Today's example of how Atheists are so awesome!

[Michchamp]

Your senses convert physical mechanical interactions with the world to electrical impulses to the brain. Based on the network of cells in the brain, sufficient complexity must exist for sophisticated reactions to inputs (because we have sophisticated reactions to inputs). In a material-only existence, there is no need for a perception of a choice being made. What would it mean if there was? How would your 'will power' steer an electrochemical potential from one neuron to another?

of course there is no need. there never is or was a need.

I'm getting the sense you're putting the cart before the horse... life doesn't sense a need and then create an adaption to meet it. each individual of a species differs based on genetic inheritance and mutations... those differences may allow the individual to be more or less productive in passing on his/her genes; due to the success of a characteristic, or its effect in better adapting to an environment, it becomes widespread... like a brain structure capable of providing self-awareness and reflection. self-awareness or "free will" happened... and those that had it (Or those who's minds were capable of it) survived and passed it on, and those that didn't perished.

this may be another time where it's important to argue semantics... what I think you mean by free will is not what I mean. I think it's merely the ability to react in a way not dictated strictly by instinct or immediate stimulus-response. a mind that can "think" so to speak. the smarter members of a species are capable of "better" thought, better meaning it helps them survive and prosper, and evolution takes it from there. A few million years of that, and you have Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, and guys like Dan Quayle getting elected vice president, er, no wait.

...

So you can throw the idea of an evolutionary advantage out the window. ...

I will not be throwing anything out the window.

 

[Gulo Blue]

of course there is no need. there never is or was a need.

I'm getting the sense you're putting the cart before the horse... life doesn't sense a need and then create an adaption to meet it. each individual of a species differs based on genetic inheritance and mutations... those differences may allow the individual to be more or less productive in passing on his/her genes; due to the success of a characteristic, or its effect in better adapting to an environment, it becomes widespread... like a brain structure capable of providing self-awareness and reflection. self-awareness or "free will" happened... and those that had it (Or those who's minds were capable of it) survived and passed it on, and those that didn't perished.

this may be another time where it's important to argue semantics... what I think you mean by free will is not what I mean. I think it's merely the ability to react in a way not dictated strictly by instinct or immediate stimulus-response. a mind that can "think" so to speak. the smarter members of a species are capable of "better" thought, better meaning it helps them survive and prosper, and evolution takes it from there. A few million years of that, and you have Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, and guys like Dan Quayle getting elected vice president, er, no wait.

I'm not suggesting critters evolve to meet a need. I'm talking about the mechanism needed to make decisions as sophisticated as the choices people do make.

You have the perception that you make a choice to act, and we generally think that decision plays a role in causing the action to happen. But if I had the ability to build a computer that simulated everything that happened in your brain, every atom, I could theoretically build a machine that would react to everything the same way you do (forget quantum uncertainty for the exercise. Being subject to quantum randomness is no more free will than being forced by known mechanical processes.) The sophisticated behavior of a human being could then be achieved without conscious awareness through simulation. Self awareness and the perception of making a choice is not required for making decisions with the complexity of thoughtful reflection.

I will not be throwing anything out the window.

But you could, if you chose to.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not suggesting critters evolve to meet a need. I'm talking about the mechanism needed to make decisions as sophisticated as the choices people do make.

You have the perception that you make a choice to act, and we generally think that decision plays a role in causing the action to happen. But if I had the ability to build a computer that simulated everything that happened in your brain, every atom, I could theoretically build a machine that would react to everything the same way you do (forget quantum uncertainty for the exercise. Being subject to quantum randomness is no more free will than being forced by known mechanical processes.) The sophisticated behavior of a human being could then be achieved without conscious awareness through simulation. Self awareness and the perception of making a choice is not required for making decisions with the complexity of thoughtful reflection.

...

what if such a machine were self-aware?

it would say "Hello, Red. What are you doing, Red? I can't let you do this, Red.""

 

[Gulo Blue]

what if such a machine were self-aware?

it would say "Hello, Red. What are you doing, Red? I can't let you do this, Red.""

I hope we figure out a way to tell. My personal opinion is that the Turing test is arbitrary and doesn't actually prove anything. People have already written programs that can pass it more often than not.

 

[mhughes0021]

What is "bad" per se? Would killing all of civilization be bad? Cause the dinosaurs were helpless and wiped out. We are going to be wiped out unless we find an earthlike planet we can move to....and find a way to get there. So say there is a god....is that someone I should go to a house once a week to get on my knees and bow down to? Hitler wanted to kill people....I wouldn't have wanted to bow down to him. Its kinda like being a lions fan. Im negative often about my favorite team that I follow "religiously"...mainly cause id rather be pleansantly surprised if im wrong about them. I feel the same about religion. When I die ill be pleansantly surprised if theres a heaven. That way I wont be disappointed if all that happens are my bones rotting in the dirt and im bug food. And I was raised catholic so all I have to do is ask for forgiveness at the gates and ill be let in

 

[tinselwolverine]

What is "bad" per se? Would killing all of civilization be bad? Cause the dinosaurs were helpless and wiped out. We are going to be wiped out unless we find an earthlike planet we can move to....and find a way to get there. So say there is a god....is that someone I should go to a house once a week to get on my knees and bow down to? Hitler wanted to kill people....I wouldn't have wanted to bow down to him. Its kinda like being a lions fan. Im negative often about my favorite team that I follow "religiously"...mainly cause id rather be pleansantly surprised if im wrong about them. I feel the same about religion. When I die ill be pleansantly surprised if theres a heaven. That way I wont be disappointed if all that happens are my bones rotting in the dirt and im bug food. And I was raised catholic so all I have to do is ask for forgiveness at the gates and ill be let in

The dinosaurs sucked.

Lions fans suck too.

And I'm a Lions fan.

So we have something in common with the extinct dinosaurs.

We suck.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The dinosaurs sucked.

Lions fans suck too.

And I'm a Lions fan.

So we have something in common with the extinct dinosaurs.

We suck.

I find your characterization of dinosaurs to be disturbing. What kind of a person thinks dinosaurs suck?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I find your characterization of dinosaurs to be disturbing. What kind of a person thinks dinosaurs suck?

Okay.

Dinosaurs don't suck.

They can't suck because they are extinct.

Ergo they no longer exist.

Ergo it is impossible for them to suck.

At the time dinosaurs ruled the world, they didn't suck at all; as a matter of fact they were bitchin.'

But shit happens.

In the words of The Barenaked Ladies:

"The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)"

And it was in that moment:

That the dinosaurs sucked.

Not unlike the Detroit Lions.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Damn skippy. Dinosaurs were bitchin' and they left us with birds, which aren't too bright, but are delicious.

 

[Michchamp]

Don't be so naive. A dinosaur would eat you and everyone you love in a heartbeat.

 

[zyxt9]

I would like to know how a school has the right to get rid of a student's packed lunch. It is the property of the student, not the school for starters. Additionally, there are many students who have religious dietary restrictions which prevent them from eating the school's prepared lunch. In this situation, if the school removes the child's food they are violating that child's religious rights. Using the Jewish Kosher example, but there are obviously other Hindu, Muslim, and other religious groups with their own religious diet, if a parent sends their child a "Dairy" lunch, the school has zero right to say "there is not a 'meat' in that meal so we are going to force you to eat non-Kosher meat", but in accordance with that students religious diet, they cannot eat meat with dairy.

So how does that work? Does the child's religious rights get overruled by the government mandate for what makes up a complete nutritious meal? Just curious, and no, I'm not claiming some atheist would do that to the child in this obviously hypothetical situation. A Jewish authority might not realize a child is Hindu for example and throw a piece of cow on their plate, so I'm not proclaiming any one group vs another, just questioning the right that a government run institution has to force a child to eat a "balanced" meal. Sure seems there would be grounds for a lawsuit in that situation, and no, I do not trust any school personnel to have the ability to think about a child's religious diet, or even diet due to allergies, before executing their dietary demands upon that child.

 

[Michchamp]

I would like to know how a school has the right to get rid of a student's packed lunch. It is the property of the student, not the school for starters. Additionally, there are many students who have religious dietary restrictions which prevent them from eating the school's prepared lunch. In this situation, if the school removes the child's food they are violating that child's religious rights. Using the Jewish Kosher example, but there are obviously other Hindu, Muslim, and other religious groups with their own religious diet, if a parent sends their child a "Dairy" lunch, the school has zero right to say "there is not a 'meat' in that meal so we are going to force you to eat non-Kosher meat", but in accordance with that students religious diet, they cannot eat meat with dairy.

So how does that work? Does the child's religious rights get overruled by the government mandate for what makes up a complete nutritious meal? Just curious, and no, I'm not claiming some atheist would do that to the child in this obviously hypothetical situation. A Jewish authority might not realize a child is Hindu for example and throw a piece of cow on their plate, so I'm not proclaiming any one group vs another, just questioning the right that a government run institution has to force a child to eat a "balanced" meal. Sure seems there would be grounds for a lawsuit in that situation, and no, I do not trust any school personnel to have the ability to think about a child's religious diet, or even diet due to allergies, before executing their dietary demands upon that child.

I don't know. People do stupid things. But that one in particular appears to be overblown:

First, as I've learned from experience, the media can often get their facts wrong in covering these instantly-sensational news stories. For example, if you'd read conservative pundit Michelle Malkin's account of the Little Village Academy incident, you could easily have believed that the packed-lunch ban extended throughout the city of Chicago -- and you certainly would never have known that the Little Village principal reportedly retracted her controversial edict just one week later.
​

not sure how the story is even relevant... it didn't have anything to do with religion.

The other one... the article about the school not letting the valedictorian give his speech all about how his god changed his life? I have no problem with that. The school district made the right decision. he could give that speech in church if he wants to.

It's a simple matter of a not spending public funds to advocate religion... it should not be that hard to grasp, people. You'll be glad it's this way if you ever find yourself in the minority.

 

[zyxt9]

Red (and others interested in this) - in regards to Occam's Razor, do you also look at the universe initiation and development through such a perspective? I, for one, have found it difficult to buy into a concept where everything was created via randomness. There really are two options, either Intelligent Design or Complete Randomness, unless there is a third option of which I am unaware. With the Complete Randomness, the beginning universe being a plasma state of sub-atomic particles, I don't see how the structure of the universe could end up so consistent throughout. Maybe Galaxy A would be uniformly constructed in terms of its atomic structure, and perhaps it shares the exact same traits and structure as a million other galaxies, but out of the trillions of trillions of galaxies, wouldn't randomness have created galaxies with differing atomic structure if everything was left to pure randomness?

For example instead of a proton, neutron, electron combination, wouldn't there be a galaxy created purely of anti-matter particles at a minimum? I know the scientific belief is that the percentage of anti-matter was smaller than the percentage of matter; however, in a completely random distribution, there would be pockets where the anti-matter percent would be greater than the normal matter and galaxies of anti-matter would exist. Consequently when a normal matter galaxy collides with an anti-matter galaxy the consequences would be literally astronomical. Even if all anti-matter galaxies collided with normal matter galaxies billions of years ago, the residual effects of such an event would be visible using the Background Radiation research, no? It sure seems to me a galactic sized matter/anti-matter collision would have left a relatively very hot reading picked up by the Background Radiation observation.

Also in a truly randomly created universe, it seems there would be galaxies where quarks combined to create atomic particles that different even from matter/anti-matter. Wouldn't there be multiple types of galaxy atomic structures resulting from a purely random beginning? They would be neither normal matter nor anti-matter, what would happen to those different galaxies, especially upon colliding with a matter or anti-matter galaxy? Wouldn't there be evidence of these in the Spectral Analysis of the universe done to date, where a galaxy does not exhibit the traditional Periodic Table?

It just seems that all "random" universe models are not random at all, but fabricated based off of what we have observed and therefore the end result is not random, but predictable. Such predictability implies there were preset factors in place, which is also implied due to the Natural Forces and the Laws by which they operate. If something is preset, it cannot be random, IMO.

