Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Theists and atheists just the same


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 156 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 5 May 2012 02:53:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 May 2012 02:55:18 BDT
Shakepen says:
WR: I agree that the underlying principles are the same, but the units of counting undergo a unit change. Oh, I would like to continue to point out that math exists only in our heads.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 May 2012 09:44:52 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 May 2012 09:45:35 BDT
William R says:
First you said,

"Surely, you know that different cultures use different basis for their math. Some use base ten; others, a different base. Consider the Sumerians as an example. This ideation proves that math does not exist independent of the human mind."

I pointed out that how you represent the units is irrelevant to the question of whether mathematics is universal†(sin A = a/c however you choose to write the numbers and regardless of whether anyone knows it), and now you reply,

"I agree that the underlying principles are the same, but the units of counting undergo a unit change."

yet you still conclude that†maths exists only in our heads. I have to say I'm puzzled as to why you would think this.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 May 2012 16:57:36 BDT
Shakepen says:
WR: What I am going to say sounds like verbal trickery, but isn't. There are relationships in the real world. Without man, the planets would still revolve around suns; the real world would still be here, etc. However, in order to express these relationships require symbols and how these symbols relate not only to themselves but to the real word. Without us, without man, these relationships could never be stated. The planets would revolve etc. but there would be no relationships. Even with man here, new relationships are constantly being found in the real world and expressed by math as you so well know. And so, the relationships, which can only be expressed symbolically, are in our heads, not the real world, i.e., the symbol is not the thing it represents.

Posted on 6 May 2012 17:23:50 BDT
Spin says:
All relationships, even the term itself, are a construct of mankind. Relationships of any definition can only be considered in terms of Mans "relationship" with the universe. Nothing in the universe has or obeys a "relationship" of any kind except Man. The term "relationship" is no more than a linguistic trickery expressing "Human consciousness".

In reply to an earlier post on 7 May 2012 01:13:23 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: Grasshopper, you are approaching enlightment!

In reply to an earlier post on 8 May 2012 21:29:28 BDT
Spin says:
Shakespen: nowhere near it. Nowhere near it...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 22:30:38 BDT
William R says:
Ah, so this is just about what we mean by 'mathematics'. Agreed, the symbols - which seem to be what you mean by it - are just in our heads, but as you said with 'new relationships are constantly being found in the real world', the mathematical relationships in the natural universe are things we find rather than invent.

Posted on 9 May 2012 22:37:17 BDT
Spin says:
What does "+" and "-" mean in the natural world? What does "E" and "M" and "C" mean in the natural world? How does nature "square" its phenomenon?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2012 02:33:45 BDT
Shakepen says:
WR: I would disagree that one finds or invents intellectual constructs. Some genius sees a new way of looking at the relationships in the real world and expresses that view mathematically. This idea is not too far away from what Jesus did to the OT although he did not use mathematics.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2012 02:34:25 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: I agree with your post--completely!

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2012 02:36:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 May 2012 02:37:20 BDT
Shakepen says:
WR: I am not a mathematician. I have, therefore, written to Cal Tech to see what they think of my statements. If they tell me that I'm wrong, I will acknowledge this in a post. The important thing is to arrive at the truth as we can find it.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 18:58:53 BDT
William R says:
Some intellectual constructs are invented, but the circumference of a circle would be Pi D whether anyone discovered the relationship or not. That's what I mean by mathematics.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 19:24:13 BDT
Spin says:
William: The words "Circumference" and "Pi" are artificial constructions denoting conscious observation opf phenomena. They do not exist in reality. Not even the phenomena they describe, a circle, exists in nature. A "circle" is an artificial construct existing only in the human mind.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 19:58:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 May 2012 20:00:16 BDT
TomC says:
If a raindrop falls into a pool, the waves will radiate in a pattern where all points are an equal distance from the impact point. Whatever word we humans apply to that pattern, it exists in nature whether we are here to speculate about it or not. And don't give me any cr*p about trees falling in forests.

By the way - I hope you enjoy the fruits of my research on the problem of "1 + 1".

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 20:34:57 BDT
Spin says:
Tom: Wrong: The circles in a pool are your observation. You limited vision generalises what you see. At a chemical and quantum level the "circles" are not circles. They appear to you as being so because you view them from a spatio-temporal distance. Next you will claim that the Earth and the Sun are "Spheres"...

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 20:43:37 BDT
TomC says:
I could place sensors which would detect the ripples which you claim are figments of my imagination. All of them at a particular distance would indicate that the ripple arrived there simultaneously. I suppose you'll say that's an artefact of my vision too.

