faith (1 Viewer)

[alstah]

ok then energy = god

so we must do x (x being whatever my priest/2000yr old book says to do in z situation)
or else energy will send us to hell instead of heaven

ok

As I've said many times, one must make the distinction between religion and God!

oh yes e=mc^2

god = mass

god is mass

praise mass

Lol

OR: m=e/c^2

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-glashow.html

 

[alstah]

Not all of them do. Just because the majority you know do doesn't mean they all do.
You actually made a much worse assumption saying that "since atheists claim to have scientifically-geared minds" when in actuality many atheist new age spiritualities and Buddhist variants don't focus on being scientifically-minded at all. You made a clear generalisation and yet you expected your readers not to "ignoring religion, ask a theist…" and this is particularly hypocritical because religion is the basis of all theists' beliefs in God but science isn't the basis of all atheists' disbelief of God.
My point was that you're a hypocrite and that you're trying to simplify the idea of God to atheists in a way that you think they would understand, clearly neglecting that not all atheists share this "scientific stance" you think they do.

Nice generalisation.

If i'm a hypocrite, as you say I am because of these 'generalisations' I make, then so are you

Furthermore, I did say:

The majority of atheists I know tend to tell me, science and logic suggests there is no God

If I made a generalisation, this was not my intention. I was speaking from a personal perspective and never said the word 'all' here.

 

[boris]

As I've said many times, one must make the distinction between religion and God!



Lol

OR: m=e/c^2

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-glashow.html

mass = god/c^2 okay cool

 

[boris]

also that is the first time that you have said that there is a difference between religion and god
admittedly i have not read many of your posts

 

[cheese_cheese]

also that is the first time that you have said that there is a difference between religion and god
admittedly i have not read many of your posts

How often do you attend Church?

 

[boris]

never because im not a cunt

not since i had to go every week at school

 

[cheese_cheese]

never

Exactly. This is what is wrong with Australia today.

 

[boris]

yeah, more people arent like me

we need 0% church participation rates

living standards/life expectancy/income equality/sexual equality/racial equality have risen in direct correlation with the drop in church attendance
crime/infant mortality/disease rates has dropped in direct correlation with a drop in church attendance

from this it can be said that attending church makes you a rapist society worse than not attending church

 

[cheese_cheese]

A vast majority of Australians attended church in the 1950s. Socially we were a better country back then.

 

[boris]

what was better?

the higher crime rates? the lower life expectancy? higher infant mortality? lower standards of living? racism? sexual discrimination? higher rates of disease?

 

[abbeyroad]

soon god will be

pure light

pure

ENERGY

helios and i

while the illuminati cower in the shadows

hahahahahahahahahaha

I don't think there would be much left of the illuminati after you killed all their leaders

 

[abbeyroad]

holly shit just reread the thread wht the fuck is this?

In relation to the so called signifiers (allah, yahweh, brahman) etc. these are not signifiers to 'God', we don't know what God is like at all! How can the perceptions of people (of what God is) be remotely symbolic of 'God'. One must make the distinction between religion and God. There is no distinction between the Abrahamic God, Amun, Hindu Gods etc. This is because religion was created by societies who attempt to comprehend a transient God, so they found religion as a means to achieve spiritual salvation. Religion and religious ideologies are man made, but this does not mean God is. Religion is not a signifier to God! If that's so, then everything we know of on this planet can be a signifier to an omnipotent God, which is obviously not the case.

jesus fucking christ your argument is a muddle of shit. firstly you don't need an exact perception of a concept for there to be a signifier for it. I may not know exactly what 'speed' the concept is but I can damn well use the signifier "speed" to refer to the hazy concept of 'distance' and work my way from there. Constructing a crude working definition and then refining it as new empirical data comes along is at the very heart of scientific investigation. Secondly, you seem to know what God really is when you equate it with energy, so to say that no one knows what God is like is a self defeating argument.

The concept of God as traditionally defined is an entity that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and necessarily exists; while energy is defined as the ability of one physical system to do work on another. Based on definitions alone we can see that the concept of God is quite different from the concept of energy: if energy were omnibenevolent, then no kinetic energy would transfer from a bullet to the heart of a child. And since energy is an a posterior concept, that is, it is discovered empirically, we can think of a dead world where gravity doesn't exist and no objects/systems interact with one another, therefore the existence of energy is contingent; in fact we can create such a system right now: just put a book next to a pen on your table and don't do anything with them. For all intents and purposes no energy exists between the (macro) Book-Pen system.

Linguistically the concept of energy is not equivalent to the concept of God. If you insist on defining god as energy, you rob god of its usual properties. Yet even if everyone were to accept your definition, then what? It does not follow that we should worship energy, it does not follow that we should pray to it or kill in its name.

You aren't really saying anything new or interesting, you're just playing with words. You can redefine 'crime' as murder and murder only and use the definition to argue that robbery is not a crime since it is not murder, but that doesn't make it true nor does it mean anybody would take you seriously. They'll just treat you as a fucking twat.

I mean for fucks sake, if I were to use the signifiers 'nigger' or 'chink' or 'penis' to denote 'car', I would be treated as a fucking lunatic at best, and be stabbed/punched at worst.

It was in response to what you said earlier,

I argued, that this was indeed, the case for energy. Of course energy can transfer forms. It can transfer forms into anything.

jesus fucking christ what fucking cunting shittery is this. Energy only has a limited number of forms: (gravitational) potential energy, kinetic energy, chemical energy, thermal energy, sound energy, electric energy, electromagnetic energy, and nuclear energy. what other forms can fucking energy transform into?