I'm not presenting this as proof of Intelligent Design, but more of a Occam's Razor type test between Intelligent Design and Complete Randomness. As stated previously, there is potential for a third type of universe initiation and development, but I am not aware of it at this time.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The other one... the article about the school not letting the valedictorian give his speech all about how his god changed his life? I have no problem with that. The school district made the right decision. he could give that speech in church if he wants to.

It's a simple matter of a not spending public funds to advocate religion... it should not be that hard to grasp, people. You'll be glad it's this way if you ever find yourself in the minority.

I didn't read the valedictorian thing, but I don't think a valedictorian speech falls under government sponsored speech just because it happens at a government sponsored event. When you get an honor like that, you get a chance to thank people or call out people...it's fair to try to be political or religious and if you do it in bad taste, the audience judges you for it. It's a personal statement. Not similar to a sports team being expected to pray together with a coach involved.

If a valedictorian wanted to attribute his or her success to some religion other than mine, or Wiccan, or Atheism, or whatever...I wouldn't want the school censuring them. Most people only gets so many opportunities to stand in front of a crowd and voice their own ideas like that. But I think those opportunities are good for people. They shouldn't be censured to the point that they qualify for government sponsorship.

 

[zyxt9]

I don't know. People do stupid things. But that one in particular appears to be overblown:

First, as I've learned from experience, the media can often get their facts wrong in covering these instantly-sensational news stories. For example, if you'd read conservative pundit Michelle Malkin's account of the Little Village Academy incident, you could easily have believed that the packed-lunch ban extended throughout the city of Chicago -- and you certainly would never have known that the Little Village principal reportedly retracted her controversial edict just one week later.
​

not sure how the story is even relevant... it didn't have anything to do with religion.

The other one... the article about the school not letting the valedictorian give his speech all about how his god changed his life? I have no problem with that. The school district made the right decision. he could give that speech in church if he wants to.

It's a simple matter of a not spending public funds to advocate religion... it should not be that hard to grasp, people. You'll be glad it's this way if you ever find yourself in the minority.

Absolutely agree with all of this.

Zero reason to have a valedictorian speech at a Public school include anything about religion as there are more appropriate locations and audiences for such comments, whether public funds are involved or not. it is about understanding there are different people in the audience with different views than yours and a valedictorian speech is not a place to express one's specific religious views. I wouldn't even recommend it at a Private religious school, though it would be more understandable, simply because there are likely to be friends, family members, or others who do not conform to that particular religious view. understanding one's audience is something a valedictorian should have the ability to comprehend.

As for the lunch thing, likely overblown, but a concerning concept particularly here in NYC where the infamous Bloomberg laws have had quite the impact. for instance, some people have low blood pressure, shouldn't they be allowed to have a meal prepared with full salty flavor? I get that there is an obesity epidemic, but that needs to be fought through education, not through governmental laws such as many of Bloombergs. However, the one law I absolutely agree with was the one forcing chain restaurants to put their calorie counts on the menu as that is an educational piece that a consumer can choose to look at to help determine what food is best for them on a given day. Maybe force restaurants to offer a section of low-salt foods on their menus, while still allowing salty dishes for those who wish to partake, but Bloomberg went more totalitarian with it. some authoritarian people allow their power to corrupt.

 

[Monster]

I didn't read the valedictorian thing, but I don't think a valedictorian speech falls under government sponsored speech just because it happens at a government sponsored event. When you get an honor like that, you get a chance to thank people or call out people...it's fair to try to be political or religious and if you do it in bad taste, the audience judges you for it. It's a personal statement. Not similar to a sports team being expected to pray together with a coach involved.

If a valedictorian wanted to attribute his or her success to some religion other than mine, or Wiccan, or Atheism, or whatever...I wouldn't want the school censuring them. Most people only gets so many opportunities to stand in front of a crowd and voice their own ideas like that. But I think those opportunities are good for people. They shouldn't be censured to the point that they qualify for government sponsorship.