I'm waiting for you to call me "grasshopper"; given your preference for spouting pseudo-intellectual mystic b*llocks about subjects of which you know nothing, and a natural tendency to patronise "you guys" who do not share your vision, the time cannot be far off.

BTW: have you got the Tom's clearly sorted out in your head now? I know it's difficult, but I'm sure you'll get there in the end.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 20:55:41 BDT
Spin says:
Tom: I did not say the ripples were figments of your imagination. Do not try to escape the facts by misrepresenting me. Your eyes only receive a limited amount of information. What to you is a "circle" is in fact simply an iiregular pattern, observed by you as a "circle" because you view it at a distance and with limited focus. If your eyes were accurately atuned to nature, enabling you see reality as it is, you would not be able to move as your mind would not have the informtion needed to interact with the world; you would see a haze of chaos. As a bee sees wavelengths we cannot see, so our eyes are adapted to a certain wavelength and a focus which benefits our interaction with the world. There are no "circles" "Triangles" or "squares" in nature. Such things are based on human vision, and do not exist in reality.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 21:03:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 May 2012 21:03:47 BDT
TomC says:
"What to you is a "circle" is in fact simply an iiregular pattern"

No, it's a very regular one, showing a high degree of order. In fact that is precisely why we find it so remarkable. And it is not only remarkable to our eyes; the sensors would fire simultaneously, indicating a remarkable event to them also, not based on human vision.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 21:09:01 BDT
Spin says:
Tom: Yes. Regular to your eyes. Examine the circle at a closer level, through microsopes of a simple or hi-tech kind and you can see the irregularities for yourself. I suppose you think your skin is perfectly smooth as well?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 21:25:05 BDT
TomC says:
Oh dear. The circle on the pont will certainly depart from the mathematical abstraction, but that's quite a different thing from describing it as chaotic, and is certainly not an excuse for throwing up your hands and jeering "mathematics doesn't work".

In fact I hate to break it to you, but there is a whole branch of mathematics devoted to describing how and to what extent real-world waveforms depart from their idealised representations.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 21:30:26 BDT
Spin says:
Tom: Since when have you departed from advocating theism to advocting mathematics and quantum physics? I would be intrigued to know your mathematics and Physics concerning Homosexuality, abortion and Islam.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 21:40:54 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 May 2012 21:44:29 BDT
TomC says:
Spin,

I really am getting p*ssed off with this.

For the last time: there are two Tom's on this forum. One - Tom M I believe - is, I understand, a Catholic American. I am not that Tom.

The other is an atheist Englishman. That is myself.

Got it now? Penny dropped, has it?

And, by the way, even if I had been the other person, what perverted logic leads you to conclude that ranting about my purported views on "Homosexuality, abortion and Islam" bear any relevance to a discussion on geometric shapes?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 21:47:30 BDT
Spin says:
Well apologies. I haven't got my goggles on, ( I refuse to admit that I am as blind as a bat. I blame the PC for its small type) and, to be honest, if I saw a tag similar to mine confusing the debate, I would change it...

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 21:49:53 BDT
TomC says:
Just so happens that the initial is my surname, and as I understand it the other is a pseudonym.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2012 21:59:47 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
158 2 days ago
Gay habits and God. Smokers and the devil. 291 2 minutes ago
Is President Trump right. Should we ban all Muslims and start deporting them in large amounts until they can prove they can accept civillisation and modern practices. I'm sure we all like history but the dark ages were the dark ages. 901 3 minutes ago
How do Christians decide which rules in the bible should be obeyed? 95 16 minutes ago
if you don't like and don't believe in religion nobody says you are religiousphobic. So where did the liberal myth of Islamaphobia come from. 12 37 minutes ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 911 52 minutes ago
Why are atheists without theism, which is to say why are atheists, atheists? 53 2 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 2056 3 hours ago
A Syrian refugee with a criminal past and a history of assaults in Germany has today killed a woman with a machete. Come here, come to us said Merkel. She MUST STAND DOWN NOW. 29 11 hours ago
The thread for all religion bashing homosexuals to come OUT on. You know you want to, George Michael never looked behind him when he came out. 23 12 hours ago
The Virgin Mary. Mother of a God. the Epitome of Female purity and devotion to the Male 0 15 hours ago
Why did it take precisely 7 days, not more or less, for Jahwah,God or Allah to create the universe? 70 1 day ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  156
Initial post:  22 Apr 2012
Latest post:  15 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions