Thread: Any Atheists Here..?

Originally Posted by Box77

Perhaps just because when you have kids and you have to call them every now and then, it's a pain in the ass to be every time like: Baal-berith do your homework, Baal-berith eat all your vegetables, Baal-berith time to sleep, Baal-berith don't eat that shit... Baal could you simply stop doing that shit!?? Baal?

I couldn't imagine those families with hundreds of kids (like those in the old testament) and putting tons of cool names to every single demon

Hahah you hit the nail on the head. Though I would still put up with it.....I have always used nicknames that are longer than the original name of the person

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

And Dutchraptor - your name is too difficult. From now on we shall call you Rap..

Hey I'm fine with that Dmatt, every one already calls me dutch.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Hey Boxster - speaking of names, and completely off the original topic - by any chance are you named after this guy:

From Logan's Run? His name is Box, but I see now the movie came out in '76, which sort of nixes the whole idea. So close though..

(Or maybe he was the next years' model?)

Now I see... I was close!!! Actually it was the first word that popped up in my mind and the number could have been any other if I had moved my hand a little bit more. I needed a login name you know, and as I already knew from previous painful experiences it could last a whole day looking for a proper name. I thought as it was about dreams, "let it be an unconscious thing and type the first word that comes to my mind" (I didn't know about that movie until now by the way). And if you wonder about the avatar, it was a t-shirt sample on my usb stick which later on I fixed a bit until I find a proper one.

Talking about kids and names, I was thinking about it a little bit more, and to put things a little back on topic, apparently in ancient times the names had to be meaningful, and perhaps it was by ignorance that later they became to their shorter expressions. I guess it'd be like these days we should use meaningful names according to our culture, like Television, Window, Nintendo, Playstation or XBox... Heeey another box there!!

On the other hand, in those ancient times, kid's education was selective the same as the role women play in their society. It'd be fun to see that apparently schizophrenic guy who lead a bunch of people out of Egypt to walk in circles in the desert for a couple of years, trying to put some order in a kid's fight (I wouldn't be surprised he'd use his staff too). Which reminds me a christian book some relative gave us as a present to me and my wife, to help us in the education of our first kid. I couldn't believe after I read it, that some christian people still think that one must use the 'hard way' with difficult kids.

Edit: Almost forget as usual (I have to check my kid's homework ) There was a guy who put his daughter the name "Neurona H2O", like putting your kid the name "Emperor" because of it sounds great...

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I get ya, but frankly I think that having to type dreamybear or stephL every few posts is too cumbersome. So congratulations, your new name is.......X92B

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Ah so you are one of those productive guys.. Well in that case, you could also just copy paste then..

You go for steph then - the L is just because there seems to have been another steph before me - scandal!!
I use this name on my darts-forum as well, and my name-containing threads, for example the right on in my sig, have simple Steph anyway.
There are many names, which I copy paste - at least for a while. OneUpBoy pondered somewhere, that just OneUp would have been better - so I happily oblige. And Louai - I keep loosing your B, assuming it might be similar to my L? And the order of all these vocals...
I'm sure I made mistakes with taking the u first!

Oh - but there is one member I like a lot - and what comes to my mind first is - "afraid of acid" - how was it? acatalephobic, was it that? Something chemical, the first part, but not quite. She posts great music and pictures among other nice things. But her name flusters me every time...
And I had to check your flag, when you commented on the Irish song lately, dutchraptor! Besides - yes, the dark does still matter! And DB would remind me of The German Railway Company (Deutsche Bahn) - fits your avatar very nicely by the way - what came first?

On topic - seems Jehovah is a complete mispronunciation of YHWH, the Hebrew written name. Having been in Israel, I know that the vocals are left out in writing in general, it's to be decided in context, correct HeWhoShapes? HWS - hehe - that can mean "cervical spine" as acronym in German.

Do you know how it should be pronounced, anybody? "Jachweh" maybe?
Ha - just thought of it - if so - "ach weh" means "oh dear" in German in the sense of commenting on something not so good having happened...

^^ Jahveh sounds like it's said in Spanish (although it's written a bit different): "Yahveh". I've heard both ways though, Jehovah (with J sounding something like "ch" in German-I don't find a similar sound in English) and Yahveh. Apparently it's correct pronunciation was lost many centuries ago and due to «YHVH» or «JHWH» apparently are transliterations, all the range of conjectural pronunciations could be just that, what some people believe should be said but again, no one really knows.

