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

Groups > alt.atheism > #1970995 > unrolled thread

Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-27 17:33 +0800
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-27 16:41 -0400
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-28 11:58 +0800
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-28 09:25 -0400
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-29 11:27 +0800
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 01:15 -0400
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-29 05:09 -0400
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:18 -0400
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 10:00 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-30 10:06 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:44 -0400
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:40 -0400
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-29 22:18 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-30 10:07 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:18 -0400
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-31 05:35 -0400
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-31 10:12 -0700
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-09-01 02:57 -0400
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-01 01:11 -0700
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-01 11:07 -0700
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-30 12:08 -0700
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-30 23:38 -0700
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-31 05:37 -0400
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-31 10:08 -0700
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-09-01 02:57 -0400
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-31 05:36 -0400
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-02 12:18 -0700
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:57 -0400
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-02 21:15 -0700
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 00:46 -0700
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 13:27 -0700
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-08 00:17 -0700
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 00:29 -0400
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-08 22:46 -0700
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 00:11 -0400
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-08-30 10:07 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:26 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1970995 — Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

On 2015-08-27 04:48 AM, Attila < wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:31:03 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mrkph0$982$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-26 03:45 PM, Attila < wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:45:12 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mriuj0$iak$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-25 08:32 AM, Attila < wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:40:23 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mrfir3$rfd$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-08-24 05:04 AM, Attila < wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:17:09 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>>>>>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mrch1l$79g$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet, you don't appear to be able to understand my rather simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical point of view. To me, that counts as wilful blindness on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are free to count anything whatever you like.  That has nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with either accuracy or reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical science to rely on your physical senses alone in determining
>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth and reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No brainwashing is necessary.  no other tool are available.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Science itself is based on a set of beliefs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which an be verified at will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really. How do you prove the physical world is real? You can't. You
>>>>>>>> can only believe that it is real.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can perform repetitious actions and predict the results.  That is
>>>>>>> more than your philosophy can do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I interact with the world and it really doesn't care whether I believe
>>>>>>> in any particular part of it or not.  I can believe I can flap my
>>>>>>> wings and fly but I had better not test that belief from the top of a
>>>>>>> tall building.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have not answered my question. You are using the laws of the
>>>>>> physical world to prove the physical world is real. You ignore the fact
>>>>>> the all physical laws are based on the assumption that the physical
>>>>>> world is real.
>>>>>
>>>>> At some point it is necessary to make certain assumptions.  For
>>>>> example, it is possible the entire universe complete with history,
>>>>> occupants and the necessary memories were all created 10 seconds ago
>>>>> and there is no possible way to prove this did or did not happen.
>>>>> Since it would be useless to speculate on whether that is true or not
>>>>> it obviously leaves only one course of action - to proceed as if it
>>>>> was not so created  Of course, it really doesn't matter does it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise a working hypothesis that the physical world is real is the
>>>>> only reasonable course of action.  To do otherwise leaves nowhere to
>>>>> go.
>>>>
>>>> So you admit you have no choice but to believe what your physical senses
>>>> want you to believe.
>>>
>>> Belief really doesn't enter into it.  I can verify the existence of
>>> the physical world at any time.  By repeatable experimentation upon
>>> any part of it, and obtaining the expected results.
>>
>> As I said, you have confidence in what your physical senses tell you.
>
> It works for me.

It's all because you actually believe it.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> You have no other means to verify such belief. As
>>>> long as your physical senses are consistent, even when they are lying,
>>>> you would still believe it's the truth.
>>>
>>> You are entering into the arena of useless speculation.-
>>
>> Just want to show why physical science is also based on belief.
>
> Nope.  Trial and error applied logically.
>
> Belief is entirely irrelevant.

Once again, you forgot every trial and error all started with the 
assumption that the universe is real. When it's an assumption you can't 
really verify, then it is a belief.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1971359

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:33:46 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id <mrmlpp$6pf$2@dont-email.me> wrote:


>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet, you don't appear to be able to understand my rather simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical point of view. To me, that counts as wilful blindness on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are free to count anything whatever you like.  That has nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with either accuracy or reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical science to rely on your physical senses alone in determining
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth and reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No brainwashing is necessary.  no other tool are available.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Science itself is based on a set of beliefs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which an be verified at will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really. How do you prove the physical world is real? You can't. You
>>>>>>>>> can only believe that it is real.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can perform repetitious actions and predict the results.  That is
>>>>>>>> more than your philosophy can do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I interact with the world and it really doesn't care whether I believe
>>>>>>>> in any particular part of it or not.  I can believe I can flap my
>>>>>>>> wings and fly but I had better not test that belief from the top of a
>>>>>>>> tall building.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have not answered my question. You are using the laws of the
>>>>>>> physical world to prove the physical world is real. You ignore the fact
>>>>>>> the all physical laws are based on the assumption that the physical
>>>>>>> world is real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At some point it is necessary to make certain assumptions.  For
>>>>>> example, it is possible the entire universe complete with history,
>>>>>> occupants and the necessary memories were all created 10 seconds ago
>>>>>> and there is no possible way to prove this did or did not happen.
>>>>>> Since it would be useless to speculate on whether that is true or not
>>>>>> it obviously leaves only one course of action - to proceed as if it
>>>>>> was not so created  Of course, it really doesn't matter does it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise a working hypothesis that the physical world is real is the
>>>>>> only reasonable course of action.  To do otherwise leaves nowhere to
>>>>>> go.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you admit you have no choice but to believe what your physical senses
>>>>> want you to believe.
>>>>
>>>> Belief really doesn't enter into it.  I can verify the existence of
>>>> the physical world at any time.  By repeatable experimentation upon
>>>> any part of it, and obtaining the expected results.
>>>
>>> As I said, you have confidence in what your physical senses tell you.
>>
>> It works for me.
>
>It's all because you actually believe it.

Apparently you think all of reality is based upon belief.  I am
curious.  If there is something that no one knows about - an entirely
new thing such as a plant or animal or cave - does this thing exist or
not exist?  Remember, if no one knows about it then no one can have
any kind of a belief about it.

If I believe something does not exist does that make it not exist?
Does gravity exist because I believe it does?   If I believe it does
not can I safely jump off a building with no result?

If such a jump kills me and thus ends my existence what does that
mean?   If reality is only a belief and I don't believe in what kills
me?

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You have no other means to verify such belief. As
>>>>> long as your physical senses are consistent, even when they are lying,
>>>>> you would still believe it's the truth.
>>>>
>>>> You are entering into the arena of useless speculation.-
>>>
>>> Just want to show why physical science is also based on belief.
>>
>> Nope.  Trial and error applied logically.
>>
>> Belief is entirely irrelevant.
>
>Once again, you forgot every trial and error all started with the 
>assumption that the universe is real. When it's an assumption you can't 
>really verify, then it is a belief.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

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

#1971587

On 2015-08-28 04:41 AM, Attila < wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:33:46 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mrmlpp$6pf$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet, you don't appear to be able to understand my rather simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical point of view. To me, that counts as wilful blindness on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are free to count anything whatever you like.  That has nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with either accuracy or reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical science to rely on your physical senses alone in determining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth and reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No brainwashing is necessary.  no other tool are available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Science itself is based on a set of beliefs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which an be verified at will.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not really. How do you prove the physical world is real? You can't. You
>>>>>>>>>> can only believe that it is real.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can perform repetitious actions and predict the results.  That is
>>>>>>>>> more than your philosophy can do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I interact with the world and it really doesn't care whether I believe
>>>>>>>>> in any particular part of it or not.  I can believe I can flap my
>>>>>>>>> wings and fly but I had better not test that belief from the top of a
>>>>>>>>> tall building.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have not answered my question. You are using the laws of the
>>>>>>>> physical world to prove the physical world is real. You ignore the fact
>>>>>>>> the all physical laws are based on the assumption that the physical
>>>>>>>> world is real.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At some point it is necessary to make certain assumptions.  For
>>>>>>> example, it is possible the entire universe complete with history,
>>>>>>> occupants and the necessary memories were all created 10 seconds ago
>>>>>>> and there is no possible way to prove this did or did not happen.
>>>>>>> Since it would be useless to speculate on whether that is true or not
>>>>>>> it obviously leaves only one course of action - to proceed as if it
>>>>>>> was not so created  Of course, it really doesn't matter does it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise a working hypothesis that the physical world is real is the
>>>>>>> only reasonable course of action.  To do otherwise leaves nowhere to
>>>>>>> go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you admit you have no choice but to believe what your physical senses
>>>>>> want you to believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Belief really doesn't enter into it.  I can verify the existence of
>>>>> the physical world at any time.  By repeatable experimentation upon
>>>>> any part of it, and obtaining the expected results.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, you have confidence in what your physical senses tell you.
>>>
>>> It works for me.
>>
>> It's all because you actually believe it.
>
> Apparently you think all of reality is based upon belief.  I am
> curious.  If there is something that no one knows about - an entirely
> new thing such as a plant or animal or cave - does this thing exist or
> not exist?  Remember, if no one knows about it then no one can have
> any kind of a belief about it.

