The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

17778808283108

Comments

  • edited May 2018 Posts: 4,617
    If you wanted to design a dodgy, fraud smelling webpage, you could not do a better job, meanwhile, whilst browsing the Charity Commission website, their latest investigation:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-charity-investigation-croydon-tabernacle

    http://croydontabernacle.org.uk/
  • Posts: 9,847
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Please tell me you understand what the term materialist means if not Darth please help

    Is that the new buzzword in your vocabulary? And your new angle of attack?

    Depending of your definition of the term I have no problem labeling myself a materialist (according to the definition of Wikipedia I am) but not all atheists are.

    Which Quantum mechanics and Quantum Physics proves Materialism is obsolete

    Sorry but Lud it requires more faith to believe in Materialism then to be a Christian
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Please tell me you understand what the term materialist means if not Darth please help
    I'm at a loss as to what it has to do with Northern Irish constitutional law but then following your 'logic' is beyond me.

    As a scientist I wouldn't want to label myself a strict materialist as we happily admit we don't know all the answers so to restrict oneself to only one way of looking at the world would be to employ the closed mind of the religious.

    But as usual you seem to making the moronic leap of 'logic' that any potential gap in science is a vacuum which God automatically rushes in to fill.

    Even if materialism does not turn out to be true why does it thus follow that God is?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Of course I forgot none of you come from a legal background
    A bit condescending if you don't mind me saying so. Is your legal background where you learned to draw conclusions based on no evidence?

    He isn’t a materialist unlike yourself tell
    Me when will you move past the 1920’s in terms of scientific knowledge
    Risible as ever. When your scientific knowledge hasn't evolved past 32AD it's a bit ridiculous to start throwing such questions (if indeed this grammatically redundant collection of words even qualifies as a question) out there.

    I love how you say 32ad why pick that year?

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Please tell me you understand what the term materialist means if not Darth please help

    Is that the new buzzword in your vocabulary? And your new angle of attack?

    Depending of your definition of the term I have no problem labeling myself a materialist (according to the definition of Wikipedia I am) but not all atheists are.

    Which Quantum mechanics and Quantum Physics proves Materialism is obsolete

    Sorry but Lud it requires more faith to believe in Materialism then to be a Christian
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Please tell me you understand what the term materialist means if not Darth please help
    I'm at a loss as to what it has to do with Northern Irish constitutional law but then following your 'logic' is beyond me.

    As a scientist I wouldn't want to label myself a strict materialist as we happily admit we don't know all the answers so to restrict oneself to only one way of looking at the world would be to employ the closed mind of the religious.

    But as usual you seem to making the moronic leap of 'logic' that any potential gap in science is a vacuum which God automatically rushes in to fill.

    Even if materialism does not turn out to be true why does it thus follow that God is?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Of course I forgot none of you come from a legal background
    A bit condescending if you don't mind me saying so. Is your legal background where you learned to draw conclusions based on no evidence?

    He isn’t a materialist unlike yourself tell
    Me when will you move past the 1920’s in terms of scientific knowledge
    Risible as ever. When your scientific knowledge hasn't evolved past 32AD it's a bit ridiculous to start throwing such questions (if indeed this grammatically redundant collection of words even qualifies as a question) out there.

    I love how you say 32ad why pick that year?

    That's the year he was born y'see.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Please tell me you understand what the term materialist means if not Darth please help

    Is that the new buzzword in your vocabulary? And your new angle of attack?

    Depending of your definition of the term I have no problem labeling myself a materialist (according to the definition of Wikipedia I am) but not all atheists are.

    Which Quantum mechanics and Quantum Physics proves Materialism is obsolete

    Sorry but Lud it requires more faith to believe in Materialism then to be a Christian
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Please tell me you understand what the term materialist means if not Darth please help
    I'm at a loss as to what it has to do with Northern Irish constitutional law but then following your 'logic' is beyond me.

    As a scientist I wouldn't want to label myself a strict materialist as we happily admit we don't know all the answers so to restrict oneself to only one way of looking at the world would be to employ the closed mind of the religious.

    But as usual you seem to making the moronic leap of 'logic' that any potential gap in science is a vacuum which God automatically rushes in to fill.

    Even if materialism does not turn out to be true why does it thus follow that God is?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Of course I forgot none of you come from a legal background
    A bit condescending if you don't mind me saying so. Is your legal background where you learned to draw conclusions based on no evidence?

    He isn’t a materialist unlike yourself tell
    Me when will you move past the 1920’s in terms of scientific knowledge
    Risible as ever. When your scientific knowledge hasn't evolved past 32AD it's a bit ridiculous to start throwing such questions (if indeed this grammatically redundant collection of words even qualifies as a question) out there.

    I love how you say 32ad why pick that year?

    OK I am calling you on it: explain how Quantum mechanics proves materialism obsolete. In the meantime you could give us your definition of materialism to avoid any confusion.

