What's on your mind now?

[perfect_pitch]

Damn... it seems I missed a good atheism versus ancient-mystical-mumbo-jumbo-crap argument.

Shame - I would have gotten like 1,000,000 points for the Atheists.

[ajlongspiano]

Damn... it seems I missed a good atheism versus ancient-mystical-mumbo-jumbo-crap argument.

Shame - I would have gotten like 1,000,000 points for the Atheists.

Yes, I'm sure that all of the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens you've plagiarized in the past to make your point has really contributed to the intellectual growth of the many unenlightened folks on our planet.

Best,

AJ

[perfect_pitch]

Better using the material of Hitchens and Dawkins than a silly book fully of fairy tales and magic.

[ajlongspiano]

I think we must face the fact that true Atheism is just as much of a fairy tale as Theism/Deism. The notion that the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing by nothing seems like magic to me. (The quantum vacuum doesn't count as nothing.) If you would like to have a nice discussion about this, feel free to send me a PM. I apologize for snapping at you earlier. I just want all of us to be respectful to one another. 

Best,

AJ

[mjames]

I wasn't arguing against Pencil's religious beliefs, i was simply demonstrating why his argument for 'objective purpose' was severely flawed.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. 'Atheism' is not a doctrine, as such it makes no claims about cosmology, biology, chemistry etc. Atheism makes no claims, about anything, (lack of belief=/= asserting that gods don't exist, yes there's a difference) so I don't see how it can be considered as a fairy tale; let alone one that equals theism/deism.

btw Dawkins is crappy at debating people.

[ajlongspiano]

Just so you guys know, me and James are taking this conversation to skype. If you'd like to chat, my skype username is AjLongsPiano. Have a good one!

Best,


AJ

[chopinlover01]

I think we must face the fact that true Atheism is just as much of a fairy tale as Theism/Deism. The notion that the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing by nothing seems like magic to me. (The quantum vacuum doesn't count as nothing.) If you would like to have a nice discussion about this, feel free to send me a PM. I apologize for snapping at you earlier. I just want all of us to be respectful to one another. 

Best,

AJ

Atheism says nothing of the sort. Atheism is literally only about what you believe in regard to the God question. Just, "do you believe in God/Gods? Check the box yes or no."
It's a complete strawman fallacy to say that simply because we cannot answer the question of where everything came from (which, in reality, NOBODY can, because even if you point to a God, you have to explain the origin of THAT God) that we believe in completely illogical and unscientific myths.
It is by no means equal to saying "I know God exists and did this". Or, taking it a step further "Not only do I know that God exists, I know that it is THIS God, from THIS holy book, and it is this interpretation which is correct," which assumes every other possible explanation contrived by humanity (which have just as much evidence as your own) is false.
Sorry AJ, but I expected more from ya.

[ajlongspiano]

Hi Harrison,

Thank you for your response. I see where you're coming from. Let me try to address some of the issues we're confronting here.

You say that Atheism is only what we believe in regard to the God question. However, the simple answer of "yes" or "no" leads to many other complications that arise from our answer. Just as a Christian must live according to a certain paradigm to be a genuine believer, an Atheist must also conform to certain parameters that their system of thought implies. A counterfeit atheist is just as despicable as a hypocritical Christian, in my book. I'm sure you have, but if you haven't, read the works of Nietzsche and you'll really get the gist of what I'm talking about. 

    Of course, we cannot answer the question of where the universe came from for certain. I have no idea why people think that I am making an absolute claim. I will, however, commit to the system of thought which I believe is most rational. In the beginning, when there was nothing, the universe was either created by a metaphysical power or it was not. And so far, after reading material from both sides through a lens of diplomatic clarity, I have come to the conclusion that God is the most logically reasonable solution to this problem of our beginning.  When you say that I need to explain the origin of my God, you are making the presupposition that my God is created. But that is not the God I believe in. For that logic is nothing but a mindboggling infinite regression. I believe in a God who is eternal, transcending space and time. I believe without shame that He is ultimate reality.  If physical time predates God, I would be skeptical of calling that God much of a God at all.

   I do not mind discussing religion. However, I think it would be a better idea to talk about the pure essence of God first, and how we define Him before we continue on down another track! Let us not get our hands too full from the very get go!

Best,

AJ

[chopinlover01]

Unfortunately for God, if you're going to say that he's outside all rules of logic, time, etc., you've already made it impossible to prove his existence.
Your position is a well defended one, but I would urge you to consider WHY the God you worship is the one that it is (Yahweh of Christianity/Judaism). The God that you argue for could just as easily be Allah, Vishnu, or a God we have no idea about.
Even if we ignore that, you still have yet to offer any solid evidence for his existence, save for "how could we be here otherwise?"
This is the argument of the God of the Gaps. We don't know, therefore we infer God. Simply because science hasn't figured it out (and they're working on it) does not immediately mean that it is up to God. This argument used to be used against things like our Earth being in the perfect place for the Sun to heat it, or the laws of physics being attuned just so so that we could live.
You have to make 100% certain that you aren't working backwards from your conclusion.

[ajlongspiano]

 I agree. It is impossible to prove His existence in the way that we define proof. The very concept of a metaphysical reality implies that it is not physically recordable. It is only logical for me to suggest that God would not be susceptible to the mechanisms that He created. To say that God is under the influence of the laws of physical nature that He designed seems to make very little sense to me.

  I think you're making a fatal logical flaw here... You are essentially saying that God and science are not compatible and that you must choose between God and science when you say things like " We infer God because science hasn't figured it out." But Harrison, I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I do not believe in a God of the gaps. I believe that God made the bits that we do understand and the bits that we don't. I believe He made the whole show, the whole shabang! (and that includes the big one).
     
  When Isaac Newton wrote the Mathematica Principia he did not say: " I have discovered a coherent law, that must mean that we do not need God!" but rather, he said quite the opposite. He hoped that the incredible symmetry of the laws that he discovered would lead the thinking person to believe in a God. To say that the existence of a mechanism out rules an agency for the mechanism seems like quite an incoherent way of thinking.  In fact, I believe in God because I believe that I can successfully do science. If our brains are nothing more than the product of a mindless and unguided process of evolution, how can we trust our own cognitive faculties with certainty? If someone gave you a computer to store your most important files on and said " This was created through a mindless, unguided process. " would you trust it?

  The conflict here is not between science and God, but rather between theism and atheism. There are many nobel prize winning scientists on both sides of the spectrum. Be careful not to fall into the deadly trap of scientism, the belief that science is the only way to truth. You say that I have no evidence for the existence of God. While I may not have direct evidence as in a manifestation of His actual being, I see the very laws of nature as His finger prints on the universe. The more I learn about science and the mechanisms of nature, the stronger my convictions become that there is an intelligent agent for those mechanisms. Not because I want to believe it, but because I find it to be an inevitable conclusion.

Best,


AJ

[mjames]

Well I have a few things to address...

First, it's pointless to distinguish between metaphysics and reality when talking about the possible existence of god(s). If God is a reality, then it is no longer metaphysical or 'beyond reality.' You cannot argue for the existence of a god and also claim that it is beyond the 'natural/physical world'/reality, it's a logical contradiction. Can't have it both ways.

Secondly, i agree with you Aj. God or the possible existence of God isn't incompatible with science. If god is a reality, then science, a methodological tool used to describe reality, can (hypothetically) describe god. Science follows the evidence, and if that's where the evidence leads, then so be it. Problem is, there's no evidence. Doesn't help that theists of all kinds make it especially impossible for us experiment on their god(s) by adding in a bunch of arbitrary restrictions (gee, i wonder why!).

In regards to religion, what is incompatible with science are the claims of religious texts. Now for the sake of the topic I'll restrict 'religions' to the major religions of the world. Whether it's Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Shinto or whatever, they all have something in common: creation stories/myths/w.e that are beyond doubt wrong. Now of course religious people can easily get around this by providing ad hoc arguments (a la re-interpretation) when confronted by scientific discoveries.

Another incompatibility: faith. Faith is irreconcilable with science, they are inherently contradictory. It doesn't matter if it's religious, political, or w/e faith, it's still irreconcilable. Faith, complete trust in unsubstantiated(without evidence) claims, cannot possibly be reconcilable with science, a methodology centered around empirical evidence. That isn't to say you can't believe in God/have faith and be a scientist; you can. The thing is, publishing scientists throw out their faith before they enter the lab - quote from some dude.

