In my debates about Christianity, I'm often told that I'm wasting my time, that Christians will never agree with me, will never change their minds.

It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that nobody in history has ever gone from being a believer to a non-believer.

How many people here have a story where they went from being a believer to a non-believer? I'm thinking it should have happened when you were an adult. If you made the leap, as I did, as a kid, you're probably wired for reason more than those who made it through to adulthood as a believer.

I think the point is that if it's an argument (you say one thing, they say the other) then you aren't going to change their mind.

It has to come from them

Maybe give argument a try, they might not really understand the arguments they're quoting and actually have a more open mind than it seems, but once it's apparent that they're entrenched in their belief I don't think its really possible to shift them.

I went from being a believer to a non-believer. (The process started in my early teens)

In my own discussions with religious people, the thing that strikes me is not how much faith they have, but how open to thinking they are. It's almost similar to people who are racist or sexist etc - those that discriminate on entirely baseless grounds.

The main problem is that it is impossible to have a conversation with a religious person about their beliefs being false and NOT come across as arrogant. The question "can christians be converted to reason?" can sound quite pompous as you can imagine.
Moreover, christians, like most religions, consider it a virtue to ignore atheists and what they have to say. It is virtuous to have faith in the face of reason. It is virtuous to ignore the skeptics. It is considered sinful to even have a skeptical thought about god. This is something that is built into christianity and is really working in its favor.

I believe it is Psalm 40 that says "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'." Strong christians have been forewarned, "Hey watch out for those atheists...bunch of no good fools". This kind of attitude makes rational dialogue about faith and atheism impossible between believers and non-believers.

Not "impossible" but perhaps "difficult". But what else do you do? If 90% of the population was addicted to crack cocaine, should I not try to help them understand why it's bad for them? Should I just wash my hands of them because they are sick and stubborn? I see religion as a disease, just like crack addiction - but much, much worse.

You're right. Nothing is impossible. I meant to say NEAR impossible. And I say near impossible because the analogy to drug addiction doesn't translate perfectly. If a person is addicted to drugs, the solution is simply to get them to stop using drugs. There is a biochemical basis for how they feel about drugs, and what drugs do to addicts. Heroine addicts, for example, are 'cured' by taking heroine analogs that mimic the molecular structure of heroine so the body doesn't go through painful, or even lethal withdrawal.

For religious people however, religion often begins at birth. It is a philosophy that they have been raised on, and base their life and existence on. To stop believing in that philosophy shatters their concept of morality, life, and death. Not to mention that many will be left confused about the existence of life or the universe. So it takes a lot of courage and intellect to shed dogma.

Factor in the fact that people would rather stick with what's comfortable rather than go through an existential crisis, and the fact that older people simply don't like changing their minds, and we've got ourselves a damn near impossible mission.

Yeah... good point you raise inanimatethinker. That existential crisis that comes along with a shattering of beliefs is something most don't expect.

Personally, I found the best way to deal with that was to confront it head on. I dived into philosophy and later cultural studies. Reading as many different opinions on the same topic (morality, death etc) was a comfort of sorts.

So coming back to the original topic - I think that if one was to attempt to change someone else's mind about something, one has to come prepared with alternative material. Something to possibly replace the old system, but aimed more at expanding the 'convertees' horizons

inanimatethinker - but people DO change their religious views, all the time. Just read through the comments on richarddawkins.net, you'll see lots of people saying "hey i used to be a card-carrying Christian but now I'm an atheist". It isn't a hopeless battle at all.

On the other hand, they probably didn't make the conversion in the middle of a heated debate with an atheist.

Whilst I suppose its possible for someone to get into an argument and be so out-argued that they change their mind on the spot, its rare for that to happen with religious beliefs. More likely is a slower process - starting to see holes, feeling doubts about the religion's teachings, looking for atheist/scientific material, and coming to accept it.

The key part is them looking into it for themselves, that way it feels like you made a discovery, rather than losing an argument.

Super-King, you're exactly right.

Like I said, it takes both deep intellect, and immense courage to 'convert to reason' by oneself.

...as well as a rebellious streak perhaps?

hahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

You guys are really funny.

I think some christians can be converted, although it will be difficult.  Best to aim for young adults before they have kids, more reward for effort that way.

Many would be scared to convert because the church is their community, and people don't want to be isolated.  If LOTU can build communities, that may help.  Church services are really social events with religious mumbo-jumbo tacked on. 

True.... I have to say, the last such gathering I attended, I had a great time, and for a while after it I began to question if I had made the right choice by rejecting religion. As I thought about it, I realised it was the feeling of community and 'belonging' in a sense that I missed.

Bring on online communities!

@ PA...I think some christians can be converted

Conerted to what ?

You guys don't realse how funny you come across to knowledgable people..

Chrstians beleve in the laws of the universe!  But science/laws/theories et al are not,and never have been, a church.

Why is it necessary to change someones belief?  For many reasons religion doesn't mean very much to me and, nor does any other label (for example, atheist) which purports to describe the way I live my life and what beliefs I do, or do not, have.  I think that is a resonable stance to take, I don't preach and I only listen to preaching if it takes my interest.  If someone want's to argue for or against religion (or atheism or whatever) thay can only do it by convincing the opposite stance that they have a better proposition.  To do that you have to be convinced that you have a better way.  That in itself is a contradiction to atheism and also leads me to the subject of the thread "Is anyone going to get rich through LOTU"

Apologies to the persons who have seen this before but I reckon it fits quite well here...

An atheist goes for a walk in the forest. He's rather enjoying it, the scuttering of the little ground animals, the calls of the various birds and so on....
Eventually he stumbles across a clearing and doesn't notice (until it's too late) that a great big grizzly bear is taking a drink from the pool in the stream. The bear rears up and swats the man to the ground. The man quickly came round from his daze to see the bear descending upon him and cries out "Oh God!, Help me!". Time then seemed to freeze for him and a wind rushed through the clearing to be replaced with a big booming voice from above "So you've finally decided that I exist then and you are prepared to embrace the word of the Lord and Jesus?". The man thinks momentarily and said, "Are you suggesting you will save me if I adopt the values of Christianity whereby I become subservient to you and admonish all bad thoughts about killing, avarice and all, that?". "YES!" was the booming reply. The man thought for another fraction and replied "Well I've lived a good enough life so far as an atheist, why don't you use your Godly powers to make the bear a Christian and bestow all those values upon it?. "So be it!" was the booming reply. There was another rush of wind through the clearing and time returned to a normal speed. The bear shuddered, closed his eyes and clasped his huge paws together and said "For what I am about to receive, may the Lord make me truly thankful"...

LOL!!

hehe nice one

@andromeda converted to rational thinking and being a member of the evidence-based community.

@ Cam R, .......rational thinking and being a member of the evidence-based community.

Do you reilly believe that's how you come across to reasonable people?
 

Do I "reilly" believe? ROFL!!!

Yes, I do.

Can you define (for me) the particular 'Laws Of The Universe', upon which your "Church" is founded ?

Its not founded on any particular laws, its founded on having a respect for the laws. Read the FAQ. http://churchoflotu.wordpress.com/faq/

So correct me if I am wrong but you say that the "Church of Laws Of The Universe", (your words) Its not founded on any particular laws.

The world is full of crackpot (so called) religions, and (if I may say so) you are simply adding to their number.

What the world really needs (like a hole in the head) is a church of people whose only belief is that they believe in nothing, (except the laws of the universe), but in believing that, they don't base their belief on any particular laws.  Albert Einstein (and others) haven't been able to come up with a theory of everything, and as no one knows all the laws of the universe, this appears to be just a forum for atheists, and as such does not qualify (except in fantasy) as a Church.

 LOTU will also endorse the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. 

That's very generous of you, I'm sure the United Nations is really grateful.

Unlike other religions, LOTU will not condemn people who do not agree with us to an eternity of torture and vilification. 

Which OTHER religions are you insinuating here?

C'mon,don't pussyfoot around, state clearly who YOU are trying to vilify.

What do you know (or understand about other religions? what is your religeous background (or lack of it) that sets you up as the founder of a new (so called) religion)

You need more than a FAQ page you need belief's and goals, not just a collection of negative statements.

No answer, was the stern reply!

Ok, I'll bite. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, or indeed anyone beyond myself, but I feel I should say something.

I think it is rather the point of science, that we're not "done" yet, and it is unlikely that we'll ever declare science to be "done". Unless we attain perfect understanding of the universe and all its myriad constituents, and even then there would be more to discover (taking what we know and doing new things with it)

It seems a little... I don't know the word, but ruling it out as a religion on the basis that our knowledge is incomplete "poisons the well"; the whole point is that we don't know it all, but the belief is that science and its methods is our best shot at reaching greater understanding of the world around us (as opposed to revelation from God, spirits, mysticism etc.)

Oh, and trying to "call us out" to stop pussyfooting and say which religion it is that condemns non-believers, that feels like flamebait to my mind. Not naming and shaming was to avoid offending anyone, though I think we all know which religion is being referred to.

I'm not shy to say it, Christianity is (or has been in the past, and remains so to some degree) very hostile to non-Christians. The same goes for other religions, though as I know less about them I'll refrain from saying anything I couldn't be sure of.

I'm puzzled too... I say it again, why should someone who calls themself "an atheist" want to convert anyone to be an atheist.  What would be the benefit of that?

What's the benefit to a theist?

Anyone who thinks they have answers will want other people to know the truth.

Arthur - for one thing, I wouldn't need to be christian (or religious) to run for the US presidency....

Religion runs our lives in so many ways...

I think it is rather the point of science, that we're not "done" yet,

I agree.

ruling it out as a religion on the basis that our knowledge is incomplete "poisons the well"; the whole point is that we don't know it all, but the belief is that science and its methods is our best shot at reaching greater understanding of the world around us 

I am not against true science, but C Reilly is into Science Fiction, not true science.

He says (and I questioned it before) that he is into ".......rational thinking and being a member of the evidence-based community."

Well if you believe that Futurists and believers in Transhumanism are rational thinkers and are part of the evidence based community, then you are welcome to them.

@andromeda - feel free to speak your mind, sir. I never said we "believe in nothing". I've tried, in the FAQ, to state it as clearly as I can: "The idea is that this religion will be fully based in science and critical thinking. It will not worship any mythological deity but will respect, and try to interpret, the laws of the universe as delivered to us by the latest scientific research." We read and listen to what the scientists have to tell us about what they have discovered about how the universe works, then try to interpret that into meaningful ways for us to live our lives. The point about endorsing the UNCHR is that LOTU, unlike pretty much every other church I'm aware of from the traditional religions, doesn't condemn of vilify people who disagree with our point of view. My background? I was raised a Catholic until I rejected it at age 8. Since then I've sturead my way through died lots of religions, including Christianity. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, "pagan" / ancient mythology and even Scientology.

@arthur - the 'benefit' of converting the 90% of the world's population who claim to believe in invisible, magical, supernatural deities over to accepting science and rational thinking as an alternative worldview, is that (we hope) the human race will finally overcome it's traditional need to avoid the truths about the natural laws of the universe. The traditional religions bring with them intolerance, violence and ignorance. We hope that the human race can aspire to more than that.

@andromeda - what is the "science fiction" that you claim I am into? Please explain. If you're having a crack at transhumanism, I think you'll find that the transhumanist community is based pretty solidly in the extrapolation of current scientific knowledge. There is plenty of debate about how far the current trends will extend themselves, but it's pretty hard to state categorically that the human race isn't being changed by our increasing adoption and reliance upon technology to alter our minds and bodies to our advantage.

I think you'll find that the transhumanist community is based pretty solidly in the extrapolation of current scientific knowledge.

I don't find that at all, I believe that you've been watching too many cyborg movies and have been living in your little cyber/virtual world for so long that you've lost sight of reality.  

@ Cameron.. who says; "the 'benefit' of converting the 90% of the world's population who claim to believe in invisible, magical, supernatural deities over to accepting science and rational thinking as an alternative worldview, is that (we hope) the human race will finally overcome it's traditional need to avoid the truths about the natural laws of the universe. The traditional religions bring with them intolerance, violence and ignorance. We hope that the human race can aspire to more than that."

I don't subcribe to any religion or have any supernatural deities that I look up to.  Neither do I label myself as an atheist or agnostic because that's all it is - is a label with no purpose other than to say "I don't believe in God or something".

What I do have is knowledge, interests and beliefs.  In fact, compared to Joe Average I am particularly well educated in science and have a load of life experience to fill in the huge gaps that are left by things that can never be learned through academia and the understanding of science, philiosophy and all the other researched aspects of this thing we call life.  I also have the ability to draw on the experiences and opinions of others which, I think, overall makes me a well rounded person with no less capability than anyone else to have a fair share of this planet we call Earth.

What this does not do is tell me, or anyone else, that I have a better way of doing or thinking and it certainly does not give me any platform from which I can preach to others about the "error of their ways".  There is no getting away from the fact (unless Darwin, Nietsche, Freud, Einstein or someone has come up with something to the contrary) that Humans belong to the animal kingdom.  We can see by simple observation of animals that they have their "laws of nature" (or whatever you want to describe them as) and this kind of looks a bit like what you are saying is a facet of the traditional religions.

The Alpha of the pack displays; Intolerance - (I am physically and/or mentally more capable than you lot therefore you do as I bid) and Violence (You are not doing as I bid, therefore I smite you!).  Whilst a member of the pack displays something amounting to Ignorance (I have no idea whats happening or I don't know how to counter the violence and I'm frightened of the violence therefore I serve the Alpha).  And so it goes on...  All without religion, scientific research, space trips, physcology or even using knifes and forks to eat with.

I don't know, maybe you have the all the answers and the solution to making a perfect society but you are never going to do it on an internet forum (ignorant people can't be expected to use the internet) and the rest of the population is vying for Alpha status so you'll never get through to them.  Your only option is to do what all the great revolutionaries have done and appeal to the ignorant, then dominate them.  And that is basically what the likes of Hitler and Stalin did.  good luck!

@andromeda well I'm more than happy to debate the science with you, if you're up to it. Ray Kurzweil and  Aubrey de Grey are two of the more prominent scientists who believe we are headed for a transhumanist future. If you think your science is better than theirs, then put your arguments forward.

@Arthur  Such a cynical view! So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying it's all too hard, the human race is permanently screwed, and we should all just go back to watching American Idol?

History should show us that humans CAN change for the better. 3000 years ago, human and animal sacrifice was commonplace. 500 years ago, people were still getting burned at the stake for being witches. 200 years ago, human slavery was still commonplace. Much of the world's population today finds such practices abhorrent. Why should religion / violence / intolerance be any different?

I don't quite know how Artificial Intelligence and Age Regression will help your cause to convert religious people into atheists.  I would think that it would take you to a vision of "the last human" and that would probably be the last argument that any budding Alpha or Ignorant would be convinced by.  Kurzweil and de Gray are, of course great proponents of AI and age regression (respectively) but I don't see how their research, knowledge ideas etc puts them on any kind of pedastal.  After all, they have both done (up to now) some reasonable work in their narrow fields so whatever they do now  requires a harder argument to overcome by their peers and superiors - even though their promulgations for the future might be full of supposition...

I never suggested Kurzweil or de Grey had anything to do with LOTU, I was just responding to andromeda's mocking of the science behind transhumanism.

And why do you say that I am being cynical?  Stalin and his cronies killed about 20 million to protect their Alpha status and that was in the 20th Century.  Same goes for Hitler, you could say he was a proponent of transhumanism, attempting to eradicate the things he reckoned were not-so-good things about human conditions, how many did he and his cronies kill to protect their Alpha status?.  Again, 20th Century.   (Hitler and Stalin are such good examples, please don't read anything into me using them in the argument - unless you think it's appropriate of course)

Who knows, maybe a scientist somewhere will develop a vaccination that will re-train the human brain so that they will no-longer think in terms of exploiting lesser elements of the world (including humans and the rest of the natural world).  Brilliant! at a stroke we have a vaccine for Politicians!   However, the vaccine would have to be a bit more subtle than that, it would have to differentiate between good and bad exploitation or useful to humans, in one way but not in another, type of exploitation.  The spin off would be that if humans can't do what they do best (exploitation of anything lesser) they wouldn't do research on anything (trees, rats, other humans etc...).  If we did eventually create AI to the point where it became sentient, we'd have to make sure the vaccine didn't stop us exploiting the good and bad bits of that.

What I'm saying is.  Humans exploit things.  It's what we've always done. If we remove our instinct to exploit we don't learn.  We don't learn, then you can forget transhumanism, atheism religion or whatever.  And what's worse, we would start looking up to American Idol rather than treating it with the contempt it thoroughly deserves.

If you talk of a religion that is totally based on science, then you talk about something that has already existed for the past 5,700 years: Zoroastrianism. The scientist is the holiest person in Zoroastrianism and Zarathushtra is the only human prophet known to mankind. There's nothing transcendental or divine about him. His insights 100% agree with the latest discoveries in modern science. Transhumanism may easily be referred to as the modern-day version of Zoroastrianism.

I haven't previously heard anything of Zoroastrianism, but from Wikipedia... it doesn't sound all that science-based.

Perhaps I'm not seeing through a layer of metaphor, but there seems to be a creator God, a struggle between good and evil and eventual termination in some kind of end of days. I can see some potential scientific elements in the identification of truth and order with good, and falsehood + chaos with evil.

Not that a strictly scientific view of the world would include moral judgements.. but preferring order to chaos sounds promising.

aaand, starting from the top of the responses since I was last here.

Dek makes a good point - religion has a massive influence on the world, especially in the US. From an atheist's view this a whole lot of people caught in a delusion and acting irrationally. Having leaders who listen to experts instead of going on their own seemingly random convictions would be nice.

Andro, I don't see how he implies futurism or transhumanism in what you quoted, I must have missed the part where he said LOTU was going to get involved in making cyborgs...

I think the nature of science and technology are to progress ever onwards, as the rate of progress increases it does seem as if there will come a point where it has gone so far that we cannot have a hope of predicting what it'll be like then. Whether the human race ends up uploaded, augmented, replaced.... or if its just an engine of massive *social* change remains to be seen.

AD, "atheist" is indeed a label, one that implies not believing in God, just as "Christian" is a label that implies belief in the Christian description of God (and related beliefs). It also seems a tad fatalistic to assume that because we are a part of the animal kingdom that we necessarily will act as animals do. We have after all developed intelligence a little way beyond most other species. Religion may be a tool for the "Alphas" to control the rest, but clearly not all of us are falling for it.

Last point, I call Godwin's law.

We weren't talking about religions based on science or other unpronouncable stuff.  We were talking about the point of converting Christians to Atheism and what the point of doing so was.  It just so happened that transhumanism came up along with a discussion about human nature etc...  I don't see any differentiators in the discussion as to what benefits there are to converting Christians by introducing reference to another science based religion who's claim to fame is that they predicted silicon chips, atomic bombs and hairspray.

