Happy commercial non-denominational autumn holiday

[ManlyBacker]

An 11 dimensional universe? - an 11 dimensional array difficult to understand? Not really. You just need to chart 11 variables against changes occurring. You can even do that to a reasonable extent in a spreadsheet or database. Businesses do it all the time - product code, price, quantity, advertising expenses, salesman identity, area code, GST code, account number, past sales periods 1 to 12, budgets periods 1 to 12 - there's plenty of dimensions without even trying.

An eleven dimensional universe has nothing to do with linking an array of variables or values, even if you considered them as matrices. If I look at the fourth dimension and it is usually taken as an integration of spacetime (and mathmatically viewed as Euclidean space) then we might have an existence involving interaction in a doughnut shape. The fifth dimension is talked about in terms of a possible interaction of gravitational forces (taken as seperate but who knows) for either or both at the physical level or the quantum level and linked with our lack of understanding of weak gravitational forces (and the resultant search for dark matter). The sixth is then talked about in terms linked to black holes and membranes. I can sort of visualise that as the dimensions we know are wrapped or folded together. If you can explain beyond that and how I should be looking at someone in the now interacting with the seventh and above then that would be terrific.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

An eleven dimensional universe has nothing to do with linking an array of variables or values, even if you considered them as matrices.

As a child I always thought the most amazing job in the world would be testing matrices.

 

[Dan]

The best way to think of it is a hose you have the standard dimensions on the outside but also you have another set of dimensions curled inside it

All the others I haven't bothered to try to make my brain understand.

Rex's descriptions of dimensions was horrid.

The 3 dimensions are up-down, back-forth, side to side.

Things get a lot more theoretically complex from there

 

[Duff]

Dan, I pretty much agree with what you're saying but the only issue I have is that our potential intelligence may well be finite. There are certain things that may be beyond the capabilities of a brain that is constructed in our way in a carbon based life form. I'm not saying that that means anything else out there can understand these concepts, just that maybe we can't.

Atheism is not a blind belief as some of the creationists have tried to claim. All you have to do is look at the history of organised religeon. It's a construct of the powers that be of the time, used as a means of controlling the masses. Fear is an efficient way to subjegate the ignorant.
Aside from organised religeon, basic spirituality is merely a means to explain that which cannot (yet) be explained. As science progresses, this list of things that need to be explained with supernatural origin gets ever smaller. Maybe one day, as Dan backs, it will not exist at all or maybe there is a point which we will never be able to get past. Either way, religeon has become less & less relevant as science has become more & more knowledgeable. This is a trend that can be plotted to a logical conclusion.

 

[codewana]

This talk of dimensions is irrelevant. Saying that you can't explain something, therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being is the cause of everything is extremely far fetched an not a sound argument at all.
That is assuming we're talking about the conventional definition of God of course.

If we're not, and you're wanting to define God this may become an argument over semantics (and call me anti-semantic, but I find that there's no real point debating definitions).
I prefer whether to discuss whether a being exists that cares if we work on the Sabbath, whose ego is boosted through prayer and/or has the ability to gift us eternal damnation or pleasure.

Thoughts?

---

Atheism is not a blind belief as some of the creationists have tried to claim.

I agree with much of what you said Duff. Regarding the quoted section above, I read an interesting truth last night. We're all born atheists (that is, not believing in a deity) and some become theists.. The question shouldn't be 'why are you an atheist?' nor should claims be made that to be an atheist requires a leap of faith or is a blind belief. It is in fact the complete opposite - atheism is the lack of blind belief - theists are the ones who make a claim based on belief.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I haven't read everything in this thread (proving there are limits to my masochism), so apologies if the following has already been raised.

A fundamental problem for the religionists is this: there has never been a mechanism posed that could allow any interaction between the material world we all know and love and the so-called ideal or spiritual world that some would have us believe exists.

Other than by 'miracle'.

Unfortunately any miracle would by definition subvert the law of causality thus rendering it untenable.

This is a difficulty that idealists of any persuasion have been unable to overcome. Marx logically ended the debate when he turned Hegel upside down and produced the theory of dialectical materialism.

However I love Easter :idea:

 

[Matabele]

Marx logically ended the debate when he turned Hegel upside down and produced the theory of dialectical materialism.

Yes, and wasn't the logical end point of Marx' world view a rousing success for the Eastern Bloc.

 

[Dan]

We all know that the issue there was the corruption of people

 

[Matabele]

We all know that the issue there was the corruption of people

A concession not often afforded the church types who have corrupted the pure message of the Christ.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Marx logically ended the debate when he turned Hegel upside down and produced the theory of dialectical materialism.

Yes, and wasn't the logical end point of Marx' world view a rousing success for the Eastern Bloc.

We all know you can do better than that!
That's no different to saying all the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity through the ages prove there is no god.

---

We all know that the issue there was the corruption of people

Really? As with all our fine western corruption, isn't corruption just an inevitable consequence of a system that allows it, rather than a cause itself?

The real issue for the Eastern Bloc, and all purported communist states since 1917, has been the abject failure of their political leadership in the face of massive pressure from the capitalist states of the world. It was never a possibility that capitalist and communist states could co-habit peacefully in the world, the tensions are just too fundamental.

 

[Matabele]

This talk of dimensions is irrelevant. Saying that you can't explain something, therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being is the cause of everything is extremely far fetched an not a sound argument at all.
That is assuming we're talking about the conventional definition of God of course.

If we're not, and you're wanting to define God this may become an argument over semantics (and call me anti-semantic, but I find that there's no real point debating definitions).
I prefer whether to discuss whether a being exists that cares if we work on the Sabbath, whose ego is boosted through prayer and/or has the ability to gift us eternal damnation or pleasure.

Thoughts?

---

Atheism is not a blind belief as some of the creationists have tried to claim.

I agree with much of what you said Duff. Regarding the quoted section above, I read an interesting truth last night. We're all born atheists (that is, not believing in a deity) and some become theists.. The question shouldn't be 'why are you an atheist?' nor should claims be made that to be an atheist requires a leap of faith or is a blind belief. It is in fact the complete opposite - atheism is the lack of blind belief - theists are the ones who make a claim based on belief.

---

It appears absurd that you would suggest that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.

 

[codewana]

I didn't say it's unthinkable, just unproven. Would you believe me if I said I could fly or could go invisible? Surely not - such a big claim would have to be proven to you.

If god were to exist, I think the claims of a) us knowing what god wants, b) us knowing how he/she did it require proof. Who's to say a creator didn't just make things left or is now just watching.

In a nutshell; I don't happen to believe in a creator - judeo christain god or otherwise. I also don't think a reasonable person can believe that anyone (including men of the cloth) can possibly know what god wants from us without provide hard evidence. If you believe that someone else has a direct line to a creator or that you should donate time, money, and even your children to a dogmatic doctrine then what wouldn't you believe?

 

[Dan]

Then you sound like more of an agnostic.

Trust me when I say that I have put a lot of time and thought into this subject. Matas and I have debated it for years, neither he nor I will budge.

After thinking myself an agnostic my whole life I decided to get off the fence in the words of Dawkins. But after more years of thought the only logical answer is that we just don't know and there is no concrete answer for either side

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

**** this is a heavy topic!!

All this dimensions stuff is for someone with a far higher IQ than me.

I am pretty simple (although not a simpleton)

I like beer
I like good quality Red Wine
I like food (too much it would seem)
I like hot looking women
I like my Motorcycle
I like my 4WD
I like campiing

And I LOVE my family, especially my two girls and 4 grandkids

And everything else really doesn't matter!!

 

[The Eagle]

Im Agnostic

 

[codewana]

Then you sound like more of an agnostic.

Trust me when I say that I have put a lot of time and thought into this subject. Matas and I have debated it for years, neither he nor I will budge.

After thinking myself an agnostic my whole life I decided to get off the fence in the words of Dawkins. But after more years of thought the only logical answer is that we just don't know and there is no concrete answer for either side

I've put a hell of a lot of thought into this subject as well.
To me, Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism. Atheism, by my definition, is really simple; "A lack of belief in God/Creator/deity". If you're agnostic, you don't know if there is a god and therefore don't believe in god, making you an Atheist too.

I'm an Atheist because after thinking about it and weighing up all of the evidence (or lack thereof), I find there no need to believe in god, and think that he probably doesn't exist. So small a chance of his existence that I could say that he doesn't exist. To me, there is just as much chance of god existing as there is unicorns existing. Having said that, if evidence was brought forward which confirmed a god's existence, I would be hypocritical and irrational to still refute god's existence. Does that make me an agnostic too? I don't think so, but you may depending on your definition.

All I'm saying is that everyone (even Matas) was born an Atheist. Some people are told by their parents or friends that there is a god and they buy into that, others don't, but regardless of any of that, the onus of proof lies square upon the person making the claim that "God does exist" - not the person who is yet to be convinced.

 

[Dan]

Not really. To believe that an Agnostic is a subset of Atheism is really short selling each belief.

And in a truer sense Atheism is a really more of a complete opposite of Theism, and is also a solid belief.

Agnosticism is more of a level of "I don't know, but I would like to find out"

You also need to be careful about lumping all religions and religious beliefs into one bunch.

You will be surprised to find that many deeply religious people may actually agree with a lot of what you see, you just need to remove the prejudice of religion.

Really to say we are all born Atheist, I think is an untrue, untested and unanswered question. It is an assumption.

The reality is that your cognitive functions at that stage are restricted to eat and sleep, but for your statement to be true, we would need to first be able to recognize the brain function associated with belief in a God.

What I am getting at is, if your argument amounts to the fact that religion as a whole is based on assumptions and stories, then you need to provide fact only in your statements.

Personally I have a deep disliking for many things religion, I find the ceremony pompous and unnecessary. I find blind belief in faith abhorrent, because it is very close minded.

However I do not wish to take that away from anyone who does believe in it and let's be honest the base message in many religions is actually a very good one and to follow the basic rule of thumb of Christianity without all the other stuff that surrounds it, really wouldn't make life a worse place. For that matter the same with Islam.

It would not do anyone justice to assume, all Christians, Muslims, Zionist, Buddhists and so on are the same. It would also do no-one any justice to use assumptions to prove a point.

One thing that I have learned over the years is that really I don't give a **** about what others believe, want to believe in etc. As long as they don't push those ideas and ideals on me, and as long as they are happy and allow me to live happily. If that changes, then we have an issue.

Live and let live, life is no simpler or more complex than that

 

[codewana]

The born atheist thing may be an assumption, but I find it hard to think we could be born otherwise. If babies can be Christians at birth, then babies can be Socialists at birth (or even Manly fans). I don't think babies have the capability to understand those concepts and so I'd say that a new born is not a theist, has no political opinions and doesn't care much for Rugby League. Of course, if I wanted to be sure of this, a scientific analysis similar to the one you briefly outlined would have to be conducted.

With regards to our definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism I think we're talking about trivial definitions. I am an atheist because I do not believe in god. I also happen to believe that there is no god (there's a difference), but I don't have a label for that other than to say that whatever you would call that would also be a subset of Atheism.

You mention, Dan, that you don't give a **** about what others believe etc as long as they don't push the ideas on you. Are you then OK with genital mutilation in the Middle East and Africa? Or forcing women to wear burkas by law? Those are examples of things that don't affect you.

I'm not OK with people forcing religious belief or ritual on anyone. I'm also not OK with people bringing children up with a religious upbringing for a different reason, but figure we should probably chew the fat on this god issue more rather than the Cody Manifesto .

 

[The Gronk]

I like how girls' nipples stick out when they are cold.

 

[Dan]

The born atheist thing may be an assumption, but I find it hard to think we could be born otherwise. If babies can be Christians at birth, then babies can be Socialists at birth (or even Manly fans). I don't think babies have the capability to understand those concepts and so I'd say that a new born is not a theist, has no political opinions and doesn't care much for Rugby League. Of course, if I wanted to be sure of this, a scientific analysis similar to the one you briefly outlined would have to be conducted.

With regards to our definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism I think we're talking about trivial definitions. I am an atheist because I do not believe in god. I also happen to believe that there is no god (there's a difference), but I don't have a label for that other than to say that whatever you would call that would also be a subset of Atheism.

You mention, Dan, that you don't give a s**t about what others believe etc as long as they don't push the ideas on you. Are you then OK with genital mutilation in the Middle East and Africa? Or forcing women to wear burkas by law? Those are examples of things that don't affect you.

I'm not OK with people forcing religious belief or ritual on anyone. I'm also not OK with people bringing children up with a religious upbringing for a different reason, but figure we should probably chew the fat on this god issue more rather than the Cody Manifesto .

Extremism comes in all forms, including Atheism. Being ok with something or not, is different from "living and let Live"

As for being born an Atheist again I am not saying you would be born a Christian or otherwise. But there is a compelling argument that evolution has put in us an innate and instinctual ability to believe in a higher power or creator.

I wouldn't be surprised if we one day discover we are pre-wired in such a way.

However that doesn't mean a god. I would say it is a throw-back to reproduction and having a mother, father etc.

I mean really when you are a new born, your mothers mammary glands are god (though I guess whilst you take the mother out of it, the latter half of that stays)