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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #361433 > unrolled thread

Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

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

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. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-21 05:01 -0400
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 08:10 +0800
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-22 03:42 -0400
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-22 16:26 +0800
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 03:59 -0400
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-23 21:17 +0800
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-23 17:04 -0400
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-24 23:40 +0800
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-24 20:32 -0400
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-26 07:45 +0800
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 03:45 -0400
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-27 00:31 +0800
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-26 16:48 -0400
                            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. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 13:35 -0700
                                          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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#362222

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]

#362234

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]

#362342

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]

#362355

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]

#362230

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]

#362284

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]

#362344

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]

#362345

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]

#362441

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]

#362481

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]

#362596

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]

#362600

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]

#362687

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]

#362396

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.


If no one is there to hear the sound,  it doesn't make a sound.

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

#362434

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> If no one is there to hear the sound,  it doesn't make a sound.


In other words, tape recorders don't have ears, so they cannot hear
sounds.

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

#362443

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:38:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<55E3F666.7E90@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> If no one is there to hear the sound,  it doesn't make a sound.
>
>
>In other words, tape recorders don't have ears, so they cannot hear
>sounds.

According to you there is nothing to record.

--
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]

#362480

Attila < wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:38:30 -0700, The Starmaker
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <55E3F666.7E90@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> >The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> If no one is there to hear the sound,  it doesn't make a sound.
> >
> >
> >In other words, tape recorders don't have ears, so they cannot hear
> >sounds.
> 
> According to you there is nothing to record.


Not according to me....it might record something, but it won't be
sounds.


unless of course the tape recorder grows ears.

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

#362597

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:08:02 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<55E489F2.457@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Attila < wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:38:30 -0700, The Starmaker
>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <55E3F666.7E90@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >The Starmaker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> If no one is there to hear the sound,  it doesn't make a sound.
>> >
>> >
>> >In other words, tape recorders don't have ears, so they cannot hear
>> >sounds.
>> 
>> According to you there is nothing to record.
>
>
>Not according to me....it might record something, but it won't be
>sounds.
>
>
>unless of course the tape recorder grows ears.

What else does a tape recorder record if not sounds?

--
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]

#362442

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:08:57 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<55E354C9.3D3A@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>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.
>
>
>If no one is there to hear the sound,  it doesn't make a sound.

See my reply to a prior post.

--
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]

#362791

Most atheist
   believe
 the universe is 
mathematical.

I mean, they actually
believe the universe is
Mathematical.

But, if i go
to the moon
and look around..
i don't see any mathematics.

i don't see any...numbers.

If i go to Mars

i don't see any mathematics.

i don't see any...numbers.

Where is this
mathematics
they are seeing?

Is it hidden??


Because, it only exist in their mind.

Mathematics is based on belief, not science.


Atheist believe in the hidden, the unseen..

[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