And that's where Newton comes in -
Nowhere in his laws of motions or universal law of gravitation does he describe his faith in his god. It's only when he reached the limitations of his equations that he decided to invoke a supernatural cause. Newton is a prime example (and a popular one too) of great thinkers invoking a "god of the gaps."

[ajlongspiano]

Hi, James

Thank you for your kind response. Let me clear up a few things here.

   I think that you're making a mistake in your logical deduction of metaphysics and reality. By saying that " If God is a reality, then it is not longer metaphysical " seems to me a misunderstanding of what a spiritual dimension really is. A physical reality and a metaphysical reality are two separate things. If the concepts of spirituality and physicality were one reality, you would be correct in your logic. But the very definition of " spiritual " implies that it is a completely different reality altogether.  I believe you can have it both ways.

  I am actually writing an essay regarding scientific materialism and spirituality. I would be more than happy to send it to you once it is finished.

 I would like to give a fuller response to your other statements later on this week. I woke up feeling quite sick this morning and I want to make sure I give as clear a response as possible. I promise I am not avoiding your questions and statements. They are important and need to be addressed! But I would prefer to do so in a state of intellectual clarity. I don't want to insult you by giving a half-brained answer!

Best,

AJ

[josh93248]

Here we go again.

As a forum member who once fanned the flames of religious debate only to leave it aside once it became boring I have grown tired of seeing it constantly crop up.

Seriously guys, nobody is changing anybody's mind. Religious positions aren't theoretical statements one either agrees with or does not. They are ways of life. You think anyone will ever change that based on a forum "debate"? Maybe ya'll find it fun but if you're arguing seriously I'm here to tell you that it's probably a waste of effort.

More importantly I'd rather just get on with all of you as well as I can and forego most serious debates in favour of more interesting, trivial and appropriate conversations about MUSIC.

[georgey]

My thoughts: My good friend is a devout Catholic.  I am an atheist.  The last thing that I would want to do is interfere with her faith.  Her faith stresses beautiful ideas such as humility and helping others.  She is always trying to convert me to being a Catholic.  I tell her that she can try for a thousand years and this will not affect my being an atheist.  But I also tell her that I greatly admire Pope Francis and many aspects of her faith. My friend is also a firm believer in science and like Pope Francis, she believes that global warming exists and is caused largely by man.  A discussion on global warming though will also unlikely change minds.  However, discussions are great if you enjoy them and you treat others with respect.

[mjames]

Here we go again.

As a forum member who once fanned the flames of religious debate only to leave it aside once it became boring I have grown tired of seeing it constantly crop up.

Seriously guys, nobody is changing anybody's mind. Religious positions aren't theoretical statements one either agrees with or does not. They are ways of life. You think anyone will ever change that based on a forum "debate"? Maybe ya'll find it fun but if you're arguing seriously I'm here to tell you that it's probably a waste of effort.

More importantly I'd rather just get on with all of you as well as I can and forego most serious debates in favour of more interesting, trivial and appropriate conversations about MUSIC.

It's the anything but piano section, no one's forcing you to partake in religious discussions. We all get along pretty fine LOL
I don't like egg-shelling sensitive topics. The clashing of multiple viewpoints...that's democracy for ya.

Hi, James

Thank you for your kind response. Let me clear up a few things here.

   I think that you're making a mistake in your logical deduction of metaphysics and reality. By saying that " If God is a reality, then it is not longer metaphysical " seems to me a misunderstanding of what a spiritual dimension really is. A physical reality and a metaphysical reality are two separate things. If the concepts of spirituality and physicality were one reality, you would be correct in your logic. But the very definition of " spiritual " implies that it is a completely different reality altogether.  I believe you can have it both ways.

okay!

[chopinlover01]

that's democracy for ya.

The worst form of government... except all the others.

[Bob]

The middle parts in making actual progress.  What they are.  How to notice them.  How to adjust so actual progress is made.  The beginning is fairly obvious.  The goal is there, known at least as a future goal.  But the middle part isn't always clear.  Just practicing sounds fine, but intelligently practicing to get to the goal is... the goal.

