Summerlander wrote:First of all, you have a tendency to jump to conclusions. When SarahDank posted that debate with Christopher Hitchens in it (if you haven't checked it please do so and you will see how the religious try to prove the existence of God), and I commented saying that it seemed like it was going to be a great debate, you immediately assumed I was referring to this thread.
Since you posted it on this thread, yes I did think it might have something to do with this thread and you have been debating all through this thread which is supposed to be about your views, but much of your posts are about why others views are wrong. 52 posts at this point. Here's one sample of many:
Summerlander wrote:Hi, Ty8200,
The Big Theory is supported by the discovery of cosmic background radiation. This is explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe. There was definitely a big explosion which accounts for the local known universe. You must have missed the Big Bang theory discussion earlier.
Science is a method of observing and studying reality. Religion is not like that. It is a doctrine that people just accept without question. Science is all about questioning reality. Why is this? why is that?
God is a concept. Nothing more. You wouldn't have such concept if you had been taught, from an early stage in your life, that there is no creator and that everything is random. I believe the god concept stems from, and is a reflection of, our desire for power - to be on top of things - to be looked after, to feel safe etc. It is also the easiest way to explain things (which is not really explaining).
Think about this for a second: "God created the universe" ... pfft... the ultimate copout, if you ask me.
The word God is used to define the creator of everything, a supreme spiritual being who has power over nature and holds the highest moral ground. The "god" you speak of shouldn't be called "god" then, but something else. You still seem to allude to this mighty thing (whatever you want to call it) as though is is conscious and thinks and sees and hears everything! If He is not a person, does he somehow have a brain, eyes and ears to perceive everything? Where is your evidence of such a thing because so far, science has only been able to demonstrate cause and effect and that the universe in motion is most likely random or a deterministic one. Quantum theory even suggests a probabilistic framework at a fundamental level. If you have discovered something that nobody else has, and this can be proved, please do share!!
Why is it that God or intelligence behind what happens in nature is not scientifically mentioned? Because it is not evident, that's why! Not because science is the enemy. Not because it rejects god because the idea of it may sound absurd to some scientists (and I believe you are putting all your eggs in one basket there as you seem to make an attempt to tarnish the best and most productive method that we have)! The truth is that science cannot comment or give validity to that which is not evident in anyway!
At one point TY8200 makes this comment: Your first few sentences irk me the most. Almost trying to get under my skin, it seems to me.
No accident there! It looks many of your comments are specifically designed to do this and this is where I see some of the troll behaviour I mentioned (by the way I didn't call you a troll, I said your behaviour
is troll-like) Here are some of the unnecessary comments which look insulting: To me, God is as valid as Santa Claus.
What a fairytale! What bull!
Religion needs to go.
Someone normally makes a scientific discovery, they may doubt its veracity at first, and then, when they finally have no choice but to accept it, some of them reinterpret their outdated books to sort of keep up with the program.
I hope those of you who linger in faith see the light (the real "light") and become secularists.
By seeing the real "light" I guess that means they agree with you, right?
But what do any of these comments have to do with your views
? Looks like they are designed to provoke an emotional response. Sound familiar? These are also bully tactics (Didn't call you a bully, just the tactics)
Summerlander wrote: Secondly, how can I take you at face value when, apart from being misinformed, you seem to misunderstand what I'm asserting? Let me ask you this: Do you desperately want me to be wrong?
This is a typical complaint from you when people disagree. They are either misinformed, taking you out of context, nit-picking your posts, etc. They just can never be right.
Summerlander wrote:I am not passing my opinions off as facts.
I believe this is what you think, but again, another opinion.
Summerlander wrote:Consciousness is not a God and did not create the universe. Consciousness happens to be a by-product of an evolving universe. The universe is not a conscious entity, or wholly conscious, it contains individuated structures that have the potential to be conscious and sometimes unconscious.
Is this another example of one of your "facts"? I'll just accept that's it's your opinion.
Summerlander wrote:But where's the insult and the lecturing (care to show me)?
I've pointed out a few of the insults (in my opinion) There are a lot more. And here's one of the lectures below. This is my opinion so please don't argue with me about why these are not insults or why this is not a lecture.
[quote="Summerlander"]If it were true that ectoplasm or some unknown substance (or something that we don't yet understand) could dissociate from the physical body, then that would be part of our growing scientific understanding about reality. If such existed and interacted with physical matter, then it would have been discovered by now (like dark matter - nobody has ever seen it but we can see what it does in space and we are close to finding it) and there are a number of ways in which it could have been discovered. So far, they managed to find one of the most elusive bosons in quantum physics which gives everything its mass and yet no trace of that which is purported by many religiously or spiritually inclined individuals to be the source of life and consciousness (or, in the versions, the root of all existence).
To add to that, there are very good reasons to think that consciousness arises from the brain in all its complexity and that consciousness exiting the body or even surviving death is simply not true. This is not based on hypothesis, it is based on scientific theory and observations (check the difference between the two if you are not familiar with this). The scientific community have drawn their inclination towards materialism from over a century and a half of neurology. If you damage areas of the brain, you will lose mental faculties. You can cease to recognise faces, forget your name, the names of animals and yet remember the names of certain objects, lose some memories, lose the power of speech, lose the concept of words, lose subjectivity or even lose consciousness indefinitely while you are still alive. Everything about your mind can be lost by damaging the brain. And yet, some people still think that when you damage the whole thing at death you can really exit the physical body with all your faculties intact, recognise deceased relatives and communicate with them with words, telepathy and whatnot!