patrick.net

marcus says

I don't care.

You obviously do care given you obsession to make a mountain out of a typo. Maybe someday you'll gain the emotional maturity to have an adult conversation about real issues instead of

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_BMT6BfxR7w

marcus says

Yes, back to ignore.

Let's see how long Marcus can pretend to keep me on ignore. Bets anyone?

JodyChunder says

Having dorky Carl Sagan-ish arguments is cool til you get your panties all wadded up.

A conversation with Marcus is hardly a Lincoln-Douglas debate.

It would be nice if it were like that, but it's not. It all comes down to having the emotional maturity to discuss the issues rather than attacking your opponent. On the other hand, some people are just asking for a smack down.

marcus says

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

OF course those aren't all of his quotes on spirituality.

They sure aren't. They're the only a selected few, and some of those are taken out of context.

However, it's fair to say that Einstein exhibited the signs of "Scared/Wimpy Atheist posing as an Agnostic" as discussed in other threads here.

Dan8267 says

How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.

Once again, I have no clue what point, if any, you are trying to make. Please be clearer.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Appealing to authority is bullshit, and it's one of the many fundamental problems with both religion and faith.

... and human caused global warmingests

this was me making the point that Green Science needs money and gets it by keeping their lips on Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi's collective asses. The Green Science piles of shit are suggesting the Earth's climate is changing due to you not driving a Prius. It's bullshit, and you know it.

continuing:
Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

... and human caused global warmingests
Yes, and the evidence backs that up. Only people who profit from destroying the future and fools who listen to them believe otherwise. How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert? Will it be enough to buy food when 2/3rds of America's population will have to starve to death?

SOme internal emails about that "evidence" showed it was trumped up bullshit by the guys wanting to stay funded by the AlGores of the world. I don't blame them for wanting to get paid, but they must stay off of their moral highchair once they start worshiping at the progressive movements pork barrel. And, those pointing at paid-off fact-finders need to realize that their twisted liberal thought process is not replicated by us all.

continued:Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.

my point here was this: The answer to the issues you point out are also blocked by progressive liberal green freak activists. More water retention is a very good idea. More power production is a very good idea. Both are blocked by progressive liberal green freaks.

This was to answer:
Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.

Once again, I have no clue what point, if any, you are trying to make. Please be clearer.

My entry just above was to answer this question. Your original post was to suggest that global warming is man-made and me not agreeing ment we would have deserts where farms are. I live in the central valley. If not for irrigation, this entire area was desert that flooded twice per year. No good production farming came before irrigation in the valley between Stockton and Bakerfield. And irrigation came from dams.

LosAngles and SanFrancisco both rely 100% on water transported in from huge water projects. Those low valley areas that the water was diverted from to keep Frisco alive have been desert for 100 years now.

Today, we need more retention, plus we need more power production. You agree, I know you do. Dams do both. I was pointing out who it is that blocks the building of dams. The Greenies do. They are liberal. They are leftists. They are D's. They are also selfish, ignorant, "I got mine" - NIMBY, rotten turd, dope smoking, hippy pukes.

Bap33 says

this was me making the point that Green Science needs money and gets it by keeping their lips on Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi's collective asses. The Green Science piles of shit are suggesting the Earth's climate is changing due to you not driving a Prius. It's bullshit, and you know it.

This is simply a lie told by Fox News. People who enter science don't do so to make big bucks. There are no big bucks in being a scientist. An engineer, yes, but not a scientist. The entire scientific community has confirm and precisely measured the temperature all around the Earth over the past 65,000 years. Scientists with no financial interests have confirmed the rise in temperature.

Furthermore, chemistry and thermodynamics are very well-established and proven sciences. There have been thousands of experiments and papers that have shown that carbon-dioxide causes global warming. There has never, ever been one experiment to show that it hasn't. We are as sure that carbon dioxide causes global warming as we are that water is made up of molecules composed of two hydrogen each sharing a bond with an oxygen atom. There is absolutely no uncertainty about the factual basis of global warming.

Fuck, you could do that damn experiments yourself. Take a large air-tight class container and fill it with pure nitrogen and leave it out in the sunlight. Do the same with another container of regular air from outside. Do the same with a third container filled with 5% carbon dioxide. Another with 10%, and another with 50%, and another with 100%.

