Garden of Eden

[rigney]

Well spoken. Same here. I always thought there had to be something in the nothing to create something. If that makes any sense.

What you say makes a lot of sense. But gods, myths, and fables have been around since mans brain began allowing him to conjuring them up. That's why we have so many religions and misbeliefs. Scientist' are fortunate in that respect since they have many tangibles to work with. However, even those facts had to arise from somewhere????

 

Ignorance can be resolved with education and effort. Willful ignorance cannot.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, that doesn't make it so. Your definitions are simply wrong. If you genuinely desire to resolve your misunderstanding, you might consider reviewing references like this:

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

And just what is willful ignorance my friend, other than ones piety? Here's are a few more ways to define Atheism and Agnosticism that you may wish to add.

 

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-an-atheist-and-an-agnostic.htm

[JustinW]

Exactly. I believe the scientific method to be the correct method when judging reality and the way it works. This, I believe, can also be applyed towards religions and beliefs. But it doesn't exclude the notion or belief of a creator. Logically one has to assume that because there is "something", that it had to be created somehow. So if someone asks me if I believe in a creator I would say I do.

 

 

 

As to different definitions of atheism and agnostisism, I would say to those that do not follow the origional straight forward definitions, that they should call themselves something else or be considered non-comfomists.

[iNow]

Exactly. I believe the scientific method to be the correct method when judging reality and the way it works. This, I believe, can also be applyed towards religions and beliefs.

Only when those religions and beliefs make falsifiable claims, which (as a general rule) they do not. They posit things that are inherently untestable and hence the scientific method does not (nor cannot) apply. In much the same way that you cannot use the scientific method to offer evidence that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, you cannot (generally) use the scientific method to offer evidence for or against similar religious beliefs.

 

In this setting, religious beliefs are roughly equivalent to the stories of Harry Potter.

 

 

But it doesn't exclude the notion or belief of a creator.

It does, though, actually. The notion or belief in a creator has no tangible effect on the reality being tested. Whether or not it exists, it is by definition unmeasurable, and hence is regarded as irrelevant and ultimately moot in the scientific method (in much the same way that invisible friends and monsters under the bed are).

 

 

Logically one has to assume that because there is "something", that it had to be created somehow.

Not if they understand anything about quantum mechanics, they don't.

[JustinW]

It does, though, actually. The notion or belief in a creator has no tangible effect on the reality being tested. Whether or not it exists, it is by definition unmeasurable, and hence is regarded as irrelevant and ultimately moot in the scientific method (in much the same way that invisible friends and monsters under the bed are).

So reality is just what is measurable. You can't measure a thought, but you know you had one. It doesn't matter though, because I had no intention of connecting the scientific method with finding the proof of a creator. I was trying to say that the scientific method could be used to debunk certain religions and beliefs, but that it couldn't debunk the idea of a creator.

 

 

It does, though, actually. The notion or belief in a creator has no tangible effect on the reality being tested. Whether or not it exists, it is by definition unmeasurable, and hence is regarded as irrelevant and ultimately moot in the scientific method (in much the same way that invisible friends and monsters under the bed are).

Someone might that by definition you measure a creator everyday with any thing that's measured. Therefore a creator cannot be ruled out by default. And you may have me on that last point.

[iNow]

You can't measure a thought, but you know you had one.

This is false. You can measure a thought.

 

I was trying to say that the scientific method could be used to debunk certain religions and beliefs, but that it couldn't debunk the idea of a creator.

It could if there was a clear, shared, testable definition of "creator." However, usually 10 different people have 10 different versions of "creator," and it never seems to venture beyond the realm of wish-thinking.

 

That was my point. Since the idea is not testable, and it has no tangible impact on the reality around us, it's dismissed as irrelevant and not worthy of time or inclusion.

 

Someone might that by definition you measure a creator everyday with any thing that's measured.

In which case the term lacks all utility, and is functionally useless... Hence, again... dismissible as wholly irrelevant.

[JustinW]

This is false. You can measure a thought.

Hows that? I understand you can measure brain activity, but I've never heard anyone say that it was for sure measuring thought. Okay how big was your last thought?

 

 

 

In which case the term lacks all utility, and is functionally useless... Hence, again... dismissible as wholly irrelevant.

Maybe irrelevant to reality of the measurable but still relevant to the individual. Maybe the individual has some notion of an afterlife. Just because it is irrelevant from a scientific methodology doesn't mean that it is irrelevant alltogether.

[iNow]

Hows that? I understand you can measure brain activity, but I've never heard anyone say that it was for sure measuring thought. Okay how big was your last thought?

I'd be glad to assist you in furthering your education on neuroscience if you'd like to start a thread in the appropriate forum and ask specific questions. For here, however, I'll merely point out that your personal incredulity is not a valid opposition to my point.

 

 

Just because it is irrelevant from a scientific methodology doesn't mean that it is irrelevant alltogether.

Correct, but if you look back to just a few short posts ago, we were very clearly making these comments in the context of scientific methodology, and hence the point stands.

[rigney]

This is false. You can measure a thought.

 

 

It could if there was a clear, shared, testable definition of "creator." However, usually 10 different people have 10 different versions of "creator," and it never seems to venture beyond the realm of wish-thinking.

 

That was my point. Since the idea is not testable, and it has no tangible impact on the reality around us, it's dismissed as irrelevant and not worthy of time or inclusion.

 

 

In which case the term lacks all utility, and is functionally useless... Hence, again... dismissible as wholly irrelevant.

iNow, have you ever actually seen an atom other than it being studied as an electrical function? Perhaps glimpsed an idea or thought, or have you ever looked closely at another constillation or galaxy other than through a telescope? I thought not. When the world gets too large or small for us to handle, we circumvent the facts with alternatives. As you justify the universe through quantum mechanics, many folks do the same with faith in their so called creator. I'm not trying to dispute either view, merely offering a possible solution to such a "huge impass".

[iNow]

iNow, have you ever actually seen an atom other than it being studied as an electrical function? Perhaps glimpsed an idea or thought, or have you ever looked closely at another constillation or galaxy other than through a telescope? I thought not. When the world gets too large or small for us to handle, we circumvent the facts with alternatives. As you justify the universe through quantum mechanics, many folks do the same with faith in their so called creator. I'm not trying to dispute either view, merely offering a possible solution to such a "huge impass".

There is no impasse. One side is based on evidence. The other is based on wish thinking and delusion. Facts cannot be circumvented, merely ignored to avoid challenge to one's personal worldview or ideology.

[JustinW]

I'd be glad to assist you in furthering your education on neuroscience if you'd like to start a thread in the appropriate forum and ask specific questions. For here, however, I'll merely point out that your personal incredulity is not a valid opposition to my point.

 

You're the one that said it could. You won't even give me a hint? I've just tried to look up some information on measuring thoughts. As far as I've found there isn't any way to measure individual thought.

 

 

 

Correct, but if you look back to just a few short posts ago, we were very clearly making these comments in the context of scientific methodology, and hence the point stands.

I concede. Under those terms I stand corrected.

 

 

 

There is no impasse. One side is based on evidence. The other is based on wish thinking and delusion. Facts cannot be circumvented, merely ignored to avoid challenge to one's personal worldview or ideology.

So the arguement as it stands now is that a creator or even the possibility of an afterlife cannot possibly exist because there is nothing measureable to observe? Although when existance is pointed out the creation of that existance is still irrelevant for the same reasons?

 

 

 

 

Edited for afterthought.

Edited December 26, 2011 by JustinW

[kitkat]

The story of Adam and Eve began around the time humans were doing agriculture and domestication of animals. Prior to that humans, I believe were more primitive and relied mostly on instincts and their brains were just beginning to evolve self awareness. The story of Adam and Eve is when they realized they were naked after eating the forbidden fruit which translate to being self aware. It is obvious that agriculture was already taken place since their "God" told them they would have to work hard to grow their own food. Pain in child birth was felt more then other mammals that give birth apparently was a trade off of reduced chemical reactions that allowed us "being self aware" which means we would feel more from our existing environment where other animals have more of a numbing effect since animals that felt more pain in labor would draw attention from their predators. Have you ever noticed when an animal is caught by its predator, the prey acts like it is drugged and dies quickly.

 

If you translate the story of Adam and Eve to a evolutionary change point in history when our brain evolved more, the story has some truth to it but not from the religious view.

[Moontanman]

The story of Adam and Eve began around the time humans were doing agriculture and domestication of animals. Prior to that humans, I believe were more primitive and relied mostly on instincts and their brains were just beginning to evolve self awareness. The story of Adam and Eve is when they realized they were naked after eating the forbidden fruit which translate to being self aware. It is obvious that agriculture was already taken place since their "God" told them they would have to work hard to grow their own food. Pain in child birth was felt more then other mammals that give birth apparently was a trade off of reduced chemical reactions that allowed us "being self aware" which means we would feel more from our existing environment where other animals have more of a numbing effect since animals that felt more pain in labor would draw attention from their predators. Have you ever noticed when an animal is caught by its predator, the prey acts like it is drugged and dies quickly.

 

If you translate the story of Adam and Eve to a evolutionary change point in history when our brain evolved more, the story has some truth to it but not from the religious view.

 

 

Um the prey has struggled so hard it collapses from exhaustion? Hard to struggle when your air is cut off? Predators tend to incapacitate their prey as quickly as possible if they grapple with it directly, trying to eat a still alive and kicking zebra is dangerous even for a lion so they tend to bite their necks and cut off the zebras air supply, an exhausted zebra should go out quick if it can't breath. If anything I would say that humans are odd because we go numb much quicker than a zebra would.

[iNow]

So the arguement as it stands now is that a creator or even the possibility of an afterlife cannot possibly exist because there is nothing measureable to observe?

No. Please read again what I wrote. I think I was quite clear. I never said it cannot possibly exist. Whether it exists or not is irrelevant. The central point is that it has no tangible effect on reality, no measurable impact on the world around us, and hence can be safely ignored and dismissed.

[A Tripolation]

 

So the arguement as it stands now is that a creator or even the possibility of an afterlife cannot possibly exist because there is nothing measureable to observe? Although when existance is pointed out the creation of that existance is still irrelevant for the same reasons?

 

 

A transcendental entity that would be "God" cannot be measured. What part of that confuses you?

[JustinW]

I don't see how that is too much different from what I said here in post #27.

 

 

 

I believe the scientific method to be the correct method when judging reality and the way it works.

 

But it doesn't exclude the notion or belief of a creator.

 

After reading back through the posts, I think we are agreeing on the basic principles. It's just the details I think I'm getting mixed up on. Looking at it from a strict scientific point of view I think you are correct in saying that a creator is irrelevant. But where I think I got off track was when we were talking about agnostisism and I incorporated the scientific method to view reality along with a belief of a creator. The posts I have posted since then have had these two things in mind, both incorporated together but taken seperately.

 

 

Edited for afterthought.

Edited December 27, 2011 by JustinW