You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

Exactly, the Russians and Chinese rely more on science the Africans seem to be living on higher altitudes and probably will adapt to having better endurance and for thousands of years they ran everywhere, perhaps they ran more than they walked..

So their DNA and gene's are better than ours for endurance

it's not 'the africans' per se who dominate long distance running, it's a specific region which dominates the sport.
https://populous.com/born-to-run-why-do-east-africans-dominate-long-distance-running-events

Peregrinus

CramCycle wrote: »

. . . +1, I have nothing in common with the posters on here other than we post on an internet forum, sin e. I don't have a different belief system, I simply do not have one . . .

Nitpick: I'd be fairly confident that you do have a belief system. It's just that your belief system is not religious.

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not 'the africans' per se who dominate long distance running, it's a specific region which dominates the sport.
https://populous.com/born-to-run-why-do-east-africans-dominate-long-distance-running-events

Supposedly the seal tribes in Scotland back in the day could run for hour's especially if they're trying to hunt someone down, so it's probably demographic alright...

CramCycle

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: I'd be fairly confident that you do have a belief system. It's just that your belief system is not religious.

Apologies, I thought it was clear that when I referred to a belief system I meant in a religious context, silly me.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

I just noticed if you turn it sidewards it's actually Cthulhu

Getoutofit! That's Karl Marx that is.

Mark Hamill

pearcider wrote: »

Actually the taste of the nachos bears no resemblance to the shape of the molecules of nachos. Their taste is a completely subjective experience and has nothing to do with the information processing of our cognitive systems. How they taste simply cannot be defined in this way. I do not experience the same taste that you do.

Change any chemical in a nacho and you change the taste. You are mistaking the taste of something with someones enjoyment of that taste. Your enjoyment of a taste is subject to your biology and experiences. The nacho is still the same nacho regardless of whether you enjoy it or not.

pearcider wrote: »

Qualia are defined as instances of concious experience and their study is not beyond the realm of science at all. They are widely studied. Any proposed theory of consciousness will be able to make falsifiable claims so there’s no need to worry there. But any physical theory of the mind must account for subjective experiences.

And what is the issue with qualia?
You drop a pebble in a pond and it will sink in a different manner to a different pebble dropped in the same pond, because of their different shapes, the exact part of the pond they fall into and the differences in weather when they are dropped. What part of those two pebbles subjective "experiences" cannot be described theoretically?

pearcider wrote: »

Because it presupposes that the existence of our world is an accident rather than the purpose of the creation in the first place? As Paul Davies says “invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.”

So as I said you can choose your poison but do not preach to people who believe in God that your philosophy rules him out. It does no such thing. You can believe that the universe has a purpose or you can believe it has no purpose but to say that current scientific consensus suggests that it has no purpose is wrong.

Again, accident presupposes some intent. If there is no creator, then we are not accidental, we are incidental. We exist because our universe happened to have the conditions suitable for our existence. I said this before.

Science dismisses all non-falsifiable claims as they are untestable and therefore their existence is indistinguishable from non existence. Hence science rejects the very question of god.

Mark Hamill

pearcider wrote: »

Max Planck, the father of the quantum said this,

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.“

Non sequitor. There is no reason to assume there is an intelligence behind the forces of the universe.

pearcider wrote: »

Erwin Schrödinger, who formulated the equation that governs particles at the quantum level said,

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else".

We don't have a complete understanding of the minutiae of consciousness, but we have a good knowledge of which parts of the brain house the different parts of your personality. Injuries to different parts of the brain, and taking of hallucinogenics can change peoples personalities. Your consciousness is a biological product of your brain and can be effected on a biological level.

pearcider wrote: »

Werner Heisenberg who gives his name to the uncertainty principle that seemingly underpins physical reality said,

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things"

That just says that atoms should not be treated as physical things like macro-scale objects. Materialism doesn't rule out the existence of non-matter, light and energy exists in materialism.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Getoutofit! That's Karl Marx that is.

Ya flippin' commie, ya!

Peregrinus

CramCycle wrote: »

Apologies, I thought it was clear that when I referred to a belief system I meant in a religious context, silly me.

It matters. I would never suspect it of you, but I have met atheists who insist that, in fact, as atheists, they don't have a belief system.

Which means, of course, that they're simply in denial about their belief system, and they haven't scrutinised their own reasons for holding the beliefs that they hold. Which is not a good thing.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Ya flippin' commie, ya!

Dammit - shudda said it was Robin Williams in Jumanji. Now I have blow my cover as sleeping agent of glorious Soviet republik :mad:

Odhinn

smacl wrote: »

Hmmm, just had a look at a knot in my bog door that I'd always taken to be a friendly aardvark kind of thing



I just noticed if you turn it sidewards it's actually Cthulhu



Bad news Christians, Muslims and Pastafarians, looks like you've been praying to the wrong guy all these years! :pac:

So far as I'm aware from my limited studies in AI and computer vision, when the brain sees a pattern, it fills out missing bits based on what it knows most. Same idea as Rorschach tests. If demons are you're thing, demons is what you get. How I became an aardvark loving atheist is more of a mystery.

https://www.entrelineas.org/pdf/assets/who-will-be-eaten-first-howard-hallis-2004.pdf

Hotblack Desiato

nthclare wrote: »

But there's one thing that stands out to me between the two, you'll get a lot more religious people who are top class athletes, boxer's, and partake other pursuits that rely on physical endurance

It can seem that way, but that's because the religious ones never bloody shut up about it.

nthclare wrote: »

Exactly, the Russians and Chinese rely more on science drugs

Fyp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Getoutofit! That's Karl Marx that is.

