Who here believes in UFO'S?

Impretty sure thats not how it works, it wouldn't take one hour, it would still take 4.2 years for you on the space craft, the only difference in time is to the observers.
 
bhavv said:
I dont need to respect religion nor its claims that a theistic deity based God is real under the following universal definition of God:



You do not believe in such a God either, so yes you are an Atheist too regardless of however you choose to label yourself.
Click to expand...

Well I am not an Atheist, I am ignostic and for reasons that I have quite clearly set out on numerous occasions, including that I feel that people assume too much when dismissing God and that the concept is often hijacked by the term.

So no, I am most certainly not an atheist as I do not disbelieve in the concept of God, I simply have yet to find a coherent universally accepted definition of God and find the entire acceptance or dismissal meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

As an Atheist you disbelieve in God, which means you give credence to the concept of God to begin with, I do not hold that view.

Although considering that you find the whole of philosophy hogwash, I am surprised that you define yourself with a philosophical position at all.

Anyway whether you respect religion or not is not what I was referring to, I was referring to mutual respect for the posters and their points of view.
 
sven256 said:
But then there would be no time dilation.
Click to expand...

There is to the observers and the universe around you.

[
edit]Relative velocity time dilation
When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. It is often interpreted as time "slowing down" for the other (moving) clock. But that is only true from the physical point of view of the local observer, and of others at relative rest (i.e. in the local observer's frame of reference). The point of view of the other observer will be that again the local clock (this time the other clock) is correct and it is the distant moving one that is slow. From a local perspective, time registered by clocks that are at rest with respect to the local frame of reference (and far from any gravitational mass) always appears to pass at the same rate.[1]
Click to expand...

Last line, your clock always goes at a normal speed.
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
Then the same is also true of the concept of life on other planets.
Click to expand...

Explain?



bhavv said:
Feel free to drop it at any time and stop getting so bothered over my opinions. I didnt ask you to start replying to every post I made in this or any other thread, you do that entirely because you want to troll and flamebait others.
Click to expand...

Then stop bringing it up and then I wouldn't have to refute your accusations toward me, would I!
 
bhavv said:
Explained in the edit for you mr. smartass, and no as I said time and time and time again in many many many replies to you in several threads on this forum, I do not believe in the ILLOGICAL possibility of a DEITY based GOD as defined by ANY of the worlds RELIGIONS.

Now can you use that organ in between your ears called a brain and understand that for once? No, I suppose you cant due to how illogical and irrational you are.
Click to expand...

Hrmm well firstly this is the first time i have had a discussion with you in this thread about God so not sure where you get the idea that you have many many times replied to me on this matter? :confused:

Secondly, trying to make sense of your statement:

"i do not believe in the illogical possibility of a deity based God as defined by any of the worlds religions"

I got lots of problems trying to understand what you are saying here but i'll give it a bash.. Are you saying that you dont believe in God inasmuch as how God is defined by any world religion?


Just for reference note that statement is not actually the same as:

a) belief in God
b) believing in the logical possibility of God

Is it organised religion's conception(s) of God you dont believe in?
 
sven256 said:
No as YOU are traveling at the speed of light, so the dilation effect is on YOU not others, they are not traveling at that speed.
Click to expand...

No, it's all relative. It may be happening to you, but you still experience time normally, so it would still take 4.2 years, but people observing you from earth would age thousands of years.
 
Castiel said:
Well I am not an Atheist, I am ignostic and for reasons that I have quite clearly set out on numerous occasions, including that I feel that people assume too much when dismissing God and that the concept is often hijacked by the term.

So no, I am most certainly not an atheist as I do not disbelieve in the concept of God, I simply have yet to find a coherent universally accepted definition of God and find the entire acceptance or dismissal meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

As an Atheist you disbelieve in God, which means you give credence to the concept of God to begin with, I do not hold that view.

Although considering that you find the whole of philosophy hogwash, I am surprised that you define yourself with a philosophical position at all.

Anyway whether you respect religion or not is not what I was referring to, I was referring to mutual respect for the posters and their points of view.
Click to expand...

As an Atheist I disbelieve in the idea of God as a supernatural Deity:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities
Click to expand...

I disbelieve in the definition of God given by the words universal definition:

God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism
Click to expand...

These are the only two facts that one needs to believe to be an Atheist. If you agree with both those points, then yes, that makes you an Atheist as well, regardless of whether you choose to cover your belief with something as absurd as Ignosticism.

As for your beliefs and theories on Ignosticism:

simply have yet to find a coherent universally accepted definition of God and find the entire acceptance or dismissal meaningless.
Click to expand...

That universally accepted definition already exists:

God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism
Click to expand...

You either believe that definition (Theist), or you disbelieve it (Atheist), or you cant make up your mind (Agnostic). There is no other universally accepted definition for God other than that one.

Also, this thread wasnt meant to have this kind of discussion, I think you know that, yet you still derailed it into this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Surfer said:
Hrmm well firstly this is the first time i have had a discussion with you in this thread about God so not sure where you get the idea that you have many many times replied to me on this matter? :confused:

Secondly, trying to make sense of your statement:

"i do not believe in the illogical possibility of a deity based God as defined by any of the worlds religions"

I got lots of problems trying to understand what you are saying here but i'll give it a bash.. Are you saying that you dont believe in God inasmuch as how God is defined by any world religion?


Just for reference note that statement is not actually the same as:

a) belief in God
b) believing in the logical possibility of God

Is it organised religion's conception(s) of God you dont believe in?
Click to expand...

You might want to mention in passing that many of the worlds religions do not ascribe to an anthropomorphic God, and some have Pantheist views and even Atheist views.;)
 
But paracetamol sucks and does pretty much nothing, can I have asprin and I need it already after looking at wiki. It really is mind boggling stuff.
 
AcidHell2 said:
There is to the observers and the universe around you.

[

Last line, your clock always goes at a normal speed.
Click to expand...

Yes as it would, but it's all relative.

To you on the ship the time would appear to be going at a normal rate, but to the observer on earth the person on the ship would be in super slow motion.

So as the light takes 4.2 years for the person on earth to get there, the person traveling in the ship is going in super slow motion, and in that 4.2 years for the man on earth, only one hour has passed for the man on the ship who is in super slow motion.
 
bhavv said:
<snip>.
Click to expand...

Sorry that is not a universally accepted definition of the concept God, If you bothered to actually read the wiki page:

Conceptions of God vary widely. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the monotheistic definition of God in Judaism, the trinitarian view of Christians, and the Islamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic to atheistic. Divinity were recognized by the historical Buddha, particularly Śakra and Brahma. However, other sentient beings, including gods, can at best only play a supportive role in one's personal path to salvation. Conceptions of God in the latter developments of the Mahayana tradition give a more prominent place to notions of the divine.

In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God. The contemporaneous French philosopher Michel Henry has however proposed a phenomenological approach and definition of God as phenomenological essence of Life.
Click to expand...

So now can we drop it and continue on with the debate at hand.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Yes. But, the man on the ship still experience 4.2 years so does not aid spec travel at all. It's relative.
Click to expand...

He does not though. i need a brick wall:D

Right are we in agreement for a person on earth it takes 4.2 years for light to get to the nearest star?

If so how can it also take 4.2 years for the person on the ship? this is where the time dilation comes in.

The person on the ship would look out and everything would be going extremely quick exterior to the ship.

Where as someone looking into the ship the person on the ship would be going in super slow motion. This is the dilation effect.

light is being measured at 4.2 years by someone on earth, not by someone traveling at a extremely fast speed.

The key don't forget is it takes 4.2 years from the earths perspective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom