Gave a Speech in Louisiana Today-At the Airport Heading Home-What Passes Time for YOU when flying?

[Donny]

Right now, obviously, I'm on GFY. But once on the plane, I love to read. Lately I've discovered how much I like to listen to audio books through the audible.com app, but I also buy the book for my Nook app and read along. If the reader's good, it's fun to do it that way. I'm currently about 75% of the way through Doctor Sleep, which is Stephen King's sequel to The Shining. The reader is awesome, but he reads at a slower pace than I do on my own. I should finish it on the flight home.

What passes time for you when you travel/fly/etc?

[_Richard_]

I figured out that you can 'stretch your legs' for the entire flight

generally there is a party in the back

[DWB]

Music, sleep, thinking, eye balling girls with bad intent.

[baddog]

I find flying goes by a lot quicker when seated with a couple fun people that enjoy talking and having a drink or two. If this isn't to be, I usually sleep.

[the Shemp]

i sleep from takeoff until the goldfish crackers are served ...

[EddyTheDog]

Vodka and Valium - You have to time it well though - It's a bugger when you pass out in Departures and miss the flight...

[edgeprod]

I've been reading some Richard Dawkins on flights lately. Generally, he gets dry and boring in certain chapters, and before I know it, we're landing.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

Vodka and Valium - You have to time it well though - It's a bugger when you pass out in Departures and miss the flight...

Yep, with Hulu on my iPad in terminal, Trailer Park Boys on PSP when flying...

[Donny]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

I've been reading some Richard Dawkins on flights lately. Generally, he gets dry and boring in certain chapters, and before I know it, we're landing.

I find his books boring, too. But I find his speeches fascinating. I like hearing what he has to say, even though I'm quite certain he's incorrect.

[edgeprod]

Originally Posted by Donny

I find his books boring, too. But I find his speeches fascinating. I like hearing what he has to say, even though I'm quite certain he's incorrect.

Incorrect about evolutionary biology? There'd be too much evidence for me to have to sweep under the rug in order to agree with that. Or incorrect about his Atheism? He admits it's possible he's wrong on that front.

He's generally an asshole in a lot of his human interactions; I find him rather abrasive, personally. His books are flashes of brilliance surrounded by pedantry and poorly-paced tangents. I find them difficult to stay interested in, but great for going to sleep on a plane.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

Incorrect about evolutionary biology? There'd be too much evidence for me to have to sweep under the rug in order to agree with that. Or incorrect about his Atheism? He admits it's possible he's wrong on that front.

He's generally an asshole in a lot of his human interactions; I find him rather abrasive, personally. His books are flashes of brilliance surrounded by pedantry and poorly-paced tangents. I find them difficult to stay interested in, but great for going to sleep on a plane.

Incorrect about atheism. I have no grounds to challenge him on biology.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Donny

Incorrect about atheism. I have no grounds to challenge him on biology.

potatoes- patataos

[winter_]

were you waiting for your private jet or delta economy class jumbo jet op? my god how the best of us are really so out of touch is extraordinary.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by winter_

were you waiting for your private jet or delta economy class jumbo jet op? my god how the best of us are really so out of touch is extraordinary.

I fly coach class. I don't pay for it myself. All arrangements are made by those who have me in to speak, including hotel, rental car and food. I also get to keep the frequent flyer miles, which is quite nice. I can use those for things such as sending the girls to see their sister in Florida, etc.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

I've been reading some Richard Dawkins on flights lately. Generally, he gets dry and boring in certain chapters, and before I know it, we're landing.

I tried to read Dawkins. Then I realised that trying engage in a non argument is exceptionally boring

I dont need to engage in an argument with those that wallow in the various belief systems that are collectively known as religion.

Nonsense is nonsense. Whether it is the Bible, the Koran, or Tolkien.

I tried, but you cannot have a reasonable discussion with people that believe in magic.

[edgeprod]

Originally Posted by NewNick

I tried to read Dawkins. Then I realised that trying engage in a non argument is exceptionally boring

I dont need to engage in an argument with those that wallow in the various belief systems that are collectively known as religion.

