Discussion:
We scientists don't believe in God....
Add Reply
GLOBALIST
2017-10-05 00:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Loading Image...
b***@gmail.com
2017-10-05 08:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-05 10:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
What kind of scientists would those be? Precious few
physical or evolutionary scientists, I would imagine, unless
they got their degrees from some hokey religion-affiliated
pseudo-science outfit.
El Castor
2017-10-05 18:41:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
What kind of scientists would those be? Precious few
physical or evolutionary scientists, I would imagine, unless
they got their degrees from some hokey religion-affiliated
pseudo-science outfit.
"Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including
"agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in
"Spinoza's God". Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most
difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply
with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast
for our limited minds.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
GLOBALIST
2017-10-05 18:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
What kind of scientists would those be? Precious few
physical or evolutionary scientists, I would imagine, unless
they got their degrees from some hokey religion-affiliated
pseudo-science outfit.
"Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including
"agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in
"Spinoza's God". Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most
difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply
with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast
for our limited minds.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
Now that is the sign of a really intelligent man.
None of this: "My aunt Prudence hit me on the head
with her Bible one day and ever since then I have
hated God."
Bill Bowden
2017-10-05 22:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
What kind of scientists would those be? Precious few
physical or evolutionary scientists, I would imagine, unless
they got their degrees from some hokey religion-affiliated
pseudo-science outfit.
"Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including
"agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in
"Spinoza's God". Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most
difficult in the world"-a question that could not be answered "simply
with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast
for our limited minds.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
That's exactly right. The problem of infinity in the past is too complex for
our simple minds. If the universe began 13 billion years ago, what existed
before that? If God created the universe 13 billion years ago, what was he
doing before that? Why did God decide one day to create a universe where
there was nothing before? And how far does 'before' extend into the past? If
time is infinite going into the future and the past, how did we get to the
present from an infinite point in the past? The problem is not
comprehensible.
El Castor
2017-10-06 03:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:42:25 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
What kind of scientists would those be? Precious few
physical or evolutionary scientists, I would imagine, unless
they got their degrees from some hokey religion-affiliated
pseudo-science outfit.
"Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including
"agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in
"Spinoza's God". Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most
difficult in the world"-a question that could not be answered "simply
with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast
for our limited minds.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
That's exactly right. The problem of infinity in the past is too complex for
our simple minds. If the universe began 13 billion years ago, what existed
before that? If God created the universe 13 billion years ago, what was he
doing before that? Why did God decide one day to create a universe where
there was nothing before? And how far does 'before' extend into the past? If
time is infinite going into the future and the past, how did we get to the
present from an infinite point in the past? The problem is not
comprehensible.
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
m***@gmail.com
2017-10-06 05:27:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.

The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.

If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
El Castor
2017-10-06 07:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
m***@gmail.com
2017-10-06 08:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?

1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"

2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".

3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.

I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.

Does this answer your question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-06 16:07:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?
1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"
2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".
3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.
I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.
As El Castor noted, religious people would be OK as
long as they didn't use their religion to hurt other people.
Unfortunately, as history has shown, from ancient
massacres, to the massacre of the Huguenots, to
slave-trading, to persecution and murder of
homosexuals, to the Irish "troubles", hurting other
people is all too often exactly what religious people
"do" and manage to justify through their "faith".

That tendency is endemic to the nature of "faith"
IMO, not just an "accident" that keeps getting repeated.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Does this answer your question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
El Castor
2017-10-06 18:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?
1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"
2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".
3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.
I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.
As El Castor noted, religious people would be OK as
long as they didn't use their religion to hurt other people.
Unfortunately, as history has shown, from ancient
massacres, to the massacre of the Huguenots, to
slave-trading, to persecution and murder of
homosexuals, to the Irish "troubles", hurting other
people is all too often exactly what religious people
"do" and manage to justify through their "faith".
That tendency is endemic to the nature of "faith"
IMO, not just an "accident" that keeps getting repeated.
Keep in mind that this is the 21st century. People should be judged
based on what they believe and do now -- not what someone else did
200, 500, or 1,000 years ago. Christianity has gone through a
reformation and enlightenment. The Spanish Inquisition was shut down
when Andrew Jackson was president. On the other hand, your British
ancestors committed horrendous atrocities in Africa and India much
more recently. Are you to blame? Should you be the object of derision
and hatred? Of course there is the occasional Christian or British
loon, but both, as a group, have seen the error of their ways, so give
them, and yourself, a break. The past is past. Concern yourself with
the present.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-06 21:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 11:59:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?
1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"
2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".
3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.
I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.
As El Castor noted, religious people would be OK as
long as they didn't use their religion to hurt other people.
Unfortunately, as history has shown, from ancient
massacres, to the massacre of the Huguenots, to
slave-trading, to persecution and murder of
homosexuals, to the Irish "troubles", hurting other
people is all too often exactly what religious people
"do" and manage to justify through their "faith".
That tendency is endemic to the nature of "faith"
IMO, not just an "accident" that keeps getting repeated.
Keep in mind that this is the 21st century. People should be judged
based on what they believe and do now -- not what someone else did
200, 500, or 1,000 years ago. Christianity has gone through a
reformation and enlightenment.
Not enough. Most straight people are at least a little anti-gay,
and most white people are at least a little anti-black. Christianity
is better now than it was not because of Christianity, but ONLY
because not many people really believe it any more. If it were
completely gone, that would be best, because the seeds of evil
within it are intrinsic, IMV.
Post by El Castor
The Spanish Inquisition was shut down
when Andrew Jackson was president. On the other hand, your British
ancestors committed horrendous atrocities in Africa and India much
more recently. Are you to blame?
I don't feel I'm to blame, because I'm nowhere near as bad as
they were, but they were to blame, and people who still think
the way they did are to blame.
Post by El Castor
Should you be the object of derision
and hatred?
You can do what you want. I've built up my defenses,
which have been adequate for my life since I was 30.
They weren't adequate for my adolescence and early
adulthood, when my self-esteem was completely
destroyed. I still bear the scars of that, and the fault
of it lies, not completely, but very much - probably more
than 50% - with what was left of Christianity when I was
younger.
Post by El Castor
Of course there is the occasional Christian or British
loon, but both, as a group, have seen the error of their ways, so give
them, and yourself, a break. The past is past. Concern yourself with
the present.
No Christian can really be trusted, IMV. The seeds of
evil are within them. Fortunately I don't know any
Christians well (and that, of course, is not an accident).
You can think whatever you want about that, I don't care.
El Castor
2017-10-07 00:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 11:59:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?
1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"
2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".
3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.
I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.
As El Castor noted, religious people would be OK as
long as they didn't use their religion to hurt other people.
Unfortunately, as history has shown, from ancient
massacres, to the massacre of the Huguenots, to
slave-trading, to persecution and murder of
homosexuals, to the Irish "troubles", hurting other
people is all too often exactly what religious people
"do" and manage to justify through their "faith".
That tendency is endemic to the nature of "faith"
IMO, not just an "accident" that keeps getting repeated.
Keep in mind that this is the 21st century. People should be judged
based on what they believe and do now -- not what someone else did
200, 500, or 1,000 years ago. Christianity has gone through a
reformation and enlightenment.
Not enough. Most straight people are at least a little anti-gay,
and most white people are at least a little anti-black. Christianity
is better now than it was not because of Christianity, but ONLY
because not many people really believe it any more. If it were
completely gone, that would be best, because the seeds of evil
within it are intrinsic, IMV.
Post by El Castor
The Spanish Inquisition was shut down
when Andrew Jackson was president. On the other hand, your British
ancestors committed horrendous atrocities in Africa and India much
more recently. Are you to blame?
I don't feel I'm to blame, because I'm nowhere near as bad as
they were, but they were to blame, and people who still think
the way they did are to blame.
Post by El Castor
Should you be the object of derision
and hatred?
You can do what you want. I've built up my defenses,
which have been adequate for my life since I was 30.
They weren't adequate for my adolescence and early
adulthood, when my self-esteem was completely
destroyed. I still bear the scars of that, and the fault
of it lies, not completely, but very much - probably more
than 50% - with what was left of Christianity when I was
younger.
Post by El Castor
Of course there is the occasional Christian or British
loon, but both, as a group, have seen the error of their ways, so give
them, and yourself, a break. The past is past. Concern yourself with
the present.
No Christian can really be trusted, IMV. The seeds of
evil are within them. Fortunately I don't know any
Christians well (and that, of course, is not an accident).
You can think whatever you want about that, I don't care.
Same here.
El Castor
2017-10-06 18:33:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?
1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"
2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".
3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.
I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.
Does this answer your question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
No.
b***@gmail.com
2017-10-06 18:50:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?
1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"
2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".
3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.
I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.
Does this answer your question?
No.
Hmmmmmm. Having read the comments, I would add there should have been
a fourth category- agnosticism. That is when asked about "God" the person
knows what is being talked about and answers "I don't know if such exists"

What is about M's reply you don't understand?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-06 21:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?
1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"
2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".
3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.
I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.
Does this answer your question?
No.
Hmmmmmm. Having read the comments, I would add there should have been
a fourth category- agnosticism. That is when asked about "God" the person
knows what is being talked about and answers "I don't know if such exists"
I'm very sure that Neverland and Peter and Wendy exist.
Those who have not worshipped correctly will suffer the
consequences in the afterlife, of the grief of being
unallowed to enter the gates of Neverland.
Post by b***@gmail.com
What is about M's reply you don't understand?
El Castor
2017-10-07 00:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Let's review, shall we?
1) Theist: When "God" is mentioned, the individual understands and
says he believes in a "God"
2) Atheist: When "God" is mentioned,the individual understands and
says he does not believe in "God".
3) Ignostic: When "God" is mentioned, the individual doesn't understand
what is being talked about.
I lean towards #3. Most of the time when theists discuss "God",
they ascribe all sorts of properties to this being that are fantastical
and unknowable and the probability of such a being existing is very
close to zero. Having said that, I have no problem with those who
"believe" ie, have "faith"- it just seems to me to be puzzling.
Does this answer your question?
No.
Hmmmmmm. Having read the comments, I would add there should have been
a fourth category- agnosticism. That is when asked about "God" the person
knows what is being talked about and answers "I don't know if such exists"
What is about M's reply you don't understand?
I can accept belief, disbelief, and I don't know. M's ignosticism is
just an attempt to be annoying and evasive. Not worthy of any more
than he got.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-06 09:25:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
El Castor
2017-10-06 19:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
Or, maybe you exist in a computer simulation, and a supreme AI will
transfer your essence to the Good Place, or ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-06 21:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
Or, maybe you exist in a computer simulation, and a supreme AI will
transfer your essence to the Good Place, or ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
El Castor
2017-10-07 21:49:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
Or, maybe you exist in a computer simulation, and a supreme AI will
transfer your essence to the Good Place, or ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-07 23:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
Or, maybe you exist in a computer simulation, and a supreme AI will
transfer your essence to the Good Place, or ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Bill Bowden
2017-10-08 00:14:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-08 03:23:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
El Castor
2017-10-08 20:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath? That's it?
What came before the Big Bang? What's next? Might there be other Big
Bangs stretching off into infinity? Other dimensions? Other universes
where our concept of physics doesn't apply?