Edit: At least the meaning of "kangaroo" is known to have a real origin deriving from the Guugu Yimithirr word "gangurru" which refers to grey kangaroos and the myth of meaning "I don't understand you" was debunked in the 70's... Now I'm in peace.

Good to know, with the kangaroos - a good story is a good story, meaningful even - and it doesn't necessarily suffer from being untrue.
But I'd always prefer to know the truth, as far as available, even if it robs me of a nice illusion, like the authenticity of this story.
I read about it much later than the 70s and only lately found out it was "just" a story. A story, which doesn't inflict anything on it's believers, though!

Keats seems to have accused Newton of "unweaving the rainbow" and stealing it away from poesy by showing, that it results from light refraction in rain-drops. I can't see it. People simply didn't know better and created beautiful art anyway, but how could insight possibly hold back our creative expression?

“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan



Who can't feel inspired by finding out, that something like this is - or was - actually out there?!

What science shows us to be actually the case is so much deeper and more intriguing than any traditional nature contemplations, only scraping at the surface of what there is, and having as an explanation, as an attempt at understanding it's workings, always the same and completely unsatisfactory answer - "because God" - that's just as hollow as an exasperated parent ending it all with "Because (I say so)!"


By the way - I did the sensible thing now, instead of lamenting the fact, that there won't ever be any new videos with Hitchens, I took up reading him - first
'God Is Not Great'. What a beautiful command of language, as far as I can feel this - maybe once I'll find out how to mark things on bookmarked pages and export them from my Kindle and go ahead and quote some of it. Highly recommended - not a hate-tirade, if somebody wonders - full of thoughtfulness and compassion for humanity and full of especially historical details I wasn't aware of, old and recent. And some good rantings, where they are deserved in my eyes, not hateful, though, and much less than you might expect.

Thnx for the explanation Steph!
I understand now, but what I actually meant by survival of the fitted was that the strongest gets all the food, and the weaker species die.

So it must be this combined with procreation that gave us now more efficient creatures:
Procreates come with different changes, good and/or bad, then only the good changes species, which would be fitter, survive, and so on, leaving the creatures with the notion of evolving to a better race.

Hope I got it right

Also about the logic part, I may have over drastically said it.
Right about the discovery of cells, but sort of, because after we discovered cells, and new that substances change, creating new forms and life, or in other words matter only changes, doesn't get destroyed nor created, we still apply the question to it, how and when did these atoms start in the first place. Almost everything scientific follows this string back to existence. This is where the string gets dark and we can't answer it. I say it's because we led the string to that point, because the string got out of our logic range, but we still need to make sense of it, so we automatically logged it back into our logic bubble, making it false. So yes we are innocently following our logical rules, but these rules just don't apply here.
And if we were to evolve some more and become smarter, and expand our logic bubble, the case wouldn't be that we would be able to start finding out the answer to this question, but rather reveal a little bit more of the true path the string goes. We would still have more questions and still lodge the rest of the string outside our logic bubble into it though. But I fear it's not that simple. I mean, what a leap of evolution it would need to gain the new logic of existence of the universe, if it even exists. Don't forget, we think the universe must have an existence rule because that is what we think about everything, because we were not 'meant' to get out of the environmental existence.

So in short, I think the question itself is bogus because we are trying to make sense of the 'numbers' using the wrong 'encryption'.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

I understand now, but what I actually meant by survival of the fitted was that the strongest gets all the food, and the weaker species die.

So it must be this combined with procreation that gave us now more efficient creatures:
Procreates come with different changes, good and/or bad, then only the good changes species, which would be fitter, survive, and so on, leaving the creatures with the notion of evolving to a better race.

I wouldn't say the strongest but the most adaptable to extreme environmental changes, like that which possibly happened when the dinosaurs got extinct, and our "hyper-grand-parents" survived because they where more suitable to the new environment covered in darkness.

We won't really find common ground with your logical bubble, Louai - but that doesn't have to be found - I see your point, I just look at it differently.
The more we know, the more we become aware of how much we don't know - wisdom having been around since antiquity, making perfect logical sense, too.
It's been a while since somebody seriously proclaimed, there's nothing new to discover in physics or any other scientific discipline for that matter...

