|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted July 01, 2007 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am but one person. And I am in no important cultural or governmental position. My actions can hardly cause major tragedies.
Yes but with several billion people thinking that way we have a problem
Quote:
Nothing can harm anything spiritually, because nothing like "spirit" exists.
You should add "and I base that on... absolutely nothing" in the end of that. Then it would at least be fun.
Quote:
It may harm them emotionally, but those are just chemical reactioins.
Completely unexplained and unexplored in any way, but still you just KNOW that they're just chemical reactions? Just like you KNOW that spiritual doesn't exist?
Let me put it this way. On the other hand, I KNOW that feelings are connected to the spirit - the inner energy - the soul, whatever you call it; and I KNOW they're not chemical reactions. That's based on as much facts as your claims.
Quote:
And nuclear tests are done to test nuclear bombs.
For what causes? Feeding starving people in Africa? I don't think so.
Quote:
No, this system is existance.
Lol
Look, either base those "facts" of yours on something or drop it. I'm serious, I have neither time nor wish to further engage in this discussion (if it can even be called that way) until you have some back-up of your claims. I mean, we can go on and on and on about this for nothing.
Besides, this is all completely off-topic, nothing to do with God and its existance or lack of it... In one word, spam.  Long and pretty, but still spam.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2007 09:45 PM |
|
|
mvassilev, no offense dude, but according to your logic you shouldn't mind if I call you an idiot and a bunch of loony chemical compounds reacting together. Because it's not really anger that you'll feel, just some chemistry, so who cares. 
Thats perhaps too much, sir. You're neglecting your own humanity here. May I call you a "brainless golem", then? Ohh, come on, you can't get angry. You can't! Cause there is no anger, It's just some chemical process!
again, following your logic.. why I should act civilized, why should I bother not to offend people? "People" don't exist, they are but a bunch of molecules reacting together and they can't be offended, since.. you can't offend molecules, haha!
|
|
necrorevan
Bad-mannered
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2007 10:32 PM |
|
|
I too agree with Baklava 100%.
And mvassilev you sound like you obey to the rule of the strong.
You think that the strong has the right to do anything as long as the "weak" does not complain or is to busy trying to survive.
And even if he complains he would still be weak to do anything.
So that means that the US or any other Superpower has the right to bomb my country into ashes just like they did because they are the strongest. Well imagine if China becomes the superpower and eradicates Europe and the US because they are weak, how would you feel about that? In your logic I could be perfectly ambivalent, which is not humane.
Tell me do you give a damn when you see african children starving to death?! According to your logic you shouldn't
That is what religion have fought, this kind of attitude that doesn't care about anyone but themselves.
I believe that the world is divided between the weak and the strong, however it is the strong's duty towards the weak, himself and humanity to help them out. That is what religion is preaching.
And mvassilev I don't think your wise, you are basing this entire philosophy on your own laziness to even want to aknowledge the others' pains and sufferings. And that my friend is weakness, weakness and fear to assume responsabilities.
____________
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2007 10:55 PM |
|
|
The poor plight of the atheist. They claim nothing matters and when they die that they become worm food and nothing more. The poor buggers have to spend the rest of their life angrily defending their position (because it's really important for them to justify their position). In the end they lose no matter what.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 12:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I am but one person. And I am in no important cultural or governmental position. My actions can hardly cause major tragedies.
Yes but with several billion people thinking that way we have a problem
If the social contract is effective enough, we won't.
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing can harm anything spiritually, because nothing like "spirit" exists.
You should add "and I base that on... absolutely nothing" in the end of that. Then it would at least be fun.
The very concept of spirit is ridiculous. There is far less proof of it than there is proof of what I am saying.
Quote:
Quote:
It may harm them emotionally, but those are just chemical reactioins.
Completely unexplained and unexplored in any way, but still you just KNOW that they're just chemical reactions? Just like you KNOW that spiritual doesn't exist?
Let me put it this way. On the other hand, I KNOW that feelings are connected to the spirit - the inner energy - the soul, whatever you call it; and I KNOW they're not chemical reactions. That's based on as much facts as your claims.