[perfect_pitch]

Her faith stresses beautiful ideas such as humility and helping others.  

My biggest annoyance about that is that this isn't just attributed to Catholicism... You don't need to be religious to be humble and helpful. Being good and decent to other human beings should be because we are all equal and each person should be treated as such... and not to please a non-existent deity who apparently keeps a pro's and con's list about everything we do in life.

You don't need religion to be a nice person.

[georgey]

You don't need religion to be a nice person.

Agreed.

[chopinlover01]

My biggest annoyance about that is that this isn't just attributed to Catholicism... You don't need to be religious to be humble and helpful. Being good and decent to other human beings should be because we are all equal and each person should be treated as such... and not to please a non-existent deity who apparently keeps a pro's and con's list about everything we do in life.

You don't need religion to be a nice person.

^ This

If you're only good because you fear Hell, you aren't really a good person..

[outin]

My thoughts: My good friend is a devout Catholic.  I am an atheist.  The last thing that I would want to do is interfere with her faith.  Her faith stresses beautiful ideas such as humility and helping others.  She is always trying to convert me to being a Catholic.  I tell her that she can try for a thousand years and this will not affect my being an atheist.  But I also tell her that I greatly admire Pope Francis and many aspects of her faith. My friend is also a firm believer in science and like Pope Francis, she believes that global warming exists and is caused largely by man.  A discussion on global warming though will also unlikely change minds.  However, discussions are great if you enjoy them and you treat others with respect.

If it only was so simple...I couldn't care less what people believe in if it didn't affect the world I live in in a negative way. But religions do unfortunately. Historically they have also affected the world in a good way, there's no question about that. Nothing's black and white.

Because I cannot make them go away even if I wanted to, for me it's most important to reduce their negative influence to minimum. I cannot change people's faith but I can do something about the politicies they are trying to impose on others.

I no longer call myself an atheist partly because people like ajlongs... are greatly misunderstanding and misinterpretating the concept. I simply call myself non-religious. I am also rather anti-religious because of what I wrote above.

[georgey]

Historically they have also affected the world in a good way, there's no question about that. Nothing's black and white.

Thanks.  

[georgey]

Historically they have also affected the world in a good way, there's no question about that. Nothing's black and white.

Thanks. 

[ajlongspiano]

Hi Outin,
 
   With all due respect, be very careful when telling somebody that they misunderstand or do not understand a concept and/or word. A true atheist is somebody who does not believe in a god/gods. Period. The new atheists are trying to redefine the term to mean a " Lack of belief in god/gods " but that is flirting with Agnosticism (Not believing but not denying the possibility.) Why is it that we are constantly distorting the semantics of the English language to make words conveniently fit into our own system of thought? Why can't Christianity be Christianity (people distort what Christianity is as well. I don't deny that), Atheism be Atheism, and Agnosticism be Agnosticism? With all of this redefining and cautious but convenient word-play, we will eventually become a very confused society because a clear foundation of semantics will turn extremely foggy. Believe what you want to believe regarding words and their meaning. But tread carefully.

Best,

AJ

[Bob]

Second time this has happened.   

I go for jog.  I have a set path I usually go on.  I time it just to keep an eye on that, not to push the time.  Point being I don't want to stop running though.

Partway through a girl turns onto "my" path from a side street.  She ends up being about a half block in front of me.  It ends up looking like I'm chasing after possibly.  But then I've also got this straight ahead of me...



Awkward enough.  "Hey cars driving by.  I'm not chasing her.  And my eyes are on the horizon.  She just happens to be straight in my line of sight."  The first time it happened, she was farther ahead and turned... only to appear back again right by me when her path turned back to mine a few blocks later.

I don't want to stop and walk because the point is to run.  Crossing to the other side of the street isn't always an option.

