This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I value the opinion of MLK and Maimonides more than I value your opinion of their opinion. Especially since I believe what they have said on this subject makes sense.

You mean, ONLY since.

I don't think so. I've worked the problem from both angles.

Sorry, you betray youraelf with your behavior. You dismiss opinions ostensibly based on who speaks them, and give value to opinions for the same reason, when it comes to nurturing your religious dogma.. This is all bullshit, of course. The real value of these opinions to you is whether or not they affirm you. And diminishing the other poster instead of focusing on the statements is your coping mechanism.

But anyhoo, talking about you is just about the most boring thing imaginable. But your penchant for that type of discussion in EVERY thread sometimes leads to that result. So i am out, lest i fall into a deep sleep. Cya

 

[ding]

I value the opinion of MLK and Maimonides more than I value your opinion of their opinion. Especially since I believe what they have said on this subject makes sense.

You mean, ONLY since.

I don't think so. I've worked the problem from both angles.

Sorry, you betray youraelf with your behavior. You dismiss opinions ostensibly based on who speaks them, and give value to opinions for the same reason, when it comes to nurturing your religious dogma.. This is all bullshit, of course. The real value of these opinions to you is whether or not they affirm you. And diminishing the other poster instead of focusing on the statements is your coping mechanism.

But anyhoo, talking about you is just about the most boring thing imaginable. But your penchant for that type of discussion in EVERY thread sometimes leads to that result. So i am out, lest i fall into a deep sleep. Cya

What did I dismiss?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I think the point here is that if there were a Big Bang, and everything was just energy and not atoms, at what point did atoms constitute "life"? And what is "life"? Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?

Covering lots of ground here, but first in my quick opinion, the Big Bang happening is no longer questionable. The CMB provides overwhelming evidence, though I still find some of the reported conclusions laughable. However, what we consider "life" could be of little logical concern until conditions allowed for any to exist here. What is "life"? For us it's clearly more than just a collection of atoms. From Wikipedia:

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity. Life on Earth first appeared as early as 4.28 billion years ago, soon after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][3][4] The earliest known life forms are microfossils of bacteria.[5][6] Life on Earth is probably descended from an RNA world,[7] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[8][9] The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.

So "not long after the formation of the Earth" but way, way, long after the Big Bang. So long that deliberately conflating the two does seem pretty silly. The explosion marking the beginning of the universe we know having no apparent connection to "life" other than:

1. Eventually providing a place where we might first notice its existence
2. That place eventually becoming capable of supporting "life"

Required temperature range, pressure, chemicals, humidity, etc. "Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?"

Humans are certainly self-aware along with some other animals. Dunno whether any computers think they're alive. I see no reason why they couldn't eventually be programmed to think so and to decide our fate in a microsecond.

The thing with science is that everything is questionable.

Yes, some things are, more or less, set in stone, but the Big Bang is too difficult for us to really understand what happened. Scientists like to talk about it as if it's set in stone, but in the future our view might change.

The James Web telescope might change things, for one.

Humans at least think they're self aware. Whether we are is another matter. The more I look into it, the less I think we are. It is a difficult one, but often I feel like I'm just suffering, or enjoying, the inevitable.

Daniel Denison refers to the "theater of the mind".

I take this to mean that we experience sensation (what we call self-awareness) but have no role in the script (free will being an illusion). As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined". How does that religious belief differ from Denison's science and atheism?

 

[ding]

I think the point here is that if there were a Big Bang, and everything was just energy and not atoms, at what point did atoms constitute "life"? And what is "life"? Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?

Covering lots of ground here, but first in my quick opinion, the Big Bang happening is no longer questionable. The CMB provides overwhelming evidence, though I still find some of the reported conclusions laughable. However, what we consider "life" could be of little logical concern until conditions allowed for any to exist here. What is "life"? For us it's clearly more than just a collection of atoms. From Wikipedia:

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity. Life on Earth first appeared as early as 4.28 billion years ago, soon after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][3][4] The earliest known life forms are microfossils of bacteria.[5][6] Life on Earth is probably descended from an RNA world,[7] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[8][9] The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.

So "not long after the formation of the Earth" but way, way, long after the Big Bang. So long that deliberately conflating the two does seem pretty silly. The explosion marking the beginning of the universe we know having no apparent connection to "life" other than:

1. Eventually providing a place where we might first notice its existence
2. That place eventually becoming capable of supporting "life"

Required temperature range, pressure, chemicals, humidity, etc. "Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?"

Humans are certainly self-aware along with some other animals. Dunno whether any computers think they're alive. I see no reason why they couldn't eventually be programmed to think so and to decide our fate in a microsecond.

The thing with science is that everything is questionable.

Yes, some things are, more or less, set in stone, but the Big Bang is too difficult for us to really understand what happened. Scientists like to talk about it as if it's set in stone, but in the future our view might change.