Nonsense is nonsense. Whether it is the Bible, the Koran, or Tolkien.

I tried, but you cannot have a reasonable discussion with people that believe in magic.

Intellectually, it's still interesting to hear theories on why people believe in religion -- what draws them to it, what holes in themselves it fills, what psychological defects predispose people to believing in such nonsense.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

Intellectually, it's still interesting to hear theories on why people believe in religion -- what draws them to it, what holes in themselves it fills, what psychological defects predispose people to believing in such nonsense.

I find the idea of thinking there is no God to be far more nonsensical. It takes a lot more faith to believe that there was no intelligent First Cause that brought forth all that exists. Probability makes it mathematically impossible for us to be here without intelligent guidance.

[Donny]

Also, life never comes from non-life. Ever.

[edgeprod]

Originally Posted by Donny

I find the idea of thinking there is no God to be far more nonsensical. It takes a lot more faith to believe that there was no intelligent First Cause that brought forth all that exists. Probability makes it mathematically impossible for us to be here without intelligent guidance.

Not really, no. "First cause" arguments just create a larger problem for God -- a first cause is similarly required for any diety. If intelligence created this universe, it wasn't a very smart one, that's for sure.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

Not really, no. "First cause" arguments just create a larger problem for God -- a first cause is similarly required for any diety. If intelligence created this universe, it wasn't a very smart one, that's for sure.

It's ridiculous to discuss where our creator came from before we completely understand ourselves, don't you think? The atheist has the exact same problem, however. We sprang forth from something. Both of us have the problem of the origin of that "something."

And it's rather ignorant to say this universe would come from creator who wasn't very smart. The complexity of our universe and of life on our planet is mind blowing. Even the way a cells is put together - heck, even an atom - is incredible.

[edgeprod]

Originally Posted by Donny

It's ridiculous to discuss where our creator came from before we completely understand ourselves, don't you think? The atheist has the exact same problem, however. We sprang forth from something. Both of us have the problem of the origin of that "something."

I don't believe we have a creator, so it's not my argument -- you brought up a need for a first cause, which isn't necessary in physics. Time itself is a construct of the universe, not a necessary component of "outside of the universe" paradigms. In our universe, space and time are one.

That's what ends up kind of weird in discussions like these -- creationists tend to bring up something, then argue the "ridiculousness" of believing the opposite. They don't see the fallacy of creating a straw man, then attacking it. Don't fall into that trap, you're smarter than that.

Other circular logic like "evolution has not been proven true, it must be false .. but god cannot be proven false, so he must be true" gets rather tedious as well.

Originally Posted by Donny

And it's rather ignorant to say this universe would come from creator who wasn't very smart. The complexity of our universe and of life on our planet is mind blowing. Even the way a cells is put together - heck, even an atom - is incredible.

Don't confuse complexity with design, and I wouldn't argue that any of it is well put together. The atomic bonds themselves are suboptimal, and much of our own biology could have been better designed by a first-year medical student. Our primary source of light also gives us cancer? What kind of retarded design is that? There's an unbelievable amount of cock-ups in nature, in humans, and in almost every area you example. Intelligence (if that intelligence was benevolent, and not an asshole) wouldn't have allowed for half the crazy shit that happens.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Donny

I find the idea of thinking there is no God to be far more nonsensical. It takes a lot more faith to believe that there was no intelligent First Cause that brought forth all that exists. Probability makes it mathematically impossible for us to be here without intelligent guidance.

And a theory that our entire universe is a high school science fair experiment by a teenage alien from another universe larger than ours is as possibly correct as the Judao-Christian creation story.

[Google Expert]

shut the fuck up Donny

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

I don't believe we have a creator, so it's not my argument -- you brought up a need for a first cause, which isn't necessary in physics. Time itself is a construct of the universe, not a necessary component of "outside of the universe" paradigms. In our universe, space and time are one.

