05 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinYes.
I think I see where you are trying to go with this. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that once dead we are 'outside of time' and therefore any state we might be in at that point cannot change because there is no passing of time in which the state could change. Therefore there is no possibility of my 'temporary' relationships followed by or ...[text shortened]... ation, you also have to accept the possibility of my two extra options.
--- Penguin
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI might watch that later when I have the time and am not at work...
A debate -
David Berlinski ( scientist , somewhat agnostic intellectual ) verses
Christopher Hitchens (late world class atheist / journalist)
[b] Does Atheism Poison Everything ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPUqzXfNUA0[/b]
But could you explain why it's relevant to this thread and discussion?
(also, the answer is going to be no. Atheism doesn't poison everything.)
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that David Berlinski is another
hand wringing agnostic who doesn't realise they're actually an atheist
because they've bought into theists attempts to redefine it.
If that's the case then I'm so tired of that argument.
EDIT: Actually given that (as penguin has pointed out) Berlinski is
a discovery institute goon I am not going to waste time watching the
video.
If there are any points in it you want me to look at you can type them.
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI might watch that later
I might watch that later when I have the time and am not at work...
But could you explain why it's relevant to this thread and discussion?
(also, the answer is going to be no. Atheism doesn't poison everything.)
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that David Berlinski is another
hand wringing agnostic who doesn't realise they're actually a ...[text shortened]... eists attempts to redefine it.
If that's the case then I'm so tired of that argument.
On the other hand, you might prefer not to:
David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, ...
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinYeah I don't need to see Christopher Hitchens shred another Discovery Institute goon.
[b]I might watch that later
On the other hand, you might prefer not to:
David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, ...
--- Penguin.[/b]
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudge"I think I see where you are trying to go with this. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that once dead we are 'outside of time' and therefore any state we might be in at that point cannot change because there is no passing of time in which the state could change. Therefore there is no possibility of my 'temporary' relationships followed by or interspersed with periods of separation. It is either all or nothing.
What are you agreeing to?
The entire post or just parts of it?
And does this mean that you now accept that there are more than two options?
Have I got that right?" (googlefudge)
"All". Yes.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou really are allergic to typing actual sentences yourself aren't you.
"I think I see where you are trying to go with this. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that once dead we are 'outside of time' and therefore any state we might be in at that point cannot change because there is no passing of time in which the state could change. Therefore there is no possibility of my 'temporary' relationships followed ...[text shortened]... n. It is either all or nothing.
Have I got that right?" (googlefudge)
"All". Yes.
And again it was penguins post and question you were responding to not mine.
What your post should look like is something along the lines of this...
"Yes Penguin you have got it. I believe that when we die and our souls go to the afterlife we
are outside of time and thus nothing can change and therefore any relationship we have
with god in the afterlife must therefore be either eternal separation or eternal togetherness."
The advantages of a response like that is it clarifies your position and gives us the opportunity
of checking to see if we have understood you right and that you have understood us.
By just copying and pasting and saying 'this' is what I meant then we have your response in
our words and we can't be sure if you meant exactly that or if you understood what we were
saying.
And you still haven't answered penguins next question which was...
There are a number of problems with this but the main one as I see it is that outside of time, there is no such thing as 'experience' since experience is a process dependent on the passing of time. Without experience, your concept of any kind of 'soul' vanishes. Likewise a 'relationship' is also impossible without the passing of time.
So you have to have some kind of time in order to have a soul that can experience a relationship. As soon as you bring time back into the equation, you also have to accept the possibility of my two extra options.
And then added to by twitehead with...
Other problems:
1. The concept that this occurs 'after' some point in our timeline is invalid.
2. The concept of 'eternal' is questionable in this context.
3. The concept that some choice in the timeline can result in a change to something outside of time is invalid.
Anything outside of time is static with respect to anything inside of time and anything inside of time is static with respect to anything outside of time ie the entity outside of time sees the whole timeline at once and cannot tinker with it or otherwise interact without creating new timelines.
So...
Are you going to actually answer these questions/issues with your response?
And can you please do so in a style that actually makes your meaning clear.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI am not familiar with Discovery Institute for Science, so I googled it and called up their web page and out that Berlinski is one of 15 senior fellows.
I might watch that later when I have the time and am not at work...
But could you explain why it's relevant to this thread and discussion?
(also, the answer is going to be no. Atheism doesn't poison everything.)
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that David Berlinski is another
hand wringing agnostic who doesn't realise they're actually a the
video.
If there are any points in it you want me to look at you can type them.
However, I am not sure why you are so afraid of those from the Discovery Institute. Why do you fear them?
Perhaps it is this guys education you fear since you have little.
David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He is currently a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Berlinski has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
Recent articles by Dr. Berlinski have been featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. Two of his articles, "On the Origins of the Mind" (November 2004) and "What Brings a World into Being" (March 2001) have been anthologized in The Best American Science Writing 2005 , edited by Alan Lightman (Harper Perennial), and The Best American Science Writing 2002, edited by Jesse Cohen, respectively.
He is author of numerous books, including A Tour of the Calculus (Pantheon 1996), The Advent of the Algorithm (2000, Harcourt Brace),.Newton's Gift (The Free Press 2000), The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (Harcourt, October 2003), A Short History of Mathematics for the Modern Library series at Random House (2004), and The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (Crown Forum, 2008).
The Instructor
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIt is actually google fudge. You are welcome.
"I think I see where you are trying to go with this. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that once dead we are 'outside of time' and therefore any state we might be in at that point cannot change because there is no passing of time in which the state could change. Therefore there is no possibility of my 'temporary' relationships followed ...[text shortened]... n. It is either all or nothing.
Have I got that right?" (googlefudge)
"All". Yes.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAh, no you have it wrong.
I am not familiar with Discovery Institute for Science, so I googled it and called up their web page and out that Berlinski is one of 15 senior fellows.
However, I am not sure why you are so afraid of those from the Discovery Institute. Why do you fear them?
Perhaps it is this guys education you fear since you have little.
David Berlinski received ...[text shortened]... Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (Crown Forum, 2008).
The Instructor
I'm not remotely afraid of him, the institute or what they have to say.
I do however have a limited amount of time with which to do everything I want to do
and listening to a discovery institute goon talk nonsense I have already heard a hundred
times before is not something I consider to be an enjoyable or worthwhile use of my
time.
06 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo do you have anything to say about my comment:
"And that wasn't my question, it was penguins." (googlefudge)
And that wasn't my question, it was penguin's. (Grampy Bobby)
====
There are a number of problems with this but the main one as I see it is that outside of time, there is no such thing as 'experience' since experience is a process dependent on the passing of time. Without experience, your concept of any kind of 'soul' vanishes. Likewise a 'relationship' is also impossible without the passing of time.
So you have to have some kind of time in order to have a soul that can experience a relationship. As soon as you bring time back into the equation, you also have to accept the possibility of my two extra options.
====
and TWhitehead's additions:
====
Other problems:
1. The concept that this occurs 'after' some point in our timeline is invalid.
2. The concept of 'eternal' is questionable in this context.
3. The concept that some choice in the timeline can result in a change to something outside of time is invalid.
Anything outside of time is static with respect to anything inside of time and anything inside of time is static with respect to anything outside of time ie the entity outside of time sees the whole timeline at once and cannot tinker with it or otherwise interact without creating new timelines.
====
--- Penguin.