The problem wasn't his mention of God. The issue was that the student went off the pre-approved speech. The school warned everyone that any deviation would result in the cutting of the mic. Religious crazies turned that into 1st amendment violations.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Red (and others interested in this) - in regards to Occam's Razor, do you also look at the universe initiation and development through such a perspective?

My thoughts universe initiation are far fuzzier than my thoughts on free will. Thinking about the existential implications of how things are is far more accessible than thinking about how things were.

As an aside, The Last Question is a great 10 minute read on related issues. It can be found here:

http://www.thrivenotes.com/the-last-question/

There really are two options, either Intelligent Design or Complete Randomness, unless there is a third option of which I am unaware.

I don't know if it qualifies as a third option, but order can arise naturally within disorder. Entropy holds for closed systems, but within a system, regions can become more ordered at the expense of greater entropy elsewhere. Could that mean that the observable universe is just a pocket of consistency within a larger set of possible conditions that can be found outside of it? I don't know.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The problem wasn't his mention of God. The issue was that the student went off the pre-approved speech. The school warned everyone that any deviation would result in the cutting of the mic. Religious crazies turned that into 1st amendment violations.

So if he had included God in his draft of the speech, they would have approved it?

 

[Thumb]

So if he had included God in his draft of the speech, they would have approved it?

Good question. But if they didn't does it give him the right to deviate?

 

[Monster]

Red (and others interested in this) - in regards to Occam's Razor, do you also look at the universe initiation and development through such a perspective? I, for one, have found it difficult to buy into a concept where everything was created via randomness. There really are two options, either Intelligent Design or Complete Randomness, unless there is a third option of which I am unaware. With the Complete Randomness, the beginning universe being a plasma state of sub-atomic particles, I don't see how the structure of the universe could end up so consistent throughout. Maybe Galaxy A would be uniformly constructed in terms of its atomic structure, and perhaps it shares the exact same traits and structure as a million other galaxies, but out of the trillions of trillions of galaxies, wouldn't randomness have created galaxies with differing atomic structure if everything was left to pure randomness?

For example instead of a proton, neutron, electron combination, wouldn't there be a galaxy created purely of anti-matter particles at a minimum? I know the scientific belief is that the percentage of anti-matter was smaller than the percentage of matter; however, in a completely random distribution, there would be pockets where the anti-matter percent would be greater than the normal matter and galaxies of anti-matter would exist. Consequently when a normal matter galaxy collides with an anti-matter galaxy the consequences would be literally astronomical. Even if all anti-matter galaxies collided with normal matter galaxies billions of years ago, the residual effects of such an event would be visible using the Background Radiation research, no? It sure seems to me a galactic sized matter/anti-matter collision would have left a relatively very hot reading picked up by the Background Radiation observation.

Also in a truly randomly created universe, it seems there would be galaxies where quarks combined to create atomic particles that different even from matter/anti-matter. Wouldn't there be multiple types of galaxy atomic structures resulting from a purely random beginning? They would be neither normal matter nor anti-matter, what would happen to those different galaxies, especially upon colliding with a matter or anti-matter galaxy? Wouldn't there be evidence of these in the Spectral Analysis of the universe done to date, where a galaxy does not exhibit the traditional Periodic Table?

It just seems that all "random" universe models are not random at all, but fabricated based off of what we have observed and therefore the end result is not random, but predictable. Such predictability implies there were preset factors in place, which is also implied due to the Natural Forces and the Laws by which they operate. If something is preset, it cannot be random, IMO.

I'm not presenting this as proof of Intelligent Design, but more of a Occam's Razor type test between Intelligent Design and Complete Randomness. As stated previously, there is potential for a third type of universe initiation and development, but I am not aware of it at this time.

Well, it's not really random. That's kind of the point of the big bang. It happened because the circumstances allowed it to. You wouldn't call a tornado random if it spawns out of the type of storm that could produce them. You'd say that it was likely to happen and did.

I just don't see how anyone can honestly believe in any of these Earthly gods. The Universe is much too large for these religions. That's part of the reason I am an agnostic atheist. I do think it's possible that there is a higher being or force out there that created time and place. Hell, it's possible that our universe is part of something even larger.