If something does not exist, then you or anyone else would not have 
mentioned it. The fact you are now mentioning it, its existence has 
become uncertain. So there is no way to answer your question until I can 
verify its existence.

>
> If I believe something does not exist does that make it not exist?

If something does not exist, you would not need to disbelieve its 
existence in the first place. It would never be part of your consciousness.

> Does gravity exist because I believe it does?   If I believe it does
> not can I safely jump off a building with no result?

Gravity has already been confirmed by your own physical senses. 
Believing its non-existence will not change that. In other word, your 
physical senses already believed its existence. You would not be able to 
change their belief.

>
> If such a jump kills me and thus ends my existence what does that
> mean?   If reality is only a belief and I don't believe in what kills
> me?

It would be your own wishful thinking that kills you. When you jump off 
a building, you are asking the physical world to confirm that the belief 
of your physical senses is true. The physical world honoured your 
request, so you would not have the chance to disbelieve its existence. 
The Matrix does not take insubordination lightly.

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

#1971729

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:58:12 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id <mrom69$ae3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:

>>> It's all because you actually believe it.
>>
>> Apparently you think all of reality is based upon belief.  I am
>> curious.  If there is something that no one knows about - an entirely
>> new thing such as a plant or animal or cave - does this thing exist or
>> not exist?  Remember, if no one knows about it then no one can have
>> any kind of a belief about it.
>
>If something does not exist, then you or anyone else would not have 
>mentioned it. The fact you are now mentioning it, its existence has 
>become uncertain. So there is no way to answer your question until I can 
>verify its existence.

Nonsense.  People talk about things that don't exist frequently.  The
Tooth Fairy, gods, all sorts of literary fiction.  The list is large.

>
>>
>> If I believe something does not exist does that make it not exist?
>
>If something does not exist, you would not need to disbelieve its 
>existence in the first place. It would never be part of your consciousness.

It can be a part of my consciousness and still not exist.

>
>> Does gravity exist because I believe it does?   If I believe it does
>> not can I safely jump off a building with no result?
>
>Gravity has already been confirmed by your own physical senses. 
>Believing its non-existence will not change that. In other word, your 
>physical senses already believed its existence. You would not be able to 
>change their belief.

Does it's existence depend on some belief of mine?  Without that
belief would it still exist?

>
>>
>> If such a jump kills me and thus ends my existence what does that
>> mean?   If reality is only a belief and I don't believe in what kills
>> me?
>
>It would be your own wishful thinking that kills you. When you jump off 
>a building, you are asking the physical world to confirm that the belief 
>of your physical senses is true. The physical world honoured your 
>request, so you would not have the chance to disbelieve its existence. 
>The Matrix does not take insubordination lightly.

So if I truly believe I can fly like a butterfly I can do so.


--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

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

#1972179

On 2015-08-28 09:25 PM, Attila < wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:58:12 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mrom69$ae3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>>> It's all because you actually believe it.
>>>
>>> Apparently you think all of reality is based upon belief.  I am
>>> curious.  If there is something that no one knows about - an entirely
>>> new thing such as a plant or animal or cave - does this thing exist or
>>> not exist?  Remember, if no one knows about it then no one can have
>>> any kind of a belief about it.
>>
>> If something does not exist, then you or anyone else would not have
>> mentioned it. The fact you are now mentioning it, its existence has
>> become uncertain. So there is no way to answer your question until I can
>> verify its existence.
>
> Nonsense.  People talk about things that don't exist frequently.  The
> Tooth Fairy, gods, all sorts of literary fiction.  The list is large.