No. No. No. Not at all. Mine have various facts behind them. Yours don't. I don't just KNOW these facts, I've learned them.
Quote:
Quote:
And nuclear tests are done to test nuclear bombs.
For what causes? Feeding starving people in Africa? I don't think so.
Nuclear bombs can be used, of course. But no one intends to cause a nuclear holocaust with them.
Quote:
Quote:
No, this system is existance.
Lol
Look, either base those "facts" of yours on something or drop it.
I can't believe you're saying that. Your facts are even more ridiculous.
Quote:
mvassilev, no offense dude, but according to your logic you shouldn't mind if I call you an idiot and a bunch of loony chemical compounds reacting together. Because it's not really anger that you'll feel, just some chemistry, so who cares.
I'd mind, but that would be a chemical reaction as well. I might get angry, but that would also be a chemical reaction. But I am the result of them, so I'd care.
Quote:
Thats perhaps too much, sir. You're neglecting your own humanity here. May I call you a "brainless golem", then? Ohh, come on, you can't get angry. You can't! Cause there is no anger, It's just some chemical process!
One chemical process is anger. That doesn't mean that anger doesn't exist, however, it's just a chemicial process. I can get angry, because such is the result of my chemical processes.
Quote:
again, following your logic.. why I should act civilized, why should I bother not to offend people? "People" don't exist, they are but a bunch of molecules reacting together and they can't be offended, since.. you can't offend molecules, haha!
 It's more complicated than that. You shouldn't break the social contract unless it's advantageous to you. It has nothing to do with people being made out of molecules. Chemical reactions cause offense, and your actions can cause them.
Quote:
And mvassilev you sound like you obey to the rule of the strong.
You think that the strong has the right to do anything as long as the "weak" does not complain or is to busy trying to survive.
The strong are rarely strong enough to do what you say. In the end, they still have to abide by the social contract. No superpower is stronger than all of the other countries of the world.
Quote:
So that means that the US or any other Superpower has the right to bomb my country into ashes just like they did because they are the strongest.
Theoretically, they can. But it would be ultimately harmful for them to go around bombing everyone.
Quote:
Well imagine if China becomes the superpower and eradicates Europe and the US because they are weak, how would you feel about that? In your logic I could be perfectly ambivalent, which is not humane.
I would think that that would suck. And you could be ambivalent about that, certainly, until China decides to exercise the right of the strong on you. That's why there's a sort of social contract between countries.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 01:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Mine have various facts behind them.
Well then name them. What you did by now was basically saying "I've got facts" and you showed none.
Quote:
Nuclear bombs can be used, of course. But no one intends to cause a nuclear holocaust with them.
Well you can't really use a nuclear bomb to kill just one person - at least half a million of innocents is going to die in the process too. And that's a holocaust.
Quote:
I can't believe you're saying that. Your facts are even more ridiculous.
My facts? I never mentioned facts. I have only brought you my view on the unexplained, and the only way humans can perceive that - accept that we don't have control over raising of the dead and similar. And fight to make a better future for the next generations, instead of teaching them that they can do nothing because strong people can rape them and it will be ok if they get away with it. I am preaching life philosophy, not scientific facts. On the other hand, you base your entire claims on something that's not only unproven but also impossible to prove and probably nonexistant. Something similar to Abrahamic God, just more cruel and with a science mask.
Necrorevan has a strong point there.
I advise backing off, MVas. A wise man heap of molecules knows when it should do that.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 02:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Mine have various facts behind them.
Well then name them. What you did by now was basically saying "I've got facts" and you showed none.
Your claim is less likely. I'd like to see your facts first.
Quote:
Quote:
Nuclear bombs can be used, of course. But no one intends to cause a nuclear holocaust with them.
Well you can't really use a nuclear bomb to kill just one person - at least half a million of innocents is going to die in the process too. And that's a holocaust.
No. That's not a holocaust. That's destruction, yes, but not what is usually meant by the term "nuclear holocaust". A nuclear holocuaust is when hundreds or thousands of bombs are used.
Quote:
Quote:
I can't believe you're saying that. Your facts are even more ridiculous.
My facts? I never mentioned facts. I have only brought you my view on the unexplained, and the only way humans can perceive that - accept that we don't have control over raising of the dead and similar.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that we have control over raising the dead. I said that it is theoretically possible to raise the dead, but is beyond the reach of modern science and is likely to stay that way for a long time (or forever).
Quote:
And fight to make a better future for the next generations, instead of teaching them that they can do nothing because strong people can rape them and it will be ok if they get away with it.
You don't understand. From the point of view of the strong, it's okay for them to do it. From the point of view of the week, it's okay to get the strong back (either through revenge or through presecution through the social contract).
Quote:
I am preaching life philosophy, not scientific facts. On the other hand, you base your entire claims on something that's not only unproven but also impossible to prove and probably nonexistant.
I am advising life philosophy as well, and it's backed by scientific facts. My claims are unproven? What about yours?
Quote:
Something similar to Abrahamic God, just more cruel and with a science mask.
Well, it'd be awesome to be God  .
Quote:
I advise backing off, MVas. A wise man heap of molecules knows when it should do that.
I don't understand why my actions are provoking chemical reactions that cause anger in you. Really, this is all theoretical, there are few situations in which our difference of opinion actually matters. It's fun to debate. Don't get mad, I'm not getting mad, why are you? My heap of molecules can't understand the actions of your heap of molecules.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 10:03 AM |
|
|
hmm, how can I cause anything? If I'm just a heap of molecules kept together by chemistry? Does chemistry order me to enrage someone? If not, what? Given that everything I feel is pure chemistry, and I am no more than a golem, how can I do something except for things encoded in my reactions book? I'd have to have some sort of free will to act on my own, don't ya think?
I understand what are you trying to say mvassilev, and in fact you're quite right of course (most of the reactions are a chemical response to the information provided by your senses, yes.), BUT you forget that there's brain on top of that which computerizes the info and initiates appropriate reactions. It's not like "uh, oh, and now, anger happens!". It's a bit more complex, you know. Our very humanity lies there, and it's not discovered completely, yet.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 11:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Tell me do you give a damn when you see african children starving to death?!
That is what religion have fought
No.
This is what religion has prayed for, and the prayers are obviously doing nothing at all.
An atheist would rather send a bag of food to a starving child than a prayer.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 02:25 PM |
|
|
|
I think it really doesn't matter whether you believe or not when it comes to helping ppl, TitaniumAlloy
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 02:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I understand what are you trying to say mvassilev, and in fact you're quite right of course (most of the reactions are a chemical response to the information provided by your senses, yes.), BUT you forget that there's brain on top of that which computerizes the info and initiates appropriate reactions. It's not like "uh, oh, and now, anger happens!". It's a bit more complex, you know. Our very humanity lies there, and it's not discovered completely, yet.
Well, certainly, it's very complex. But, looking at the basic level, it is all just chemical reactions. A lot of them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think it really doesn't matter whether you believe or not when it comes to helping ppl, TitaniumAlloy
Exactly...good point! You don't need to be religious to be a "good" person. And being religious doesn't prevent you from being a "bad" person.
So all in all, it is the way you live and think, and not the way how and when u pray, which makes you "good", right?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 03:03 PM |
|
|
Oh, yes, I think the same. i know a very religious woman who in the same time hates Jews and keeps saying that Hitler should've burnt them all when he had a chance. Quite scary, actually. 
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 03:52 PM |
|
|
The entire principle of Christianity is about where your mind, heart, and attitude is centered upon. Lip service to God has never been the salvation to anyone.
Just because the KKK exists along with radical Nazis, Islamic suicide bombers and the Crusades doesn't take away from true Christians who love God and their neighbors. Trying to discount each other based on actions of individuals and groups in the past is pointless and fruitless. There have been atheists who have done great crimes again humanity just the same as so called Christians who have done the same.
mvassilev
I'm not sure what you're trying to get accross with the whole chemical reaction / molecules argument, but you're in way over your head. You have no clue about physics, chemisty, or biology. Not to mention that your presumption about the spiritual realm ends the debate before it can even start.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 03:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your claim is less likely. I'd like to see your facts first.
Like I said, "I never mentioned facts. I have only brought you my view on the unexplained, and the only way humans can perceive that".
Quote:
No. That's not a holocaust. That's destruction, yes, but not what is usually meant by the term "nuclear holocaust". A nuclear holocuaust is when hundreds or thousands of bombs are used.
No, when hundreds or thousands of bombs are used, it's called "Armageddon".
Quote:
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that we have control over raising the dead. I said that it is theoretically possible to raise the dead
Yes, but even that way, people think they might be able to do that one day... Which is like wtf. Even if we could, we certainly shouldn't do that.
Quote:
I am advising life philosophy as well, and it's backed by scientific facts. My claims are unproven? What about yours?
What about them? Is it not a fact that a world where all people would think they're nothing more than robots would just be the source of pain and agony?
Quote:
I don't understand why my actions are provoking chemical reactions that cause anger in you.
In fact, they aren't. I was merely giving advice. I appologise if it sounded like it shouldn't.
Very well then, let us continue with the... discussion 
But I'm getting kinda tired of this
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 04:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Your claim is less likely. I'd like to see your facts first.
Like I said, "I never mentioned facts. I have only brought you my view on the unexplained, and the only way humans can perceive that"
I, at least, used basic scientific facts that almost everyone accepts. Unless you think that we're not made of atoms.
Quote:
Quote:
No. That's not a holocaust. That's destruction, yes, but not what is usually meant by the term "nuclear holocaust". A nuclear holocuaust is when hundreds or thousands of bombs are used.
No, when hundreds or thousands of bombs are used, it's called "Armageddon".
All right, if that's what you want to call it.
Quote:
Quote:
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that we have control over raising the dead. I said that it is theoretically possible to raise the dead
Yes, but even that way, people think they might be able to do that one day... Which is like wtf. Even if we could, we certainly shouldn't do that.
If we could, we certainly should do that. But it's unlikely that we ever will be able to do that.
Quote:
Quote:
I am advising life philosophy as well, and it's backed by scientific facts. My claims are unproven? What about yours?
What about them? Is it not a fact that a world where all people would think they're nothing more than robots would just be the source of pain and agony?
Robots, robots, robots. What is your obsession with that word? Why does it have such a negative connotation for you? I think that I am nothing more than the result of chemical reactions, but I don't cause pain or agony.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to get accross with the whole chemical reaction / molecules argument, but you're in way over your head. You have no clue about physics, chemisty, or biology. Not to mention that your presumption about the spiritual realm ends the debate before it can even start.
What? The spiritual realm? Not even a sliver of evidence for such a thing exists. And I have a good idea about physics, chemistry, and biology.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 04:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I, at least, used basic scientific facts that almost everyone accepts. Unless you think we're not made of atoms.
Like, feelings are just simple chemical reactions? That is far from being proven or accepted by anyone. Besides, it's not just atoms we're made of, as you put it. A vital part is energy, too. From some reason you seem to avoid mentioning that; life energy has never been fully explained by science.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against science, but I do have something against people who use it to prove something ridiculous at best.
Quote:
If we could, we certainly should do that.
Just... imagine a bunch of zombies running rampant all over the place. I mean sheesh. And that would happen if we're lucky.
Quote:
Robots, robots, robots. What is your obsession with that word? Why does it have such a negative connotation for you?
For an object, it doesn't. But for a living being, with emotions and inner energy, it is degrading.
And simplifying someone's life to a bunch of chemical reactions and parts is calling them robots.
Quote:
And I have a good idea about physics, chemistry, and biology.
You certainly don't seem to, not after claiming future can even theoretically be known to details, denying we have choices, and completely excluding inner energy-gaining and losing processes, calling all that just "chemical reactions of atoms".
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 05:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I, at least, used basic scientific facts that almost everyone accepts. Unless you think we're not made of atoms.
Like, feelings are just simple chemical reactions? That is far from being proven or accepted by anyone. Besides, it's not just atoms we're made of, as you put it. A vital part is energy, too. From some reason you seem to avoid mentioning that; life energy has never been fully explained by science.
There's no such thing as life energy! Not a shred of evidence for it exists.
Quote:
Quote:
If we could, we certainly should do that.
Just... imagine a bunch of zombies running rampant all over the place. I mean sheesh. And that would happen if we're lucky.
Zombies? They would be the same as they were before they died.
Quote:
Quote:
Robots, robots, robots. What is your obsession with that word? Why does it have such a negative connotation for you?
For an object, it doesn't. But for a living being, with emotions and inner energy, it is degrading.
And simplifying someone's life to a bunch of chemical reactions and parts is calling them robots.
Humans are far more complex than robots are right now. But, basically, both run on chemical reactions and energy.
Quote:
And I have a good idea about physics, chemistry, and biology.
You certainly don't seem to, not after claiming future can even theoretically be known to details, denying we have choices, and completely excluding inner energy-gaining and losing processes, calling all that just "chemical reactions of atoms".
Well, it can't even be theoretically known to details (because we can't know all the aspects of every atom, according to the Uncertainty Principle), but that doesn't mean that the aspects don't exist. And the aspects that we know change in a predictable pattern. Thus, if we knew everything (which we can't), we could predict the future. But that means that things are set in stone, we just can't find out how they're set. Inner energy? Is that anyther term for "life energy"? Or do you mean the atomic forces inside atoms?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Istari
Known Hero
Truth Teller, ToH
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 05:32 PM |
|
|
Does science have any limitations?
____________
Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 02, 2007 05:41 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 17:44, 02 Jul 2007.
|
Quote:
There's no such thing as life energy! Not a shred of evidence for it exists.
Lol
You could start reading something about this stuff dude, it helps. A lot.
Let me tell you some scientific facts:
Body cannot function on its own, it needs energy for any type of movement or action.
Plants use their leaves, which are equipped with special structures called photocenters that function as light-capturing antennae. It is a-highly organized arrangement of chlorophyll pigments within these antennae that allows the absorption and transformation of sun rays into the chemical energy needed to make glucose or chains of glucose called starch. With ample supplies of energy plant cells take simple inorganic raw materials — carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) — breaks them up and reshuffles their atoms into a different arrangement that is held together by chemical bonds. The end result is glucose in sugar cane and starch in plants like fruits, vegetables and grains.
Simply put, plants use the process of photosynthesis to use solar energy to produce sugar, which (by cellular respiration) is converted into ATP (the "fuel" used by all living things).
Mammals, including humans, simply get energy by partaking of foods created through the above process. The point is, without energy gained by the Sun and stored as life energy, no one could function.
So I agree, chemistry DOES have a lot to do with all that, but without energy, which is still rather unexplained, and which isn't simply made of atoms, none of those processes would be possible.
Our life energy comes from the Sun, yet even the Sun had to get energy from something. Perhaps an even larger energy source, but even that one - all the largest energy sources - had to get energy to get the chemical processes going from something. The first energy source. One might even call it God. That's one of the ways I see it...
Quote:
Zombies? They would be the same as they were before they died.
Just without a couple of million brain cells which died off in the meantime.
Quote:
Humans are far more complex than robots are right now. But, basically, both run on chemical reactions and energy.
Indeed. Robots run on man-made energy and they are inferior to humans. We run on solar energy, and we are obviously much inferior to the Sun. Sun had to run on some energy, to which it is inferior. And so on. You are always inferior to what gives you life.
Quote:
Well, it can't even be theoretically known to details (because we can't know all the aspects of every atom, according to the Uncertainty Principle), but that doesn't mean that the aspects don't exist.
Exactly. Just like we cannot possibly know whether some higher power exists or not, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That can be applied to everything. And you're saying I don't have proof.
Quote:
And the aspects that we know change in a predictable pattern.
Do they? If each aspect changes in a predictable pattern, and each group of them does, it makes perfect sense that the pattern of even billions of aspects is predictable. Common sense.
Yet it isn't. A hole in the theory?
Quote:
Inner energy? Is that anyther term for "life energy"?
Mock on. Inner energy, life energy, energy situated in our bodies, however anyone likes to call it, is proven as a fact. Checkmate.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
