RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SilverBoat -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/22/2012 4:30:34 PM)

FR:

Maybe there's nothing quite so pathetically funny as somebody who doesn't really grasp the math and physics insisting that his pseudo-scientific obfustications prove anything except his own asshatishness ...

... The OP's point, that the bulk of nucleii heavier that hydrogen were formed by fusion within stellar objects, and have since then been redistributed, is, like it or not, the current scientific consensus. So the 'stardust' metaphor of human existence isn't an unreasonable perception.

... Sure, there's still considerable evolution and disagreement about the origin of the hydrogen's constituents, but so far none of that threatens to undermine the consensus about the origin of heavier elements. And since the measures of human lifetimes in comparison to hadron half-lives are apparently larger than some people can comprehend?

... ###shrug### ... Nah ...

... OP, the guy attacking your thread really doesn't understand word-one of what he's ranting about. He's just got some hot-button issues about science vs religion, and some psychobabble pseudoscience he cribbed from somewhere to attack atheists, and he knows full well that it's not just the Abrahamic cults' dogmatic 'creation' fables that fail the tests of scientific reason, but also all the other 'religions' that address such matters. It really doesn't matter whether the 'big-bang' or 'zero-point' or 'n-brane' or 'dark-matter/energy' or whatever else might be in vogue so far are correct; until some 'religion' proves they (or their 'god(s)') controlled that, then they're either bullshitting or bullshitted. Anybody who could seriously undermine their bullshitting is seen as a threat to their social influence, so they jump all over themselves to attack ...

...



Mupainurpleasure -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/22/2012 7:45:33 PM)

Yeah but I still was forced to investigate and challenge my beliefs. At the end of the day they are basically unchanged the critic wasn't of the broad assertations just the language. The idea vacuum fileds soehow was in conflict with my statements was not proveable unless yhou delve in to pop science biut I had to read up on something I was vaguelyy familar with so a postive event from my pov. I already knew no theory explained everything. I knew string theory postulated existence pre big bang and connections to unknown universes with unknown laws of physics but that's heady stuff really unrealted to a broad claim that science today describes sometruly miraculous things. I cant imagine anyone would challenge that? It would require willed ignorance. My m description of gravity as a weak force may of opened a crtic upo but weak was a descriptive term not a defining one and seems to be used often when explaining it to lay people from what I have seen https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=weak+force+gravity&oq=weak+force+gravity&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=1&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i5.1267.4773.0.5182.18.18.0.0.0.0.225.1991.12j4j2.18.0.eqn%2Crate_low%3D0-006%2Crate_high%3D0-006%2Cmin_length%3D2.1.zsVq0sDNdkU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=799e60a82eb9302a over and over weak is used. The descrition was unchallenged . Throwing terms around like dark matter is fine but my description of a ever expanding universe with an eventual end of stellar activity was never challenged in a meaningful way. bubble universes and vacuumtheory and belief and the presence of dark matter doesnt change that unless you treat the trade paperback new age science section as hard science not religon. , The description of gravity as a "weak" force was correct and the use of weak was descriptive not definitive. I admitted the use of weak as descriptive was a poor choice but it's a common one and that critic did nothing to undermine the claims. It was classic red herring, misdirection and ad hiominem based on usingf weak as desciptive and xconflating that with using it as an actual force. To claim i was wrong becaue of my uise of weak was a false it was My description of gravity as leaking into other dimensions was not challenged . The who vacuumuse of eweak as a descriptive term for gravity might of provided oppurtunity to point out specific definitions of weak energy but thit with unknown characteristics it was a great exercise I had to reread about the big bang, I found none of the claims taht the basic hypoyheis of events post big bnag are rasdically now tahn a few years ago. The zero point energy was worth readingf up on but ut had nothing to do with my claims stellar asctivity would end andf the univers continue expanding. I dont see where bubble universe or a foriegn universe pre big bang we wouldnt recognize change that but it was a good read. I had to challenge my beliefs and do someresearch because I tookart face cvalue the critisms ewhic were based on factual error. The immutable atom was poor word choice and the premise of my argument in large part was baseed on stellar fusion. Although all hydrogen atoms are not all born of the cooling of plasma 3 minutes post big bang the amount that isnt is next to meaningless on a cosmic scale so.. Sure I had some minutaie wrong but the broad strokes remained undisputed, if most hydrogen is from 3 minutes post big bang than most hydrogen in me is as old as out universe. When dealing with that scope of time I didnt feel the need t put in minus 3 minutes bbut admitted the critic was factually correct. I jsut dont see the relevance of pocket universes, dark matter, pre big bang universe to mu statements. They wont fuel stars in our universe and no one has made a real case they have the mass to back up any theory of an oscillating universe. As to dark matter is the Kim Kardasian of the cosmic world. it's celebrity and been the subject of so many flase claims echoed in the media. Again though I was forced to engage, challenge my beliefs, investigate to confirm and atthe end of the day I have noi cognitive dissonce. the vast majority of decent sources basically say the same thng. i was fine with the disagreements once they waded into specifics because they were minor points. great list . http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#selective_reading it's on the top of my favorites has been for a while. classic: Argument By Prestigious Jargon:
using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert. Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use" ?
For example, crackpots used to claim they had a Unified Field Theory (after Einstein). Then the word Quantum was popular. Lately it seems to be Zero Point Fields. Sometimes polite deference to superior knowledge isnt polite,or deference it is really them makings sure you got the rope to hang yourself
So yeah, I was already aware here was some intellectual dishonesty a foot and it wasnt mine but I really wanted to hear the counter argument and challenge myself. In the end I dont think a strong one was made beyond some nuance and semantics but the effort ws honest after the intial argument by dismissal. of . the statemtn on mud was worth considering and i did use immutable and it was dead wrong as a word choice.



SilverBoat -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/22/2012 8:55:58 PM)

Hrmm ...

... Take for example the whole morass of theories about 'dark-matter/energy' ...

... Depending on whose figures are in vogue, 'known' matter would need to have about 4-5 times more gravitational attraction to explain motion at the scale of galaxies and larger. Rather than admit they got something wrong, some 'respected' scientists proposed that there must be that much more matter clustered around the known matter. And just last week, studies aimed to check on that didn't find anywhere close to that much 'dark' matter/energy anywhere near this solar system, and very little if any along the plane of this galaxy.

... So, what's wrong with that picture? How many people remember that stacking 'epicycles' to explain planetary orbits was once the epitome of astronomical physics? Circles were more elegant than ellipses, excommunicably so, at least back then.

... IMCO, when the so-called physicists resort to stacking higher dimensions or multiples of invisible matter into their equations, it's a pretty good indication that they are, as somebody's tagline says, walking around in circles because they've lost the plot. My personal take on the matter (some pun intended), is that gravity might be a generally repulsive force between everything in the universe. (I've been saying that for a decade or so, and glad to see it taken up by some 'serious' physicists recently.)

... But more to the point, perhaps, is that sometimes (too often, maybe) what happens in 'science' gets influenced by social motives and cultural biases. However, science has some inherent processes to correct itself, as more detailed facts and understanding are acquired. Religions, however, being entirely based on social motives, typically co-opt some pseudo-scientific sociopsychopathy of the time they originated, and remain stuck there for decades or centuries, thrashing murderously to suppress any threats to the thralldoms they cultivate.

... That last is a component of some earlier posts to this thread; people who keep their minds stuck in one religious delusion or an another, while ranting in rhetorical tactrickery that it's those other people whose minds are closed ... No religion has ever shown proof positive for itself, but they've got billions of dupes who insist that the other 'beliefs' (and especially the atheists) have got it all wrong ...

...




Kirata -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/22/2012 9:12:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

Religions, however, being entirely based on social motives, typically co-opt some pseudo-scientific sociopsychopathy of the time they originated, and remain stuck there for decades or centuries, thrashing murderously to suppress any threats to the thralldoms they cultivate.

I would call that a vastly overbroad and wildly inaccurate generalization.

But in all fairness, please feel free to thrash as murderously as you like to defend it. [:D]

K.



tweakabelle -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/22/2012 11:03:40 PM)

I'm not sure that I would use precisely the same language as SB, Mr K, but it does seem to me that SB has described reasonably accurately the current laughable attempts by certain sects to explain away evolution and the scientific evidence with myths/guesses such as creationism and self-styled 'Intelligent Design' theories.

When one takes into account the sad dangerous attempts by the same people to brainwash children with their nonsense by insisting that their wild guesses be given the same standing in the classroom as more coherent accounts of human development and cosmologies that actually describe the data, and/or, even worse, these same wild guesses being taught as fact/truth within the fanatic's own school systems, I don't see a little hyperbole-given-in-return as such a bad thing.

If anything in this scenario requires 'stomping' on, it is the attempts by these lunatics to subvert the eduction of our children and to fill their minds with their myths/guesses.



Kirata -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/22/2012 11:36:44 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

it does seem to me that SB has described reasonably accurately...

Perhaps, but he claims to be describing religions as a class. Therevada Buddhism? Mahayana Buddhism? Vajrayana Buddhism? Zen Buddhism? Trika Saivism? Vira Saivism? Vaishnavism? Jainism? Sikhism? Which of these has he described "reasonably accurately"?

You take my point.

K.



tweakabelle -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/22/2012 11:53:22 PM)

I do take your point. However Buddhism has lolled along venerably for over two thousand years and it will take a lot more than a bit of Internet hyperbole to cause it any serious damage.

I regard the attempts by fanatics to subvert the education of children as a far more immediate concern. It is causing real harm as we speak.

Do you take my point?



Kirata -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 12:03:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I do take your point. However Buddhism has lolled along venerably for over two thousand years and it will take a lot more than a bit of Internet hyperbole to cause it any serious damage.

I regard the attempts by fanatics to subvert the education of children as a far more immediate concern. It is causing real harm as we speak.

It will take a lot more than a bit of Internet hyperbole to cause Fundamentalists any serious damage too.

In the meantime, sweepingly broad stereotypes do nobody any good.

K.



SoftBonds -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 12:10:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

My point was that the scientific consensus sounds so much more extraordinary and at least equally moiraculous as the biblical miracle invloving clay

Actually, the constituents of your body are much closer to ordinary soil than they are to either hydrogen or the heavy elements.

Unless you're a very unusual fellow. [:D]

K.


Soil is half sand/clay, which is silicon oxide (silicon and oxygen). 25% air, 25% water, and 5% organics.
Humans are mostly water, which is DiHydrogen Oxide (Hydrogen and Oxygen), with remarkably little silicon.
I'd say computers are closer to "made of clay or soil," than humans are.
As for the elements of man, Oxygen is one of the "heavy elements," compared to hydrogen and helium. Primary solar Fusion is the conversion of Hydrogen into Helium. Oxygen, Carbon, and the other elements in Humanity other than hydrogen in our water were created by secondary fusion, so his point is valid.

Edit cause I'm a moron sometimes...



Kirata -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 12:50:04 AM)


Well I think what he was going for was that we're all made of stardust:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

Iam as old as the universe and eternal. I am m madem oof stardust.

But so is the Earth, of course.


[image]http://users.hubwest.com/hubert/mrscience/elements/elements_human.gif[/image]
Source: Ed Uthman, MD, Diplomate, American Board of Pathology


[image]http://users.hubwest.com/hubert/mrscience/elements/earthelements_emsley.gif[/image]
Source: John Emsley, The Elements, 3rd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998


Let's not quibble. Personally, I would go with Frank Wilczek: we're all children of light.

K.



Mupainurpleasure -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 4:14:18 AM)

I thought the clay point worth thinking on. I think tough you both overfly the mark and are stuck in detail. Whether clauy or human the compement elemets are 40 percent the by product of stellar proxcesses and "stardust. To get caught in dtails blins us to the big picture . The universe is miraculous even without proof of the magical. I don't believe in God but Idon't challenge others bellief either. I just think it neat the best empirical evidence is of a process no less miraculous than any creation story


Dark matter is ther paraparazi of cosmology. I read that it fits. Huge break throughs are publicized several times a yr on the subject and in the afterglow of fame they aren't huge or breakthroughs. How much play did a bad test result get in the media? How many still think we measured faster than light particles? I may be a layman but I do know there is an entire inductry making a living off distorting the science to fit preconceptions and to "know" my information is the best quality available requires not reading what I agree with but instead reading from good sources. The internet is crack theory central. Peer review publications. .edu may cause me to prove myself wrong

I think it goes without saying we resemble the earth the component pieces have the same source material




SilverBoat -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 7:03:57 AM)

There are some so-far reasonable theories that explain "mass" as localized quantum-self-refocusing (for lack of a better word) 'hitches' of the same energy that propagates as electromagnetic waves. And there are even many 'religions' with convoluted schpiels about light, fields, vibrations, oneness-of-being, etc, etc, etc, but their functional claims about how all that works are specious at best.

... Take for example the holistic thing about the "vibrations" of their diluted extracts having curative powers. That's patent-medicine garbage-talk. Sure, it might be possible that trace chemicals trigger changes in immune response, but 'vibrations'? They should at least drag their religious mumbo-jumbo into common era. That's why 'scientology' has become so insidiously pervasive; it combined the latest in psychosocial science with byzantine econopolitical intrigue, inveigling wealthy key celebrities, etc.

... And yeah, I'd grant that buddhism in general at least appears to have a pretty good track record for non-violence against other beliefs, although it should be noted that they're also the first religion to emerge fully within the era of written records. So they've had time to expunge unwonted records of their early years, something the christians never quite managed. (The hindu scriptures, like the abramic, started in oral conveyance.) But in terms of merging with science, buddhism remains pretty much out to lunch, and I wouldn't opine that certain of its apparent defenders set much in the way of exemplifying its social principles ...

... How much of the energy/matter in what appears to be this universe ever gets to participate in 'life', much less in 'self-awareness'? I'd readily grant that other forms of life somewhat similar to terran-organisms almost undoubtedly exist on other planets somewhere, and I'd even posit that lifeforms could exist in quanta or plasmic environments far beyond what humans could imagine or perceive. But seriously, the evidence to date suggests that out of (about) 10^53kg of matter in the universe, only about 10^30 is in Sol's system, and only about 10^12 in species that currently appear to express intelligence.

... Miraculous? ... Well, maybe, but it certainly appears that being human is a least sort of a One in billions and billions and billions rarity ... And sort of a sad commentary on the human species that we don't keep that in enough perspective to not justify murdering each other over 'religious' squabbles ...

...



Musicmystery -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 8:24:00 AM)

quote:

I'm not sure that I would use precisely the same language as SB, Mr K, but it does seem to me that SB has described reasonably accurately the current laughable attempts by certain sects to explain away evolution and the scientific evidence with myths/guesses such as creationism and self-styled 'Intelligent Design' theories.


Here's the interesting point--SB's swipe was at what he (erroneously) took to be a defense of pseudo-scientific excesses, and here posters immediately recognized the problem from the fundamentalist extremes instead.

And that was exactly my point--the extremes of this false dilemma are equally pseudo-intellectualism in ardent defense of a debate (let alone a world) created in their own image. Things presented outside of this arbitrary framework are immediately assigned positions within it so they can be dismissed.

Rationalizing leaps in logic is certainly not science, granted. Then neither is ignoring data to prop up old assumptions. Self-righteousness rides roughshod in both camps, never recognizing (let alone acknowledging) that they are a small pond in a large wetlands.



PatrickG38 -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 4:02:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No, Patrick. I was saying clinging to extreme immutable positions were equally incorrect ultimately.

Granted, lasers have nothing to do with DNA. You jumped up at the idea of light and communication; lasers are a common and easy example of how light is used to communicate. Incidentally, DNA not only communicate with light, but store and release photons.

Science isn't still where it was when we picked up our HS diplomas. Imagine.




Communicate with light?? You said it again. Explain this communication. What does DNA tell light? Use words carefully especially for large scientific claims. We all know science is not static.



Musicmystery -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 4:14:16 PM)

Patrick.

How do you think your CD/DVD player work?

DNA and biophotons go back to Fritz-Albert Popp in the 1970s. Tons of stuff.

Not to mention the 40 years of science since then. People are even talking about building biocomputers.

Literally, you could be the Internet soon. DNA and light is old news.




PatrickG38 -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 4:17:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Patrick.

How do you think your CD/DVD player work?

Now you are being intentionally dense. What does the laser communicate to the disc. Communication is the wrong word. You could say DNA interacts with light, but almost all things do; it is not a statement of great moment. You are anthropomorphizing.



Musicmystery -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 4:20:11 PM)

quote:

DNA and biophotons go back to Fritz-Albert Popp in the 1970s. Tons of stuff.

Not to mention the 40 years of science since then. People are even talking about building biocomputers.

Literally, you could be the Internet soon. DNA and light is old news.


https://www.google.com/search?q=Popp+DNA+light&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Maybe you're hung up on the definition of communication? The exchange of information?

Nobody's saying they get together at the coffee shop to chat.



hardcybermaster -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 4:41:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I do take your point. However Buddhism has lolled along venerably for over two thousand years and it will take a lot more than a bit of Internet hyperbole to cause it any serious damage.

I regard the attempts by fanatics to subvert the education of children as a far more immediate concern. It is causing real harm as we speak.

It will take a lot more than a bit of Internet hyperbole to cause Fundamentalists any serious damage too.

In the meantime, sweepingly broad stereotypes do nobody any good.

K.

the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It seems that science based teachers now have to fight to maintain the credibility of evolution against creationists who would happily ignore 100's of years of investigation purely to further their own religious beliefs.
I think scientists would grudgingly accept creationism being taught alongside evolution, but I do not think the opposite is true



Musicmystery -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 4:50:36 PM)

quote:

I think scientists would grudgingly accept creationism being taught alongside evolution


I doubt that. It has nothing to do with science.



hardcybermaster -> RE: An Aethists thoughts on the miraculous (4/23/2012 4:55:35 PM)

grudgingly, the way it's going that might be the best they can get.
It's far from right but hey what can you do?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625