[outin]

Hi Outin,
 
   With all due respect, be very careful when telling somebody that they misunderstand or do not understand a concept and/or word. A true atheist is somebody who does not believe in a god/gods. Period. The new atheists are trying to redefine the term to mean a " Lack of belief in god/gods " but that is flirting with Agnosticism (Not believing but not denying the possibility.) Why is it that we are constantly distorting the semantics of the English language to make words conveniently fit into our own system of thought? Why can't Christianity be Christianity (people distort what Christianity is as well. I don't deny that), Atheism be Atheism, and Agnosticism be Agnosticism? With all of this redefining and cautious but convenient word-play, we will eventually become a very confused society because a clear foundation of semantics will turn extremely foggy. Believe what you want to believe regarding words and their meaning. But tread carefully.

I'm sorry but to me your post makes little sense. What exactly is the difference between "lack of belief" and "not believing"? In my case there's no difference. I am 100% sure that there are no gods. Period. But I don't see it as an -ism, since for me it's the natural state and all religions are distortions of reality.

So I still think you are interpreting the word atheist to forward your cause as religious people often do. No offense meant, just an observation from my point of view.

[mjames]

Second time this has happened.   

I go for jog.  I have a set path I usually go on.  I time it just to keep an eye on that, not to push the time.  Point being I don't want to stop running though.

Partway through a girl turns onto "my" path from a side street.  She ends up being about a half block in front of me.  It ends up looking like I'm chasing after possibly.  But then I've also got this straight ahead of me...



Awkward enough.  "Hey cars driving by.  I'm not chasing her.  And my eyes are on the horizon.  She just happens to be straight in my line of sight."  The first time it happened, she was farther ahead and turned... only to appear back again right by me when her path turned back to mine a few blocks later.

I don't want to stop and walk because the point is to run.  Crossing to the other side of the street isn't always an option.

LOLOLOLOLOL
Dude I usually act the same way.
Well I don't run cause exercise is for losers.
but basically when I'm walking alongside/behind a chick for like at least 4blocks I start going all like
"shiiiit, what if she thinks Im a stalker.
dont do anything weird!
should I slow down so she can frick off my path
or should i speed up so I can overpass so it'll look like im just a normal person.."


I have no idea why I panic like this, it's not like I've stalked anyone before... 

[chopinlover01]

I cannot stand with ya on this one, Outin. It's impossible to truly KNOW that there are no gods, so I don't say that for certain.
@AJ- Unfortunately, you're confusing separating knowledge from belief with redefining atheism.
There are two questions; what you know, and what you believe.
In terms of what I KNOW, and what any intellectually honest person KNOWS, is nothing in absolute certainty. Nobody is absolutely certain or has absolute proof that God exists, much less the God of any particular religion out of the tens of thousands of religions proposed by our species alone.
You're partially correct in that it is somewhat agnostic in nature; but that does not take away from the fact that atheists do not actively believe in God/Gods, whether you want to define that (or rather, whether the individual atheist wants to define that) as an active disbelief in God or simply a lack of belief.

[outin]

I cannot stand with ya on this one, Outin. It's impossible to truly KNOW that there are no gods,

Actually it may be impossible to PROVE, but it's not impossible to KNOW. Trust me 

[chopinlover01]

Actually it may be impossible to PROVE, but it's not impossible to KNOW. Trust me 

Knowing something is not proof of its validity, since your own brain will tend to warp things in your favor. I may "know" that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for reasons X, Y, and Z, but that doesn't objectively prove it

[georgey]

I don’t know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.  But I am 99.9999%+ sure in my mind.  Of course I cannot prove there is not a god.

Just a quick word of caution when using your intuition to conclude something (at least in math):  We know there are an infinite number of points (numbers) on the number line from 0 to 1.  Example, .50231 is a point (number) in this interval.  So is the irrational number pi/4. You may conclude that there are twice as many points on the number line going from 0 to 2 than there are going from 0 to 1.  Or you may conclude that there are 3 times as many points on the number line going from 0 to 3 as there are going from 0 to 1.  It can be proven in math with 100% certainty that there are the SAME number of points on the number line going from 0 to 1 as there are going from 0 to 2 or as going from 0 to 3.  I fact there are the SAME number of points on the number line going from 0 to 1 as there are points going from negative infinity to positive infinity.  The proof is rather simple and I can see it clearly, but it goes against my intuition.