After a long hot day, measure the temperature of each container. Guess what, the ones with carbon dioxide are hotter. And the more CO2, the hotter.

Science, unlike religion, requires no faith. It provides proof. However, a lying scumbag who is profits from lies will always say the proof is false simply to fool idiots who will vote to keep policy changes from taking away his profits even though his profits are made at the expense of others. This is the only reason anyone denies man's obvious alteration of the climate. Deniers are either greedy corporatists or idiots fooled by greedy corporatists. Stop being a fool. It's not profitable to you, and those fooling you don't give a rat's ass about your life.

Bap33 says

SOme internal emails about that "evidence" showed it was trumped up bullshit by the guys wanting to stay funded by the AlGores of the world. I don't blame them for wanting to get paid, but they must stay off of their moral highchair once they start worshiping at the progressive movements pork barrel. And, those pointing at paid-off fact-finders need to realize that their twisted liberal thought process is not replicated by us all.

This is more outright lies told by Fox News and conservative radio. I want you to read the entire page on Climategate at FactCheck.org and then tell me what you think. Read everything on the page. Read it three times so that it settles in your head. Then think about. Really think about it like you're on a jury. Then respond.

Oh, and one thing to add to FactCheck's analysis. All science is confirmed repeatedly by various independent scientists and organizations around the world. Any fraud by one or even dozens of individuals or organizations would quickly be exposed and refuted. This is why science is awesome and government and religion suck ass. Science is transparent.

Bap33 says

my point here was this: The answer to the issues you point out are also blocked by progressive liberal green freak activists. More water retention is a very good idea. More power production is a very good idea. Both are blocked by progressive liberal green freaks.

Dams have advantages and disadvantages. In some situations the benefits outweigh the costs and in others the costs outweigh the benefits. Only careful analysis of each particular situations can determine which.

Power production can be great or terrible depending on how it's done. Coal burning causes methylmercury poisoning of seafood and is responsible for birth defects in children and abortions. Yes, that's right, abortions, although they are called "miscarriages" since they are not intentional.

So coal power plants are literally aborting children and causes birth defects in children. Does that in any way dampen your support for coal power suppliers?

And that's just one example of the very real harm done to people against their will by those who pollute. There are about 8 billion other ways in which pollution harms you and your family. And all those ways add up. They also cause an increase in health care costs, which in turn gave us Obamacare.

The financial benefits to companies that pollute are short-lived. The disastrous consequences for the rest of us lasts for centuries. Even if you don't give a rat's ass about the immorality of pollution, just realize that the number of dollars lost exceeds the number of dollars gained. It's bad economics. Even aside the deaths, birth defects, and health problems caused by pollution, and forgetting that pollution kills far more people than terrorists, pollution doesn't make financial sense. It lowers the net GDP.

I have the lowest opinion of hippies in the world. The 1960s sucked ass. But this isn't about hippies and the peace movement and Nancy Pelosi and gay San Francisco. This is about hard-core engineering. The science and engineering says that pollution costs us more than it makes in dollars. And the longer the time horizon you examine, the worse that trade-off is. It doesn't matter how much you hate hippies, it doesn't make sense to pollute the atmosphere. You literally breathe that shit.

Bap33 says

My entry just above was to answer this question. Your original post was to suggest that global warming is man-made and me not agreeing ment we would have deserts where farms are.

Stop watching Fox News and start watching PBS, the Discovery Channel, and the Science Channel.

From Newsweek,

[G] lobal warming's effects on agriculture would actually be quite complicated—and mostly not for the better.

What will make a difference are all the other things we'll have more of as temperatures rise—namely droughts, bugs and big storms. More droughts mean lower crop yields—especially for Southern states. Researchers at the University of Oregon found that in New Mexico alone, reduced stream flow could cost farmers $21 million in crop losses. Meanwhile, melting snow in the Western U.S. will increase water availability in spring but decrease it in summer, forcing farmers to change cropping practices.

Farmers Say Climate Change Already Affecting Crops with video showing the problems already occurring due to climate change. It's not fiction when you already see the bad effects happening right now. It's like denying the existence of lions while one pride eats your insides.

