|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 13, 2014 18:26:04 GMT -5
I have often said that the main difference between "a theist" and an "atheist" is a typo. In a somewhat strange twist, creating space with nothing in it turns a non-believer into a believer. This just made it to my document of memorable quotes. I'm not sure if it is original or not? There is more Truth here than many might suspect. It is definitely my experience of creating/making room for "space with nothing in it" that has made me a 'believer' (though perhaps an unconventional one).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 18:29:28 GMT -5
I have often said that the main difference between "a theist" and an "atheist" is a typo. In a somewhat strange twist, creating space with nothing in it turns a non-believer into a believer. This just made it to my document of memorable quotes. I'm not sure if it is original or not? There is more Truth here than many might suspect. It is definitely my experience of creating/making room for "space with nothing in it" that has made me a 'believer' (though perhaps an unconventional one). Entirely original Shaz......unless Virgs or Bert want to lay claim to it?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 13, 2014 18:34:01 GMT -5
This just made it to my document of memorable quotes. I'm not sure if it is original or not? There is more Truth here than many might suspect. It is definitely my experience of creating/making room for "space with nothing in it" that has made me a 'believer' (though perhaps an unconventional one). Entirely original Shaz......unless Virgs or Bert want to lay claim to it? Ha!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 13, 2014 19:34:13 GMT -5
This seems to be true if you consider what happens when chochlear implants are turned on. The brain doesn't know what the new input is, what is amazing is how fast it can process the new input into something usable. I suppose it helps if person knows it is sound even if the brain doesn't know it.
Thanks science! That science is real crude compared to the brain that works with what that science gives it. In a 2009 article (-->> Source) a super computer model ran a simulation of the human visual cortex at 1/83 full speed. The supercomputer needed one million watts of power to do it. The goal was to simulate the entire human brain - the supercomputer required to do that needed to be 1000 times the size. That is 1000MW of power. The plant I work at burns 12,000 tons of coal a day to produce 660 MW of power for the grid. An equivalent 1000MW coal power plant would burn 757 tons of coal per hour. The human brain runs on about 25 watts or 90,000 watts per hour. One food calorie equals 4184 watts. So eating 22 calories per hour will run the human brain. That is like 10 M&Ms. So 757 tons of coal to run the supercomputer to simulate the human brain for one hour - vs - 10 M&Ms to run the human brain for one hour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 19:38:50 GMT -5
Yeah, interesting Jesse but computers are catching up awfully fast. look at your average smart phone - 64 bit computers were "super-computers" in the late 1970's. There has been something like a BILLION fold improvement since then. Read once that a computer to rival the human brain would require Niagra Falls just to keep it cool.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 13, 2014 19:58:21 GMT -5
In January 2014 a supercomputer in Japan ran a one second human brain simulation and it took it 2400 seconds to do it. That computer consumes 12.6 MW of power. They must be getting more efficient.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 13, 2014 20:05:03 GMT -5
This article says that was one second of one percent of the brain's activity - it took the computer 40 minutes! -->> SourceThe Blind Watchmaker is an amazing creator!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 13, 2014 20:09:13 GMT -5
With the things that have gone on throughout history and even in our day, it's really understandable why atheists find some religious groups and beliefs to be quite dangerous to the survival of other groups that don't think like them. Religions haven't had a good track record with it comes to tolerance of groups who don't believe like they do. I recognize that it's just using God as a justification to do what they want to do, but it is definitely sometimes the rather twisted beliefs some of these religions teach too. Most religious people are not dangerous and are loving caring individuals. However, in most cases I think they would be that way even if they didn't believe in God. We have good people in both groups, believers and non believers. In some cases maybe it is the fear of hell that makes someone more 'good', but in most cases I think it's just people being people. Religion in the wrong hands can be very dangerous. Wrong hands connected to a wrong mind can be explosive! There is a difference between being good and being divine. Having a good nature will not get us into Heaven, it is having a divine nature. That being the case, I couldn't give two hoots about being divine. I'm much more interested in good-natured people creating peace on Earth than seeing them get into heaven.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 13, 2014 20:20:59 GMT -5
If one is able to entertain the possibility that there is a non-empirical part to our world, it does open up all kinds of interesting possibilities! An interesting discussion, with ideas worth considering: Speculation has always been possible.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 13, 2014 20:31:55 GMT -5
I could not even estimate the number of theists who have condemned me to eternal punishment, accused me of having no morals, hating christians all based on their belief in an entity for which they have no proof. And when they offer their beliefs as proof and an argument is presented that negates their belief(s) the accusation is one of being anti-christian. If theists do not want arguments they should not present their beliefs as facts. If you claim, for example, that prayer works, present your proof along with the claim. Yeah. I agree that this is not respectful. However, I don’t really see an equivalency here. As an atheist, you are striking at thoughts/ideas/beliefs that form the basis of their own well-being in this world and any thoughts they have of the hereafter. They are threatening you with an eternal punishment you don’t believe in anyhow? ! What they say is not respectful. Yes. Totally. But, surely, not traumatic, unless you haven’t left those beliefs as far behind as you think you have?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 20:32:46 GMT -5
IMO we are at the stage with super fast computers that we can begin to compare them with human brains. Look up petaflop and exaflop machines from memory we are about 2-3% of the human brain capacity with computers but even at this level, ie lots of animals, you see interesting things happen emergent properties some call it.
if you computer is, say, 2% human brain (0.02 HB) then in two years it could be 4% HB then another 2 years and it's 8% then 16%, 32, 64, 128, 256 and then 1056 HB that's your human brain .... then 2 years after that we have a 2 HB machine, then 4, 8,16,32,64.....