Anyway - Box is correct - adaptability to changes in environment is crucial - species might be perfectly well adapted to their habitats and then comes the asteroid, to take a famous example, and the small mammals get their chance at filling all the now empty niches left over from the dinos. They need not even be overly fit in their new contexts, because the local well adapted die out and such pose neither threat nor competition.

Who survives spreads out into new niches - and once there for generations - like the video explains it so nicely - they change, natural selection is in action. If you have an equilibrium of prey and predators and consistent resources, nothing much will change for very long periods of time - no selection pressure.

So speciation happens when there is external change, could be an expanding neighbour population, too, which has chanced upon some advantage, like acquiring a novel food source - anything prompting critters to take over a niche, which differs from where they came from, or how it used to be.
Being a new species means they are eventually so far apart from the original critters, who came conquering the niche, that they can't reproduce with each other any more - chromosomes not clicking into place properly, I guess. The original critter might persist just as it was, if it's fit and doing fine reproduction-wise where it comes to dwell.

One more thing, once more - natural selection works on the level of genes - so you need not even procreate yourself, if you help those of your kind, your kin, to procreate, you'll have accomplished something for at least parts of your "design" to stay alive.

If it "makes overwhelming sense" to draw a line, where your kind and kin turn into "the other" in this sense, in order to try and keep alive genes very similar to yours - if we can't get over that, even in the face of the evidence - we might well need an alien visitation in order to see the fallacy - hopefully in my lifetime and hopefully peacefully - nope - not interested in Armageddon!

I'm still uneasy by the validity of universal existence laws following our survival laws. Clearly these 2 laws must be distinct. We can't apply the first law in the latter case, yet we do cause we have no other law we can possibly use.
I guess you are suggesting our logic expands more than the laws of our environment, to the laws of existence, who happen then to be the same as our environment laws? This seems far fetched. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth though.
I'm only saying that it's unlikely that the laws we use for survival and evaluation of our environment can be used in the field of all universal existence, and we think it can because we have no other law and it automatically deals with the latter.

^^Perhaps it's because our logic can only apply to all the observable things which includes the start of this universe? Although as far as I know, there's still some uncertainty about black holes, or that if there's smaller things than the Higgs boson particles, etc. As I see it, perhaps it's a matter of technology more than other thing, I mean, how could you measure smaller things than those that your instruments barely can read?

Edit: Just remembered this interactive site where you can take a little trip across the different scales of our known universe, both confirmed and non-confirmed to have an idea, if you take a closer look, you'll realize there's a lot of 'empty' scales: The Scale of the Universe

Originally Posted by Box77

^^Perhaps it's because our logic can only apply to all the observable things which includes the start of this universe? Although as far as I know, there's still some uncertainty about black holes, or that if there's smaller things than the Higgs boson particles, etc. As I see it, perhaps it's a matter of technology more than other thing, I mean, how could you measure smaller things than those that your instruments barely can read?

Edit: Just remembered this interactive site where you can take a little trip across the different scales of our known universe, both confirmed and non-confirmed to have an idea, if you take a closer look, you'll realize there's a lot of 'empty' scales: The Scale of the Universe

I wouldn't say our logic can apply to the things that we observe. Not everything we observe can be treated using logic.
Even if the start of the universe can be observed and studied, what is made sense of it might not be true, because treating it using logic would probably give an answer that isn't true, even if we might see it making sense.
You can desypher a letter using any method, but you can't garenty it being true, even if it shows a meaningful sentence, because even so, you don't have the correct desyphering method.

Anyways I keep this as a possibility, I don't favor it yet. I'm trying to learn more explanations and thoughts, but now it wouldn't be fair to favor any idea relating the start of the universe.

And there it could come my point about imaginary things. Like the i^2 = −1 in complex numbers. It could be something that belongs to the vast fields of 'imagination', and here, a lot of things defeat the rules of logic, existing just inside our brains, deeper than the deepest known measurable space...

Originally Posted by LouaiB

I guess you are suggesting our logic expands more than the laws of our environment, to the laws of existence, who happen then to be the same as our environment laws? This seems far fetched. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth though.

Nope, you don't - that's basically what I'm saying, I don't make a distinction between natural laws, mathematics and "laws of existence", I don't even know, what you mean by that, to be honest. I would find it far fetched to think otherwise.
How can we be logically unable to deal with higher mathematics - I mean we do, don't we? What doesn't follow along is our instinctive understanding and imagination at times. But if it wouldn't work to apply our minds to mathematics - well - then it wouldn't work.
What do you think of the Lawrence Krauss video on cosmology by the way?

Maybe a nice term to throw in here is this: Heuristic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heuristic (/hjʉˈrɪstɨk/; Greek: "Εὑρίσκω", "find" or "discover") refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that give a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal. Where the exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution via mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, stereotyping, or common sense.

In more precise terms, heuristics are strategies using readily accessible, though loosely applicable, information to control problem solving in human beings and machines.

Example
The most fundamental heuristic is trial and error, which can be used in everything from matching nuts and bolts to finding the values of variables in algebra problems.

Here are a few other commonly used heuristics, from George Pólya's 1945 book, How to Solve It:

If you are having difficulty understanding a problem, try drawing a picture.
If you can't find a solution, try assuming that you have a solution and seeing what you can derive from that ("working backward").
If the problem is abstract, try examining a concrete example.
Try solving a more general problem first (the "inventor's paradox": the more ambitious plan may have more chances of success).

Psychology
In psychology, heuristics are simple, efficient rules, learned or hard-coded by evolutionary processes, that have been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information. Researchers test if people use those rules with various methods. These rules work well under most circumstances, but in certain cases lead to systematic errors or cognitive biases.

Although much of the work of discovering heuristics in human decision-makers was done by the Israeli psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, the concept was originally introduced by Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon. Simon's original, primary object of research was problem solving which showed that we operate within what he calls bounded rationality. He coined the term "satisficing", which denotes the situation where people seek solutions or accept choices or judgements that are "good enough" for their purposes, but could be optimized.

Gerd Gigerenzer focused on the "fast and frugal" properties of heuristics, i.e., using heuristics in a way that is principally accurate and thus eliminating most cognitive bias. From one particular batch of research, Gigerenzer and Wolfgang Gaissmaier found that both individuals and organizations rely on heuristics in an adaptive way. They also found that ignoring part of the information [with a decision], rather than weighing all the options, can actually lead to more accurate decisions.

Heuristics, through greater refinement and research, have begun to be applied to other theories, or be explained by them. For example: the Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST) also an adaptive view of heuristic processing. CEST breaks down two systems that process information. At some times, roughly speaking, individuals consider issues rationally, systematically, logically, deliberately, effortfully, and verbally. On other occasions, individuals consider issues intuitively, effortlessly, globally, and emotionally. From this perspective, heuristics are part of a larger experiential processing system that is often adaptive, but vulnerable to error in situations that require logical analysis.

In 2002, Daniel Kahneman and Shane Frederick proposed that cognitive heuristics work by a process called attribute substitution, which happens without conscious awareness. According to this theory, when somebody makes a judgment (of a "target attribute") that is computationally complex, a rather easier calculated "heuristic attribute" is substituted. In effect, a cognitively difficult problem is dealt with by answering a rather simpler problem, without being aware of this happening. This theory explains cases where judgments fail to show regression toward the mean. Heuristics can be considered to reduce the complexity of clinical judgements in healthcare. ...

Heuristics is what I would call applying our minds to our environment in the evolutionarily more basic sense, not stringently, not logically, not even consciously, but just so that it is effective and advantageous, what we conclude from using it.
But it sure as hell doesn't lead us to higher mathematics or theoretical physics, while it might be helpful on the way at times.

I think we stand on different definitions of logic.

I say logic is a tool used to make sense of our world in a way that helps us survive and improve. It uses certain rules to make these processes. So, in other words, our logic arranges the puzzle in a way that helps us survive, and it is only programmed to arrange the puzzle in that fashion for everything. So, using it in the sense of the start of the universe will give a certain answer, a one that is derived from this way that our logic arranges the puzzle, but the start of the universe is a different puzzle, and arranging it that way doesn't solve the puzzle. Our logic can't solve that puzzle, and any questions created from trying to solve that puzzle have no sense of truth.

On the other hand, you define logic as the tool that can be used vastly, for everything we can observe and perceive, probably because you agree that we can't even perceive something unless our perception can handle and understand it, and so our logic CAN handle it. I hope I didn't get it wrong.