Here's the video from that website.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/g3r_uaY1LFY

Every year that we don't address the issue, the issue getting bigger and more costly to address later.

And that's another reason not to delay. All delays in dealing with pollution and climate change costs us real money because the problem gets bigger and harder to fix. So even if money is the only damn thing you care about, it makes sense to stop pollution right now. Ironic, since there is never a single argument against stopping pollution other than money.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Bap33 says

Today, we need more retention, plus we need more power production. You agree, I know you do. Dams do both.

I'm all in favor of hydroelectric power including dams provided that they are done right and in the right area. For example, China recently built a massive damn, but it threatens to cause water shortages for millions of Indians.

China has admitted that it is building a dam on the Yarlung Zangbo River. The river originates in Tibet, but then flows into India where it is called Brahmaputra and is a major water source for millions of people. Moreover, the dam will be built in the area near the border disputed between the two countries.

However, hydro-electric, solar, and wind energy are still just stop-gaps. Eventually, we need to move to nuclear fusion, matter/anti-matter, dark energy, or a Dyson's Ring to generate the world's energy. And we definitely need to get off fossil fuels and adopt zero-pollution policies.

Pollution is simply a form a theft. It steals wealth from future generations and the masses of people today in order to increase the wealth of the few. It is fundamentally no different than breaking into a bank and stealing all the money there.

Bap33 says

The Greenies do. They are liberal. They are leftists.

You use these terms as if they all mean the same thing. They don't. Pollution isn't a liberal issue at all. It's not about liberty. It's about health, the environment, and economics, all of which favor outlawing profiteering by vandalizing the environment. Environmentalism is an engineering and economic issue. Polluting is like going up to the statue of David and breaking it into pieces so you can sell the marble on Ebay. Yeah, you make a little profit and society losses much more wealth.

Bap33 says

NIMBY, rotten turd, dope smoking, hippy pukes.

I'm as anti-hippy as they come. I've never smoked dope or cigarettes in my life. I rarely consume alcohol. And I think the Beatles were just another over-hyped boy band. Sure, some of their songs are nice, but they are no Guns and Roses. So I'm pretty much the exact oppose of what you described. Yet, I'm for outlawing all pollution -- granted not all at once because it has to be phased out -- and that's because I'm an engineer and I understand how the world works. The dangers described by climate change papers are not fantasies. They are already happening, and they are getting worse.

Islands disappear under rising seas
New Moore Island DISAPPEARS Into The Sea
For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas

Tropical disease epidemic cause by climate change
Malaria cases increase due to climate change

Many cities are built where they are because they are just above the mosquito line. Those cities are now vulnerable to deadly diseases which kill men, women, and children.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/gEhLVi9iveM

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jkZD5qOL_D4

Make no mistake. Climate change isn't about politics just because politicians are trying to protect the illegal activities of corporations. Climate change is about hard-core science and engineering that will affect you life and the lives of your children and theirs.

The only argument against ending pollution is short-term corporate profits. Weigh that against society's massive loss of wealth and land, increase in deadly infectious diseases, birth defects, miscarriages, rising health care costs, disruptions to farming, and a myriad of other problems. It's not hard to see that there are not two sides to this argument. Those arguing in favor of pollution are simply short-sighted, greedy, and foolish. Even those idiots will be worse off. They just lack the intelligence to realize it.

wait, wait, dude, you write too much!

I agree the climate is changing. I do not think man has any part in it - good or bad.

I did not suggest any coal power, I was saying that a dam does two things in one, retention for irrigation(and soon consumption) and power plant. And, from my first hand experience with "The raptor society" and "the Merced River group", I can tell you that these people are 1) greeny, 2) liberal, 3) hippy, and 4) all have "got theirs".

I did read the factcheck thing. I also read Rush's details from his "stack of stuff". I will say this, it is not as clearly pointed out by fact check, BUT, would you say there was no "polling" going on between a few key players on the green science side?

I am 100% for nukes until we figure out how to get Tesla's system working.

I watched a deal on youtube about some "ice cores" that shows that the earth is supposed to be warming right now. Has to do with sun activity and our position with the sun. It was pretty cool.

I am not into pollution, but on a global scale we are just jacking off. We are not the global police for anything else the other countries do. We cant make them conserve anything. Ham-strining us so Fuckitastan can sell more oil to CHina and Russia may not be the best idea ... maybe.?

I will not Fox News for 5 days. My word.

Bap33 says

wait, wait, dude, you write too much!

No, you read too little. Read more.

Bap33 says

I agree the climate is changing. I do not think man has any part in it - good or bad.

Even if it weren't for climate change, pollution is wrong. It's a form of vandalism, theft, and assault. To damage public property, including the environment, is vandalism. To pollute in order to increase profit margins is theft, no different than stealing your neighbor's jewelry to increase the profits of your gold forge. To release toxins in the air, land, and sea where people will breath air, drink water, or eat food contaminated with those toxins is to assault a person as surely as if you poisoned their food yourself.

Furthermore, pollution is responsible for miscarriages -- you know, abortions without the consent of the mother -- so surely as a pro-lifer, you'd be against pollution on that basis alone.

Nevertheless, climate change has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to exist and to be caused by humans. It makes no sense to deny this unless you are a parasite making a profit at the expense of everyone else, and clearly bap, you are not one of those parasites making obscene amounts of money by destroying the environment. So there is no rational reason for you to refuse to accept the truth.

It is a hard fact that carbon dioxide, and some other gases, are global warmers. Heck, as I stated above, you can do the damn experiment yourself. It is also a fact that mankind has been releasing huge amounts of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution and particularly over the past century.

In fact, CO2 has increased from about 300 ppm to 370 ppm over the past 100 years. That's a 23% increase in a single century.

To put that in perspective, if we followed the trend backwards assuming that this change is purely due to nature, then there must have been no CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1500s. Clearly this isn't true. Similarly, if we followed the trend forward assuming this is a natural, linear phenomenon, then in 1.4 million years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms, 100% of the atmosphere will be CO2. This is an equally ridiculous scenario.

As such, the 23% increase in CO2 in the past 100 years is either the mother of all coincidences and nature right now is really acting in an extreme manner never before witnessed, or these emissions are largely man-made. It's not hard to do the math.

100 years may seem like a long time to a human, but it's a fraction of a moment in geographical and ecological processes. There simply is no way short of a cataclysmic event that nature can produce a 23% increase in CO2 in such a miniscule amount of time. Man is responsible.

Bap33 says

I am not into pollution, but on a global scale we are just jacking off. We are not the global police for anything else the other countries do. We cant make them conserve anything. Ham-strining us so Fuckitastan can sell more oil to CHina and Russia may not be the best idea ... maybe.?

There were solutions to the problem of global cooperation on climate control. For example, the Kyoto Accord and cap-and-trade. These solutions would have succeeded if only America lead the way. Instead, America was one of the few to not ratify the Kyoto Accord.

And why? Supposedly because the economy would be hurt by the clean air standards. Yeah, we've left future generations with a far bigger and more expensive problem to solve, but at the economy has been great since we've abandoned Kyoto. Oh wait, the economy has been complete crap anyway. So what was the point of crapping all over the atmosphere?

Bap33 says

I watched a deal on youtube about some "ice cores" that shows that the earth is supposed to be warming right now. Has to do with sun activity and our position with the sun. It was pretty cool.

Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists. Key claim of global warming sceptics debunked.

Notice the clear correlation

Notice the lack of correlation between sunspots and long-term temperature change

The bottom line on climate change is that it should not be a left-right issue. The only reason the right opposes doing anything about climate change is that there are short-term profits to be made by ignoring the problem and continuing to cause it. However, in the long run, it is entirely wasteful in economic terms to pollute the Earth and cause uncontrolled climate change. It's simply bad economics that will result in wealth destruction.

But since the Republican Party is ruled by parasites who suck up enormous wealth at the expense of others including through polluting the Earth, the Republican Party always votes against anything that would solve or even mitigate the problem.

And the rank-in-file poor republicans keep falling for the lies told by the ruling class republicans. This causes rank-in-file poor republicans to keep voting for policies that will ultimately harm those very republicans.

All environmental issues are economic issues. It is far more costly to repair the damage than it is to avoid the damage. Furthermore, all environmental questions are only addressable in terms of engineering, not politics or financial philosophy. Politics should be put aside and engineering should take precedent when talking about environmental change.

Dan8267 says

the only reason the right opposes doing anything about climate change is that there are short-term profits to be made by ignoring the problem and continuing to cause it.

hey hey, what are you talking about?
Corporations are people, my friend...

uomo_senza_nome says

hey hey, what are you talking about?
Corporations are people, my friend...

Then why hasn't Texas executed one?

Dan8267 says

uomo_senza_nome says

hey hey, what are you talking about?

Corporations are people, my friend...

Then why hasn't Texas executed one?

I believe in Texas executing a corporation is considered to be regicide.

This morning I stumbled across two funny links that might amuse Canadians and most Americans, though alas they may annoy certain posters who insist that Constitutional law must be subordinate to their particular version of Biblical law. The question is, "Why can't I own a Canadian?" Links follow:

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100306170007AAPF7vT

My favorite answer has to do with corporations. If corporations are people, how can anybody own one? And how is it that corporations seem to own us? As in, we are required to pay them and submit to contracts with them as long as we live (ObamneyCare), and they can use our money to buy our elections and install their lackeys as our government (Citizens United). It seems to be the one thing Democrats and Republicans can agree on: corporations are the best people of all, and they own us, nevermind what you may have read in the 13th Amendment. Yet, Leviticus says you can only own people from neighboring countries, not your own; by that logic, Canadian and Mexican corporations might be able to own us, but the American corporations that evidently do own us shouldn't be allowed to.

If God is a perky South African sea otter, then that IS what he or she is. Whether I can prove it or not won't change that. The same goes for France, actually.

The issue is whether or not it matters. To say there is no place for "morality" in modern society is ludicrous. It is like delineating a difference between "church and state" and "morality and law". Even atheists have a hard time arguing that morality has no place in the rule of law. The question becomes..which moral treatise is it on which we should base our common beliefs? "Religion" clearly does NOT agree on what is moral. Does atheism? Is it whatever doesn't hurt the other guy is ok? The definition of "hurt" is a bitch.

deepcgi says

"Religion" clearly does NOT agree on what is moral. Does atheism?

You may be interested in this article about science and morality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

deepcgi says

To say there is no place for "morality" in modern society is ludicrous.

Strawman. Morality in General vs. Religious Morality != Morality vs. No Morality

You HAVE to draw a line somewhere. And it elludes science entirely. 89 days...abortion ok. 91 days...abortion not ok. 8 months 29 days...sometimes OK to some people (partial birth, baby half-way out). Baby all the way out but the chord is still uncut...not OK at all. Science couldn't care less. If it is anything but dispassionate, it isn't science anymore. Any Science of Morality is just a mixture of science with philosophy.

Actually, I personally believe that Quantum physics hints at the future of science and morality. Quantum Physics is the death of determinism and cause-and-effect, but the rise of evidence of consciousness preceeding chemistry. That is the skeleton in the closet of science right there. The damn Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser experiment has actually been confirmed! My old high school physics teacher suddenly becomes the monkey covering his ears. All of a sudden atheist scientists are dragged kicking-and-screaming into the realm of philosophy. Their only defence against the "logical" conclusions are semantical arguments. I love it.

Oh boy, looks like God found another place to hide, temporarily.

First he was in the trees, then the bees, then in clouds, then in the dome above the earth, then in the aether, then in another dimension, or sometimes in human consciousness (but not Ape or Dolphin consciousness, and certainly not rat or tse-tse fly consciousness). Now he's reduced to guiding particles, but only in specific circumstances.

The more direct explanation with less multiplying entities:
We don't know why this happens, yet. But since thunder and lightening was not caused by thor, and mental disease is not demon possession, let's hold off assigning this one to Yahweh.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

I agree the climate is changing. I do not think man has any part in it - good or bad.

Even if it weren't for climate change, pollution is wrong. It's a form of vandalism, theft, and assault.

Yes. Thank you.
The other question which the lawyers will ask is, "Who is being assaulted, vandalized, and stolen from?"

Your future self.