Religion may be a tool for the "Alphas" to control the rest, but clearly not all of us are falling for it.

So in your life, you don't do anything that would be observable as "human nature"  You don't have to "exploit others" to show the traits,  just expoliting things will do it.   If you don't exploit, you don't learn.  And it is not just for religions to be the Alphas.  An Alpha is a leader, someone who makes the effort to exploit their situation and reach the top.  The characteristic is evident in everyday life.  Humans lead and humans are led.  Simple as that.  Even Zarawhatsisname probably understood that...

If by exploit you mean "use in any way" then yes, I exploit stuff all the time. Exploitation in the sense of using something or someone unfairly or manipulatively.. well maybe occasionally but I try to avoid it.

Humans lead and humans are led

I acknowledge that, however I would prefer it if the leaders could at least have some kind of a rational/scientific basis for leading.

Last point, I call Godwin's law.

If I remember, Godwin was a self appointed intellectual twitt who did some (ground breaking - LOL) research on on-line conversations and deemed that the loser was the first one to mention Hitler, or something like that.  Well it just so happens that one of his exceptions to the rule is when you get historical stuff about repression, genocide and "how far us humans have come on in the last 500 years" or stuff like that quoted at you, it is allowed to wheel out Hitler and Stalin as modern day examples of how little things have changed...

And I note that you do exploit stuff, good we're getting there... eventually as you get older your rational of fairness and manipulativeness will reduce, especially if you get a job with prospects.

Prefering the leaders to have some rational for leading...  The main rational for leading is that "I lead because I've got the edge on you lot"   Others might occaisionally apply but not as a matter of norm.

Yeah.. the Godwin's law reference wasn't serious. I have no idea who Godwin was, but he sounds like a twat.

As for the rational of fairness reducing... do you have any conception of how cynical you sound there? I'm aware on one level that yes, there's a lot of people who are alternately sheep-like in their leadbility and shark-like in their ruthlessness, but to see that and declare it all hopeless, and that there's nothing for it but choose which one you want to be... surely the fact that you haven't already fallen into one role or the other makes it clear that those aren't the only options.

@ Super-King: Yeah, Wikipedia sucks. Who cares.

Once again all I can ask you to do is to do better research.

Can't. Too busy doing nothing 

There is a difference between cynicism and reality.  Unless you have something devine about you, exploiting what you have is, most of the time, the only way to get something.

In its nicest form.  You are in a shop with a mate and you say to him/her, "Will you loan me £25 to buy this item" and then exploit the fact that you have previously loaned them some money to get a positive decision from them.  Or you may exploit the powers of charm that you have or something else equally benign.

The other end of the scale is that you pull a gun on the shopkeeper and exploit the fact that you have a gun pointing at their head as the reason why they are going to give you a positive decision and hand over the item.

Or you exploit the ignorance of people and preach a story which will convince a few of them that they need what you have to offer.  They follow and support you next time you preach... and so on.   Kids in a playground exploit the fact that they are in a gang or are bigger and nastier, you then lose your sweets.

Whether you turn out to be a doctor, captain of industry or a nutcase dictator, you will have taken advantage of the most natural skill a human posseses.

I generally come to such discussions with an assumption which is generally true in most cases; that the discussers have never considered the recursive deification theory.

That being that if mankind is capable of any singular quality that would have omnific capabilities (Superpositional, Super-knowing, etc.), that they would become god and would do so recursively backwards in time to the initial starting point.

Furthermore, that if multiworld theorem is true, that any entity attaining godhood would propogate to all realities which allowed such principals of existence to be the case.

I can explain in more detail, when I have the time.

If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers.

As far as I can work out, the ustilisation of recursion is only useful if you actually have a defined end point.  I suppose you could define what you think the end point might be and see how it happened but that would cause all sorts of problems in pulling together the viability of each element of recursion and having some idea of when to stop (or start).  In computational terms it might be possible to achieve a reasonable result but that would only give you something else to work out - unless you defined the end point.

I guess if you were to retrospecively select the end points and apply recursion to them you may well find a pattern but the problem is you wouldn't ever know what the start point is unless you apply assumptions.  And then you still only have a discussion point, rather than a conclusion.

It is possible to use the theory to present a position that you can convince people of.  You do that, and you are back on the trail for Alpha status...

The recursive deification principal is not a closed loop consistency whereas it comes to goal, it is merely a correllary of efficiency whereas it concerns conversations about the existence or non-existence of god.

Essentially, if any INTELLIGENT species has no upper boundary limit, then God must necessarily exist.  Eventually.  And recursively backwards to the initial moment of all existences that allow such qualities to exist.

Likewise, if all intelligent species have an upper boundary LIMIT, well... then there is a point at which all species can learn nothing more for there is nothing more to learn, as they are incapable of proceeding past the limit no matter what they attempt.

This would of course lend credence to the designed universe theory, which would of course support a God being existent.

The passage of time always creates new information, but that does not translate into certain information ever being applicable to self deification.  Furthermore, the Universe is constantly becoming more dispersed, and energy constantly being converted into unusable forms.  Without some violation of modern physics, this universe will in no quarter be habitable within the foreseeable future.  So even if self deification were possible here, it does not follow that it must happen herein.

You mentioned other universes...The existence of an infinite number of other universes/realities is possible, but it is a highly confusing idea.  There must be a universe which can send trespassers into our universe, because all possible universes exist.  By the same token of everything which is possible is, however, there must also be a universe which blocks such trespassers from coming here.  And a universe which prevents that universe from blocking.  And...so on and so forth.  Hence, here we have a mobius strip from which we can draw no conclusions.

At this point I will say that while I was at unversity doing my masters degree I joined a society called "The campaign for plain English".

It does mean that you have to use smaller words and sometimes bigger descriptives but at least it means that more people can understand what is written.

I like thicker language.  Until it becomes frustrating, it is simply stimulating and gratifying.  And with patience, language which is frustrating is eventually overcome and a better reader emerges as an outcome.

A greater vocabulary of used words, if properly applied creates a more aesthetic and efficient text.  When I run into unfamiliar words, I look them up.  This is an easy and self enrichening solution to what then eventually becomes trite problem as a consequence of its sparseness.

Plain english has it uses, but I don't think it is neccessary in this place.  I think I am much more likely to be misunderstood here as a consequence of not proofreading adequately (e.g. in my previous post in this thread I had forgotten to put "no" before conclusions).  Too much in modern society, language in included, is dumbed down to lowest denominater, dumbing down the average man in process.

Jesus Jared, you want to learn to spell before banging on about 'thicker language'.

A greater vocabulary of used words, if properly applied creates a more aesthetic and efficient text.

Writing looks better when you use bigger words to replace lots of little ones.

Jared; on the subject of recursion in deification... again, it has a binary value.  Either it is possible, or it is not.  However, if it is possible in any given universe with intelligent life that is capable of achieving that end, then the outcome is recursive.  Likewise, in all universes without boundary against such an outcome, that entity will propogate to those universes as well merely by the fiat of their function.

As for universes affecting other universes, again, the only value where it comes to deification is a binary one; either there is already an entity present or there is not.  It isn't infeasible to assume that parallel deification could occur and thusly give rise to god's of different universes, none occupying the same space.

Something for me to muse on, I would suppose.

On the tangential subject matter of linguistics and the usage of english, I would also be untowardly biased that people expand their vocabular rather than contract, as there is a gross overabundance of simplification occurring as a result of the increased usage of technology.  That being said, though, there is something interestingly elegant about lingual drift and the evolution of the spoken word.

Simplification. As a result of technology? Are you occupying the same world as I am?

As far as vocabulary goes, seems like barely 30 seconds go by without some new techy term becoming the latest buzzword, then becoming a part of the normal lexicon, then causing a few raised eyebrows when it enters the dictionaries - blogging, tweets, Google (and the verb form "to google")...

SK.  He's talking bollocks.

Hence why I replied to the last part of his post, it was the only part that was even coherent.

Jared; on the subject of recursion in deification... again, it has a binary value.  Either it is possible, or it is not. 

That depends what you mean by possible.  NASA could-(for lack of a better word) launch you into space.  They won't.  Does that make it impossible for NASA to launch you into space?  Colloquialy no, technically maybe-there might be one future or there might be many and a finite number of futures might or might not be governed by chance.

However, if it is possible in any given universe with intelligent life that is capable of achieving that end, then the outcome is recursive.  Likewise, in all universes without boundary against such an outcome, that entity will propogate to those universes as well merely by the fiat of their function.  

Well what if there is a universe which locks all universes which allow deification?  What if gods cancel eachother out (which you sort of allude to)?  It can be fun to speculate about these sorts of things, but we simply don't have any evidence about what is external to our reality, and so we can't really draw good conclusions about what is or isn't beyond our reality.

Here is an interesting thought experiment I did a while ago:

Since quantum theory proports that it is possible that all of the matter in the universe will spontaneously reconverge, then it follows that given infinite time all the matter will inevitably do so.  We have infinite time.  But the problem with this theory is that since everything is moving apart so fast, the probability of reconvergence is decreasing with time, almost certainly at a rate which would preclude reconvergence ever actually happening.  But if infinite universe theory is true, than every possible future, present, and past exists and so there will always be universes that are "alive".

I've had a similar thought before, if in the infinite reaches of time the universe just continues to expand, until entropy takes over and everything goes cold, and eventually even all the subatomic particles decay into some form of energy (which is then spread homogeneously across space), whether through sheer probabilistic fluke it could all just happen to re-concentrate itself on a single point and kick off a new Big Bang.

Sheer speculation though, and I suspect that the laws of thermodynamics would be against me here. When it's said that in infinite time, all possible things will eventually happen, does "possible" include things that violate fundamentals of physics?

They do say that the place where there is a coming together of a couple of parallel lines you will find the results and/or conclusions of any question that is ever likely to exist.  Plus, of course, the complete works of anyone you'd like to imagine (including Shakespear) typed up on foolscap paper with mechanical typewriters by an infinite number of monkeys (or near humans).  So I wouldn't put your speculation beyond that of possibility...

Sheer speculation though, and I suspect that the laws of thermodynamics would be against me here. When it's said that in infinite time, all possible things will eventually happen, does "possible" include things that violate fundamentals of physics?

I was watching a doco about dark matter last night, and this particular scientist has come up with a theory that does away with dark matter, but it also breaks Newton's laws. His answer to that is that the laws break at values too big or too small (string theory).

Newton's laws cease to be accurate descriptions on micro scales because the effect of gravity dwindles away to insignificance and the nuclear forces become significant, and become inaccurate on massive scales because of some funky astrophysics we don't have figured out yet... I'm not sure if there would be similar circumstances for the laws of thermodynamics to no longer apply...

 When it's said that in infinite time, all possible things will eventually happen, does "possible" include things that violate fundamentals of physics? 

No, but physics allows for some crazy stuff that is highly improbable.  However, as counter intuitive as it may sound, in calculus you can actually come up with finite answers to values of functions as the variables go to infinity.  As X goes to infinity, 1/X goes to 0.  1/1,1/2,1/4,1/8,1/10 etc.  Yeah time is heading toward infinity, but so is distance. The furtheraway one thing becomes from another thing, the less likely they will instantaneously converge by quantum chance.  As distance increases probability of convergence goes down.  I think distance has time beat by a wide margin in regards to the new big bang question.

I was watching a doco about dark matter last night, and this particular scientist has come up with a theory that does away with dark matter, but it also breaks Newton's laws. His answer to that is that the laws break at values too big or too small (string theory). 

The dark matter map constructed in 06 didn't rule out that a modified theory of gravity could be true but it nevertheless confirmed that dark matter was necessary to explain some observations, or so said the project head.

As to what dark matter might be, my gut impulse that it is basically just matter that only interacts via gravity and the nuclear weak force.  This would explain why it doesn't form into celestial objects:  it has no friction to subdue conservation of momentum.

Ok Cameron, you can cut out the bullshit now, we know that this is just another of your alter ego's.

Pathetic.......

Not at all, as you know I have lots of samples to choose from.... unlike the science fiction nonsense that you (and your ilk) claim as facts...

AnalYtical

That is all.

My Like,?     You so don't know me.  I had said 3 things, you instantly assume that I am Cameron, {I'm actually Flattered} anyone who knows me knows that I am about the most antireligious thinking person they have ever met. Andromeda read the entire post, take a few mins to absorb it before you attack me,  When I said Sample size, I was refering to how few posts I had made before you drew your conclusion that I was Camerons alter ego.  I am a much bigger fan of science fact than science fiction, although both are interesting, being able to discern between the two is of great benefit......   Oh, and thankyou for the spelling correction Super-King, Who says God is infalable?

referring*

infallible*

hehehe note to self.... use a spelchecker.

spellchecker

Blood of bat, check, hair of virgin witch, check, magic dust, check..........I think you get the idea.

Yeah, I've got a very good idea of your thought processes and it's not very pretty..

And just word of advice.."don't forget to use the old 'ad hominem' defense when you run out of fantasy".

you instantly assume that I am Cameron, {I'm actually Flattered}

Poor sod.

Teach the kids how to spot bullshit from 20 paces and religion will fade out like typewriters.

Teaching kids to spot bullshit from 1000 paces (never mind 20) would certainly piss on your bonfire Mr God...

The moral of todays story is........Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

...or the power of stupid large people in small groups

.. or the power of small people in stupid groups 

You're not seriously Cameron's idea of sending in the cavalry are you, GOD? The idea of using you to try and brow beat people does seem a little... misjudged. Then again maybe Mr. Reilly is more canny than I give him credit for. Even a buffoon would seem somewhat sensible if you've been watching a clown for long enough.

Are you guys the deluded crack squad? Leaping into hekling action as soon as your delusion is threatened by any form or reason. Most Amusing, good for a giggle, what stunning examples of followers. How proud you must be.  haven't you got more bible fiction to memorise?

What exactly am I deluded about? You being a bit of a fool would seem to be right on the money, so it can't be that.

