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 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down

Author Topic: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian  (Read 29070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #105 on: September 08, 2008, 08:56:33 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 try to "dumb down" the information for the audience.

It *is* wrong because no electron ever splits.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #106 on: September 08, 2008, 09:11:06 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 try to "dumb down" the information for the audience.

It *is* wrong because no electron ever splits.

Prove it.
Logged

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 #107 on: September 08, 2008, 09:15:54 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 try to "dumb down" the information for the audience.

It *is* wrong because no electron ever splits.

Prove it.

We can by the single electron (actually it's several electrons) experiment. In the case of that experiment, which it was actually done, they found that each particle actually acted like a particle, but the interference pattern doesn't emerge until a certain number of hits are made. Prior to that it looks simply like a random shot of particles. What this means is that there's a potential that's built up by the electron which swings it one way or the other way, but it never ever actually splits.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

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 #108 on: September 08, 2008, 09:16:14 PM »

One factor ignored by the video is the fact that we can't see electrons. They're too damn small. The way we "see" things like that is watch for echos of their existance. We've never seen a black hole, but can theorize they exist because the properties of a certain kind of space do things that would happen if that thing were there.

We might be wrong though. Invisible Pink Unicorns might exhibit properties exactly like "black holes".

The same has to be admitted when using "echos" to study electrons. This is what the "change the outcome by observing" means. That has to be factored into every "fact" gleaned from science. Skepticism and critical thinking are important parts of the scientific process.
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.

FTL_Ian

  • Professional Iconoclast
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10446
    • View Profile
    • Free Keene
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #109 on: September 12, 2008, 12:30:32 AM »

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.

Kevin, I'm not sure how many times I have to say that action plays a critical role.  Looking at your belief system, I'd say it melds perfectly with the idea of law of attraction.  You can call it "positive thinking and action", and it's still the same concept.

No one has suggested abdicating responsibility.  Law of attraction and deliberate creation is about accepting responsibility for what you are putting into the universe, and hopefully constantly improving on it.
Logged
Please support the show by joining the AMP program at http//amp.freetalklive.com

I blog at http://freekeene.com

Militant

  • Guest
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #110 on: September 12, 2008, 12:55:16 AM »


Kevin, I'm not sure how many times I have to say that action plays a critical role.  Looking at your belief system, I'd say it melds perfectly with the idea of law of attraction.  You can call it "positive thinking and action", and it's still the same concept.

No one has suggested abdicating responsibility.  Law of attraction and deliberate creation is about accepting responsibility for what you are putting into the universe, and hopefully constantly improving on it.

I still don't understand why you choose to use the word "god" when describing such beliefs.  Given the typical use of the word, and what it stands to mean to the majority of the population, I find it bewildering that you would attach it to yourself in any way. Albert Einstein often use the word "god" to mean the laws of nature and now many years later it is used by religious folk to as "evidence" to back up their creationist garbage. See Einstein believed in god, see see!

I don't mean this to be confrontational, I simply don't understand and would like to know your thought process behind it. If you would further explain what it is that you actually believe, maybe this thread could die with everyone's acceptance.
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 #111 on: September 12, 2008, 01:37:06 AM »


Kevin, I'm not sure how many times I have to say that action plays a critical role.  Looking at your belief system, I'd say it melds perfectly with the idea of law of attraction.  You can call it "positive thinking and action", and it's still the same concept.

No one has suggested abdicating responsibility.  Law of attraction and deliberate creation is about accepting responsibility for what you are putting into the universe, and hopefully constantly improving on it.

I still don't understand why you choose to use the word "god" when describing such beliefs.  Given the typical use of the word, and what it stands to mean to the majority of the population, I find it bewildering that you would attach it to yourself in any way. Albert Einstein often use the word "god" to mean the laws of nature and now many years later it is used by religious folk to as "evidence" to back up their creationist garbage. See Einstein believed in god, see see!

I don't mean this to be confrontational, I simply don't understand and would like to know your thought process behind it. If you would further explain what it is that you actually believe, maybe this thread could die with everyone's acceptance.
Very much agreed.  I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds.  The same should be said for the word "god".  Let that dirty old word die.
Logged
Maximus

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #112 on: September 12, 2008, 01:43:46 AM »

Very much agreed.  I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds.  The same should be said for the word "god".  Let that dirty old word die.

It's different though. Not believing in God is a much bigger bad than not believing in gooberment. Don't forget for one second that Ian is a propagandist and a pitch man for whatever "ism" he's selling. (Currently Free Marketeerism)

It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #113 on: September 12, 2008, 01:51:30 AM »

It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.

Kidnapping people who want to have abortions, lol.
Logged

Militant

  • Guest
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #114 on: September 12, 2008, 01:58:46 AM »

Very much agreed.  I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds.  The same should be said for the word "god".  Let that dirty old word die.

It's different though. Not believing in God is a much bigger bad than not believing in gooberment. Don't forget for one second that Ian is a propagandist and a pitch man for whatever "ism" he's selling. (Currently Free Marketeerism)

It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.

I do assume that he's using the pantheist deal to simply not be an ATHEIST due to the public negative opinion of said word. I've never been a fan of using soft language, and would much rather be as "in your face" as possible when it comes to vernacular. I don't say that I am a voluntaryist instead of an ANARCHO-CAPITALIST, just the same as I don't pussy out and call myself an agnostic (which these days has come to mean I'm an atheist but I don't want to fight with you*) instead of an ATHEIST.

If people see you as a good human being, it changes the perceptions of these words.  Running away from it doesn't interest me.

The FSP project people are jesus freaks?  Well maybe I won't be moving then...
Logged

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #115 on: September 12, 2008, 02:08:19 AM »

The FSP project people are jesus freaks?  Well maybe I won't be moving then...

Not all. There's just a big streak of them in the mix. *Shrug* They mind their own business when it comes to that subject, from what I've seen.
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

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 #116 on: September 12, 2008, 02:15:41 AM »

Very much agreed.  I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds.  The same should be said for the word "god".  Let that dirty old word die.

It's different though. Not believing in God is a much bigger bad than not believing in gooberment. Don't forget for one second that Ian is a propagandist and a pitch man for whatever "ism" he's selling. (Currently Free Marketeerism)

It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.

I do assume that he's using the pantheist deal to simply not be an ATHEIST due to the public negative opinion of said word. I've never been a fan of using soft language, and would much rather be as "in your face" as possible when it comes to vernacular. I don't say that I am a voluntaryist instead of an ANARCHO-CAPITALIST, just the same as I don't pussy out and call myself an agnostic (which these days has come to mean I'm an atheist but I don't want to fight with you*) instead of an ATHEIST.

If people see you as a good human being, it changes the perceptions of these words.  Running away from it doesn't interest me.

The FSP project people are jesus freaks?  Well maybe I won't be moving then...
Why the affinity for a word?  It's only a word and that is the nature of language; it evolves and words' meanings change.  Any attempt to try and salvage them is just as dumb as trying to save a political party.

I am pretty certain that he does believe the LoA thing.  Still not certain how this ties to Pantheism or if its the same thing or completely unrelated.
Logged
Maximus

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« Reply #117 on: September 12, 2008, 02:19:08 AM »

They mind their own business when it comes to that subject, from what I've seen.

"During the FSP Liberty Forum 2007 I had the extreme displeasure of sitting at a table full of "new age christian libertarians" who advocated the "pro-life" position...When I asked them how they reconciled their cognitive dissonance with a woman's exclusive 100 percent right to her body, and what is or isn't in it(penis or fetus), and her right to be left completely alone from looters and parasites(both internal and external)...AND...their ADMISSION TO ME VERBALLY RIGHT THEN AND THERE...that they would "tie a woman up until the child was born"...they just became more vicious, insulting, and disgusting..."

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=22524.msg410162;topicseen#msg410162
Logged

Militant

  • Guest
Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« Reply #118 on: September 12, 2008, 02:21:15 AM »

Why the affinity for a word?  It's only a word and that is the nature of language; it evolves and words' meanings change.  Any attempt to try and salvage them is just as dumb as trying to save a political party.

I am pretty certain that he does believe the LoA thing.  Still not certain how this ties to Pantheism or if its the same thing or completely unrelated.

Affinity wouldn't be accurate. I simply think that if we can't change their minds about a damn word, the principals and concepts themselves have zero hope. I know it's smart marketing to use fluff language, but I personally have a difficult time doing it.
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 #119 on: September 12, 2008, 02:47:12 AM »

I am not advocating for the use of "fluff" language.  What I am saying is that a word is simply a bunch of letters that are put together to represent something in the real world so that other people that you want to communicate to can receive your message. 
So you hold your ground or go to battle against a popular "misconception" of a word's meaning and when you are done and that person finally understands what you mean, theeeeeen you have to begin the persuasion process.

It just sounds like a lot of trouble to go through every time you have that conversation... just to save a word
Logged
Maximus
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.031 seconds with 74 queries.