An argument we are having at work...

[ficbot]

Update: I finished it, and it kinda sucked. Toward the end, I started noticing usage errors too (effect where it should have been affect for example). Overall, I was not impressed and lowered my rating of it on Fictionwise. The book was Time and Again by Nancy Fraser btw.

[Patricia]

Thanks, ficbot!

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ficbot

Update: I finished it, and it kinda sucked. Toward the end, I started noticing usage errors too (effect where it should have been affect for example). Overall, I was not impressed and lowered my rating of it on Fictionwise. The book was Time and Again by Nancy Fraser btw.

Whatever the merits of the fiction, she has some hutzpah using that title when Jack Finney's classic sci-fi novel of the same name is so well known.

Jack Finney's - Time and Again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_Again_%28novel%29

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by ficbot

I was talking with some co-workers (one of whom does not read for fun) about a current book I am reading, and a problem I am having with it. Basically, I feel that the book does not make any sense. The two main characters get transported to the future, where there is a highly advanced technological utopia-esque society. Yet the entire world (except for a portion of mid-town Manhattan) has been rendered uninhabitable by nuclear war and other catastrophes. There are literally no people living anywhere else.

So, after pages of a parade of cool new technology including some special bathtubs, I started wondering how a society as 'large' as mid-town Manhattan would be able to sustain the manufacturing and agricultural infrastructure to support such things. It just did not make sense to me. If Manhattan was all you had to work with, you'd lose a lot of useable space just growing food to support the people, never mind manufacture the special bathtubs. It just defied logic that the society portrayed in the book could exist.

And he told me that it's all pretend anyway so it doesn't have to make sense. I say fiction or not, it still has to make sense and if there is some special explanation for something illogical, they need to clue the reader in. So, what do you think...it's all pretend so who cares, or I am right to demand an explanation.

The question that first came to my mind was where does the utopia get its power? It's not likely that anyone will build a fusion plant in Manhattan, and everything else (but fission) requires a fair amount of fuel, which the utopia doesn't have.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The question that first came to my mind was where does the utopia get its power? It's not likely that anyone will build a fusion plant in Manhattan, and everything else (but fission) requires a fair amount of fuel, which the utopia doesn't have.

Same power they use for faster than light starflight, time travelling and teleportation. Mainly captive suns or trained black holes...

[yvanleterrible]

Did i forget interdimentional taps?

[yvanleterrible]

Captain, I can't explenn it but the dylithium crrrystals arr oot of phase!?!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

snip

There are numerous stories using time travel, light year speeds, teleportation, all those I've switched over to fantasy as I learned how they'll never be possible.

snip

Stephen Hawking once guess starred on Star Trek TNG. He was given a tour of the sets after telling them he had always been a big fan.

When he saw the set for the warp engine he said "I'm working on it."

I don't know if faster than light travel will ever be possible but if Stephen Hawking gives the idea enough credit to even suggest that it might be, then I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to claim I know it will never be.

Something to think about anyway.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[wayspooled]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Captain, I can't explenn it but the dylithium crrrystals arr oot of phase!?!

"Transparent Aluminum?" -- G'vnr Nichols, "That's the ticket laddie." -- Scotty, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

so.. follow the link... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0727130814.htm

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by ahammer

so what you are saying that a athiesth can know there is no god.. unless they can is it still a belief. (and if ether side can prove themself right with no way to disprove it then there would be no other reiligions)

Athiests don't 'know there is no god'. Some may claim that, but it is not something that can be attributed to athiests as a group. The majority of athiests simply don't believe in god in the same way they don't believe in fairies or magic slippers. Is not believing in magic slippers a 'belief'? No, it's not.

the only way that athiesm can come up as lack of belief in god is for the person to have never incountered a person that believes in a god(s).(I think you will find no one on this world that has not) else they must chose to say that "I belief there is no god" to be a athiest.

Athiesm is by definition the lack of a belief in god. Theism = a belief in god(s). Athiesm = the lack of a belief in god(s).

Your viewpoint starts from a false assumption that it requires some kind of knowledge or proof to not believe in the existence of gods. You imply that it is an active belief to deny the existence of something for which there is no reason to believe exists.

It's a difficult distinction for some people to understand, but:
not believing in something is not a belief in itself.

Not believing in god is not the same as believing there isn't a god.

Not believing I am wearing green socks is not the same as believing I am not wearing green socks. Can you see the difference? To believe I am not wearing green socks you would have to go on faith or some evidence, some reason to believe I am wearing green socks. To not believe I am wearing green socks simply means you don't have an opinion on the matter, probably because you have no way of knowing the answer.

One is an assertion: a belief based on faith or evidence.
The other is a neutral stance based on the question being in itself meaningless. An athiest has seen no evidence for the existence of god, and therefore doesn't have an opinion on the matter (since to him it is an irrelevant question).

this is a moot point as they do not expen how the world began.
Athiesm does try to explan this point. that is why it is a religion and said "magic slippers" is not

I think you just said that athiesm is a religion because it tries to explain how the world began. This is so wildly wrong that I don't know where to start.

Firstly, there are no beliefs in anything (let alone the beginning of the world) in athiesm. There is no set of common beliefs or values that athiests share. This is why athiesm is not a religion. It is a single opinion on a question that is meaningless to athiests - that there is no belief in gods. All other values, beliefs, etc. are unique to the individual.

Religion claims (generally) to explain the beginning of the world, universe, etc. But since athiesm is not a system of beliefs it cannot and does not make the same claim.

athiests do have a set of beliefs they all hold
that man was made thru natual meens.
that the universe was made thru natual meens.

You're viewing athiesm through a paradigm that is completely opposite to it - religion.

And it also needs to be said (apparently) that no other beliefs that an athiest has are directly tied to their lack of belief in god. That is a hallmark of religion - 'god did it'. Athiests are not tied to a common interpretation of the universe, and any attribution of common ideas to religion is simply the religious paradigm failing to understand that not everybody has religion.

Athiests do not claim to know (well, some will, some won't, but that is just further proof that there is no athiest belief system) how the world came into existence (at least not beyond currently understood scientific knowledge). As with the question of whether or not there is a god, the most common athiest response would be 'I don't know' or 'it's impossible to know' or 'it's irrelevant'.

tell me when you look up words do they have to meet all the diffrent useage
becuse if so there are a lot of word that must confuse you.

If you are going to provide a definition of a word to try to prove that something fits that word's definition, at least one of the definitions has to fit. Athiesm does not fit any definition of the word 'religion'.

im also of the belief right now nothing I say will let you see my point and yet still I try hmmm.

At the risk of being blunt, what you are saying is flat out wrong. Athiesm is not a religion. It is the lack of a single belief in something for which there is no reason (to an athiest at least) to believe in.

As someone said, athiesm is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Do you collect stamps? If not, do you identify yourself as having 'not collecting stamps' as a hobby?

I think our big issue here is there is not realy a set diff on what a religion is.
we each have diffrent veiws on how it sould be defined.

Most dictionaries agree on what a religion is, and so do most people.

Put simply, a religion is a belief system, usually including a belief in a supernatural god or gods, accompanied by set laws and values.

No matter what the definition, athiesm does not fit a definition of religion any more than not believing in magic slippers fits the definition of a religion. You've yet to provide a single point that backs up your claim that not believing in god is a religion.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Stephen Hawking once guess starred on Star Trek TNG. He was given a tour of the sets after telling them he had always been a big fan.

When he saw the set for the warp engine he said "I'm working on it."

I don't know if faster than light travel will ever be possible but if Stephen Hawking gives the idea enough credit to even suggest that it might be, then I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to claim I know it will never be.

I think Hawking was joking

But in his 'Brief History of Time' he seems to imply that time travel doesn't necessarily have to breach the laws of physics.

Still, does it matter if it's not possible? It is a plot device that can help an author explore the human condition, so as long as it is at least explained in a plausible way I have no issue.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by ahi

Oh, now I see! You're right and everybody else is wrong. This seems to be the recurring theme in atheism-promoting conversation.

Good luck with your continuing evangelization!

- Ahi

Every dictionary in the world agrees with me.

In what way is anything anybody has posted in this thread 'athiesm-promoting conversation'? I am merely clarifying the fact that athiesm is not a religion. I really couldn't care less what anybody's religious opinion is as long as they are nice to each other.

It's telling that you haven't provided any counter to my proof that athiesm isn't a religion, and instead you've tried a personal attack.

I have demonstrated clearly that athiesm does not fit any definition of religion. Athiesm is the lack of belief in deities. It does not require a faith-based belief (no, lack of belief is not a belief), and does not come bundled with a predetermined value system.

All of my posts have been courteous and factual. I recommend you try my approach.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by ahi

Yeah... like countless people sharing said belief purposefully misusing words and mischaracterizing other beliefs in so exactly the same damn way as to lead incautious observers to question whether they even have minds of their own..

Most people don't like that, but it has nothing to do with the mis-classification of athiesm as a religion, and I don't believe anyone in this thread has said anything as you describe.

[Soc-psychologist]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Mark Twain said it best: "Of course real life is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."

I agree with Twain to a degree. But I would add that it depends on the literary style a bit as well. Surrealism makes sense and does not make sense but it has it's inner logic (think Kafka). Or think of the book called One hundred years of solitude. The flow of time is totally twisted in that one. And that is the thing that makes the book special.

Science fiction should make sense probably a bit more than your average story in a sense that it should be SCIENTIFICALLY accurate and thought through. Perhaps they have underground factories and slaves doing all the stuff? Think Wells.

--Michael

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I think Hawking was joking

But in his 'Brief History of Time' he seems to imply that time travel doesn't necessarily have to breach the laws of physics.

Still, does it matter if it's not possible? It is a plot device that can help an author explore the human condition, so as long as it is at least explained in a plausible way I have no issue.

Joking in the sense he was even close to working it out but from what I understand not joking about it being possible.

Eitehr way, I totally agree that it doesn't matter if it is possible or not. At least not for me.

Cheers,
PKFFW