mswas, this is a good source that refutes many of your arguments concerning atheism as a religion.
As for your argument concerning what God is, it differs drastically from the common definition of God (as mentioned). When you say God most people think you are referring to a supreme being that should be worshipped, rather than your definition (which I don’t quite follow).
It appears to me that what you’re saying is similar to (but not quite) that everything in existence has a common thread, something (perhaps) from a scientific world view that could be explained as a kin to a law of physics. Which science could then falsify by proving there is no relationship between a rock and a person. Now I don’t believe this is what you think (but maybe close to), so my question is, how do you get from a similar line of thought to the belief that it should be worshipped? (I admit, I may be way off in understanding what your belief in God is)
I think we still do not entirely agree – I think our veiws are antiparallel. My argment is ‘Everything in the physical universe can be tested and modeled, following the scientific process, to success eventually’. IMO, admitted perveyors of “magic” and “mysticism” often fail to philosophically separate themselves from subjectivity - thus their methods include precise words spoken, screaming out a spirit’s or demon’s name or effected by exactly WHO is actually performing the ceremony. Scientific processes, if done correctly, must be independent of all of those things, otherwise, all cry “foul”. The forced (eventual) diversion from subjectivity is what has laid the groundwork for real knowledge (for everybody) about the universe.
*I think I must add to one of Voyager’s arguments regarding “auras”. Kirlian photographs certainly may be “measuring” something – it can be an automatic process which, in the end, is independent of observer. It is a physical process and therefore must be measuring physical things (the measuring is not a spiritual process, anyway). What the Kirlin photos may be measuring, is the same thing that “laser balls” (again, another Tesla-style, fun invention, found at Spencer gifts, and other such stores) demonstrates. However warm, sweaty, moist, grounded your fingertips are will determine the brightness of the plasma outlining on the inside of the glass. If you’ve never had a chance to see these effects, chek it out – very cool, but very physical.
The standard eye sensitivity [ http://www.amastro.org/at/ot/othcs.html ] only goes up to a wavelength just over 700 nm (deep red). The std human eye is MOST sensative in the green-yellow midrange (~550 nm). However, the stucture and function of everyone’s eyes are slightly different. Imagine how even a minor difference or deformation of cones in the retina might easily cause slightly higher max wavelength, into the infra-red range. It wouldn’t be weird to the person in question, a barely describable effect - after all, it’s what that person has always seen since day 1 of life (and faintly, I might add). My guess is that they would associate it with a deep, faint red that is barely perceptable - under the right neurotic condition, one might make themselves overly sensitive to such inputs. Like a lie-detector, if a target was not in control of their heart-ate and other bodily functions, their body’s infra-red output would certainly appear to change with anger, embarrassment, etc. I can imagine that someone with such an “affliction/gift” may be able to make such a distinction.
I do not see such a talent as “magic” at all - Very cool though. And I’m still not convinced that it MUST be real, only possible. I certainly have not found a person to experiment on, myself and I’ve not seen any well-accepted concensus papers on the subject, yet.
MsWas. Maybe my second complaint (again, antiparallel to yours) is that people who have belief in or have regularly reproduced spiritual experiences do not systematically try harder to come up with or help others to model the physical functions involved in a “cause and effect”, scientific fashon (you know, like QM physicists ::jab:: ). From what I have seen, such spiritual types try once with a less than qualified experimentalist and then, after a failure or two, try to stack the explanation on other concoctions of their odd belief systems.
). From what I have seen, such spiritual types try once with a less than qualified experimentalist and then, after a failure or two, try to stack the explanation on other concoctions of their odd belief systems.