To counter that, I would say that we in fact can see an issue without it actually existing the way we see it. I am not saying that we need stronger logic to understand the start of time, but I say it doesn't even exist. We believe it does because we believe everything has a start, but the universe doesn't necessarily follow that rule. We only use that rule because it helps us survive, and it isn't a rule for everything. The truth is that we see the universe and so we place this rule upon it.

I see where you stand though, and I completely agree with what you say as a possibility, but I want to explain why my opinion can also be a possibility.

Logic works for everything. There is a lot of things that we can't see in which logic still finds us a correct answer, and there is a lot of things that seem counter intuitive at first and confusing to human minds but which are still logical. Everything works logically in the universes, if we can't figure out the processes then that just means we are not smart enough to understand it yet but with more information we can understand anything.

It is like doing really complex math. Humans brains are not really designed for difficult math and so we make mistakes all the time, but the math is flawless. If you follow the correct steps, you always get the correct answers. Logic can be used to understand anything, and usually if we get some incorrect outcome it is because we failed to use logic properly or we just need more information.

There isn't really any other methods for knowing things either. If you are trying to understand the world without using logic, your basically just guessing or pulling stuff out of your ass. Which is basically what early religion was, people being confused and so pulled random explanations of how the world worked out of their ass. Which is why they are so massively wrong about everything. You can't do that and expect positive results. You need logic.

Originally Posted by Alric

Logic works for everything. There is a lot of things that we can't see in which logic still finds us a correct answer, and there is a lot of things that seem counter intuitive at first and confusing to human minds but which are still logical. Everything works logically in the universes, if we can't figure out the processes then that just means we are not smart enough to understand it yet but with more information we can understand anything.

It is like doing really complex math. Humans brains are not really designed for difficult math and so we make mistakes all the time, but the math is flawless. If you follow the correct steps, you always get the correct answers. Logic can be used to understand anything, and usually if we get some incorrect outcome it is because we failed to use logic properly or we just need more information.

There isn't really any other methods for knowing things either. If you are trying to understand the world without using logic, your basically just guessing or pulling stuff out of your ass. Which is basically what early religion was, people being confused and so pulled random explanations of how the world worked out of their ass. Which is why they are so massively wrong about everything. You can't do that and expect positive results. You need logic.

See here where I neg to differ. Assuming that logic is a tool capable of solving everything is a bold statement, and frankly it is arrogant to assume so.
Through evolution, we gained powerful logic. I highly doubt we maxed out it's skill level and reached the all mighty code for everything. Note, I am not talking about logic's power, but logic's diversity. Logic has evolved as a TOOL to help us survive, and is designed for the use in direct observable mediums and their derived conclusions. Even that might have a limit too. You assume that if we found a question but not it's answer, than it's because our logic isn't powerful enough, but in the case of the start if all existence, I would like to propose that in fact the way our logic works created this question (when did the universe start? How?) because it is programmed to analyze our problems like this, but this isn't any problem, this is a problem out of the range of logic, out of what evolution designed logic for.
Again, I'm just proposing a thought. In the end, our logic is exactly a LIMITED (it has to be limited, I don't see infinite neurons in our brain) application, and it has a limit where it's rules can't be validated anymore. What makes you so sure that the start of the universe is in the range of logic? There is no need for it for survival. Don't forget, our logic created these rules to help us survive. There is probably no such thing as correct laws, only laws that combine together to make sense, laws that combine everything (at least at our direct environment) to make one sense.

Thinking that a hundred billion neurons in a single brain is not enough seems to me a bit out of the scope. Infinity could be nothing more than an eternal loop of the same thing after all. You can see it in fractal geometry, it doesn't need to be a too structured initial formula to get an infinite graphic flow. It's just including an imaginary factor which turns things to eternally repeat and possibly never get the same result.

I don't think it's our logic, but the configuration of our thoughts which limits our understanding of the universe. I mean, I don't know if I could possibly figure out exactly how to see the world through the eyes of a spider, for example, if I don't know in the first place how is it like to walk on 8 legs, and do all the stuff a spider do, like the spider web, etc. The more I know about it, the more I understand it. I think dreams could be a good source for those new perspectives.

