Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better
Courtesy of the world economic forum :lol:
Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city.” I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.
It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.
First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?
Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.
In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.
Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.
This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.
Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.
When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.
For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time
Here comes the funny part
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.
Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.
All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.
By Ida Auken
My response to this , borrowed from Wittgenstein
"The hysterical fear of the atom bomb the public now has, or at least expresses, is almost a sign that here for once a really salutary discovery has been made. At least the fear gives the impression of being fear in the face of a really effective bitter medicine. I cannot rid myself of the thought: if there were not something good here, the philistines would not be making an outcry. But perhaps this too is a childish idea. For all I can mean really is that the bomb creates the prospect of the end, the destruction of a ghastly evil, of disgusting soapy water science and certainly that is not an unpleasant thought; but who is to say what would come after such a destruction? The people now making speeches against the production of the bomb are undoubtedly the dregs of the intelligentsia, but even that does not prove beyond question that what they abominate is to be welcomed " ( Culture and Value )
Replace atom bomb with AI , surveillance system, stakeholder capitalism etc or keep it as it is and the paragraph remains true.... Will the fourth industrial revolution let humanity correct itself after destruction ( societal collapse )
"It may be that science & industry, & their progress, are the most enduring thing in the world today. That any guess at a coming collapse of science & industry were for now, & for a long time to come, simply a dream, & that science & industry after some time with infinite misery will unite the world, I mean integrate it into a single empire, in which it's to be sure peace is the last thing that will then find a home. For science & industry do decide wars, or so it seems." (Culture and value )
A great economic war will be waged in the long run against everyone but the elite in the future...... and actual wars too, for the great reset ?
Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city.” I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.
It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.
First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?
Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.
In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.
Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.
This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.
Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.
When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.
For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time
Here comes the funny part
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.
Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.
All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.
By Ida Auken
My response to this , borrowed from Wittgenstein
"The hysterical fear of the atom bomb the public now has, or at least expresses, is almost a sign that here for once a really salutary discovery has been made. At least the fear gives the impression of being fear in the face of a really effective bitter medicine. I cannot rid myself of the thought: if there were not something good here, the philistines would not be making an outcry. But perhaps this too is a childish idea. For all I can mean really is that the bomb creates the prospect of the end, the destruction of a ghastly evil, of disgusting soapy water science and certainly that is not an unpleasant thought; but who is to say what would come after such a destruction? The people now making speeches against the production of the bomb are undoubtedly the dregs of the intelligentsia, but even that does not prove beyond question that what they abominate is to be welcomed " ( Culture and Value )
Replace atom bomb with AI , surveillance system, stakeholder capitalism etc or keep it as it is and the paragraph remains true.... Will the fourth industrial revolution let humanity correct itself after destruction ( societal collapse )
"It may be that science & industry, & their progress, are the most enduring thing in the world today. That any guess at a coming collapse of science & industry were for now, & for a long time to come, simply a dream, & that science & industry after some time with infinite misery will unite the world, I mean integrate it into a single empire, in which it's to be sure peace is the last thing that will then find a home. For science & industry do decide wars, or so it seems." (Culture and value )
A great economic war will be waged in the long run against everyone but the elite in the future...... and actual wars too, for the great reset ?
Comments (395)
Sounds like a terrible dystopia, but no doubt the vision of our technocrats. My guess is they’ll destroy everything in an effort to save everything. As usually the scheme is enforced downwards while the benefit accrues upwards.
:fire:
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
Methinks it can be done! Should it be done? I'm not quite sure.
In a country which I will not name here, I saw a mother spank her toddler son to keep him from falling into a ditch! I wondered back then as I still do now, wouldn't the beating have been as equally painful as the fall? :chin:
Some say life's simple. I think not!
We can't afford to make the same mistake again and again, but it looks like that's exactly what we're really good at. It doesn't look deliberate, so we should pat ourselves on the back for that. We're not that stupid! :grin: That's not gonna be of much help though for we seem idiotic enough to just cause our own extinction in spectacular fashion.
[quote=George Santayana]Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.[/quote]
True we've manged to record what we've learned with the aid of language; also true that our intention is to pass down our knowledge to the next generation so that they can learn from our mistakes. However, it turns out this is an illusion - our children goof up in the same ways as we did before them and as our forebears did before us. Progress is an illusion - we're still hurting/killing each other, only the way we do it has changed (swords/bows/spears/catapults/strychnine[math]\to[/math] guns/missiles/bombs/novichok). We've not made an inch of progress as regards human nature!
Exactly, it looks like we do not know how to learn of bad experiences.
Quoting Agent Smith
We should not expect nothing from a politician :down:
Hope?
So that we can pretend we are one day going to make the stuff they are showing on the TV cookery programmes, of course. That's why we've always had them.
Ironically, the story reads to me like the end point of capitalism: the deprivation of ownership recalls the platformization of everything: our phones, movies, music, exercise machines, and so on. More and more we don't own any of this stuff, we 'subscribe' to them, or else have no effective say, rights over repair or modification (any Apple product, some cars). Privacy, well, we know who is destroying the barriers of privacy brick by brick.
So yeah, the whole thing is weird. A kind of techno-utopian dream that sets aside power and social relations. It's a liberal-captialist fantasy.
:up:
laws of nature
How do you define laws of nature according to your personal beliefs ?
Actually, I think the accurate description would be:
George W. Bush: Fool me once (awkward pause, Bush trying to think)... shame on you!... (bush feels mentally relieved) (more pause) ..... Fool me twice (his brain forgets who he is and why he is and what he is doing there) (very long awkward pause when his brain plays a somewhat familiar old tune he remembered from when he was young and he and his friends used to laugh at the poor people he used to see on the sidewalk from the window of his limousine, after a few awkward body shuffles)...........(his brain eventually invokes the words)...You cant get fooled again (as he uncomfortably extends a hand towards the listeners as a plea for leniency towards his dotage style performance)
The natural laws are the rules according to which matter moves and interacts. Matter doesn't behave in random ways.
You do not know about nothing but you have the right to speak whatsoever topic. I hate democracy
:lol:
Well, ignorance can be a bless, actually! Let it have it's words...
Tegmark would support you in this but only because he posits that all possible outcome happen in the multiverse! So for random happenstance not to exist in physics you need a multiverse of copies of each of us to deal with every possible outcome. A part of this I don't get is would that not require the number of possible outcomes to be exactly the same every time? or does the number of multiverses change depending on the number of possible outcomes or is it more like:
If I toss a coin I need at least 4 universes. Heads, tails, lands on it's edge or partially against an object so that there is no disernable outcome and one or more Universes within which the event never happened.
I suppose, if there can be any number of universes where the event never happened then that would take care of 'a different number of possible outcomes.' A copy of me could therefore exist or not exist
in such universes.
If the multiverse is true then perhaps we don't need to worry about:
Quoting Eskander
As dystopia, utopia, mytopia, yourtopia, alltopia's may all have to exist by a law of Physics!
Danger Danger! Who will then decide who has the right to speak?
I really don't give a luck what Tegmark thinks. It's a nice easygoing guy, but completely delusional and lost. His many worlds and real objective existence of math are signs of an upcoming psychosis, if he's not already in one! (like the inventor of the MWI, Everett, who believed to be immortal and drank, ate, and smoked himself to death, his daughter following him by suicide, so she would meet him in a parallel universe where he would still be alive...). What I meant was that matter doesn't show different behavior every time we examine it. One time going down, another time going up, and another time circle around (if it falls in a vacuum).
Are you serious...?
Don't believe anything they tell you. The belief in many world is exactly the same as belief in gods.
Obviously, @javi2541997! Scarry... :death:
[quote=Eskander]Everything you considered a product, has now become a service.[/quote]
What a powerful idea, mon ami! What a powerful idea! I could employ a spouse, a sibling, parents, children for as long as they cook my goose so to speak. When things go sideways, I can fire 'em at my discretion!
Magnifique, I tell you!
Don't worry, I'll pay 'em well! Everyone will be happy, that's what matters in the end, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?
Professional Mourning :rofl: Why would you want anyone to burst into tears upon your demise? I'd prefer people to dance on my grave! :rofl:
https://youtu.be/JTKopeQhiDo
:chin:
:snicker:
Most laymen, like you or @universeness, take what is told by "the expert" or the "the pro", for fact. "They know, they know, they studied it". Not realizing the so-called experts are inly human after all. And their scholarly and objective knowledge turns out to be no more than an opinion.
:cry: :groan: :grin: :cry: :rofl:
In the case of a Multiverse and the posit that probability does not really exist, of course I am serious
If all particles are in truth, merely field disturbances then you never observe the exact same particle twice, as each time you do an experiment you will be involving the field disturbances at that instant in time.
In my experience, an expert is (usually) immediately recognizable. Don't ask me how!
:smile:
Belief is a term I try to use carefully. I consider posits. Many worlds is a posit I personally consider to have a higher credence to the 0.1% credence I assign to the god posit.
You are serious? Even with caoital M: Multiverse...What's the evidence of a multiverse? There are simpler explanations for QM. Occam's shaving gel tells us to shave of the superfluous fantasies.
You are free to believe what you like. But I dont let myself be fooled.
It's easy: they seem to know what they talk about. They role play. That's why you are fooled by them... :grin:
But so are you 'only human!' It's up to the individual to decide who in their OPINION they are most convinced by for a particular topic. Expertise and experience in the field you are talking about is imo an important factor but I agree it's not a totalitarian dictate. You have to turn to religious or autocratic political authority to encounter that.
The mods of this forum, supposedly...
But, in truth, they aren't field fluctuations. Maybe field excitations, but these are merely time extended field fluctuations (virtual particles). The fields are secondary, the particles primary. The fields are just mathematical descriptions of particles, not the particles themselves. A particle is just a 6 dimensional structure with charge inside them. The field, an operator valued distribution in spacetime, describes the evolution of the accompanying wavefunctions. The motion of a particle is completely determined.
Well someone has to 'moderate,' yes and you will have your opinions as to the fairness of their judgments and there is a mechanism on this forum that allows you to appeal a moderator's decision.
A relatively fair balance when you compare it with other systems.
IMO there is no better/fairer system than democracy.
Smh... You will never understand me...
There you go! So if people want to believe that gods or God truly exist, its up to them.
Quoting universeness
Same can be said of science. And at the moment, it's science that has political power and should be learned at schools by law, as you surely know! So it's just the bible replaced by the physics books. Or computer books, in your case.
You prefer a dictatorship, Japanese emperor style?
There is no direct empirical evidence of a multiverse but there are ideas such as continuing inflation creating bubble universes and the fact that life exists in this Universe requiring other failed examples (the goldilocks universe.) If you keep tossing a coin will there be an occasion when it lands perfectly balanced on its edge? Yes but you need a vast number of attempts.
The Penrose bounce / the oscillating Universe are also interesting posits and if Penrose can actually prove his theory of hawking points then that would be even more interesting.
You just love your own theory that's all. It's a similar idea to the rather course truth that we like the smell of our own farts but not the smell of anyone elses!
:up:
See? Same belief
The American calling Japan a dictatorship :rofl:
YOUR COUNTRY IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE HISTORY WHICH USED NUKE WEAPONS
so do not speak about others states...
I can only offer to try to but perhaps you are correct.
Can anyone FULLY understand anyone else?
Can anyone FULLY understand themselves even? When we don't still know for sure where we came from, why we are here and what our ultimate fate is.
No, you conflate evidence with belief!
Unwarranted beliefs! What causes inflation in the first place? A coin can indeed land on its side. It happened with a coin of mine! But there is no connection with many world fantasies. The coin flipping is just a determined process.
No. You believe in many worlds. But where is the evidence?
Who says Im an American?
Agreed. I wish I can reach your intelligence
Me
Then you're wrong. And I was referring to Japan during wartime. WW2. Yukio regretted not to have entered war. Which was a lucky happening, as he could have been killed. Considering his love for death and blood this would have been no problem...
I was watching various QM and QFT offerings on YouTube. Some of the RI lectures are very good. I have watched many of them over the years. I think that the movement now is towards the idea that particles don't exist at all and its all about fields and field fluctuations/disturbances/excitations/perturbations etc. The number of dimensions involved is still a big unknown I think. I still give most credence to the posit that all the field excitations are caused by inter-dimensional vibrating strings.
No I dont, I assign the posit a credence level.
Again, propaganda. Don't follow the movement. Follow your own moves. There are a lot of other movements telling that the fields are math. And what it describes as real.
You see? And some assign higher credence level to gods or God.
That's very kind! I wish I could convince you that you can defeat your self-doubt and you are easily as intelligent as I am.
Why you think Im American? Because my last name is Hillary?
:rofl: I KNOW! (I hate to throw 'No shit Sherlock! at you I don't mean to offend.) We have been exchanging our views on that very point for quite a while now.
Many worlds just don't exist. So how can you assign them a credence level?
Finally the universeness has seen the light! You're promoted to real universe! :lol:
In other words, 'Progress!' :smile:
To be honest with you... I wish one day I end up dying as Mishima (?? ???). His death and suicide was perfect and aesthetic. I don't know how to express myself but I have the same thought and feeling like him
I do, but I don't have my own personal origin of the universe hypothesis, So I happily, look to the experts.
Your playing again! :naughty:
There are no "disturbances" or "perturbations" of fields. Only fluctuations or excitations. Fluctuations are virtual particles and excitations are real particles. Perturbations are used in calculating cross sections or scattering amplitudes. For bound states like protons, the perturbation approach can't be used. Discrete spacetime calculations in QCD are involved (Monte Carlo....). Took days, for a computer, to compute the spin of a proton!
By applying what I consider rational thought. The same reason why I have such a low credence level for the god posit, which you know fine well so you are just repeating the same music. A different dance may result in new insight. The same old dance just gives everyone tired feet which are getting older and older every time the same ground is pointlessly covered.
You accuse again of playing! The usual approach. Everything you don't like is considered play. But Im serious. Now call this play again! :lol:
I don't force you to dance! I just say you believe things just like theists. And even in the scientific realm!
Not entirely out of the realm of possibility; in fact it's likelihood is > 50% and that's a conservative estimate vis-à-vis my abilities to recognize experts/authorities.
But many worlds are an irrational thought, a believe... But you're free to think it! Don't get me wrong. If it gives you solace. The many worlds are just worlds, gods, of the gaps. Totally unnecessary if you know the truth.
I can sniff so-called experts and authority from a mile! They have a distinct smell. Instinct distinct.
Ok, you have some skill!
The multiverse is not a belief, it's a proposal based on projection of what we know, or think we know and in my opinion, it is much more viable than your personal polytheistic beliefs as a way of progressing towards the true facts about of the origin of the Universe we exist in. That does not mean you do not have the right to your beliefs in polytheism. I also have the right to completely disagree with them.
We hold positions on atheism/theism which I think are unlikely to move one plank length in the foreseeable future.
"I've got the bullets!"
Believe me, brother Uni, it's a belief based on ignorance.
Why you write universe with capital u?
Same reason I don't with god......significance!
My believes in gods don't need proof, the many worlds do. I accept the burden of proof in science but not in gods affairs.
As I thought. So you reason just the same as theists but with a different belief.
Which is, on ignorance. It's invented for the unitarity problem in QM.
No, I don't associate the term belief with science in any rigorous manner.
I might use it in a sentence such as 'I believe science has the necessary tools and methodologies to.....
Is that your emotive or venerated opinion?
It's the truth. They are used to explain happenings in the observable universe, such as non-unitary collapse of the wavefunction and the measurement problem.
But you believe there are many worlds outside ours. I believe in only one heaven!
Did you not BELIEVE me when I already stated that I don't believe in the many-worlds theory, I assign it a credence level.
lol mr Hillary is asking evidence for a claim......the irony!
That's what you believe. Assigning credence level to non-existent worlds is a confession of ignorance.
All hail Epicurus!
In science, evidence is very important.
Its acceptance of the fact that I don't know for sure but I think your 'ignorance' word is too emotive and it has nothing at all to do with belief in the sense of faith.
The same word "ignorance" is used if theists are considered. It is said they use gods out of ignorance...
Which doesn't do away with the fact that many worlds are introduced because they don't know. I.e., ignorance.
A bit harsh towards the theist if you ask me. I would rather ask a theist about why they need the god posit. What role does it play in their day-to-day lives? and go from there. I would not merely call them ignorant unless I used the word in anger because they were evanhellicals or had seriously pissed me off.
Yes, but that's because you are a welcome exception to the rule!
And rightly so!
They absolutely don't know that's why they propose but it is emotive theism to suggest that such scientific proposals are put forward from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is a word with too many connotations to use in the context you use it.
It's not emotive theism but scientific knowledge that makes me reject it. What do gods have to do with it? If gods made many worlds, then so be it. But obviously they didn't. The MW are totally irrelevant and one world can explain it all. If you know its workings.
I assume you have watched some of the atheist/theist debates between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and De-Souza, William Lane Craig etc. They very rarely throw any kind of personal insults at each other and are respectful towards, but strongly disagree with, the viewpoints of their interlocutor.
They do. To explain the universe (eternal inflation) and explanation of QM. Both are wrong. Eternal inflation in an infinite eternally inflating space is not what happens. Neither the branching in the MWI.
Of course they don't. They gotta stay civil. But meanwhile...
Harris is a self righteous guy. Dawkins too.
In the past we had serf-like flavors of systems, and the future is headed into similar systems with the only difference being freedom.
Freedom is useless when you're pushed into the corner existentially.
And that seems to satisfy your rationale but you also accept that it absolutely does not satisfy many many others, including me, yes? Your arguments/proposals/posits/science points have not convinced me that your polytheistic posits are coherent. So we remain where we are.
I don't force you to be satisfied by gods. For me they do give satisfaction. The final closure, so to speak.
Coherent in what sense?
In some ways yes, but no more so than De-Souza or William Lane Craig and probably most other 'public speakers,' in both camps.
Makes no sense to me!
Ah! Look. That's something different than not coherent.
And that's exactly the rationale of Dawkins et. al. They don't understand why gods are needed.
I know but I care about truth so I will push against those who I think do not speak or type it, including those who say what they say in all earnest. Truth as they see it, I disagree that they speak truth, I think they are wrong. I assume you do the same, although sometime I think you roleplay as many others do.
Some with far more nefarious intentions than you.
I use the term in line with something akin to the definition below:
" Incoherent means that something is difficult to understand because it’s not holding together. A lot of people use incoherent to mean unintelligible, which is a perfectly fine usage"
"Difficult to understand". Can we ever understand the heavens and the gods in it? It's an eternal mystery. But partially we can understand by looking at the universe and life in it. Plato!
We have no need to, if, as I BELIEVE, they don't exist, so no mystery to solve!
Here is another one:
We can't look directly into the Sun (God) but we can look at places which the sun (God) illuminates, giving us the real picture of reality.
Shake my virtual hand brother Uni!
Quoting SpaceDweller
Great one! Reminds me of a Persian poet.
Rumi
But no mystery gained either.
:up:
Yep.virtual hand shake :up:
Quoting Hillary
Why? if there are no gods then all mysteries currently belong to intelligent lifeforms.
I go back to, we don't need the supernatural as the natural is sooooooo super!
Yes, I agree. The natural is super. And the gods give it mystery. Without the gods it's all explainable by science, except the fact it all exists in the first place.
I am satisfied by the meaningless, mindless spark that no longer exists. That allows me to get rid of the whole god posit and all its flavors
He says, cutting across a deal of off topic axe-grinding.
What is the most disturbing thing about God which makes you think this way?
There are many stories. I have the gods story, you the mindless spark. Who's right? Both of us! If the mindless spark comforts you, be my man! Who cares which is actually true? That's an old idea introduced in ancient Greece. That there is one absolute reality. An idea leading to misery and suffering, if taken seriously. There are a lot of these realities though. Yours, mine, the Christian's etc. Trying to impose one onto others, in the conviction yours is the only one, is wrong.
Good question!
We are not free if god exists, we are tied to the will of an omnipotent creator. I find that offensive.
We exist based only on its whim? Yuk!
I then turn to the vile gods who are described in the religious books.
Christoper Hitchens put it very well when he said god made you flawed/sick and then commanded you to heal yourself and if you don't you will be punished for eternity. Such a god would be a moron.
Other serious issues I have are, god has no inherent purpose that I can perceive, god is an obvious response to human primal fear that we inherited from our evolution in the wilds, god allows human suffering of innocents, god seems unable to appear so it cannot be omnipotent and on and on it goes.
I really do appreciate your question but I will stop listing my complaints here as I think my laptop would give out before I could list them all. You asked me to identify the most disturbing thing about the god posit for ME in particular. I cant honestly apply much prioritisation to a particular entry in my list, they are all important to me and all add to my 99.9% level of confidence that god does not exist.
That about covers it. :up:
That's why discussion and debating is always important. :up:
:smile: :up:
Good, provocative, OP. Well written, if mostly by Auken and Wittgenstein.
Pretty much what I thought. In a question on another forum, as part of a question I asked:
"I think it's a creepy thought that we live in a simulated world, just I think it's a creepy thought that we're made by (a) god(s) or by evolution for that matter"
The world described is a world of terror. And the world is heading for it.
You are coming up with percentages on claims that have never been proven possible.
Probability is a mathematical concept that demands a verified sample from a total number of cases.
As far as we can tell non of the ideas you do compare have ever been supported by Objective evidence..
How can you ever talk about probabilities when you don't have a single verified case proving its possible nature?
It's hard to confess, but here I actually agree!
Except God didn't made people sick, he gave them free will (freedom) and they made their choice to trust the snake right?
Quoting universeness
Right, and even though those religious books show all the evil that come out of trusting the snake you choose to follow the same mistakes of Adam and Eve.
My point is that I don't see why would God have to be blamed.
But consider if God gave us no free will, wouldn't that makes us hopeless slaves of God, wouldn't such God be unjust God?
Quoting universeness
This would be true if God gave us no free will, which is not the case.
Well you better prove first that such entities are real and then you can make up as many excuses you like for their screw ups.....as if "free will" in a biological organisms with tones of urges and drives and environmental influences could ever stick.
Its like listening to an auto company blaming a system in their cars for bad performance... they are the responsible factory and your god is responsible for adding a system that could be responsible for eternal suffering. That only makes you god a moral Thug that enjoys laying traps and see humans fall for them.
Evidence is essential for every single belief claim...only if you don't care to be reasonable you are willing to accept claims without evidence...
Yes, we know that. And I don't intend to not include them. Logic sucks... :lol: Its mathematics and physics thats interesting.
Indeed. A sense of reason shines from you, dear Nickolas! Only, my proof is different from yours. Scientific evidence cannot be used in theological matters. Though it's impossible to investigate all physical phenomena.
the snake is from my understanding evil (the devil) embodied, ex. not literarily a snake.
But then even if one does not believe in God or the devil, one can not deny the presence of good and evil.
The point being, it's up to you (or anyone) to choose their side, not up to God\devil or good\evil.
That's the whole point of freedom or free will or the story of garden of Eden.
So there are lots of realities in terms of what is true in science, right? None is absolutely true, they are just pragmatically useful. Right?
Right!
-?his poetic remark is irrelevant to my comment. I asked you if you can demonstrate the existence of the entity you promote independent of the fact that good and bad things are part of our lives.
Can you provide Objective and independently verifiable evidence that such an entity exists?
Quoting SpaceDweller
No no, its up to you do demonstrate that such malicious agents like god and devil exist.
-"That's the whole point of freedom or free will or the story of garden of Eden. "
Again you need to demonstrate that such things exist...not just assume them.
We already know what you believe in. The important question is Why. Why modern people with access to education still access iron age entities as real without evidence.
Yes! And badly damaged! :lol:
Which is to say, it depends on which level you look. At the fundamental level there can only be one truth, the ToE. There can only be one kind of stuff created which can lead to the universe that we observe.
You’re no fun. Maybe we don’t just observe it, maybe we co-produce it in a partnership between conceptualization and the constraints and affordances. that the world presents to us. Maybe what we observe is already a newly changed product of our measuring devices and theories. That seems to be the direction that science studies is moving. Science not as neutral observation, representation , simulation, but as production and transformation.
There are countless higher level realities produced by our mind and our experiments. We litterally bring them into existence. I do not doubt that. Science is an art. But at the fundamental level, there hides just one basic stuff. And that stuff is addressed by a ToE, and the name is quite misleading, I agree. It's only the lowest level that is addressed. There are infinite, loosely connected higher level laws of physics.
If there is a single synthetic, law-governed truth of the universe and its laws, is this truth a description of something that exists independently of our theories about it? If the universe is continually changing , what about it is protected from relativity and contingency? Popper said that our theories are approximations of a reality that we approach asymptotically. This implies a reality independent of our theories. Kuhn, on the other hand , did not accept this idea of a lawful, deterministic reality. Laws are norms , and norms are contingent and relative. An authentic theory of everything would have to be self-reflexive,, a theory that reveals
its own contingency and relativity.
A theory of everything would trigger a new toe that transforms the previous There would be an endless stream of toe’s, such that it would be necessary to create a theory of theories of everything, one that no longer strives to nail down a single law-governed
scheme but instead describes the structure of self-transformation, how we continually changes ourselves and our world.
:lol:
I haven't yet managed to develop a foolproof method to tell the difference between idiots, fiends & innocents ! Thus my predicament I suppose! :groan:
After Neo kicked my ass, I haven't been the same! :smile:
Theism is a belief system it has nothing to do with scientific rigor. You are being deliberately obtuse.
Yes it did make people flawed. god is described as omniscient so original sin was part of its design.
Free will cannot exist if the omnis are true. You cannot 'surprise' an all-knowing god. God must have made the snake and allowed it to tempt Eve. Was god shocked by Eve's action? If it was then its not much of a god. you can only do exactly what it knew you were going to do. God stacked the deck before the game even started. This is why god is merely a scapegoat. Humans will pass responsibility on to it with dumb comments such as 'god works in mysterious ways.' We need to take full responsibility for all we do and for what our fate is. Stop blaming fictitious gods.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Snakes and demons all work for god, as do characters like satan. God is supposed to be omnipotent so all evil is allowed by god. According to the christians and many other theists, If you reject god, you answer to satan not god. Satan is gods enforcer. Fear of Satan is a great motivator to make you a theist.
Nothing to do with free will, you are threatened with eternal damnation if you reject god.
Why does this pathetic god need to threaten its own creation in such a heinous way?
Humans are a lot less vengeful than this idiotic god. We don't even execute murderers anymore.
'Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.' Yeah, let's just keep passing our responsibilities on to a fairy tale! :roll:
Scientific rigor has nothing to do with basic logic or theism.
You made a claim and you provided a statistical probability for a metaphysical hypothesis without being able to demonstrate Possibility first!
Again if you feel the urge to calculate plausibility you will first need to demonstrate Possibility.
Let me help you with a simple example.
Life in solar system is Possible. We know that because we have a verified case of that phenomenon(Earth).
Now if you want to calculate probabilities of life in the solar system you will need to compare the known case you have ont planets having life and those who have not and apply it to the total number of planets and moons of the system (number of planets and their conditions).
This is nothing scientific or special. We are talking about basic Logic.
So theism and multiverse are NOT hypotheses that we could calculate probabilities.
What we can say for sure is that the Multiverse is a ar more reasonable hypothesis because we know that a Universe can exist, we have examples in the nature that more than one processes can occur and we have our Math from different fields of study pointing to the idea.
A completely illogical comment!
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I assign 0.1% credence to the god posit as MY OWN PERSONAL way to explain to others my level of belief in the truth of the god posit. This is a perfectly valid position. The fact that YOU find it not mathematically sound means nothing to me and I doubt it means much to anyone else except YOU.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I suggest you first try to help yourself!
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
:lol: Your thinking is so skewed! So according to your thinking, there is nothing scientific about calculating the probability of life in the solar system other than life on earth? really? That's your idea of a logical sentence? As I suggested, your the one who needs help.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No shit Sherlock! :roll:
The snake is the devil embodied, and we know (according to scriptures) that God did not create the devil, instead God created an angel who later desired to be God and so he was cast out of heavens.
Quoting universeness
God surely knew what would happen with Adam and Eve, no doubt about that, but A&E freedom is not contradictory to God's omnis.
God could have prevented A&E trouble with the snake, but then there would be no true freedom for A&E.
Freedom of free will clear - it's my own, and my own only choice - not up to anyone else but me.
What you're saying is that God's omnis should have prevented him giving freedom to people which is contradictory to his omnipotent dimension.
Giving such an absolute freedom to people is not contradictory to omnibenevolence either because God didn't condemn A&E for good. people still have the freedom of choice to fix the problem if they so desire.
Again your opinion doesn't change the fact that Logic exposes your irrational attempt to define probabilities without establishing possibility first and without any samples to evaluate. sorry.
Quoting universeness
-You are explaining why you used that way and I have no reason to doubt it. I don't have issues with your intention, I only point out that the way you decided to presenting (using statistical probabilities) is nonsensical and wrong...that's all. Again you can not assign probabilities when you have zero samples to study and compare.
Its not an issue for you being mathematically unsound...but mathematically invalid (I hope you know the difference between soundness and validity). You can not conclude to a mathematical figure without first numbers of different cases out of a total. You have no numbers to arrive to statistical figure !lol
Quoting universeness
If you need to understand your error, you will have to focus on the example non my segway lol.!
-"Your thinking is so skewed! So according to your thinking, there is nothing scientific about calculating the probability of life in the solar system other than life on earth? really? That's your idea of a logical sentence? As I suggested, your the one who needs help."
-lol....again "scientific" has nothing to do with how we calculate probabilities. Why are you keep bring science in something that has to do with basic logic?????
Again in order to calculate the probabilities of life in our solar system you will need to count the planets you know that have life, the planets you "know" they don't have life and that will give you the percentage you are looking for!
You can not do that with a hypothesis that you has zero numbers to work with!
Why is this so difficult for you???
Yeah I know the lucifer fable they are all just stories based on earlier stories.
This dimwitted god failed in his first attempt to make a woman for Adam.
His first wife Lillith was a rebel as well. Eve was its second attempt and she was a rebel too.
This god is very incompetent, he even creates rebel angels.
god is too much of a failure to be awarded omni status.
When children starve to death and the climate of the Earth destabilises, that's our fault, not gods.
If god exists then all human suffereing is its fault and its responsibility.
god better not exist because if it does, it is a vile, evil monster that watches innocent people die in some horrific circumstances.
Quoting SpaceDweller
So why are you threatened with punishment and judgment if you don't make the choices your god requires? How can this god give you freedom of choice and then punish you for eternity if you choose to use that choice to reject god?
Don't apologise. I accept your limited understanding of logic.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
:rofl: You make pointless statements. In the REAL world REAL PEOPLE use percentages to quantify a belief level towards a particular posit all of the time. Mathematical validity has nothing to do with it.
You know this fine well but you choose to roleplay the indignant analyst and search for some points of minutia you can give the kiss of life to. You simply come across as a pompous ass.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Why is the fact that basic logic is very much employed in science so difficult for you! Mr Minutia!
No car, no traffic, no pollution, universal public transport, cycle everywhere. No rent, free food, free, clean energy. No commute, meaningful, creative work. Green spaces, well designed products, full recycling. Free time, good sleep, good health, …
One the face of it sounds utopian, to me. Perhaps unrealistic, but interested why you consider it dystopian?
The truth is though that only an eternal heaven exists with a multitude of eternal gods living in it. Bored as they were suddenly with life, they made a collective effort and succeeded in the development of a magical kind of material, which they brought into existence by creation. And on this magical material, live evolves periodically in a series of big bangs. So their existential void is filled watching creation. There is no hope we will ever go to heaven.
I am sorry.
-"I accept your limited understanding of logic."
-That is part of the problem you have with your reasoning... You think that others don't get it..lol
Quoting universeness
-And we call them irrational individuals. This is why most of us are really bad calculating probabilities and lose their money in gamble.......or believe in weird claims.
-" Mathematical validity has nothing to do with it."
-Of course it has dear. If you are suggesting statistical probabilities of an idea over an other...you will need to have numbers to compare. If you don't then your conclusion is not valid.
Quoting universeness
-Finding excuses won't make your irrational attempt define probabilities in numbers!!!! on ideas that have no numbers to offer look better. I might have sinister motives...but your screwup stands on its own.
Quoting universeness
Logic is employed in science, but in your case we don't need science to spot the error in your reasoning. So why using Science as an excuse for your mistake.
You should use Logic and its rules in all the aspects of your life...even when arguing against magical thinkers.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I don't need advice from Mr Minutia who has already admitted to having sinister motives.
Just in case you didn't understand my 0.1% belief level in the god posit, let me try to put it another way for you. I am 99.9% sure gods don't exist. Using a little basic logic to help you further. That means I am ALMOST 100% sure gods don't exist. I hope you understand a bit better now, you pompous ass.
The point, my dear Nickolast, is that logic and chance don't work against magical thinkers. They just stand up, laugh at you, and play along happily! :lol:
But how can you be so sure if you don't know if they exist in the first place?
All they have to do is show up and submit themselves to authentication tests. If they do that then we can both say hello to them. I think I will probably try to attack them for all the vile things they let happen in the past. We can release our responsibility for the actions of nefarious humans past and present, to them.
I would be happy to do that. Maybe that's why they don't show up. They are big fearties!
You are not just moving the goalposts...you are taking them for a walk with your dog! lol
So now you are attempting to evaluate your certainty when in your initial claim you were give your personal value on the credence you of the claim itself.
Here is your statement
Quoting universeness
As I have explained to you, you can not do that. You can not provide a probability number on a supernatural claim.
A percentage about your certainty, sure you can do that, provide a point and appear to Mr Hillary that you are "open minded".
But then why not say you are 100% sure?
Quoting universeness
What if the can't show up? It would go against the rules of the material they created. One possibility is by means of the rules of quantum mechanics, but these effects are small and probably only present in dreams (in which I saw their jungle tinkerings!). Most parts of the universe haven't been investigated and maybe they showed themselves to a more advanced species already.
-The time to accept their existence is only after you have managed to objectively verify their existence...not a second sooner.
Well you can ...but you will be you, an irrational magical thinker.
Wrong, dear Nickolast... Their existence comes first. Whether we are able to "objectively verify" their existence remains to be seen. Their existence is for me objectively verified in dream and thought.
If you are too lazy to proofread what you type then few people will have any idea what you are trying to say.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Yes you can Mr Minutia!
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I know! and your quotes contradict each other. How sure are you about your atheism? Could you suggest a percentage quantifier so that others could gain a sense of how strong your atheism is?
-wrong? lol I thought you were not interested in convincing me? hahaha
-"Their existence is for me objectively verified in dream and thought."??? "for you is objectively verified" !!! hahahahahahahahaha
Do you even know what "objectively" means???
I had a dream and thought telling me that your dreams and thoughts are wrong.
So I am objectively justified to dismiss your claims as wrong....lol
I can not believe that a grown up would ever make such claims in public! You are really special Mr Hillary!
Because such a solution, such a dystopia, is the result of a way of life that has moved away from a heavenly kind of life. The human gods were responsible for this. We, as their material copies, could show them how to improve.
Quoting universeness
For a probability you need a number of created universes and non-created ones. Their ratio gives your probability...
That would make me as dogmatic as theists! We have already had that chat!
I cannot prove gods don't exist.
Quoting Hillary
Then they are not very impressive. They created a 3D space they cant appear in.
If I create a virtual world, I can appear inside it as an avatar.
I'm not. If you don't wanna believe, Its up to you. Merely defending myself. Jesus Nickolast, aren't your jaws aching from your laughter? Or is it crying? Because of me?
A logical fallacy is a argument that uses known excuses and logical errors(ad populum,red herring,from ignorance etc) instead of objectively verified set of premises.
So the existence of Logical Fallacies alone SHOULD remind you that you can not accept a claim before it is objectively verified....and claim that you are a reasonable individual.
And what's wrong with being dogmatic?
Quoting universeness
Who says they wanna be impressive? The world would break apart if they appeared in the macro domain.
I accept the claim untill it's falsified.
Sorry mate. The problem is not how lazy I am, but your inability to understand how we calculate probabilities and why percentages about your personal certainty are irrelevant to the credence of a claim....
Quoting universeness
ok provide the "tools" by which you can arrive to a statistical figure..and I will come to your Nobel award ceremony....lol
Quoting universeness
-My atheism...again...is irrelevant to your factual wrong preconception that your degrees of personal certainty have anything to do with the statistical credence of a claim.
It can result in extremism and extreme behaviour.
Quoting Hillary
Again they sound incompetent if they can't appear without destroying our world.
I can appear in a virtual world as an avatar and not destroy the computer in the process.
So I can do what your gods cant?
I know, but Dawkins is just as dogmatic then.
lol you can not do that mrs Hillary. If you do that you leave the door open for more logical fallacies.
If you accept a claim before it is demonstrated then you will be forced to accept all conflicting and competing claims on the same subject. In order NOT to do that you will be force to use Special Pleading and Cherry Picking or utilize your Cognitive Dissonance.
You are arguing in favor of gullibility mrs Hillary! This is the exact tactic responsible for more than 4.300 different religions and 170+ non secular spiritual worldviews hijacking people's minds.
You really need a course on Logic 101 asap!
Virtual anything can lead to that behavior. Being dogmatic tells nothing about your attitudes.
Quoting universeness
Again, so what? You might appear in your videogame and destroy it. But why should they do that? Why they had created it in the first place? Should they destroy it because human gods fucked up a little?
It's that what Sir Popper tells us?
I have no idea where did you get that from...
Quoting universeness
rejecting God is one thing, making wrong choices is unrelated:
if I make a wrong choice I can fix it.
if I reject God then I gave up my freedom because I can no longer fix my mistakes.
I taught maths and computer science for 30+ years you pompus ass!
You struggle to type a legible sentence.
I don't need musings about probability from an interior designer.
Stick to picking curtains and floor coverings.
I am not discussing the credence of a claim from the standpoint of scientific rigor.
I referred to my own personal certainty regarding MY atheism.
You are the one who is desperately searching for points of minutia by conflating and inventing what I have previously typed.
lol No. ITs what logic tells us Hillary! Its what we should do with all claims and this is what con artist take advantage of when people with your logic do not demand evidence before a transaction!
Just type 'Adams first wife Lilith,' into a search engine. You will get plenty about her.
Quoting SpaceDweller
I reject god and I can fix mistakes, well most of them. Some mistakes people make cannot be fixed.
In the Hebrew bible mate!Adam was "married" twice!
Quoting SpaceDweller
- If I reject god will be his fault because he was unable to provide the evidence needed to convince me.
So when I die I will punish him for playing favorites (providing good evidence to other people).
Logic tells us nothing about the existence of gods.
Extremist behaviour does have many triggers, that's true, but dogmatic fervour about gods is certainly one of those main triggers.
Quoting Hillary
I said I could appear as an avatar within a virtual world WITHOUT destroying it, so what do you mean?
Thus can be dogma about evolution.
Quoting universeness
Ah. Well, they could do so by means of QM.
Really? I think you misunderstood, how do you reconcile with God if you reject God for good?
Quoting universeness
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
hah right, and I'm santa claus.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Why would creator have to do what creation says? or why would parent listen to commandments of a child?
If god exists its problem is going to be how it reconciles with us.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Research it santa! (anagram of satan)
I've never heard of a terrorist blowing stuff up in the name of evolution.
then being that bad in Logic is inexcusable.
-"You struggle to type a legible sentence."
-??? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?????!
-"I don't need musings about probability from an interior designer."
-Of course you need ....and my occupation is irrelevant.
-"Stick to picking curtains and floor coverings."
-ad hominem....these type of fallacies are expected by individuals who don't know how logic works.
Can you make any relevant argument? I have exposed your ability to reason and your ignorance on how to calculate probabilities but you fail to explain why you are so bad in this.
-"I referred to my own personal certainty regarding MY atheism."
-No you didn't, you referred to the credence of the claim....not your certainty., at least be honest when one can point directly to what you wrote.
...not an argument.
-"Why would creator have to do what creation says? or why would parent listen to commandments of a child? "
-because I am morally superior. The Cosmos knows that and he will force god to do some heavy explanation...
how is fabrication an argument?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
morally superior to whom?
Better to choose poverty before being forced into it.
not an argument mate.
-"morally superior to whom? "
-to the god of the bible...
What about all life killed in the name of science, the atom bomb, the knowledge terrorists possess to create bombs, the airplanes used in 9/11?
You are making really stupid and ignorant claims mrs Hillary!
Nobody did those things "in the name of Science" you buffoon!!
Science produces knowledge. What we humans decide to do with this knowledge is a different thing.!
Its Politics and economics (pseudo philosophical solutions) responsible for those calls.
Think before you post such ignorant claims Hillary!
Why you use the descriptive fallacy of calling me mrs. Hillary? I'm a mr, my dear Nickolast. So that's a first fallacy, based on ignorance. Concerning the description of my intellectual performances, compared to your standards of intelligence my brain world must be a logical horror indeed. But in relation to the real world it's better equipped and more reliable. My brain isn't a logically programmed structure, or simulating it is. Knowledge about the physical world can be produced only by interacting with it, and because of that, lives will be sacrificed to obtain it and once that knowledge is there you should not be surprised it is used in favor as well as against life. Simple as that.
descriptive fallacy???? hahahaha.
-" I'm a mr, my dear Nickolast."
-I don't know that, you were introduced as a 35yo woman.
Now the rest of your comment has nothing to do with your ignorant claim under the the artifact "in the name science". Do you have anything to say for your self....or we can all agree that you are guilty for posting bovine manure in these threads?
I was more than ready to leave the safety of that nest, why would I want to recreate it on a societal level even if I could?
Yes! A 35 year old WonderMan, a Wo-man!
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
In the name of science, telescopes are pointed at the sky, smaller and smaller particles with higher an higher energies smashed into each other, and in between these two scales nature is tortured and interrogated with ever increasingly brighter and by now burning searching lights of the Enlightenment. Because of this seemingly never-ending enterprise (ironically called "progress"), nature gets fucked more and more, and increasingly unbalanced, leading to an armageddon compared to which the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah shrinks into insignificance.
Yeah, it were these crazy human gods, jealous of all the other god species and their own species alike.
Feynman was only joking, surely... Look here Nickolas, humanity has come to the terrible point that personal relations are based on coming to know each other. "I like to know you...". WTF?
.......bla bla bla...thus god.....lol
That's the lol fallacy, dear Nickolast! :lol:
-"That's the lol fallacy," bla bla...thus god...right?
Qpa!!
The Nickolast logic fallacy
If we blah blah and iff blah blah is blah blah, the blah blah can't logically blah blah blah. Hencs gods are non-blah blah.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Right! :lol:
Was that you by any chance???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNvJUUgVgPo
Then why don't you lay down your life for all of us in the name of moral perfection? if you're morally superior.
It shouldn't be that hard.
I am not just far more moral than you made up god, I am also far more educated to know human biology and behavior.
So when the time comes he will be in a big trouble. He will have to give answers for his stupidity, his immorality and his ignorance to me.....
Closer than you think. Ischia-Amsterdam. Physics master. Raised in a modern areligeous house. :love:
No way. I'm a good looking Italian...
Well, I tried. You obfuscate and employ sophistry, you are the type of atheist that atheism could do without as you are a dishonest individual.
You are Nickerless gasbag, Mr Minutia, a dishonest pompous ass who tries to hide behind such cry's from his cradle as 'ad hominem.' :down: :vomit:
An athiest, who anthropomorphises the Cosmos and even gives it a gender.
You suggest a god called Cosmos! :roll:
So what went wrong????
I got involved discussing with you! :lol:
So I just copy pasted your initial comment on the "credency of the claim) and compared it to your new "certainty" excuse....but you think you are in a position to accuse people for sophistry and dishonesty????
or is this a public self critique of yours?
-"You are Nickerless gasbag, Mr Minutia, a dishonest pompous ass who tries to hide behind such cry's from his cradle as 'ad hominem."
-Since you are the only one who uses ad hominems....we already know who is the dishonest sophist and who isn't....
Would you have preferred the death of many more American soldiers and goodness knows how many Japanese civilians during a full invasion of the Japanese mainlands. The evidence from the time suggests that the Japanese would not have surrendered easily.
Look how stubborn they were on places like Iwo Jima. Look at the Kamikaze attitude etc?
Some animals have been sacrificed in the name of science, yes But probably no fewer than those sacrificed to gods. Humans have also been sacrificed to gods. Which conflation are you suggesting for 'human sacrifice to science?' Nazi-style medical experimentation? Surely you don't blame the invention of the gun or the scalpel for how some humans choose to employ such.
I don't blame god or Islam for the theist crazies who perpetrated 9/11 in the same way as I dont blame guns and bullets for killing people. People kill people, HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE! not god(s) or science.
Yes I did! I made up, out of thin air, a god that is more powerful than the made up god of that theist.
The technique is called an Ad Absurdum argument and it is used to expose the absurdity of a claim....but how would you know...right!?
Weel, I actually had the nuclear tests in mind and their effects. And the development of even bigger thermonuclear devices with 3000 times the destructive power of the two thrown.
Considering test animals:
"Each year inside British laboratories, around 4 million animals are experimented on. Every 8 seconds, one animal dies. Cats, dogs, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys and other animals are used to test new products, to study human disease and in the development of new drugs."
"Only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning their use of animals for testing and research, but it is estimated that more than 115 million animals—including mice, rats, birds, fish, rabbits, guinea pigs, farm animals, dogs, cats, and non-human primates—are used and/or killed in laboratory ..."
And what about all extinct species or the animals killed in the atomic bomb tests...
Quoting universeness
But with what do they kill...?
You are just a theist role playing. You love it if arguments against atheism are set up!
No fewer indeed. Many more.
Anyone would prefer that over the death of civilians. Don't try to sugarcoat a war crime.
IT was a terrorist act by all standards.
The Japanese would not have surrendered easily because this is what nations do when they are in war. Japan was an imperialistic threat like the US and Russia are till to this day, but the answer is not to bomb cities with civilians in them.
That's the best you can do? Panto exchange? You're the problem, oh no I'm not, oh yes you are!
Boring, pointless and meaningless but what I expect from your like. It's the last toilet characters like you run to for desperate protective shelter (no doubt one of your own inFerior designs).
I suppose it takes two to panto but I don't panto so.......
So not being able to reason is not the only issue you have...you can't even read.
The dude accepts an immoral made up god. As a far more moral agent I have the moral ground to judge this imaginary being and I use the Cosmos (existence) to authorize my judgment and punishment of this god.
I don't have to do anything...Your comments do all the work for me.
I exposed your ignorance on how Statistical Probabilities work.
You are trying to hide the damage your claim did to your credibility and image...but without success.
Look at the positive side...at least you learned how we calculate probabilities....and you learned the use of an Ad Absurdum argument.
Now who is using logical fallacy! How can you 'make up a god,' more powerful than a god that the theists have already posited is OMNIPOTENT, you buffoon!
And again, I actually agree. Goddamnit! I actually lost all reason indeed!
The only thing you offer to teach, comes through demonstration of your own confused contradictory musings and postings.
lol....Ad Absurdum isn't always a logical fallacy when the argument includes a true analogy.
In this case, he created a ultimate judge out of thin air, I created one above him. I created an apagogigal argument (????????? ??????????).
Again, to remind, can use your internet connection to educate yourself...not just for spicy videos and social media....
-Not true.
I compared your initial claim and your excuse directly. They do not refer to the same statistical figure.
The first one was referring to "credence of the claim" while the second to your personal certainty.
Sorry.
So one can still get a faint heartbeat in the general area of your brain....that is hopeful! lol ; )
Yes, dear Nickolast, it's still possible! A double heartbeat, actually. One for the scientific ratio and logic and one for the other. :lol:
Don't the emoticons or quote possibilities show up from wherever you type? You can make the lol (meaning "fun" in Dutch, no kidding!) laugh! And you can directly quote.
Funny! Brother Uni called me a panto player. So him being a tap dancer combines us in a powerful duo package! Panto Tap!
Human politicians and human military brass decided to do such tests. Perhaps many of them were theists. Perhaps some scientists completely sanctioned and even took part. ALL HUMANS!
Science is not at fault here, science is a method of understanding empirical data and using any new knowledge gained in whichever way humans decide to use it. The responsibility for the use of tech lies with humans, atheist and theist (and every flavour in-between) humans have equal responsibility for how tech is used.
Quoting Hillary
99% of all species ever on the planet have gone extinct, most of them due to natural selection. Humans are responsible for some extinctions but are you really trying to claim that all the damage done to the environment by human activity such as industrialisation was sanctioned and actioned by non-theists only?
Quoting Hillary
Humans will kill using the best tech available as they usually want to kill their enemies but survive themselves regardless of the preferred label an individual chooses between theist and atheist.
Talk about special pleading! :roll:
Your tools of conflation and sophistry are obvious, unconvincing and childlike.
It were scientists who invented them. Los Alamos was the biggest science experiment ever. Oppi later whined about him becoming death, but as always, after the fact. Edward Teller was the mad father and adviced intense testing!
Yes. But the technological means are provided by scientific investigation.
You are confused. I can not help you if you are not willing to educate yourself.
Fallacy is an argument that proposes a conclusion without epistemic foundations (unsound) but not necessarily wrong.
Since we don't know the truth value of the conclusion, its irrational to use this argument to justify a belief.
An Ad Absurdum can be used by applying a true analogy(an example that matches all the characteristics of the claim) but with a small change. You use a similar assumption that he is forced to reject based on the same reasons you rejected yours. That technique exposes the absurdity of the initial belief in a fallacious argument.
Now later I can help you with the alphabet........
Are you still making this silly argument? What men decide to do with our knowledge depends on Pseudo Philosophical establishments...not science.
Get over it mr Hillary.
You demonstrate the musings of a simpleton. Thank goodness we had better minds than dolts like you to decide between the deaths of thousands or the death of millions. War is hell, all war is criminal but defeating your enemy whilst protecting your own is a valid approach. No one can come out of a war with clean hands. Most veterans find it very traumatic to even talk about their experiences.
The Italians surrendered easily in WW2 compared to the Japanese and the Italians inherited the legacy of the Romans. I think this actually speaks well for the Italians as does their own personal execution of Il duce. They were only fooled some of the time, whereas the Japanese were fooled all of the time based on their god-like projections regarding their f****** emperor Hellohito!
Science enables technology. Technology is managed by the Market and Governments..not science.
Your brain is dead again mate.
Argument? You accuse me of an argument, a silly one even? I make progress!
Jesus, you are a clearvoyant! Im sitting in the front garden of the street. And the SOB is fucking with his camper! And there lies a knife on the table! :lol:
biased personal opinions are not arguments.
Quoting universeness
- This is why we have rules and Laws of WAR. Does the Term "Geneva Convention" rings any bells?
Stop attempting to justify the phenomenon we are trying to regulate through laws.
Your reasoning could be used by any criminal to defend his crimes "Human nature in unequal and competitive societies becomes a bitch....why trying to regulate it"
How old are you sir???
Did you ever thought taking a course on Logic?
With every comment you dig a deeper hole for you.....you never getting out of there mate.
Again your fake apology. The truth is you CONFLATED my typings for your own self-admitted sinister reasons. You are just in pain because I have put you on the canvas so often. You crawl back up again in true tubthumping fashion as all sophists do but you were rendered unconscious time after time ages ago.
You just hang around now like a bad smell, typing bullshit.
That whole fucking war was made possible by science in the first place. Zycklon B, radar, planes, bombs, tanks, rockets,etc.
Why both of you, instead of acknowledging the argument exposing your irrational position you prefer to ridicule yourselves by acting like clowns?
Science provides us with knowledge on how to produce sharp knifes.
Does this make science responsible for the act moron who chose to cut his wife's throat instead of the bread.????
Logically speaking, yes. If there was no sharp edged knife, I couldn't kill him with it. So in a sense I should be thankful towards science! :lol:
-''The truth is you CONFLATED my typings"
-I didn't have to....you did a great job on your own.
If you want to change or clarify what you meant....I will accept it. Just say that this is not what you implied.
So the next time you decide to criticize my English....think twice. After all English is not my first language...I have excuses, you don't
Economical or political interests cant cause war. It are people causing war. And science gives them the technological means.
Again you don't understand what logic is....lol
If there were sharp knifes humans would be unable to process their foods and they would have other far more serious problems than the dude who killed his wife.
You can not cherry pick and accuse on the same time.
well you can because ..its you mr Hillary.
:rofl: This from the fool on the hill, who cannot figure out how his megaphone works!
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
:lol: This is the argument you are using to posit a god called Cosmos which is 'more omnipotent' than omnipotent! In your world infinity + 1 is bigger than infinity? You really are a buffoon!
Then you think that throwing in some Latin helps your case.
Your epistemology is to peddle bullshit that you have tried to sprinkle with fairy dust to attempt to turn it into a valid point. :rofl:
And who brandished such tech for such a purpose? god(s)? theists? atheists? or just HUMANS?
Are you even reading what you write?
I answered you fully it's just that your attention span and cognitive ability are limited.
I can only work with the ingredients you offer. You are asking us to turn you into an enlightened individual but you offer very poor materials to work with.
Perhaps you watch too many cartoons on the internet instead of its more useful offerings.
Logic is a totally boring subject. It's math that's interesting. The world is a place without inherent logic. That exists in the mind only, and some people even build a philosophy on it. I can easily understand logic. What's so difficult about that. If it's your strong side, I can imagine you worship it. But I don't and have not the slightest intention using it. So it's only logically you wont hear logically sound arguments from my side. I base life and philosophy on something deeper than such surface phenomenon.
Who cares? It is science that produced them. Without science no such weaponry. How logical can it be. Even my primitive logic can understand that.
:lol: Now that's a hellspawn partnership if ever there was one! Good luck with that.
The antichrist is born of such a union!
Strawman, You are missing the point of what an ad absurdums is and does and this shows that you don't understand it.
The Ad absurdum analogy is designed to be as irrational as the claim it addresses.
So you are really evaluating this Ad Absurdum for what...logic?lol seriously? hahaha
Plus I don't accept omnipotence or any of the omni (and so all modern theologians) because it is a nonsensical concept.
Can your god(of your culture not yours) create a rock that heavy he can not lift it? Can your god create a burrito that hot he can not eat it? etc etc lol
The theistic argument is irrational by default....so I need an irrational analogy to expose the absurdity.
Plus Cosmos as a concept is bigger then our universe and it includes god so you meshed up again in your critique.
I am not sure that you are that bad in reasoning. Your anger for me exposing your weaknesses in your reasoning must be clouding your thinking and that is obvous in your arguments.
I can believe that you hold that opinion...it shows in your reasoning lol
Yes you did...and that was a really bad answer!
Do I use reason and logic?
Your Cosmos God assumption is very rational, to be honest! But it's still about the universe. Your alter ego in heaven has a good time! He laughs his pants off, looking at you. Well, coming to think about it, he cries buckets full! :lol:
Again you offer 'no shit Sherlock' comments.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Which word in 'all war is criminal' did you fail to understand 'Mr English is not my first language?'
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
You ask for data I have posted many times. Pay attention Mr minutia.
As for digging holes, I think you display a much bigger shovel than I, along with a far greater tendency to dig holes.
Consider me the second coming. You and Nickolast could form the anti. Together we form the Final Trinity, the announcers of chaos, death, and destruction...
An accusation from BEPO GASBAG in full clown makeup and costume! :rofl: Go figure?
lol.....the same you would think about my Smurf demigod, Lilith, the three little piggies , Casper the ghost etc ....
Ok Sherlock, I will repeat again to aid your slow wit! My typing on the multiverse posit and the god posit where BOTH personal estimates of MY conviction towards both posits. The god posit...0.1%
The multiverse...>0.1% So I was indicating that I find the multiverse posit more convincing than the god posit and you dragged over those embers so vigorously to come up with contrived bullshit about mathematical probability and the rules of statistical analysis and even attempted to throw in more bullshit about contrived logical fallacy to remain standing on quicksand of your own making.
You expect me to respect your musings as fair-minded? Hah! Keep trying to work the megaphone fool on the hill or prat in the pit. You shame yourself BEPO!
So you try to justify a war crime by appeal to the nature of war and when I point out that we have standards by which we judge war practices ....your answer is this statement? lol....ok
Pls communicate to others your relation with logic and reasoning...
Quoting universeness
The problem is not with my understanding your statement is just wrong.
Ciminal is a legal term. You don't get to hang it on any irrational human behavior.
Wars are irrational from the aspect of the well being of human societies, but as I said, Wars are fueled and enabled by our Philosophies and conflicting interests and some times huge misunderstanding (like yours in a general level)
Even when a war ise declared unlawful there are rules to be followed .....that you obviously ignore.
The evaluation of "war crimes" is done by those rules.
Bombing innocent civilians is a war crime and your soldier's lives is not an excuse for it.
Making up poetic excuses by stretching the word criminal doesn't help your case.
-"You ask for data I have posted many times. "
-You are shy?Is there a problem to see if your data remain constant throughout the year ? lol
You anthropomorphise Science! I choose not to. Put the blame where it fits! with humans, not gods!
Ok the word credence isn't mentioned so you changed your statement, cool!
So next time think twice before criticizing other people's use of English.....
Now I guess you don't know that you can express your doubt about god without using numbers....
Therefore please lay down your life so that I can start to believe what you say.
Preferably do it by crucifixion so that I can watch crows pecking you during 3-5 day period, which is approx. time that crucified persons spent on the cross, if you didn't know that.
And during that time you're supposed to keep saying how morally perfect you are so that no one gathered stops believing your words :wink:
Again just because life in a society is unfair that doesn't justify a criminal for being unfair to his victims.
You see, I accept your claim (criminal wars) for the shake of the argument and still it doesn't hold up!
Why reasoning is so difficult for you????
Your interpretation of strawmanning you mean. You keep making Latin excuses for your poor skills in dialogue with others. Do you expect people to steelman you when you offer such poor logic?
You invented a beef with me and you have made every pathetic effort you can to gain a hit and you have failed miserably. This exposes you as a prideful prat who sucks on sour grapes.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
How naive are you? You think any part of OUR exchange has been about the atheism/theism debate?
Your admission to having sinister purpose is beginning to surface and manifest.
I originally informed you that @Hillary was not female, simply because I did not want to read the posts that he would have allowed you to continue with down that particular rabbit hole. He would have done so as a harmless gigglefest that's all. I just wanted to bat it away.
You then tried to browbeat me with Imo, disrespectful commentary. That was a bad idea. You have typed like a pompous ass, ever since. We can continue as long as you like Mr Minutia!
No I am have a superior personality. I don't want followers, I don't want people to believe me on fact value. I want people to educate themselves academically and believe in what is Objectively verified.
Quoting SpaceDweller
- I am far more advanced and civilized than your gods is . I don't do blood sacrifices. I communicate to people and tell them how to build their societies so that they don't benefit and favor psychopathology and bad behavior.
Obviously your god doesn't have a major on Psychology...lol
Such standards were put in place BECAUSE of WW2. You put the cart before the horse as usual!
If you want academic material ...I can provide you...let me know.
Irrelevant. We are not chronicling about these rules, we are addressing your immoral statement (justifying the killing civilians over soldiers). plus we judged the Nazis based on some kind of standards...so those standards should apply on anyone.
:rofl: Mr Minutia bleats again! The fact that you don't have enough command of English to be able to connect the concept of 'credence' with 'personal conviction,' because you think that credence is only applicable toward objective truth, is an example of how shallow your thinking is.
Especially when there is not much CREDENCE in the posit that objective truth even exists!
My use of percentage to express my personal conviction towards a particular posit or to use it as a personal statement towards how credible a particular posit is TO ME, is perfectly valid amongst the vast majority of all other human beings I have ever talked to in my life.
It's just little small-minded fools like you who create the bad smells in debates between grownups.
Oh come on SpaceDweller, you can do better than that. The Jesus fable of human sacrifice was supposed to pay all debts of sin. Why are you asking for another from a mere mortal?
And you accuse me of insulting you! :rofl:
All you are doing is offering me more reasons to continue to insult you.
I think I am much better at it than you are! :rofl:
Yeah, you keep 'shakin' those arguments BEPO, perhaps they will hold up for you eventually once you have learned how to proofread or at least use the provided edit facility that becomes available after you click on the 'Post Comment' button. Learn how to use the three small dots that appear when you hover the mouse cursor to the right of the time indicator for your posting. It's not difficult Sherlock!
The concept of soldiers and civilians is the reality of what is changing. Soldiers don't stay away from civilians during war. You need to go back to something like the Napoleonic wars to find big armies fighting in a field somewhere with few or no civilians in danger.
Many civilians will die in modern warfare. No legislation will ever prevent that. Only the victors will be able to enforce justice on those who committed or commanded attrocities AFTER THE WAR IS OVER.
It gives hope to all when the victors also prosecute those who committed atrocities from their own side but that tends to be only based on the most extreme examples reported and can be pure tokenism but should still be pursued. The standards do apply to everyone.
Churchill allowed the bombing of Coventry without evacuating the civilians because he did not want the Nazis to find out that the British has broken the enigma code. Many call that a war crime. Others say his decision saved many more lives than it cost. What would you have done Sherlock?
So are you a professional dancer or you just tap dance in forums?lol
btw do you know anything about atomic bombs?....one thing people can not do is throw one and make excuses about being inaccurate lol
Again we are not comparing war crimes. Your silly excuse is on trial here.
Justifying the bombing of civilians for sparing soldiers' lives. Imagine if that excuse stick up......What a pleasant place to live earth would be! lol
Are you Putin's advisor.....if not....don't become one.
What's wrong with you? Are 13 yo or what? Are you honest enough to admit your screw ups? Why do you have to pollute this thread with your shenanigans ...do your self a favor and grow up.
You want me to be more like you, a professional CHANCER? No, that wont happen. I choose not to mimic the fool BEPO.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This is just more conflated BS!
You ignored the Churchill question. How about offering your solution Sherlock?
I can answer it. I would have made the exact same decision as Churchill but unlike him, I could not live with it. After the war, I would have destroyed myself from the guilt of it.
I think Churchill was a narcissist a self-aggrandising horror, a butcher who could live with such things.
We needed horror to combat horror. I would still have made the same decision as him but I would have tried other methods first before dropping the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. I would have invited the Japanese to a demonstration in the desert somewhere first.
I don't know if that was attempted and refused by the Japanese. There are various conspiracy theories out there regarding what happened. None are compelling against that which was reported in the mainstream.
You are back at your mirror again wicked queen! Asking that same old BS question, when you know fine well that you are the tubthumper, the brat, the toy thrower, the child in a permanent tantrum. Mommies little soldier!
:rofl: Matt Dillahunty says he has more problems trying to set atheists straight, who use poor arguments and bad logic than he does with theists. I dont think Matt would think much of Nickerless Gasbag but perhaps he would plague both our houses! :halo:
The point is, science (I don't see why you write it with a capital S, it's only knowledge) can't be seen apart from people. It's not an objective, monolithic entity existing somewhere apart from us.
Matt Dillawhoty?
What is your purpose for humans if it's not to pursue new knowledge and seek to confirm the knowledge we have? god worship? Nature worship?
Try a YouTube search!
The purpose is to life like the human gods. Finding out about the material they created to harbor life is nice (as you know from many conversations we already had here), but it's just knowledge. Creating knowledge is an art. With math, models, and experiments we create new patterns.
What about art, dance, music, clothes, etc. That's what makes us human and different from animals. It's nice to invent planes, cars, computers, etc. but at the same time it's a step away from humanity. We have not evolved to fly or to space travel. We have, like all animals, evolved to mimic heaven. Look at the blue lizzard!
How horrible to live like amoral gods who are according to you bored with their own existence!
Amoral because they take no responsibility for their own creations, something you accuse Science of.
Quoting Hillary
There is knowledge in Science, maths and art. Cant do an oil painting without first creating some oil-based pigments to paint with, along with a paintbrush, canvas, thinners, dryers etc. You even need to invent a tool to scratch an image onto a cave wall before you can have an artist.
Quoting Hillary
All activities/objects that need knowledge. You cant dance if you don't learn how to move rhythmically!
Cats, dogs, monkeys, elephants, and ants don't dance as well as humans can in my opinion.
Quoting Hillary
They can also enhance humanity or would you rather swim and walk to visit another country?
Would you prefer it if humans could not communicate with each other the way we can now.
Would the actions of autocrats like Putin be easier or harder to combat if we had less global communication ability than we have at present?
Quoting Hillary
Matt Dillahunty, a nemesis of theism.
That's what's all life for. To cheer them up and fill their existential void. How can I accuse Science if it's inhuman?
Quoting universeness
You need knowledge of the pre big bang era to dance? All animals have knowledge? Have you seen the mating dance of the paradise birds? Stephen Fry's comments are very funniy.
Quoting universeness
Knowledge is just a necessary prior to life. It's not whats it about.
I consider him not the nemisis. I consider him on the same level as any other TV preacher. Nothing interesting to offer.
Your god(s) sound like selfish pigs and imo, seem unworthy of your need for them or your determination to assign them existence.
Quoting Hillary
Where did I mention knowledge from before the big bang as a prerequisite for human dance?
Quoting Hillary
I don't know, do they?
Quoting Hillary
Yeah, I've seen some of it. I think from Gene Kelly, Fred Astair to Darcey Bussell, Rudolph Nureyev all the way to even.....Lady Gaga and my nieces are much better.
Quoting Hillary
and your alternative 'what it's all about,' is to keep inadequate fictitious gods entertained?
Matt Dillahunty:
I say Yay! you say Nay! I doubt he cares one jot. He proves himself imo, every time he chews up another theist viewpoint, espoused by the theist callers to his show.
And not only pigs. Monkeys, mice, trees, bacteria, flees people, and even my pussies! And I like to give them a nice show! And so do all other forms of life. If they are worthy or not is not my interest. Maybe they are, maybe not. I take joy from the fact that they took care of it.
Quoting universeness
Okay, but scientific knowledge is not needed to dance. To take pictures, a camera is needed, to paint, linen, knowledge of paint or how to use it, knowledge of varnish, and we can use computers to translate communicate or create new stuff with.
Quoting universeness
How else can the paradise bird dance?
Quoting universeness
It's not who is better. We dance differently, and most people worse than the paradise bird! Science says it's a mating dance to pass on genes. But its just the way of the paradise bird gods. That's another reason I believe in gods. Science tries to explain all human and animal behavior like that.
Quoting universeness
And ourselves! It works both ways.
And I really don't care a jot about his preachings, like I don't give a jot about the phony theist TV vanhellicals!
I find it hard to follow your thought processes at times. Lost in translation perhaps.
Are you saying you are happy to be a performing monkey to entertain inadequate gods?
Quoting Hillary
Well, it depends what you are referring to as dance. People bobbing about to music or those who study and perform dance as a science. Do you think ballet and body poppin have no science or knowledge behind them? What is choreography, is it randomised movement to sound or does it involve intense thought that needs years of study to create those who are called expert dancers? Your birds of paradise do the same mating dance every time. Do you think your gods ever get bored watching the birds of paradise repeat their dance?
Do you think they prefer watching Michael Flately and his various versions of Riverdance, Lord of the dance etc?
Quoting Hillary
So you agree with what I said earlier then? Scientific endeavor gives us these options, not faith in god(s).
Quoting Hillary
Do you expect me to answer for paradise birds?
Quoting Hillary
So these birds dance to entertain their god and it has nothing to do with attracting a mate as Science suggests it is? Is that your claim?
Quoting Hillary
How does it work both ways? I don't see the gods you claim to commlink within your dreams and they seem to be incapable of appearing to me despite me giving them my permission.
So they provide no entertainment for me, they only cause me concern that someone with a good knowledge of science like you can be so sidetracked by woo woo god posits.
I accept your polytheism because you give me little choice even though I still think your reasons are a mix of roleplay, pissed off at cosmologists, and primal fear. You would call me fake if I did not make it clear to you that I think your beliefs are at best, irrational. I cant hide my true opinions from you.
Would you prefer I did?
Quoting Hillary
So, you don't care so will that stop him or does it defeat the points he makes?
Quoting Hillary
My advice would be keep engaging! Don't just surrender to woo woo, at least keep your mind open. I remain open to gods. All the cowards have to do is show up and submit themselves to scientific scrutiny. If they can't then they are not gods and they don't and never have existed.
Not sure if I understand this. They take no responsibility for their creation? What should they be responsible for?
Quoting universeness
:lol: Almost! I'm happy to be a handsome guy with an almost clownesque intelligence and maybe I make my god counterpart or other gods, in heaven laugh, cry, or neither. Frankly, I don't care what they think of me.
Quoting universeness
Of course you can look at it the scientific way. Like you can investigate all in our universe. The whole process of evolution is not to pass genes or memes (though of course this happens) but just to make life appear.
Quoting universeness
The gods are entertained and life can enjoy life. It's good for us and good for them. Both ways.
Quoting universeness
I don't think that will stop him. Neither will it stop the evanhellicals.
Quoting universeness
I have never surrendered to woowoo. I keep my mind wide open, but at the same time I keep it closed for attempts to kill my "theology".
They don't only dance. And yes they get bored. It's what actually happened!
Do humans have any responsibility to the children they create? Should this not apply even more to gods?
Quoting Hillary
This is the kind of comment that you type which adds to my evidence that you are merely playing the polytheist for the sake of 'pressing the atheist's buttons.' I can play in that pen to help you sate that need but it would be more beneficial for you to seek support and inspiration for your scientific work than seek to satisfy your rather pointless dalliances with polytheism. Your theism seems to play a very insignificant role in your psyche.
Quoting Hillary
All you suggest here is let's just focus on the pretty box rather than worry about its internal workings.
This does not match with your deep dive into physics. Why do you look inside the physics box? Why don't you pay much more attention to your gods and find new fun ways to entertain them. You suggest that you are perfectly happy to leave all the boxes closed. If you are content with life just appearing then why do you have any interest AT ALL regarding how or why it appears. You are just entertainment for inadequate gods, why do you try to be more significant than that?
Quoting Hillary
So the point you were making is moot!
Quoting Hillary
Surely your theology cannot be killed if you won't let it die so what are you worried about?
Quoting Hillary
I know, you have already suggested your gods are inadequate and heaven failed for them.
They seem to fail much more than they succeed. I think you project human frailties onto them. Perhaps you project your own personal frailties onto them to make sense of yourself.
Quoting Hillary
That's for you to offer not for me to guess!
It does apply to gods just as well. And they worked it out pretty well. I think you have the wrong idea of heaven. You think all gods are human like. But the dino gods have literally dino shapes. It are no human shapeshifters (that's why I asked the last question). The bird gods are literally eternal birds, etc. So they did a good job in taking care of their creation. The people gods, as can be seen from their mortal material counterparts, fucked up in the preambles to creation.
Quoting universeness
No. I give attention to the inner box. Im curious about the innards. Especially the pre big bang era and the neural network.
Quoting universeness
What point did I make? I just said that Matt is another TV preacher.
Quoting universeness
Indeed. I have no reason to worry.
Quoting universeness
Yes, it's me that's bored with life! Come on! You can do better than that!
Quoting universeness
Then how can you make claims that they are inadequate? They ard, in fact. All of them, from dog to whale, just got bored. And the used their bundled intelligences and creation power to create the necessary ingredients. Divine elementary virtual particles with the right properties and a bulk space to let them evolve in. And again, these wicked, sneaky people gods...
In what way have they 'worked it out pretty well?' You just agreed that they do have a responsibility towards that which they created so in what ways have they met that responsibility?
Quoting Hillary
No, I think you are perfectly aware that I think all gods are fictitious, so are you just being evasive again.
The artful dodger?
Quoting Hillary
This is repetitive. I already know you think each species has its own god in the image of that species.
99% of all species that have ever been on the Earth have gone extinct so what do their gods do now?
Do they rely on you to entertain them as none of their own species is left?
It's interesting to find out how far your imagination can take this.
You will need to come up with something more Intelligible or you will remain open to constant ridicule but perhaps that's what you want as somewhere inside you think that's all you deserve.
Quoting Hillary
Yet you want others to accept gods with no evidence accept the mere existence of life and the
Universe and you complain about science opening every box it can and you call this 'pressurising nature' You seem to struggle to balance your equations.
Quoting Hillary
You are directing this Pony trek, only you know what's really going on in your head that manifests in your shall we say fringe polytheism. Is it mere attention seeking?
Quoting Hillary
You often try to merge your science knowledge with your polytheist dalliances.
Your attempts are a bit 'Hans Christian Anderson,' in style.
Your polytheistic shape will never fit into any space found in Science.
You offer a meal of sugar-coated beef steak. The vast majority of humans will reject your offer.
In the way that all life in heaven appeared in the universe. Of course each god had their own responsibility. And the human gods fucked it up for their fellow gods.
Quoting universeness
Watch all other life of course. What else? Or maybe they are not bored anymore, which would be strange, because why would they show up in my dream then. Whatever might be the case, their creation still exists.
Quoting universeness
It's the most intelligible it can get. The universe is a material reflection of heaven. Why should I find it out in the first place if I dont like it. Im no masochist.
Quoting universeness
I dont want anybody to accept gods. I dont complain about science! I graduated from university! I love science!
Quoting universeness
Dont we all seek attention? But thats not the reason to believe in gods.
Quoting universeness
If that's your impression. It's not my intention to merge them. And atheist cant give scientific counters because I know more about physics than any one of them, and the gods helped me. Why should I care if people dont want to eat what I offer? I'm happy with it, and if others dont want or arent able to eat it, who cares? It could be maybe that my brain is fried by certain substances.. Science cant have a space for gods? Why not? TheoLOGY!
What's a Pony trek? And just outof interest, what's your birthday?
Maybe Im the Christ of the new age (my wife thinks Im a nutter...).
So the dude who brought statistical probabilities in unfalsfiable claims and justified war crimes....thinks he can criticize me or Dillahunty....lol ok
It's just that the fringes can be a tough place to occupy. Most people who choose to place themselves there, do so because their minority viewpoint is ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL to who they are and what they represent. They feel so strongly about their position that they are willing to stand against a large majority. many of whom will ridicule their viewpoint with equal fervour and will label them very harshly.
Quoting Hillary
Well, I take it she does so in jest as she married you!
A pony trek is a slow journey on small horses, normally for the pleasure of the natural surroundings involved in the trek. The ponies normally follow the lead pony so the lead pony dictates the direction of the trek. I used the analogy to exemplify my opinion that you were the lead pony in our trek through your polytheistic dalliances.
At least, this exchange has given me further insight into your reasoning.
I have not moved much from my earlier opinions on your proclaimed polytheism.
Matt Dillahunty is a skilled debater. You are not. Now you type like a pathetic diva!
Quoting universeness
Where the fuck did you criticize MD? Nickerless might be a "high class" logician, but his reading skills are indeed that of a pathetic diva! :lol: (pathetic diva's are funny though).
Yeah, for sure. And she's right!
So "trek" just means journey, like in Star Trek? Trek is a Dutch word too. "Vogel trek" means the great journey of the birds to warmer regions. Oddly it can also mean lust to eat.
Strange that I never saw Satan in Santa! There are many of these word "coincidences", like evil and devil.
:rofl: I know, I actually praised Matt but that does not suit the agenda of the fool on the hill, trying to drown out the opposition. Gasbag wants to fire every toy he has in his cradle towards me because he is wound so tight and has no idea how to feel significant in his own skin.
Most divas are insecure people. Mr Minutia is just desperate to be recognised as a significant intellect but he is too full of nasties to become such. Who knows if he will ever be able to defeat his nasties.
Being a Geek, I just looked up the etymology of 'trek' on google and got:
1849 (n.) "a stage of a journey by ox wagon;" 1850 (v.), "to travel or migrate by ox wagon," from Afrikaans trek, from Dutch trekken "to march, journey," originally "to draw, pull," from Middle Dutch trecken (cognate with Middle Low German trecken, Old High German trechan "to draw"). Especially in reference to the Groot Trek (1835 and after) of more than 10,000 Boers, who, discontented with the English colonial authorities, left Cape Colony and went north and north-east. In general use as a noun by 1941. Related: Trekked; trekking.
Seems like its origins do indeed involve Dutch. I love learning new stuff I never knew before!
Quoting Hillary
A few years ago, an atheist told me that 'evil' and 'devil' don't merit the level of fear they can invoke in many humans because 'evil' just means 'one who follows or supports the biblical Eve.
'Devil,' or D'evil just indicates a person who 'acts like the biblical eve,' and disobeys the dictates of the god of the old testament who he said the Christian hierarchy secretly believe, was 'overthrown,' by the god of the new testament. This all seemed very plausible to me at the time so I eagerly researched this for evidential support. Unfortunately, I found very little evidential support for these claims.
So some atheists employ pure hearsay as well. Exaggeration is not just a theistic tendency, so I try to be careful of that particular pit.
You're the best! :smile: (it almost brings a tear to my eye!)
And way above the "evanhellicals" we both have an aversion of!
Yes, trek means journey, pull, or appetite. Three meanings of one word! You know more words with three such diverse meanings? Or are pull and journey related (pulling of a horse during a trek by chart).
I like English examples like 'tear.'
I like the fact that it can mean 'the quanta involved in crying' or 'to rip a material such as paper.'
Both are spelled the exact same way. 'Tier' sounds exactly the same but can mean 'a sectional level of cake,' 'A societal or political strata,' ect. Then there is tear and tare, two different spellings which can refer to the same action of ripping a material. Tare can also mean crazy or mad.
In fact (contrary to what I thought first), you can apply probabilities with zero verified samples. I'm 99.9% sure you are a terrible PITA lacking the basics of intelligence. I haven't seen one verified example of the contrary! :lol:
Lets me help you, it's not 'suppor' its 'support'. It's not 'say soldier's lives,' it's 'save soldiers lives.'
Also, you need to keep reading my posts to try to understand what I actually typed.
Please offer your detailed evidence of the communications between the Allies and the Japanese during WW2 which explain exactly why Truman made the decision he made.
Here is a small begining for you:
[i]The ensuing war was costly. Years of fighting brought the US armed forces closer and closer to Japan as they “hopped” from one island to another. The Japanese were vicious fighters, however, and every victory cost more time, material, and, sadly, lives. The last major battle, the fight for Okinawa, lasted almost three months and took more than 100,000 Japanese and American lives.
After President Roosevelt died on April 12th, 1945, it became Harry Truman’s job to decide how to end the war. The thought of invading Japan gave Truman and his advisors pause. The war had shown that the Japanese were fighting for the Emperor who convinced them that it was better to die than surrender. Women and children had been taught how to kill with basic weapons. Japanese kamikaze pilots could turn planes into guided missiles. The cost of invasion, they knew, would be high.
Upon becoming president, Harry Truman learned of the Manhattan Project, a secret scientific effort to create an atomic bomb. After a successful test of the weapon, Truman issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government, warning of “prompt and utter destruction.” Eleven days later, on August 6, 1945, having received no reply,[/i]
Language is fun! When the Berliner meets the Hamburger, the battle of the tastes takes off!
Quoting universeness
Wanted to write exactly the same! Heigh vife, broother Uni!
I think he must be a masochist. He could turn this off anytime he chose to but he wants to continue his tantrum. Go figure?
lol.....that's better, stick to "teaching" language. It doesn't demand Logic..... where you under-perform.
Irrelevant!!!! Why is this so difficult for you sir?....again your excuse is on trial not the claimed reasons behind the act.
You made it clear that it is more preferable to bomb civilians than losing soldiers.
Better just keep correcting my writings than proving your inability to understand a point and reason.
Teaching others is always a positive, as long as you have honorable intentions towards your students and you are a capable teacher. So if I am helping you with your English, then I hope you are grateful.
The idea that language does not demand logic is yet another under-performance from you.
Nouns, pronouns, verbs, sentences, paragraphs etc no logic in any of them whatsoever.
Do you live in the land of the brainless where the single brain cell you have makes you king?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
:rofl: and you gasbag have elected yourself accuser, judge and jury! when you cant even climb out your pram! Your musings on logic are hilarious BEPO :rofl:
Let me help you further with some of that brain fog you suffer from.
It's better to end a war as quickly as it can be ended. The ways open to you to achieve this are often very complicated and there are no 'good ways,' available. Extreme horrific terrible circumstances may only offer evil, extreme, horrific, terrible alternatives and the only choice you have is between horror and what you and your advisors have judged the 'lesser evil.'
Some soldiers are not volunteers they are conscripts, they did not choose to be soldiers, they are civilians in a uniform holding a gun. I wouldn't like to have you as the father of a soldier and a civilian.
Would you mourn your civilian dead son more than your conscripted soldier dead son?
Is that your logic?
Grammar and Syntax is your call....just stay there. Logic is not your thing.
-"and you gasbag have elected yourself accuser, "
-I am just exposing your strawman.
You made an immoral and silly statement which also happens to be a war crime.
The reasons behind Truman's order are irrelevant to this discussion...its your excuse you gave to justify a criminal act of killing civilians with a weapon of mass destruction.
Pls start tap dancing on irrelevant topics and prove to everyone your dishonesty, immorality and irrationality....go!
No, you are exposing your idiotic thinking.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Based on what? Your dimwitted judgment.
You are very entertaining BEPO :rofl:
-"It's better to end a war as quickly as it can be ended."
-not by committing a war crime and killing people who do not participate actively.
You keep making the same immoral claim....and you are unable to realize it lol
-"Some soldiers are not volunteers..."
-I don't care about this irrelevant stupid argument.....I am interested in your immoral act to justify the use a weapon of mass destruction on civilians(women, kids, infants, old people, special needs etc).
Are seriously going to stand behind this position....do you want to change it like you did with your first slip on statistics?????
Based on the criteria we define the Laws of War and humanism. Two states might have differences and they might be irrational enough to engage, but to justify the mass killing of the population which is not taking part in the war you are just proving that you are not just irrational but an immoral thug too.
You just can't address the point in question. You are just incapable to have an honest conversation.
The point in question isn't whether ending a war is less preferable than war casualties.
We are exposing your immoral preference to end a war at all costs...even if it means to use weapons of mass destruction on civilians. Do you really stay behind your initial statement??????? (simple yes or no question).
Now...the dance floor is all yours......
Nothing I have typed is in support of war crimes you complete fool!
You just conflate and obfuscate because you are a dishonest person who holds up big shiny's to distract others
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It's merely your skewed projections that conclude I am doing what you suggest when in fact its just your own dishonesty and imbecilic interpretations which are surfacing. Your approach to logical interpretation is as sinister as the likes of Donald Trump and his rag tag bag of fake news peddlers.
Yes dimwit! When the choice is between the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the death of millions of innocent civilians and hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides. Which is what would have happened if the allies had to end the war with Japan through the invasion of its mainland. In that horrific reality, the choice would be as terrible as a numbers game.
In such a horrific circumstance would you vote for more civilian deaths than those caused by the two bombs? Yes or no Sherlock? Show us all your moral genius!
Here you are.
Quoting universeness
You are making the act of killing civilians a matter of preference. You are using a hypothetical as a made up better evil.
We are judging the act ..and you are trying to justified with hypotheticals.
You sound like American cops who violate people's rights in order to keep them safe and .....free.
I can not believe someone can be that stupid...I think you are a troll.
-False dichotomy, who told you that those are the only choices...and if they are acceptable to begin with.
THEY ARE NOT. You are confusing the fact that crimes are committed with your act making up excuses for them.
What it might have happened, doesn't mean that you need to force us to take a side!
This is the propaganda that Mass Media forced on us in Europe. "You need to agree with NATO's existential threat on Russia...or else you are in favor of Russian invasion".
Why on earth should I accept one of your "evils" mr Propaganda? I reject both from your hypothetical buffet of options and I make a judgement based our current laws.
Boy you are slow and damaged.
CRIMES are not a matter of preference and they are not justified by hypothetical future evil acts or crimes.
Seriously , how old are you????
"idiotic thinking", "you complete fool!", "Your dimwitted judgment", "you are a dishonest person", "are hilarious BEPO", "your own dishonesty", "your skewed projections", "Yes dimwit!", "your own dishonesty and imbecilic interpretations", "brain fog you suffer from", etc.
Now I know you are reversing the bullet (and his linguistic bullet carries way more contempt than yours!) but don't lower yourself to that boring, pseudo-logical, imbecillic, BEPO dimwit talk of that moronic gasbag! A single hole in the bag suffices! Psjsssshshsh.....
This is a philosophical forum. We reflect on moral evaluations on ACTUAL acts.
The prospect of a future crime doesn't make nuking civilians a preference...
If you interpret my typing above as advocating for war crimes then you simply demonstrate your idiotic thinking. Can you not read the words
'and goodness knows how many Japanese civilians'
did this not give you a clue that I was suggesting that more Japanese civilians would have died due to a full invasion of their mainlands compared to the number that died due to the two bombs.
Remove your BEPO costume, climb out your pram, put your big boy pants on and join the grownups!
Try this for a hypothetical:
Approximately 20 million civilians were killed in the soviet union in WW2 due to CONVENTIONAL WAR.
The Japanese culture of the 1940's was based on fanatical loyalty to the emperor.
Its not a simplistic hypothetical that millions of Japanese civilians would have died its very very likely that such would have been the case. I answered your yes or no question Sherlock are you too scared to answer mine? Don't hide behind your HypAthetical label.
-Again crimes are not a matter of preference. It is a crime to nuke civilians and it would be a crime to kill civilians in a full invasion. Put your ducks straight.
You never address or acknowledge the point made...you tap dance trying to appear as wiseguys....
:rofl: Good advice but I don't mind the sparring with such a poor logician.
Perhaps behind all the rhetoric and snorting, he is actually learning! We can only hope :smile:
Where is your evidence of the alternate choices available at the time BEPO?
Yeah Sherlock, human history has no relevance to philosophical musings. Another pearl of wisdom from the BEPO school of philosophy.
And you just engage in barefaced dishonesty!
NOT INTERESTED in how many were killed and how they were.
I am only pointing to the idiotic act of bringing it up as a dilemma and using it as a red herring to distract people from the point in question.
Mr Hillary, with his limited abilities thinks that Systematic Knowledge and the methods enabling them are responsible for Nuking people. You come alone and you being you.... tries to find excuses for that act.
So you both...being you...started from point A and ended up making up false dilemma on which crime is preferable, instead of explaining why conflating politics and economic interests with Knowledge is Kindergarten Philosophy
Argument from Ambiguity fallacy. Reflecting on the Historical implications of a event is History.
Reflecting on which act of Historical crime is preferable is Garbage Philosophy and its off topic.
Who cares what interests a fake interlocuter like you?
and if you truly don't care about such then you are nasty.
-They are irrelevant to the topic of discussion...but I guess you are not capable to understand it or your cognitive dissonance is trying to keep you away from it.
Another BEPO bleat from the philosophy of the naive.
You are here to promote your ego...not to learn.
I guess...YOU ARE DONE on this topic too.
You think you decide what's irrelevant to the topic of discussion and I will follow? :rofl:
I see you need help again. Are you trying to type: You're not going to answer are you?
How about an answer to my yes/no question sherlock!
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Yeah run away gasbag, run and hide in one of your inFerior designs!
I've repeated the topic over and over again. It was created by your respond to mr Hillary.
Hillary idiotically enough accused science to responsible for a specific GeoPolitical Applications of technology.
You came back with your silly argument "what crime do you prefer".
The answer to that is NONE. This is NOT a Historical course to analyze the possible scenarios.
If you are unable to understand that...then you are way too stupid on this subject to talk to sir.
I am not calling you stupid, we all are stupid in specific topics, but you happen to be on this one and anything that demands critical thinking.
Wiseguys? No way! We're the PantoTap Duo!
Dropping a fission bomb on a city full of citizens is no good!
You think that binary choice between two evils as the only choices available are not possible?
That's because you stick your ostrich-sized head in the sand and reject that human beings have had to face such dilemmas in REAL life. Its often called damned if you do damned if you don't. Your philosophical manipulations create your own self awarded license to handwave away such historical realities of the human condition which makes your philosophy completely compromised as it ignores inconvenient truths. Your philosophy is fake.
Politics and economic interests and knowledge, be it scientific, theological, or astrological, can't be logically separated and evaluated according to logic rules. Only in hindsight such separation can be made and history be logically reconstructed, giving a wrong and distorted picture of the actual story that happened.
Oh well, I think he has gone back to digging into the dirt with his hind legs and flicking the dirt backward whilst snorting that Bullnose at my 'Universeness' handle. I am sure he will be back to charge at any red flag he thinks or contrives that I have displayed!
:lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:
oh boy the level in here is way to low to waste any more of my time.
A powerful image! Logic-proof! :up: (almost wanted to place a heart emoticon..., oh, what the hell... :heart: ).
I see there are more god-based threads recently posted.
I thought you would have posted by now on
'The wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger'
The OP reads as something you might agree with.
I had a giggle at the thread reference as it was used by Bruce Lee at the start of 'Enter the Dragon.'
I quoted it for a point I was trying to make on a thread a while ago and I got told off by @180 Proof for using quotes from Bruce Lee on TPF :lol:
Bruce Lee was a great panto philosopher! Looking beyond his finger directly to the opponent. It would indeed be foolish to look at his finger!
What thread?
When I stand on my hands, it's you who is low. :lol:
I just told you! Its called:
Quoting universeness
Ah! That's the name. I thought it was a comment. My reading skills deteriorate, brother Uni... Ill take a look!
Don't forget to sing along to my drifter's song as you read the OP!
:lol:
All together now: "PLEASE STAY, DEAR NICKERLESS, DON'T LEAVE ME STANDING IN THE RAIN..." Oops, wrong song! Ill remember! :halo:
:up: You wiseguy you! :naughty:
:lol: