are you atheist since ever or have you been believer once but no more? — SpaceDweller

I remember getting dragged by my big sister along to a church group when I was about 10 years old, she was 12.
I remember a lot of singing and handclapping. I remember being taken into a small room and 4 men standing around me with hands placed on my waist, shoulder and head as they said some words that meant nothing to me. They then asked me to speak something and I remained in awkward intrigued silence. I remember them taking all the youngsters in a van to the countryside. We had a good day and had to listen to crap psalm-singing on the van radio.
After about a month of this I remember my sister telling me we couldn't go back as the leadership of the group had just been arrested and were charged with fraud and abuse of young girls etc(not my sister thankfully).
That was my only experience with a religious group. I have no memory of ever being convinced by any of the god posits.

I even had a person who earned his living as a theist of Protestantism say to me that he knew a secret truth that was not known by many but was accepted by the highest authorities in both the protestant and catholic faiths.
It was a few years later when he was a little pissed one night at a gathering and he said that the god of the old testament was overthrown by the god of the new testament. I think that was the big secret he was talking about. Perhaps he was just 'winding me up,' I have no idea but I did think he was a bizarre theist after that. That was about 25 years ago and I have never seen him since.
Some strange fruits grow on those theistic burning bushes.

atheists enjoy "out of context" methods because it's the easiest way to undermine theist dogma, mostly because a lot of theist are not apologists, atheists use it as well known tool for attack — SpaceDweller

I disagree and would suggest that atheists defend much more than they attack.
Atheists don't have to attack, they just let theists put their god posits forward and then provide them with counterpoints that expose the weakness in their arguments and the gaping holes in their reasoning skills.
Theism is fear-based, a plea to non-existent supernaturals that theists wish to scapegoat for their own personal life choices or to make sense of what happened to them during their life outwith their personal control. They plead for the non-existent supernatural to assist them, give them absolution and/or offer them something better in the future or after they are dead. Primal fear of the unknown is a powerful driver towards theism but it can be defeated by rational thought.

And that's exactky where the digma appears! — Haglund

Yours? Or what you claim is theirs?

Why shouldn't I turn the table and accept the scientific way of proof? — Haglund

Please continue to try!

Yeah well English is not my native language. What I meant is that we could ask the scientist another way of proving things — Haglund

I know it's not. I think scientists are happy with the scientific method, but sure, you can ask. I think they will ignore you however or repeat that they are happy with the method they have as it is better than any alternative you offer. I would agree with them.

theists unlike atheists have a duty to convert, therefore it's normal for theists to attempt to convert although many don't practice that. but it's not normal for atheists since atheism is about disbelief in God, not about spreading religion.
That's why I find these "new atheists" practicing "atheist religion" strange, they are forming some sort of a church. — SpaceDweller

What a convenient excuse for the outrageous behavior of theists preachers, such as, "join us, or suffer in hell for eternity." I find the fact that you see atheists as forming a religion, 'strange,' and incorrect.
I watched this particular Rod Liddle offering before as well. I had a quick scan through it again and was reminded of the 'out of context, sound bite technique,' he commonly employs.

Who is playing panto now? Or cos play... — Haglund

The gods in your head!

Of course not. Because you adopt the scientific proof. — Haglund

No, I just could not understand the context of your words in English? It was your English that made little sense to me.

We can turn the table and ask atheist to see the gods are no fantasy by adopting a non-scientific proof. There are enough of these proofs — Haglund

Yeah, good luck with that! Turn, turn that table until you can turn that table no more.
Perhaps all that table turning will make your gods appear and I can say wow! you were correct all along.
I wouldn't bet your life on that happening if I were you.

Theism has other means to proof than theists . By obliging theists to adopt these means, the take god away. — Haglund

This makes little sense to me.

Yes. But not as playing advocate of the devil. I don't believe in the devil. I believe in gods, so I offer stuff against the atheists. Arguments, reasons, examples, knowledge, etc. — Haglund

The devil is just god dressed in red, wearing a mask with a couple of horns.
You are on the correct track with 'I don't believe in the devil.' Perhaps you will one day add /gods
to the sentence and you can stop your roleplay with polytheism for good.

The balance is in favor of the atheists. Why should they feel happy if they succeed in taking someone's theism? — Haglund

They did not take it, they exposed its lack of evidence and in doing so have freed some of its enslaved/duped/conned minds. The balance is in the favour of the atheists because they have better arguments compared to the theists.

I was asked to teach math. But I refused. Only privately once in a while. Physics and math. In schools it's preaching. Teaching is preaching. And the young ones must learn by law. I didn’t wamt to be some refined slavedriver — Haglund

As I said, you are engaging in emotional sophistry and what is the difference in teaching maths privately to publically? I taught maths as well both in the classroom and as a private tutor. Mathematical addition and subtraction work the same way in private as they do in public. If you want to discuss your political opinions of how schools should be run then do so, don't try to muddy science with your political and emotional sophistry.

For them it is not enough that God doesn't exist, they strive to convert believers into non believers — SpaceDweller

You offer an imbalanced position. I agree that atheists wish to engage theists in debate and are 'happy' when a theist declares that they no longer believe in the god/ religious dogma that they did believe in. I have witnessed such during phone-in shows with Matt Dillahunty and other atheist phone-in shows.
I say you offer imbalance, as you do not cite the many examples of theist attempts to convert people to their cause. Some such evanhellical examples are much more aggressive than anything you can find from atheist groups. Atheists don't knock on my door to talk to me about their atheism but Mormons, Jehovah witnesses, et al, do knock on my door and attempt to preach their religion to me. They even accost people on the streets, unlike atheists.

I don't think much of Rod Liddle. He is a Church of England theist who holds some very suspect viewpoints. I don't think he could produce a balanced piece on atheism if his life depended upon it.

Of course it can be preached. — Haglund

No that would be a contradiction of the term 'preach.'
I was a teacher of 30+ years and I taught computer SCIENCE.
I did not preach the subject to my pupils. I taught them.
You are engaging in emotional sophistry.

It's not my intention to give arguments in favor of them. I only do so because you argue against it. I can't help it you don't understand the arguments. — Haglund

Seriously? you argue in favour merely because others argue against? You are just playing the role of devils advocate?
It's hardly surprising then that I find your polytheism suspect and suggest you are merely role-playing.
I understand your arguments perfectly well, which is why I am able to reject them offhand.

Then you, sofar, haven't given reasonable arguments against theism. — Haglund

I of course completely disagree and would say the same regarding your arguments for polytheism.

You mean by more extreme views the scientific view? — Haglund

No, I was referring to more extreme political or social views.
Science is not a religion so it cannot be preached. The empirical evidence for a scientific theory is presented, not preached. If there is little or no scientific evidence available then a hypothesis is presented but, unlike theism, hypothesis, is never presented as fact and it is just emotional nonsense to suggest any science is ever preached. Such is just presented by bitter theists or by individuals who are just bitter in general because they feel life has not treated them fairly.

These so called "new atheists" are turning atheism into a new religion.

Atheists don't believe in God and end of story, new atheists go one step further and preach there is no God, that's a fundamental difference between the 2. — SpaceDweller

Nonsense!
Atheists suggest there is close to zero evidence of the god posit.
The word 'preach,' refers to delivering a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church. Atheists don't preach.

No. They are frame independent. Everyone agrees on proper time and length. It's the rate of the clock in the rest frame. That's the same for all observers. Like the proper length — Haglund

"Einstein found that if one object was at rest and other object was moving at a uniform velocity, their proper time in relation to each other would be different. Einstein found that the faster an object went, or the closer the speed of an object was to the speed of light, c, that the time of that object would seem to slow down in relation to the object at rest."

There is nothing against advocating. Why? What's against it? — Haglund

I did not and do not say that individuals should not or cannot preach/advocate theism/capitalism or even more extreme views. I stated that I would strongly argue against the wisdom and truth of their viewpoint. If any individual or group uses threat or force to strengthen or progress their position then it is valid to defend with equal threat or force in the defense of the majority.
Powerful checks and balances must be in place which ensures nefarious individuals or groups never gain or hold any significant positions of powerful. The military/police can never be fully controlled by the government alone. Defense emergency must be under government control due to response time but war declaration can only be made after gaining the democratic consent of the majority represented.

I hear reason speaking here! I would trust you as PM, but not the people in the article. — Haglund

That's what a true humanist/socialist/democrat must be and must demonstrate.
If the people put their trust in you and give you power then you MUST do what you said you will do in the time you said you would do it. At every stage, you must explain what you are doing and why (fully open government,). If you fail, then you must fully explain why, to those you represent. They must then choose what will happen next. Accept your updated plan when you explain it and give you more time to try or you must give up your position and let another vote take place where alternative positions.
I am becoming an advocate of a more progressive politics. Party politics have a bad reputation. I think a government should be made up of elected individuals with no 'party label.' You should be elected based on issues you will fight for and against. The government should be made up of all those elected. Opposition or agreement should be on an issue by an issue basis.

Proper time though is no relative notion. Neither is proper length. — Haglund

https://study.com/academy/lesson/special-relativity-proper-time-proper-length.html?msclkid=2b6077ffc3cb11ecbb608f3cc403a4cc

"Special relativity is the study of space and time and how they are connected. In this lesson, learn about proper time and proper length, as we study how time and length can change in special relativity"

"time and length change in special relativity, a phenomenon known as proper time and proper length."

"Einstein found that if one object was at rest and other object was moving at a uniform velocity, their proper time in relation to each other would be different. Einstein found that the faster an object went, or the closer the speed of an object was to the speed of light, c, that the time of that object would seem to slow down in relation to the object at rest."

Proper time and proper length are therefore relative notions used in special relativity.

Therefore if object does not move there is no time for that object?
don't objects age over time because they are subject to time? — SpaceDweller

Photons don't experience time and they move at light speed.
Any time measure is subject to the observer's reference frame, time dilates.
Movement like time is also relative.
It is accurate in my opinion to say that movement and time are entwined but they are still relative.
Space is expanding so space is not still, it is moving. No object in the Universe is 'still' within the reference frame of the whole Universe.
So movement and time are entwined but if movement reaches light speed then the time aspect stops, at least, relative to any observer within this Universe. Pretty weird stuff!
I would like to think that nothing is impossible but as far as I understand, it's impossible for anything with mass to travel at light speed.

What you think of the new atheists and the far right? — Haglund

I read the article and looked for some info on the salon news group and its owners.
I always listen to warnings from left-leaning groups against individuals who have celebrity status but I need my own trusted sources to confirm their claims.
I do not hold with some of the political viewpoints of Sam Harris, Dan Dennet, Richard Dawkins,and Christopher Hitchens (whose brother Peter Hitchens, is a political idiot and a theist). I fully support their views on atheism not politics. I agree with most of the stated political viewpoints I have heard the people named above state (apart from Peter Hitchens) but not all.

An atheist can hold many other disturbing viewpoints as well as being an atheist. I would combat any such views with the same determination that I combat the preaching theist or those who advocate theism. My politics are left, socialist, democratic, humanist and green-leaning.
In my experience, capitalists and the far right are interested in personal wealth and power. They consider themselves superior to humans of a different culture, ethnicity or creed.
Politically, I would defend theists against right-wing atheists but I would still argue against their theism.

Rather to counter new atheist — Haglund

New atheist is a dumb commercially invented term. It's just the same atheism but now they are a lot less afraid of the traditional threats from religious crazies. I think the current atheist position is somewhere between 'here are our arguments to counter yours,' and 'you wanna war? then we'll give you a war!'

My brain simulations directly relate to my conception of the real world indeed. What's a different ball game then? — Haglund

I agree. You gotta know what's real or not. I had a psychosis once. I wanted to drink water from exhaust pipes of cars... — Haglund

I think you have just given a very honest and frank example of a 'different ball game.'
A person has their own pathway through life and their own experiences that have contributed to their own personal viewpoints. Schisms of any kind can affect individuals in a myriad of ways.
I am NOT suggesting IN ANY WAY that a particular way of thinking is the only way to travel.
I am just suggesting that extremity of experience can result in thought conflicts that I have never personally experienced. I don't label my brain a simulator and think that it is a very inaccurate label to use in the context you have used it.
In my opinion, I am real, you are real, the Universe is real, we are capable of dream states, there are no gods and advanced transhumanism is and will continue to advance and 'downloading' a human consciousness in the very very distant future will be possible. Again, thanks for the exchange.

The particles, virtual or real, are the reality. Not the formal system of math — Haglund

What IS is what is most important. The LHC has just been switched on again and it's a new enhanced machine (Yea!) so let's see what it finds. Perhaps all a particle is IS a motion/ripple/disturbance in a bit of spacetime. Just like a disturbance/wave in a liquid such as water.

How do you know that? Im a theist and have given it a fair amount of thought. — Haglund

Well, you are an unconvincing polytheist in my opinion, and it's that degree of freedom that allows your brain to do scientific thinking as well. You reject dogmatic restrictions such as you cannot know the mind of god. You have even stated that your gods don't satisfy the omni's. YOUR gods find this hard to do and that hard to do. YOUR god descriptions suggest they are as flawed as we are and not much more powerful. YOUR gods are kinda wimps actually. I think future transhumans could kick their ass out of the Universe. Just as well they don't exist!

Not about logic. What you mean by a logical simulation? — Haglund

My brain offers me simulations about all there is in the world. That can be logic or gods, fantasies for you, with no counterpart in the world. — Haglund

I assume you consider your own thoughts to be based on logic. Your brain generates those thoughts. You have labeled your brain a simulator. I take it that you consider its simulations logical. If you don't then you must be suggesting that the simulator function of your brain is only for your night or day dreaming and has nothing to do with the REAL physical world around you. It's commonly called your imagination. I am sure you agree it's important to adequately distinguish between imagination/simulation and reality. If you are suggesting that YOUR brain simulations directly relate to YOUR conception of the real world then that is a whole different ball game.
I think human imagination is a very powerful and useful force but I never consider its simulations as having much in common with reality.

Spacetime is spacetime. Motion is motion — Haglund

I think they are entwined not separate.

No. A particle is not a movement of a field or bit of spacetime — Haglund

From: https://www.newscientist.com/definition/quantum-field-theory/?msclkid=8db02db7c2dc11ec801ce7d9673dde45
Quantum field theory marries the ideas of other quantum theories to depict all particles as “excitations” that arise in underlying fields.

What's a universal quanta? — Haglund

From the macro to the sub-atomic. Galaxies,stars, planets, atoms, quarks, photons.

Rethink spacetime — Haglund

All good scientists do that all the (space)time. It's mostly theists who restrict their own thinking.

Yes. They are simulated in my brain. — Haglund

Ain't that so then? Is my claim false? — Haglund

But its no LOGICAL simulation, as you claim I said — Haglund

Your typings here seem to indicate a lack of conviction on your part.
Is your brain offering you illogical simulations then?
Shall we now drop the unhelpful use of the word simulation? and I can then ask:
Is your brain generating illogical thoughts/dreams when it comes to gods?

Yes. I am real. What you mean by "YOUR" world? — Haglund

YOU are real but your brain is a simulator. Give me an example of YOUR brain simulator in action during a typical awake period when you experience the physical world. I think you conflate the word simulator with the brain being a thought generator.

Now you project a logic onto me I didn't use. Why should life be a logical simulation? What's my logic used to conclude that? — Haglund

The logic that YOU claim YOUR brain simulator, simulates!

The brain simulates the world. — Haglund

So YOU are real but YOUR world is a simulation?

The simulation of the gods refer to real gods — Haglund

So YOUR gods are real and simulated?

So is your life a simulation? If human brains can only produce simulations then human experience is a logical simulation, according to your logic. Is your brain the source of YOUR polytheism? are YOUR gods therefore part of YOUR simulation?

I think the fundamental is movement. Spacetime is motion. Not moving is relative.
A particle is a disturbance/movement of a field/bit of spacetime.
Time is duration of motion and is relative.
No universal quanta is motionless.
That's how I currently conceive spacetime anyway.
I also remain most convinced by the theory that the fundamental is some form of interdimensional vibrating string.

Don't think so. I have rather detailed knowledge of the workings of the brain. It's a huge analogue, life simulator of the world, — Haglund

You have not demonstrated such detailed knowledge so far. You just called the human brain a 'life simulator.' Is your brain a simulator? is it an emulator? Or is it real?

What negativity? I told you to enjoy your fantasies! Ain't that positive? — Haglund

Your negativity regarding science and the future of our species. Don't stagnate within your polytheist fantasies. Either you pass responsibility for your own life to gods or you claim it as your own and stop scapegoating them. What happens in your life is under natural controls not supernatural controls.
Be all you can be! Stop walking back towards the caves.

Correction. It's not the human brain that's being uploaded, per OP. It's the mind. Not the same. — L'éléphant

That's another exchange! I don't hold with any posit that the human 'mind,' exists beyond the human brain. Are you a dualist?

Don't leave just yet. You'd lower the overall IQ of this thread if you did — L'éléphant

Thanks for your nice comment. It's nice to be nice and you seem like a nice person.

But I have seen, read, and thought about it — Haglund

So has every member of this Forum I reckon.

Enjoy your fantasies! Thanks for the exchange! — Haglund

Try to combat your negativity.

Oh boy, you have a very optimistic view of humans. I don't feel myself more powerful than a pigeon since the moment when I have issues as depression or existentialism. These states of mind can induce some persons to commit suicide. So... in this context, a pigeon is more powerful than me at least emotionally — javi2541997

I hate to throw an old favourite at you Javi but you asked for it!!!!

Conclusion: we are weak whatever we are compared with! — javi2541997

Each other?
A pigeon?
A non-existent god?
Your earlier self?
An individual human can be very very strong indeed both mentally and physically.
Our mental prowess created every superhero which has ever existed and every god, human imagination is one of the strongest forces in the Universe imo.

But think about it. This won't work. — Haglund

Do your qualifications and years of experience in the field of neuroscience and biological engineering convince you of this or is it just your opinion, your educated guesswork based on your reading in the general area? My expertise is Computing Science, not neuroscience etc. If you were highly qualified in the relevant areas then your opinion on this topic might carry more weight. Your negative opinion regarding future transhumanism is no more, than one vote against, from a relative layman in the area.
My positive vote, for the possibility of future advanced transhumanism, has a similar weight to yours on the neuroscience side and more weight than yours on the computing science side.
I think that ends this thread for me. Thanks for the exchange.