The James Web telescope might change things, for one.

Humans at least think they're self aware. Whether we are is another matter. The more I look into it, the less I think we are. It is a difficult one, but often I feel like I'm just suffering, or enjoying, the inevitable.

Daniel Denison refers to the "theater of the mind".

I take this to mean that we experience sensation (what we call self-awareness) but have no role in the script (free will being an illusion). As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined". How does that religious belief differ from Denison's science and atheism?

Technically anyone who believes that "all things are predetermined" would be a fatalist.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Daniel Denison refers to the "theater of the mind".

I take this to mean that we experience sensation (what we call self-awareness) but have no role in the script (free will being an illusion). As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined". How does that religious belief differ from Denison's science and atheism?

Who?
That seems like abuse. If we couldn't really make any choices Hitler's words and acts could be judged no worse than MLK's.
Who's what?
I can't see how atheists magically become more fatalistic than religionists. Perhaps supply some quotes or something?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Technically anyone who believes that "all things are predetermined" would be a fatalist.

Technically, no. A fatalist would believe that two or three different actions would all result in the same outcome. That is not the same as what it's meant by Free Will being an illusion. And human behavior being subject to the same determinism as any other physical system.

 

[ding]

Technically anyone who believes that "all things are predetermined" would be a fatalist.

Technically, no. A fatalist would believe that two or three different actions would all result in the same outcome. That is not the same as what it's meant by Free Will being an illusion. And human behavior being subject to the same determinism as any other physical system.

Same difference. You are making an argument of semantics. All things are predetermined is the same as saying predetermined outcome.

A fatalist is someone who feels that no matter what he or she does, the outcome will be the same because it's predetermined. Fatalists share a sense of being powerless to change the world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

F

Same difference

False. Fundamentally 100% different and not fatalism.

 

[ding]

F

Same difference

False. Fundamentally 100% different and not fatalism.

I don't see it. Fatalists don't pick and choose when it comes to predetermination. They don't see one thing as not predetermined and another thing as being predetermined. If that were the case they wouldn't actually be fatalists.

A fatalist is someone who feels that no matter what he or she does, the outcome will be the same because it's predetermined. Fatalists share a sense of being powerless to change the world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't see it.

Then i don't know what to tell you. I can't explain it any more simply than i did. So i guess we will diverge on this one. Moving on...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Gotta go with ding on this one.
fatalist

I gather the argument boils down to metaphysics vs. physics which I no longer see any point in pursuing. Semantics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Gotta go with ding on this one.
fatalist

I gather the argument boils down to metaphysics vs. physics which I no longer see any point in pursuing. Semantics.

Fatalists think they can choose any behavior they like, and it will make no difference.

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Agreed. One should definitely not become a fatalist. I think we obviously do possess some free will. But even if it turned out that we don't some day, that sort of ignorance would still provide no excuse for behaving as though we had none.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Agreed. One should definitely not become a fatalist. I think we obviously do possess some free will. But even if it turned out that we don't some day, that sort of ignorance would still provide no excuse for behaving as though we had none.

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Grumblenuts wrote:

Who?
That seems like abuse. If we couldn't really make any choices Hitler's words and acts could be judged no worse than MLK's.
Who's what?
I can't see how atheists magically become more fatalistic than religionists. Perhaps supply some quotes or something?

The "who" is Daniel Dennett. My bad for misspelling his name. It's been a few years since I read the book I quoted from memory.

My turn:

What is is that you are suggesting "sounds like abuse"?

I don't believe I suggested that atheist were more magically inclined to fatalism. Hence, I'm also not sure for what I am suppose to supply quotes?

 

[Grumblenuts]

What is is that you are suggesting "sounds like abuse"?

As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined".

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I think the point here is that if there were a Big Bang, and everything was just energy and not atoms, at what point did atoms constitute "life"? And what is "life"? Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?

Covering lots of ground here, but first in my quick opinion, the Big Bang happening is no longer questionable. The CMB provides overwhelming evidence, though I still find some of the reported conclusions laughable. However, what we consider "life" could be of little logical concern until conditions allowed for any to exist here. What is "life"? For us it's clearly more than just a collection of atoms. From Wikipedia:

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity. Life on Earth first appeared as early as 4.28 billion years ago, soon after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][3][4] The earliest known life forms are microfossils of bacteria.[5][6] Life on Earth is probably descended from an RNA world,[7] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[8][9] The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.

So "not long after the formation of the Earth" but way, way, long after the Big Bang. So long that deliberately conflating the two does seem pretty silly. The explosion marking the beginning of the universe we know having no apparent connection to "life" other than:

1. Eventually providing a place where we might first notice its existence
2. That place eventually becoming capable of supporting "life"

Required temperature range, pressure, chemicals, humidity, etc. "Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?"

