The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

An atheist could believe in all of those things, and a theist could disagree with all of them. Any attempt to make a serious point with a poorly constructed meme probably will result in failure.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - April 10 2012 at 14:11

Originally posted by RoyFairbank I think you understand the implications but not the implications of the implications Math is still only coherent when related to human practice. I can imagine such a thing- a placeholder, a verbal construction of letters and numbers I know- a Diblenuler Quarkitrigometic Half-Number of 1-0-43 to the Third Power. Does it it have practical math value? Is it necessary to go out and test and wait patiently for its objective (practical math) value to come around and fulfill its subjective value? Or can we just chalk it up to a verbal construction I am using in a post for subjective reasons in a subjective way, and acknowledge that its objective value just is not ever going to manifest itself.

Most of math is not related to human practice at all, and all of it is coherent. That statement is just flat out incorrect.

To answer your questions. I don't know, and yes to some degree. You construct may be immensely useful. It may be (is) junk. You have your reasons for creating it, but it may be incredibly useful regardless.

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Most of math is not related to human practice at all, and all of it is coherent. That statement is just flat out incorrect. To answer your questions. I don't know, and yes to some degree. You construct may be immensely useful. It may be (is) junk. You have your reasons for creating it, but it may be incredibly useful regardless.

Your bluffing. My construct is not useful and you know it. It's bull. Context, context, context ,context, context, context, context, context, context, context.

Whether it could be true in a hypothetical situation outside this context is an irrelevant question.

And Math is human practice, silly. As such it has to be coherent. If it is neither it doesn't exist.

Context, context context.

I argue that context is everything in the universe. Context Context Context!

 

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Originally posted by RoyFairbank Your bluffing. My construct is not useful and you know it. It's bull. Context, context, context ,context, context, context, context, context, context, context. Whether it could be true in a hypothetical situation outside this context is an irrelevant question. And Math is human practice, silly. As such it has to be coherent. If it is neither it doesn't exist. Context, context context. I argue that context is everything in the universe. Context Context Context!   I'm not bluffing though. It could be useful. As I said, it is not, but it could be. You could take a branch of mathematics such as category theory. It seems like it was drawn up by some drunk mathematicians bored at a bar, but it's incredibly useful. Non-Euclidean Geometry was treated as heretical and thought to be completely useless, divorced from the real world. Turns out it describes our universe. Ternary expansions for a number just seem like a curiosity, but they are indispensable to proving certain things. You're being rather dismissive here and ignoring how mathematics really works. Rick Santorum's philosophy is a human practice, but that doesn't make it coherent.

I refuse to believe you believe that my most spurious banter could contain the seeds of eternal wisdom.

Would you base the human race's perspective on the possibility that it could contain such seeds, totally inaccessible to the human race,

What a sad sad sad turn of events. I did not mean to undo us.

As for Ricko, its entirely coherent as a subjective state for objective conditions. They just do not seem coherent. Everyone knows, for instance, that Ricko-boy is preaching for quite coherent reasons - wealth, power, on behalf of a political party filled with utter pragmatists. Quite blandly coherent actually. Just like it is coherent when a religious person wants to live forever, because who indeed wants to die? Incoherent is relative to how subjective something really is.

Take for example a dream. I dream weird crap. Weird crap indeed. It has coherentness as building blocs, but it is so subjectively rooted, minutely rooted in it ... that it is relatively incoherent.

My new math is much the same. It is so rooted in minute intricacies of collective verbal expression and my own subjective glimmers and brain farts. It is divorced from practical meaning. You'd have to really dig into that verbiage to get anything objective out.

Maybe you could get out that I am interested in heresay about Quantum mechanics, hence I included Quark in one word. Or that I am interested in dialectics by the concept of a half-number, when does a number become a number, that kind of bullsh*t? You have to really dig deep, and you aren't going to learn a lot.

Sorry that I am less verbose tonight and more crude. It is 12(am) here and my heart is fluttering with possibilities that will never happen. I will be cold and machine like again by mid afternoon (tomorrow).


Edited by RoyFairbank - April 10 2012 at 23:23

Originally posted by RoyFairbank I refuse to believe you believe that my most spurious banter could contain the seeds of eternal wisdom.

I said it didn't, but it could. Take it or leave it.

