Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #595807 > unrolled thread

God created by humans

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 15:08 -0800
    Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-20 18:06 -0600
      Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 16:32 -0800
        Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-20 20:46 -0600
        Re: God created by humans "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-21 10:40 +0100
          Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 11:41 -0800
            Re: God created by humans Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:40 -0800
              Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:45 -0800
          Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 11:49 -0800
      Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 02:06 -0800
        Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-21 10:16 -0600
          Re: God created by humans Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 08:32 -0800
          Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:19 -0800
            Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 12:31 -0800
              Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:43 -0800
            Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-21 14:46 -0600
              Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 14:33 -0800
                Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 14:58 -0800
                  Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 16:28 -0800
                Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-21 23:56 -0600
                  Re: God created by humans Blake Armanni <blea@arrkare.in> - 2022-11-22 13:53 +0000
                    Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-22 12:57 -0600
                    Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-22 16:37 -0800
                  Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 07:26 -0800
    Re: God created by humans "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 17:51 -0800
      Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 22:14 -0800
      Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 02:34 -0800
      Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 07:53 -0800
        Re: God created by humans "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 10:30 -0800
          Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:32 -0800
    Re: God created by humans Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-23 13:51 -0600
      Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-23 15:00 -0800
        Re: God created by humans Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-23 21:04 -0600
          Re: God created by humans Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 19:31 -0800
            Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-23 22:28 -0600
              Re: God created by humans Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 22:34 -0800
            Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 20:51 -0800
          Re: God created by humans Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-24 09:16 +0000
            Re: God created by humans Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-24 20:05 +0000
              Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-24 12:42 -0800
              Re: God created by humans Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-24 21:50 +0000
          Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-24 12:05 -0800
            Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 12:52 -0800
              Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-25 13:23 -0800
      Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 15:50 -0800
      Re: God created by humans RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-11-28 13:59 -0800
        Re: God created by humans The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 14:44 -0800
          Re: God created by humans The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 16:49 -0800
    Re: God created by humans "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 14:03 -0800
      Re: God created by humans "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 14:05 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#595921

whodat wrote:

> On 11/21/2022 4:33 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>> Strange ideas you have about responsibilities, you mean that after
>> their working time,
>> scientists have not the right to speak out their opinion on the usage
>> of their work???
>> if they have the right to speak out, then there is their moral
>> responsibility of using their right, and contrast any wrong use of
>> their work.
> 
> You are somewhere way out in left field with this. Responsibility is
> solely in the hands of those who implement. I'm now finished with this
> discussion because your grasp on reality is completely absent. Good luck
> with your adventures, because adventures is all they are.

you cannot even write in engilsh, you ducking imbecile.


https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/566970-russian-embassy-execution-footage/
“Isn’t it clear that the United States enables permissiveness and impunity for neo-Nazis in Ukraine by covering up the frenzy of Ukrainian bandits?” the Russian diplomatic mission asked. “By condoning the crimes of the Kiev regime and ignoring them, *_Washington_supports_murderers…_* One must always remember: ‘For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind’.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595943

On 11/22/2022 7:53 AM, Blake Armanni wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 11/21/2022 4:33 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> Strange ideas you have about responsibilities, you mean that after
>>> their working time,
>>> scientists have not the right to speak out their opinion on the usage
>>> of their work???
>>> if they have the right to speak out, then there is their moral
>>> responsibility of using their right, and contrast any wrong use of
>>> their work.
>>
>> You are somewhere way out in left field with this. Responsibility is
>> solely in the hands of those who implement. I'm now finished with this
>> discussion because your grasp on reality is completely absent. Good luck
>> with your adventures, because adventures is all they are.
> 
> you cannot even write in engilsh, you ducking imbecile.

Class will out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595952

On 11/22/22 5:53 AM, Blake Armanni wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 11/21/2022 4:33 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> Strange ideas you have about responsibilities, you mean that after
>>> their working time,
>>> scientists have not the right to speak out their opinion on the usage
>>> of their work???
>>> if they have the right to speak out, then there is their moral
>>> responsibility of using their right, and contrast any wrong use of
>>> their work.
>>
>> You are somewhere way out in left field with this. Responsibility is
>> solely in the hands of those who implement. I'm now finished with this
>> discussion because your grasp on reality is completely absent. Good luck
>> with your adventures, because adventures is all they are.
> 
> you cannot even write in engilsh, you ducking imbecile.