They are talking about things they know they don't exist. You are 
talking about a thing that exists but no one knows. You neglected 
yourself being the one who actually knows. The fact you know it exists 
has ensured its existence. For me, I have to check to find out whether 
you are lying or not. So its existence is uncertain.

>
>>
>>>
>>> If I believe something does not exist does that make it not exist?
>>
>> If something does not exist, you would not need to disbelieve its
>> existence in the first place. It would never be part of your consciousness.
>
> It can be a part of my consciousness and still not exist.

That would be imagination.

>
>>
>>> Does gravity exist because I believe it does?   If I believe it does
>>> not can I safely jump off a building with no result?
>>
>> Gravity has already been confirmed by your own physical senses.
>> Believing its non-existence will not change that. In other word, your
>> physical senses already believed its existence. You would not be able to
>> change their belief.
>
> Does it's existence depend on some belief of mine?  Without that
> belief would it still exist?

The existence of gravity depends on what your consciousness truly tells 
you. It's not something that you can change with your mind.

>
>>
>>>
>>> If such a jump kills me and thus ends my existence what does that
>>> mean?   If reality is only a belief and I don't believe in what kills
>>> me?
>>
>> It would be your own wishful thinking that kills you. When you jump off
>> a building, you are asking the physical world to confirm that the belief
>> of your physical senses is true. The physical world honoured your
>> request, so you would not have the chance to disbelieve its existence.
>> The Matrix does not take insubordination lightly.
>
> So if I truly believe I can fly like a butterfly I can do so.

No, I don't think so. The physical world is an illusion, but it does not 
mean we can ignore it altogether. We only need to be aware that it's not 
real, so we will not be fooled to lose our focus in life.

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

#1972224

> No, I don't think so. The physical world is an illusion,

So stop drinking and eating.

> but it does not mean we can ignore it altogether. We only need to be aware that it's not
> real, so we will not be fooled to lose our focus in life.


So drink and eat, just to be safe...

Kool!


-- 
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

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

#1972254

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:27:45 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id <mrr8pb$rul$1@dont-email.me> wrote:

>On 2015-08-28 09:25 PM, Attila < wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:58:12 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>> alt.atheism with message-id <mrom69$ae3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's all because you actually believe it.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you think all of reality is based upon belief.  I am
>>>> curious.  If there is something that no one knows about - an entirely
>>>> new thing such as a plant or animal or cave - does this thing exist or
>>>> not exist?  Remember, if no one knows about it then no one can have
>>>> any kind of a belief about it.
>>>
>>> If something does not exist, then you or anyone else would not have
>>> mentioned it. The fact you are now mentioning it, its existence has
>>> become uncertain. So there is no way to answer your question until I can
>>> verify its existence.
>>
>> Nonsense.  People talk about things that don't exist frequently.  The
>> Tooth Fairy, gods, all sorts of literary fiction.  The list is large.
>
>They are talking about things they know they don't exist. You are 
>talking about a thing that exists but no one knows. You neglected 
>yourself being the one who actually knows. The fact you know it exists 
>has ensured its existence. For me, I have to check to find out whether 
>you are lying or not. So its existence is uncertain.

You are practiced in saying a lot without any content aren't you?

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I believe something does not exist does that make it not exist?
>>>
>>> If something does not exist, you would not need to disbelieve its
>>> existence in the first place. It would never be part of your consciousness.
>>
>> It can be a part of my consciousness and still not exist.
>
>That would be imagination.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Does gravity exist because I believe it does?   If I believe it does
>>>> not can I safely jump off a building with no result?
>>>
>>> Gravity has already been confirmed by your own physical senses.
>>> Believing its non-existence will not change that. In other word, your
>>> physical senses already believed its existence. You would not be able to
>>> change their belief.
>>
>> Does it's existence depend on some belief of mine?  Without that
>> belief would it still exist?
>
>The existence of gravity depends on what your consciousness truly tells 
>you. It's not something that you can change with your mind.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If such a jump kills me and thus ends my existence what does that
>>>> mean?   If reality is only a belief and I don't believe in what kills
>>>> me?
>>>
>>> It would be your own wishful thinking that kills you. When you jump off
>>> a building, you are asking the physical world to confirm that the belief
>>> of your physical senses is true. The physical world honoured your
>>> request, so you would not have the chance to disbelieve its existence.
>>> The Matrix does not take insubordination lightly.
>>
>> So if I truly believe I can fly like a butterfly I can do so.
>
>No, I don't think so. The physical world is an illusion, but it does not 
>mean we can ignore it altogether. We only need to be aware that it's not 
>real, so we will not be fooled to lose our focus in life.
>

Since you obviously are only interested in convoluted discussions
where you can keep twisting the thread is as many directions as
possible without actually going anywhere such a "discussion" becomes
tiresome after a point.  I have reached that point.

Enjoy playing with yourself.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

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

#1972305

On 15-08-29 05:09 AM, Attila < wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:27:45 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mrr8pb$rul$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-28 09:25 PM, Attila < wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:58:12 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mrom69$ae3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It's all because you actually believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you think all of reality is based upon belief.  I am
>>>>> curious.  If there is something that no one knows about - an entirely
>>>>> new thing such as a plant or animal or cave - does this thing exist or
>>>>> not exist?  Remember, if no one knows about it then no one can have
>>>>> any kind of a belief about it.
>>>>
>>>> If something does not exist, then you or anyone else would not have
>>>> mentioned it. The fact you are now mentioning it, its existence has
>>>> become uncertain. So there is no way to answer your question until I can
>>>> verify its existence.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.  People talk about things that don't exist frequently.  The
>>> Tooth Fairy, gods, all sorts of literary fiction.  The list is large.
>>
>> They are talking about things they know they don't exist. You are
>> talking about a thing that exists but no one knows. You neglected
>> yourself being the one who actually knows. The fact you know it exists
>> has ensured its existence. For me, I have to check to find out whether
>> you are lying or not. So its existence is uncertain.
>
> You are practiced in saying a lot without any content aren't you?

Not really. Your question somehow is very similar to a Buddhist 
philosophical question. It was like this: "If a tree fell down in the 
forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test 
the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it 
shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer 
no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct 
answer, as I have given you, is not sure.


>>> So if I truly believe I can fly like a butterfly I can do so.
>>
>> No, I don't think so. The physical world is an illusion, but it does not
>> mean we can ignore it altogether. We only need to be aware that it's not
>> real, so we will not be fooled to lose our focus in life.
>>
>
> Since you obviously are only interested in convoluted discussions
> where you can keep twisting the thread is as many directions as
> possible without actually going anywhere such a "discussion" becomes
> tiresome after a point.  I have reached that point.
>
> Enjoy playing with yourself.

Thanks for spending time with me. It's always a good exercise for me.

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

#1972369

On 8/29/2015 8:18 AM, niunian wrote:
>
> Not really. Your question somehow is very similar to a Buddhist
> philosophical question. It was like this: "If a tree fell down in the
> forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test
> the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it
> shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer
> no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct
> answer, as I have given you, is not sure.


Of course there is a sound. However, there is no noise.
THAT is the correct answer.

PS- Never question me.


-- 
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6

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

#1972969

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:00:02 -0400, HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/29/2015 8:18 AM, niunian wrote:
>>
>> Not really. Your question somehow is very similar to a Buddhist
>> philosophical question. It was like this: "If a tree fell down in the
>> forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test
>> the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it
>> shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer
>> no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct
>> answer, as I have given you, is not sure.
>
>
>Of course there is a sound. However, there is no noise.
>THAT is the correct answer.
>PS- Never question me.

Then why didn't you know that noise is like a rotten tomato while sound is like
a set of healthy tomatoes.



the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

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

#1972999

On 8/30/2015 11:06 AM, duke wrote:
>
>> Of course there is a sound. However, there is no noise.
>> THAT is the correct answer.
>> PS- Never question me.
>
> Then why didn't you know that noise is like a rotten tomato while sound is like
> a set of healthy tomatoes.


Absolutely. There is a difference between a bicycle chain.


-- 
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6

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

#1972313

On 15-08-29 05:09 AM, Attila < wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:27:45 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mrr8pb$rul$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-28 09:25 PM, Attila < wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:58:12 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>>> alt.atheism with message-id <mrom69$ae3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It's all because you actually believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you think all of reality is based upon belief.  I am
>>>>> curious.  If there is something that no one knows about - an entirely
>>>>> new thing such as a plant or animal or cave - does this thing exist or
>>>>> not exist?  Remember, if no one knows about it then no one can have
>>>>> any kind of a belief about it.
>>>>
>>>> If something does not exist, then you or anyone else would not have
>>>> mentioned it. The fact you are now mentioning it, its existence has
>>>> become uncertain. So there is no way to answer your question until I can
>>>> verify its existence.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.  People talk about things that don't exist frequently.  The
>>> Tooth Fairy, gods, all sorts of literary fiction.  The list is large.
>>
>> They are talking about things they know they don't exist. You are
>> talking about a thing that exists but no one knows. You neglected
>> yourself being the one who actually knows. The fact you know it exists
>> has ensured its existence. For me, I have to check to find out whether
>> you are lying or not. So its existence is uncertain.
>
> You are practiced in saying a lot without any content aren't you?

Not really. Your question somehow is very similar to a Buddhist 
philosophical question. It was like this: "If a tree fell down in the 
forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test 
the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it 
shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer 
no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct 
answer, as I have given you, is not sure.


>>> So if I truly believe I can fly like a butterfly I can do so.
>>
>> No, I don't think so. The physical world is an illusion, but it does not
>> mean we can ignore it altogether. We only need to be aware that it's not
>> real, so we will not be fooled to lose our focus in life.
>>
>
> Since you obviously are only interested in convoluted discussions
> where you can keep twisting the thread is as many directions as
> possible without actually going anywhere such a "discussion" becomes
> tiresome after a point.  I have reached that point.
>
> Enjoy playing with yourself.

Thanks for spending time with me. It's always a good exercise for me.

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

#1972741

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:40:43 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id <mrs95u$tf5$1@dont-email.me> wrote:

> "If a tree fell down in the 
>forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test 
>the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it 
>shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer 
>no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct 
>answer, as I have given you, is not sure.

If  a tree falls it creates a disturbance in the air.  That is
unavoidable.  A disturbance sets up waves in the air in which pressure
varies according to specific physical laws.  These waves are defined
as sound.  It doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear them or not.
They will be created by every such disturbance.

In fact, if a recorder is present that recorder will make a record of
the sound even though no one is there to hear it.  And that record
will exist whether it is ever heard by anyone or not.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

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

#1972971

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:18:44 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:40:43 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>alt.atheism with message-id <mrs95u$tf5$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> "If a tree fell down in the 
>>forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test 
>>the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it 
>>shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer 
>>no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct 
>>answer, as I have given you, is not sure.
>
>If  a tree falls it creates a disturbance in the air.  That is
>unavoidable.  A disturbance sets up waves in the air in which pressure
>varies according to specific physical laws.  These waves are defined
>as sound.  It doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear them or not.
>They will be created by every such disturbance.
>
>In fact, if a recorder is present that recorder will make a record of
>the sound even though no one is there to hear it.  And that record
>will exist whether it is ever heard by anyone or not.

Haahaahaa.  Noise is like a rotten tomato while sound is like a set of healthy
tomatoes.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

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

#1972975

On 15-08-29 10:18 PM, Attila < wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:40:43 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mrs95u$tf5$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> "If a tree fell down in the
>> forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test
>> the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it
>> shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer
>> no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct
>> answer, as I have given you, is not sure.
>
> If  a tree falls it creates a disturbance in the air.  That is
> unavoidable.  A disturbance sets up waves in the air in which pressure
> varies according to specific physical laws.  These waves are defined
> as sound.  It doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear them or not.
> They will be created by every such disturbance.
>
> In fact, if a recorder is present that recorder will make a record of
> the sound even though no one is there to hear it.  And that record
> will exist whether it is ever heard by anyone or not.

This is why you can't be a real Buddhist. Buddhist philosophy is 
idealism. It believes everything happens in the world by the perception 
of the mind. If no one was around, then no one was perceiving the sound, 
so there would be no sound. But such answer contradicts with the law of 
nature. So it has become a question not too many people can answer to 
this day.

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

#1973549

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id <mrv6pt$lnq$1@dont-email.me> wrote:

>On 15-08-29 10:18 PM, Attila < wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:40:43 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>> alt.atheism with message-id <mrs95u$tf5$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>> "If a tree fell down in the
>>> forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test
>>> the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it
>>> shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer
>>> no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct
>>> answer, as I have given you, is not sure.
>>
>> If  a tree falls it creates a disturbance in the air.  That is
>> unavoidable.  A disturbance sets up waves in the air in which pressure
>> varies according to specific physical laws.  These waves are defined
>> as sound.  It doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear them or not.
>> They will be created by every such disturbance.
>>
>> In fact, if a recorder is present that recorder will make a record of
>> the sound even though no one is there to hear it.  And that record
>> will exist whether it is ever heard by anyone or not.
>
>This is why you can't be a real Buddhist.

I have never had the slightest desire to be any kind of a theist.

> Buddhist philosophy is 
>idealism. It believes everything happens in the world by the perception 
>of the mind. If no one was around, then no one was perceiving the sound, 
>so there would be no sound. But such answer contradicts with the law of 
>nature. So it has become a question not too many people can answer to 
>this day.

The world must have been very strange for hundreds of millions of
years.  Storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, billions of different animals
being born, living, and dying all in total silence because there was
no one around to hear any of them make any sound.

Only an idiot could fail to answer the question.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

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

#1973801

Attila < wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> alt.atheism with message-id <mrv6pt$lnq$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
> 
> >On 15-08-29 10:18 PM, Attila < wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:40:43 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> >> alt.atheism with message-id <mrs95u$tf5$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "If a tree fell down in the
> >>> forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test
> >>> the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it
> >>> shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer
> >>> no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct
> >>> answer, as I have given you, is not sure.
> >>
> >> If  a tree falls it creates a disturbance in the air.  That is
> >> unavoidable.  A disturbance sets up waves in the air in which pressure
> >> varies according to specific physical laws.  These waves are defined
> >> as sound.  It doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear them or not.
> >> They will be created by every such disturbance.
> >>
> >> In fact, if a recorder is present that recorder will make a record of
> >> the sound even though no one is there to hear it.  And that record
> >> will exist whether it is ever heard by anyone or not.
> >
> >This is why you can't be a real Buddhist.
> 
> I have never had the slightest desire to be any kind of a theist.
> 
> > Buddhist philosophy is
> >idealism. It believes everything happens in the world by the perception
> >of the mind. If no one was around, then no one was perceiving the sound,
> >so there would be no sound. But such answer contradicts with the law of
> >nature. So it has become a question not too many people can answer to
> >this day.
> 
> The world must have been very strange for hundreds of millions of
> years.  Storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, billions of different animals
> being born, living, and dying all in total silence because there was
> no one around to hear any of them make any sound.


"no one" means people and animals...

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

#1974252

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:12:01 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<55E48AE1.5403@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Attila < wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>> alt.atheism with message-id <mrv6pt$lnq$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 15-08-29 10:18 PM, Attila < wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:40:43 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
>> >> alt.atheism with message-id <mrs95u$tf5$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "If a tree fell down in the
>> >>> forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test
>> >>> the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it
>> >>> shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer
>> >>> no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct
>> >>> answer, as I have given you, is not sure.
>> >>
>> >> If  a tree falls it creates a disturbance in the air.  That is
>> >> unavoidable.  A disturbance sets up waves in the air in which pressure
>> >> varies according to specific physical laws.  These waves are defined
>> >> as sound.  It doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear them or not.
>> >> They will be created by every such disturbance.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, if a recorder is present that recorder will make a record of
>> >> the sound even though no one is there to hear it.  And that record
>> >> will exist whether it is ever heard by anyone or not.
>> >
>> >This is why you can't be a real Buddhist.
>> 
>> I have never had the slightest desire to be any kind of a theist.
>> 
>> > Buddhist philosophy is
>> >idealism. It believes everything happens in the world by the perception
>> >of the mind. If no one was around, then no one was perceiving the sound,
>> >so there would be no sound. But such answer contradicts with the law of
>> >nature. So it has become a question not too many people can answer to
>> >this day.
>> 
>> The world must have been very strange for hundreds of millions of
>> years.  Storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, billions of different animals
>> being born, living, and dying all in total silence because there was
>> no one around to hear any of them make any sound.
>
>
>"no one" means people and animals...

How convenient.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

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

#1974277

Attila < wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:12:01 -0700, The Starmaker
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <55E48AE1.5403@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> >Attila < wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> >> alt.atheism with message-id <mrv6pt$lnq$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 15-08-29 10:18 PM, Attila < wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:40:43 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> >> >> alt.atheism with message-id <mrs95u$tf5$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "If a tree fell down in the
> >> >>> forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test
> >> >>> the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it
> >> >>> shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer
> >> >>> no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct
> >> >>> answer, as I have given you, is not sure.
> >> >>
> >> >> If  a tree falls it creates a disturbance in the air.  That is
> >> >> unavoidable.  A disturbance sets up waves in the air in which pressure
> >> >> varies according to specific physical laws.  These waves are defined
> >> >> as sound.  It doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear them or not.
> >> >> They will be created by every such disturbance.
> >> >>
> >> >> In fact, if a recorder is present that recorder will make a record of
> >> >> the sound even though no one is there to hear it.  And that record
> >> >> will exist whether it is ever heard by anyone or not.
> >> >
> >> >This is why you can't be a real Buddhist.
> >>
> >> I have never had the slightest desire to be any kind of a theist.
> >>
> >> > Buddhist philosophy is
> >> >idealism. It believes everything happens in the world by the perception
> >> >of the mind. If no one was around, then no one was perceiving the sound,
> >> >so there would be no sound. But such answer contradicts with the law of
> >> >nature. So it has become a question not too many people can answer to
> >> >this day.
> >>
> >> The world must have been very strange for hundreds of millions of
> >> years.  Storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, billions of different animals
> >> being born, living, and dying all in total silence because there was
> >> no one around to hear any of them make any sound.
> >
> >
> >"no one" means people and animals...
> 
> How convenient.

There is nothing convenient about having ears. Cows have ears, dogs have
ears, the walls have ears...

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

#1974555

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Attila < wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:12:01 -0700, The Starmaker
> > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> > <55E48AE1.5403@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Attila < wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:18:33 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> > >> alt.atheism with message-id <mrv6pt$lnq$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On 15-08-29 10:18 PM, Attila < wrote:
> > >> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:40:43 -0400, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in
> > >> >> alt.atheism with message-id <mrs95u$tf5$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> "If a tree fell down in the
> > >> >>> forest and no one was around, did it make a sound?" It was meant to test
> > >> >>> the student's understanding about the reality. If you answer yes, it
> > >> >>> shows you have no understanding about Buddhist philosophy. If you answer
> > >> >>> no, then you have contradicted with the law of nature. The correct
> > >> >>> answer, as I have given you, is not sure.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If  a tree falls it creates a disturbance in the air.  That is
> > >> >> unavoidable.  A disturbance sets up waves in the air in which pressure
> > >> >> varies according to specific physical laws.  These waves are defined
> > >> >> as sound.  It doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear them or not.
> > >> >> They will be created by every such disturbance.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In fact, if a recorder is present that recorder will make a record of
> > >> >> the sound even though no one is there to hear it.  And that record
> > >> >> will exist whether it is ever heard by anyone or not.
> > >> >
> > >> >This is why you can't be a real Buddhist.
> > >>
> > >> I have never had the slightest desire to be any kind of a theist.
> > >>
> > >> > Buddhist philosophy is
> > >> >idealism. It believes everything happens in the world by the perception
> > >> >of the mind. If no one was around, then no one was perceiving the sound,
> > >> >so there would be no sound. But such answer contradicts with the law of
> > >> >nature. So it has become a question not too many people can answer to
> > >> >this day.
> > >>
> > >> The world must have been very strange for hundreds of millions of
> > >> years.  Storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, billions of different animals
> > >> being born, living, and dying all in total silence because there was
> > >> no one around to hear any of them make any sound.
> > >
> > >
> > >"no one" means people and animals...
> >
> > How convenient.
> 
> There is nothing convenient about having ears. Cows have ears, dogs have
> ears, the walls have ears...

Maybe you need to understand the definition of...sound:



    1.
    vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
https://www.google.com/#q=define+sound



It's not convenience, it's simply by definition...



"a person's or animal's ear"


I don't make up these things.


In other words, no ears...no sound.


No ears, No sound.


It's simple.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web