We already know when the universe was created, 13.798±0.037 billion years. Different sources very on the fine numbers, plus there is always some errors when dealing with such a large time scale, but more or less 13-14 billion years ago the universe was created. Also there are several theories on how the universe was created and chances are one of our current theories is probably correct. The problem is that it is difficult to 'prove' such things.

I don't see why you think logic is so weak, when we already know this stuff. The problem is just confirming it because we know, due to logic, that there is a possibility that there might be some unknown information that would make us incorrect. However, we got pretty solid answers. Are they proven to be 100% certain? Maybe not but it isn't like the universe is some mysterious thing we have no chance of comprehending. People are working right this moment on proving the theories we have on the creation of the universe.

Evolution did encourage the use of logic as a living entity which does not react to events (showing a rudimentary form of understanding towards cause and effect) cannot thrive well, if at all.
Similarly, the more capable of utilizing logic an animal is, it seems the more likely it is to dominate.

Logic itself seems to us an objective rule, just as mathematical constants and axioms. However when considering the nature behind our own construction of logic, it's all built upon neural patterns in the brain which have evolved in consequence of our interaction with the world around us, it is merely an abstraction. We are physiologically wired to optimize certain scenarios. In the majority of cases this means following cause and effect and a healthy dose of trial and error. By interacting with a naturally occurring world we are coming in contact with the sort of circumstances that allow us to build simple world views based on logic.

Symbolic representation takes the unknown out of the equation and allows us to almost always attain the same answer.

The fatal flaw behind all of this is that our logic is ultimately built up through observation of the world and is not truly objective. It raises the much deeper metaphysical question of the validity of an objective or subjective world.

However, this actually has no bearings on life as well as civilization. Our logic does produce extremely consistent results, nothing else we know displays this property. It is truly the closest we have ever come to objectivity. The consistency of this logic would imply that a mechanic which falls outside of understanding aids the mechanics we do understand to allow logic to exist. A layer in this universe which might be governed by a completely different form of logic not understandable by humans would not even be visible to us as it would need some way to interact with us, therefore falling within the realms of our logic.

Let's hope some of you guys understood what I'm trying to say.

Logic doesn't follow the way humans were evolved to think. That is why following strict logic can be hard for people. Logic is something we came up latter. A person needs to be trained to use proper logic and difficult problems can often run counter to what a normal human might think. What is logic though? Logic is basically rational and sound reasoning. There isn't really an alternative to logic, because that would imply irrational or unsound reasoning. In other words, random guesses, which is very unlikely to get you any solution that is close to the truth.

Man I skipped this thread for too long and now I'm playing catch-up. >_<

Just my humble response to the OP: I have experienced all three at different points in my life, the whole spectrum.

My parents were raised to go to church, but they chose not to raise us in one. My sister and I both got involved in various churches later on by choice, but as I got older I became very critical of and disaffected by (among other things) certain elements of practiced religion. I called myself an atheist then, but I think at the time I just wanted to believe the opposite extreme.

It is clear to me now that neither extreme really suits how I feel and how I tend to see things at all. That leaves agnostic, but even that feels inaccurate and unsatisfactory.

What is the least offensive way to say this...

The thing that always boggles me about religion (as most people know and/or practice it) is that it often gets taken absurdly out of context.

Spoiler for "elaboration':

To me religious scripture of any kind is sorta like a history book in that it attempts to describe humanity in a specific way, through events. As with actual history books, the intent is for the reader to assume the information given is truthful and accurate.

But of course...the events (however accurate), what's chosen to go in the books and what is left out, and how the events are framed by the writer...those types of decisions are what form the intended illustration of truth. This illustration is of course based on the values of those doing the writing.

How people have come to see varied (usually quite old) collections of text by often unknown writers as having some kind of concrete, intrinsic meaning...it just doesn't make any sense to me. It is more accurate to say that any meaning in it only exists as an association of our own minds.

The way I see it, all reading is an exercise, wherein the reader intakes the information, and then ideally forms a conclusion based on all the available information at their disposal.

But when a text is religious, somehow the second part just tends to get tossed out...and "authorities on the matter" simply tell you what it's supposed to mean. From these gleaned assumptions, entire patterns of thought and behavior are formed...