    But even IF materialism was indeed proven wrong... so what? That does not prove God. Not all atheists are materialists and depending of the definition of the term not all materialists are atheists.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I see materialists as people who think conciousness stems from matter instead of the other way around.
  • Posts: 15,125
    I see materialists as people who think conciousness stems from matter instead of the other way around.

    I'd define materialism (and I don't pretend to have a perfect definition or the only one) as the view that nothing exists outside the material world. Which until we have actual evidence of the contrary is the default position. So far everything we know to exist exists within the physical world.

    But atheism and materialism are two completely different things.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,186
    Shouldn't we change this topic's title to "semantics"? :D

    Anyway, I took a brief pause from this thread to "study" the materialism angle @Risico007 recently brought up. Then I came across this little article, which quite frankly sums up very well, better than I ever could, my thoughts:

    https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-mechanics-disprove-materialism
  • Posts: 15,125
    Risico007 wrote: »

    Oooohhh a link! To an article which titles is a question mark. Hardly the discovery of the atom don't you think?

    Just give me the gist of it Ris. Give me YOUR best argument based on YOUR understanding of the terms and EXPLAIN what you know about Quantum physics, materialism and why one debunks the other.

    And in the meantime... did you bother reading the article you gave or did you stop at the title?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,186
    I'm rather interested in the QP => materialism debate, however I still fail to see how this brings us closer to God, resurrected men or such things...
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited May 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I love how you say 32ad why pick that year?
    Sorry you're quite correct. If we're talking about your evolution of scientific knowledge then that stopped after 'And God said let there be light.'
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm rather interested in the QP => materialism debate, however I still fail to see how this brings us closer to God, resurrected men or such things...
    Indeed.
    No one ever claimed science had all the answers. It wouldn't be science if it did that it would be religion.

    But even if your back of a fag packet knowledge of Quantum physics irrefutably disproved materialism how does that constitute proof of God?
  • Posts: 15,125
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm rather interested in the QP => materialism debate, however I still fail to see how this brings us closer to God, resurrected men or such things...

    I fail to see it too. And Ris' article is not exactly Nobel prize material.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,186
    If @Risico007 wants me to admit that science hasn't all the answers, that QM may open up entirely new avenues, even philosophical ones, then I'm on board. In fact, I'm proud of these things. By asserting that science is still very much incomplete, we do nothing if not stress the strength of science. But the fact that there are still new scientific territories to explore doesn't mean we can immediately jump from a weak "who knows" to a strong "and therefore it must". I will concede that the more I learn about these recent re-evaluations of materialism, the more intrigued I have become by this philosophical approach to QM, even though most philosophical debates on the back of QM have thus far resulted in very little of any value I should add.

    However, this tossing into the fire of materialism comes from a disagreement between @Risico007 and myself from a few pages back about God and the resurrection of Jesus. @Risico007 tried to attack my disbelief by claiming that I am stuck in a materialistic world view. Since at least some interpretations of QM may lead -- though it's still speculation, mind -- to the conclusion that such a materialism can be proven obsolete, and since I'm a scientists and therefore a student of QM, then I must somehow abandon my alleged materialism and then I am no longer capable of rejecting God and the resurrection of Christ. Right. A whole lot of logical fallacies there, methinks. It goes a little like this:

    "Aliens built the pyramids."
    DD: "I'm sorry but I have good reasons to believe aliens have never visited Earth. In fact, simple scientific considerations render the possibility exceptionally small."
    "But you are a scientist, and science allows life on other planets far away in our galaxy and other galaxies as a very likely possibility."
    DD: "Yes, and your point is?"
    "Well, then aliens built the pyramids."


    Quite a non-sequitur there.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Since we are talking about Quantum Physics, strange coincidence, or maybe Destiny, but I received this invitation to a special event by Skeptics in the Pub, a talk about... Quantum physics, which is advertised this way:

    There is no doubt that quantum physics embodies mind-blowing concepts that force us to question the very nature of reality. And if there’s a contender for our current best “theory of everything” then quantum mechanics wins hands down.

    But, far too often, the word “quantum” signals the worst type of vacuous pseudoscientific gobbledegook. It’s exploited by those who are entirely clueless about the underlying physics -- or, worse, should know better -- to evoke a misplaced mysticism about the ‘holistic’ nature of the universe. Moreover, when consciousness and quantum collide, the nonsense factor goes through the roof…
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »

    But, far too often, the word “quantum” signals the worst type of vacuous pseudoscientific gobbledegook. It’s exploited by those who are entirely clueless about the underlying physics -- or, worse, should know better -- to evoke a misplaced mysticism about the ‘holistic’ nature of the universe. Moreover, when consciousness and quantum collide, the nonsense factor goes through the roof…
    Remarkable. It's as if hey've actually met @Risico007.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Ludovico wrote: »

    But, far too often, the word “quantum” signals the worst type of vacuous pseudoscientific gobbledegook. It’s exploited by those who are entirely clueless about the underlying physics -- or, worse, should know better -- to evoke a misplaced mysticism about the ‘holistic’ nature of the universe. Moreover, when consciousness and quantum collide, the nonsense factor goes through the roof…
    Remarkable. It's as if hey've actually met @Risico007.

