Do you believe in God?

[janie48]

No, human beings do that, religion is just used as one excuse of many to facilitate it.

I would be very surprised if you got a reply,i've never had one from him yet.

He often implies that only the religious do any damage,and appears to have the impression that if the world was only inhabited by atheists it would be perfect.

If his dream ever became reality what a shock he would get.

 

Ooops sorry, must watch my reputation, i'm going to be stuck with that "disdain label" if i'm not careful.

[Lockjaw]

I would be very surprised if you got a reply,i've never had one from him yet.

 

Don't waste your time. He only ever pops on to post diatribes of varying relevence to the thread and never engages. Pointless. I'm beginning to wonder if he's some sort of doom-and-gloom-bot.

 

He often implies that only the religious do any damage,and appears to have the impression that if the world was only inhabited by atheists it would be perfect.

 

Then he is wrong ... but:

 

If his dream ever became reality ...

 

...it will.

[janie48]

Don't waste your time. He only ever pops on to post diatribes of varying relevence to the thread and never engages. Pointless. I'm beginning to wonder if he's some sort of doom-and-gloom-bot.

 

 

 

Then he is wrong ... but:

 

 

 

...it will.

 

Don't count on that wish happening in your lifetime.

 

America may take a little longer to welcome the change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_(TV_series)

[Phanerothyme]

Yes, and as I point out your argument consists of assuming that everything is in the second set, this is not a valid assumption.

Can you reconstruct my argument that "everything is in the second set"? By second set do you mean (in the numerical example given) the largest subset of 2-999?

 

No, I'm not, I'm asserting that there is absolutely no reason to think that there are such beings. Personally I'm sceptical as to the existence of such beings anyway, sounds like a bad star trek episode (y'know where one of the characters 'evolves' into some sort of 'pure energy' form and then floats away through the walls or something equally silly).

Being sceptical because of a bad star trek episode is not the right way to be looking at this. It's quite possible to make reasonable and plausible assertions based on what we do know, and what we can observe - like I've said all along, I'm arguing for a probability of existence of a certain thing, not claiming the actual existence of anything.

You are putting probability values on things that you cannot possibly know.

Knowing them collapses the probability though.

Right now, we as a species simply do not have enough information to be able to say it's 'highly likely' that life exists on other planets, let alone that that there is life out there that is to us as we are to single celled organisms. You can't even say it's more likely than the alternative, all you can say is that you've got a hunch that that's the case.

I disagree. Hunch has nothing to do with it.

 

I think it follows logically:

1:

We exist.

 

2

(as a result of assumption 1):

Evolution is an emergent property of the meta/universe & sentience is (one of) its product(s).

 

3

Sentience in the meta/universe is common, rather than rare. Evolutionary processes observably fill every available niche.

 

4

Out of all the classes of sentient beings in the universe, our evolutionary paths are at very different stages, stretched over 14 billion years. At 4 billion years and counting, there are sentiences that have been evolving more than twice as long.

 

5

Evolution occurs at similar rates in similar matrices. So water based cellular biology matrix - 4 billion years from unicellular eukaryotes to turbo-simians.

 

6

To a unicellular eukaryote, a human is likely to be totally unfathomable.

[Lockjaw]

Don't count on that wish happening in your lifetime.

 

America may take a little longer to welcome the change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_(TV_series)

 

I know, those nutters are the spanner in the works.

 

As I told you before, though, in this country with no interference from the US I'd give it 2 generations, 3 max before theism is considered largely irrelevant. Again, as I've told you in the past, I base this on my observations of trends amongst teenagers over the last 20 years but, have a look for yourself. Go and have a look at the poll results above. What do you think they would have shown 50 years ago? 110? 200?

[flamingjimmy]

Phanerothyme, thank you for laying out your argument so neatly, I hope you don't mind if I just skip to that bit, as we seem to've got a bit muddled in the analogies and such.

I think it follows logically:

1:

We exist.

 

2

(as a result of assumption 1):

Evolution is an emergent property of the meta/universe & sentience is (one of) its product(s).

 

3

Sentience in the meta/universe is common, rather than rare. Evolutionary processes observably fill every available niche.

 

4

Out of all the classes of sentient beings in the universe, our evolutionary paths are at very different stages, stretched over 14 billion years. At 4 billion years and counting, there are sentiences that have been evolving more than twice as long.

 

5

Evolution occurs at similar rates in similar matrices. So water based cellular biology matrix - 4 billion years from unicellular eukaryotes to turbo-simians.

 

6

To a unicellular eukaryote, a human is likely to be totally unfathomable.

 

1 + 2. Agreed.

 

3. I don't think that's true.

 

4. I'm fine with that.

 

5. I don't think that's true either.

 

6. Unicellular eukaryotes can't even fathom their own existence, they don't have brains, so I don't think that's very fair.

 

Even if I accept no. 3 I still don't think your argument follows.

 

I would add this, Unicellular eukaryotes have been evolving just as long as we have, by what measure are we more advanced than them?

 

Evolution doesn't have a destination, it's not at all guaranteed that things get smarter and 'more advanced' or whatever.

 

Sometimes things evolve in what seem to me pretty silly directions, like for example things like Dodos losing the ability to fly.

 

Your argument requires that evolution works in a direction, be it towards super intelligence or whatever, and at the same rate, neither of which I think is founded.

 

If you compared a dodo to one of it's ancestors, some unspecified Therapod, it would probably come off pretty badly in terms of intelligence (carnivores tending to be far more intelligent than herbivores), yet it is more evolved.

Edited April 9, 2013 by flamingjimmy

[Kianko]

Yes I believe but always believe in myself 1st.

[janie48]

I know, those nutters are the spanner in the works.

 

As I told you before, though, in this country with no interference from the US I'd give it 2 generations, 3 max before theism is considered largely irrelevant. Again, as I've told you in the past, I base this on my observations of trends amongst teenagers over the last 20 years but, have a look for yourself. Go and have a look at the poll results above. What do you think they would have shown 50 years ago? 110? 200?

Yes but the way the world develops shape how people think, and trends come and go,so later the Polls could show a different picture.

Poll results are not always to be relied on, because some people are inconsistent and go with the flow acting on how the mood feels at the time.

[flamingjimmy]

I know, those nutters are the spanner in the works.

 

As I told you before, though, in this country with no interference from the US I'd give it 2 generations, 3 max before theism is considered largely irrelevant. Again, as I've told you in the past, I base this on my observations of trends amongst teenagers over the last 20 years but, have a look for yourself. Go and have a look at the poll results above. What do you think they would have shown 50 years ago? 110? 200?

 

Just because religiosity is on the decline in this country right now does not mean it will continue to be so at the same rate for the next 2 or 3 generations. We can hope though.

 

You're making the same mistake that those people who think this country will be overrun by Muslims by projecting birth rates forward make.

[Lockjaw]

Just because religiosity is on the decline in this country right now does not mean it will continue to be so at the same rate for the next 2 or 3 generations. We can hope though.

 

You're making the same mistake that those people who think this country will be overrun by Muslims by projecting birth rates forward make.

 

Possibly. The observed trend may well go anywhere, as janie says.