|
"Explained" != "caused". Maybe you need to revisit your understanding of "explained". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
the only coincidence i've seen is while watching "Dr. Strangelove" i picked up my copy of the book opened it to a random page glanced at a random line on the page and at that precise moment heard on the film precisely the same dialog written upon which my glance fell .
as for the "law of attraction" i recall learning something of it a few years ago . i found it intriguing . it would be nice if it were in fact true . it is difficult for example to believe however the low odds of winning the lottery can be overcome by mere positive thoughts . if in fact that is the correct understanding of the "law" . though i recall reading amazing results the details of which i now do not recall .
going back to coincidence i have a little story .
i purchase the LP of the soundtrack to "Blade Runner" . with the LP in the distinctive bright orange bag of Rose Records w/ logo i then visited another store an art supply store to view their writing instruments . upon approaching the counter w/ said pens the lady behind the counter spoke to me "Is that the new Vangelis album ?" i did not know what a "Vangelis" was . upon returning home i examined the liner notes and discovered the composer was none other ! i attributed this to womanly wisdom . namely she sized me up . perhaps we would have been sympatico . but being the social cripple i never would know .
another similar story .
at lunch several other fellow workers began discussing electronic music . one of the fellows was attempting to recall the name of a particular such . he could not . he asked me to remember for him . i replied "Tomita" as i happened to have an album of his . he affirmed that is who he was attempting to recall . i do not know how he knew i knew . perhaps he sized me up . we were not particularly sympatico .
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: To me, there's more intelligence behind that than atheism - which is also a religion
Just like my favorite hobby is not to collect stamps.
|
|
|
|
|
You're not intelligent. You're sick. Go away.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you have to collect stamps to be healthy. I guess you do.
Btw: I respect UDHR Article 19, for your entries. I wish you would do the same for mine, but it doesn't look that way!
|
|
|
|
|
I AM NOT READING YOUR REPLY. TAKE A HINT! I DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU. GO AWAY!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I AM NOT READING YOUR REPLY
Good. Then you can not say that you are being harassed, it you don't know what I am writing.
You are talking to me all the time. If you don't want to, why don't you just stop it?
"GO AWAY!" is your attempt to censor my posts. Please read UDHR-19 and see if it gives you the right to.
|
|
|
|
|
IF YOU DO NOT STOP THE HARRASING, I'LL REPORT YOU. CP DOESN'T LET ME BLOCK YOU, BUT I CAN REPORT YOU.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, do. Tell them that you want to run your private censorship regime on CP, ask then if they will condone it.
Maybe CP knows what UDHR-19 is all about. It seems like you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: agnostic . i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
That's not what agnostic means.
ag·nos·tic : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God
In my opinion, one can be both theistic and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.
modified 15-Dec-23 12:06pm.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: In my opinion, one can be theist and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.
Humanity is full of contradictions.
That is actually a standard trop in science fiction where they drive the computer (android, whatever) mad by presenting it with a logical contradiction.
Myself I am not sure that any sane human can exist without contradictions.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for the clarification . it seems i do not know the proper term for my situation . perhaps it is "idonotknowanddonotcareonewayortheother" .
|
|
|
|
|
And yet perfectly valid for a human to have that view. Yet at least some would claim it is not possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine that I am presented for some religion that I have never heard of before, and might never hear about again. "There is this group of a few thousand people down in Brazil (or somewhere) who has this idea that if they lay out colored stones in a specific pattern and show their palms to the sky, the gods will make it rain."
If I was presented for some person of this jungle tribe religion, I would of course try to react in a polite manner. But my true reaction would be a shrug, 'You can believe in that if you like to. But I don't care at all; it affects me in no way.'
Even when the religion is a big and powerful one, with lots of churches and clergy, my response is the same, a shrug and 'You can believe in that if you like to. But I don't care at all; it affects me in no way.' Any religion has the same value to me, whether a small tribal one or a mighty world religion - zero. As long as it doesn't insist on bothering me, controlling my life.
If I were a psychologist, I might want to study religions and beliefs as a mental phenomenon, to try to understand how the human brain works. But the 'religious' content of the religion would be more or less irrelevant; the fascinating part is how a religion, regardless of which one, works on humans.
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
Odd supposition.
Normal definition of God is being outside the universe.
Normal definition of Physics is that is contained within the universe. It cannot prove anything outside. Which as best I understand is proving something of a problem with String Theory (for some variants.)
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps the "normal" definitions are not correct . i give it at most one-thousand years for the matter to be settled . by then we will either know or know we can not know .
|
|
|
|
|
There can be nothing outside the Universe, hence the term. By definition, the Universe contains everything.
If you have a circle, and discover something outside the circle, simply draw a bigger circle, the first circle was in error.
Theists may state that religion is the study of the works of God, but if God exists, then science is the study of the works of God.
|
|
|
|
|
Which god? There are many. Why should I bet on the god of a fairly recent religion when I can choose the Norse pantheon, the ancient Greek one and the Roman copy, the Egyptian one or even any of the fertility goddesses that pre-date even the Egyptian society?
What makes one true and the other false? Pascal chose to bet on a single deity out of thousands, his probability of winning is basically the same as to not bet at all.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” ― Stephen Roberts
I've always liked this quote. If I recall it was in someone's signature here a VERY LONG time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: What makes one true and the other false?
Trying to prove that God or indeed any event defined to be outside normal physics does not exist is the same as attempting to prove that it does.
Both require assumptions which by their very nature cannot be proven. And in logic if one refutes the assumptions then the proof no longer has any value.
This is of course different then taking a given proof, any proof, and invalidating it. Either because the proof is badly formed or because, as above, the assumptions are rejected.
It is of course not up to the person that rejected an assumption to then prove the assumption false. Rather it is up to the original author of the proof to then validate the assumption to the reader.
Additionally one often forgets or attempts to ignore than one does not actually need to be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Humans are more flexible than that because they can choose to simply ignore the question altogether. Similar to ignoring who will win a national sport championship at the start of a season.
|
|
|
|
|
"I refuse to prove that I exist." -- God, HHGTTG
|
|
|
|
|
many assumptions in your discussion of assumptions .
|
|
|
|
|
True. Including that logic itself is valid.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
I guarantee that you won't be disappointed when your days are counted. You won't be anything.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