Originally posted by RoyFairbank Would you base the human race's perspective on the possibility that it could contain such seeds, totally inaccessible to the human race, What a sad sad sad turn of events. I did not mean to undo us.

No, but I would not do the same for evolution, or general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or Newton's Laws of Motion. It's a fools bet.

Originally posted by RoyFairbank As for Ricko, its entirely coherent as a subjective state for objective conditions. They just do not seem coherent. Everyone knows, for instance, that Ricko-boy is preaching for quite coherent reasons - wealth, power, on behalf of a political party filled with utter pragmatists. Quite blandly coherent actually. Just like it is coherent when a religious person wants to live forever, because who indeed wants to die? Incoherent is relative to how subjective something really is.

I don't know where you're pulling your definition of incoherent from, but it is not the dictionary.

p implies q
not p
Therefore not q

There's nothing subjective about that argument, but it's incoherent.

Originally posted by RoyFairbank Take for example a dream. I dream weird crap. Weird crap indeed. It has coherentness as building blocs, but it is so subjectively rooted, minutely rooted in it ... that it is relatively incoherent.

What's the point of this example?

Originally posted by RoyFairbank My new math is much the same. It is so rooted in minute intricacies of collective verbal expression and my own subjective glimmers and brain farts. It is divorced from practical meaning. You'd have to really dig into that verbiage to get anything objective out.

No I don't. It could be a useful formulation. The origins of it have nothing to do with its practical abilities. Math history is replete with examples of vein, whimsical creations describing intricate processes of nature.

Originally posted by RoyFairbank Maybe you could get out that I am interested in heresay about Quantum mechanics, hence I included Quark in one word. Or that I am interested in dialectics by the concept of a half-number, when does a number become a number, that kind of bullsh*t? You have to really dig deep, and you aren't going to learn a lot.

This is all irrelevant. Christian Kramp initiated the use of the ! to represent a factorial product. He did it because of his shock at how quickly factorials grow. His reasoning stands independent of the notation's use.

The answer is 42. Coincidence happens. A random formula, idea or hypothesis can be useful or it can be utterly useless, concepts do come from nothing (and at least one Universe that we know of).

Originally posted by RoyFairbank I said it didn't, but it could. Take it or leave it. *Listening to Leave It by Yes* I can feel no sense of measure and no illusions about you saying a blatant contradiction. It really - as in reality - you basically admit, is complete bunk. In a hypothetical vacuum beyond this reality of bullsh*tness, it could possibly, given we accept this vacuum, be nonbullsh*t. Hey it could be anything. Spin lead turds into golden skyscrapers. Idealism. Which is what I have been saying all along. Little do you know it but your creating exceptions to reality as it related to your own practice. And that's not something you can transcend! You are 1000000% human. Everything you think is human. It is even human to think you are thinking beyond your human-ness. Our song, it gives us a reason, our song. [Next track]

It's only a contradiction if you fail to differentiate between colloquial and literal speech. I literally recognize a non-zero probability of your idea being useful. However, in my somewhat informed opinion on the subject, I do not believe it to be. In the same way I would say: I have eaten broccoli. I never eat broccoli. This would not be a contradiction.

As Dean said, that might be a little bit too much human for me to achieve. Little do you know it I'm neither creating exceptions to reality nor do I think I think beyond my human-ness.

Originally posted by The T The purpose of this thread is to discuss the origins of your beliefs, or actually, lack thereof (in the case of Atheism) As I'm pretty sure that, unlike most cases with religion, atheism and similar secular school of thoughts are not imposed or taught by parents, it's more than likely that in most cases you will have reached ythe decision not to believe (or at least the decision to DOUBT) by your own free will (this doesn't mean ALL religious people haven't made their choice out of free will)  How did that happen? When, how old where you? Are you happy about your choice or at times you long for the days when you had something to believe?   I'd also love to hear about people who have their own versions of God, not dependant of churches or holy books or prophets....

 My desire in the past to take on the role of Atheism grew from anger. I was a victim of a Satan worshipping community in my hometown. Several cases which were dismissed brought me to the attention that elderly members of a Satan worshippers sect had posed in churches and as a result, I became disgusted with both ends of the spectrum. Christianity in the day and Satan cults at night. It was complete duo worship in my hometown and this had been evident to me when I was a child.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBRSNWgfpXw

...though some of them are cults, but perhaps not religions in the accepted sense of the word.