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 13, 2014 20:34:22 GMT -5
That being the case, I couldn't give two hoots about being divine. I'm much more interested in good-natured people creating peace on Earth than seeing them get into heaven. I suspect there is really no difference between the two.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 13, 2014 20:34:52 GMT -5
If one is able to entertain the possibility that there is a non-empirical part to our world, it does open up all kinds of interesting possibilities! An interesting discussion, with ideas worth considering: Speculation has always been possible. Not only possible, a good deal of it is necessary in some evolutionary science; "Any future fossil findings that clearly show the structures of and near the inner ear would be very welcome, since at present a good deal of speculation is necessary to piece together the evolution of tympanic ears of different groups, their times of origin, and their relationships."
G.A Manley Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System To paraphrase Rational; "If evolutionists do not want arguments they should not present their beliefs as facts." Sorry I couldn't resist!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 13, 2014 20:35:28 GMT -5
Religion in the wrong hands can be very dangerous. Wrong hands connected to a wrong mind can be explosive! There is a difference between being good and being divine. Having a good nature will not get us into Heaven, it is having a divine nature. That being the case, I couldn't give two hoots about being divine. I'm much more interested in good-natured people creating peace on Earth than seeing them get into heaven. Or in other words, " peace on earth, goodwill to man". Kinda like your thoughts, gene. Sadly, the people I have known who considered themselves divine, were quite the opposite. The ones I considered to be super good examples and role models, did not consider themselves divine in the least, but recognized their own human fraility and weakneses, and simply didn't judge me on mine, Alvin. If "heaven" depends on my divinity, I'm toast. Lol. I depend on HIS.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 13, 2014 20:48:25 GMT -5
Supercomputers still only do what they are programmed to do. When an exaflop machine simulating 100% of the human brain gets up and walks around I'll be impressed.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 13, 2014 20:48:42 GMT -5
Speculation has always been possible. Not only possible, a good deal of it is necessary in some evolutionary science; "Any future fossil findings that clearly show the structures of and near the inner ear would be very welcome, since at present a good deal of speculation is necessary to piece together the evolution of tympanic ears of different groups, their times of origin, and their relationships."
G.A Manley Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System To paraphrase Rational; "If evolutionists do not want arguments they should not present their beliefs as facts." :) Sorry I couldn't resist! ;) I understand! ;) I do not like the way terms like "Quantum Wave" have been taken by pseudoscience and metaphysics and spun to the public with hand-waving abandon in the form of paid lectures and books. Here is an alternate video of Stanford Professor Andrei Linde learning that the gravity wave pattern that he predicted 30 years earlier (based in physics and mathematics) has probably been detected. What has been detected matches what Linde predicted at a confidence level of 5-sigma (incredibly close match). I like what Linde says as he celebrates:"I live with the feeling, what if I am tricked? What if I believe in this just because it is beautiful?" Linde's is a level of caution and sense of responsibility in striking contrast to what I see as Chopra's hand-waving declarations.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 13, 2014 21:07:36 GMT -5
Speculation has always been possible. Not only possible, a good deal of it is necessary in some evolutionary science; "Any future fossil findings that clearly show the structures of and near the inner ear would be very welcome, since at present a good deal of speculation is necessary to piece together the evolution of tympanic ears of different groups, their times of origin, and their relationships."
G.A Manley Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System To paraphrase Rational; "If evolutionists do not want arguments they should not present their beliefs as facts." :) Sorry I couldn't resist! ;) The thing is, the scientific process relies on the building of speculative models as well as on arguments (these are not unwelcome) and push-back and questioning and skepticism, and ultimately, if one is lucky the discovery of supporting or refuting evidence. In Professor Linde's case, he had to wait for 30 years before the evidence could be collected. The models of the development of the human ear are speculated from within the framework of an overwhelming body of evidence for evolution that suggests that such a model is reasonable to propose.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 13, 2014 22:10:47 GMT -5
Re "Thanks science" I like to call medical science the "noble science" And there's a war against science growing in the Western world Last week a child died and four were hospitalized for drinking unpasteurized milk. Newspapers reported large number of people calling to defend this habit. We have had several children die in "home birth" situations, where their mothers were opposed to medical intervention. I believe non-vaccination in LA now is worse thant third word rates. Grass root campaigns here include opposition to fluoride in our water, GM foods, treating autism etc.. Some people are saying that "science is an indispensable tool of Capitalism." And that's from the secular Left - not the churches. Bert, aren't you redefining causes & group characteristics again?
That isn't a "war against science." Sounds more like a "back to nature" movement.
It's not even a "secular Left" movement!
Secular Left "A pejorative used by extreme political conservatives to pander to their extreme religious conservative base. The label includes anyone and any group who dissents against the extreme political conservative agenda in regards to social and culture issues."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 23:06:52 GMT -5
Yes, its okay to call it a 'war against science' because of its context. I mentioned here that Greenpeace and Wilderness Society led a push for the EU to ban the office of science overseer last week. And this is not surprising - science is quoted when it suits people, ie global warming, science is attacked when it doesn't, ie GM food, vaccinations etc.. The "secular left" is pejorative, yes. I meant it to be. It's a group I particularly dislike. Once the "old left" defended freedom and science against the right. Now the left has joined the right in attacking the same.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2014 0:01:48 GMT -5
This is a semantic question: Is acknowledgement of one's inability to prove (disprove) a specific argument considered the basis for a claim of agnosticism? It has always been my understanding that an agnostic's position is simply: "I am unable to know". Superficially, at least, such a statement seems to fall well outside of the Professor Dawkins' character and projected "self-image". Strictly speaking, there are few things that can be 'known' with certainty. I cannot prove there is not a god hidden somewhere in the universe. On the other hand is there a need to prove that every imaginable thing anyone does not exist? Most are satisfied to investigate evidence of entities once some sort of proof has been presented. Unknowable becomes the word in question. People claim it is not possible to prove a negative. No everyone agrees. Is there an agreed upon definition of god?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 0:25:34 GMT -5
For us here on the TMB, mostly from a similar background - the definition of God is the one presented in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2014 0:56:55 GMT -5
That science is real crude compared to the brain that works with what that science gives it. In a 2009 article (-->> Source) a super computer model ran a simulation of the human visual cortex at 1/83 full speed. The supercomputer needed one million watts of power to do it. The goal was to simulate the entire human brain - the supercomputer required to do that needed to be 1000 times the size. That is 1000MW of power. The plant I work at burns 12,000 tons of coal a day to produce 660 MW of power for the grid. An equivalent 1000MW coal power plant would burn 757 tons of coal per hour. The human brain runs on about 25 watts or 90,000 watts per hour. One food calorie equals 4184 watts. So eating 22 calories per hour will run the human brain. That is like 10 M&Ms. So 757 tons of coal to run the supercomputer to simulate the human brain for one hour - vs - 10 M&Ms to run the human brain for one hour. It seems like there is something very wrong with the equations. 25 watts is 25 joules per second. In one hour that is 90,000 joules. 90kj = 21,510.5 calories. 21,510.5 calories = 21.51 Calories. 28 M&Ms = 142 Calories. 1 M&M = 5.1 Calories. 4.24 M&Ms = 21.5 Calories. Looks like it was more a problem with units! But remember that the 25 watts is only the brain and not the supporting organs. For the entire unit the average burn rate is around 2000 Calories per day. That works out to 833 Calories per hour. So the fuel intake has to be bumped up to 16 or 17 M&Ms per hour!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2014 1:11:56 GMT -5
For us here on the TMB, mostly from a similar background - the definition of God is the one presented in the bible. Which one? The all powerful and all knowing one or the one that was unable to overcome the chariots of iron? The loving god of the NT or the vengeful god of the OT? Come on, Bert, god in the bible changes from chapter to chapter. You will need a tighter definition that that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 1:20:21 GMT -5
Well Rational, you need to be rational. Is it okay for you to be happy, sad, angry, bored, sleepy, vengeful, blissful, full of karma.... ? so why can't God?
I read a lot of the love of God in the Old Testament. I read of the wrath of God in the New Testament. Including of course, for a disbelievers to see, the end of the Jewish nation and the deaths or slavery of millions as Jesus himself warned.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2014 1:31:09 GMT -5
Well Rational, you need to be rational. Is it okay for you to be happy, sad, angry, bored, sleepy, vengeful, blissful, full of karma.... ? so why can't God? Most consider god to be omniscient and omnipotent. There is no reason for any of the emotions you have mentioned. Your god would have caused all events and been aware of the events and the outcome. Angry at whom? Sad about what? The point is that the actions and descriptions of god in the bible do not fit with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent omnibenevolent (OOOO or O 4) god. So do you believe in an O 4 god? Sounds like that would not be a possibility given your response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 1:35:26 GMT -5
Read the Gospels, again. Each one. Observe all the passions of Jesus, from love and empathy to wrath and revenge.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2014 1:45:00 GMT -5
Read the Gospels, again. Each one. Observe all the passions of Jesus, from love and empathy to wrath and revenge. It just doesn't define god. And at the point of the gospels - was Jesus god?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 6:40:51 GMT -5
Read the Gospels, again. Each one. Observe all the passions of Jesus, from love and empathy to wrath and revenge. It just doesn't define god. And at the point of the gospels - was Jesus god? According to the Gospel authors, and those of the Old Testament, the Messiah was the "expressed image" of His heavenly Father. Some skeptics cast God in an image of their own making, thus God, who is omnipotent, cannot rage against His own creation. But God gave free agency to man, and man's behavior can illicit behavior of God.
|
|