romansh

Did you watch the video?

Could be ... but we don't know. So again why would nothing be a default position? Not sure of your intent here ... but I agree with the final phrase. Yes ... lets be agnostic about it. And talk about things we can actually point to.

Did you watch it Joseph? Perhaps we should put hazard warnings/metaphors on some of those stepping stones?

It is also as far as we can see or perhaps understand Nothing could literally be a figment of our imagination. Then we can accept the possibility that nothing does not exist. The closest to nothing I get is when I am in a deep sleep. The blackness and me appear as I become awake. When I am deep asleep there is no I or "i", but the universe keeps on ticking in my absence as it will when I die. The nothing you imagine is totally in your imagination.

Some negative aspects of some religions

It could be that it is just a beginning? And yet it has implications for how we view existence. So the universe might be finite? So what? Again I suggest Krauss's video. Nothing is not what it seems. We think we can imagine nothing. But what do you envisage when you imagine nothing? Me? I can see a blackness and there is me perceiving it. Not exactly nothing. In Krauss's words (sort of) physicists deal with the real nothing, not some imagined nothing. Here's a nice video of Krauss explaining "nothing".

Personally I don't know how and if this universe is bound. It might be infinite is some shape or form, it might not. It makes no difference in the "now". But that energy has a reduced capacity to do stuff. Second Law of thermodynamics. Why is nothing the default state?

I watched this last night ... I thought it was interesting. Ten years with FOX if I understood right.

Possibly ... but the nature of that illusion is debatable. Does pressing keys on the keyboard cause letters to come up on my screen? Possibly it is all set at the formation of this particular universe?

This is a pointing to group selection Paul ... generally this is not accepted. by evolution scientists. These sort of things are more like conning the group by conning oneself. If you are looking for a traditional Christian point of view that accepts an old Earth and Evolution, then I will stay out of your way. ?

Well I do think the original sin was thinking in terms of good and evil. Genesis 3:22 counsels us not to think in terms of this particular duality. If we substitute morality for sin ... then evolutionary psychology can make some sense these kind of moral/sinful emotions. Whether it is accurate or not is open to some debate.

I think we do (or at least can) take on the beliefs of the environment that we find ourselves. An anecdotal story. When my wife and I first came to Canada ... I was lucky I could go to work. But my wife had little community so to speak. Anyway she was befriended by the local United Church. Fair enough. But the wife being neither confirmed nor even baptized started taking baptism classes. I happen to take a look at the lessons and relevant passages. They seemed sort of familiar ... they looked awfully like the confirmation classes I had taken when I was seventeen. I can remember my pastor describing confirmation like a marriage to Christ. Anyway I asked my wife did she really believe all that was being promoted in the classes. She answered "No". At that point for reasons that are not clear to me, she and the congregation drifted apart. But she did remain friends with one. My wife is a living breathing example of how 'community' affects our beliefs. edit And speaking of the United Church ... A little off topic and for discussion elsewhere I saw/heard Gretta Vosper speak at the Imagine No Religion conference last year. May be of interest ... bridging progressive Christianity and atheism?

Here's a video of Bruce's The Self Illusion but I do recommend his short book.

And if they explain how they to these beliefs and beliefs in general then it will be on topic. Just stating beliefs is not on topic. Why don't you go with my flow? And I am doing my best to direct traffic here. If you are interested in creators then create an appropriate thread and pin it down there. If you can explain how you come to a belief in a creator then that would be interesting and relevant to the thread. I do understand that threads, topics etc do flow into one another ... but we can draw an illusory line and try and keep the place tidy.

They are not the same ... they are one in the sense you and the universe would not be what they are without one another. But again the topic is how we form beliefs.

I would agree that the OP is open to some interpretation ... if that is what you mean. Some Americans being open to open borders, could have been a generalist border. But you have to admit foreigners is a dualistic concept ... in spades. My ancestors left Africa a long time ago. And yours? ?

Well I am not sure about knowing that belongs on the agnostic thread. But science does point away from dualism. Did I say that? The universe is unfolding ... and I am part of that unfolding. Seeing myself as separate from the unfolding is the illusory bit. I am trying to use the same nomenclature as Joseph ... I may have gotten it wrong. Though I don't quite agree with Joseph's nomenclature. Note the lower case i in my first sentence. Why? is a nonsense is some interpretations ... just is. Being if you like. An illusion. It is like an eddy as an oar strokes the surface of the water. Cause and effect. Thormas When you start asking is it OK to derail threads? But I am glad I could accommodate you and start a thread that is on topic that you wanted to discuss.

