbital, the electron isn't actually moving as a particle would but rather it is a standing wave. If if drops to a lower level, its wavelength gets longer but the frequency decreases and hence has less energy. So where does the energy go that it just had at the higher orbital? It's released from the atom as a photon. That's why radio waves, infra-red, visible light, UV radiation and gamma rays are all the same thing.

Louis de Broglie submitted this idea as a Ph.D. thesis and was awarded a Nobel Prize for it in 1929--the first time anyone had ever received a Nobel Prize for a Ph.D. thesis.

De Broglie's idea was experimentally proven by Davisson and Germer whose diffraction experiments with electrons produced the same patterns as X-rays and led to the formulation of a wave equation by Austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger that describes all matter and gave birth to quantum mechanics, which is beautiful stuff.

So the material universe isn't material at all, it's just wave packets of energy flashing and having flashed are then gone and instantly replaced by a "new" wave packet that is identical to the preceding one but not really connected to it and is not affected by anything external.

Since consciousness is not extinguished by death (or you could not be conscious now), you must remember all your experiences and re-live all your sensations. This is where our perception of an external world comes from and it will continue on for "eternity" (it has an end but repeats like a phonograph record on a turntable that keeps returning to the beginning and playing to the end over and over). These experiences and sensations also cause the illusion of a "self." We all see the same world through "consensus" because consciousness is unitary. But because we are ignorant, blind, we can't see things as they truly and mistake this created world as absolute and that there is nothing else.

The true consciousness is "upstream" of us and therefore unknowable. We live in duality--they are the poles of the battery that fuels this perception of a world (and remember, physics already accepts experimentally that matter is both particle and wave). But this undifferentiated consciousness is not dual so perceiver and perceived are joined but we cannot know this superposition. Only when it differentiates into these two states can we comprehend it at all.

There is really nothing to experience and no one to experience it. It is an illusion--a dream--of undifferentiated consciousness trying to grasp its own nature. It's like a fingertip trying to touch itself. It can't but since it is all there is, it must "delude" itself into being both a toucher and the touchee. Hence it dreams us.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:32 AM

Actually cosmological data from space does show a decay of neutrons in atoms in the range of One 10 thousandths of 1 percent region.

It is remarkably small after 14 billion years but decay is evident.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:38 AM

"You see, that's the problem with most religions; they are not adventurous enough. The reality is far more wondrous, exciting, awe inspiring and HUGE..."

That's spot on. I'd also add that, contrary to what religion would have us think, the reality is also wonderfully *ordinary*. Have a look round outside your house and I hope you'll see what I'm getting at. There's absolutely nothing constraining about everything in the universe conforming to natural laws (as opposed to supernatural ones). Believe in the ordinariness of nature and we'll keep looking. Believe that someone supernatural imposed it all and we might as well give up.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:40 AM

Sorry Josep; Atoms can decay. They can also anti decay.

The problem is twofold;

1. Since Bohr's groundbreaking work, it has been shown that orbits etc are arbitrary descriptors, more like analogies. (Spin being another analogy.) Trying to see the relevance of quantum mechanics in a non quantum scenario, (for instance, the universe we can observe) ultimately leads to confusion and gets you no further. hence anti decay is difficult to describe.

2. Sad but true, the giants on whose shoulders scientists stand have had their work refined and even totally contradicted. But to most of them, that would not be a problem. Einstein set the scene for and proved the rationale for quantum probability, and then spent the rest of his life regretting it as he had huge problems with the revelation this meant. Causing Bohr to tell him to stop telling God how to roll his dice! A couple of years later, Bohr's wonderful description of an atom looking like a solar system with orbiting electrons was shown to be inaccurate, but no matter, as a metaphor it works quite well.

An important point here that perhaps shows the difference between clinging to a theology and not doing.   If Bohr's thesis was a text that was to be accepted rather than challenged, it would 1) have the status of the bible and 2) stifle advancements as a result.

Newton's Principia was a holy grail for a couple of hundred years, but the central plank, that of a steady state with real time and distance lasted till Fred Hoyle died, and by then, the rest of the world had embraced the stunning concept of relativity in relation to the birth of time itself, or the big bang as it is known.

You see, that's the problem with most religions; they are not adventurous enough. The reality is far more wondrous, exciting, awe inspiring and HUGE...

By the way, I am a Pastafarian for two reasons; 1) the work I do these days for the government means they appear to have to know my religion and this is available under freedom of information, so couldn't resist it. 2) My in laws can no longer accuse me of not having faith. (Although I reckon they suspect me of taking the piss....)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

Josep:

That was most poetic, sir. Excellent entertainment.

There's a lot of experience, though, that would tend to disprove your assertion that the universe is nothing and no-one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:19 AM

I'm ok
In truth i say
I'm ok
In truth i say
I'm ok
With my decay
I have no choice
I have no voice
I have no say
On my decay
I have no choice
So i'll rejoice

"Grandaddy
O.k. With My Decay"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:30 AM

The universe is of course, nothing and no one. Sorry Amos.

A bit tongue in cheek here. The late Douglas Adams makes this point nicely when working out the average population of the universe.

if there is intelligent life out there, then it follows there would be an average population of the sentient beings running things there. Our few billion, another planet's couple of million etc.

Now.. there are an almost infinite number of potential worlds out there, in fact the helix of galaxies could suggest a number that really is as near as damn it infinite.

We know there are some planets with zero population. We have been to the Moon, sent exploration probes to many other planets locally. So.. not all planets are populated, hence the number of populated ones must therefore be finite.

To get the average, you would be dividing a finite number by an infinite (ish) number. The average is therefore zero.

So, the universe is nothing and no one. In fact, it proves we statistically don't exist. If we don't exist, the old dude with the white beard doesn't stand much of a chance either....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:09 PM

///Sorry Josep; Atoms can decay. They can also anti decay.///

You're not believable without a source much less a name.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

Are you talking about electron capture? That's not the same thing. I'm talking about atoms simply wearing out. Atoms do not wear out.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:21 PM

So, in the final analysis, we should accept atheism on faith???????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:51 AM

"To get the average, you would be dividing a finite number by an infinite (ish) number. The average is therefore zero"

The "ish" is the problem innit.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:17 AM

You are not believable without a source or a name eh?

Well, the earth is roundish, a greyhound is not a cat, a computer sits in my study.

Don't believe it?

Ok, my name is Steamin' Willie, (the clue is in the thread entry.) My source is, well, I did say I have a relevant (ish) PhD, so at least two academic institutes have published my findings as plausible.

Didn't realise a knock about fun thread on a fold related website was the place to start citing. You'll want me to use Endnote to type in an entry next. Anyway, I am not trying to convince you, just pointing out the nearest we have to facts at this point in time.

I like using "ish" as terminological inexactitudes aid debate. (Getting all Churchillian today..)

In answer to Steve Shaw, well yes, it is. Douglas Adams was a bit more adventurous and stated there were an infinite number of worlds. Josep would not wish us to be technically inaccurate so I put the "ish" in there. I suppose you could say that if it is a number that is more than we can know, then by definition it is infinite. So it does hold that there are zero worlds out there....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:24 AM

You have two PHDs in relevant (ish) fields and you are citing Douglas Adams as an authority on astrobiology?

I think I see why you have not been taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:25 AM

Wilie:

Thanks for the brill recapitulation. I take it all back: the universe is obviously no-one and nothing, and all that experience is an illusion fooling itself about being perceived even though illusory...



A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

Please pardon my prejudice against Douglas Adams,

I have been a Science Fiction fan for a long time and I find that his expressed ideas to be mostly mocking of Science Fiction. It may be noted that the average is not zero, nor can it be as long as there is at least one populated planet.

I learned what decimal fractions were and what the word zero means at a very young age. Armed with that knowledge, I am prepared to say with some authority that Adams' claim that the average number of populated planets is "zero" is bullshit. No doubt it is clever bullshit. But it certainly is bullshit.

It is no doubt a small number. But since we live on a populated planet, it is not zero.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

Steamin' Willie asserted:

. So.. not all planets are populated, hence the number of populated ones must therefore be finite.

Not so. Infinity less one (or four hundred million or six hundred three trillion) is STILL INFINITY.

Which is why the whole concept of infinity as applied to real existence is ludicrous.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

Which is why the whole concept of infinity as applied to real existence is ludicrous.

I think that's what Douglas Adams was trying to demonstrate..

But back to testing atheists - branding irons and the rack have proved quite effective in the past for wheedling out those closet Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 07:33 PM

Can anyone expand on quantum entanglement?

