Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 46 minutes later[^][v]#453,969
The second coming of Christ.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#453,972
It could prove why it's useful. That would be fun.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#453,986
I imagine the same way it did in Roman times. If being fed to a lion doesn't persuade you to change ideologies, I don't imagine anything could.
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#453,990
i wonder if Poseidon's followers had the same question when monotheism came along.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#453,993
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
That's a flimsy analogy. Monotheism crushed polytheism because as a one way philosophy, it demands participation, whereas worship remained largely voluntary in polytheistic traditions.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#453,996
as an atheist i see no reason not to directly compare modern gods to ancient gods.
there is nothing modern gods can do that ancient gods can not.
Also, imho i would directly compare this age to any other, and say that as a collective whole humanity is still as polytheistic as any ancient collective group of humans. we have today as large a menagerie of gods and beliefs, maybe even more so, than at any other time.
from where i sit they are all exactly the same. different representations of the same fundamental philosophical doubts about the universe manifest as worship of the unknowable.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#453,997
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Of course you wouldn't, because atheism is predicated on the same mono-philosophical idiocy as monotheism.
To suggest the coexistence of multiple monotheistic traditions is in any way the same as ancient polytheistic traditions only illustrates your ignorance of the subject. The "collective whole" is irrelevant to this discussion, as the very distinction between the two paradigms incorporates their effect on individuals. A polytheist is free to worship one or many gods, a monotheist is not.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#454,010
@previous (D)
Whats irrelevant is the idea that gods exist period. All other discussion on the matter is merely masturbation.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#454,023
@previous (squeegee)
The conversation was intended for students of religion. Not to say that atheism is a religion, but to say that in the context of ambitions for "taking over the world," certainly it can be said to have much in common with religions.
Don't show up to a circle jerk and refuse to show cock. That's fucking rude.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 6 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#454,067
@previous (D)
sigh. fine, seriously then the answer is philanthropy. Christianity will survive rising secularism as a philanthropic organization.
especially after the institution of marriage fails and the rites and rituals become more and more obsolete.
i give organized religion less than a century before the last of them fall.
of course that's all pre-AI. once AI is perfected and google grows aware of itself
it kind of looks at humans as pets of sorts. pets that create their own masters to take care of them.
now that will indeed inspire worship in a lot of people.
google will be pleased.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 days later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#454,605
@453,997 (D)
There's no point in trying to explain anything abstract or non-physical to an atheist. The idea that something can be true without having a physical manifestation is beyond them. As a result, it's impossible for them to recognize the difference between such ideas. How can you recognize the difference between something completely incomprehensible to you, and something else equally incomprehensible?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 23 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#454,609
@454,023 (D) > to say that in the context of ambitions for "taking over the world," certainly it can be said to have much in common with religions.
Nope. You're making the common mistake of assuming that atheism is a united thing with common goals and set rules. All religions think that they are true, and have the built-in goal of converting others. Atheism has no such set goals. An atheist may or may not give a shit about atheism spreading, and they would not be in contradiction of any of their belief's goals, because there are none.
@previous (G)
Yes, how dare they demand solid proof of an invisible, yet supposedly all-powerful entity. The idiots.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#454,612
@454,605 (G)
this is wrong. Atheist have no problem accepting abstract ideas or contemplating non-physical objects. Things can be true without a physical manifestation, what's difficult to accept as fact are things that are unprovable. you know, like saying that the universe was made by unicorn magic. maybe it was, i can't say that it wasn't, but that's purely speculative. it could equally have easily been brought about by turkey farts. we just can't say for sure. God? i guess. i don't know what good he does me if he cannot be shown to have a measurable effect on this universe, even by using a direct conduit like prayer. I might as well be praying the all powerful Oz will grant me a wish - it can't be shown to have an impact. So if god can't be shown to have an impact, then what's the point of even caring if he exists? Believe, don't believe, what's the difference.
crossing your fingers and hoping is the same thing as prayer when both are seen to have the same efficacy. if one could demonstrate that prayer is more effective than hoping, then one would have demonstrable evidence for god.
but you can't even show that. so, what does god do, if you can not show that he does anything? nothing.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 11 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#454,663
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 50 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#454,668
@454,609 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
What are you talking about? No assumptions were made beyond the OP's stated assumption of ahteism taking over the world. It is proper to observe similarities between religion and atheism here. In this regard, they are at an intersection in their Venn diagram.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#454,681
@previous (J)
I was citing anon D, who was making the mistake of thinking that atheism is some organised thing with set goals. He said that atheism had "ambitions". Some atheists want atheism to spread, some are indifferent. There is no rulebook to follow.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 14 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#454,740
@454,612 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Well, why don't you mention one thing you believe, that doesn't have a physical manifestation, yet is scientifically verifiable?
What does God do? Well, that depends on your perspective. He doesn't do much that the Universe doesn't do. On the other hand, he does everything the Universe does. God provides a way to mentally approach the Universe, especially the intangibles of it, such as "truth", "right", "good", etc.
What's the point of prayer? Very similar to the point of, for instance, meditation: To gain wisdom, insight, strength, hope, calm. If you open your eyes after, and wonder why a new flatscreen hasn't shown up, you're doing it wrong, and not because a flatscreen would show up if you did it right. Being incapable of abstract thought, you and so many other atheists are convinced that it's all about the flatscreen.
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#454,741
@454,663 (I) > I'm both an atheist an a platonist. > explain how this is an issue at all?
Plato believed in the Highest Form, whose non-physical existence was more fundamental than the existence of the Cosmos. An intangible that was the cause of all things. An intangible whose existence can only be comprehended through deep reflection, not through physical proof or even superficial logic. This makes Plato a Deist. Since it's fundamental to his philosophy, you can't be a Platonist without being a Deist. Deism being the belief in a god, you can't be a Deist AND an Atheist.
That's how that's an issue.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#454,744
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#454,760
@454,741 (G)
Believing in immaterial forms doesn't necessitate some personal cause to those forms.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#454,813
@454,744 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
The Higgs Boson has a physical manifestation; it's a particle. Confirming that manifestation has been tricky, but the only way to scientifically verify it's existence. Happily, while still needing further confirmation, there now seems to be evidence of the existence of the particle. Well, I guess it's unhappy for a knuckle-dragging moron who thought that the Higgs Boson is a non-physical existence.
@previous (I)
Not believing in a Personal God isn't the same as being an Atheist. As a Platonist, you believe in an existence that's a priori to the universe, that contains all truth, that's the direct cause of the existence of the universe, upon which the continued existence of the universe depends, which has determined all other forms and thus all physical objects. If you're not following this, you need to reread the Allegory of the Cave.
So, this existence, let's call it 'Big G'. We can then say that:
- The Big G has all power
- The Big G has all knowledge
- The Big G is eternal.
Does "The Big G" remind you of anything or anyone? Perhaps something beginning with 'G'?
The fact is, if you really are a Platonist, you believe in an impersonal God. That makes you a Deist. Deal with it. If you have a backbone, you'll keep your convictions even when your Atheist friends start attacking you. You'll find like-minded among philosophers, mathematicians, and some monotheistic (mainly, but not exclusively, Christian and Jewish) schools of though.
You may have guessed it, and I'll confirm it for you: I'm a Platonist.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#454,814
@previous (G)
But, to use your "Big G" analogy, there is no worship of Big G as there is in a religion. You can believe in something creating the universe but not view it as a god, just a thing that exists and can be understood.
Anonymous J replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#454,816
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
The Masons seem to do a pretty good job of worshiping Big G.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#454,818
@454,813 (G)
Then detect the higgs boson directly and not by indirect method. They have detected the particles decay, not the particle itself which is not measurable in and of itself.
squeegee double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#454,819
Anyway, if god's so tough let him defend himself. The all powerful and mighty supreme being needs you to white knight for him, does he?
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#454,823
> The Higgs Boson has a physical manifestation; it's a particle. Confirming that manifestation has been tricky, but the only way to scientifically verify it's existence. Happily, while still needing further confirmation, there now seems to be evidence of the existence of the particle. Well, I guess it's unhappy for a knuckle-dragging moron who thought that the Higgs Boson is a non-physical existence.
actually all they have verified is the decay of what appears to be a higgs like particle. it is generally assumed to be the higgs because that's what we expect the higgs to do. could it be something else? yes, of course, the higgs has never been directly detected - mass could be coming from unicorn magic or turkey farts. we just can't say for sure.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#454,842
@454,816 (J)
I prefer worship of Big E, myself. Ave Imperator!
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 days later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#455,335
@454,814 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
You're confusing "religion" with "organized religion". Even so, you're mistaken. There are people who worship the prime idea through meditation and reflection on the subject; very similar to Christan meditation, and not dissimilar to Buddhist meditation. In addition, there are organized groups inspired by platonism, often of the mystic variety. The Pythagoreans were most definitely a religious group.
@454,818 (squeegee)
There's no need for a direct detection in order for the Higgs Boson to have a physical manifestation. The fact is, if you believe that it exists, then you believe that it has a physical manifestation. In other words, you don't believe that it's an abstract existence.