WWLabRat

I see you failed to also show the definition of religion. For your convenience, I'll quote Merriam-Webster: Based on this, I think I'm well within what I said before. Which is the point that I was trying to argue. I don't ignore posts like some do here. I replied to his rebuttal as was needed and discussed each point that was made. I don't see how that can be considered ignoring. I have not changed the definition to suit my argument.

Could you provide a bit more detail on what you believe?

Ok, that's where you lost me. lol

But Buddhism is a philosophical view of the world that happens to have a large following, not a religion. I don't have to change the definition of religion to exclude Buddhism. Whereas part of Animism dictates that there is a supernatural power that works in the background pulling strings. Ancestor veneration can't really be defined as a religion either. It's nothing more than honoring the memories of those who came before you and hoping that their existence continues after death. The only argument you could make in regards to ancestral worship is that it is present in many religions. However, being present in various religious doctrine doesn't make it a religion unto itself.

The problem I see with your argument is that, as with all technology, someone will want to make a profit off of it. And anywhere that profit can be made, things tend to go awry. In this case, something like In Time would very much be the more likely a scenario to your view that all of humanity would live an indefinite length of time with no age related diseases. And as with anything medical, a person cannot be forced to take the treatment that would make them live forever. It would have to be elective, not compulsive, in order for people to accept it.

And yet many bars will have a Trivia night... Although I must not be going to the most intelligent bar because I've had to correct their answers on more than one occasion... In regards to OP, I would rather be exceedingly intelligent than happy. If I were that intelligent, don't you think it would be reasonable that I could figure out what would make me happy and pursue it? Well, so long as happiness didn't require a lobotomy and going A Clockwork Orange to Jersey Shore...

S1eep, I think the problem you, as well as others who claim that "atheists are religious", have is the incorrect use of the word religion. Crack open a thesaurus sometime and you will see next to religion (and therefore describing) the words "faith", "belief", "worship", and "creed". Also, religious persons and theists will gather to affirm to each other and their deity their belief in said deity or creed. In my opinion, when Buddhism is used as an example of a non-theistic religion is incorrect. Buddhism is more a way of life than religion. It seeks nothingness as a way to end suffering. Because you can't have happiness for one without suffering for another. Rather than say that atheists are religious, it'd be a bit more productive to say that *some* atheists are *spiritual*. Spirituality only has to do with the metaphysics of the self, not the whole and as such doesn't deal with the belief, or disbelief, in a deity. I have been born and raised Catholic, but if someone asks me about my beliefs and religious affiliation, I tell them that I am spiritual, but not religious. Most would say that this makes me agnostic (and at times it may be fitting) but agnosticism is when someone is unsure as to whether they believe in the existence of deities.

As Chris Logan said, there's still death in the movie In Time (starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried; IMDB.com link here). In the movie they've eliminated aging and also have given everyone a clock that tells them how long they have left to live. Lifetime is used as a currency to be traded for goods and services. When the clock hits zero, you die, unable to be revived. It is shown that there are some who have lived centuries, while others can barely make it past 18 years (when their clock which has been frozen at 1 year since birth, activates). These people are left at the age they looked when they turned 18 and suffer no ill effects of being alive for so long, even when they've died. Essentially the idea that you've brought forth is similar to this. Corporations would, most likely, attempt to make a profit off the ability to halt aging and the future seen in In Time shows what can happen when people are unable to die through natural aging. Do I want to live 1000 years? Hell no. And yes, I've seen the effects of the aging process on close family members who have passed away in recent years. They have also fallen to the effects of dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson's, incontinence, etc in their final weeks and months. I will forever know how they looked at me and had no idea who I was despite seeing me grow up from a baby. But knowing that still wouldn't change my decision to live a normal life and die when my time is over from natural causes.

Hells Bells by AC/DC

By the Way by Red Hot Chili Peppers

With science, everything has to begin with a lone person seeking to find the answers. Rather than mock the mods, why not work towards discovering the answers? You say that people aren't willing to investigate these possibilities, but you yourself are capable of such. Rather than procrastinating as you indicate that most scientists seem to be doing, why don't you research the pyramids yourself? Attempt to get a research grant to do just that and find out if your answer is the correct one. Until then, please provide evidence to support your hypothesis more than just pure speculation. Within science, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong in the end, only that you did it and showed your work.

If everything is in the image of God, then why do we not all look the exact same? Think the same way? Do the exact same things? And if we are all gods, as you say, why am I not able to create an universe in six days and take the seventh one off? If this is the type of god that's out there, then by murdering we are able to kill god. Does that really make sense? An all powerful being creates others like it but with the ability to be put down like Old Yeller? The god you describe doesn't seem very logical. Don't get me wrong, each is entitled to their own perceptions of the possibility of a deity and the personification of said deity, but for a being that would be able to create something as immense and deep as the universe and make it so that we already would know how to kill it... I don't know where I'm going with this other than to say it doesn't make any sense. - I agree -If more people would think this way the world may be better off. -Um.. Isn't this the whole debate? People can't decide whether or not a deity exists due to a lack of physical data... -As with anything worth knowing. -This is true. -The polar extremes of either can be just as damaging, so I think it's a bit subjective.

RE Your Brains by Jonathan Coulton

Sorry, I missed this post when I replied earlier... Without time, change couldn't happen. Nothing happens instantaneously. It has to occur in a progression of frames, though those frames may start to be smaller and smaller cuts of time.

How can something exist if it is non-existent? Just the fact that it is there would mean that it exists and ceases non-existence.