...and a person can start to feel like, man if I question one thing am I questioning it all? Or, if I believe one thing, must I believe it all? This idea that it is all or nothing, and this insistence on unquestioning faith...it overlooks the importance of analytical thinking.

Redflag, to me.

This is my problem with religion as it is often (but not always) practiced. To me, what's written should always be viewed from an analytical standpoint. Because even factual information can get taken out of context if the writer, reader, OR speaker gets careless.

I think the idea of a godlike presence fulfills a psychological need for many people...in a way it is an attempt to see things differently, acknowledging there is truth beyond what we can understand. That's great, I'm all for that.

But when these attempts become forceful...when they turn to explanations and codes and punishments and all the rest...it spins out of control. That's where I take issue.

Even though I appreciate and find insight in many different texts (both religious and otherwise), I don't form my whole worldview around any single one. I figure, I wouldn't intentionally do that anywhere else in my life, why should spirituality be any different? That's just me though.

Honestly I think I'm just too skeptical a person to say I have it figured out completely. With anything. Ever. (Character flaw). For me, there are always new questions to ask.

If something were to become perfectly figured out, all neatly tied up, no further questions necessary..where's the fun in that? If that were the case no one would even be talking about it in the first place.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Evolution did encourage the use of logic as a living entity which does not react to events (showing a rudimentary form of understanding towards cause and effect) cannot thrive well, if at all.
Similarly, the more capable of utilizing logic an animal is, it seems the more likely it is to dominate.

Logic itself seems to us an objective rule, just as mathematical constants and axioms. However when considering the nature behind our own construction of logic, it's all built upon neural patterns in the brain which have evolved in consequence of our interaction with the world around us, it is merely an abstraction. We are physiologically wired to optimize certain scenarios. In the majority of cases this means following cause and effect and a healthy dose of trial and error. By interacting with a naturally occurring world we are coming in contact with the sort of circumstances that allow us to build simple world views based on logic.

Symbolic representation takes the unknown out of the equation and allows us to almost always attain the same answer.

The fatal flaw behind all of this is that our logic is ultimately built up through observation of the world and is not truly objective. It raises the much deeper metaphysical question of the validity of an objective or subjective world.

However, this actually has no bearings on life as well as civilization. Our logic does produce extremely consistent results, nothing else we know displays this property. It is truly the closest we have ever come to objectivity. The consistency of this logic would imply that a mechanic which falls outside of understanding aids the mechanics we do understand to allow logic to exist. A layer in this universe which might be governed by a completely different form of logic not understandable by humans would not even be visible to us as it would need some way to interact with us, therefore falling within the realms of our logic.

Let's hope some of you guys understood what I'm trying to say.

Oh man I was sitting at the edge if my seat screaming:" Yes yes exactly! He's agreeing with me!", until I read the last sentence, then I was like "No! That seems just a speculation! Maybe we can notice things that aren't logical, but just view them as bizarre, quantum physics for instance".

I loved everything about the post, it's exactly what I mean, but I doubt that we can perceive only logical things. We probably won't get it, but is it completely unobservable?? Plus I think you contradicted yourself. We can't not observe things our logic can't perceive, and at the same time advance our logic for things we can't explain, because according to the first, we can't even perceive the latter.

There are other elements we poses that encourage certain thoughts, and these thoughts may be logical, but since they are out of our logical field, they are false from the beginning. You might say that we wouldn't thought about it or noticed it if our logic doesn't cover it, but I beg to differ since other elements may have brought up such thought. Self awareness for instance probably brought up the question of "How did we all exist? When did the universe start?" Though these thoughts might be logical, they are because we allowed them inside our thoughts, thus automatically allowing our logic to shower them with it's rules. This is why we think these questions are logical, because our logic treats everything using it's rules, and these types of thoughts and questions sneaked in through the back door(through self awareness in this case), logic didn't bring them in.