Well you know there are also other beliefs out there.

Like governments can do no wrong.

A policeman that aims a gun at someone is
somehow different from someone else that
aims a gun at someone.

Money washes clean responsibility for what
they are doing.  Once someone pays someone
for what they are doing, no one is responsible
anymore, either the person paying the money, or
the person receiving it.  A corporation that
receives a charter from the government to do
business is not part of the government through
their charter.

Laws and constitutions serve the common good.
All governments are 'democracies', etc.  If a
constitution exists, it gives certain persons
the right to kill millions of people without
question, because 'constitutions' and lines
drawn on maps give them that right.  Etc... .
Armies should follow commands because it is
'illegal' to not follow them, etc ...  If a
'head of state' or 'head of government' presses
the button, other people who turn the levers,
or design the levers, are not 'responsible'.
If they are 'drafted' then they are 'slaves'.
If they are not drafted then money washed
clean their hands when they got paid, and
governments can do no wrong ... no one is
responsible because they are 'just
following orders' ... obeying the 'laws'
that 'serve the common good' ... etc ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595929

Il giorno martedì 22 novembre 2022 alle 06:57:01 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
> On 11/21/2022 4:33 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 20opinion of what 22 alle 21:46:37 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> >> On 11/21/2022 2:19 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >>> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> >>>> On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >>>>> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> >>>>>> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> >>>>>>> sylvia else 
> >>>>>>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> >>>>>>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> >>>>>>> beda 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The goal of intelligence in the universe 
> >>>>>> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> >>>>>> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> >>>>>> entity. 
> >>>>> beda: 
> >>>>> in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world, 
> >>>>> now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science. 
> >>>> The history of "science" is not "science." 
> >>>>> Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take 
> >>>>> full responsibility 
> >>>> Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of 
> >>>> nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art." 
> >>>>> of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical 
> >>>>> applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking. 
> >>>>> regards 
> >>>>> beda 
> >>>> How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for 
> >>>> truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has 
> >>>> anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got 
> >>>> its start. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'" 
> >>>> 
> >>>> This discussion has no chance of advance. 
> >>> Beda: 
> >>> We may better make some order in the concepts we use, 
> >>> pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake), 
> >>> with the help of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families, 
> >>> friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup. 
> >>> Priests help with religion, 
> >>> philosophers with logic reasoning, 
> >>> scientists help to understand how the physical nature works, 
> >>> teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part. 
> >>> Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work 
> >>> (and his way of thinking) have on the social life. 
> >> Aren't you advocating "thought crime" here? 
> > Thought crime not, but spoken out wrong ideas implies moral responsibilities, 
> > spoken out wrong ideas, mostly, are carried on by mean convenient selfish reasons 
> >>> Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge 
> >>> and through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the 
> >>> collective way of life. 
> >> Untrue. Scientists only deal in understanding of nature. They are not 
> >> responsible for any implementation over which they had/have no control. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Strange ideas you have about responsibilities, you mean that after their working time, 
> > scientists have not the right to speak out their opinion on the usage of their work??? 
> > if they have the right to speak out, then there is their moral responsibility of using their 
> > right, and contrast any wrong use of their work.
> You are somewhere way out in left field with this. Responsibility is 
> solely in the hands of those who implement. I'm now finished with this 
> discussion because your grasp on reality is completely absent. Good 
> luck with your adventures, because adventures is all they are. 
> 
> <snip>
thanks for your attentions, we may encounter on another topic
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595821

On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:08:38 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> sylvia else 
> >there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> >the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> beda 
> 
> The goal of intelligence in the universe may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 

That is man's infinite stupidity instead beda....
There is math before man's mind. He is not God.
He plays God. He can only discover Big Bang
math after the fact. He doesn't originate math
physical before himself. God does.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595838

On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 5:51:46 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:08:38 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > >> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > sylvia else 
> > >there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > >the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > beda 
> > 
> > The goal of intelligence in the universe may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power.
> That is man's infinite stupidity instead beda.... 
> There is math before man's mind. He is not God. 
> He plays God. He can only discover Big Bang 
> math after the fact. He doesn't originate math 
> physical before himself. God does. 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
Well put, Mitch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595851

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 02:51:46 UTC+1 mitchr...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:08:38 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > >> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > sylvia else 
> > >there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > >the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > beda 
> > 
> > The goal of intelligence in the universe may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power.
> That is man's infinite stupidity instead beda.... 
> There is math before man's mind. He is not God. 
> He plays God. He can only discover Big Bang 
> math after the fact. He doesn't originate math 
> physical before himself. God does. 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
There were no math before man, nor God
Math "emerge" into mind of people,
then math, as many "emerging" abstract concepts
creates a stratification of higher level of "emerging" 
(bottom up) abstract relations into a realm of abstractedness
in which the very idea of God belong, along the man made inspired 
God spell books.
How far will humanity will go in its evolution process is determined
by the our physical limitate planet and more and more how humanity will
manage the "emergent" realm of hyperabstract reality that  more and more will be
inhabiting our  world and minds.
Man's future is speeding up hyperbolically, 
as hyperbolically is increasing the risk of man's annihilation.

best regards
beda pietanza

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595867

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 02:51:46 UTC+1 mitchr...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:08:38 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > >> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > sylvia else 
> > >there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > >the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > beda 
> > 
> > The goal of intelligence in the universe may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power.
> That is man's infinite stupidity instead beda.... 
people are not stupid, just some of them are
> There is math before man's mind. He is not God.
there is not math nor the idea of God out of the man's mind
> He plays God. He can only discover Big Bang 
> math after the fact. He doesn't originate math 
> physical before himself. God does. 
not understood, sorry
chyeers
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595873

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:53:47 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 02:51:46 UTC+1 mitchr...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> > On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:08:38 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > >> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > > sylvia else 
> > > >there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > > >the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > > beda 
> > > 
> > > The goal of intelligence in the universe may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> > That is man's infinite stupidity instead beda....
> people are not stupid, just some of them are
> > There is math before man's mind. He is not God.
> there is not math nor the idea of God out of the man's mind
> > He plays God. He can only discover Big Bang 
> > math after the fact. He doesn't originate math 
> > physical before himself. God does.
> not understood, sorry 

Math's physical began before man back to the beginning BB initial condition.
Man can only find it after. 

> chyeers 
> beda

It is man's infinite stupidity to think he can become God.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595887

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 19:30:31 UTC+1 mitchr...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:53:47 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 02:51:46 UTC+1 mitchr...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
> > > On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:08:38 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > >> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > > > sylvia else 
> > > > >there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > > > >the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > > > beda 
> > > > 
> > > > The goal of intelligence in the universe may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> > > That is man's infinite stupidity instead beda.... 
> > people are not stupid, just some of them are 
> > > There is math before man's mind. He is not God. 
> > there is not math nor the idea of God out of the man's mind 
> > > He plays God. He can only discover Big Bang 
> > > math after the fact. He doesn't originate math 
> > > physical before himself. God does. 
> > not understood, sorry
> Math's physical began before man back to the beginning BB initial condition. 
> Man can only find it after. 
> 
> > chyeers 
> > beda 
> 
> It is man's infinite stupidity to think he can become God. 
beda:
well, I think there is not a God, surely not the one God believers think,
but I see, if the humanity makes it, a possibility of the humanity to reach an higher level 
of human condition, and this process have not a limit, unless we are so stupid
to destroy ourselves, 
The real danger is that if just very few people go astray, for the powerful arms they can use,
humanity can real come to an end, then not human task will be accomplished.
regards
beda
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596029

On 11/20/22 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> [...]

God is a thought in human minds. Ask yourself: what does that thought model?

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596045

On 11/23/22 11:51 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/20/22 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> God is a thought in human minds. 

This is an assertion that you have made about
the nature of deities.  You can interchange
statements with questions and questions with
statements and make one seem the other and
visa versa.

Tacitus once said that monotheists are
atheists to all gods except one, but it
is a cover for belief in none.  What
entities have thoughts, can you distinguish
thoughts from observations about an external
world?  If your world were a computer simulation,
could you tell the difference?

> Ask yourself: what does that thought 
> model?

Do your thoughts model what the mind of a deity
might model?  Is the mind of that deity modeled
by another deity?   Perhaps it is turtles all
the way down?  ...

> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596059

On 11/23/22 5:00 PM, Trolidan7 wrote:
> On 11/23/22 11:51 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> God is a thought in human minds.
> 
> This is an assertion that you have made about the nature of deities.
> 
No. It is a clearly-true statement about human beings and the way our
minds work. Since the only things our minds can process are thoughts,
anything that occupies our mind, and anything represented by a word
(symbol), is a thought.

When your mind can process something other than thoughts, please let us
know. (That will be a HUGE challenge, as essentially the only mechanism
you have for 'letting us know' is words, which are merely symbols
representing thoughts.)

> Do your thoughts model what the mind of a deity might model?

No, I do not waste my time on such useless endeavors -- I have no
interest in deities, as they are pure fiction. All too many people waste
their time thinking about deities; worse, they get so wrapped up in
their thoughts that they attempt to impose their notions on others,
often by force -- that is a major tragedy of the human experience.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596061

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 7:04:41 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/23/22 5:00 PM, Trolidan7 wrote: 
> > On 11/23/22 11:51 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> >> God is a thought in human minds. 
> > 
> > This is an assertion that you have made about the nature of deities. 
> >
> No. It is a clearly-true statement about human beings and the way our 
> minds work. Since the only things our minds can process are thoughts, 
> anything that occupies our mind, and anything represented by a word 
> (symbol), is a thought. 
> 
> When your mind can process something other than thoughts, please let us 
> know. (That will be a HUGE challenge, as essentially the only mechanism 
> you have for 'letting us know' is words, which are merely symbols 
> representing thoughts.)
> > Do your thoughts model what the mind of a deity might model?
> No, I do not waste my time on such useless endeavors -- I have no 
> interest in deities, as they are pure fiction. All too many people waste 
> their time thinking about deities; worse, they get so wrapped up in 
> their thoughts that they attempt to impose their notions on others, 
> often by force -- that is a major tragedy of the human experience. 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth."
- H. L. Mencken"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596062

On 11/23/2022 9:31 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 7:04:41 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/23/22 5:00 PM, Trolidan7 wrote:
>>> On 11/23/22 11:51 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> God is a thought in human minds.
>>>
>>> This is an assertion that you have made about the nature of deities.
>>>
>> No. It is a clearly-true statement about human beings and the way our
>> minds work. Since the only things our minds can process are thoughts,
>> anything that occupies our mind, and anything represented by a word
>> (symbol), is a thought.
>>
>> When your mind can process something other than thoughts, please let us
>> know. (That will be a HUGE challenge, as essentially the only mechanism
>> you have for 'letting us know' is words, which are merely symbols
>> representing thoughts.)
>>> Do your thoughts model what the mind of a deity might model?
>> No, I do not waste my time on such useless endeavors -- I have no
>> interest in deities, as they are pure fiction. All too many people waste
>> their time thinking about deities; worse, they get so wrapped up in
>> their thoughts that they attempt to impose their notions on others,
>> often by force -- that is a major tragedy of the human experience.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - 
> courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth."
> - H. L. Mencken"

Paul, religion is all well and fine in its own right. The problem occurs
when some proponents attempt to grant it a validity that religion itself
clearly denies. Every religion proudly affirms that the only validity it
has is as a feature of *belief.*

Science, as we know it today, has as a basis, validity through
demonstration that it correctly predicts the behavior of nature,
and that clearly has no "faith" basis at all.

The lunatics are attempting to grant religious precepts a validity
equal to that of proven science. It doesn't wash. There will always be
some who try anyway, and there's no dissuading them. It is a topic not
worth the effort to discuss because if those nutcases were actually
seeking truthful answers they could be persuaded. And of course they
can't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596066

On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 05:28:43 UTC+1, whodat wrote:


> Science, as we know it today, has as a basis, validity through 
> demonstration that it correctly predicts the behavior of nature, 
> and that clearly has no "faith" basis at all. 