In short the i sees itself as separate - this is an illusion, if not a delusion. Why does "I" do anything? Why do we hark back to teleology? Why assume a purpose or meaning? Just because we think we can create them? Why do we flit in and out of existence? A more interesting question for me is how?

I think ultimately I and "i" are descriptions and words ... Words by their very nature are dualistic ... so when we try to describe the universe or bits of it we are can get caught up of thinking of reality in a dualistic way. So whatever I and i are they are not as they seem. I am of the universe ... it took a whole universe to make "I" and in my excruciatingly small way "I" am shaping the universe. I and i are two sides of the same coin ... the universe. And going back to the balloon metaphor for knowledge/understanding, ignorance and things to be understood. Our "I"s are on that surface of that balloon as the universe unfolds. This metaphor can be taken with a pinch of salt or a stiff drink.

This to me seems like a semantic hedge. But if we don't give the mind a primacy, then we scepticism is in order. A meandering river chooses its path down a mountain and across a valley bottom. It uses the same four fundamental forces that we are aware of. There may be more, but so what? My point is that forming a belief is an act. It seems to be something that we are of unconscious of for the most part, but we do become aware of it once it has formed. It could be argued this belief (or meme) has found a place to call home or at least for a little while before it replicates on a piece of paper, a monitor or in another brain. These beliefs we take on come from outside, we may not always see the sources. Often they are mix of several other ideas that we think of as novel.

This is not just about the US Joseph ... and to be clear it is Americans who are foreigners ...

OK here are a couple of examples of how I think I formed my beliefs. The Earth is sphere like floating in space around the sun. Despite the apparent simple intuitive observation the sun rising and setting being told in early childhood that the Earth rotates like a spinning ball and being taught in school that it is so was enough to form my belief. Later photos from space man going to the moon etc was enough to convince me. The model of the Earth being a sphere today explains way too much for me to give up on this belief. Regarding things like gods etc I don't recall having any sort literal belief. Never believed in the miracles or the virgin birth etc, even when I would not know what a virgin was. In my teens when I was confirmed I tried to believe and any "Father like beliefs I may have tried to believe were not strong a deistic wishy-washy type affair. Almost immediately after confirmation went to university. This was an a-religious time. Was not difficult to become increasingly agnostic. By the time I finished my second bout of university I was a devout agnostic. Looking back on this I can't help but think my beliefs were a reflection of the company I kept. But today, in a slightly more philosophical bent, I find at times just having beliefs and then confabulating reasons to have them. Obviously I have come across the reasons before but then there is perhaps, unconsciously initially, a point where the belief crystallizes. So when what has been a discussion about choice of belief so far has pointed to conscious choice and unconscious choice. Paul early said he decided to do some research. I can't help wondering how much of a confabulation this was. Was Paul researching and and then "decided" to do more. And regarding how I came to lose my belief in free will. It was simply pointed out if I believed in cause and effect then free will is an illusion. If I believed in indeterminacy in some form then that was even worse. It took about three weeks for me to lose my belief, even though I knew the writing was on the wall once I started thinking about it.

While open borders might not be pragmatic, are ostensibly Christian countries going to give up on the concept of being good Samaritans? If not then what? 50 G$ on a wall? Could that money be spent a little more pragmatically? And if so how?

Thanks for the replies Guys ... I was thinking of a bit more detail ... sure our experiences (aka environment) help form our beliefs. eg take some simple/neutral example like the Earth is a spheroid ... may be we can extend it to more controversial aspects like an afterlife later? I am away for a few days ... you can ponder in peace should you wish ... rom free.

This as you would say is your opinion ... ? What? Well I am glad it is obvious. Yet when I ask for what is immaterial, we end up pointing to the material. What evidence do these others bring to bear that there is an immaterial. Because things like patriotism are very material. Saying patriotism is non-physical is to me a nonsense. The evidence points away from this assertion. You don't seem to mind throwing sticks for me. If one is confident in one's arguments then one does not mind chasing the odd goose. Well there are words like Being, Love, and One which I don't like mainly because they are poorly defined. Plus when I read your sentence I can't quite make sense of it.