danielsangeo

Well, you could be a flavor of deist (one who believes in an intelligent being that created everything but is now totally "hands off"). Me, I don't know what 'created' the 'unstable ''thing'' that was the universe', but I do not believe that it was an intelligent force nor that it was necessarily 'created' at all.

I don't believe in deities. The very existence of everything from panentheism to pantheism to monotheism to polytheism to monism to deism to....whatever... just shows that we humans like to make shit up when we don't know something. Me, I say "I don't know". I'm not going to ascribe it to a deity though. I am an atheist. I do not believe in deities. I don't believe that the "driving force" of the universe is a deity. I do not believe that nature is a deity. I do NOT believe in deities! Good night!

Some Christians would beg to differ with you. Once again, you're positing an "intelligence" when you refer to God...a sentient "being" as it were. Christians state that "God made man in His own image". Therefore, God is necessarily human-shaped. I posit that the "driving force" is completely "unintelligent"....or, rather, LACKS intelligence. It isn't sentient and didn't create this universe for us. Monotheists (and polytheists) believe that there is a sentient "being" that created this universe for us, directing its creation for us.

Thanks! I am an agnostic atheist. And I'm in bed right now.... Laptops are the work of the devil!

But, really, at this point, calling my computer chair "god" doesn't mean I believe in "god" simply because I believe in my computer chair.

I like the mantra in the Bible (I'm allowed to do that!) which states that God put us in charge of the Earth to be "good stewards". I don't believe we've been "good stewards" lately....

"Why not" is, to me, not an answer to "Why". The word "God" has many different connotations to so many people from a bearded man in the sky to someone who tells you that you should eat your vegetables or what kind of clothes to wear...or whom you're allowed to marry. Wars have been fought over this deity. And most monotheists will tell you that God is not nature... that God is "beyond nature".

Actually, I feel the opposite. Call me a starry-eyed optimist but I believe that when they build a better mouse trap, we build a better mouse. And so on. ....not sure that analogy makes sense....I'm tired and should sleep.

Hold up a moment. Simply because something might be "natural" doesn't make it right. Look up the "is-ought problem" which is related to the naturalistic fallacy. Atheists don't murder because it's wrong.

Ah, well, that's different and very scary. But, I don't see a way to stop the technology. We just need to find a way to combat it.

Why call it "god"? What if the universe is just undergoing "Big Bounces" and the last "Big Crunch" made this universe? Are you suggesting a pantheistic deity?

Yes. Everything is natural, including us and our actions. However, nature has a history of doing away with dominant species... The last T-Rex I saw was a skeleton in a natural history museum.

Some things, I believe, are still relegated to science fiction....like laser swords or faster than light speed travel. Should we get to a point where these things exist, I believe culture and technology would also advance to a point where these things won't be as "scary" as they seem now. Think about it. Go back 150 years ago and tell someone that you can interact, in near real time, with people all over the globe and that major economies of the world rely on this system. They'd imagine horror stories about possibly bringing down entire countries' economies with the single push of a button. As you know, that's not likely to happen today because culture and technology has grown to a point to counteract those possibilities. As of right now, you can't turn a cell into an adult in a short timespan, much less a clone.

We don't have evidence of what started these quantum fluctuations, silly. The evidence is probably out there for us to find, but we haven't found it.....yet.

The theory, as I understand it, states that spacetime began with quantum fluctuations which destabilized the "point" and caused the "Bang". What caused these quantum fluctuations? We don't know. There's no evidence TO know....yet. Some hypothesize that the universe undergoes a series of "bangs" and "crunches". That the cause of the "Big Bang" is the "Big Crunch".

I think that "eternal force" or something similar posits a "before the Big Bang". The word "before" is meaningless at this extremity of time. Think of it this way, for those that can't grasp the concept. You are on some place on planet Earth, right? You can move "south" from where you are, right? So, move south. Now, can you move south from that point? Sure. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the South Pole. Can you move south again? Inversely, move north from where you are now. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the North Pole. Can you move north again? Why can you move "south" or "north" from where you are but not at the poles? Because, "north from the North Pole"/"south from the South Pole" is as meaningless as "before the Big Bang".

Methinks someone has been watching too many Hollywood movies. Also, human cloning is a completely inefficient way of going after your enemies because, even though they're clones, they're human beings. If you're going to create an army, why spend the time, energy, and money to create clones when there are billions of people already on Earth to do your bidding? The 'technology' to create humans has been around since before humans existed. It's called: Reproduction. "Clone armies" is Hollywood. Clones don't go from cell to adult human overnight. A cloned human would still have to go through gestation and birth, then babyhood, toddler, child, pre-teen, teen, then to young adult and adult as a normal human grows. And the possibilities of glitches in the process make it even more non-viable. If you want an army, cloning is not the way to do it. You're just adding cost and possible glitches into what already exists. Just grab a bunch of men and women, turn them into breeding factories, and let them give birth to your army. (Wow! That's dark.)

I've heard it said that we are already affecting the climate in ways that are detrimental to our species. We won't destroy the planet, but I think we're going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people. Already, we're seeing shifts that are causing really strange things to happen. You can't expect to do what we've done and not affect something. We are destroying our oxygen replenishers while simultaneously releasing said carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is TWO blows. Think of it this way. Destroying oxygen replenisher: -1. Introducing carbon dioxide: -1. Doing one thing: -2. Nature is about balance. If we mess with that balance, then that balance will mess with us (as it were). I'd like humans to exist for a very long time and naturally evolve into future species. I don't want the human species to go extinct because we're stupid. No, I'm not fear-mongering. I'm saying, you clean up your house because you don't want to live in filth. Why do you want to do that to the planet you live on?

Force, yes. Is there an intelligence behind said "force", though?

That's not evidence. That's a logical fallacy. Why would there need to be an eternal force behind the universe?

But, like the puddle analogy, there probably isn't a reason for the hole's existence, so, why must there be a reason for the universe's existence? Why can't it just be "there"? Again, this presupposes an intelligent force of some sort that is not in evidence. I don't like to assume things that aren't in evidence and the atheists I've talked to (I've talked to a lot) aren't atheists because they misunderstand "god"...it's because they don't see any evidence of one. If you want to go Biblical, Thomas, Jesus' apostle, refused to believe that Jesus has been resurrected until he had evidence for himself. It's not until later that Jesus gave him evidence: That's what atheists want. That's what I want.

Think of it like you're in a train. The train is going 50MPH (or about 80 KPH). You're at the back of the train. You move from the back of the train to the front of the train at a speed of 5MPH (about 8KPH). From the vantage point from outside the train, you are traveling at a speed of 55MPH (about 88KPH). But no human can walk at 55MPH/88KPH, right? That's similar to anthropogenic climate change. Yes, climate changes naturally, but there is evidence--conclusive evidence--that we are ADDING to the natural course of events (50+5=55). The atmosphere is "fricking huge", of course, but think of it like poison ivy. Poison ivy contains a substance called urushiol. 50 micrograms (about the size of a grain of table salt) will cause a rash in a great majority of people which could spread and impede on the daily functions of life for a while. A single drop of dimethylmercury, even on a gloved hand, will kill you. Just because something is "huge" doesn't mean that we can't have an effect.

I always like to go back to the puddle analogy that Douglas Adams proposed (paraphrased below): A puddle suddenly gains sentience. It looks around itself and says, "My, what a fortunate circumstance I find myself in. Oh, look at this hole! It's perfect for me. It follows my contours perfectly. Every single nook and cranny of myself is perfectly aligned with the hole." The puddle shudders at the realization and continues, "Why, it's almost like this hole was made especially for me. If any of the contours of this hole were off by a millimeter or it was rotated less than a degree, it wouldn't fit me at all. It's just too perfect to have happened by chance."

I'm just wondering how many pregnancies are aborted as a result of war.

[citation needed]