[mjames]

The only things you can know with a 100% certainty are things that are wrong, and sorry to say, religious claims have quite the track record in regards to being completely wrong about almost everything...

So it's pretty safe to say that along with their claims about world (creation myths, biology etc) they are also most likely wrong about their god(s) being an actual thing.

"well can u prove god doesnt exist??"
"well can u prove powerpuff girls dont exist?"

XD

[georgey]

It can be proven in math with 100% certainty that there are the SAME number of points on the number line going from 0 to 1 as there are going from 0 to 2 or as going from 0 to 3.  I fact there are the SAME number of points on the number line going from 0 to 1 as there are points going from negative infinity to positive infinity.  The proof is rather simple and I can see it clearly, but it goes against my intuition.

100% certainty mentioned above means 99.9999%+ certainty. 

[georgey]

100% certainty mentioned above means 99.9999%+ certainty. 

99.9999% certainty mentioned above means 99.27% sure (i.e., we are pretty sure.) 

[georgey]

The only things you can know with a 100% certainty are things that are wrong

Hi mjames. Are you saying we know with 100% certainty that 1+1=3 is wrong but we do not know with 100% certainty that 1+1=2?  Or do we know both with the same 100% certainty, or maybe know both with the same 99.999% certainty?  You may be speaking as a Physicists as opposed to a mathematician?

[outin]

I may "know" that xx for reasons X, Y, and Z, but that doesn't objectively prove xx

Didn't I say just that?

While I usually prefer to have some proof, in this specific case for me it's quite enough to just know

[Bob]

Fatigue.  And whether running is actually making me healthier (at <20 miles/week) vs. just draining energy.  I'm hoping I do see some long term improvement but I still wonder if it's worth it and if there might not be a better way to make progress.

[Bob]

Was thinking it might be interesting to "challenge" myself to listen through all of a certain group of pieces from a composer.

[chopinlover01]

All Beethoven sonatas.
Ready, go!

[mjames]

that's not a challenge..thats fun...

ALL CZERNY ETUDES, GO!

[chopinlover01]

Psh.
All Hanon exercises in every key. GO!

[georgey]

All Beethoven sonatas.
Ready, go!

You read my mind!  I like to listen in opus order since this is roughly chronological and my Ashkenazy set is recorded in this order.  2-3 listens to each CD then on to the next! 

[georgey]

that's not a challenge..thats fun...

You got that right! 

[mspiano101]

Like the "What are you listening to right now" thread...

What's the most pressing concern on your mind at the moment?

Things you are working on now, things you "must remember to do today or this week,"  etc.  not necessarily piano.

My mind is really focused on getting to sleep...but....duh, I'm still on the computer. Time to shut it down and catch some ZZZzzzzzz's.

[Bob]

All Beethoven sonatas.
Ready, go!

We'll see....


http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=41306.msg661061#msg661061

[pencilart3]

All pieces for solo piano. Go.

[chopinlover01]

Both what's on my mind now and advice for Bob:
Alfred Brendel's Beethoven sonatas.
Life=complete

[georgey]

.

[briansaddleback]

dude i freaking love eggs man

yo you should try either scrambled eggs or omellete with chorizo (portuguese sausage...no sex jokes plz) and cheddar. stuff is da bomb.

either cheddar or mozzarella.

Do you like spicy? There is this Mexican picante sauce I love at the market it is called Pico Pica (get the hot not the mild one sucks) 

When you cook morning scrambled eggs, toss a little cracked black pepper, throw in a little jack or chedar cheese near the end ( i dont like my chees completely melted; i like it a bit stiff in some parts , the texture it adds is good) and then after you serve it up pour a litte Pico Pica on top of it. Maybe a few slices of fresh avocado on the side.  A bit of hot crispy bacon
this is the best breakfast I can think of.
im so hungry 

[kawai_cs]

When you cook morning scrambled eggs, toss a little cracked black pepper, throw in a little jack or chedar cheese near the end ( i dont like my chees completely melted; i like it a bit stiff in some parts , the texture it adds is good) and then after you serve it up pour a litte Pico Pica on top of it. Maybe a few slices of fresh avocado on the side. 

Yum! Add a bowl of oatmeal with berries and coconut butter and then it is a perfect breakfast.