There is some puzzling stuff on the web about it....(not that I am endorsing any theories. I just feel it is an interesting branch off area of science (physics) that could lead to interesting knowledge in the future.

Here is a brief explanation that I came accross:
quantum entanglement

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31918/

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:22 PM

"Quantum entanglement" Seems to me to be much like the uncertainty principle, but less certain. If I understand the explanation you posted, to describe each of these particles you simply add three more dimensions to the graph, but I fail to see how you do not lose information with each iteration of the process.

I also see out ability to measure the relationship of one subatomic particle to another light years away and limited and very unlikely, if not impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:45 PM

I also see OUR ability to measure the relationship of one subatomic particle to another light years away and limited and very unlikely, if not impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 03:29 AM

Eventually, it got through.....

Smokey got it. Quoting Douglas Adams was perhaps my way of saying it is difficult to take this thread too seriously, as there is no test for an atheist. There is no test for not being a stamp collector and as my idea of being a non stamp collector is not to have to subject myself to being tested, and as atheist means in the grand scheme of things, irrreligious, then there is no test of an atheist. It is a non stance, a stance against a stance if you wish.

The fact that Mr Adams channelled his contempt of religion through his comedy is a by product.

Somewhere above, I did acknowledge the difficulty of infinity as a concept. By the same token, infinity minus one is an oxymoron. It is to make the unquantifiable a quantity. That concept has more to do with religion than reality...

Only the one PhD mate. Only threw that in at your request for source.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:01 AM

Just took the dog for his morning walk. Wandering down the lane past the horses, cold sun shining on the river, misty fields full of stubble after the harvest etc etc. Presumably this is what is meant by God is in his heaven?

Sadly, my mind was on other things. Many people hate being taken out of context. I have been attempting to avoid being in context in the first place, and by 'eck, it didn't half flush out a few stereotypes...

Just to keep relevant to the more recent posts; (we'll deal with testing atheists later...) Quantum entanglement may lead to better understanding, and if it does, it will take better minds than mine to make the leap. (Presumably what the media call a quantum leap, if irony is your game.) However, my exceedingly limited understanding, mainly through taking an interest in my son's masters course than anything from my past, has me thinking that you need to define the barriers of dimensions first, quantify the number of dimensions, (Penrose et al define this as the number that gravity has an effect through) and ask yourself if string theory contradicts or sits with your thought train.

Like theology, we are grasping at straws (or strings) to make sense of what we don't quite understand. The difference being that the hypothesis is tested by peeling back layers till either sense or failure break through, rather than using antiquity of text as a measure of authenticity.

Jack questions our ability to measure the relationship of one subatomic particle to another light years away as being very unlikely if not impossible. Our best understanding is that it is impossible, in that we cannot measure interaction within the confines of our test laboratory. That said, if we observe an effect in the lab', there is every chance there is an effect similar many light years away if the sub atomic particle has a "brother" elsewhere in the galaxy. The bit that fazed Einstein was that this is instantaneous rather than cause and effect.

At a more fundamental level, to measure is to affect. If the idea of a zero population, (if you divide by the mathematical aberration "infinity" the mathematical answer is zero, sorry,) freaks you out, then Heisenberg's assertion that nothing exists till it is observed will blow your mind. It did mine. Einstein and Schroedinger tried taking the piss with the cat analogy, but inadvertently strengthened the argument.

Noticed something here? A true test of an atheist. I appear to be willing to see ideas knocked in the head, regardless of the standing of the originator.

Especially if it is me. I recently congratulated somebody whose thesis undermined a small but significant hypothesis of mine, one which is used at a practical level in engineering. He says he refined my equation but he is being kind. his alteration increases the likelihood of a successful design by measurable degree, making commercial success more likely and that, rather than making me feel glum, excites me more than anything else has this year, (apart from the cricket.)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:19 AM

Could a message be:

"just when you feel you understand anything with certainity, something new, that you did not factor into your understanding, kicks you in the head"?

I suspect that's why it is good to leave room for humbleness in the wisdom of science and reason, as well as in the area of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

An alternative definition from the Urban Dictionary:

Humble:
When one wishes to hum and mumble at the same time. Only gifted people can do this. Others are just uncool. Humble is a skill that only gifted people have.