Humans are certainly self-aware along with some other animals. Dunno whether any computers think they're alive. I see no reason why they couldn't eventually be programmed to think so and to decide our fate in a microsecond.

The thing with science is that everything is questionable.

Yes, some things are, more or less, set in stone, but the Big Bang is too difficult for us to really understand what happened. Scientists like to talk about it as if it's set in stone, but in the future our view might change.

The James Web telescope might change things, for one.

Humans at least think they're self aware. Whether we are is another matter. The more I look into it, the less I think we are. It is a difficult one, but often I feel like I'm just suffering, or enjoying, the inevitable.

Daniel Denison refers to the "theater of the mind".

I take this to mean that we experience sensation (what we call self-awareness) but have no role in the script (free will being an illusion). As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined". How does that religious belief differ from Denison's science and atheism?

Technically anyone who believes that "all things are predetermined" would be a fatalist.

I'd agree, to feel helpless is to be fatalistic. I am less sure that being fatalistic is automatically a negative. I am helplessly in love with my wife of fifty years. Whether I believe that such is preordained makes my enjoyment of the moments no less appreciated. Perhaps the "illusion of free will" is irresistible.

I'm fascinated by the the "possibility" that the universe is a cyclical serpent in which every new beginning observes concrete rules: one and one are two, and so forth. Fascinated as I am, it does not incline me to negotiate life as if I've no rudder.

It's just a ******* conversation.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

What is is that you are suggesting "sounds like abuse"?

As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined".

I suppose it could be - but I don't remember it that way.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Gotta go with ding on this one.
fatalist

I gather the argument boils down to metaphysics vs. physics which I no longer see any point in pursuing. Semantics.

Fatalists think they can choose any behavior they like, and it will make no difference.

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics.

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

 

[ding]

I think the point here is that if there were a Big Bang, and everything was just energy and not atoms, at what point did atoms constitute "life"? And what is "life"? Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?

Covering lots of ground here, but first in my quick opinion, the Big Bang happening is no longer questionable. The CMB provides overwhelming evidence, though I still find some of the reported conclusions laughable. However, what we consider "life" could be of little logical concern until conditions allowed for any to exist here. What is "life"? For us it's clearly more than just a collection of atoms. From Wikipedia:

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity. Life on Earth first appeared as early as 4.28 billion years ago, soon after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][3][4] The earliest known life forms are microfossils of bacteria.[5][6] Life on Earth is probably descended from an RNA world,[7] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[8][9] The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.

So "not long after the formation of the Earth" but way, way, long after the Big Bang. So long that deliberately conflating the two does seem pretty silly. The explosion marking the beginning of the universe we know having no apparent connection to "life" other than:

1. Eventually providing a place where we might first notice its existence
2. That place eventually becoming capable of supporting "life"

Required temperature range, pressure, chemicals, humidity, etc. "Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?"

Humans are certainly self-aware along with some other animals. Dunno whether any computers think they're alive. I see no reason why they couldn't eventually be programmed to think so and to decide our fate in a microsecond.

The thing with science is that everything is questionable.

Yes, some things are, more or less, set in stone, but the Big Bang is too difficult for us to really understand what happened. Scientists like to talk about it as if it's set in stone, but in the future our view might change.

The James Web telescope might change things, for one.

Humans at least think they're self aware. Whether we are is another matter. The more I look into it, the less I think we are. It is a difficult one, but often I feel like I'm just suffering, or enjoying, the inevitable.

Daniel Denison refers to the "theater of the mind".

I take this to mean that we experience sensation (what we call self-awareness) but have no role in the script (free will being an illusion). As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined". How does that religious belief differ from Denison's science and atheism?

Technically anyone who believes that "all things are predetermined" would be a fatalist.

I'd agree, to feel helpless is to be fatalistic. I am less sure that being fatalistic is automatically a negative. I am helplessly in love with my wife of fifty years. Whether I believe that such is preordained makes my enjoyment of the moments no less appreciated. Perhaps the "illusion of free will" is irresistible.

I'm fascinated by the the "possibility" that the universe is a cyclical serpent in which every new beginning observes concrete rules: one and one are two, and so forth. Fascinated as I am, it does not incline me to negotiate life as if I've no rudder.

It's just a ******* conversation.

The context of the definition of fatalism is about outcomes which are seen as beyond one's control; that nothing one does will change the outcome. Does that make the outcomes automatically negative? Probably not. But I would say that within the context of the definition it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Personally I don't see how one can believe nothing they do matters. That should be especially applicable for failures. There are almost always things we could have done different. I think that's how lessons are learned; plan, do, measure, learn. So if it were not possible to alter the outcome there would be no point in learning.

As for free will being an illusion, I'm not there. For I too believe I have a rudder. But I agree with you that it's just a ******* conversation.