...holding a scythe :eek:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which means, of course, that they're simply in denial about their belief system

Or they are just using 'belief system' in the sense generally assumed in our society, which is to describe a religious belief system.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

. . . Or they are just using 'belief system' in the sense generally assumed in our society, which is to describe a religious belief system.

. . . which is a way of avoiding scrutiny of non-religious belief systems, and a support mechanism for those who are in denial about their own belief systems.

I mean, look at what Cram actually said here:

CramCycle wrote: »

. . . I have nothing in common with the posters on here other than we post on an internet forum, sin e. I don't have a different belief system, I simply do not have one.

Cram does have a different belief system, and so he has rather more in common with other posters on here than this statement would suggest.

is there such a thing as not having a belief system?

seems possible to me.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

is there such a thing as not having a belief system?

seems possible to me.

If you don't have any beliefs, you don't have a belief system.

But I don't believe (ha!) that it's possible to be a sentient, conscious, human person and yet have no beliefs.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you don't have any beliefs, you don't have a belief system.

But I don't believe (ha!) that it's possible to be a sentient, conscious, human person and yet have no beliefs.

But do those beliefs constitute a system?

that's the question, for me

"belief system" suggests a set of defined reference points that act as inputs/templates for decisions or actions

its not the same as, say, the scientific method, or querying things as they come up, or simply meandering about

yes, of course it's possible to have a belief system and not acknowledge it

but imo it's quite possible not to have one also

Peregrinus

If you have any beliefs, you must have some basis for adopting or holding them; why else would you hold them?

Some people's bases might be more organised or coherent than others; the purpose of acknwledging that you have a belief system and scrutinising it would be to consider such questions, to reflect on why you hold the beliefs that you do, and to decide if you are happy with that.

The scientific method certainly depends on a belief system (and, in my view, for what it is worth, a robust and coherent belief system). The discipline usually called the philosophy of science examines that belief system, and the axioms which underlie it. Those axioms are unproven (and unprovable) but, if you don't believe them to be true, then you can't appeal to the scientific method as a reliable way of knowing anything. Examining the belief system which underpins the scientific method is also important since it serves to identify the limits of the scientific method - as in, it serves to identify classes of questions which cannot be answered by the scientific method. That in turn leads you to reflect on how you seek to answer questions of that kind, and what belief system you employ for that purpose.

"Querying things as they come up, or simply meandering about" is also likely to require a belief system, though perhaps one which is less scrutinised and/or less structured.

I suppose you could argue that a totally unstructured belief system can't really be described as a system at all, and that people who chose their beliefs completely at random every time an occasion arises for acting on or expressing a belief have no belief system. But I seriously doubt that such people exist. Everyone has some degree of system to their beliefs, even if it's only a principle of consistency. ("If I believed yesterday that a woman has the right to choose abortion, I should believe the same thing today, unless I can point to some reason for changing my belief.")

nthclare

God and Religion are two different things.

Sometimes I think before one has a debate they have to lay out their versions of God before the match starts.

I have no interest in wiping the floor with Christianity,and throwing out the dirty rag afterwards, which I often seen done here and in other forums, I've done it myself that's for today.
But if I was having an off day I'd have no problem suggesting that the Abrahamic God is like a sand demon from the middle east (which is personified evil) it may not exist but the legend lives on and still infiltrates our culture and society, not so much now but it resonates in our law's and some peoples morals.
I'm a pagan, I don't need to prove why I'm a pagan or what type of pagan/heathen I am.
But it makes more sense than being a Christian, the book of genises suggests that the planet is for man's Dominion, and we should subdue it.

The pagan thinks it's for the plant's, animals and elements, and we share it, not control it...

Is there any pagans in the Atheism and Agnoticism forum ?

CramCycle

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . which is a way of avoiding scrutiny of non-religious belief systems, and a support mechanism for those who are in denial about their own belief systems.

I mean, look at what Cram actually said here:


Cram does have a different belief system, and so he has rather more in common with other posters on here than this statement would suggest.

Really? I clarified in the next post if you read it, I was referring to a religious belief system. I stand by my statement in regards other posters here. Other than I have no religious belief system, I don't have anything I know about in common with other posters here.

Hotblack Desiato

Mathematics is also based on axioms, so is it a belief system too?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suppose you could argue that a totally unstructured belief system can't really be described as a system at all, and that people who chose their beliefs completely at random every time an occasion arises for acting on or expressing a belief have no belief system. But I seriously doubt that such people exist. Everyone has some degree of system to their beliefs, even if it's only a principle of consistency. ("If I believed yesterday that a woman has the right to choose abortion, I should believe the same thing today, unless I can point to some reason for changing my belief.")

I guess that if you looked at the reason why most people will believe something to be true, without directly testing the veracity of that truth themselves, is that the information provided comes from a trusted source such as a parent, teacher or similar. These beliefs aren't formed systematically but on an ad hoc basis and I'd argue don't so much form a belief system as a dynamic and expanding knowledge base.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

I guess that if you looked at the reason why most people will believe something to be true, without directly testing the veracity of that truth themselves, is that the information provided comes from a trusted source such as a parent, teacher or similar. These beliefs aren't formed systematically but on an ad hoc basis and I'd argue don't so much form a belief system as a dynamic and expanding knowledge base.

I would agree.
The term 'system' would suggest there is a certain amount of codification, which would apply to most religious beliefs (the tenets being the system), and arguably at a stretch to some people's political beliefs (at the more ideological driven ends of the spectrum) but it's stretching it to apply the term to the majority of the beliefs people hold.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

Is there any pagans in the Atheism and Agnoticism forum ?

Not a pagan but I'd a strong interest in philosophical Taoism at one point which has a corresponding emphasis in balance within the natural world. I also really used to enjoy reading various mythologies as a kid, and still do to some extent, but think of them as stories rather than gospel truth. Interestingly, I think there was a lot of paganism in the West of Ireland until relatively recently, but the pagans were also Catholics. I'm remember my granny from Sligo talking about banshees and various other bits of local pagan mythology in solemn terms while still going to mass daily. I've seen the same thing in Hong Kong where Catholic Hong Kong Chinese friends would also visit the Buddhist temple for spiritual advise and have various shrines to lesser household deities dotted around the house.

nthclare

smacl wrote: »

Not a pagan but I'd a strong interest in philosophical Taoism at one point which has a corresponding emphasis in balance within the natural world. I also really used to enjoy reading various mythologies as a kid, and still do to some extent, but think of them as stories rather than gospel truth. Interestingly, I think there was a lot of paganism in the West of Ireland until relatively recently, but the pagans were also Catholics. I'm remember my granny from Sligo talking about banshees and various other bits of local pagan mythology in solemn terms while still going to mass daily. I've seen the same thing in Hong Kong where Catholic Hong Kong Chinese friends would also visit the Buddhist temple for spiritual advise and have various shrines to lesser household deities dotted around the house.

And not forgetting the JFK pictures dotted around house's in Wexford lol

There's a pagan culture in The Burren, and they're great fun to be around.
We light bonfire's and have entertainment, kids, parents and grandparents all invited.
No rituals just a gathering.

The Burren college of art had an amazing gathering there last year...it was like a mini body and soul

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

And not forgetting the JFK pictures dotted around house's in Wexford lol

There's a pagan culture in The Burren, and they're great fun to be around.
We light bonfire's and have entertainment, kids, parents and grandparents all invited.
No rituals just a gathering.

The Burren college of art had an amazing gathering there last year...it was like a mini body and soul

Yes indeed. My sister got married on Fanore beach in a pagan ceremony and we got to see a fair bit of. Rap on the door at PJs at midnight with festivities in full swing with a shout of "Any admittance for Captain Mummer and his men?" followed by the straw boys coming in giving us some great entertainment. Fantastic craic and great to see this type of tradition alive and well whatever your beliefs might be.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Mathematics is also based on axioms, so is it a belief system too?

No, because the axioms are not axiomatic beliefs. Euclidean geometry, for example, proceeds from axioms about parallel lines, etc, but makes no claim that parallel lines actually exist, or have any correspondence to reality. Whereas the axioms that underpin the scientific method are claims about the objectively real universe.

CramCycle

Getting flashbacks to Peanos Axioms.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

Getting flashbacks to Peanos Axioms.

Not something you'd want to say to quickly with a couple of pints taken

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I guess that if you looked at the reason why most people will believe something to be true, without directly testing the veracity of that truth themselves, is that the information provided comes from a trusted source such as a parent, teacher or similar. These beliefs aren't formed systematically but on an ad hoc basis and I'd argue don't so much form a belief system as a dynamic and expanding knowledge base.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would agree.
The term 'system' would suggest there is a certain amount of codification, which would apply to most religious beliefs (the tenets being the system), and arguably at a stretch to some people's political beliefs (at the more ideological driven ends of the spectrum) but it's stretching it to apply the term to the majority of the beliefs people hold.

I dunno. It's true that we initially inherit our beliefs, but a standard part of growing up is questioning the beliefs we have inherited, scrutinising them and then accepting some while rejecting others. But that process requires some standard against which to measure the beliefs we have inherited; some basis for for affirming or rejecting them. There's still a belief system at work there, even if it is not fully articulated, or not entirely coherent.

Obviously, we can hold inconsistent beliefs; in fact this happens all the time. That doesn't mean we don't have a belief system, since there's nothing inherent in the notion of "system" that requires it to be fully worked out, completely coherent, etc, etc; you can have more or less ordered systems, and that applies to belief systems as much as to any other kind of system.