This is why I advocate for a change to the Bill of Rights that guarantees future people equal rights to life and property as present people.
In other words, you don't have the right to put your future self into debt obligations that they didn't choose.
Debt would be illegal unless you invent time travel.

;-)

thunderlips11 says

let's hold off assigning this one to Yahweh.

I don't. I'm agnostic. But atheism is hypocritical. I don't care what God thinks. God can kiss my ass. But Quantum Physics has rung the death knell of cause-and-effect. That's just loads of fun the way it pisses off traditional atheists. It may well mean that all of us collectively created the universe. How amusing.

You're also wrong about my opinions on the dolphins and such. Extensions of the argument include anything self-aware. I catch my pet Tse-Tse fly, Geraldo, staring at himself in the mirror all the time. The poser.

I personally think that Will Wright is God. He's the creator of the Sims and Spore. I'm fairly sure he eventually creates the Big Bang. He just hasn't gotten around to it yet.

deepcgi says

But atheism is hypocritical.

How so?

deepcgi says

Any Science of Morality is just a mixture of science with philosophy.

Why is that? Philosophy is a matter of semantic hygeine, science is about exploring the unknown.

Questions on morality can be answered with science.

deepcgi says

But Quantum Physics has rung the death knell of cause-and-effect. That's just loads of fun the way it pisses off traditional atheists. It may well mean that all of us collectively created the universe.

Hmmm. Since humans weren't around until recently, and for at least the first billion years of the Earth's existence, there were no living things. And I don't think it's a stretch, based on what we know about the universe. to assume that for at least a billion years since the big bang, that there were no lifeforms anywhere, because conditions did not exist to support them yet. So how did consciousness/self-awareness create the universe?

Atheists don't believe in Deities. That's it. You could be an atheist and believe in psychic powers. Or Bigfoot. Or UFOs. Or Crystal Resonance Healing. Or any kind of flim-flam that is not powered by a Deity.

Also, the death of cause-and-effect is also the death of the theist Kalam Cosmological Argument, too.

The atheist Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no immortality, there can be no virtue, and all things are permissible." I think that is an honest statement.

I believe that declaring oneself an atheist requires making a moral judgement. It isn't admitting that you don't know or can't know, but that you reject the possibility on principle (probably because you have a bone to pick with some religious zealots, but i'm guessing. :-)).

An honest scientist, if asked should say, "I don't know if there is a god or not...I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe so, but others may disagree. I reserve the right to change my mind based on future facts coming to light."

The burden of proof argument doesn't relieve you from admitting you "don't know". Many scientists just can't admit they don't know something. They have-to-know in order to be superior in knowledge. I'm an opinionated sob, but there are many things I don't know. Is there a god? I don't know.

deepcgi says

An honest scientist, if asked should say, "I don't know if there is a god or not...I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe so, but others may disagree. I reserve the right to change my mind based on future facts coming to light."

Scientists do have a bias: To look for natural, material explanations. This goes all the way back to the Dark Ages, and a Christian Monk of all people, William of Occam.

"Don't multiply entities unnecessarily".

Nobody goes out of their way to say:
"There might be a unicorn. We've never seen one, but there are places in the Amazon and Central Africa and the SE Asian and New Guinea highlands that are barely explored. I don't see any evidence, BUT..."

No, people with half a brain dismiss unicorns out of hand. The onus is on the "Cryptozoologists" to produce any evidence of a unicorn or bigfoot. Funny how bigfoot never takes a shit in the woods that nobody steps on, collects, and brings back to a university.

Well, if God exists, where is his shit?

That what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

To misquote your Russian Author:
"If there is no evidence, there can be no reality, and all things are permissible."

The consciousness created the universe thing is quite a leap, I'll admit, but the ramifications of Quantum Physics (the Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser experiment in particular) is leading us to conclude that the past is just as uncertain as the future. We "remember" the past and "don't remember" the future, so we assume there was only one possible past. But conscious decisions clearly effect quantum reality - even in the past. It's like the universe we all share is entangled with us at some quantum level and that is why we find it in common. If i study quantum physics every day (which i do) for the rest of my life, I suspect i'll never get my head around this puzzler. I suspect it's because it isn't just "my" head that IS wrapped around it all.