On a different topic ...
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-09 00:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Post by El Castor
That's it?
What came before the Big Bang?
Time for our universe began with the "Big Bang",
unless as mentioned above we find something else.
Time for this universe will end, as Bill Bowden noted
in a more diffuse manner, with the "heat death" of
this universe in the unimaginable future, when all
black holes have evaporated and all that's left is
photons (which do not experience time) so far
apart that they never interact.

If there are other "universes" with their own
time or some other characteristics in place of time,
then we don't know about them. In my uninformed
opinion we never will, because they're not the same
stuff and they don't occupy "our space" so we never
can "bump into" them. I'll leave some possibility
open that there might be other universes that can
interact with ours, but that seems to be vanishingly
improbabable to me. As to how their "time" or
whatever they have that can be related in somr
way to our "time", it doesn't.
Post by El Castor
What's next? Might there be other Big
Bangs stretching off into infinity? Other dimensions? Other universes
where our concept of physics doesn't apply?
Already happening IMV, except that "already" is
a faulty word in this context. Maybe "happening"
is faulty too. It's still an open question whether
time really "moves". For myself I'm partial to
the opinion that it doesn't move. It's all there
all the "time". Napoleon is invading Russia "right
now", the first contact with extraterrestrials is
happening "right now", and the beginning and
end of our universe are happening "right now".
Post by El Castor
On a different topic ...
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
As I mentioned before, saying that we live in something
analogous to a computer simulation is merely a matter of
perspective. Since we don't know what anything "IS",
including matter, energy, space, and time, (even if "IS"
makes sense, which it probably doesn't) then you can
model things any way you want that produces results that
can make predictions, whether predictions of whether
you can catch a rabbit with your fangs or predictions
about the orbit of Mercury.
El Castor
2017-10-09 07:13:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...

"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html

The theory is basically that the current expansion will be followed by
a contraction -- and another expansion. Perhaps something foresaw the
end, and elected to survive?
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
That's it?
What came before the Big Bang?
Time for our universe began with the "Big Bang",
unless as mentioned above we find something else.
Time for this universe will end, as Bill Bowden noted
in a more diffuse manner, with the "heat death" of
this universe in the unimaginable future, when all
black holes have evaporated and all that's left is
photons (which do not experience time) so far
apart that they never interact.
If there are other "universes" with their own
time or some other characteristics in place of time,
then we don't know about them. In my uninformed
opinion we never will, because they're not the same
stuff and they don't occupy "our space" so we never
can "bump into" them. I'll leave some possibility
open that there might be other universes that can
interact with ours, but that seems to be vanishingly
improbabable to me. As to how their "time" or
whatever they have that can be related in somr
way to our "time", it doesn't.
Post by El Castor
What's next? Might there be other Big
Bangs stretching off into infinity? Other dimensions? Other universes
where our concept of physics doesn't apply?
Already happening IMV, except that "already" is
a faulty word in this context. Maybe "happening"
is faulty too. It's still an open question whether
time really "moves". For myself I'm partial to
the opinion that it doesn't move. It's all there
all the "time". Napoleon is invading Russia "right
now", the first contact with extraterrestrials is
happening "right now", and the beginning and
end of our universe are happening "right now".
Post by El Castor
On a different topic ...
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
As I mentioned before, saying that we live in something
analogous to a computer simulation is merely a matter of
perspective. Since we don't know what anything "IS",
including matter, energy, space, and time, (even if "IS"
makes sense, which it probably doesn't) then you can
model things any way you want that produces results that
can make predictions, whether predictions of whether
you can catch a rabbit with your fangs or predictions
about the orbit of Mercury.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-09 10:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
Post by El Castor
The theory is basically that the current expansion will be followed by
a contraction -- and another expansion. Perhaps something foresaw the
end, and elected to survive?
<snip>
El Castor
2017-10-09 18:08:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.

Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
The theory is basically that the current expansion will be followed by
a contraction -- and another expansion. Perhaps something foresaw the
end, and elected to survive?
<snip>
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-10 00:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
The theory is basically that the current expansion will be followed by
a contraction -- and another expansion. Perhaps something foresaw the
end, and elected to survive?
<snip>
El Castor
2017-10-10 08:13:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
The theory is basically that the current expansion will be followed by
a contraction -- and another expansion. Perhaps something foresaw the
end, and elected to survive?
<snip>
islander
2017-10-10 13:26:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”

Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by El Castor
The theory is basically that the current expansion will be followed by
a contraction -- and another expansion. Perhaps something foresaw the
end, and elected to survive?
<snip>
El Castor
2017-10-10 19:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?

Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
islander
2017-10-11 14:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.

As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
d***@gmail.com
2017-10-11 17:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"We are scientists, we don't believe in God" is an irrational statement from the standpoint of formal logic. I'll go into that if anyone is interested. I'm a geophysicist, long retired, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had two close friends, a geologist and a chemist, who were practicing Catholics. (I'm a largely nonpracticing Catholic.)

Currently there is an interesting controversy between proponents of Darwinian Evolution and proponents of Creative Design. Scientists in the second group contend that Evolution does not provide an adequate explanation of the origin of life, whereas scientists in the first group denounce the second group as religious Creationists. I think it is fair to characterise the first group as materialists who reject the very idea of creation, and the second group as religious people who accept the idea of creation. My mind is open to either Evolution or CD or some combination of both. In fact, I'm inclined to think of energy and matter as electrical phenomena.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-10-11 19:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
"We are scientists, we don't believe in God" is an irrational statement from the standpoint of formal logic. I'll go into that if anyone is interested. I'm a geophysicist, long retired, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had two close friends, a geologist and a chemist, who were practicing Catholics. (I'm a largely nonpracticing Catholic.)
Currently there is an interesting controversy between proponents of Darwinian Evolution and proponents of Creative Design. Scientists in the second group contend that Evolution does not provide an adequate explanation of the origin of life, whereas scientists in the first group denounce the second group as religious Creationists. I think it is fair to characterise the first group as materialists who reject the very idea of creation, and the second group as religious people who accept the idea of creation. My mind is open to either Evolution or CD or some combination of both. In fact, I'm inclined to think of energy and matter as electrical phenomena.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I tend to like Stephen Jay Gould's explanation as described in his 1999
book, *Rocks of Ages.* I don't agree with him, but his insight into
what he defines as two non-overlapping magisteria makes sense.
Essentially, if a belief is testable, it is science and if not it can
only be taken as faith. He argues for the latter as a legitimate field
of study relating to meaning and moral value. There are some great
debates between him and well known atheists.

The bottom line is that you don't have to be stupid to believe in some
form of a supreme being. In fact, it may just be a consequence of the
need for something to replace the social structure of hunter-gatherers
with that needed by the more complex civilization made possible by the
introduction of agriculture, a consequence of the more benign climate of
the Holocene. See *Big Gods* by Norenzayan.

As an aside, did you know Lowell Wood at LLNL? I knew him from the '80s.
d***@gmail.com
2017-10-11 20:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello Islander. No, I didn't know Lowell Wood, but I DID know someone who knew him.☺ He was one of the mythical beings at the Lab.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-10-12 15:39:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hello Islander. No, I didn't know Lowell Wood, but I DID know someone who knew him.☺ He was one of the mythical beings at the Lab.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Lowell was so far outside the box that he was scary. I first met him in
the early '80s. The only time that we could arrange was on a weekend,
so the place was pretty much shut down. He took me around to see the
nuclear fusion projects, but didn't have the keys to access those labs
so he systematically picked the locks to gain entry. Pretty impressive
projects, but their security was clearly not very good!

Subsequent to that, I talked with him several times about the Strategic
Space Initiative (Star Wars). He opposed the DARPA program
investigating semiconductor technologies that are radiation tolerant and
at one meeting he described all-out nuclear war with lots of weapons
going off with the phrase "poppity pop pop." Chilling!

IIRC, he was a strong advocate of nuclear pumped lasers as a space-based
weapon. Project Excalibur. Never mind the impossible aiming problem!

Later, he was an advocate of protecting the earth from asteroids with
nuclear weapons and later still the building of small nuclear power
plants that would run unattended for decades and then self-destruct,
sealing itself in a glass sarcophagus formed of melted sand.