Again, just speculating


I know what you guys are saying. The start of the universe is like any other concept. Even if our logic doesn't understand it, with trial and error it will expant to understand it.
I would agree if not for one thing (it's not about "trial and error being impossible in this case"): Our logic makes sense of things, connects the dots, so we could build some kind of map for life. Now here is the thing, there is no such thing as truth, we only make sense of thing and then make up laws so we wouldn't walk blind through life. Now, the start of the universe isn't different, so you must think "well why not continue doing the same thing with the universe since basicly everything is just connecting dots with dots and no solid truth?" Well, the start of the universe envolves the start of EVERYTHING, it's the ultimate thing, it's like trying to burst out of the bubble of dots by connecting these dots, you're going nowhere outside the bubble. Our logic makes sense of the dots, it can't do nothing without these dots, and outside this bubble there are no dots we can follow. Understand that our logic combines the pieces of the puzzle in a way that will help us in life, and asking where the puzzle came from while relying on connecting the puzzle pieces is pointless. You may get some kind of answer from that, but it won't be true, it would be out own version of what is true, which can't be applied in this case.

To give you an example:

Case 1:

1101010101101010100011
Desypher: I like pie

1010101010101010101010
Desypher: I hate dogs

The desyphering codes are from a set of all deayphering codes in the world.
You think both these numbers are meant to be desyphered by these codes, well the second isn't, it's meant to be deayphered by a completely new code we don't know.

The second follows another desyphering code, but we only have our desyphering codes, so when one of them made a sentence, we believed it to be true, while it isn't.

Still rough and not completely accurate example, but see what I mean? We carry no means to truly give an answer, but that doesn't stop us, because we happen to have some that fit the bill, make sense, so we believe them. Can you blame us?! We do that for everything! We are built that way! But the start of the universe sneaked in from the back door! Also an extreme concept like this can't be handled by making sense out of it!

To try to explain it in one sentence: For every new concept we observe, we follow the dots and form a new logical rule to make sense of it, then move on. But, for the concept of the start of the universe, we aren't in it's road. There are no dots that we follow till we reach a new logical rule specifically for it. So, what we automatically do is use our previously gained rules on it, and even if it makes sense, it's not following the right dots to reach the true logical rule of it.

Plus, there isn't a road leading to the start of the universe, it is the road itself! Start of the universe isn't a concept, it is the concept of concepts themselves!

Again, just proposing a speculation

Very Interesting discussion going on here right now! LouaiB, I like your way of looking at logic I have to say. I just didn't understand your last post all the way. But the thing you mention at the end in your post is what I would say pretty much spot on, when it comes to our logics fallacy. And it is these kind of philosophic questions that should be thought about to reach a true open mind in my opinion.

So, this might be pretty much what you already was referring to LouaiB. But I say it any way. Our way of using logic can provide us with what we strive for, like an answer to a question. For example when did the universe start? The scientists might have there answer right about this with the help of logic. But what we also know with the help of our logic, is that everything that has a beginning must have started out of something that was already here. So if we know that the universe started at a certain point, then we need to use our logic to say that the universe itself started out of something else as well. But this logic would only become an never ending loop of different starts. So the only logical answear left is to say that the universe never did start. And then it has then always been here. And that idea is a logic idea that now is turning unlogic since we "know" that according to our logic. Everything that starts, got to begin with the help of something else that was already here.

So basically, nothingness is something. And at the same time it's nothing.. So if the universe came out of nothing, then that nothing is something. There is no up, without a down etc etc. So maybe there still is a logic that cruches our kind of logic. I belive it's a good possibility for that.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

1101010101101010100011
Desypher: I like pie

1010101010101010101010
Desypher: I hate dogs

The desyphering codes are from a set of all deayphering codes in the world.
You think both these numbers are meant to be desyphered by these codes, well the second isn't, it's meant to be deayphered by a completely new code we don't know.

The second follows another desyphering code, but we only have our desyphering codes, so when one of them made a sentence, we believed it to be true, while it isn't.

I don't know if I get it right, but according to the laws of probability, I think if you evaluate the second code under the known deciphering systems, it most probably will give you a random-like pattern like this for example: "��*" which won't make any sense. I don't know if you could probably get a word from it, and if you do, when you try to evaluate new sequences written in the same system, they won't make any sense because if they do, you should already know the deciphering system. I mean, if the second given code seems to be deciphered, then it should apply for all the codes written under the same system. If not, it most probably should be a very weird isolated coincidence (almost impossible) which will eventually come to light when evaluated, and according to the rules of logic, it won't be enough to give it the value of true as a result. Perhaps you'll conclude it could be a new deciphering system or most probably a random sequence, taking into account the way you got to find it which could eventually lead you to have a collection of sequences written in an unknown system, and perhaps it'll lead you into a new deciphering quest.