I really do highly recommend looking into the eraser experiment. I absolutely guarantee that it will unhinge your mind. Not exactly light reading, Dr. Seuss material, but still loads of fun. There isn't a dyed-in-the-wool, determinist, cause-and-effect, atheist in the world who doesn't want that skeleton shoved back in the closet. Any of them that fight against the logical conclusion that conciousness preceeds chemistry finds themselves philosophizing in a tangle of semantics - just where they thought they weren't! The ultimate "i don't know". I'd point you to a good place to see it explained, but no one on earth understands it.

deepcgi says

An honest scientist, if asked should say, "I don't know if there is a god or not...I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe so, but others may disagree. I reserve the right to change my mind based on future facts coming to light."

But honest scientists are going to look for natural explanations, which leads them to:

http:/.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=742

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

thunderlips11 says

To misquote your Russian Author:
"If there is no evidence, there can be no reality, and all things are permissible."

A misquote indeed, because that was my very first point on my very first post. "if God is a perky south african sea otter..." my disbelief in that changes nothing. If i disbelieve in France...it still exists - whatever I think. (of course i didn't write that in the past, i'm ABOUT TO write that in the past, so that it will make me look more clever...yesterday. I'll get around to writing my past quotes in a few minutes. Benefits of a quantum education, you know).

You're just afraid to say you don't know. Scientists just can't do it. It's some disorder of the lips. I can say it in about eight languages (give or take). I don't know why it's so hard for them to say.

uomo_senza_nome says

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

fair enough, statement. Decently, honest, too. What is God, though now? Intelligent occurance? In the double-slit experiment the photon is collapsed (that is...the wave-function of the photon) is collapsed even when the slit it passes through is NOT the one that contains the measuring instrument! It can't have been interfered with, because the measuring instrument was on the slit through which nothing passed! Basically, the photon didn't exist at all, until we tried to detect it, and then we forced it into being in a predictable state by conscious decision. Interestingly, it isn't true just for the experimenter's consciousness but for all of us. That's where the collision of universal consciousness and determinism occurs. Is universal consciousness a definition of God?

Still I agree with the above. Chances are low that "HE" exists. Chances are fairly low that I do, for that matter. Maybe you just collapsed my wave function and i'm here because of some sequence of conscious decisions? I'm a pain in the neck and it's all your fault. Way to go.

deepcgi says

An honest scientist, if asked should say, "I don't know if there is a god or not...I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe so, but others may disagree. I reserve the right to change my mind based on future facts coming to light."

I don't think you understand the nature of atheism.

Atheism and the "honest scientist" viewpoint you described out are not mutually exclusive.

The "honest scientist" can say, "I don't know if there is a god or not, but the lack of evidence for a god(s) leads me to believe that there is no god. However, I reserve the right to change my mind based on future facts coming to light."

We don't know that russell's teapot is not out there, do we? It could be...

deepcgi says

The atheist Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no immortality, there can be no virtue, and all things are permissible." I think that is an honest statement.

Other atheists have, convenient to ignore, differing viewpoints...

leoj707 says

deepcgi says

"Religion" clearly does NOT agree on what is moral. Does atheism?

You may be interested in this article about science and morality:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

deepcgi says

Still I agree with the above. Chances are low that "HE" exists. Chances are fairly low that I do, for that matter. Maybe you just collapsed my wave function and i'm here because of some sequence of conscious decisions? I'm a pain in the neck and it's all your fault. Way to go.

The only thing that I can know for sure is that I am experiencing some sort of conscious awareness.

Right I don't know if god(s) is/are real, if you are real, if my hands are real, etc.

However, within the framework of my experience there is evidence that my hands exist while there is absolutely no evidence that any deity described by man exists.

What is your point? I don't see why you think all your proposals on this thread would be difficult for an atheist.

What do you imagine the nature of atheism to be?

deepcgi says

What is God, though now? Intelligent occurance?

I can't think of a more loaded word in English than God. We can dispense with the word God and hope to have an intelligent discussion about Quantum Mechanics.

deepcgi says

That's where the collision of universal consciousness and determinism occurs. Is universal consciousness a definition of God?

Again without worrying about semantic definitions, what you are alluding to here is the mysterious nature of what we perceive as real. And I suppose the talk about "past" vs. "future" is related to the arrow of time.

deepcgi says

Chances are fairly low that I do, for that matter.