Definitely a mythical being!
El Castor
2017-10-12 06:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
"We are scientists, we don't believe in God" is an irrational statement from the standpoint of formal logic. I'll go into that if anyone is interested. I'm a geophysicist, long retired, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had two close friends, a geologist and a chemist, who were practicing Catholics. (I'm a largely nonpracticing Catholic.)
Currently there is an interesting controversy between proponents of Darwinian Evolution and proponents of Creative Design. Scientists in the second group contend that Evolution does not provide an adequate explanation of the origin of life, whereas scientists in the first group denounce the second group as religious Creationists. I think it is fair to characterise the first group as materialists who reject the very idea of creation, and the second group as religious people who accept the idea of creation. My mind is open to either Evolution or CD or some combination of both. In fact, I'm inclined to think of energy and matter as electrical phenomena.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Nice answer. I think we all need to develop a personal answer to that
question. For me, a simple No closes the door on an important issue. I
see no harm in leaving it open a crack.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 07:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:42:11 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@gmail.com
"We are scientists, we don't believe in God" is an irrational statement from the standpoint of formal logic. I'll go into that if anyone is interested. I'm a geophysicist, long retired, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had two close friends, a geologist and a chemist, who were practicing Catholics. (I'm a largely nonpracticing Catholic.)
Currently there is an interesting controversy between proponents of Darwinian Evolution and proponents of Creative Design. Scientists in the second group contend that Evolution does not provide an adequate explanation of the origin of life, whereas scientists in the first group denounce the second group as religious Creationists. I think it is fair to characterise the first group as materialists who reject the very idea of creation, and the second group as religious people who accept the idea of creation. My mind is open to either Evolution or CD or some combination of both. In fact, I'm inclined to think of energy and matter as electrical phenomena.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Nice answer. I think we all need to develop a personal answer to that
question. For me, a simple No closes the door on an important issue. I
see no harm in leaving it open a crack.
A personal answer that disregards fairness to others
and compassion for the problems that others encounter
in their lives is far worse than no answer at all.
El Castor
2017-10-12 20:26:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:42:11 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@gmail.com
"We are scientists, we don't believe in God" is an irrational statement from the standpoint of formal logic. I'll go into that if anyone is interested. I'm a geophysicist, long retired, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had two close friends, a geologist and a chemist, who were practicing Catholics. (I'm a largely nonpracticing Catholic.)
Currently there is an interesting controversy between proponents of Darwinian Evolution and proponents of Creative Design. Scientists in the second group contend that Evolution does not provide an adequate explanation of the origin of life, whereas scientists in the first group denounce the second group as religious Creationists. I think it is fair to characterise the first group as materialists who reject the very idea of creation, and the second group as religious people who accept the idea of creation. My mind is open to either Evolution or CD or some combination of both. In fact, I'm inclined to think of energy and matter as electrical phenomena.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Nice answer. I think we all need to develop a personal answer to that
question. For me, a simple No closes the door on an important issue. I
see no harm in leaving it open a crack.
A personal answer that disregards fairness to others
and compassion for the problems that others encounter
in their lives is far worse than no answer at all.
Some religions have a problem with Gays. Boo hoo. I guess for you the
world turns on that issue.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 21:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:26:49 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:42:11 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by d***@gmail.com
"We are scientists, we don't believe in God" is an irrational statement from the standpoint of formal logic. I'll go into that if anyone is interested. I'm a geophysicist, long retired, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had two close friends, a geologist and a chemist, who were practicing Catholics. (I'm a largely nonpracticing Catholic.)
Currently there is an interesting controversy between proponents of Darwinian Evolution and proponents of Creative Design. Scientists in the second group contend that Evolution does not provide an adequate explanation of the origin of life, whereas scientists in the first group denounce the second group as religious Creationists. I think it is fair to characterise the first group as materialists who reject the very idea of creation, and the second group as religious people who accept the idea of creation. My mind is open to either Evolution or CD or some combination of both. In fact, I'm inclined to think of energy and matter as electrical phenomena.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Nice answer. I think we all need to develop a personal answer to that
question. For me, a simple No closes the door on an important issue. I
see no harm in leaving it open a crack.
A personal answer that disregards fairness to others
and compassion for the problems that others encounter
in their lives is far worse than no answer at all.
Some religions have a problem with Gays. Boo hoo. I guess for you the
world turns on that issue.
Fair enough, I have a problem with religions,
and I wouldn't even WANT them on my side.
That doesn't mean I'm going to let them ride
roughshod over me without speaking up.
Do you know of any religions that have a
problem with right-wing bigots? I don't think
I've heard of any, but maybe Buddhism has
a problem with them.
d***@gmail.com
2017-10-12 07:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I agree, Castor, and I'm disappointed that the Evolutionists and Creative Designers are engaged in debate rather than reflection. But I think the mind is basically emotional and it only relies on reason to get what it wants. ☺

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-10-12 15:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
I agree, Castor, and I'm disappointed that the Evolutionists and Creative Designers are engaged in debate rather than reflection. But I think the mind is basically emotional and it only relies on reason to get what it wants. ☺
Eugene FitzAubrey
Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 16:01:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
I agree, Castor, and I'm disappointed that the Evolutionists and Creative Designers are engaged in debate rather than reflection. But I think the mind is basically emotional and it only relies on reason to get what it wants. ?
Eugene FitzAubrey
Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.
As I often say, "Most reason is rationalization."
islander
2017-10-12 16:21:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
I agree, Castor, and I'm disappointed that the Evolutionists and Creative Designers are engaged in debate rather than reflection. But I think the mind is basically emotional and it only relies on reason to get what it wants. ?
Eugene FitzAubrey
Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.
As I often say, "Most reason is rationalization."
That is fundamentally a survival instinct and is supported by modern
psychology. Of course, it also suffers from a fundamental flaw as a
survival instinct in that simply amplifying preconceived beliefs can
also increase risk if the beliefs are flawed in the first place.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 19:45:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
I agree, Castor, and I'm disappointed that the Evolutionists and Creative Designers are engaged in debate rather than reflection. But I think the mind is basically emotional and it only relies on reason to get what it wants. ?
Eugene FitzAubrey
Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.
As I often say, "Most reason is rationalization."
That is fundamentally a survival instinct and is supported by modern
psychology. Of course, it also suffers from a fundamental flaw as a
survival instinct in that simply amplifying preconceived beliefs can
also increase risk if the beliefs are flawed in the first place.
I was just this morning checking out public faith in the
pharmaceutical industry in the USA, which is very low and
getting lower. What prompted me to do that is I just had
a procedure at the hospital, and two drugs were
prescribed as I was leaving. My son dealt with the drugs
and picked up the one that was low-priced, but thankfully
he refused the second which was Metformin at $208.
I'm glad he refused because I'm already taking Metformin
and it only costs me $5 or $10. Both those prices are at
Kaiser, and I guess the outpatient $208 price doesn't
account for the fact that all my Medicare part A and B
disbursements go to Kaiser.

My son mentioned that even though he didn't accept the
Metformin, he saw that it was added to a list. I won't
need a refill of Metformin for quite a while, but this morning
I checked my Kaiser Formulary this morning, saw that
Metformin was on it as a "new" prescription, and called to
cancel that. After that, I checked again and saw that
Metformin was on my formulary, but as "available to fill",
not "available to REfill". So the next time I order
Metformin, I'll go to the pharmacy for it rather than having
it mailed. If I got charged $208 by mail, Kaiser would
probably correct the amount, but maybe not. If I go to the
pharmacy, I can refuse to accept the order on the spot and
thereby avoid any possible hassles.
islander
2017-10-13 14:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
I agree, Castor, and I'm disappointed that the Evolutionists and Creative Designers are engaged in debate rather than reflection. But I think the mind is basically emotional and it only relies on reason to get what it wants. ?
Eugene FitzAubrey
Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.
As I often say, "Most reason is rationalization."
That is fundamentally a survival instinct and is supported by modern
psychology. Of course, it also suffers from a fundamental flaw as a
survival instinct in that simply amplifying preconceived beliefs can
also increase risk if the beliefs are flawed in the first place.
I was just this morning checking out public faith in the
pharmaceutical industry in the USA, which is very low and
getting lower. What prompted me to do that is I just had
a procedure at the hospital, and two drugs were
prescribed as I was leaving. My son dealt with the drugs
and picked up the one that was low-priced, but thankfully
he refused the second which was Metformin at $208.
I'm glad he refused because I'm already taking Metformin
and it only costs me $5 or $10. Both those prices are at
Kaiser, and I guess the outpatient $208 price doesn't
account for the fact that all my Medicare part A and B
disbursements go to Kaiser.
My son mentioned that even though he didn't accept the
Metformin, he saw that it was added to a list. I won't
need a refill of Metformin for quite a while, but this morning
I checked my Kaiser Formulary this morning, saw that
Metformin was on it as a "new" prescription, and called to
cancel that. After that, I checked again and saw that
Metformin was on my formulary, but as "available to fill",
not "available to REfill". So the next time I order
Metformin, I'll go to the pharmacy for it rather than having
it mailed. If I got charged $208 by mail, Kaiser would
probably correct the amount, but maybe not. If I go to the
pharmacy, I can refuse to accept the order on the spot and
thereby avoid any possible hassles.
My wife and I get our drugs through a supplementary insurance plan with
Blue Shield and they just changed their mail order supplier to CVS. It
has been nothing but trouble ever since. They may be less expensive for
Blue Shield, but they clearly don't worry much about hassle to the
customer. I've changed most of my prescriptions to our local pharmacy
which seems to be able to deal with Blue Shield, but with the
complication that Blue Shield will only allow them to dispense a 30 day
supply. They allow CVS to dispense a 90 day supply which I prefer.
That is a blatant attempt to steer customers to their preferred
supplier, IMV. Still, CVS is enough of a hassle that I am willing to
deal with having to remember to renew my prescriptions before I run out
every month. Grumble!
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-13 16:25:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
I agree, Castor, and I'm disappointed that the Evolutionists and Creative Designers are engaged in debate rather than reflection. But I think the mind is basically emotional and it only relies on reason to get what it wants. ?
Eugene FitzAubrey
Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.
As I often say, "Most reason is rationalization."
That is fundamentally a survival instinct and is supported by modern
psychology. Of course, it also suffers from a fundamental flaw as a
survival instinct in that simply amplifying preconceived beliefs can
also increase risk if the beliefs are flawed in the first place.
I was just this morning checking out public faith in the
pharmaceutical industry in the USA, which is very low and
getting lower. What prompted me to do that is I just had
a procedure at the hospital, and two drugs were
prescribed as I was leaving. My son dealt with the drugs
and picked up the one that was low-priced, but thankfully
he refused the second which was Metformin at $208.
I'm glad he refused because I'm already taking Metformin
and it only costs me $5 or $10. Both those prices are at
Kaiser, and I guess the outpatient $208 price doesn't
account for the fact that all my Medicare part A and B
disbursements go to Kaiser.
My son mentioned that even though he didn't accept the
Metformin, he saw that it was added to a list. I won't
need a refill of Metformin for quite a while, but this morning
I checked my Kaiser Formulary this morning, saw that
Metformin was on it as a "new" prescription, and called to
cancel that. After that, I checked again and saw that
Metformin was on my formulary, but as "available to fill",
not "available to REfill". So the next time I order
Metformin, I'll go to the pharmacy for it rather than having
it mailed. If I got charged $208 by mail, Kaiser would
probably correct the amount, but maybe not. If I go to the
pharmacy, I can refuse to accept the order on the spot and
thereby avoid any possible hassles.
My wife and I get our drugs through a supplementary insurance plan with
Blue Shield and they just changed their mail order supplier to CVS. It
has been nothing but trouble ever since. They may be less expensive for
Blue Shield, but they clearly don't worry much about hassle to the
customer. I've changed most of my prescriptions to our local pharmacy
which seems to be able to deal with Blue Shield, but with the
complication that Blue Shield will only allow them to dispense a 30 day
supply. They allow CVS to dispense a 90 day supply which I prefer.
That is a blatant attempt to steer customers to their preferred
supplier, IMV. Still, CVS is enough of a hassle that I am willing to
deal with having to remember to renew my prescriptions before I run out
every month. Grumble!
I'm lucky enough to be able to get prescriptions mailed to me
from Kaiser, and also be only a 20-minute bus ride from the
Kaiser pharmacy. I am wary though, because Kaiser says that
once it mails drugs to you, they can't be returned. I was at
the pharmacy itself once and Kaiser tried to charge me $30 for
Retin-A, for which I have a prescription and it only costs me
$5 or $10. I objected, and the pharmacy guy checked with his
superiors and corrected the price. I'm not really sure what
would have happened if the Retin-A had been mailed to me
instead though. Since the outpatient cost for Metformin
was $208 whereas my prescription for it as covered by my
Medicare contributions is only $10 or $20, and since there's
now a suspicious change in the verbiage in my formulary,
I'm not willing to take a $208 risk that the price of my
Metformin is back to normal now, and I do intend to go to
the pharmacy itself the next time I need to refill my
Metformin. In fact, this experience with outpatient trying
to charge me $208 is making me nervous about getting
my prescriptions mailed to me at all, though mailing is
doubtless cheaper for Kaiser so I'm sure Kaiser wouldn't
deliberately want to make me nervous.

There's no way to delay that trouble coming every
day, as Frank Zappa sang.
El Castor
2017-10-12 06:36:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 07:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
I don't know anything about DSA or Antifa, including
whether or not they even "have" members. I also
don't care. I do know the Republican and Democratic
parties have "members". Since I've contributed to
Democratic candidates but never to Republican ones,
I suppose that makes me a "Democrat", though not
by complete conviction but only as the lesser of two
evils. I do have faith in Elizabeth Warren and
Bernie Sanders as people whose hearts are at least
in "the right place", though when one is struggling
up a hill trying to dodge boulders thrown down by
monsters, it's hard not to give most of one's attention
to the monsters and the boulders.
El Castor
2017-10-12 20:31:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
I don't know anything about DSA or Antifa, including
whether or not they even "have" members. I also
don't care. I do know the Republican and Democratic
parties have "members". Since I've contributed to
Democratic candidates but never to Republican ones,
I suppose that makes me a "Democrat", though not
by complete conviction but only as the lesser of two
evils. I do have faith in Elizabeth Warren and
Bernie Sanders as people whose hearts are at least
in "the right place", though when one is struggling
up a hill trying to dodge boulders thrown down by
monsters, it's hard not to give most of one's attention
to the monsters and the boulders.
Sanders is a socialist, and at least philosophically I suspect
Pocahontas is too. Don't be afraid to embrace what you are. Yes, the
DSA has dues paying members. I am sure they would be glad to have you.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 21:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:31:01 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
I don't know anything about DSA or Antifa, including
whether or not they even "have" members. I also
don't care. I do know the Republican and Democratic
parties have "members". Since I've contributed to
Democratic candidates but never to Republican ones,
I suppose that makes me a "Democrat", though not
by complete conviction but only as the lesser of two
evils. I do have faith in Elizabeth Warren and
Bernie Sanders as people whose hearts are at least
in "the right place", though when one is struggling
up a hill trying to dodge boulders thrown down by
monsters, it's hard not to give most of one's attention
to the monsters and the boulders.
Sanders is a socialist, and at least philosophically I suspect
Pocahontas is too. Don't be afraid to embrace what you are. Yes, the
DSA has dues paying members. I am sure they would be glad to have you.
I never heard of them before you mentioned them.
I'm not a "joiner" though, even if I agreed with them,
which perhaps I might. Do they have parties, with
cakes?
El Castor
2017-10-13 20:23:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:31:01 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
I don't know anything about DSA or Antifa, including
whether or not they even "have" members. I also
don't care. I do know the Republican and Democratic
parties have "members". Since I've contributed to
Democratic candidates but never to Republican ones,
I suppose that makes me a "Democrat", though not
by complete conviction but only as the lesser of two
evils. I do have faith in Elizabeth Warren and
Bernie Sanders as people whose hearts are at least
in "the right place", though when one is struggling
up a hill trying to dodge boulders thrown down by
monsters, it's hard not to give most of one's attention
to the monsters and the boulders.
Sanders is a socialist, and at least philosophically I suspect
Pocahontas is too. Don't be afraid to embrace what you are. Yes, the
DSA has dues paying members. I am sure they would be glad to have you.
I never heard of them before you mentioned them.
I'm not a "joiner" though, even if I agreed with them,
which perhaps I might. Do they have parties, with
cakes?
Could be wrong, but I think Chamblee was a member. If they have cakes,
probably only red velvet with pink frosting. Anyhow, no need to join.
The Democrat Party has become a sister institution.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-14 01:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:23:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:31:01 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
I don't know anything about DSA or Antifa, including
whether or not they even "have" members. I also
don't care. I do know the Republican and Democratic
parties have "members". Since I've contributed to
Democratic candidates but never to Republican ones,
I suppose that makes me a "Democrat", though not
by complete conviction but only as the lesser of two
evils. I do have faith in Elizabeth Warren and
Bernie Sanders as people whose hearts are at least
in "the right place", though when one is struggling
up a hill trying to dodge boulders thrown down by
monsters, it's hard not to give most of one's attention
to the monsters and the boulders.
Sanders is a socialist, and at least philosophically I suspect
Pocahontas is too. Don't be afraid to embrace what you are. Yes, the
DSA has dues paying members. I am sure they would be glad to have you.
I never heard of them before you mentioned them.
I'm not a "joiner" though, even if I agreed with them,
which perhaps I might. Do they have parties, with
cakes?
Could be wrong, but I think Chamblee was a member. If they have cakes,
probably only red velvet with pink frosting. Anyhow, no need to join.
The Democrat Party has become a sister institution.
I'm not a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party
either, if they have cards.
islander
2017-10-12 15:48:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
El Castor
2017-10-12 20:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8

On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
islander
2017-10-13 14:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
El Castor
2017-10-13 20:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
d***@gmail.com
2017-10-13 21:34:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I heard the name of (Jim) Chamblee, of fond memory. I warned him to ease up on the politics after his first heart attack, but he didn't and probably couldn't.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-10-14 01:22:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-14 03:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion.
It's self-interest on the part of some people who have become
secure, aided by what Arthur sometimes adds as a postscript,
that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor. Such
disregard for those less well off than myself doesn't seem to me
an admirable position at all, even though I don't do better in
practice except to make occasional charitable contributions to
ease my conscience.

To make a religion out of holding on to one's assets even as
others become cripplingly deprived by the very institutions that
are making oneself prosperous sure doesn't seem admirable
by any stretch of the imagination to me, but that is the basis
of the modern Republican party and they seem to have made
peace with it. Selfishness and uncaringness rule.
Post by islander
By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
El Castor
2017-10-14 08:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion.
It's self-interest on the part of some people who have become
secure, aided by what Arthur sometimes adds as a postscript,
that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor. Such
disregard for those less well off than myself doesn't seem to me
an admirable position at all, even though I don't do better in
practice except to make occasional charitable contributions to
ease my conscience.
To make a religion out of holding on to one's assets even as
others become cripplingly deprived by the very institutions that
are making oneself prosperous sure doesn't seem admirable
by any stretch of the imagination to me, but that is the basis
of the modern Republican party and they seem to have made
peace with it. Selfishness and uncaringness rule.
The liturgy of the Church of Socialism.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
islander
2017-10-14 15:32:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion.
It's self-interest on the part of some people who have become
secure, aided by what Arthur sometimes adds as a postscript,
that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor. Such
disregard for those less well off than myself doesn't seem to me
an admirable position at all, even though I don't do better in
practice except to make occasional charitable contributions to
ease my conscience.
To make a religion out of holding on to one's assets even as
others become cripplingly deprived by the very institutions that
are making oneself prosperous sure doesn't seem admirable
by any stretch of the imagination to me, but that is the basis
of the modern Republican party and they seem to have made
peace with it. Selfishness and uncaringness rule.
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor. There
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
El Castor
2017-10-14 21:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion.
It's self-interest on the part of some people who have become
secure, aided by what Arthur sometimes adds as a postscript,
that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor. Such
disregard for those less well off than myself doesn't seem to me
an admirable position at all, even though I don't do better in
practice except to make occasional charitable contributions to
ease my conscience.
To make a religion out of holding on to one's assets even as
others become cripplingly deprived by the very institutions that
are making oneself prosperous sure doesn't seem admirable
by any stretch of the imagination to me, but that is the basis
of the modern Republican party and they seem to have made
peace with it. Selfishness and uncaringness rule.
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor. There
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Have you done much traveling? I would rather be poor here than in many
parts of the world.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5oNmLk4mEfrUE_wiDjcEMKaeLwQ9M9LIIjnF7-Wo1fRjVLHSLiYTfrzowYx2fuijJQ-Mr7Nd_ozd0BaNtfwbxl8mUJHzwQQ8hQ=s750
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Bill Bowden
2017-10-15 03:15:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor. There
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Have you done much traveling? I would rather be poor here than in many
parts of the world.
https://i0.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Fire-again-in-Bawana
.jpg?resize=1160%2C774&ssl=1
https://latimeshighschool.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/epa-20141227-poverty-s
hanties-pasay-001-640.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5oNmLk4mEfrUE_wiDjcEMKaeLwQ9M9LIIjnF7-Wo1f
RjVLHSLiYTfrzowYx2fuijJQ-Mr7Nd_ozd0BaNtfwbxl8mUJHzwQQ8hQ=s750
I served in the Peace Corps for a couple years in the south pacific in
1972-5. Most everybody was poor and the few jobs available paid $300 a year.
But most everybody owned their own land and grew a few vegies.and didn't
pay rent. We did some spear fishing at night using flashlights and could
wade out offshore quite a ways to find fish sleeping in the kelp.But
everybody was happy and dreamed of traveling to New Zealand to work for a
few months to get enough money to build a small wooden house of maybe 2
rooms. Life is a lot easier when you don't pay rent or taxes and live on
your own land.





.
islander
2017-10-15 15:26:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor. There
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Have you done much traveling? I would rather be poor here than in many
parts of the world.
https://i0.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Fire-again-in-Bawana
.jpg?resize=1160%2C774&ssl=1
https://latimeshighschool.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/epa-20141227-poverty-s
hanties-pasay-001-640.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5oNmLk4mEfrUE_wiDjcEMKaeLwQ9M9LIIjnF7-Wo1f
RjVLHSLiYTfrzowYx2fuijJQ-Mr7Nd_ozd0BaNtfwbxl8mUJHzwQQ8hQ=s750
I served in the Peace Corps for a couple years in the south pacific in
1972-5. Most everybody was poor and the few jobs available paid $300 a year.
But most everybody owned their own land and grew a few vegies.and didn't
pay rent. We did some spear fishing at night using flashlights and could
wade out offshore quite a ways to find fish sleeping in the kelp.But
everybody was happy and dreamed of traveling to New Zealand to work for a
few months to get enough money to build a small wooden house of maybe 2
rooms. Life is a lot easier when you don't pay rent or taxes and live on
your own land.
Not a viable alternative for most of the poor in the USA.
Bill Bowden
2017-10-18 03:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor.
There
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Have you done much traveling? I would rather be poor here than in many
parts of the world.
https://i0.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Fire-again-in-Bawana
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
.jpg?resize=1160%2C774&ssl=1
https://latimeshighschool.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/epa-20141227-poverty-s
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
hanties-pasay-001-640.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5oNmLk4mEfrUE_wiDjcEMKaeLwQ9M9LIIjnF7-Wo1f
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
RjVLHSLiYTfrzowYx2fuijJQ-Mr7Nd_ozd0BaNtfwbxl8mUJHzwQQ8hQ=s750
I served in the Peace Corps for a couple years in the south pacific in
1972-5. Most everybody was poor and the few jobs available paid $300 a year.
But most everybody owned their own land and grew a few vegies.and
didn't
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
pay rent. We did some spear fishing at night using flashlights and could
wade out offshore quite a ways to find fish sleeping in the kelp.But
everybody was happy and dreamed of traveling to New Zealand to work for a
few months to get enough money to build a small wooden house of maybe 2
rooms. Life is a lot easier when you don't pay rent or taxes and live on
your own land.
Not a viable alternative for most of the poor in the USA.
The USA only accounts for 5% of the world population. Most of the world's
poor don't live in the USA. They play by different rules.






.

islander
2017-10-15 15:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion.
It's self-interest on the part of some people who have become
secure, aided by what Arthur sometimes adds as a postscript,
that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor. Such
disregard for those less well off than myself doesn't seem to me
an admirable position at all, even though I don't do better in
practice except to make occasional charitable contributions to
ease my conscience.
To make a religion out of holding on to one's assets even as
others become cripplingly deprived by the very institutions that
are making oneself prosperous sure doesn't seem admirable
by any stretch of the imagination to me, but that is the basis
of the modern Republican party and they seem to have made
peace with it. Selfishness and uncaringness rule.
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor. There
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Have you done much traveling? I would rather be poor here than in many
parts of the world.
https://i0.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Fire-again-in-Bawana.jpg?resize=1160%2C774&ssl=1
https://latimeshighschool.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/epa-20141227-poverty-shanties-pasay-001-640.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5oNmLk4mEfrUE_wiDjcEMKaeLwQ9M9LIIjnF7-Wo1fRjVLHSLiYTfrzowYx2fuijJQ-Mr7Nd_ozd0BaNtfwbxl8mUJHzwQQ8hQ=s750
Sure, but we have a chance of making a difference at home. The problem
is much more difficult abroad. There is something seriously wrong with
how we treat the food service profession here and that is what Tirado is
describing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of poor people who are
desperate for any kind of work. Would you work for $2.13 per hour, no
benefits, getting hours at the mercy of your boss and no flexibility to
deal with life's other emergencies? Try working two or more part time
jobs where your employers demand your availability, even if it conflicts
with a second or third job. Then, try doing this if you don't have a
reliable car or bad teeth or sick children or any of a number of chronic
problems facing the poor.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
El Castor
2017-10-17 00:11:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion.
It's self-interest on the part of some people who have become
secure, aided by what Arthur sometimes adds as a postscript,
that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor. Such
disregard for those less well off than myself doesn't seem to me
an admirable position at all, even though I don't do better in
practice except to make occasional charitable contributions to
ease my conscience.
To make a religion out of holding on to one's assets even as
others become cripplingly deprived by the very institutions that
are making oneself prosperous sure doesn't seem admirable
by any stretch of the imagination to me, but that is the basis
of the modern Republican party and they seem to have made
peace with it. Selfishness and uncaringness rule.
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor. There
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Have you done much traveling? I would rather be poor here than in many
parts of the world.
https://i0.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Fire-again-in-Bawana.jpg?resize=1160%2C774&ssl=1
https://latimeshighschool.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/epa-20141227-poverty-shanties-pasay-001-640.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5oNmLk4mEfrUE_wiDjcEMKaeLwQ9M9LIIjnF7-Wo1fRjVLHSLiYTfrzowYx2fuijJQ-Mr7Nd_ozd0BaNtfwbxl8mUJHzwQQ8hQ=s750
Sure, but we have a chance of making a difference at home. The problem
is much more difficult abroad. There is something seriously wrong with
how we treat the food service profession here and that is what Tirado is
describing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of poor people who are
desperate for any kind of work. Would you work for $2.13 per hour, no
benefits, getting hours at the mercy of your boss and no flexibility to
deal with life's other emergencies? Try working two or more part time
jobs where your employers demand your availability, even if it conflicts
with a second or third job. Then, try doing this if you don't have a
reliable car or bad teeth or sick children or any of a number of chronic
problems facing the poor.
"An estimated over 100 million people — about a third of the U.S.
population (35.4%)3, received aid from at least one of these programs
at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. Nearly two-thirds lived in
households with children.

Family Planning
Consolidated Health Centers
Transitional Cash and Medical Services for Refugees
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit — Low Income Subsidy
Medicaid
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
Indian Health Service
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Additional Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable component)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC)
Early Reading First
Rural Education Achievement Program
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Academic Competitiveness and Smart Grant Program
Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
Rural Rental Assistance Program
Water and Waste Disposal for Rural Communities
Public Works and Economic Development
Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
Community Development Block Grants
Homeless Assistance Grants
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Public Housing
Indian Housing Block Grants
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Weatherization Assistance Program
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Indian Human Services
Food Program Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Nutrition Program for the Elderly
Indian Education
Adult Basic Education Grants to States
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
Education for the Disadvantaged
Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I-A)
Title I Migrant Education Program
Higher Education — Institutional Aid and Developing Institutions
Federal Work-Study
Federal TRIO Programs
Federal Pell Grants
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
(GEAR-UP)
Child Support Enforcement
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (social services)
Community Services Block Grant
Child Care and Development Fund
Head Start HHS
Developmental Disabilities Support and Advocacy Grants
Foster Care
Adoption Assistance
Social Services Block Grant
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Emergency Food and Shelter Program
Legal Services Corporation
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (employment and
training component)
Senior Community Service Employment Program
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult Activities
Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (employment and
training)
Foster Grandparents
Job Corps
Grants to States for Low-Income Housing in Lieu of Low-Income
Housing Credit Allocations
Tax Credit Assistance Program
Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior
Centers
Older Americans Act Family Caregiver Program
https://singlemotherguide.com/federal-welfare-programs/
islander
2017-10-17 01:16:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion.
It's self-interest on the part of some people who have become
secure, aided by what Arthur sometimes adds as a postscript,
that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor. Such
disregard for those less well off than myself doesn't seem to me
an admirable position at all, even though I don't do better in
practice except to make occasional charitable contributions to
ease my conscience.
To make a religion out of holding on to one's assets even as
others become cripplingly deprived by the very institutions that
are making oneself prosperous sure doesn't seem admirable
by any stretch of the imagination to me, but that is the basis
of the modern Republican party and they seem to have made
peace with it. Selfishness and uncaringness rule.
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor. There
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Have you done much traveling? I would rather be poor here than in many
parts of the world.
https://i0.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Fire-again-in-Bawana.jpg?resize=1160%2C774&ssl=1
https://latimeshighschool.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/epa-20141227-poverty-shanties-pasay-001-640.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5oNmLk4mEfrUE_wiDjcEMKaeLwQ9M9LIIjnF7-Wo1fRjVLHSLiYTfrzowYx2fuijJQ-Mr7Nd_ozd0BaNtfwbxl8mUJHzwQQ8hQ=s750
Sure, but we have a chance of making a difference at home. The problem
is much more difficult abroad. There is something seriously wrong with
how we treat the food service profession here and that is what Tirado is
describing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of poor people who are
desperate for any kind of work. Would you work for $2.13 per hour, no
benefits, getting hours at the mercy of your boss and no flexibility to
deal with life's other emergencies? Try working two or more part time
jobs where your employers demand your availability, even if it conflicts
with a second or third job. Then, try doing this if you don't have a
reliable car or bad teeth or sick children or any of a number of chronic
problems facing the poor.
"An estimated over 100 million people — about a third of the U.S.
population (35.4%)3, received aid from at least one of these programs
at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. Nearly two-thirds lived in
households with children.
Family Planning
Consolidated Health Centers
Transitional Cash and Medical Services for Refugees
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit — Low Income Subsidy
Medicaid
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
Indian Health Service
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Additional Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable component)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC)
Early Reading First
Rural Education Achievement Program
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Academic Competitiveness and Smart Grant Program
Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
Rural Rental Assistance Program
Water and Waste Disposal for Rural Communities
Public Works and Economic Development
Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
Community Development Block Grants
Homeless Assistance Grants
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Public Housing
Indian Housing Block Grants
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Weatherization Assistance Program
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Indian Human Services
Food Program Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Nutrition Program for the Elderly
Indian Education
Adult Basic Education Grants to States
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
Education for the Disadvantaged
Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I-A)
Title I Migrant Education Program
Higher Education — Institutional Aid and Developing Institutions
Federal Work-Study
Federal TRIO Programs
Federal Pell Grants
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
(GEAR-UP)
Child Support Enforcement
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (social services)
Community Services Block Grant
Child Care and Development Fund
Head Start HHS
Developmental Disabilities Support and Advocacy Grants
Foster Care
Adoption Assistance
Social Services Block Grant
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Emergency Food and Shelter Program
Legal Services Corporation
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (employment and
training component)
Senior Community Service Employment Program
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult Activities
Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (employment and
training)
Foster Grandparents
Job Corps
Grants to States for Low-Income Housing in Lieu of Low-Income
Housing Credit Allocations
Tax Credit Assistance Program
Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior
Centers
Older Americans Act Family Caregiver Program
https://singlemotherguide.com/federal-welfare-programs/
Yet there are 50% more people in poverty in conservative states than in
liberal states. If there is so much assistance for poor people, why do
you think that is?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-17 01:31:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:11:26 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion.
It's self-interest on the part of some people who have become
secure, aided by what Arthur sometimes adds as a postscript,
that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor. Such
disregard for those less well off than myself doesn't seem to me
an admirable position at all, even though I don't do better in
practice except to make occasional charitable contributions to
ease my conscience.
To make a religion out of holding on to one's assets even as
others become cripplingly deprived by the very institutions that
are making oneself prosperous sure doesn't seem admirable
by any stretch of the imagination to me, but that is the basis
of the modern Republican party and they seem to have made
peace with it. Selfishness and uncaringness rule.
I wonder how many people really understand what it is to be poor. There
is a new book out that is written by a very angry woman about what it is
like to be poor: *Hand to Mouth* by Linda Tirado. I've been poor, but
nothing like what she describes. It is hard to read, but perhaps it
should be required reading for those who believe that the poor should
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Have you done much traveling? I would rather be poor here than in many
parts of the world.
https://i0.wp.com/thewire.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Fire-again-in-Bawana.jpg?resize=1160%2C774&ssl=1
https://latimeshighschool.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/epa-20141227-poverty-shanties-pasay-001-640.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5oNmLk4mEfrUE_wiDjcEMKaeLwQ9M9LIIjnF7-Wo1fRjVLHSLiYTfrzowYx2fuijJQ-Mr7Nd_ozd0BaNtfwbxl8mUJHzwQQ8hQ=s750
Sure, but we have a chance of making a difference at home. The problem
is much more difficult abroad. There is something seriously wrong with
how we treat the food service profession here and that is what Tirado is
describing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of poor people who are
desperate for any kind of work. Would you work for $2.13 per hour, no
benefits, getting hours at the mercy of your boss and no flexibility to
deal with life's other emergencies? Try working two or more part time
jobs where your employers demand your availability, even if it conflicts
with a second or third job. Then, try doing this if you don't have a
reliable car or bad teeth or sick children or any of a number of chronic
problems facing the poor.
"An estimated over 100 million people — about a third of the U.S.
population (35.4%)3, received aid from at least one of these programs
at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. Nearly two-thirds lived in
households with children.
Family Planning
Consolidated Health Centers
Transitional Cash and Medical Services for Refugees
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit — Low Income Subsidy
Medicaid
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
Indian Health Service
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Additional Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable component)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC)
Early Reading First
Rural Education Achievement Program
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Academic Competitiveness and Smart Grant Program
Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
Rural Rental Assistance Program
Water and Waste Disposal for Rural Communities
Public Works and Economic Development
Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
Community Development Block Grants
Homeless Assistance Grants
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Public Housing
Indian Housing Block Grants
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Weatherization Assistance Program
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Indian Human Services
Food Program Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Nutrition Program for the Elderly
Indian Education
Adult Basic Education Grants to States
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
Education for the Disadvantaged
Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I-A)
Title I Migrant Education Program
Higher Education — Institutional Aid and Developing Institutions
Federal Work-Study
Federal TRIO Programs
Federal Pell Grants
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
(GEAR-UP)
Child Support Enforcement
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (social services)
Community Services Block Grant
Child Care and Development Fund
Head Start HHS
Developmental Disabilities Support and Advocacy Grants
Foster Care
Adoption Assistance
Social Services Block Grant
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Emergency Food and Shelter Program
Legal Services Corporation
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (employment and
training component)
Senior Community Service Employment Program
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult Activities
Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (employment and
training)
Foster Grandparents
Job Corps
Grants to States for Low-Income Housing in Lieu of Low-Income
Housing Credit Allocations
Tax Credit Assistance Program
Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior
Centers
Older Americans Act Family Caregiver Program
https://singlemotherguide.com/federal-welfare-programs/
I take it you're denying that anyone in the USA
is living in poverty. If not, I don't know what that
huge list was supposed to prove.
El Castor
2017-10-14 08:36:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Why have those prosperous liberal states cut corporate taxes over the
last ten years leaving the US with the highest corporate tax rate in
the developed world?
islander
2017-10-14 15:44:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Why have those prosperous liberal states cut corporate taxes over the
last ten years leaving the US with the highest corporate tax rate in
the developed world?
That makes no sense at all. If you are talking about corporate taxes at
the state level, they comprise only about 2% of tax revenue. The major
sources of tax revenue at the state level are personal income tax
(42.2%) and sales tax (47.6%). Corporations really cannot complain
about taxes that they pay at the state level.

If you are beating the same old drum about the marginal tax rate on
corporations at the national level, we have covered that topic to
exhaustion. You know very well that most corporations pay considerably
less than the top marginal rate. We have agreed in the past that the
top marginal rate penalizes small companies and that all the loopholes
that benefit large corporations should be closed. If you want to reduce
the top marginal rate, it would be a very good idea to eliminate the tax
advantages that large corporations enjoy at the expense of small
companies first. Don't you agree?
El Castor
2017-10-14 20:41:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Why have those prosperous liberal states cut corporate taxes over the
last ten years leaving the US with the highest corporate tax rate in
the developed world?
That makes no sense at all. If you are talking about corporate taxes at
the state level, they comprise only about 2% of tax revenue. The major
sources of tax revenue at the state level are personal income tax
(42.2%) and sales tax (47.6%). Corporations really cannot complain
about taxes that they pay at the state level.
If you are beating the same old drum about the marginal tax rate on
corporations at the national level, we have covered that topic to
exhaustion. You know very well that most corporations pay considerably
less than the top marginal rate. We have agreed in the past that the
top marginal rate penalizes small companies and that all the loopholes
that benefit large corporations should be closed. If you want to reduce
the top marginal rate, it would be a very good idea to eliminate the tax
advantages that large corporations enjoy at the expense of small
companies first. Don't you agree?
I agree! Eliminate most deductions and cut taxes to 15% for all
corporations, large and small.
islander
2017-10-15 15:12:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Why have those prosperous liberal states cut corporate taxes over the
last ten years leaving the US with the highest corporate tax rate in
the developed world?
That makes no sense at all. If you are talking about corporate taxes at
the state level, they comprise only about 2% of tax revenue. The major
sources of tax revenue at the state level are personal income tax
(42.2%) and sales tax (47.6%). Corporations really cannot complain
about taxes that they pay at the state level.
If you are beating the same old drum about the marginal tax rate on
corporations at the national level, we have covered that topic to
exhaustion. You know very well that most corporations pay considerably
less than the top marginal rate. We have agreed in the past that the
top marginal rate penalizes small companies and that all the loopholes
that benefit large corporations should be closed. If you want to reduce
the top marginal rate, it would be a very good idea to eliminate the tax
advantages that large corporations enjoy at the expense of small
companies first. Don't you agree?
I agree! Eliminate most deductions and cut taxes to 15% for all
corporations, large and small.
Why pick 15%? That seems pretty arbitrary to me.
El Castor
2017-10-17 00:28:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Why have those prosperous liberal states cut corporate taxes over the
last ten years leaving the US with the highest corporate tax rate in
the developed world?
That makes no sense at all. If you are talking about corporate taxes at
the state level, they comprise only about 2% of tax revenue. The major
sources of tax revenue at the state level are personal income tax
(42.2%) and sales tax (47.6%). Corporations really cannot complain
about taxes that they pay at the state level.
If you are beating the same old drum about the marginal tax rate on
corporations at the national level, we have covered that topic to
exhaustion. You know very well that most corporations pay considerably
less than the top marginal rate. We have agreed in the past that the
top marginal rate penalizes small companies and that all the loopholes
that benefit large corporations should be closed. If you want to reduce
the top marginal rate, it would be a very good idea to eliminate the tax
advantages that large corporations enjoy at the expense of small
companies first. Don't you agree?
I agree! Eliminate most deductions and cut taxes to 15% for all
corporations, large and small.
Why pick 15%? That seems pretty arbitrary to me.
It's lower than most, higher than Ireland, and what Trump campaigned
on. Personally I wouldn't tax corporate profits at all. Tax it when it
makes it into the pockets of people -- in the form of pay, bonuses,
stock options, dividends, various perks, etc. Of course corporations
should pay property taxes, payroll taxes, and the like.
islander
2017-10-17 01:06:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Why have those prosperous liberal states cut corporate taxes over the
last ten years leaving the US with the highest corporate tax rate in
the developed world?
That makes no sense at all. If you are talking about corporate taxes at
the state level, they comprise only about 2% of tax revenue. The major
sources of tax revenue at the state level are personal income tax
(42.2%) and sales tax (47.6%). Corporations really cannot complain
about taxes that they pay at the state level.
If you are beating the same old drum about the marginal tax rate on
corporations at the national level, we have covered that topic to
exhaustion. You know very well that most corporations pay considerably
less than the top marginal rate. We have agreed in the past that the
top marginal rate penalizes small companies and that all the loopholes
that benefit large corporations should be closed. If you want to reduce
the top marginal rate, it would be a very good idea to eliminate the tax
advantages that large corporations enjoy at the expense of small
companies first. Don't you agree?
I agree! Eliminate most deductions and cut taxes to 15% for all
corporations, large and small.
Why pick 15%? That seems pretty arbitrary to me.
It's lower than most, higher than Ireland, and what Trump campaigned
on. Personally I wouldn't tax corporate profits at all. Tax it when it
makes it into the pockets of people -- in the form of pay, bonuses,
stock options, dividends, various perks, etc. Of course corporations
should pay property taxes, payroll taxes, and the like.
So, you are saying that you would tax dividends as ordinary income?
Would you tax capital gains as ordinary income?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-17 05:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
So, you are saying that you would tax dividends as ordinary income?
Would you tax capital gains as ordinary income?
I don't know what El will say, but I say Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes.
That's even though I make a lot of money myself from Capital
Gains. It just isn't fair not to tax it equally IMO, and I've
always felt that way. I'm not going to donate money to the
government that I'm not obliged to donate, which is the next
thing El might suggest, but if the rules are changed such that
everybody else has to pay their share, I'll happily pay mine
too. I regard lower taxes on capital gains as a theft
perpetrated by the better-off against the less well-off.
El Castor
2017-10-17 06:31:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Why have those prosperous liberal states cut corporate taxes over the
last ten years leaving the US with the highest corporate tax rate in
the developed world?
That makes no sense at all. If you are talking about corporate taxes at
the state level, they comprise only about 2% of tax revenue. The major
sources of tax revenue at the state level are personal income tax
(42.2%) and sales tax (47.6%). Corporations really cannot complain
about taxes that they pay at the state level.
If you are beating the same old drum about the marginal tax rate on
corporations at the national level, we have covered that topic to
exhaustion. You know very well that most corporations pay considerably
less than the top marginal rate. We have agreed in the past that the
top marginal rate penalizes small companies and that all the loopholes
that benefit large corporations should be closed. If you want to reduce
the top marginal rate, it would be a very good idea to eliminate the tax
advantages that large corporations enjoy at the expense of small
companies first. Don't you agree?
I agree! Eliminate most deductions and cut taxes to 15% for all
corporations, large and small.
Why pick 15%? That seems pretty arbitrary to me.
It's lower than most, higher than Ireland, and what Trump campaigned
on. Personally I wouldn't tax corporate profits at all. Tax it when it
makes it into the pockets of people -- in the form of pay, bonuses,
stock options, dividends, various perks, etc. Of course corporations
should pay property taxes, payroll taxes, and the like.
So, you are saying that you would tax dividends as ordinary income?
Would you tax capital gains as ordinary income?
Probably, but the devil is always in the details.
islander
2017-10-17 15:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
Well, if you want to promote an analogy, it is the conservatives that
keep messing with what the liberals are attempting to do to improve the
lot of the common people. In terms of a belief system, the blind belief
that somehow if taxes and regulations were reduced that everyone would
benefit has been debunked so many times that it is a wonder that anyone
still believes it. It is blind belief in the face of contrary evidence
that characterizes religion. By contrast, I now have data to support
the proposition that conservative governance has failed in the promise
of free market capitalism. Rather, it is liberal states that prospered
over the past 10 years while conservative states stagnated in almost
every metric measuring results. Paying attention to measurable data is
characteristic of science, not religion. Contrast that with the
intentional ignorance of data in the face of blind belief in free market
capitalism. That is analogous to religion.
Why have those prosperous liberal states cut corporate taxes over the
last ten years leaving the US with the highest corporate tax rate in
the developed world?
That makes no sense at all. If you are talking about corporate taxes at
the state level, they comprise only about 2% of tax revenue. The major
sources of tax revenue at the state level are personal income tax
(42.2%) and sales tax (47.6%). Corporations really cannot complain
about taxes that they pay at the state level.
If you are beating the same old drum about the marginal tax rate on
corporations at the national level, we have covered that topic to
exhaustion. You know very well that most corporations pay considerably
less than the top marginal rate. We have agreed in the past that the
top marginal rate penalizes small companies and that all the loopholes
that benefit large corporations should be closed. If you want to reduce
the top marginal rate, it would be a very good idea to eliminate the tax
advantages that large corporations enjoy at the expense of small
companies first. Don't you agree?
I agree! Eliminate most deductions and cut taxes to 15% for all
corporations, large and small.
Why pick 15%? That seems pretty arbitrary to me.
It's lower than most, higher than Ireland, and what Trump campaigned
on. Personally I wouldn't tax corporate profits at all. Tax it when it
makes it into the pockets of people -- in the form of pay, bonuses,
stock options, dividends, various perks, etc. Of course corporations
should pay property taxes, payroll taxes, and the like.
So, you are saying that you would tax dividends as ordinary income?
Would you tax capital gains as ordinary income?
Probably, but the devil is always in the details.
That is encouraging! The last time that this was attempted was by
Reagan in 1986, but unfortunately he set the rates too low and increased
the deficit. GHW Bush was forced to raise taxes, but by then the
vultures had gathered for a feeding frenzy and the loopholes
proliferated once again.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-14 01:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:27:59 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Time is a measurment of relative motion. If there is no motion, there is no
time. And at the other limit, if you travel close to the speed of light,
there is also no time. It's only between these two limits that time exists
and the value varies depending on the frame of reference. .It's mind
boggling.
The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.
What is the universe? Is it the Big Bang and its aftermath?
That's the only universe we know. If there are traces
of something not of the universe that caused it to come
into being, we haven't found them yet.
Here is one theory ...
"Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning
of the universe"
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/10/scientists-claim-to-discover-what.html
Even if confirmed that wouldn't explain why existence
exists at all. That's so obvious that maybe you should
just go back to your unending game with Josh.
My game with Josh has run so far off the edge of the screen that it
must be in the next room by now.
Let me sum up, Islam is dangerous as Hell and I respect the religious
and the universe enough to avoid the know it all arrogance of atheism.
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now. As to respecting religions,
they've clearly shown they don't deserve it IMO.
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
Seriously? I'm reminded of the old ladies who took their knitting to
watch the guillotine at work! “les tricoteuses de la Guillotine”
Of course, that was long ago, but my experiences with the church have
been that the social life is greatly overrated and if you really want to
find old folks who look after each other, look to the various dedicated
volunteers who assist in the public organizations in your community. In
one case, I knew an elderly woman whose husband died, but who looked to
her church to fill the void in her life. I talked to her pastor,
emphasizing that she could no longer drive and could he assure me that
he would find people to make sure that she could attend the various
church functions that she enjoyed. Checking back later, I found her
isolated, lonely, and skipping some of her meds to save money. So much
for the charity of that church. In another case, I sat at the bedside
of a dying man, attempting to comfort him. He was very religious, but
his church was nowhere to be seen. I've seen self-righteous people put
in an hour a week at St. Vincent's feeding the poor and congratulate
themselves on their "charity." Locally, four churches participate in
the Food Bank by offering lunches to the volunteers and the needy once
per week. Tough duty! By contrast, our local senior center provides
lunches and transportation for those who need it three times per week
and even provide meals-on-wheels to those who are housebound. They even
offer an afternoon "tea" for those little old ladies as well as a
variety of activities to help meet their social needs. My wife and I
are currently taking a twice a week, six month, balance class at the
senior center because falls are the primary cause of injury for the
elderly. Run by a physical therapist who volunteers his time. Nothing
to do with religion.
So, you are an atheist?
Did you ever get back to me on the status of a membership in
Democratic Socialists of America?
Yes, I am an atheist. I went through the process of being an agnostic
and then a strict agnostic, but finally came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence of some supreme being and that without some
evidence we are left with only faith. Not a very convincing argument
for someone with a scientific background. Better to open one's mind to
the more plausible argument than to do backflips to justify the less
plausible.
As to DSA, yes, I answered you. Don't know what that has to do with the
current discussion unless it is just another attempt on your part to
distract.
Not an attempt to distract. An attempt to get an answer. So are you,
or are you not a member? A simple Yes or No will do.
My answer when you first asked the question was no and still is no.
But, not relevant to the topic of the thread. Can we get back to that?
I am sure they would like to have you. (-8
On the topic of the thread -- I am an unashamed agnostic.
And I have no problem with that. Agnostics (and atheists) tend not to
proselytize and that seems to be a particularly annoying practice of the
religious (at least in my experience).
Uh, I don't know how to break this to you, but left wing politics is
your religion, and all you do, besides feeding the chickens, is
proselytize.
And if so, then right-wing politics is yours, of course.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-10 15:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 01:13:07 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
For some people there is more to religion than an opinion of
homosexuality. You probably don't know many old ladies whose social
life revolves around the church, and the other old folks who look
after each other.
For many Nazis there was more to Nazism than killing
Jews too. Many of them were probably kind to their
mothers.
b***@gmail.com
2017-10-10 09:32:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now.
Aha, a "Doubting Thomas" (pat. pend.) I find these discussions
fascinating but they always end up in the same place. There are
the "faithful" ie, the Globys; the scoffers (and they know who they
are); the apologists, ie, Ec "But the little old ladies do good things"
and miscellaneous others- nowhere.

On the other hand, a discussion might-just might-someday lead to
somewhere. One never knows, sitting under an apple tree when the
light bulb (or apple) might fall.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-10 15:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I doubt many people other than yourself and Josh are
following that thread by now.
Aha, a "Doubting Thomas" (pat. pend.) I find these discussions
fascinating but they always end up in the same place. There are
the "faithful" ie, the Globys; the scoffers (and they know who they
are); the apologists, ie, Ec "But the little old ladies do good things"
and miscellaneous others- nowhere.
I guess some people have to be interested in them.
Post by b***@gmail.com
On the other hand, a discussion might-just might-someday lead to
somewhere. One never knows, sitting under an apple tree when the
light bulb (or apple) might fall.
Jesus might show up too, or one of those 2,000-year-old
people who would not taste death before He came again.
Last I heard of Jesus, He was in Tijuana.
El Castor
2017-10-08 03:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
Or, maybe you exist in a computer simulation, and a supreme AI will
transfer your essence to the Good Place, or ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Well I tried.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-10 00:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:06:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
Or, maybe you exist in a computer simulation, and a supreme AI will
transfer your essence to the Good Place, or ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Well I tried.
You do try to be trying.
El Castor
2017-10-10 08:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:06:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
Or, maybe you exist in a computer simulation, and a supreme AI will
transfer your essence to the Good Place, or ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Well I tried.
You do try to be trying.
Pretty boring if I just told you what you want to hear.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-10 15:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 01:14:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:06:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Amen. I realized long ago that I wasn't religious in the usual sense,
but our existence, and the nature of reality and the universe is so
unknowable, that to make any declarations or judgments on the issue
was beyond foolish, it was arrogant. I'll settle for agnosticism, and
respect those with beliefs -- as long as those beliefs don't make them
want to cut off my head. (-8
I disagree that it is "foolish" or "arrogant" to make "judgments" as to
the issues being discussed here.
The subject can be discussed rationally with the caution that absolute
knowledge can not be 100% from any examination. One must accept the
probability as being as close as is possible with our present knowledge.
If "God" is defined as an unknowable being (transcendental) then any
statement about this being would be close to, if not, zero probability.
Current knowledge about the Universe and its rules indicate that we
live in a probabilistic place. We may learn otherwise but we may destroy ourselves before we gain that certitude.
So, does that mean that you consider yourself to be an atheist?
Personally, as I've mentioned, I'm out of the woods,
because Peter and Wendy came to me in a vision and
assured me that after the synapses stop clicking in my
brain, they will capture my ineffable essence as it
mysteriously leaks out (finding and adding, I presume,
any parts that had already leaked out due to senile
dementia), put it all back together, and carry it off to
eternal bliss in Neverland. I see no reason to
disbelieve that, because it makes me feel so good.
Or, maybe you exist in a computer simulation, and a supreme AI will
transfer your essence to the Good Place, or ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
The "computer simulation" part is merely a matter of
perspective. A "Supreme AI" would be just yet another
manifestation of what was built by Natural Selection into
our brains, not at all because it was true, but because
it proved successful in helping hold groups of individuals
together in competition against other groups of
individuals, IMV.
Or, maybe in a universe that has existed into infinity there are
things that your mind can't comprehend? Why be so judgmental? Just
admit to yourself that you will never know everything, and to pretend
that you do, fools no one -- even yourself. Give the universe a humble
tip of the hat and get on with your life.
Nothing that we know is infinite. Why do you assume
that time is? You have no evidence for that. Neither you
nor I even know WHAT time is.
Well I tried.
You do try to be trying.
Pretty boring if I just told you what you want to hear.
Less boring if what you wrote weren't often
immediately obviously faulty, and apparently
not even trying not to be faulty.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-06 04:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:42:25 -0700, "Bill Bowden"
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
What kind of scientists would those be? Precious few
physical or evolutionary scientists, I would imagine, unless
they got their degrees from some hokey religion-affiliated
pseudo-science outfit.
"Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including
"agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in
"Spinoza's God". Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most
difficult in the world"-a question that could not be answered "simply
with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast
for our limited minds.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
That's exactly right. The problem of infinity in the past is too complex for
our simple minds. If the universe began 13 billion years ago, what existed
before that? If God created the universe 13 billion years ago, what was he
doing before that? Why did God decide one day to create a universe where
there was nothing before? And how far does 'before' extend into the past? If
time is infinite going into the future and the past, how did we get to the
present from an infinite point in the past? The problem is not
comprehensible.
Who created "God"? If the universe needs a "creator",
then it's even more imperative for the creator of the
universe to have a creator, or you're left with exactly
the same problem as before but with extraneous and
utterly unnecessary (and IMO plainly wishful-thinking)
elements tagged onto it for no coherent reason
whatsoever.

Why do you think time has to exist independently
of this universe, or that space has to be "infinite",
with this universe occupying a tiny part of space?
Matter and energy exist only within the universe as
far as we know. I personally think it's silly to
believe that space and time have to be different.
There's no evidence or any reason whatsoever to
believe that.

There are simply some things that are not
accessible to reason. That doesn't justify just
making "shit" up (and it is "shit", all of it).
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-06 04:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 11:41:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
What kind of scientists would those be? Precious few
physical or evolutionary scientists, I would imagine, unless
they got their degrees from some hokey religion-affiliated
pseudo-science outfit.
"Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including
"agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in
"Spinoza's God". Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most
difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply
with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast
for our limited minds.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it
clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it
is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as
our science can reveal it."
https://www.thoughtco.com/albert-einstein-quotes-on-a-personal-god-249856
GLOBALIST
2017-10-05 11:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
<
According to a Pew Poll about 33% of those in the field of science
believe in the supernatural being that you believe in, Globy.
Those are probably the ones that discuss in publicly. I love how
Rump always presents himself as superior to a long history of
Religious scientists. Admitting that the world does not revolve
your limited mind is a sign of wisdom. Facts have been wrong
again and again.
mg
2017-10-06 10:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:08:27 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
https://pics.me.me/we-are-scientists-we-dont-believe-in-go-degrasse-son-10630180.png
If God showed up at your front door, would you know him when
you saw him and, if so, how?
b***@gmail.com
2017-10-06 18:59:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
If God showed up at your front door, would you know him when
you saw him and, if so, how?
<grin>
Fellows, in shoddy sandals, would show up at the door saying they
were "God" asking for cash.

I was once in a bar having a beer when one such came in, sat down
and ordered a beer. The Barkeep apparently recognized him because
he said to him, " Jesus Christ, are you here again trying to mooch
free beer?"
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-06 21:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
If God showed up at your front door, would you know him when
you saw him and, if so, how?
<grin>
Fellows, in shoddy sandals, would show up at the door saying they
were "God" asking for cash.
Rook and I ran into one of those guys on Market Street
this morning, saying he was a messenger of the Bible or
something like that. He tried to enter a supermarket but
the guard wouldn't let him in: no doubt he was a familiar
figure. Later on he passed us again and said he was
going home to study the Bible. I said "Good".
Post by b***@gmail.com
I was once in a bar having a beer when one such came in, sat down
and ordered a beer. The Barkeep apparently recognized him because
he said to him, " Jesus Christ, are you here again trying to mooch
free beer?"
mg
2017-10-07 13:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
If God showed up at your front door, would you know him when
you saw him and, if so, how?
<grin>
Fellows, in shoddy sandals, would show up at the door saying they
were "God" asking for cash.
I was once in a bar having a beer when one such came in, sat down
and ordered a beer. The Barkeep apparently recognized him because
he said to him, " Jesus Christ, are you here again trying to mooch
free beer?"
<grin>
Gary
2017-10-07 14:53:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by mg
If God showed up at your front door, would you know him when
you saw him and, if so, how?
<grin>
Fellows, in shoddy sandals, would show up at the door saying they
were "God" asking for cash.
I was once in a bar having a beer when one such came in, sat down
and ordered a beer. The Barkeep apparently recognized him because
he said to him, " Jesus Christ, are you here again trying to mooch
free beer?"
Must have been the same bar I use to go in back in the 1960s. They
had a sign over the bar that read:

"In God we trust. All others .. pay cash".
Loading...