Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian  (Read 29073 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HOO-HAA

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 295
  • tattOOed HORROR writer and scowling heathen
    • View Profile
    • DROP DEAD GORGEOUS: tattOOed HORROR novel
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #90 on: September 07, 2008, 05:04:20 PM »

... at the core of which always lies positive thinking, which can be assigned to any number of theological or spiritual belief structures. 

You could remove 'assigned' and insert 'exploited' of course, were you to think like the Pat Condells of this world  :D

To change the direction of discussion, a little, I'm always fascinated (even coming from N. Ireland!) by how much politicians in America are expected to be christian - both Obama and McCain were encouraged to present their pastors to the voting public, I hear?

In the UK, of course, the current leader of the opposition - David Cameron (Conservatives) is an atheist. No deal of this has been made by the media, to my knowledge. In fact, the only time I heard of it was when a rather exasperated UK correspondent, John Snow, was talking to the Huckabee camp about the obsession of religion within US presidential campaigns... Snow's point being that it didn't matter a damn within European politics. 
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #91 on: September 07, 2008, 06:59:16 PM »

... at the core of which always lies positive thinking, which can be assigned to any number of theological or spiritual belief structures. 

You could remove 'assigned' and insert 'exploited' of course, were you to think like the Pat Condells of this world  :D

To change the direction of discussion, a little, I'm always fascinated (even coming from N. Ireland!) by how much politicians in America are expected to be christian - both Obama and McCain were encouraged to present their pastors to the voting public, I hear?

In the UK, of course, the current leader of the opposition - David Cameron (Conservatives) is an atheist. No deal of this has been made by the media, to my knowledge. In fact, the only time I heard of it was when a rather exasperated UK correspondent, John Snow, was talking to the Huckabee camp about the obsession of religion within US presidential campaigns... Snow's point being that it didn't matter a damn within European politics. 
Eh I dunno, there are plenty of nontheists here, but I think the general consensus is that "we" don't want a Muslim for president.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

HOO-HAA

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 295
  • tattOOed HORROR writer and scowling heathen
    • View Profile
    • DROP DEAD GORGEOUS: tattOOed HORROR novel
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #92 on: September 07, 2008, 07:08:32 PM »

Eh I dunno, there are plenty of nontheists here, but I think the general consensus is that "we" don't want a Muslim for president.
[/quote]

Really? What about a moderate muslim?

Or would a fundamentalist xian president be more palatable to non-theists than a moderate muslim?
Logged

Mayor Maximus

  • Mayor Maximus
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #93 on: September 07, 2008, 08:43:32 PM »


This can of worms has been opened a million times.  Religion is the absolute worst thing you can mix into government.  It tramples rights, instills fear, causes racism, stirs up anger, draws lines, and allows a candidate to shelter himself behind flimsy excuses. 

here here!  Religion is a socially driven form of exclusionary government.  It like a belief club that tells you what to think. 

So this is my new understanding of Pantheism and I'd like to know if I'm on the right page with Pantheists' general ideas.

Pantheism is just a way of semi-explaining that one does not believe in the traditional idea that most people attribute the word "God", and instead uses that name to identify the nameless 'order' that the completely interwoven universe is or may be following. 
Logged
Maximus

Kevin Freeheart

  • FTL AMPlifier Gold
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #94 on: September 08, 2008, 12:49:49 AM »

Quote from: 'FTL_Ian'
Thinking positive is fine.  I'm just more deliberate about it, and have attached a few metaphysical beliefs to it.  What's wrong with that?

Firstly, you're welcome to believe what you want. I'm not saying don't stop. I'm simply pointing out why I find the idea to be a bit frightening and fantastical.

The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.

With the metaphysical, I always have to go back to one of history's greatest philosophers... Homer J. Simpson. "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?". Can the Law of Attraction cause another person to think differently? Act in a way they wouldn't normally want to? If yes, the idea that I may not be responsible for my own thoughts and actions, and others may not, is alarming. If the Law of Attraction is NOT capable of doing those things, then you're truly not capable of controling the universe unless you posit that human thought is somehow outside of the universe. If there are limits to what a person can do with the Law of Attraction, I don't see how it really is of any benefit beyond those which come from positive thinking.

Then again, like I said, I really don't care. It's crackpottery, and you're welcome to think as you want and do what you want. I like knowing my universe has rhyme and reason, and that there are logical and predictable (if largely complex) outcomes to actions. There's a certain kind of cheapness that comes from the idea that thinking about a thing, rather than taking actions and making choices, makes that thing happen.
Logged
Quote from: John Shaw
Libman was setting you up. You see, he's a resident troll, which means that while I hate him passionately and wish him great harm, he's ONE OF OURS. You are a pathetic interloper who will fade away in a few weeks at most.

orion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #95 on: September 08, 2008, 07:00:50 AM »

The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.

Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes? Theoretical physicists have the notion that every time you make a decision you create a parallel universe, one where the decision went to either reality. You would have a universe for every possible decision that can be made. There could even exist a universe where the South won the civil war.

If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.
Logged

Mayor Maximus

  • Mayor Maximus
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #96 on: September 08, 2008, 12:44:25 PM »

The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.

Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes? Theoretical physicists have the notion that every time you make a decision you create a parallel universe, one where the decision went to either reality. You would have a universe for every possible decision that can be made. There could even exist a universe where the South won the civil war.

If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.

I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question.  In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans?  And what then exactly would constitute a decision? 
Logged
Maximus

blackie

  • Guest
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #97 on: September 08, 2008, 01:06:04 PM »

Pantheism is just a way of semi-explaining that one does not believe in the traditional idea that most people attribute the word "God", and instead uses that name to identify the nameless 'order' that the completely interwoven universe is or may be following. 
No.
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #98 on: September 08, 2008, 01:29:04 PM »

The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.

Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes? Theoretical physicists have the notion that every time you make a decision you create a parallel universe, one where the decision went to either reality. You would have a universe for every possible decision that can be made. There could even exist a universe where the South won the civil war.

If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.

I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question.  In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans?  And what then exactly would constitute a decision? 
Yeah, pretty much, I think whoever came up with this was smokin' a bit too much peyote and staring at his calculus books for far too long.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Kevin Freeheart

  • FTL AMPlifier Gold
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #99 on: September 08, 2008, 01:53:37 PM »

Quote from: 'orion'
Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes?

Yes, at one point I had this mega fascination with that concept, and I happened to be doing my philosophy course in college. Parallel universii and the "flame concept" of human awareness pretty much sums up my view of how "everything" works.

When you light a candle, you see the flame burning. But flames aren't really "things", they're a process. The flame is actually a chain reaction as the molecules oxidize rapidly, this process is the flame, but the actual parts of the flame (molecules) are different every second yet we STILL conceptualize it as a single thing.

In kind of the same way, humans are "processes" and not things. The body that is "me" today isn't the same as the one when I was a 2 year old. My brain isn't the same, my experiences not the same yet I can still use the pronoun "I" without causing my brain to collapse in confusion.

In essence, I believe that at "the moment of creation" (however you define it) all possible universes, as well as all possible moments in "time" are created and exist as snapshots forever still. It is not the "passage of time" that's happening per se, but our awareness moving from one snapshot to another. When we imagine, we're simply viewing "snapshots" from another universe/time and when we "remember" we're simply looking back to a different snapshot.

But here's the thing. If that's true, it doesn't matter because I am still "me" and confined to the track of my thoughts. Perhaps making one choice allows the other choice the shift into another universe or progression, but since I am trapped by this universe (and presumably, everyone else in this universe) it doesn't matter. It's incidentally why I rejected the notion of God. I hold open the possibility that there is a God, but it's clear he's not interacting with the world and that he's decreed that humans are unable to detect him/it. Because of this, true or not, it's entirely irrelevant.

Quote from: 'orion'
If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.

And if you think about it this way, you can kill someone because there exists a theoretical person who was not killed. I'm not calling or implying that either your or Ian are or will be killers but this is the extreme progression of the idea. If a person doesn't limit someone's options because those options exist in some theoretical universe then what's wrong with government or violence (but I repeat myself)? Either you recognize that there is a single universe, in which you are responsible for your actions, or you recognize there are multiple universes and the existence of them are entirely irrelevant in every way which matters to your life.
Logged
Quote from: John Shaw
Libman was setting you up. You see, he's a resident troll, which means that while I hate him passionately and wish him great harm, he's ONE OF OURS. You are a pathetic interloper who will fade away in a few weeks at most.

HOO-HAA

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 295
  • tattOOed HORROR writer and scowling heathen
    • View Profile
    • DROP DEAD GORGEOUS: tattOOed HORROR novel
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #100 on: September 08, 2008, 02:35:03 PM »


This can of worms has been opened a million times.  Religion is the absolute worst thing you can mix into government.  It tramples rights, instills fear, causes racism, stirs up anger, draws lines, and allows a candidate to shelter himself behind flimsy excuses. 

here here!  Religion is a socially driven form of exclusionary government.  It like a belief club that tells you what to think. 
 

Amen, brothers! PREACH IT!  :D
Logged

orion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #101 on: September 08, 2008, 02:54:29 PM »

I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question.  In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans?  And what then exactly would constitute a decision? 

Probability can be measured as a wave of potentials. If I flip a coin onto my palm and cover it with my hand, the coin is on BOTH heads and tails at the same time (and one or the other, and neither!). All of these potentials can all be mapped as a wave. When I actually observe which side of the coin is facing up I collapse the wave function, and it becomes definite.

I don't know if other beings create different parallel universes because I was never anything but human. Decisions go on forever, because you make a decision to make a decision, and so on.
Logged

Mayor Maximus

  • Mayor Maximus
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #102 on: September 08, 2008, 05:38:28 PM »

I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question.  In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans?  And what then exactly would constitute a decision? 

Probability can be measured as a wave of potentials. If I flip a coin onto my palm and cover it with my hand, the coin is on BOTH heads and tails at the same time (and one or the other, and neither!). All of these potentials can all be mapped as a wave. When I actually observe which side of the coin is facing up I collapse the wave function, and it becomes definite.

I don't know if other beings create different parallel universes because I was never anything but human. Decisions go on forever, because you make a decision to make a decision, and so on.

What is a 'decision'? Does it have to be a conscious thought or would these universes also be created (we can get to this one in a bit) by actions completed by memory or which are otherwise involuntary mechanisms within your body?
Logged
Maximus

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #103 on: September 08, 2008, 06:45:33 PM »

Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do.  Perhaps there is more to it than you realize.   :P

Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?

[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]

The video is wrong. Electrons and photons never split. What happens is that the probability shifts for each particle shot through, which cancels out when one measures at the slits as well.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

orion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #104 on: September 08, 2008, 07:14:50 PM »

The video is wrong. Electrons and photons never split. What happens is that the probability shifts for each particle shot through, which cancels out when one measures at the slits as well.

The video is not wrong, it is only trying to "dumb down" the information for the audience.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 09:12:36 PM by orion »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian

// ]]>

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 88 queries.