LOL, are you saying that the particle 'you' is not real, but the wave function 'you' is?

deepcgi says

The atheist Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no immortality, there can be no virtue, and all things are permissible." I think that is an honest statement.

Ummm... yes that was indeed something written by Dostoevsky in his book The Brothers Karamazov.

Just to liven things up here why don't we post the entire quote (emphasis mine):

"Rack your brains — you’ll understand it. His article is absurd and ridiculous. And did you hear his stupid theory just now: if there’s no immortality of the soul, then there’s no virtue, and everything is lawful. (And by the way, do you remember how your brother Mitya cried out: ‘I will remember!’) An attractive theory for scoundrels! — (I’m being abusive, that’s stupid.) Not for scoundrels, but for pedantic poseurs, ‘haunted by profound, unsolved doubts.’ He’s showing off, and what it all comes to is, ‘on the one hand we cannot but admit’ and ‘on the other it must be confessed!’ His whole theory is a fraud! Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity.’"

Hey deepcgi, we all know that you were showing off by quoting Dostoevsky, but are you also a "...pedantic poseurs, ‘haunted by profound, unsolved doubts.’" as suggested by Dostoevsky?

deepcgi says

You're just afraid to say you don't know. Scientists just can't do it. It's some disorder of the lips. I can say it in about eight languages (give or take). I don't know why it's so hard for them to say.

Nonsense. Scientists love not knowing, it gives them a challenge. They also enjoy finding out something is not the case, since that adds to their knowledge.

I know I don't know many things. There are things I don't know, and things I don't know that I don't know. However, on this subject, you also do not know. If you do know, and can prove it or even make it very plausible as an explanation, please submit your explanation to CalTech, MIT, or Brookhaven National Lab or any other educational or scientific institution.

It is possible, but not plausible (going by precedence) than this currently unexplained mechanism is ultimately unexplainable. I note the glee with which people grasp any unexplainable aspect of the universe as a place for their God of the Gaps can hide in.

thunderlips11 says

I note the glee with which people grasp any unexplainable aspect of the universe as a place for their God of the Gaps can hide in.

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. - Richard Feynman

If you can't see it, it isn't there? Hmm...a bad mantra to live by. Some predators are very sneaky.

Only an hour ago or so, i offered God to kiss my ass. Not exactly the glee of which you speak. I'll even do it again. God? Kiss my ass! And yet, I STILL think determinism is a phenomenon destined for books that chronicle history from before the 21st Century.

The unexplained mechanism of QP does have explanations - and determinists gleefully reject them. Consciousness preceeds chemistry. Unfortunately, more and more scientists are putting forth just such explanations to explain the delayed choice. The determinist naysayers are responding in semantics surrounding the relativity of time to defend the treasured cause-and-effect.

And i do speak with scientists active in this field - quite often. Forget people trying to find hiding places for deity. What really should be worrying you is that your own consciousness isn't made possible BY your physical brain and all of its billions of electrical impulses, but by quantum operations that occur at faster than Plank time. You may be a part of the "god" you reject, and we may have already executed the experiment that leads to that conclusion. That's enough of that, I'm sure.

deepcgi says

If you can't see it, it isn't there?

Who here said that?

If you think you understand Quantum mechanics, you don't understand Quantum mechanics . - Richard Feynman

deepcgi says

Consciousness preceeds chemistry. Unfortunately, more and more scientists are putting forth just such explanations to explain the delayed choice.

Consciousness preceeding Chemistry is a grand claim. Care to offer a grand proof? At least recent citations where these scientists are putting forth such explanations?

deepcgi says

You may be a part of the "god" you reject, and we may have already executed the experiment that leads to that conclusion. That's enough of that, I'm sure.

Strangely for a person studying Quantum Mechanics, you have a constant inclination with the word 'God' and elude a conversation without the loaded connotation that comes with 'God'.

In fact if you keep connecting what we don't know about Quantum Mechanics with God, you sound more and more like Deepak Chopra, LOL. Your moniker 'deepcgi' seems to indicate that you may be his follower.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/CLwnqDvlXqI

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z-FaXD_igv4