Agreed.  He almost qualifies as a West Ham fan...

Am I supposed to be defending myself to you?   I'm not Camerons Idea of anything, but its interesting to think that you believe that you warrant some sort of cavalry,  but then Beliefs based on facts are not your forte it appears., As for West Ham fan........ to suppose that the fans of one team are a joke shows how you missed that being a fan of any of the teams makes you a joke. Keeping busy being a fan rather than actually doing anything constructive. good little followers. and to think there was fear of not much happening on this forum. Tell me, is there anyone here who is not opposed to the ideas proposed by the subject of this forum?

Some Christians are unreasonable, some are reasonable. Just like there could be reasonable and unreasonable people of any ilk.  Anyone who wants to find a way to make them change to their point of view is, themselves being unreasonable because they think they have a better way of thinking about life, the universe and everything...

What is he talking about, AD? And what exactly are the 'ideas proposed on this forum'? As far as I can tell LOTU is a club for half a dozen insecure antitheists (when in doubt, strike out).

Pointless asking me!  I have this impression of this God character and Archbishop Rielly doing a double act in one of the G'day World podcasts to the massed billions of informed people around the world.  I reckon that within a few minutes of it being posted, lawyers representing Mike Judge would be on to G'day World and LOTU with a lawsuit for serious copyright infringements of his Beavis and Butthead characters....

and to think there was fear of not much happening on this forum.

  Looks like your fears have been realised, Mr Cam's flunky.

Quiet as the grave. Hopefully an end to all this LOTU nonsense.

In fact, a grave.

Very grave indeed..

Or perhaps a circumflex

You saying it needs a coronary bypass, S-K?

Or mabe one of these ^ ?

I was just playing on "grave" being a type of accent (one of these thingys: ` )

I still hold that if a universe allows for an intelligent being to acquire godlike powers (Omnific powers of some sort), then the entity propagates to fill the allowable space.  If this is untrue, that means there are hard limiters on what Mankind can accomplish and manipulate, in which case we must wonder where such rules came from.

As an interesting aside related to this, someone has proposed that the repeated failure of the Large Hadron Collider to come online may be the result of a backwards propagating phenomena that self-preserves reality (I.E.; God doesn't like the Higgs-Boson particle and will prevent it from being made/discovered).

Quiet as the grave. Hopefully an end to all this LOTU nonsense.

Fool, you're disturbing the dead.

Where the hell am I again...?  It's been awhile.  LOTU has no momentum.  If anyone here is really into in the idea, I maintain you should probably join the church of reality.

There is no evidence that senses or logic convey truth except that evidence which comes from senses and logic. Since a thing can't prove itself, this tarnishes all beliefs, even scientific ones, as baseless speculations.  You can, as I have decided to, choose to be "empirically minded".  This only means that you have faith in senses and logic and nothing else.  It doesn't mean you lack faith in anything.  Since pretty much everyone takes senses and logic for granted, and since these seem to suggest that religious beliefs are inaccurate or at any rate improbable, one could argue that an empirical mindset results in a more intercoherent set of first principles.

In general, when you talk about things beyond the realm of this universe and our understanding of physics, you are blindly speculating.  There is presumably something there, but, well, nothing proven and hence any precise possibility is likely to be false.

There is presumably something there

I was with you up until this point. Why would you presume that?

Too many negations in that sentence, in a topic from too long ago. I don't even remember what my point was or what I was arguing against.

There's no time limit on nonsense... and this forum is full of it.

Reading back only as far as I have to, I was responding to "In general, when you talk about things beyond the realm of this universe and our understanding of physics, you are blindly speculating.  There is presumably something there, but, well, nothing proven and hence any precise possibility is likely to be false."

To question why you would presume there to be something beyond the universe and physics. I see no reason to believe that, let alone presume it.

On to your post... if I can wrap my brains around it...

No, no I cannot. If you want I could quote it line by line, explain my thoughts when reading it and see if that makes it possible to explain it more clearly 

Church of reality.  Hah!  get real!

*boom tish*

Well, I was talking to my mate the other day about quantum mechanics and we decided they were no better than kwik fit...

LOL!

I think what I was shooting for is that specifics do not make one presumption less (or more) valid than another.

When all is said and done though... I personally agree that there is something beyond our universe. Read enough about m-theory, string theory, superstrings, supergravity etc. and, if you don't go mental first, a multiverse (of sorts) does start to look plausible.

As for Jared... logic does suggest that not all theorising is done blindly. And maybe, just maybe, those that (dare to) speculate on a given subject may actually be rather well informed on said subject.

When I read "beyond the universe" I tend to assume that means "supernatural" - in a sense, a multiverse would be part of "the universe", in the sense that the universe is defined to be all things that exist.

But, granted, it is also used to mean "our" universe... whatever that ends up meaning when set against other universes.