"Look guy"?! This may be an internet forum, but you can still show some respect, even if you may not like me as a person. Also, philosophy begat science. It's safe to say that science is there to provide logical and orderly steps that ideas, thought up under the umbrella of philosophy, should follow to validate. You said that the wiki article mentions many different points that could be attacked with the Libet experiments yet you have consistently failed to mention if any, none, or all of those are critiques are ones which you share. That I know of, no one on this forum is psychic and able to know what your stance is without you making it know. Simply stating that it's provided in the link doesn't add to the conversation, only adds to the post count and the time wasted to check the thread for updates. I never said that it was a make or break, but reactions still are done on the conscious level.

While pressure itself doesn't have weight, it is matter (which does have both mass and weight) compressed into a container (such as an O2 tank). After removing the weight of the container, I can understand how it can be believed that that the pressure has weight, albeit indirectly. The weight of it would be the total combined weight of the molecular Oxygen. Another technical point though would be "wind energy". Isn't the wind the movement of molecules of air? And seeing that air has a measurable weight and mass, the equation in the original post of "Energy x acceleration=Force" would still need to be F=ma.

But within a deterministic world, 100% of the time, given a choice, you will always make the exact same one. It states that the only way the world could possibly be is that things happen the exact same way that they did; the world would not exist as any other possible reality. Now, from someone in the future looking to the past, this looks apparent. In order for them to look back from their present and see things when compared to their existence, there was only one way that it could progress. The Choices that were made weren't choices as they could see, they had to happen that specific way for the world to progress in the way that it did for him to be able to look back on it the same way. Conversely, from the present, or the past, looking forward, there are an infinite number of possibilities of what the world could be like in the time of that future observer. Each splice of time gives a chance for a change in what is being done. Of the hundreds of things you say and do each moment, something could change that could alter what happens down the line. Time, in this view, isn't so much a line as it is a series of vectors with the degree of the angle indicating to what degree that choice, that moment, impacts the next series. If I had time right now, I would find or make an image to show what I mean. So, in essence, a deterministic world is only possible when looking to the past. The only thing that can be certain, provided a one way flow of time, is that the past happened the way it did and from our current frame, there's no other possible choice that someone could have made to make the world appear the way it does now.

Clearly you believe that there was an argument, else you wouldn't have stated anything in opposition. The problem that you mentioned with neuroscience is "that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science." In what way is neuroscience not a pure science? Science is the process by which we seek factual and practical knowledge. You mention a specific study, but refuse to point out what it is that you find wrong with it? To me, it seems like you haven't bothered to do any research on the matter. Every study, no matter how inconsequential it may seem is worth debunking. If Libet's study doesn't "even warrant debunking in the first place", then why mention it in your previous post? How does free will not include instinctive reactions? If a person's natural instinct is to survive and keep from harm, what causes people to smoke, shoot guns, drink alcohol, drive cars, all of which are dangerous things to do, but everyday there's people doing each of these, sometimes all of them in one day. Granted I'm guilty of doing each of these, never all at the same time, but done nevertheless. It a conscious decision on my part to do any of these. Could I quit smoking tobacco? Yeah, and have before, but I find it calming. Could I quit drinking alcohol? Again, I could, but I do it to prevent me from being nervous when talking to females I'm interested in. I could quit driving, but that would require that I move closer to work so that I'm not hiking 40 miles to and from work everyday. And finally, I could easily stop using firearms, but it helps me to remember my time in the military and the simplicity of it when compared to my civilian life (another discussion for some other time). Everyone has free will to make choices for themselves. There's not a shred of evidence that exists to show otherwise: when people don't do things that they're supposed to, when someone breaks the law, when you go to vote... They are all choices that are made by you, not for you. Even slaves, though told what they had to do each day still had the choice of whether or not to overthrow the master or to continue to do their bidding, lest the slave receive punishment.

In regards to Phi's post, phrasing is a necessity among boards like this. Although we may not know the extent of your background within certain fields, we are all here to learn and to share our knowledge. Asking questions is essential to furthering our own knowledge and to get others to further theirs. In regards to your OP, Matt, you said that "If what i have been reading has any truth...". Could you please provide us with the materials you have been reading? If they are published books, the Title and Author should be sufficient; if a web page, a link would be helpful; or if it is from a conversation you and a friend were having over a pint, then say so. Also, don't think that Phi's post was meant to be insulting, I'm sure it wasn't. It can just be a bit redundant to state "It's just a theory" when posting in speculations. After all, that's what the reason why we have a Speculations section. Also, what was it about the way they built the pyramids? Do you mean the physical structure? The shape? The materials used? What about the way it was built indicates, to yourself and other theorists on the matter, that this was used to harness the power of electricity? In regards to the lack of soot, is it possible that the paintings were done during the construction? Or a series of mirrors that were then removed prior to sealing it? Or, a stretch may it be, is it possible that they were done in complete darkness? Furthermore, the ancient Egyptians, as far as I know, didn't have the tools or technology to harness steam, which would have been needed in order to power a generator like Tesla's (wiki link). If they did, surely a civilization advanced enough to use electricity would also seek to put their knowledge to papyrus so that others could know what they know.

Iris by The Goo Goo Dolls The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air by Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince

So, I share again... If he has a specific criticism to make of a specific study, then he should make it, but poisoning the well is a logical fallacy and not an acceptable form of argument. Like Pears said, I'm not so sure that this could be classified as "poisoning the well". Sure, at first glance the snip that you quoted would indicate the poison, but he did go on to state a study. Rather than state that it's poisoning the well, it would be better to just state that Villain needs to cite specific points within the study that support the stance. EDIT: In addition to this, based on the RationalWiki link you provided, it seems that the Poisoning the Well fallacy would be more appropriate in a debate where a person's character is being called into question.

I was down on Bourbon St in New Orleans for Mardi Gras back in 2007... There's a lot of things that are missing from this picture that would complete the "party animal" persona. For example, it's missing hard liquors, torn/holey clothes, spilled drink stains, etc.