You're an idiot putting so much blind faith in such
obvious lie.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596063

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 7:31:09 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 7:04:41 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > On 11/23/22 5:00 PM, Trolidan7 wrote: 
> > > On 11/23/22 11:51 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > >> God is a thought in human minds. 
> > > 
> > > This is an assertion that you have made about the nature of deities. 
> > > 
> > No. It is a clearly-true statement about human beings and the way our 
> > minds work. Since the only things our minds can process are thoughts, 
> > anything that occupies our mind, and anything represented by a word 
> > (symbol), is a thought. 
> > 
> > When your mind can process something other than thoughts, please let us 
> > know. (That will be a HUGE challenge, as essentially the only mechanism 
> > you have for 'letting us know' is words, which are merely symbols 
> > representing thoughts.) 
> > > Do your thoughts model what the mind of a deity might model? 
> > No, I do not waste my time on such useless endeavors -- I have no 
> > interest in deities, as they are pure fiction. All too many people waste 
> > their time thinking about deities; worse, they get so wrapped up in 
> > their thoughts that they attempt to impose their notions on others, 
> > often by force -- that is a major tragedy of the human experience. 
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth." 
> - H. L. Mencken"
You old muttonchopless fool.  Scientists do not love the truth.  They love their pet theories and will go to their graves believing/defending them.  Mencken was a media man without and ounce of courage in him, just like the rest of the media.  His honesty was non-existence in his reportage of the Scopes monkey trial.  

Roberts you damned fool.  The lives lost to the forced imposition of religion pale by comparison to the lives lost by the forced imposition of "scientific" and "technical" methods of running a society.  Only cancer, heart disease and old age have killed more people than the Soviet, Chinese and Cambodian technocrats.  The attempt in the 20th century to employ religionless scientific principles to govern people is the major tragedy of the human experience.  And we have the numbers to prove it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596073

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/23/22 5:00 PM, Trolidan7 wrote:
>>> God is a thought in human minds.
>> 
>> This is an assertion that you have made about the nature of deities.
>> 
> No. It is a clearly-true statement about human beings and the way our
> minds work. Since the only things our minds can process are thoughts,
> anything that occupies our mind, and anything represented by a word
> (symbol), is a thought.
> 
> When your mind can process something other than thoughts, please let us
> know. (That will be a HUGE challenge, as essentially the only mechanism
> you have for 'letting us know' is words, which are merely symbols
> representing thoughts.)
> 
>> Do your thoughts model what the mind of a deity might model?
> 
> No, I do not waste my time on such useless endeavors -- I have no
> interest in deities, as they are pure fiction. All too many people waste

nonsense. You are denying science then, because the endpoint of any 
science converges into religion. The universe is a religion, since you 
cannot deny its existence. Disregard thinking at it or not. But as said, 
there are more than one macro_scale logic of thinking. Thinking as such, 
substitutes a macro_scale thinking. It's hard, if not impossible, alive, 
to think about the others side. And it has nothing to do with religion. My 
friend??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596106

Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:16:33 AM UTC-8, Forest Vaccaro
> wrote: 
>> ... You are denying science then, because the endpoint of any science
>> converges into religion. The universe is a religion, since you cannot
>> deny its existence.
> 
> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
> false, and by the rulers as useful.
> - Lucius Annaeus Seneca

when you can deny the universe, let me know, fucking stupid. That's 
religion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596116

On 11/24/22 12:05 PM, Forest Vaccaro wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:16:33 AM UTC-8, Forest Vaccaro
>> wrote:
>>> ... You are denying science then, because the endpoint of any science
>>> converges into religion. The universe is a religion, since you cannot
>>> deny its existence.
>>
>> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
>> false, and by the rulers as useful.
>> - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
> 
> when you can deny the universe, let me know, fucking stupid. That's
> religion.

When you accept the existence of the universe, then that
is theism to a pantheist god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web