Before you say some dumb shit like energy is matter and matter can be transformed etc, know that by equating god with energy and matter, you're saying that god is constrained by the laws of physics. And no, you can't redefine a scientific definition to include a metaphysical entity that can't even be studied scientifically. It'd be like someone saying that 2+2 is equal to I like cheese burgers hence 2+2+1 is equal to cheese burgers is yummy at a mathematics conference. He'd be laughed out of the room.

Seriously, can I equate energy with people and then argue that since energy(people) is neither created nor destroyed, I'm not really doing anything wrong when I behead a few?

You see, physical objects such as a stone or a desk or a plant have a very static [energy/information/consciousness] field (well, at least on the macroscopic realm that we perceive). In terms of metaphysics, at a very basic level of consciousness (of which all things are composed), this is because the energy field is very "habituated" to its reality. It has a very high "cohesiveness of association" to its current reality. It's very focused and specialised in other words.

The energy of your consciousness is different from the consciousness of for example, a stone. It could be said that ur consciousness is "higher" as you have more freedom in awareness than the stone. It's free will is very constricted. It's pretty much stuck being focused as a stone. The cohesiveness of association of your consciousness is not as high as the stone, so you aren't glued to one specific reality. Because of this, the energy of your consciousness is malleable and can be directed toward a variety of things. This is what makes manifestation/creation possible.

what fucking pseudo scientific bags of shit are you spouting? a stone has a static information/consciousness field? our consciousness, which currently is still a metaphysical concept, have energy? does our pink dragon have energy? does the fucking spaghetti monster have energy? Can you quantified this 'energy field 'and 'cohesiveness of association' you pseudo scientific quack? What's next should we worship a fucking rock now? 'oh noez u mustz nut move da rock cuz it haz a static energy/consciousness field!11!!! dunt breat either cuz u violet da consciousness of oxygen by bretihing cuz it transrf CO2111!!!1!"

I can just as well say that the inertial grativic actuating scalar field of a piece of shit is much higher than the inertial grativic actuating scalar field of the gibberish you're slobbering. But if I can't substantiate and quantify this 'inertial grativic actuating scalar field' it means jack shit scientifically.

I agree, one of Einstein's great insights was to realise that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter. Should we treat them as interchangeable terms, if they are equal?

should we? you seem to think so.

Matter is made of atoms. But at a sub-atomic level, scientists tell us all atoms comprise of quarks. But do quarks even exist?

The deeper Quantum physicists explore, the more they are realising there are higher realities within infinite dimensions of intelligent energy.

more fucking pseudo scientific drivel. why question the existence of quarks? why not question the existence of molecules and atoms? I mean really, do atoms and molecules even exist? Geez I don't know, nuclear fission and chemical reaction seem to work alright though.

there aren't 'higher realities within infinite dimensions of intelligent energy' you fucking hack. the molecular realm, the atomic realm, and the subatomic realm don't exist in a higher reality or another dimension, they all exist within 'this world' - they can be observed and manipulated either directly or indirectly.

We do not need to invent something as fucking pseudo scientific as 'higher realities within infinite dimensions of intelligent energy." You collapse those 'higher realities' and 'infinite dimensions' into one - this observable world, and nothing will change. occam's razor motherfucker do you know it?

But that's the thing i'm arguing, this energy is 'God'. Why should this same reasoning NOT be applied to the possibility of existence of spiritual realms and to the existence of God?

energy is of *this world* and it follows the laws of physics you twat. If you wished to misappropriate the scientific definition of energy to include a metaphysical entity, then we can sure as hell ignore your definition and continue to differentiate between energy, a physical concept, from god, a metaphysical concept.

We don’t even know exacly what energy, space/time is even though its right infront of us just like we can’t imagine what another spacial dimension or colour (not in the colourwheel) would look like first hand.

We know just exactly what energy and space and time is you dumb fuck. We can also imagine what another spacial dimension(google 4th dimensional space) and colours that are not in the colourwheel look like. How the fuck do you think artists paint?

What theory can explain a finite amount of energy appearing out from nothing without cause? Why that specific amount? If an event caused the event that created the universe then what caused the event that caused the event that created the universe? and so on. So going back to the gist of this thread: boris says faith "is it the most retarded concept in history...science says yes". But does science really say yes? Doesn't thought and reason and science reveal that the universe had a beginning and we have no idea what caused that beginning? The Big bang doesn’t explain the specific amount of energy we observe. Why would a singularity pop out a specific amount of energy? Why do we have these specific parameters? In my opinion, science will always have limitations and when science reaches its limits, faith takes over.

What theory can explain god coming into existence out of nowhere? why just one god? if god created the universe who created god? doesn't thought and reason reveal that god had a beginning and we have no idea what caused it? theism doesn't explain just one god. Why just one? why not god in a god in a god in a god so god can god when he gods? In my opinion, theism will always have limitations and when theism reaches its limits psudo-intellectual drivel takes over.

Also, I will not be replying for a while. I need to study for my HSC!

why study? why not use your god-as-energy and 'infinite dimensions of intelligent energy' rubbish in your physics exam and see what band you'll get?

 

[Garygaz]

wow i didn't see that post. predicting band 2 in physics.