Something had to exist before, even if it's 'nothing'. Can physicists define 'nothing'?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Donny

And it's rather ignorant to say this universe would come from creator who wasn't very smart. The complexity of our universe and of life on our planet is mind blowing. Even the way a cells is put together - heck, even an atom - is incredible.

"Complex" compared to what? Your own (or any humans) limited capacity to understand complex systems? Things that we haven't even studied except for in the last century or so. Or complex in that you have some ability to compare it to every known system and organism in the universe and measure the degree of complexity? Saying we're "complex" as an argument is as silly as any other as you have nothing to gauge that against and its just an arbitrary declaration.

Complex systems are all around us. What is more complex? How atoms organize themselves into molecules? Or the internet and all its workings and structure, hardware, networks, satellites, fiber, analog lines and many many technologies working together as a system to give us the ability to answer any question in milliseconds or manage many facets of our lives?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Mutt

And a theory that our entire universe is a high school science fair experiment by a teenage alien from another universe larger than ours is as possibly correct as the Judao-Christian creation story.

Zeus, the divine circumstances of his birth, sign from the heavens, supreme being as a father, being acknowledge by kings/wise men, his life and deeds and so on, are every bit as consistent with common elements of folklore traditions as is the birth of Jesus and his life on earth (except that the life of Zeus is better documented)

There is just as much faith in physics as there is in religion. People will just as readily argue for unknowns and theories in physics based on math as they will for unknowns in religion based on "evidence" and when new evidence is presented in either, faulty/wrong beliefs are explained away, current beliefs modified and the wheels keep turning.

Beliefs are just that. Beliefs. and "faith" is just that. Faith. Not "absolute fact". Faith.

A good explanation is often little more than the explanation you agree with for a whole host of reasons that have more do to with who you are as a person and your past experiences and interpretation of those experiences than being presented with some objective fact that can't be denied.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

There is just as much faith in physics as there is in religion. People will just as readily argue for unknowns and theories in physics based on math as they will for unknowns in religion based on "evidence" and when new evidence is presented in either, faulty/wrong beliefs are explained away, current beliefs modified and the wheels keep turning.

Beliefs are just that. Beliefs. and "faith" is just that. Faith. Not "absolute fact". Faith.

And the same faith that exists in physics and religion exists in the new field of neuro-sciences. Science demands proof, and for the proof to be replicated by others, at which time it graduates from theory to fact/law until it is proven wrong. Religion only demands faith of its believers.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Mutt

And the same faith that exists in physics and religion exists in the new field of neuro-sciences. Science demands proof, and for the proof to be replicated by others, at which time it graduates from theory to fact/law until it is proven wrong. Religion only demands faith of its believers.

Ancient texts, forensic analysis, folklore, know historic events etc etc etc can also be considered "proof". You can't compare the burden of proof to the average Joe to the burden of proof to the standards and scrutiny of a global community of physicists. My point was more to suggest that it is that its all shaky ground to begin, even in science but more so in this case because you are dealing with average people and average people are having these discussions and doing so without that high standard of "proof" and its all hardly a sound foundation for saying "see, you are wrong".

These arguments have been had since the dawn of civilization and pre-date modern religions by many many 1000s of years and science has not been able to stop them. So that must suggest something about our need to believe or that these beliefs are consistent with something we all feel or experience or want to believe. If any of that is true... again, its an unwinnable argument as you are attempting to take something away from someone that offers a benefit (comfort, understanding, dealing with grief etc) and offering to replace it with nothing.

[TheSquealer]

Think about this mutt - mans contribution to global warming. This is "science" right. It's studied to death. All the studies are out there, all the evidence presented to the court of scientific opinion and available for public scrutiny. Are scientists not fully divided on this issue? Do they not have strong convictions and beliefs based on what they believe to be indisputable evidence? Are both sides 100% correct? Or do both sides believe they are correct based on their own understandings and interpretations of "data", "evidence" and "science"? Science is almost as often religion as religion is.

[edgeprod]

Originally Posted by Getsu

shut the fuck up Donny

Come on, let's keep it civil.

Originally Posted by Mutt

Something had to exist before, even if it's 'nothing'. Can physicists define 'nothing'?

Nothing had to exist "before" -- time is a construct of the physical universe. It has no meaning outside of space-time. There's no "before" the universe in that context. We only think of something having to come from something else due to the physical laws of our universe. The meta-existance may not work anything like that.

New data seems to suggest that "our" universe was created when other universes collided with each other. That's decidedly pedestrian, compared to the idea of some sky fairy kicking off the cosmic dance.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Ancient texts, forensic analysis, folklore, know historic events etc etc etc can also be considered "proof"

Only proof of people believing it, not of it being "true" .. but I'm sure you see the distinction.

The difference between faith and evidence-based science is that science is find proving itself wrong and adaption to new observation. Religion is immutable by its very nature -- if it's wrong, you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This leads to ridiculous statements like that carbon dating is somehow wrong and the Earth is 6,000 years old ... or that dinosaurs were on the Ark with Noah ... or that the corpse of Jesus didn't rot in the ground like everyone else ... because if these things are "wrong" then it's all wrong. So, it backs believers into the corner of being forced to believe nonsense on "faith" when clear-headed analysis would lead to serious questions.

If someone came up with this fairy tale in the modern world, they'd be largely laughed at and marginalized, except for a fringe element. The Christian cult is very much like dozens of other prophet-deity stories around the time, including the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc. It's the one that "caught on" and, given 2,000 years of violence, murder, and forced conversions, became a dominant force in the world.

Some, like Apollonius of Tyana, are extremely close to the Jesus myth. Apollonius' birth was heralded by a mystical being. He was the son of a god and a mortal woman. He was religiously schooling elders as a toddler. Had a disciple Damis (Jesus purportedly blessed the thief Demas on the cross). He was anointed with oil, and made his way to Jerusalem. He spoke in parables. He performed miracles, including healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. He was believed to be a savior, and was worshipped as a god. He was condemned to death by Roman authorities. He reportedly ascended to Heaven. He appeared miraculously to his followers following this ascension. Sound familiar at all?

It's all pretty silly, but if it makes people happy (and easier to control), then it's a tool, like any other.

[edgeprod]

Bumpin' this back up for continued discussion.

[Donny]

So many discussions. It's hard to get into all of them today. Lots going on. But this is one I'd love to get into. I've studied the myths you mention , edgeprod, and would love to debate such things. As well as as the 6000 year old earth misconception. The latter is a view held only by SOME Christians. The Pope, for example, states that evolution and creation are compatible: evolution is the process God used to create. Science and God are not an either/or situation. Science continuous reveals more about HOW God did all that He did.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

Only proof of people believing it, not of it being "true" .. but I'm sure you see the distinction.

The difference between faith and evidence-based science is that science is find proving itself wrong and adaption to new observation. Religion is immutable by its very nature -- if it's wrong, you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This leads to ridiculous statements like that carbon dating is somehow wrong and the Earth is 6,000 years old ... or that dinosaurs were on the Ark with Noah ... or that the corpse of Jesus didn't rot in the ground like everyone else ... because if these things are "wrong" then it's all wrong. So, it backs believers into the corner of being forced to believe nonsense on "faith" when clear-headed analysis would lead to serious questions.

I guess i wasn't overly clear in my rhetorical questions. My point is proven by Donny's reply. "proof" and "evidence" are subjective. Not to you. And I would like to believe, not to myself. But my point is read in Donnys reply. What you see as evidence of an argument being wrong, others can just as easily interpret it as proof of an argument being right. I am not arguing scientific method vs scientology. I am arguing that both sides of the argument are equally subjected to and victims of their own minds dirty little tricks, biases and lies. This is why religion is much more than just "silly superstition"... it has much more to do with human behavior, who we are and neuroscience than a poor understanding of physics, geology and dinosaurs.

We are all habitual liars. Our brains have a center (gazzanigas interpreter module) dedicated to doing little more than lying all day long. It is a center that does nothing but make up bullshit explanations of unconscious processes and emotions and decisions of which it has no awareness of. We lie continually to ourselves, to others and our conscious mind is continually making up lies to tweak its interpretation of the world around us into a "makes sense" type story so it can move on and get on with the only business that actually matters and the only purpose it really serves... keeping you alive. Though we all readily deny it, our brain doesn't care at all about facts.

Nearly everything you remember in your life is a lie. Your brain confabulates. It makes things up on the fly to fill in blanks. It doesn't care about "facts"... it cares about decision making. Pleasant thoughts are not important to survival and important things that do affect survival are dealt with in unconscious processes. Even your memories are nothing but reconstructions of reconstructions of reconstructions with your brain filling in the blanks and creating new "facts" each time you remember... because they are not relevant to survival. They are largely irrelevant, cognitive fuel burners that offer no benefit to survival and reproduction.

I can think of no better way to say it other than to say we all live in a sort of Matrix, like the movie. We believe there is an objective reality. We like to believe we all experience the exact same objective reality (because we need to). The truth however, is that we all have our own unique understanding and interpretation of the physical world and the majority of it is completely made up.

Sound retarded?

Think about this.... a guy can walk up to someone in the middle of the street, start a fight in front of 50 witnesses watching, pull out a pistol and shoot him once in the head, killing him. Then police have an interesting problem. 50 witnesses might agree on some basic facts "that guy approached the car and was yelling". They will not agree on much of anything that isn't directly relevant to their safety and security or fight or flight response. They won't agree on ethnicity, they wont agree on hair color, clothes, height, build or much of anything else. In fact, 50 eyewitness will all report somewhere between zero and five gun shots with some saying none at all. A few will say they saw a knife and no gun. Now pull all those people aside and ask them how sure they are of their "facts" and they are usually quite certain of what they saw and remembered.

What does that tell you about how we understand and interpret the world around us?

We all live in what is largely a lie of our own minds construct based on the ceaseless confabulation of our own brain.

You are.
I am.
Donny is.

[TurboAngel]

If you ever come to NC let me know I would love to hear your speech.

[edgeprod]

Originally Posted by Donny

So many discussions. It's hard to get into all of them today. Lots going on. But this is one I'd love to get into. I've studied the myths you mention , edgeprod, and would love to debate such things. As well as as the 6000 year old earth misconception. The latter is a view held only by SOME Christians. The Pope, for example, states that evolution and creation are compatible: evolution is the process God used to create. Science and God are not an either/or situation. Science continuous reveals more about HOW God did all that He did.

Ready when you are .. but I'd like you to refrain from making straw-man arguments, if you can. I never said science and the concept of a god are mutually exclusive. I just don't believe that any god is needed for science, or for our universe.

This thread, or do you want to start one for us to debate in?

[JockoHomo]

Originally Posted by Donny

I find the idea of thinking there is no God to be far more nonsensical. It takes a lot more faith to believe that there was no intelligent First Cause that brought forth all that exists. Probability makes it mathematically impossible for us to be here without intelligent guidance.

Actually it's not more FAITH that it takes, it's actually INTELLIGENCE.

If one is capable of intellectually understanding the principles and proofs that 2000 years of science have discovered then it becomes abundantly clear that there is no need for a god at all. The childish stories in a book written by sheep herders with no education or understanding of the world as we now know it is certainly something that would take blind faith because any critical thinking on the topic blows it out of the water.

God is a crutch used by those unable or unwilling to understand science and need a more simplistic explanation to grasp onto.

[xNetworx]

[edgeprod]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

Ready when you are .. but I'd like you to refrain from making straw-man arguments, if you can. I never said science and the concept of a god are mutually exclusive. I just don't believe that any god is needed for science, or for our universe.

This thread, or do you want to start one for us to debate in?

Still ready.

[Donny]

Originally Posted by edgeprod

Still ready.

Would you mind starting a new thread? Put my name in the title if you don't mind. That makes it easier to find.

I've been staying away from gfy. Facebook discussions, school work, business and traveling have been keeping me pretty busy. I've got a travel break for the holidays so now would be a good time.

[J. Falcon]

Sleeping pills.