    @TheWizardOfIce are you insinuating that he has no idea whatsoever of what he's talking about and used "quantum" as a buzz word hoping it would stick to his claims, that he may not even have bothered to read the article he shared here today or indeed any other he placed in this thread?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »

    But, far too often, the word “quantum” signals the worst type of vacuous pseudoscientific gobbledegook. It’s exploited by those who are entirely clueless about the underlying physics -- or, worse, should know better -- to evoke a misplaced mysticism about the ‘holistic’ nature of the universe. Moreover, when consciousness and quantum collide, the nonsense factor goes through the roof…
    Remarkable. It's as if hey've actually met @Risico007.

    @TheWizardOfIce are you insinuating that he has no idea whatsoever of what he's talking about and used "quantum" as a buzz word hoping it would stick to his claims, that he may not even have bothered to read the article he shared here today or indeed any other he placed in this thread?

    You might think that old chap. I couldn't possibly comment.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »

    But, far too often, the word “quantum” signals the worst type of vacuous pseudoscientific gobbledegook. It’s exploited by those who are entirely clueless about the underlying physics -- or, worse, should know better -- to evoke a misplaced mysticism about the ‘holistic’ nature of the universe. Moreover, when consciousness and quantum collide, the nonsense factor goes through the roof…
    Remarkable. It's as if hey've actually met @Risico007.

    @TheWizardOfIce are you insinuating that he has no idea whatsoever of what he's talking about and used "quantum" as a buzz word hoping it would stick to his claims, that he may not even have bothered to read the article he shared here today or indeed any other he placed in this thread?

    That's the vibe I've picked up on for several pages now.

    Quantum of Solace - see, God does exist!
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 4,617
    Anyone of any faith can watch this video and then ask themselves why their beliefs are any less delusional than the three gentleman on the sofa.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    Anyone of any faith can watch this video and then ask themselves why their beliefs are any less delusional than the three gentleman on the sofa.


    When you're making Schofield look like Paxman so easy is it for him to batter you and a bloke as nice as Brian Cox says you're talking 'drivel' it's probably time to quit while you're behind.

    But of course it's fine to rip the piss out of cranks like these but if Phil was doing that to a group of religious believers he'd be getting smashed on Twitter, probably have a fatwah against him and a fair chance he'd have his collar felt by the old bill. Once again religion is allowed to play by different rules.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Yes, interesting that Cox can be so honest with these guys but would he use the word "drivel" with three Muslims, Catholics etc on the sofa?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Any Australian will confirm they are upside down, case closed.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Any Australian will confirm they are upside down, case closed.
    I did like the guy's 'Can you show me a photo of planes flying upside down' that would've proved it once and for all.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Any Australian will confirm they are upside down, case closed.
    I did like the guy's 'Can you show me a photo of planes flying upside down' that would've proved it once and for all.

    Why give these idiots screen time and any kind of exposure?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Any Australian will confirm they are upside down, case closed.
    I did like the guy's 'Can you show me a photo of planes flying upside down' that would've proved it once and for all.

    Why give these idiots screen time and any kind of exposure?
    You could say the same about Songs of Praise.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    People have known the Earth is round for a couple thousand years. Except for a few who just won t accept it. They have principles.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    You people are out of order frankly.

    Why aren't you 'respecting their beliefs'?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    You people are out of order frankly.

    Why aren't you 'respecting their beliefs'?

    Because they aren t going to kill us if we don t.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Any Australian will confirm they are upside down, case closed.
    I did like the guy's 'Can you show me a photo of planes flying upside down' that would've proved it once and for all.

    Why give these idiots screen time and any kind of exposure?
    You could say the same about Songs of Praise.

    Song of Praise is downright embarrassing. Out of place and out of time. It's basically C of E propaganda.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Any Australian will confirm they are upside down, case closed.
    I did like the guy's 'Can you show me a photo of planes flying upside down' that would've proved it once and for all.

    Why give these idiots screen time and any kind of exposure?
    You could say the same about Songs of Praise.

    Song of Praise is downright embarrassing. Out of place and out of time. It's basically C of E propaganda.
    I disagree.

    SOP is what modern religion should be. A collection of OAPs, do gooders and virgins getting together for a sing song that harms nobody (although don't spend the licence fee on it and put it on BBC1 FFS) and makes them happy.

    It's when people - and governments!!!! - in this day and age actually take it seriously and give it respect and privilege that is not extended to other crank beliefs that I take umbrage.
This discussion has been closed.