Letters to the Editor
-
Alex O'Neil
Why wait? I'm embarassed for you right now.
---------------
For example, there is the recent research about quantum tunneling. It's been demonstrated (by physicists) that it's entirely possible neurons involved in scent use a quantum mechanical process called electron tunneling to distinguish between otherwise indistinguishable molecules. Initially ignored by neuroscientists who are used to thinking solely on macro-physical levels, physicists explored the issue further and found it was both possible and probable.
Such discussions remove the "magical sky fairy" argument some atheists are fond of using.
The God module may have created God, but may just as well have formed as an adaptation allowing us to better experience and communicate with God.
---------------------------
Oh, so quantum mechanics is the new gap that god is filling? Color me impressed! Is this like how in the 16th century Heaven was surely just beyond the orbit of Saturn- conviniently as far as telescopes at the time could see?
And, tragically, the quantum tunneling doen't actually remove the magical sky fairy argument at all. It wasn't like physicists looked into quantum tunneling and found, say, a magical sky fairy at the root of it they found a scientifically verifiable NATURAL PROCESS.
We may have, by your arching-over-backwards- a god module, but there still is no god.
-
Alex's ad hominem attacks ad nauseam
"Speak not of what you know not of." -- Alex O'Neal
Good advice, Alex. Follow it.
"You have no idea who I am..." -- Alex O'Neal
Nor do I give a flying fuck.
"If you don't get it, perhaps it's because you don't have the facts, wit, or training to understand." -- Alex O'Neal
Or, perhaps not. Thanks for playing.
-
Gnostic Persecution
Did the early church persecute gnostics who borrowed elements of Jesus message and purported to be in his ministry?
Consider that the early church was itself being severely persecuted by the Romans, thrown to the lions etc. etc. One could argue that the early church was in no condition to send out thugs to beat-up the poor gnostics. They disagreed with the gnostics - they argued against the gnostics; if we are to conflate persecution with "disagreement" then we betray the memory of those who have suferred persecution.
The Christians who died in Gaul in AD 177 and the thousands murdered in the empire were not dying for the gnostic world view. Second century Gnostics avoided persecution - why suffer physical pain if the world is a cruel illusion and the truth inside us? Martyrdom is unnecessary.The crucifixion a joke. Therefore those martyrs in gaul must have followed the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke.
They died beleiving that creation was inherently good and that justice is coming in their resurrection through Jesus. They beleived life was worth dying for. Gnosticism disappeared becuase it wasnt worth dying for.
-
re: shooting fish in a barrel et al
Why you arrogant arrogant little person you!
So what, you took a couple of physics classes, read some Dawkins and Harris and now you can claim to have the answers? Well Huzzah! We are clearly in the presence of the greatest mind to ever grace the earth! We should all feel so honoured (I know I certainly am!)
I was all for conducting this discussion with some civility and decorum but it appears the Athiest side is simply incapable of this. Who do you think you're arguing with? We're on a pinko lefty website for pity's sake! The same people you are calling morons more than likely share your political views, listen to the same kinds of music, read the same kinds of literature, watch the same kinds of movies, and yet you dismiss them all out of hand as morons? What's more you have the temerity to thumb your nose at literally millenia of human thought, to claim that you know more than some of the greatest minds to ever live. The conceit you people display is simply staggering.
humility my friends, is a virtue.
keep on truckin' Alex!
-
"Tabbor" and anonymous attacker
From Richard Feynman: By honest I don't mean that you only tell what's true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind.
That's all I'm trying to do here. Finding a natural process that behaves in a manner that doesn't follow macro-level rules isn't filling a gap. (Earlier in this thread I detailed why the attempt to fill a gap is a mistake.)
It's finding a fact that enlarges our description of how the universe and our brains work.
It's pointing out that traditional neuroscience is insufficient to answer the question.
It's yet another example demonstrating the limitations of human knowledge, and how all our answers are, and always will be because of the nature of our existence, incomplete.
My point—and if you read my other posts, you know I was an atheist for many years and find both it and the religious approach acceptable, provided the person is honestly doing their best—is that there isn't an answer. You both can and can't interpret for either side with validity. You can, because each person must make their own choices; it's the nature of being human to seek patterns that inform our understanding and behavior. You can't, because there's no final answer and you therefore have to respect the other viewpoint.
About the magical sky fairy; Arthur C. Clarke pointed out that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I'm showing the debate is more interesting than this kind of mockery makes it.
Why are people upset with me for pointing this out? A couple of more Feynman quotes seem relevant here:
To solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.
All my posts are only to promote understanding and share my view in the interests of openness, usually in response to someone else's question. How is that bad?
For my brave, anonymous attacker:
If you don't give a flying whatever who I am, why did you attack who I was?
If all I do is provide information from experts in the field, and suggest that promotes a questioning, open attitude, why does that upset you?
If you're an authority in any of these fields, or have pursued the question aggressively in a variety of directions as I have, please post your thoughts about the subject here, not your attack. I said perhaps you didn't have this background because you didn't speak about it, but about me. That suggests you're unlikely to have something useful to say, though of course you could just be the kind of person who sinks to lazy ad hominem attacks despite being a genius in the field.
I've posted everything useful I have to say here, and I've posted it under my name. Attack or not, as you will—but if you "shoot a fish" that asks a question, or provides information, rather than speak to the question or data, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Stepping away from this before I say something I regret, so any answers will be for the rest of the world. There will be no more posts from me on this thread, so no more food for trolls.